Milnet.ca Forums

Navy.ca => Ships & Vessels => Topic started by: Privateer on July 11, 2007, 18:48:58

Title: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Privateer on July 11, 2007, 18:48:58
The following Backgrounder is reproduced from the National Defence site:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2370

Quote
Backgrounder
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships

BG–07.023 - July 10, 2007

In the current and future security environment, the Government of Canada must have effective tools for exercising control of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs, or 200 nautical mile limit) in all three oceans, particularly the Arctic. This Government recognizes that an increased Canadian Forces (CF) presence in the Arctic is essential to achieving our goals in this region, which is critical to our national interest and sense of identity.

Currently, the Canadian Navy can patrol the coastal waters of Canada’s East and West Coasts, but it does not have the capability to effectively patrol all three oceans. The Navy can only operate in northern waters for a short period of time, and only when there is no ice.

While the Navy can effectively patrol our close coastal waters in the Atlantic and Pacific with its Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs), these ships cannot be used effectively out to the limits of Canada’s EEZs. They have limited ability to operate in the open ocean, limited speed, limited capacity to support boarding operations and lack the ability to support a helicopter. The Navy must use its large combatant vessels – destroyers and frigates, which are expensive to operate and already over-tasked - to patrol the open ocean.

To fill this capability gap, the Navy will acquire up to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPS). The estimated cost of acquiring these ships is $3.1 billion, with approximately $4.3 billion provided for operations and maintenance over the 25-year lifespan of the ship.

The multi-purpose, ice-capable offshore patrol ship will enhance Canada’s ability to enforce its right, under international law, to be notified when foreign ships enter Canadian waters. The primary tasks of the A/OPS would be to conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in Canada’s EEZs, including the Arctic; provide cross-governmental situation awareness of activities and events in the regions; and cooperate with other elements of the CF and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, when and where necessary.

These ships will also provide the flexibility for the Navy to operate in both the Arctic and offshore environments, allowing them to be used year-round in a variety of roles, including domestic surveillance, search and rescue and support to other government departments.

The Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship offers the best blend of capabilities in one platform; however, a ship with these capabilities does not currently exist and would have to be designed to meet a series of high-level requirements:

Seakeeping: The A/OPSs must be able to operate independently and effectively in Canada’s EEZs, including such diverse environments as the Canadian Arctic, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Northwest Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The ship must also be capable of navigating the St. Lawrence River year-round and berthing at Quebec City.

Ice Capability: The hull of the A/OPS must be ice strengthened to operate in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions - old ice that is denser and may strike the hull of the ship. This ice capability is exclusively for the ships’ own mobility, not to provide icebreaking services to other ships.

Endurance/Range: The ship must have the ability to sustain operations for up to four months and must have a range of at least 6,000 nautical miles.

Command and Control: The ship’s electronic equipment must have the ability to ensure safety of navigation and flight, as well as sufficient command, control and communications capability to provide and receive real-time information to and from the CF Common Operating Picture.

Speed: The ship must be able to maintain an economical speed of 14 knots and attain a maximum speed of at least 20 knots.

Armament: The ship must have gun armament to assert Canadian sovereignty.

Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.

Class Life: The ships should remain operational for 25 years.

The ship may also be designed to embark and operate an on-board helicopter, as well as house one flying crew and one maintenance crew.
Procurement Strategy

The two-phased process of procuring the A/OPS will be an innovative, fair and transparent means of guaranteeing the requirements of the CF are met in a timely manner, while ensuring value for Canadians’ tax dollars and maximizing opportunities for Canadian industry. Industrial and regional benefits totalling 100 per cent of the contract value would be sought for the implementation contract.

A project definition phase of 24 months will be needed to develop the functional design, refine the high-level statement of operational requirements (SORs), complete and issue the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the implementation phase of the project and evaluate responses. A competitive process will be used to select a Definition, Engineering, Logistics and Management Support (DELMS) contractor, who will develop the design used to refine the requirements and provide input into the RFP. During this time, consulting engineering contractors will also deliver a functional design for the infrastructure needed to support the A/OPS.

Throughout the project definition phase, industry will be kept engaged and informed of progress and design work. Interest from industry will be sought through a Letter of Interest to allow potential bidders to self-identify, and qualified teams will be invited to comment on the draft project implementation (PI) RFP. The definition phase of the procurement process would end with the release and evaluation of this RFP.

The implementation phase of the process would involve the successful contractor completing a detailed design of the ships, followed by construction and the provision of integrated logistics support, and initial in-service support. Delivery of the first Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship is expected in 2013.

The procurement strategy would conform to the Canadian Shipbuilding Policy Framework, which provides that the federal government will continue to procure, repair and refit vessels in Canada, subject to operational requirements and the continued existence of a competitive domestic marketplace.

This acquisition will create long-term industrial development for Canadians. The Government's policy requires that prime contractors on defence procurements undertake business activities in Canada, usually in an amount equal to the value of the contract they have won. This helps Canadian companies maintain globally competitive operations in the country and effectively support future national security requirements.

The acquisition of these ships will deliver maximum high-quality industrial benefits to Canadians and the Canadian shipbuilding industry is well positioned to play a significant role as this project proceeds.

A number of points caught my attention:

1.  These vessels have transformed from purely arctic icebreakers to arctic AND offshore patrol ships.  I imagine that this multi-mission goal may be necessary to sell the ships to the government and/or the public, but I worry about multiple missions resulting in a ship that can't do any of those missions in a truly satisfactory way.  Shades of the MCDV here?

2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?

3.  The ships must be able to "support operations ashore via landing craft".  I wonder what is being envisioned here.

I wonder if any thought has been given to the question of whether or not reservists will play a role in crewing the vessels.  Does MARCOM plan on having sufficient personnel to crew the ships solely with reg force members?

Finally, there is the issue of the possible location for the northern station ("base" probably being too grand a word for it) for these vessels.  I would be interested in hearing from anyone with actual experience in the north as to what location they think would be best and why.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: GAP on July 11, 2007, 18:53:31
Churchill already has a deep water port, long airport strip ( former base) and is rail linked year round...
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: airmich on July 11, 2007, 19:51:47
For those that are interested in more information, the news stories regarding the ships are posted  here (http://forums.air-force.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64007.0/topicseen.html).
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 11, 2007, 20:32:21
To repeat a comment at the other thread:

Quote
From the Globe and Mail story:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070710.HARPERSUB10/TPStory/Front

"Each will be about 100 metres long and displace about 3,000 metric tonnes..."

Svalbard displaces over 6,000 t:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-icebreaker-svalbard.htm

Unless the story is inaccurate (good chance!) the 3,000 tonnes figure is ridiculous.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 11, 2007, 22:37:35
2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?

Speculation: NAVRES has a fleet school there.  Also, some sort of role in border security on the Lakes may be envisioned.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: FinClk on July 12, 2007, 13:00:12
2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?
The waterway normally freezes up to Quebec City during winter months, although it does freeze further south never as consistantly. I would go as far as speculating on Border Security as I believe it would enfringe on CCG responsibilities.

Churchill already has a deep water port, long airport strip ( former base) and is rail linked year round...
Agreed, but is located some distance from the Northwest Passage where Resolute is centered on the passage itself. However perhaps it could be used for other purposes based on existing ressources.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on July 12, 2007, 15:13:24
I'm curious as to how it would stop a foreign submarine transitting Canadian waters...
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: sledge on July 12, 2007, 15:21:42
Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Spencer100 on July 12, 2007, 15:31:33
Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter.

Something I have always thought about, how do you hunt down a sub under the ice with aircraft and surface ships?  And also how does sonar work up north with all the noise generated by the ice breaking and cracking?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on July 12, 2007, 16:27:34
Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter. 

And then what?

a) Tell them to heave to?
b) Shoot a missile?
c) Lodge a protest?
d) All of the above?
e) None of the above?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 12, 2007, 16:30:10
And then what?

a) Tell them to heave to?
b) Shoot a missile?
c) Lodge a protest?
d) All of the above?
e) None of the above?

We have ways of getting our message across to subs for aircraft by ways we don't need to get into here at all....
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: cameron on July 12, 2007, 16:52:22
Coincidentally Privateer, on point no. 3 and your question about reserve crewmembers, I was asking myself the same questions.  As long as they are well built, and can capably carry out their various roles, I think they're a great idea.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on July 12, 2007, 17:02:45
We have ways of getting our message across to subs for aircraft by ways we don't need to get into here at all....

I'm aware of that, but was curious as to what Sledge was going to offer as an opinion. 
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: airmich on July 12, 2007, 17:06:46
I wonder if any thought has been given to the question of whether or not reservists will play a role in crewing the vessels. 

How?  Unless things have changed dramatically over the past few months, NavRes is having enough trouble manning their own boats, much less others.  Yes, I realize that the APVs aren't scheduled until 2013, but if the current slide of lack of personnel continues...
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Privateer on July 12, 2007, 18:50:10
Quote
How?  Unless things have changed dramatically over the past few months, NavRes is having enough trouble manning their own boats, much less others.  Yes, I realize that the APVs aren't scheduled until 2013, but if the current slide of lack of personnel continues...

I take your point, but it seems like the A/OPS are intended to take over some tasks currently done by MCDVs such as fisheries patrol, and the recently (re)instated arctic deployments .  I speculate that the introduction of the A/OPS may result in less operational deployments for the MCDVs (leaving them in primarily a training role), resulting in the opportunity / need to use some (reserve) pers previously employed on MCDVs on the A/OPS.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2007, 19:05:16
This SPECULATION comes from Canadian Press and the VCMS  (Can it be speculation if it comes from the VCMS?)

Parkas all around for you Naval Reserve types.   ;)


Quote
New icebreakers mean early retirement for navy's coastal patrol ships: expert

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government's plan to build Arctic patrol ships could send some of Canada's maritime coastal defence vessels into early retirement.

Already short of sailors and struggling with budget shortfalls, the navy is working out how to crew and operate the six-to-eight new ice-capable corvettes that were announced this week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"We think that these vessels are going to be the natural replacement for the (coastal defence vessels)," Commodore Kelly Williams, vice chief of maritime staff, said Wednesday in an interview.

The $3.1-billion program to build armed Class 5 medium icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty was announced Monday with much fanfare at Esquimalt, B.C., the navy's principle West Coast base.

An additional $4 billion will be set aside over 25 years to operate the ships.

The smaller Kingston-class coastal defence vessels, built in the 1990s by the former Liberal government at a cost of $650 million, will be "transitioned" to a new role, Williams said.

It's still unclear what that role will be and whether the navy will have the sailors or money to keep all 12 of the 934-tonne ships. Senior naval staff met this week in Ottawa to discuss those questions.

With the first of the new Arctic ships not due until 2013 at the earliest, Williams said there is plenty of time to make decisions.

The 55-metre coastal ships, originally conceived as minesweepers, are not suitable for patrols in choppy seas beyond the immediate coastline. At a top speed of 15 knots, they're also considered slow.

Most warships have a 30-to 35-year lifespan and the Kingston-class, the last of which hit the water in 1999, are at only the mid-point in their service life.

"There's an awful lot of work that remains to be taken out of those ships," said Williams. "Canadians would expect us, having invested in those vessels, to use them to the maximum advantage possible."

He said he could see them used for training and ideally would like to keep some for patrols close to the coastline, while the Arctic corvettes and frigates work farther offshore.

But a retired fleet commander said that was unlikely.

"We're in a resource-strained environment," said Eric Lerhe, a retired commodore and member of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax.

"The navy would undoubtedly love to keep the (maritime coastal defence vessels). They've been a success story."

A planned $100-million, life-extending refit for the coastal vessels has already been shelved by the navy.

Senator Colin Kenny, whose security and defence committee has recommended Canada's defence budget be increased to $25 billion by 2010, from its current $18 billion, agreed with Lerhe's assessment.

The Conservative government shows no appetite for boosting defence spending to that level, he said.

A strategic assessment, written last year and obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, sounded blunt warnings about the navy's future.

Among other things, it called for a massive injection of capital to upgrade existing vessels and to begin building the next generation of warships. Some of those concerns were addressed with the Arctic ships plan and the announcement that the country's 12 Halifax-class frigates will receive a $3.1 billion modernization.

But the assessment also painted a stark picture of the navy's struggle to live within its current $701-million operating budget, with the rising cost of fuel and maintenance and the departures of experienced sailors.

In early 2006, there was a shortage 276 qualified personnel, a situation that hasn't improved much in the last year, a navy official acknowledged.

With the regular navy stretched, Williams said the new icebreakers will likely be crewed by reservists.

"We really don't have a detailed answer yet for crewing concepts, but we think the naval reserves are going to play a massive role in the manning of these vessels," he said.

Unlike the army and the air force, which plug reservists into empty slots within existing units, the navy has a designated role for its existing 4,500 part-time sailors. They form entire ship's companies, crewing all 12 of the Kingston-class vessels.

Although Harper's government has pledged to add 13,000 reservists to the Canadian Forces, the bulk of them are destined for the army.

Asking reservists to crew the new Arctic ships will present some training challenges in terms of technology and the addition of helicopters, said Williams, but added he's confident they're up to the task.



© The Canadian Press, 2007
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 12, 2007, 19:13:10
Any bets on where the MCDV's go?

Are they a good fit for the Coast Guard?

Would anyone buy them?


Matthew.    ???

P.S.  As a guy from Ontario, I had no idea the Coast Guard had so many vessels:

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Of note, it looks like there are quite a few mid-70's vintage ships that could use replacing.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: airmich on July 12, 2007, 19:23:16
Quote
It's still unclear what that role will be
I'm sure the rumourmill aka 'shadline', is running full out on this!

Quote
The 55-metre coastal ships, originally conceived as minesweepers, are not suitable for patrols in choppy seas beyond the immediate coastline. At a top speed of 15 knots, they're also considered slow.
Can I see a show of hands who didn't know this?  Duh! ::)  But that's for another topic, which I know there are many of around here.

Quote
They've been a success story.
For all the naysayers  :nana: It's about time this was said in print!  And yet again off-topic for this thread, but I had to say it!

Quote
Asking reservists to crew the new Arctic ships will present some training challenges in terms of technology and the addition of helicopters, said Williams, but added he's confident they're up to the task.
This is great to hear!  Of course they are up to the challenge.  They are chomping at the bit to get more qualifications.  There are too many supervisors on the boats that are doing a great job, but they are junior in rank and TI, and especially lacking in qualifications.  And the biggest reason for this is manpower.  There is no spare manpower to allow these personnel the opportunity to increase their knowledge base.  Not to mention the whole money and politics behind the "reserve qual does not equal reg qual" (note:  I am aware this is not true for all trades, but it is for a majority of the ones employed on the MCDVs).  They advance within their trade, but are sorely lacking for current training in keeping pace with their reg force counterparts.


Even though I am no longer a part of the NavRes community, I was for too long not to be interested in how this story goes.  This announcement has really shaken things up, and my opinion is that it is what the shad world needs right now!!





Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2007, 09:35:25
Cdn Blackshirt: I can't see the MCDVs having any particular utility for the CCG, which anyway has its own patrol vessel program underway:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27961.msg556243.html#msg556243

As for asserting sovereignty in Arctic waterways, an excellent article by a former CCG Deputy Commissioner (a brilliant public servant whom I knew):

A job for the Coast Guard
It's too bad that the Harper government's preoccupation with the military has caused it to overlook a more sensible solution to Arctic sovereignty
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88

Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: cameron on July 13, 2007, 10:14:18
I know it may be a bit early to ask about these kinds of details but still I guess it can't hurt to ask, apart from the ASW helos that these ships may be embarking,  will the ships themselves be equipped with ASW sonar?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 13, 2007, 10:30:23
Cdn Blackshirt: I can't see the MCDVs having any particular utility for the CCG, which anyway has its own patrol vessel program underway:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27961.msg556243.html#msg556243

As for asserting sovereignty in Arctic waterways, an excellent article by a former CCG Deputy Commissioner (a brilliant public servant whom I knew):

A job for the Coast Guard
It's too bad that the Harper government's preoccupation with the military has caused it to overlook a more sensible solution to Arctic sovereignty
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88

Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa

Thanks for the update on the CCG program.

RE:  The article about the CCG doing the arctic patrols - until the CCG decides it's going to be an "armed" force, I totally disagree.


Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: newfin on July 13, 2007, 11:01:42
If you are looking for what sort of "mix" the Navy is hoping for in the future then check out this link:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_strat/strat-issues_e.asp?category=57&id=620&x=2

2x  littoral manoeuvre ships (LPD's?)
3x  JSS's
4-6x  submarines (I think that number is going to stay stuck at 4 for a very long time)
4x  AAD's
12-14x  frigates
28x  CH-148's
16x  CP-140's
8x A/OPS's
4-6x coastal defence vessels
8-16x internal waters/inshore patrol vessels (there's something new)
numerous TUAV's operated from ships and submarines

Thoughts?
Looks like the Kingston's numbers are to be reduced dramatically and numerous smaller inshore patrol vessels are to be added.  Perhaps similar in size and function to the Coast Guard's MSPV's?

And I would like to know if 28x CH-148's are enough anymore?  With 6-8 more vessels of the A/OPS class requiring helo's that were not acounted for when the original order was placed, doesn't this mean that the Navy will find itself short on airframes?  Especially if you take into account the air requirements of those 2 Littoral Manoeuvre ships he refers to.  I personally think that you have seen the last of the big ticket items that this government is going to spend on the Navy for a long time now.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 13, 2007, 12:24:45
If you are looking for what sort of "mix" the Navy is hoping for in the future then check out this link:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_strat/strat-issues_e.asp?category=57&id=620&x=2

2x  littoral manoeuvre ships (LPD's?)
3x  JSS's
4-6x  submarines (I think that number is going to stay stuck at 4 for a very long time)
4x  AAD's
12-14x  frigates
28x  CH-148's
16x  CP-140's
8x A/OPS's
4-6x coastal defence vessels
8-16x internal waters/inshore patrol vessels (there's something new)
numerous TUAV's operated from ships and submarines

Thoughts?
Looks like the Kingston's numbers are to be reduced dramatically and numerous smaller inshore patrol vessels are to be added.  Perhaps similar in size and function to the Coast Guard's MSPV's?

And I would like to know if 28x CH-148's are enough anymore?  With 6-8 more vessels of the A/OPS class requiring helo's that were not acounted for when the original order was placed, doesn't this mean that the Navy will find itself short on airframes?  Especially if you take into account the air requirements of those 2 Littoral Manoeuvre ships he refers to.  I personally think that you have seen the last of the big ticket items that this government is going to spend on the Navy for a long time now.


I still would like to see (4) heavy armed ice breakers added to the mix. 

The potential resource in the Northwest Passage is huge and I don't think we should be cutting corners by not providing a year-round armed presence in those waters.

If it were me, I still would've bought the heavy ice breakers first, and then added the A/OPS second.

The one caveat is that I wonder from a technical standpoint if in order to have the capability to build heavy icebreaking vessels in Canada, we first need to be able to build ice-hardened ships like the A/OPV. 

If that is the case (and to me it would be somewhat logical), then I completely understand the order of procurement.


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Senor Mono on July 13, 2007, 15:01:25
Regarding the retired CGG executive's letter, don't we need capable, armed enforcement, at least at the entrances to the Northwest Passage, if large numbers of foreign merchant vessels start to use our northern waters as a shortcut a few years down the road? If we want to control the situation, don't we need the ability to use force? CCG patrols would be incapable of this role, and it would seem a few Mounties onboard would not be sufficient to do the job.

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here. Mark knows a lot more about CGG than me, so I'm interested to hear that perspective.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 13, 2007, 15:07:16
RE:  The article about the CCG doing the arctic patrols - until the CCG decides it's going to be an "armed" force, I totally disagree.

Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?

Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2007, 15:55:52
Senor Mono: There are two things.

1) Asserting sovereignty over the waterways by being able to maintain a government presence in them--it doesn't matter much in terms of law if that presence is civil or military.  And even if we did physically assert our presence in the waterways, if they become navigable we still might not win the case in international law (see the various straits in SE Asia, Dover Strait, many others).  It is noteworthy that the EU, Japan and Russia also do not recognize our claim to the Northwest Passage, a point our media usually ignore in painting the Americans as the threatening bad guys.

2) For dealing with any non-military problem CCG vessels can be armed with weapons  (e.g. machine guns) operated by others--Fishery Officers, RCMP, even the Navy.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 13, 2007, 16:12:44
Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?

Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.

I agree that building infrastructure is MORE important and that should happen regardless of what vessels are tasked with sovereignty patrols.

That being said, I think your other argument is downright silly.

History has shown that those who do not take pro-active measures to protect their assets, immediately have others begin eyeing those assets and pondering the risk-reward of taking them by force.  More to the point, those that don't pre-emptively protect their assets with sufficient armed force, invariable lose that sovereignty.  My own opinion is that there is an ever-greater likelihood of an energy-war within the next 20 years due to the dynamics of falling world supply and ballooning global demand.  With that in mind, I think Canada should be positioning ever-increasing military capability (as well as sovereign infrastructure, as per your point) in the north, to keep ratcheting up the "risk" side of that equation for anyone who is considering doing something stupid.  And should they still decide to do something stupid, then yes, I think you fight.  That's the point of sovereignty.  If it's yours, you fight for it.   So if that's the underlying principle of sovereignty that I assume we agree upon, and we're prepared to protect our sovereignty, procurement and planning should be based on winning any conflict that could take place in our north....and investing in unarmed Coast Guard Vessels adds nothing to that equation.


Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Senor Mono on July 13, 2007, 16:51:03
It's a warm arctic July in 2020, and the Passage has turned into a convenient summer freeway for all manner of shipping. Let's say a particular merchant vessel wanted to transit, and let's say we had major concerns regarding this particular VOI with respect to the risk of an environmental accident in our waters. How will unarmed CCG ships prevent this vessel's transit? This was an example that came to mind. 

Good points all around, thanks for the insight.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Privateer on July 13, 2007, 17:29:13
With respect to the northern station (base) for these vessels, my initial thought (not based on actual arctic experience) would be that the most preferable solution would include:

- Two stations, one near each end of the Northwest passage.  While two stations may sound extravagant, would it not cut down on the the cost in time and fuel of transiting from one end of the passage to a centrally located station?  I don't imagine that the northern stations would look anything like the dockyards in Esquimalt or Halifax:  They would just be for fueling, reprovisioning (perhaps) and possible crew change.  (Or am I missing something?)

- On the continental mainland:  So that they can be accessed year-round, possibly by rail, for ease of maintenance and resupply.

Thoughts?  Any suggestions for locations (in addition to Churchill)?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2007, 18:09:38
Senor Mono:
Quote
How will unarmed CCG ships prevent this vessel's transit?

The same way they do now in all other Canadian waters, which is assume the vessel will obey instructions.  Why should we be more worried about hypothetical Arctic cases than about present reality?

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Senor Mono on July 13, 2007, 18:44:39
Seen. From my perspective I envision a hypothetical, law-breaking, problematic VOI being stopped in other Canadian waters (ie. East Coast/West Coast), if necessary, by naval assets who have the ability to control movement. As we have no such capability in arctic waters, I understand the desire for that armed presence in the arctic that can control a situation versus standing by and watching laws being broken (or other applicable problems).

Of course this isn't a common scenario, but it could be, and military forces ideally exist for all contingencies. Cheers.

 
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on July 13, 2007, 21:58:08
Mark, I can't do it.  I have tried but I can't help myself.  ;)

Canada has exchanged shots over fish.  Britain and Iceland have bumped over fish.  China and Vietnam, Italy and Greece, and France and Spain.  The US arrests Canadian fishermen in disputed waters.  Personally I know of American fishermen trading shots over fishing spots in the North Pacific and American trawlers outrunning Russian Coast Guards.

The Inuit have been complaining about Greenlanders poaching bears on Baffin Island and lack of control over the shrimp fishery.  Poachers are a sufficiently lawless bunch that Park Wardens and Game Officers have been asking to be armed for years - and have been subsequently told not to enforce the laws - leave that up to the RCMP.

Piracy is a common enough event where there is inadequate supervision of the seas.  We don't have piracy because we don't have ships using the arctic.  Presumably if we do have ships up there, and we don't police the area vigorously then piracy becomes an issue.

We have not yet got to bumping hulls with the Danish Navy over Hans Island, or the US over fishing in the Beaufort but given open water......

The USCG seems to feel the need to be heavily armed so as to be able to interdict smugglers of all stripes.


I agree - the Coast Guard needs to have its ice-breaking fleet renewed, heavied up and probably expanded.  But I can't believe that you can bridge the culture gap within that organisation between those that are comfortable with shooting and being shot at and those that aren't.  You have the Park Warden, Border Services issue all over again.

The preferred solution seems to be to call for the RCMP to come along to do the dangerous bits.  And that isn't such a bad idea.  It might make more sense to put the RCMP onto border and internal policing duties with additional numbers and relieve them of some of their other "security investigation" files.  Apply that paramilitary culture to a paramilitary environment.

But can you tell me that Coast Guard vessels, even if they were armed with guns manned by the RCMP, would be comfortable closing with other vessels that are shooting back?  You say that you work now with the expectation that people will obey the law and cooperate.  People don't obey the law and cooperate on the 401 or at Yonge and Bloor.  Why would they do it any more willingly 500 miles from the nearest witness?

It seems to me to be a much better division of labour to have the Coast Guard operating the SAR, the aids to navigation, the permissive enforcement of civil law, support for research  and hydrography etc while the Navy trails along on the horizon reminding the locals to behave and play nice.  With these A/OPVs the Navy can more closely escort CG breakers, or perhaps it should be that the CG breakers could create highways in the ice that commercial ships can transit and the Navy patrol.


Cheers Mark ------ What Round Number is this?   I have lost count. ;D




http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010347

1995 - Canada (a DFO vessel) fired on the Spanish trawler Estai

Quote
1) China and Vietnam have exchanged gunshots over fishing rights surrounding the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

2) Italy and Greece have squabbled over the former’s use of drift nets in the Mediterranean.

3) The U.S. Coast Guard has arrested Canadian fishing boats in waters that both countries claim off the British Columbia coast north of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

4) France and Spain, allies in the confrontation with Canada over turbot, have themselves traded machine-gun fire in a dispute over fishing in the Bay of Biscay.



Britain and Iceland Cod Wars.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nationonfilm/topics/fishing/background_decline.shtml

Quote
Cod Wars

The first 'Cod war' took place in 1958, when Iceland, extended its coastal fishing limit, from 4 miles, to 12 miles.

The Second Cod War started in 1972 when Iceland extended its coastal non-fishing limit to 50 miles.

It ended with an agreement between the two countries that limited British fishing to restricted areas, within the 50-mile limit.

This agreement was valid for two years and expired on November 13 1975, when the third "Cod War" started.

Between November 1975, and June 1976, the cod brought two NATO allies to the brink of war.

Great Britain and Iceland confronted each other as Iceland proclaimed its authority to 200 miles from its coastline.

British trawlers had their nets cut by Icelandic Coast Guard vessels and there were numerous rammings between Icelandic ships and British trawlers and frigates.

Iceland claimed that it was merely enforcing what would soon be international law.


International Maritime Bureau live map on Piracy Attacks

http://www.icc-ccs.org/extra/display.php

No attacks in the Arctic but, there again, no ships in the Arctic.


Edit:  I just can't see anybody running down a fleeing ship in an icefield with an ice-breaker.  Get out the helicopter.  Get out the snowmobile.  Or get out and walk  and you could catch up faster.






Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2007, 22:58:10
Kirkhill:
Quote
It seems to me to be a much better division of labour to have the Coast Guard operating the SAR, the aids to navigation, the permissive enforcement of civil law, support for research  and hydrography etc while the Navy trails along on the horizon reminding the locals to behave and play nice.  With these A/OPVs the Navy can more closely escort CG breakers, or perhaps it should be that the CG breakers could create highways in the ice that commercial ships can transit and the Navy patrol.

Cheers Mark ------ What Round Number is this?   I have lost count. Grin

OK.  Then buy maybe four A/OPVs just in case somebody might have to threaten force sometime in the Arctic.  Which has never happened in actual Canadian territorial waters short of war--the Estai was not in territorial waters and the Navy wasn't used (on the surface).  Much political and nationalist ado about nothing that won't in the end be settled under international law without any Canadian vessel ever firing a shot ;).  Meanwhile CCG icebreakers can do all that can be done, under international law, to try and establish a claim that the Northwest Passage is a Canadian sovereign inland waterway.

I am dubious about the claim if the ice really does melt.  But that's another issue :).

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on July 14, 2007, 00:39:39
 I agree with you on the ice question Mark.  Too early to tell.

Actually I am hoping that the final design of these A/OPVs will be more like a pocket LPD like the Kiwi's Canterbury but based on the Svalbard.  Useful for ice operations, supporting domestic littoral operations, EEZ patrols and disaster response.  Vessels that are workhorses but that can also be used to work the kinks out of Army/Navy cooperation before spending some big bucks on LPDs.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2007, 11:44:08
Kirkhill:
OK.  Then buy maybe four A/OPVs just in case somebody might have to threaten force sometime in the Arctic.  Which has never happened in actual Canadian territorial waters short of war--the Estai was not in territorial waters and the Navy wasn't used (on the surface).  Much political and nationalist ado about nothing that won't in the end be settled under international law without any Canadian vessel ever firing a shot ;).  Meanwhile CCG icebreakers can do all that can be done, under international law, to try and establish a claim that the Northwest Passage is a Canadian sovereign inland waterway.

I am dubious about the claim if the ice really does melt.  But that's another issue :).

Mark
Ottawa



Mark, I beg to differ on the Estai incident...I was on the Terra Nova when we helped bring her in.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 14, 2007, 14:08:16
It's a warm arctic July in 2020, and the Passage has turned into a convenient summer freeway for all manner of shipping.

In which case, who needs icebreakers?  MCDVs (which, one presumes, will still be in service then! ;) ) would be fine for the job.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 14, 2007, 14:14:27
I agree that building infrastructure is MORE important and that should happen regardless of what vessels are tasked with sovereignty patrols.

That being said, I think your other argument is downright silly.

History has shown that those who do not take pro-active measures to protect their assets, immediately have others begin eyeing those assets and pondering the risk-reward of taking them by force.  More to the point, those that don't pre-emptively protect their assets with sufficient armed force, invariable lose that sovereignty.  My own opinion is that there is an ever-greater likelihood of an energy-war within the next 20 years due to the dynamics of falling world supply and ballooning global demand.  With that in mind, I think Canada should be positioning ever-increasing military capability (as well as sovereign infrastructure, as per your point) in the north, to keep ratcheting up the "risk" side of that equation for anyone who is considering doing something stupid.  And should they still decide to do something stupid, then yes, I think you fight.  That's the point of sovereignty.  If it's yours, you fight for it.   So if that's the underlying principle of sovereignty that I assume we agree upon, and we're prepared to protect our sovereignty, procurement and planning should be based on winning any conflict that could take place in our north....and investing in unarmed Coast Guard Vessels adds nothing to that equation.

I think we're talking about two quite different situations here.  You're contemplating a shooting war over territory, and I agree that if such a thing becomes a realistic possibility then we should be prepared to fight.

But that's worlds apart from us wanting to stop peaceful use of our waters by merchant traffic.  Firing at a freighter because it wants to go through our waters against our desires is an extremely serious matter, and I strongly doubt we will ever see it in our lifetimes.  If it comes to that then it will definitely be a naval matter, because the next ship that comes by is likely to be a warship from the same country as the freighter.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2007, 14:18:09
The problem with icebreaking with it being left in the CCG hands is as a unionized body they have the right to go on strike and with that we put people at risk. I saw ice breaking is a role that should go to the Navy.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on July 14, 2007, 14:38:25
OOOH.  Ex-D plays the "essential service" card....... >:D
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2007, 14:40:46
Ex-Dragoon: Sorry about HMCS Terra Nova; but I believe the actual shooting was done by a DFO vessel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Terra_Nova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

Quote
...The Estai cut its weighted trawl net and fled, resulting in a chase which stretched over several hours and ended only after the Canadian Fisheries Patrol vessel Cape Roger firing of a .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun across the bow of the Estai. The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Sir Wilfred Grenfell used high-pressure fire-fighting water cannons to deter other Spanish fishing vessels from disrupting the enforcement operation. Finally, armed DFO and RCMP officers boarded the vessel in international waters on the Grand Banks and placed it and its crew under arrest...

The CCG was under Transport Canada in March 1995.  Shortly thereafter it was transferred to DFO and in 1996/97 the two civilian fleets were merged under the Coast Guard.

I don't think icebreaking operations have ever been seriously dislocated by union actions;  CCG personnel tend to be very devoted to their work.  And I think Navy people would be bored stiff if they took over all icebreaking including in the St. Lawrence.

Maybe we could use water cannon to cause civilian vessels to heave to in the Northwest Passage! ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: newfin on July 14, 2007, 15:43:54
I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships. 
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2007, 15:55:22
newfin: I can't believe we still have a government that doesn't take the Coast Guard seriously enough ;).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 14, 2007, 16:27:50
Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 14, 2007, 16:29:05
I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships. 

As soon as they're willing to be armed, great.  Until then, I'd be cutting their procurement and roles, and re-assigning to the navy.

You want to be unarmed?  Great, you're in charge of fisheries and buoy's....and minesweeping.

I should add, as a person who has ZERO faith in unions, I'd also be pushing to de-unionize and have the Coast Guard operate as a branch of the armed forces, under the same rules.


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2007, 16:58:27
Ex-Dragoon: Sorry about HMCS Terra Nova; but I believe the actual shooting was done by a DFO vessel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Terra_Nova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

The CCG was under Transport Canada in March 1995.  Shortly thereafter it was transferred to DFO and in 1996/97 the two civilian fleets were merged under the Coast Guard.

I don't think icebreaking operations have ever been seriously dislocated by union actions;  CCG personnel tend to be very devoted to their work.  And I think Navy people would be bored stiff if they took over all icebreaking including in the St. Lawrence.

Maybe we could use water cannon to cause civilian vessels to heave to in the Northwest Passage! ;)

Mark
Ottawa

I never said we did the shooting but you made it sound like there was no naval participation there at all, I was clarifying there was.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: newfin on July 14, 2007, 17:21:25
I'd like to know if anyone has any idea about what is meant by the phrase "support operation ashore via landing craft"?

Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.

I mean, I know what a landing craft is (at least I think I do).  Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well?  Does the Navy envision being able to put soldiers and materiel ashore via an undefended beach, such as are common in the Arctic?  I just can't think of what they have in mind here.

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Nomad933 on July 14, 2007, 17:34:02
Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well? 

Actually the CCG has craft akin to I believe LCVPs that they use to support fuel resupply in the communities they are launched by crane off of ships that are within the same size bracket (I saw a couple of them last year in Nunavut)

As per base resolute right in the center, home of the AWS why not??
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2007, 17:42:40
While a RHIB or Zodiac are not lamding craft by definition we do send large parties ashore in them. I also believe the quasi frigate Absalon class that the Danes use carry LCVPs. You are forgetting that this new class of ship we are looking at will be doing a lot of independent operations and it only makes sense to give it auxiliary craft that it may have to use instead of or in addition to the conventional rhibs and zodiacs we give them today.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: newfin on July 14, 2007, 17:53:04
Thanks Dragoon.  I'll look up the Absalon class to have a look at the LCVP.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2007, 18:04:30
Quote
Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons
that can serve in any icebreaking role and also have substantial naval capabilities?  I still think the displacement of the new vessels must have been misreported.  The Svalbard is about the same length but weighs twice as much.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 14, 2007, 20:14:54
Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.

It was considered several years ago and rejected; but the DFO fisheries patrol fleet was merged into the CCG.  Some of the reasons presumably were that CCG members are cheaper to train than naval personnel (e.g. apart from officers, the Coast Guard doesn't take people off the street and train them from the ground up to be sailors -- Coast Guard ratings join with experience elsewhere.)  CF training costs a fortune.

Skill sets are another issue: why train all of the deck officers in the considerable number of Coast Guard ships in the strictly naval subjects when most of those skillsets aren't required in Coast Guard operations?

Also, the working conditions are radically different.  A person can join the Coast Guard as an officer and stay a seagoing officer until retirement if he wants to, while a reg. force naval officer will get his sea postings, but with staff jobs ashore mixed in (and more and more of them as he goes on).  My usual comment on the subject goes along the lines and merging the Coast Guard with the navy would be something like merging the fire department with the police -- different roles, different culture, different working conditions -- it's not much of a stretch to say that all they have in common is that they work in ships and wear blue shirts.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2007, 20:19:43
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 15, 2007, 00:00:04
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.

I agree with you that we need to bolster our presence in the arctic. I'm heading there in the near future as part of OP NANOOK. The ship i'm on presently has limited ice capability so we'll certainly have to watch ourselves. I think its great that i'll have the chance to sail on one of the new ice strengthened corvettes, I actually am hoping to get a posting to the project staff of these ships once the manning for them is announced.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 15, 2007, 21:52:51
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: FinClk on July 16, 2007, 08:50:01
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 17, 2007, 16:18:37
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.

I would say Churchill because of the existing infrastructure, airstrip and access to rail would be a better choice. The ships could also get some 2nd line maintenance and fuel there as well. The ships would be based in Halifax and Victoria.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 17, 2007, 17:12:45
An interesting perspective....in which he highlights my biggest concern with our to-be-procured "ice-hardened ships".


Matthew.     :salute:

Quote
The true North may be strong, but the plan to protect it is feeble
By PETER WILSON 
Former director of informatics and communications, Nunavut Planning Commission
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 – Page A17

Stephen Harper touted his announcement last week of $3.1-billion worth of patrol ships for the Arctic as a declaration of sovereignty, and it is. But it's a declaration of sovereignty by Ottawa over the people who have lived in Canada's Arctic for thousands of years, not a declaration of our sovereignty to other nations.

The federal government plans to spend billions of dollars to create jobs in southern Canada by building patrol vessels for the North. When they're ready, around 2014, the "slushbreakers" won't actually be capable of operating in the Arctic year-round; they'll have to retreat to the South when it gets too cold for them up North. So midwinter would be a good time for other nations such as the U.S. or Russia to visit, because they have the capability to cruise through or under Canadian Arctic waters in any season and there'll be plenty of mooring space available at our new northern port.

When it's too cold for Canada's new ships to operate, we'll rely on "monitoring" the Arctic, using satellite images, interpreted by experts in the South, like some kind of video game. At least we won't get cold.

This is an embarrassment. There are many important things that only Canada can do in its Arctic - all of them assert sovereignty. And we can do them right now, for very little money.

Monitor and report on the Arctic environment.

Nunavut, a territory so big it would be the 14th-largest country on Earth, has no environmental monitoring program (despite the 14-year-old Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that calls for one). A pan-Arctic environmental monitoring and reporting program would tell the world that Canada understands and cares about its Arctic environment.

Provide better wildlife management.

We can only guess at the population of the two great herds of caribou in the North. The good news is that, after 13 years, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board has cobbled together donations of cash and jet fuel from provincial and territorial governments, an environmental group, and industry - enough to conduct a survey of one of the two herds this summer. Surveying one herd every 13 years is a national disgrace.

Create a realistic search and rescue operation.

With commercial aircraft crisscrossing the Canadian Arctic, it's unacceptable to base Arctic search and rescue in Trenton, Ont. Trenton is closer to Quito, Ecuador, than it is to our military base at Alert. A northern-based search and rescue operation is a declaration of sovereignty and a service Canadians will increasingly need as northern development increases.

Let Northern people manage northern resources.

Nunavut doesn't have the talented people required to manage its lands and resources. Scientific and survey methods, satellite images, aerial photographs and geographic information systems are the modern tools of land and resource management. Add skills in these areas to the traditional knowledge of northerners and Canada will benefit from the type of responsible land use envisioned in northern land claims agreements.

Improve regulatory efficiency.

The North is rich in diamonds, gold, uranium, oil and gas, base metals, and much more, but mining companies complain that access is difficult because of the complicated regulatory environment. A national program that provided online map staking and a one-window Internet-based land-use application system would go a long way toward showing the world that we are administering our resources fairly and efficiently.

So, here's the plan. For a tiny fraction of what taxpayers will spend on Mr. Harper's patrol vessels, the federal government could operate a northern-based Arctic aerial monitoring program. Inuit and other northern residents could be trained to fly Canadian-built bush planes from community bases across the Arctic, from Labrador to Yukon. These small northern-based teams could provide regular, low cost, sovereignty patrols, general environmental monitoring, ice patrols, land-use permit inspections and enforcement, search and rescue, aerial photography and wildlife surveys.

There's a plethora of groups, governments and industries that need these services. Such a program would reduce duplication, provide the services and information required to manage resources and assert sovereignty over our North. It would increase the efficiency of access to land by resource developers, and provide training and employment for northerners. The entire plan could be set up and operated for less than 5 per cent of the cost of the patrol vessels announced last week.

The only catch: We might get cold in the winter.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070717/COARCTIC17/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/ (http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070717/COARCTIC17/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/)



Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 17, 2007, 17:32:49
Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways. 

International offshore boundaries are also still not settled, nor use of seabed resources.  But these will settled on the basis of customary and treaty international law, not the patrolling of vessels.   The situation in the waterways we consider "domestic" (and practically everyone else disagrees) will also eventually be settled under international law; being able to maintain a presence there at most times (which only new CCG icebreakers could do) might help our case but is not likely to be determinative.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: N. McKay on July 17, 2007, 23:11:17
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: GK .Dundas on July 17, 2007, 23:25:27
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?
For some strange reason I have a vision of Hippos dancing?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on July 18, 2007, 12:50:30
Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways.  

I think he is refering to the is recent challenge here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464921
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=41c21a5a-d645-4108-b5ce-2df30551470e&k=15448

Now, I couldnt find it on the net, but the original news story showed the Russian arctic claim reaching into Canada's northern islands based on continental shelf projections.  Nearly every map Ive seen since then has different claim areas.  Its uncertain at this time just how much land the Russians are attempting to lay claim to.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: WarmAndVertical on August 08, 2007, 18:58:43
New article today:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/589c552e-45eb-11dc-b359-0000779fd2ac.html
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 13, 2007, 17:49:23
This makes sense to me--and then the patrol ships could be redesigned to be much more capable vessels, to replace or supplement the MCDVs, without a serious icebreaking capability

New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=852819

Quote
While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.

In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.

Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:

• Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.

• Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.

• Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.

• Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.

• Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)

• The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.

The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.

New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers...

Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 14, 2007, 01:55:49
I think it remains an absolutely insane place to invest scarce $ as long as the Coast Guard demands to continue to remain an unarmed service. 

Sovereignty isn't only being there....it's demonstrating an ability to defend said area.  Spending $600 million on an unarmed unionized vessel versus $1 billion on an armed military vessel is apples & oranges in terms of your ROI. 

In case no one else has noticed, the Russians are really ratcheting things up with their long-range bomber flights and all indications are they are only going to get more, rather than less aggressive in coming years.  To plan on things remaining as per status quo has never been wise.  The trend unfortunately is for increased tension and as such putting unarmed vessels into that environment (if the union drivers will even agree to go which sadly is something that needs to be considered if tension levels do ramp up) borders upon negligence.


Matthew.    ???
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 14, 2007, 13:14:34
Agree Matthew(lol thats a wierd occurence :D )Personally I think if a ship will be used in the law enforcement role or perform any naval mission it should be armed. The CCG should drop any sort of enforcement from their mandate totally.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: cameron on August 15, 2007, 12:46:23
I too have to agree completely with Matthew.  At a time when Russia is ratcheting up tensions, in the Arctic and elsewhere, an unarmed icebreaker would be  unrealistic and inadequate for defending Canada's arctic sovereignty.  As far as i'm concerned as long as the Coast Guard refuses to take up a more aggressive mandate then guarding Canada's arctic should rest squarely with the navy.

I should also point out that a few months ago I started a thread expressing my concerns that the war in Afghanistan, as completely justified as it is, seemed to giving some of our leaders tunnel vision and our navy was being neglected.  Let's hope the very loud and threatening growls being made by the Russian bear will be a wake up call to them.

Also while the new Arctic/Offshore patrol ships and FELEX program for the Canadian Navy are welcome news, much more needs to be done if Canada is to have a credible naval deterrent to any designs the Russians and others have on her arctic territory.  I argued in another recent thread that it takes too long for new ships to be brought to the fleet.  I see no good reason why Canada couldn't be at the same stage of progress as Australia right now when it comes to acquiring a next generation frigate/destroyer.  In fact it would have made sense for Canada to cooperate with the Aussies on their AAW destroyer (each party of course tailoring a ship to meet their unique needs), this would give the Canadian Navy a capability it needs (and which it needs now more than ever) much sooner at much less cost, we still have too long a wait for the SCSC to become a reality (if it isn't axed before that happens). 

Canada also needs a credible submarine deterrent.  I'm not talking about nuclear subs here, as we all know a good diesel boat is a significant threat to even the most powerful destroyer, cruiser or aircraft carrier.  In the face of Russia's advances in the arctic Canada needs subs THAT ACTUALLY WORK.  Having a boat with great capabilities on paper is no help. 

Last of all let me repeat a point that i've belaboured before, when making budget cuts politicians (and some military leaders) need to seek expert advice and analyse the long term picture, not just current threats.  Just a few years ago the possibility of a showdown between Canada and Russia in the arctic would have been scoffed at by many.  And just a few months ago many were arguing that the only likely battleground the CF would find themselves engaged on is in Kandahar.   Just because on the 15th of August 2006 there doesn't seem to be any apparent adversary that would challenge the Canadian Navy or Air Force in Canadian territorial waters or airspace doesn't mean that will be the case on 15th August 2007.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: STONEY on August 15, 2007, 15:55:57
1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.

2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

3. You are really dreaming if you actually think any Arctic disputes would ever be decided by anything other than international tribunals.

4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required

5. Just what would Navy icebreakers do in the Arctic besides steaming around in circles boring their crews to death. The Coast Guard has many essential jobs it does in the Arctic , in fact usually more than it has ships for that just can't practially be done by the Navy.

6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.

7. Remember when the Navy had a ice breaker , HMCS Labrador it was fitted for but not with weapons and after a very short period the Navy realised it really didn't need it and gave it to the Coast guard who used it for a further 30 odd years. You may want a Navy icebreaker but i doubt very much the Navy agrees with you. Now the Coast Guard is a different story , they would really like to have some new Heavy Icebreakers if the Government would give them the money to operate them. Canada's present largest icebreaker spends a great deal of time alongside because the Coast Guard doesn't have the funds to operate it as much as it would like. As a matter of fact the ship along with the only other large icebreaker is due to move to another region of the country because the government has sold its old operating base along with 2 other Coast Guard bases in the Maritimes.  So in a few years the Maritimes went from 5 large icebreakers to 0 and the rest of the fleet wasn't spared either. For the Gov. to pretend interest in the arctic again ( its happened before but fades after a couple years) it has a funny way of showing it.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 15, 2007, 16:18:37
Stoney: Exactly.  And as I have pointed out several times at various topics, CCG vessels do carry armed RCMP when necessary--now regularly on the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes--and presumably could act as a platform for CF personnel and their weapons (including mounting machine guns) if that was considered necessary.

The idea that our Navy, even if capable, would engage in a shoot-out with the Russians or Americans (or Danes) in the Arctic is simply silly.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 15, 2007, 17:01:17
I am glad your crystal ball is better then mine but to totally discount we won't be muscled out of the Arctic by the Russians or anyone else borders on stupidity. We need to prepare for the worse case scenario just in case the fit hits the shan. If we don't, we up the chance we lose people. Who knows in the future who will also decide they want a claim in the resources of the Arctic, you just cannot dismiss the possibility so cavalierly.

As for only small armed equipped ships in the Arctic, last I checked the Thetis class carried a 76mm.

One of the Zoomies will verify this but I think the CP140s lost their capability for fire missiles a long time ago...
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on August 15, 2007, 18:35:08
Stoney and Mark:

The Danes are armed with guns so as to "out-gun" trawlers from Spain, Portugal, Iceland, the US, Russia, Norway and Canada. 

Their sailors get "bored silly" cruising in circles defending Denmark's right to lay claim to Lomontsov Ridge and Hans Island, just as their soldiers get bored silly doing Sirius Patrols of the Coast of Greenland.  They do it because they can and it works when laying claim in court.  (It'll be a heck of a thing if the Danes prove that the Lomontsov Ridge CONNECTS Greenland to Russia.  Will Denmark lay claim to Russia?)

Most sovereignty patrols are boring - as are most night-watchman's jobs.  That doesn't mean they don't have to be done.

Cruising in circles to support fisheries and anti-smuggling operations in the Open Water EEZ or the High Seas is also boring.  They also need to be done.

I don't care if these vessels WERE bought to:

"...spend the bulk of there (sic) time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments."

Or that:

"They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters."

As you say:

"... given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened."

As I have said, the primary advantage of them is that they are "platforms/tin-cans/tupper-ware containers" with motors and flags manned by people who EXPECT to have to close on people shooting at them - and here I am talking about criminals and terrorists armed, potentially, with weapons that could include ATGMs or even SSMs. 

It seems reasonable that if this platform can supply 80% of Gordon O'Connor's "Canada First" Intent AND 80% of what the Navy wanted for an OPV that was both domestically effective and deployable AND would free up the CPFs for overseas deployments then it justifies itself as a useful buy.

You are right.  It is silly to envisage the Louis St-Laurent trading shots with the Healey.  It'd be worse than Fontenoy or Trafalgar - a 4 MPH approach speed and no room to manoeuvre. Just sit there and slug it out.  Tain't gonna hoppen.

Besides the Americans aren't bothered about meeting our Navy in the North.  They are bothered about NOT meeting our navy in the North and having the place open to the use of other, less friendly individuals.  And they have already demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq a willingness to "mow the neighbour's lawn" if the neighbour isn't taking care of it to their satisfaction.

BY ALL MEANS (sorry for the caps) buy new, heavier, unarmed breakers to maintain the CIVIL infrastructure up north - clearing industrial sites and navigable routes.  By all means they should have helicopter platforms and hotels on board.  And, by all means, make sure there is an RCMP/DFO det on board to enforce the laws.

However we all seem to be forgetting the "Reach Back Principle".  Properly applied it means the "night watchman" doesn't need to be armed.  He can reach back for assistance from an armed policeman on patrol in the area.  If the policeman can't get the job done he reaches back for an infantry platoon.  If that doesn't work time to call up a LAV Company, then an Armoured Battle Group, then Air Support, etc (mix and match to suit your tastes).

All of which supports your contention that the Breakers don't need to be armed.

It also supports the need for the NAVY to be able to operate in your vicinity.  If it can't patrol in your Area of Operations, if it can't deliver heavy weapons to your Area of Operations then, when you "reach back" there will be no one there to hand you the support you need.

As to the Navy not being able to operate in your Area of Operations I would suggest that you figure out how to help them get up to speed fast.

Their lack of experience is a result of both lack of appropriate kit and lack of interest.  Interest now seems to be there and kit seems to be coming.

And, once again, I hope that you get your heavy, unarmed, ice-breakers.  There's work for them. 

There is also work for the A/OPVs that is separate from your requirements.

Cheers.





Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 16, 2007, 00:09:19
I'm just wanted to address two key points you raised:

1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.

Which is why DND hires the senior people who do know the area like the back of their hands as trainers/advisors and you disseminate that knowledge

Capability does not need to be, and should not be stove-piped, nor ever used as an excuse not to re-allocate responsibilities.

2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

I think pre-emptively abandoning military dominance over an area we're supposedly laying sovereign claim to, only invites others to bully us in that region, which in turn heightens, not reduces the likelihood of future conflict.


Matthew.    :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 16:56:13
The Economist assesses Arctic realities (good map):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012
Quote
...
 For all the historic resonance of Russia's flag-planting foray, the current dash to the Arctic is not—or at any rate, not yet—a simple race to create “facts on the ground” which can then be consolidated, and if necessary defended, by military power. It has more to do with the establishment of legal arguments, which have to be shored up by scientific data.

All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.

Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.

As for the United States, it respects the convention in practice but has not ratified it, because some senators fear a loss of American sovereignty. The bodies created by the convention—the International Seabed Authority, and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—worry conservative American groups like the Heritage Foundation which fear global bureaucracies.

These objections may soon be overcome: the Bush administration, along with moderate Republican senators like Richard Lugar now want to sign up to the convention and start making America's case.

But between setting out a claim under the Law of the Sea and enjoying the fruits of ownership there is a long route to be trodden. An agency called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf decides on the merits of the case, but it has no powers of enforcement. A ruling may lead to counter-claims by other countries. In the end, bilateral talks may be needed; they can last for decades. There have been calls, over the years, for a more sensible way of dividing up the Arctic—but as the prizes look more tantalising, setting rules for the game will probably get even harder...

 Take the Northwest Passage, to which the newly proclaimed Canadian port of Nanisivik marks the eastern entrance. At the moment, this route through the Canadian archipelago is navigable at best for a brief summer spell. (Sovereignty over the passage is one of the Arctic's many unresolved issues: Canada claims it, but the United States says the waters are international  [as does just about everybody else].) In theory, a complete opening of the Northwest Passage can shave 2,500 miles off a journey from Europe to Asia. But Lawson Brigham of the United States Arctic Research Commission, based in Alaska, is not convinced the financial gains will be dramatic. “Has anybody done the economics?” the former coastguard captain asks. In fact, he and fellow researchers from the Arctic Council are doing some sums at the moment; they will complete their assessment of global warming's impact on shipping next year.

Despite the appearance of a free-for-all, governments and scientists still co-operate over the Arctic; often there is no choice. In the Danish expedition that set sail this week, the Swedish ice-breaker is being led northwards by a larger Russian one, the 50 Years of Victory. And, despite a Canadian-Danish tiff over tiny Hans Island, the Canadians will help the Danes by providing some data on the ridge...

Mark
Ottawa


Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on August 16, 2007, 17:28:44
The Economist assesses Arctic realities (good map):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012
Mark
Ottawa



And all as it should be....

That doesn't prevent us arming police officers in low crime areas.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 17:31:32
2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

I really don't think that Rusky submarine only had a flag onboard, cash strapped as they are I'm pretty sure they had torpedos.

4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required
The Aurora doesn't operate solely in the arctic, they are a Martime Patrol Aircraft, and being an ex sailor who's never visited the Arctic, I've worked with more than a few in my time.

6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.

What? and the CPF's and 280's dont spend a signifigant amount of time doing just that now.

I understand the CCG wants icebreakers at any cost but our sovereingty is being challanged for the first time since 1812, and I'm sorry no offence meant to the RCMP but a handful of pistols will do not good against a russion sub, even as a detterent. It's a grander version of why police carry pistols, not to shoot bad guys with, but to make bad guys think twice about shooting in the first place.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 17:38:39
ArtyNewbie: What about the Fenian Raids of 1866?
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3030166.html

Not to mention U-boats in the St. Lawrence during WW II.
http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-mob-gol-e.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Colin P on August 16, 2007, 17:42:11
The Navy and the Coast Guard are two very different beasts with different tasks, however the Navy is going to need some Arctic capability and the Coast Guard is going to need to become a lightly armed service in support and defense of Canada’s coastlines. The arming of the Coast Guard will always be secondary to it’s primary tasks which are: SAR, Nav-Aids, Icebreaking and ocean science support. The first step for the Coast Guard is to set up the larger ships to mount HMG’s and secure comm’s (I think this is already happening) so they can support/protect boarding parties. The boarding parties will need to be made up of other services for now. The guard is far more economical in crew size than the navy, a 1100 class Icebreaker (272’) has a crew of 26, they don’t have enough crew for a dedicated boarding party and they don’t have the funds to increase crew size. The arming of the ships with HMG’s will be fairly cheap and training can take place at sea during regular crew hours. Also the possible use of a remote weapon station using a 25mm gun is quite feasible and enables the gunner to be on the bridge under the Captain’s control. This is another issue to be dealt with, is that the Captains are Merchant Seaman and may not be up to ordering their crews to firing on another ship, the guard would be loath to replace an otherwise excellent captain because of this issue. The Guard will need to start training young officers now in basic use of armed force to build the expertise. The other option is to place a senior naval officer aboard with the responsibility to handle the armed portion of a action, acting in a similar authority role as a Ships Pilot. So the real issue about arming the Guard is not the technical side, but creating a cultural shift to build the skills and attitudes required without also effecting their primary responsibilities.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 17:52:55
Then there was the Alaska Boundary Dispute settled against Canada's claims in 1903.
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000107

Of course in 1812 there was no one "Canada" and in 1866 and 1903 we were not fully sovereign.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 17:57:38
I stand corrected

There were also some Japanese shootings (from a submarine I might add) on the west coast during WWII
http://www.pinetreeline.org/rds/detail/rds99-34.html

So there have been a few but this is the first time a Nation other than the US has attempted to claim Canadian Territory as thier own. If you boil it right down that would be like walking across the US Border at Seward and planting a Canadian Flag.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 18:06:41
ArtyNewbie: Nobody is claiming any territory that Canada says is ours.  Moreover other countries are not "claiming" the maritime passageways--they are simply saying they are international waters, not Canadian domestic waterways.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: old medic on August 16, 2007, 18:28:27
ArtyNewbie: Nobody is claiming any territory that Canada says is ours.  Moreover other countries are not "claiming" the maritime passageways--they are simply saying they are international waters, not Canadian domestic waterways.

Mark
Ottawa

I don't quite understand your claim that nobody is claiming territory. The CBC website
lists five claims against Canadian territory.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/boundary_disputes/

The Canadian Geographic Society lists six on their website.
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/mappingcanada/1999.asp

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: aesop081 on August 16, 2007, 18:33:18


4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic ,

We are already being used everywhere in the world, not just the arctic.  We can be armed with other things than torps as it is now, always have been.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 18:53:34
Old medic:  We're only talking about the Arctic.  I forgot about Hans Island.   I admit also that I forgot the Beufort Sea maritime boundary dispute with the US.  But that's it.  To reiterate nobody is claiming the NW Passage as theirs, they're just saying it isn't ours but rather international.  There are likely to be conflicting claims to the seabed but no formal claims have yet been made by any country.  Other than Hans there are no land claims against Canadian territory.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 19:04:16
What exactly do you call planting a national flag or representation thereof if not a land (seabed) claim?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Chris Pook on August 16, 2007, 19:52:50
The Fenians are an interesting case.

Non-State actors, they were civilians in uniform with military training and experience and the best modern military equipment available at the time.

Were they criminals, terrorists, religious fanatics or freedom fighters?  Given that they operated freely in the US, organizing and collecting donations, would Canada and Britain have been justified in attacking the US (the Fenians in Ireland were a threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and an armed insurgency)?

Would the Geneva Conventions, first approved in 1864, two years before the first of the Fenian Raids, have applied to this armed NGO?

The Fenians also had an on-again/off-again relation with Louis Riel but ultimately Riel organized arms against the Fenians.  Suppose that the two parties had managed to find common ground against the fledgling liberal democracy that Canada was?

1864-1875 was a fairly fraught period for Canada.  Not all of the interested parties were states.

History has a way of repeating itself with new casts of characters.




Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2007, 20:33:21
ArtyNewbie: The flag planting was not a legal claim, it was a demonstration. 
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/DA431318-92ED-493C-8797-9C2C38CD6344.html

Quote
They [Russians] had a go at this already in 2001, where they put a claim in to the commission that examines these claims, and they weren't able to supply enough information to support the claim. So it looks like right now they are trying to get more data to support a resubmission.

Once again from The Economist (the "claims" mentioned are not yet formal legal ones under the Law of the Sea Convention):

Quote
All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.

Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009 [emphasis added]. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.

At this point Canada does not say that any of the seabed is formally our "territory"--whereas all the land surface areas in the Arctic  that we say are part of Canada (Hans aside) are internationally recognized as such.

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 21:17:16
Symbologicaly planting or erecting a flag for the "motherland" signifying occupation of that patch of grass or seabed or whatever it may be. I agree it is a demonstration, a demonstration that had better say wake up Canada time to start paying attention to the north.
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 16, 2007, 21:49:39
I was no aware that Russian sub was even an SSN or SSK I was under the impression it was a research sub so why would it have been armed in the first place...?
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: aesop081 on August 16, 2007, 21:54:13
I was no aware that Russian sub was even an SSN or SSK

It wasnt.....
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 22:43:15
MY bad I was reading 2 articles at the same time ignore the armed sub
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 16, 2007, 22:45:27
MY bad I was reading 2 articles at the same time ignore the armed sub

Attention to detail will kill you every time.....
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 16, 2007, 22:46:54
indeed thanks for pointing it out
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: 3rd Herd on August 16, 2007, 23:03:10
I stand corrected

There were also some Japanese shootings (from a submarine I might add) on the west coast during WWII
http://www.pinetreeline.org/rds/detail/rds99-34.html


Sometimes a site search is better than an internet search:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,60381.msg562273.html#msg562273

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,62924.0.html
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on August 17, 2007, 13:31:19
Since we're on the subject... another Canada-US conflict of the past...

The San Juan island 'Pig War' of 1859
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War)

Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: 3rd Herd on August 17, 2007, 13:40:48
Since we're on the subject... another Canada-US conflict of the past...

The San Juan island 'Pig War' of 1859
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War)


Covered in the question of the hour.
I hate wiki!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
Post by: Greymatters on August 17, 2007, 14:03:30
Covered in the question of the hour.  I hate wiki!!!!!!!!! 

Unfortunately, the way Google is designed keeps it at the top of the search results... but agree it is not the best source to quote...
Title: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Blue on July 03, 2008, 09:55:38
Well I looked last week and sure enough we have a project web site for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship.  I Glanced through the draft SOR and was surprised to see we are going to make it a noncombatant.  It would seem so much more useful to make a patrol boat with some teeth.  A 20mm - 40mm for warning/disabling shots is a pathetic gesture.  Along with that 14 - 20 knots.  I know moving through Ice is a slow time evolution but what about fisheries? 

I was also very surprise to see how quickly we have gone from the government announcement of the program to its present state. 

Anyways just thought you may be interested.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp)

NB

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on July 03, 2008, 10:02:21
I am not navy, but I can read and it would appear that you will be receiving an vessel capable of some command and control functions plus the capacity to at least scare the pants off someone who is trespassing.
Project M1216 will deliver to the Canadian Forces, six to eight fully supported Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships capable of:

conducting armed sea-borne surveillance of Canada's waters, including the Arctic;
providing government situational awareness of activities and events in these regions; and
cooperating with other elements of the Canadian Forces and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, when and where necessary.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 03, 2008, 10:14:02
Well I looked last week and sure enough we have a project web site for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship.  I Glanced through the draft SOR and was surprised to see we are going to make it a noncombatant.  It would seem so much more useful to make a patrol boat with some teeth.  A 20mm - 40mm for warning/disabling shots is a pathetic gesture.  Along with that 14 - 20 knots.  I know moving through Ice is a slow time evolution but what about fisheries? 

I was also very surprise to see how quickly we have gone from the government announcement of the program to its present state. 

Anyways just thought you may be interested.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp)

NB

 :cdn:

See sub-para i here (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/capability_e.asp); it says, in the list of Proposed Ship Capabilities: "gun armament".
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 10:30:11
Well considering a good percentage of  OPVs generally have 20-40mm guns I am not sure why its considered a pathetic gesture. Had we gun with 57mm or 76mm we would have to place a fire control radar onboard. I guess this means no NESOPs will be posted north. :P
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 03, 2008, 10:49:14
According to Annex A of the Statement of operational requirement there will be 1 NESOP sailing on her.

I did notice that they will be capable of carrying a smaller helo (limited support for the Cyclone), so I guess we are either going to lease or buy smaller helicopters for this thing.

If we can manage to get 8 of these I will be impressed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Blue on July 03, 2008, 10:49:47
From reading the SOR it seems like an ice capable MCDV with a flight deck.  There is nothing scary or deterring about an MCDV.  For the trouble it will cause us to man it they should paint it Red and white and hand it over to the Coast Guard now.  Beggars can't be choosers but wouldn't you like something that has teeth?  Modern missiles, sensors and CWIS?

 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 10:57:22
Definitely would prefer something with teeth, personally I don't think we need to fit missiles on it but I suppose they could be fitted for. 57mm and CIWS/RAM with 4-6 .50s would get the message across.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 11:01:20
According to Annex A of the Statement of operational requirement there will be 1 NESOP sailing on her.

I did notice that they will be capable of carrying a smaller helo (limited support for the Cyclone), so I guess we are either going to lease or buy smaller helicopters for this thing.

If we can manage to get 8 of these I will be impressed.

Bet they would be MBB 105s the CCG uses.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 03, 2008, 11:07:31
Most likely, at least that is what the presentation I found on the Din indicated.

I found this interesting "The AOPS core crew may be comprised of a mix of Regular Force, Primary Reserve and
potentially civilians in designated technician positions"    What kind of technician positions would be manned by civilians?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 11:09:25
Air crew for the MBB105s?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on July 03, 2008, 11:11:44
Question: won't the absense of a haul-down winch seriously limit helicopter operations, particularly for S&R efforts.  Deck landings limited to force 3 doesn't seem like a great capability
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 12:40:53
CCG ships seem to do well without it for their helicopters. Most likely if they are patrolling the Atlantic or Pacific they probably will not have an air det.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Blue on July 03, 2008, 14:28:12
This is what I was looking for earlier.

4.2.2 As it is not expected to engage enemy combatants, AOPS shall not:
4.2.2.1 possess anti-submarine warfare capabilities, including Torpedo Defence;
4.2.2.2 possess anti-air warfare capabilities;
4.2.2.3 possess anti-ship warfare capabilities other than for constabulary purposes;
4.2.2.4 possess offensive or defensive Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological (CBNR)
capabilities;
4.2.2.5 possess organic Mine Counter Measure (MCM) capabilities;
4.2.2.6 be considered an amphibious platform; and
4.2.2.7 be considered a combatant.

Right there is everything a full capable warship should be.

4.2.3.5 be able to land, launch, house and re-fuel a CH 148 Cyclone

4.2.3.6 conduct CH 148 flight operations using “Aviation Night Vision Imaging System”
(ANVIS)60;
4.2.3.7 provide, within the limitations of para 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4, to the extent practicable,
support for limited CH 148 operations to include limited and emergency maintenance routines;
4.2.3.8 be able to land, launch and re-fuel a CH 149 Cormorant61

If they want to do this why not fit a bear trap?

As far any of the gear I keep harping about.  Make the ship a combatant and "fit the ship for but not with" That means you have room for an extra Sea container but if it required a rack of Harpoons/Sea Sparows could be mounted or give it a magazine capable of holding/firing torps but use it as storage.   Leave room on the mast for capable sensors and radars.  If it were the coast gaurd I wouldn't think its nessisary.  We're the Navy and we are here to do the messy stuff why not build these ships to be capable of it?  I think this non combatant thing is a way of cutting cost using more civilian spec gear and putting on blinders to what the Navy could use.  Capable hulls in the water are better than an ice capable tugboat.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Privateer on July 03, 2008, 14:44:14
40mm?  Maybe they'll decommission (hey, is it decommission or pay-off?  Just kidding!) a few MCDV's and transfer the Bofors...  :blotto:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 03, 2008, 16:37:31
25 mm Bushmasters would do the trick well if the Navy insist they stay with a small caliber auto cannon.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: DONT_PANIC on July 03, 2008, 22:35:12
40mm?  Maybe they'll decommission (hey, is it decommission or pay-off?  Just kidding!) a few MCDV's and transfer the Bofors...  :blotto:

They might not transfer the 40mm by paying off the MCDVs, but if the crew is going to be a mix of reg force and shads, where else will they find reservists to crew the a/opvs?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 03, 2008, 23:44:11
From reading the SOR it seems like an ice capable MCDV with a flight deck. There is nothing scary or deterring about an MCDV. For the trouble it will cause us to man it they should paint it Red and white and hand it over to the Coast Guard now. Beggars can't be choosers but wouldn't you like something that has teeth? Modern missiles, sensors and CWIS?

Agreed. As someone who will be coming on-line as MARS (hopefully) in the next few years, and considering my first ship might be one of these things, I DON'T like the notion it would be toothless.

One thing that particularly has me tweaked is that it would have no ASW capability. In this day where undersea sovereignty is on the line - and the potential for foreign subs in our waters is heightened -  our "war" ships need to be just that, ships capable of war. Not toothless poseurs.

Otherwise just paint it red and white and give it to the CGG.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on July 03, 2008, 23:52:01


One thing that particularly has me tweaked is that it would have no ASW capability.

Exactly what capability would you want a ship of that size to have when it comes to ASW ?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 04, 2008, 00:00:30
Exactly what capability would you want a ship of that size to have when it comes to ASW ?

Keeping in mind that I know very little about space requirements, personnel requirements, etc. (and as a civvie  ;)) I would want to see it have the capability to defend from, or if warranted, attack a belligerent submarine. At the very least, the capability to detect it, and have the proposed CH 148 (armed, of course) prosecute it.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2008, 00:58:45
Keeping in mind that I know very little about space requirements, personnel requirements, etc. (and as a civvie  ;)) I would want to see it have the capability to defend from, or if warranted, attack a belligerent submarine. At the very least, the capability to detect it, and have the proposed CH 148 (armed, of course) prosecute it.

I very higly doubt that these ships will have sufficient space for everything that is required for ASW. You (IMHO) will need passive & actve sonar, the necessary operator stations for the sonar equipment, extensive communications suite, radar ..........then add in torpedo launchers, sonobouys, weapons storage spaces for the torps ( for your "defend from" )

I do ASW from the air so i could be ROTL..........
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 04, 2008, 01:00:51
The vessels sit just fine with me, because I feel that the arctic isn't going to be ice free any time soon.  I know they are saying that it could be for a few months this summer, but I doubt it. 

Lets establish the military presence, the bases, and lets take it from there, small steps.  Who knows, global cooling could make a come back!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 04, 2008, 02:35:22
They might not transfer the 40mm by paying off the MCDVs

I can almost imagine the howls of joy by the Bosuns who won't have to do 3-hour pre/post fire maintenance, and the DeckOs who don't have to schedule CTWSC and INO Tech Certs!   ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 04, 2008, 09:53:46
Looks like they're trying to specify something like a Mk 44 mount. The old Boffin mounts from the MCDV's won't meet the spec.

Quote
SRD-728 The AOPS shall have a primary gun weapons system
that:
a.  has a calibre of between 20mm and 40mm,
b.  is stabilized,
c.  provides clear firing arcs over an arc of not less than
45 degrees abaft the beam on one side, through the
bow, to an arc of not less than 45 degrees abaft the
beam on the other side,
d.  has elevation limits not less than 10 degrees below
the horizontal and 80 degrees above the horizontal,
e.  has dual ammunition feed system that allows the
operator to select either of two types of ammunition
instantly,
f.  has selectable rates of fire,
g.  has the ability to display firing arcs and gun vector
line,
h.  is integrated with a laser range-finding system,
i.  is integrated with a single on-mount or off-mount all-
weather, day and night, electro-
optical fire control system for weapon target designation
in manual and automatic modes,
j.  requires no more than a single operator,
k.  receives surface target designation from the
navigation radar,
l.  supports automatic collection of video and other data,
and
The gun weapons system will be selected
or detailed requirements will be developed
by PMO AOPS during definition.
The electro-optical system could include
television, IR and thermal imaging
elements and should be capable of electro-
optic surveillance independant of the gun
system.
The location of the weapon system shall
take into account maintenance
requirements, weather effects on the
system and facilitate the load/un-load and
operational use.
A gun calibre of between 20mm and 40
mm is likely appropriate.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: STONEY on July 06, 2008, 16:40:05
ASW is not very practical on an ARCTIC patrol vessel.

Ships require Sonar to detect Subs. Sonar requires a sonar dome protruding below the hull of the ship to transmit/receive into the water. I'm afraid the ice would make short work of a sonar dome as it would be smashed in short order. Secondly ice itself is very noisey and a ship traveling thru ice is extremely noisey making listening to sound emitting from subs difficult to say the least. Acoustic homing A/S torpodoes also don't perform well if at all in ice infested waters. The vessel will have a towed side scan sonar which will give it some underwater picture when it is able to tow it in open water.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 06, 2008, 16:56:56
Quote
Question: won't the absense of a haul-down winch seriously limit helicopter operations, particularly for S&R efforts.  Deck landings limited to force 3 doesn't seem like a great capability

A haul-down system adds weight and complexity to the ship.  It also requires a pilot to operate it, which implies that you are assigning a Det to the ship.  If you are not putting a hangar on the ship, you are not assigning it a helicopter- period.  It would be unserviceable in short order being exposed to the elements.

Giving the AOPV a flight deck that will be Cyclone capable, however, is a good move.  Having a large flat surface on a the top part of a ship usually comes in handy and doesn't cost much.  Being able to land a helo on for short periods of time is useful, too.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: h3tacco on July 06, 2008, 18:23:38
If you are not putting a hangar on the ship, you are not assigning it a helicopter- period.  It would be unserviceable in short order being exposed to the elements.

Actually I think they intend to have a hangar in order to operate a CH148

Quote
SRD-740 The AOPS shall have a flight deck and hangar to
operate and shelter one CH-148 Cyclone helicopter.

The CH148 will bring a pretty robust ASW capability to the AOPS. As long as they have magazines for the torpedoes.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 06, 2008, 19:38:34
Quote
Actually I think they intend to have a hangar in order to operate a CH148

My mistake!

So they intend to traverse it how exactly without a RAST?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: h3tacco on July 06, 2008, 19:48:59
Not sure what they plan.

It also says on their website that they want 1 maintenance and one flight crew, which, is strange because the 1 flight crew would be a departure from our normal detachment concept. Not sure if they have talked to anyone at 12 Wing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 07, 2008, 10:20:40
They're also using a civilian-pattern Bell 212 for planning purposes and have a reference to CHC and civilian crews. Maybe they're planning to lease the helos.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: h3tacco on July 07, 2008, 13:33:22
Looks like I was wrong. SKT had it right in the first place.

Despite what the website says, a more up to date brief indicates the AOPs will most likely not have a hangar for the CH148.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 08, 2008, 00:21:35
I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.

Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: IN ARDUA NITOR on July 08, 2008, 22:50:48
And a massive range of 500NM... interesting, but unsuitable for anything beyond a training role for Canada
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 08, 2008, 23:08:45
I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.

Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat

And a massive range of 500NM... interesting, but unsuitable for anything beyond a training role for Canada

Why does it seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?

Edit: To clarify.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: sledge on July 08, 2008, 23:13:24
Personally I dislike people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, commenting on things they know very little about.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on July 09, 2008, 00:06:02
Personally I dislike people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, commenting on things they know very little about.

Got a specific beef ?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: sledge on July 09, 2008, 00:37:08
Yes I do actually. People who think small missile boats are a great idea for Canadian waters. As well, who plans a half-assed boat?



Why does it always seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?
I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.

Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 09, 2008, 01:05:06
Thats my bad, I quoted the wrong thing.

It was the 500 NM I was trying to get at. Just as a regular patrol, without prepostioned fuel, you would only be able to go out 250 NM. Thats not exactly a patrol ship. More a pleasure boat. With a gun or two.  ::)

As well, if some "tin pot" navy can get missle boats, why can't we? Isn't that why we have arms races, to get to the same level, or higher, of a belligerent's capability?

Edit: To add.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: sledge on July 09, 2008, 01:24:23
We have ships with missiles. Thats my point. We can't use bathtub toys to deliver them, we need big ships to get them there.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 09, 2008, 11:20:59
Quote
Why does it seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?

What half assed boats do we have now? Please show me the perfect ship. If you are referring to the MCDVs, yeah they have their issues but you know what, they did a stellar job for the Reserves for what they need to do. They also gave us a degree of mine warfare capability.

As for having missile boats i.e. IDF SAAR types, good luck in having them for the Atlantic and the Pacific. We need OPVs with a decent gun. When you start adding missiles for the Arctic you over complicate things.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 09, 2008, 13:16:48
MCDVs are great for MARS 4 training...shallow draft and manoeuvrability (thanks to Z-drives) makes it suitable for navigation training (and pissing off BC Ferries)  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Klinkaroo on July 09, 2008, 21:34:50
Why I think alot of people complain about the MCDVs is because they are often trying to use them as patrol boats but they we're designed as a Minesweeper. No need for a minesweeper to do 30 knots.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 09, 2008, 22:44:56
Mine countermeasures was one of its functions.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kingston/
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2008, 01:50:01
We have ships with missiles. Thats my point. We can't use bathtub toys to deliver them, we need big ships to get them there.

The Finnish boat shown was demonstrate a point that almost every other country feels that smaller vessels should be heavily armed. this particular boat is designed with Finlands short coastline and likely enemy in mind. Consider the effect that the Hezbollah had with their anti-ship missile hit on the IDF Corvette, it shows that this is a likely possibility to encounter, as much as I like guns on ships, having a missile armed vessel means it can have a wider area of effect and not required to close to closely with an adversary.

The MCDV are leaps and bounds ahead of their predecessors and I commend the people that made sure they were armed, clearly a 180 degree change in thinking and a beginning.

The "experts" in the world thought it was a great idea to remove all of the guns on their ships as they wouldn't be needed, funny how quickly they changed their minds when the poop hit the fan. I am a belt and braces type. Even if the vessels are equipped for but not always armed with missiles means the capacity will be available if needed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 10, 2008, 02:24:17
When you start adding missiles for the Arctic you over complicate things.
Even if the vessels are equipped for but not always armed with missiles means the capacity will be available if needed.

Would it be feasible to do that?

What half assed boats do we have now? Please show me the perfect ship.

Unfortunately, you're right, the perfect ship will never exist. But we can try to build the best possible. Settling for 2nd is never a good defence policy.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 10, 2008, 08:44:26
Cheeky...Sometimes you have to settle for 2nd when the alternative is nothing at all. We all want the best but come on the financial realities of military procurement will always raise its ugly head. if you sailed on a ship that was half assed can you tell me which one and why you feel it was half assed?

As for the first part of your post there are plenty of instances where ships are fitted for but do not carry a specific weapon system so it is definitely feasible.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 10, 2008, 09:34:44
What kind of missiles? And for what purpose?

As far as I know, we have 3 types of naval in service, and I'm not sure any of them make sense for a minor warship.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Blue on July 10, 2008, 13:03:31
As we have already talked about we are talking about a ship that is some where between a CPF and a MCDV.  Anything with a hanger and enough space for several Sea Cans will be medium to large.  Now I'm not sure but this could be about the size of a an effective Litoral Combat ship capable of operating in the our climate.  If you take into account the cooling required to operate in the Gulf or the Caribian we would have 6 - 8 very capable warships.  Why build 6 to 8 hulls and not try and account for all the possible tasks it could be given in at least the next 5 to 10 years.  We don't like Swiss army knife ships but an armed capable warship is a good tool.  These things are like the Quest with guns.

 :warstory:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 10, 2008, 13:51:01
I just want to throw this out there....

I was kicking it around the other night and I asked myself "Why not transfer the entire avionics/weapons/communications kit that's already functioning in the Iroquois-class directly into these new hulls?"  To me, the components are already paid for, integrated and should be able to be dropped as a modular solution directly into the new-builds (the only additional tie-in required being propulsion/steering/etc.).

The Svalbard has enough weight to carry the load at 6,100 tonnes vs 5,100 tonnes for the Iroquois.

In essence it provides an immediate armed (deterrent) solution by simply re-using components we already have....and as a bonus to making the vessel exponentially more capable, would require limited retraining for those who operate in the Command and Communications Rooms.....and on top of that if anyone says anything about "escalation" we can just say we're being efficient by re-using old kit.

In particular, if we kept the stripped components from the Huron, we could actually start a daisy-chain of production & retirement on a 1-for-1 basis with the Iroquois class crews being transferred to the new OPV's as they're constructed.

Anyone?



Matthew.  :salute:

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 10, 2008, 15:22:54
Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 10, 2008, 16:25:27
Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.

I don't know Ex.  You're in the services and I'm not, but this sounds a lot like a previous argument in which I was once told in response to my statement pre-Afghanistan deployment that we should be hardening all our vehicles as it was my belief the enemy would always try to target the weakest link in order to maximize casualties: [paraphrasing] "Well, we only need a light-skinned vehicles because of how we plan on deploying them....and besides the costs of uparmouring the supply train are huge both in terms of up-front costs, and then operating costs due to additional fuel consumption and maintenance." [/paraphrasing]

Bottom Line:  Based on history, I think it's prudent to always overbuild than underbuild any assets we procure....


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: sledge on July 10, 2008, 17:46:16
Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2008, 19:32:39
The Harpoon would be nice but may be to big for the smaller vessel, a anti-ship missile would be my choice, I suspect AD would less of an issue and might be addressed with some counter measures, maingun and Manpads if the likely need arose.

I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage. A naval ship of any type is a fighting ship, whether it fights defensively or offensively. Building a platform that not suitable armed to exert a robust presence in such a remote and contested area is a true waste of money. In the game we are playing presence is everything, having a ship that can exert it’s influence in it’s operating area will be key in the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 10, 2008, 20:54:34
Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.

What?  You have a real problem comprehending analogies don't you?

The point was that procuring based on a best case scenario of how you think something is going to be deployed can often leave you with equipment incapable of dealing with heightened threat environment.  As such, it's prudent to procure based on the higher threat environment from the outset, and if it ends up being overkill for 90% of its useful life then so be it.

I think the proverb goes "It's better to have and not need it, then need it and not have it."


Matthew. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 10, 2008, 21:14:17
It sounds good in theory, but try explaining that to the general public.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 10, 2008, 22:19:04
There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.

If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 10, 2008, 22:32:10
There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.

If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.

To your second point, I understand the argument and IF we were talking about buying all new systems (let's say new build SPY-1F with ESSM, etc) then I'd agree with you.  But we're not.  We're talking about taking an existing set of paid for systems and instead of throwing them out, we migrate them to new hulls.

To your first point, the Svalbard is actually larger, is it not?  Shorter in length yes, but it's wider with a deeper draft and more than 15% heavier.


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: N. McKay on July 10, 2008, 22:50:52
I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage.

I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the Estai) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: DONT_PANIC on July 10, 2008, 23:35:29
I think that the abilities of the crews of the a/ops need to be considered too.  Generally, it is sounding like reservists will make up a significant portion of the crew.  Systems need to be simple enough that they can be learned and understood over a relatively short period of time.  Taking the latest and greatest systems might only place a higher manning burden on the reg force, when simpler systems might allow greater access to the manpower of the reserves.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2008, 23:50:31
Here is my own personal catalog of options.... The fleet of the Royal Danish Navy (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/Naval_Lists/Periods/PresentNavy.htm).  Lots of interesting and innovative options, including arctic patrol vessels that operate landing craft and helicopters.  I love the "mothership" concept.

As to the Svalbard, check this link (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,38894.msg325773.html#msg325773) and the accompanying discussion.


Quote
The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.

The two helicopters that the Svalbard can operate are NH-90s.  The NH-90s are 9 tonne class helicopters.  Link (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/nh90/specs.html).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2008, 02:31:24
I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the Estai) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.

2 types spring to mind, escorted exploration ship with a stare down between the two naval ships, the one that brings the smallest punch loses the fight, regardless of no shots being fired.

The other would a Q ship run by terrorists or a rogue nation mostly likely equipped with a anti-ship missile and mines.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2008, 05:04:54
Presumably the Terr Q ship would not be operating with an accompanying Terr Aircraft Carrier.  Meanwhile the AOPS is operating under CF-18/CP-140 air cover. 

If the AOPS determines that they have encountered a suspicious or prosecutable contact it can always drop back and shadow until air support shows up.

As to foreign nations supplying air support for their surface effort - that would leave the US (everything in their inventory), the Russians (Tu-95 perhaps), maybe the Chinese (in the future), and possibly the Danes (operating out of Greenland).  We would would be well positioned against everybody except the Americans.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 11, 2008, 07:41:28
So we are giving the terrorists a navy now?? oh boy.....

Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance. When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 11, 2008, 10:43:17
Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance.

Dunno about spending time alongside. The ships usually just sail with the systems deadlined. Especially the TRUMPs...the spare parts budget was slashed in the early 90's, leading to a lack of spares. By the time the budgets were restored, the parts were no longer made. Coupled with failure predictions that were err..."excessively optimistic" it would be insane to reuse that gear on another class.

On top of that, the systems involved are so large that the ship would have to be redesigned around them, and a lot of parts would have to be remade to fit into even a redesigned ship. ie piping, waveguides etc

When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.

I agree. There's no requirement for all that gear on a glorified OPV.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HFXCrow on July 11, 2008, 11:02:08
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Flyvefisken_Class(1989).htm

ASUW=Harpoon

ASW= yes

MIO=76mm OTO Melara (we have training and parts)

AWW=ESSM/76mm (which we have parts for both ESSM/Gun)

Proven= yes

Capable OTHT Radar= yes

Multi-role= yes

This what type of ship Canada should be looking at.

Reserves manning this platform.......I don't think so
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 11, 2008, 11:42:01
Agree they are awesome little platforms, however could it handle conditions in the North? Is it ice capable? Their big downfall I think is they don't operate helo and I think any ship you send up there should have that option.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HFXCrow on July 11, 2008, 12:57:01
Helo= no...but a worthy consideration

Ice=reinforce the hull

If I were the CDS, I would create an:

Eastern Operating Base in the Arctic which a UAV (say a Pred B-ALIX) could fly and do long range surveillance. ELINT capability would be incorporated as well. This center could task the Flyvefisken class or whatever OPV we have as required within its AOR.

This Eastern Arctic OPS Center could have also have a Helo capability if needed (SAR Capable) and a Fast Air refuel cap.

HUMINT = Canadian Rangers or citizens

There would be one on the west coast as well (just so nobody feels left out)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 11, 2008, 13:25:23
There would be one on the west coast as well (just so nobody feels left out)

Typical comment from out east.

Why not make it a central arctic OPS center?   
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HFXCrow on July 11, 2008, 13:33:28
I knew I would get a bite on that comment.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cheeky_monkey on July 11, 2008, 13:34:36
Why not make it a central arctic OPS center?   

Was the deep water port not planned to be in Iqaluit?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 11, 2008, 13:41:00
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Flyvefisken_Class(1989).htm

ASUW=Harpoon

ASW= yes

MIO=76mm OTO Melara (we have training and parts)

AWW=ESSM/76mm (which we have parts for both ESSM/Gun)

Proven= yes

Capable OTHT Radar= yes

Multi-role= yes

This what type of ship Canada should be looking at.

Reserves manning this platform.......I don't think so

This type of outfitting makes much more sense given the investment in the hulls of the new OPV's.


Matthew. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 11, 2008, 14:25:26
This type of outfitting makes much more sense given the investment in the hulls of the new OPV's.


Matthew. 

And there is no more reusing of parts becoming worn out.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 11, 2008, 14:46:13
This type of outfitting makes much more sense given the investment in the hulls of the new OPV's. 

To most politicians, this is going to look like a frigate replacement. With a frigate replacement cost.  That may make frigate replacements later a lot harder.

Once you're looking at weapons above 40mm or missiles, the price goes up by a LOT due to the required command systems and directors. Modular fits for the weapons themselves don't reduce cost that much when the required accompanying electronics need to be a permanent fit. Thats one reason the Flyfisken class isn't being replaced by other similarly sized boats.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HFXCrow on July 11, 2008, 15:03:38
I was just using the Flyvefskin Class as it is a personal favourite of mine.

I like its multi-role use and the fact that almost every weapon on there is already in our OOB. (Harpoon/76mm/ESSM) The training is already established for these systems as well as the maintenance infrastructure That would be a selling point for sure.

Ex-Dragoon, made a valid comment about no helo. We don't have too many right now and I can tell you the Cyclone project is not progressing very fast. My reasoning for a continual UAV presence (Pred-B) for range and datalink.

Our biggest asset in the Arctic is the people who live there and there ability to communicate with my mythical Eastern Arctic Ops Center of anything of intelligence. Especially if the Northwest Passage opens up (Polluters, drug runners, VOI's, submarines). This line of communication must be established if it is not already.

If we did adopt the Flyvefisken Class, we would have to swap out the (Danish) Terma Scanter Rdr with our own (SG-150), so we could determine who is invading Hans Island.

Crow
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2008, 17:06:23
The potentiel for terrorist use of ships has been a major concern for some time, since approx 70 ships go missing a year from piracy, sinking, theft it's not difficult for them to aqquire one. If we had a patrol vessel operating in the arctic or on the fringes that was hit by a missile fired from such a ship, how long would it take for us to figure out what happened? The IDF took such a hit despite operating in a high threat environment with active intel.

With current state of our air force, I can imagine what their response time would be and could they track down and destry a ship which might be hidden by weather. Our aircraft our not normally equipped with bombs and I suspect we have little capacity currently ready to go to attack a moving obsurced target a long ways from any of our bases. Plus by the time we have determined where the attack came from and respond with the proper hardware, the target ship my be mixed in with other traffic and there is no way an attack would proceed without positive ID. Far fetched maybe, but so was flying airliners into buildings.

typing with a 2 week old in your arms and wiping spit up off the keyboard sucks!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 11, 2008, 21:07:54
The Israeli Navy is not exactly a paragon of competency.

I think something built to the AOPS spec would do pretty well vs a missile small enough to be easily mounted on a civilian ship.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2008, 22:18:29
The Israeli Navy is not exactly a paragon of competency.

I think something built to the AOPS spec would do pretty well vs a missile small enough to be easily mounted on a civilian ship.




I think they got their wakeup call.... :)

Merchants ships are genearlly bigger than most frigates, I suspect a missile system could be easily hidden, under a cargo hatch. Although I expect it would be a one way trip for them so they might not spend to much time on making it look nice.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 11, 2008, 22:21:52
SOR (D) 4.2.1.9 - note 21
Quote
21 It has been recognized that it may require a significant amount of power to push an AOPS, with an “icebreaking
bow”, through the water. Initial estimate is that AOPS, to have a maximum sustained speed of at least 20 kts,
would require approximately 16.5 megawatts. It would require approximately 11.0 megawatts to have a maximum
sustained speed of at least 18 kts.

Given that the Svalbard uses a 13 MW powerplant to push 6300 tonnes of water out of the way at 17 knots and create a hole in the water 103m x 19m x 6.5m, can we assume that with an anticipated power plant of 16.5 MW to achieve a speed of 20 knots that the AOPS is broadly of the same displacement as the Svalbard?  ie Approx 6300 tonnes?

The reason I ask is that there was some early speculation that this was only going to be a 1500 tonne vessel.

Also, given that these vessels seem to be picking up some of the slack on duties that the JSS was intended for - Dom Ops, Humanitarian Relief, Aid of the Civil Power,  does that take some of the heat off the JSS project?

Could 2 or 3 AOPS do as well in a Disaster Relief situation as a single JSS?   If these vessels are self supporting in the arctic do they need a JSS to work with them?  If the CPFs (and SCSC) aren't capable of, and aren't required to, work in the arctic do they need a JSS that can support them in a theater in which they can't operate?

Given all of that could that  make it easier to rewrite the JSS spec into something more immediately available from the market at a reasonable price?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 12, 2008, 04:08:20
It would make sense that any ship built for the Arctic is self sustaining. To give an example, we managed to slip by Pt Barrows heading south before the ice pack came ashore, had we been one hour later, then it would have meant a dash for the eastern Arctic to hopefully reach Halifax, then to the Panama canal and back to Victoria. You always need a large margin of error when operating up there.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 12, 2008, 11:43:23
SOR (D) 4.2.1.9 - note 21
Given that the Svalbard uses a 13 MW powerplant to push 6300 tonnes of water out of the way at 17 knots and create a hole in the water 103m x 19m x 6.5m, can we assume that with an anticipated power plant of 16.5 MW to achieve a speed of 20 knots that the AOPS is broadly of the same displacement as the Svalbard?  ie Approx 6300 tonnes?

No, the power required to achieve higher speeds goes up by the cube or something like that above the "natural" speed of the hull. The natural speed is defined by waterline length.

From what I've heard, the AOPS should be about 3000 tons.

Also, given that these vessels seem to be picking up some of the slack on duties that the JSS was intended for - Dom Ops, Humanitarian Relief, Aid of the Civil Power,  does that take some of the heat off the JSS project?

Could 2 or 3 AOPS do as well in a Disaster Relief situation as a single JSS?   If these vessels are self supporting in the arctic do they need a JSS to work with them?  If the CPFs (and SCSC) aren't capable of, and aren't required to, work in the arctic do they need a JSS that can support them in a theater in which they can't operate?

Given all of that could that  make it easier to rewrite the JSS spec into something more immediately available from the market at a reasonable price?

The JSS should have a lift equal to the entire displacement of the AOPS fleet combined. I don't think you can trade them off.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 12, 2008, 16:48:17
Thanks for the info on power:displacement drunknsubmrnr.

That would put her intermediate between these Danish Offshore Patrol Vessels  (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm) (1700 tonnes but with Flex stations (fitted for but not with weapons), a helo deck and an LCP dock) and the Svalbard, with similar lines but greater displacement.  More on the Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm)

I also think that the CF spec would benefit from replacing the RHIB spec with the LCP (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm) 10 soldiers or 4 stretchers, 200 nm at 40 knots.

As to "replacing" the JSS with the AOPS, I wasn't so much thinking of them taking up the lift role as relieving the JSS of the need to operate in the Arctic and handle DomOps up there.  Even at 22 knots it would take a long time to put a JSS in position to handle a Majaid situation while the AOPS with a helo deck, sparse accomodation and some medical services, in the area, could be used as a combination FARP and CCS in that case.  With a big enough flight deck it could bounce CH147/148/149 series helicopters forward to a disaster site and then shuttle casualties back to terrafirma and evacuation facilities.

Also, with the proposed LCU-10, Bv206/Bv210, OSV/ATV combination, along with its own LUH, then there is less need to move the JSS type assets North at all.  If one AOPS can transport and deliver a SovPat platoon, complete with Bv206s and OSVs, and act as a staging post for Helo support then I don't see much need beyond that for additional arctic capability.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 14, 2008, 14:04:29
The big problem I see with landing a SovPat platoon is finding the landing craft. The nearest match to SRD-496 appears to be an LCM-2, and they haven't been built since early WWII. The other ones available are either too small or too large, and they're all too slow.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-lcm2.html

If we have to design and build our own, the cost is going to go up significantly.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2008, 15:00:55
Why not one of the LCVPs that the AORs have?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 14, 2008, 15:11:58
The big problem I see with landing a SovPat platoon is finding the landing craft. The nearest match to SRD-496 appears to be an LCM-2, and they haven't been built since early WWII. The other ones available are either too small or too large, and they're all too slow.

http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-lcm2.html

If we have to design and build our own, the cost is going to go up significantly.



Why wouldn't you select an OTS hovercraft?

I think the Brits are using Griffon's (I don't know the model) so we could explore their experience and find out about their reliability.  They may have used them in arctic exercises at some point as well....not to mention, they may already have commercial versions operating in the arctic (or at least the Baltic/North Sea areas) that we could assess.


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 14, 2008, 15:57:21
http://www.eliteukforces.info/uksf-gear/lcvp/

Is this the same LCVP that we are currently embarking?

It seems to fit the 6 tonne requirement.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2008, 15:59:18
Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs, do you want to send equipment that would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate? Personnel will have enough to worry why make things harder for them?

Kirkhill:
page 17 for the type of LCVP we use. wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc33/exnh/paddock.doc
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 14, 2008, 16:54:20
Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs, do you want to send equipment that would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate? Personnel will have enough to worry why make things harder for them?

Kirkhill:
page 17 for the type of LCVP we use. wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc33/exnh/paddock.doc

It depends how much more capability they give me in the environment as opposed to the less maintenance intensive option.  If they can be used on open water, over broken ice or pack ice (and that happens to be superior to what we can do in an LCVP-type vehicle), then 'yes', I'd probably go for the maintenance pig.


Matthew.   
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 14, 2008, 17:10:31
They don't add any capability if they are down for repairs or sidelined for maintenance all the time....

Admittedly its been several years since I did any sort of Arctic training but from what I remember equipment that required less maintenance was more desired...of course things may have changed...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 14, 2008, 19:24:56
Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs, do you want to send equipment that would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate? Personnel will have enough to worry why make things harder for them?

Kirkhill:
page 17 for the type of LCVP we use. wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc33/exnh/paddock.doc
Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs= correct

would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate= Already been done, one of the SRN6 I worked on in the CCG spent most of it's life in the Arctic. ATL also used large Finnish hoverferries converted to hovercraft as well, they lacked directioal stabilty due to their bag design.


My personal favorite are these boats (giving people a chance to drive one these would help with recruiting!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYXBvCrzbHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPmVuXqENM&feature=related



Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 14, 2008, 20:13:27
http://www.eliteukforces.info/uksf-gear/lcvp/

Is this the same LCVP that we are currently embarking?

It seems to fit the 6 tonne requirement.

The requirement is for 10 tons, but 14 tons is preferred. That moves it into LCM/LCU territory. Both vessels are way too big to be operated from an AOPS.

Apparently they want to be able to land a Viking. We don't have any, but maybe they're thinking of buying them too.

D Contains all AOPS Technical Statement of
Requirements as of 14 April 2008
DELMS Contractor Notes BMT comments PMO AOPS comments
SRD-496 The AOPS shall have one landing craft that:
a.  complies with appropriate Classification Society or
equivalent standards,
b.  has a diesel powered propulsion system,
c.  can maintain a speed of at least 15 knots at full
power when fully loaded,
d.  has a range of at least 250 nautical miles at 15 knots
when fully loaded,
e.  has load carrying capability - in addition to fuel, crew
and crew effects - of not less than 10 tonnes (desirable
14 tonnes),
f.  can transport a land force or OGD contingent of up to
forty personnel with their personal weapons and
equipment,
g.  has a load carrying area sufficient in size and
configuration to accommodate one Carrier, Utility,
Articulated, Tracked, Amphibious, BV206,
h.  has the beaching capability and ramp suitable for
landing and recovering Carrier, Utility, Articulated,
Tracked, Amphibious, BV206,
i.  has a fully enclosed, weather tight, environmentally
controlled, “walk around” cabin/wheelhouse,
j.  has a portable canopy system sufficient to shelter the
whole load carrying area, and
k.  is fitted with one marine head with associated sanitary facilities and holding tanks. This requirement will be further developed
by PMO AOPS during definition.
For the purposes of this requirement, the
Carrier, Utility, Articulated, Tracked,
Amphibious, BV206 shall be assumed to
have the dimensions, weight and other
relevant characteristics of the BAE
Systems Hägglunds BvS 10 (essentially a
slightly larger and armored version of the
Bv206).
The DELMS Contractor to conduct a
market search for possible solutions.
The DELMS Contractor to identify the
Classification or equivalent standards:
applied to any off-the-shelf landing craft, or
that need to be mandated for a
new/modified landing craft.
The requirement is to carry 40 personnel or
vehicles/cargo, not both simultaneously.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 14, 2008, 21:46:42
You're right DSM.

I read that but ended up focusing on the 6 tonne Bv206 vice the 10 tonne Viking.

If anybody were asking, and they ain't, I would be building the Volume necessary to hold the LCM/LCU, and keep the Jetboats under cover.  As I understand it, (and poorly), it doesn't cost very much to wrap some steel around an empty space - as opposed to building Accomodation or a Combat space for example.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on July 15, 2008, 10:15:08
The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST.

Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 15, 2008, 19:51:42
The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST.

Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.

Actually the DEW line was built using LST's if I recall correctly. Landing craft have have become commercially non viable for a variety of reasons, including manning requirement, lack of flexibility. The ramp equipped barge has taken their place. We could use a notched barge with a pusher tug, which is generally faster than towing. But this could also limit flexibility for naval ops. A dedicated shallow draft LST could operate well up there, but they are pigs in a heavy sea. They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: DONT_PANIC on July 15, 2008, 22:19:45
They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.

There have often been troubles in finding enough shads for the MCDVs to sail.  I doubt that this would be a more popular option, once the novelty of not always being on an MCDV wears off.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 15, 2008, 22:23:36
How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 15, 2008, 23:22:59
How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?

That's what I mean, having small patrol vessels based in the Arctic and manned by people that live there, it would provide employment, build a corp of people used to the North and minimize using human assets from down south. It would take time to build it up, likely start one unit in the Western Arctic and one in the East, later maybe more units in Cambridge and Coppermine. They could work close with the Rangers.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 16, 2008, 10:05:54
Do we have enough people interested up there to crew 6-8 OPVs?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 16, 2008, 17:41:05
I doubt right away. I would start out with a couple of 40' patrol boats at each end. They are big enough to do overnight patrols, teach basic skills and be mainatined locally and can be hauled out and dry stored on land in the winter, this was how ATL handled it's fleet. As i understand it Invuik had a military base with up to 250 people on it. This would be a good place to start again. it will take time to build the skill sets and get people in long enough to get promoted.



Some light reading

http://www.usmm.org/msts/arctic.html

http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/Arctic.htm

http://www.mfa.is/media/Utgafa/Breaking_The_Ice_Conference_Report.pdf

http://www.akeryards.com/?page=580&xml=A/134984/PR/200802/1193541
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on July 19, 2008, 23:46:30
Enough people of Arctic ships?

Do we have enough people for 12 frigates, 3 destroyers and a couple of AOR's?

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 20, 2008, 02:54:26
I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 20, 2008, 04:01:51
I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.

Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 22, 2008, 18:32:46
Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.

I would also suspect the Kingston class would be slowly withdrawn from service to free up some personnel for the AOPs.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HalfmyLife on July 23, 2008, 01:07:22
I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Sailorwest on August 08, 2008, 14:30:59
I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.
The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?

The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: HalfmyLife on August 08, 2008, 15:20:08
The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?

The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.

Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Sailorwest on August 11, 2008, 12:33:15
Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though
Ack. The point is, I don't think you need to have a formalized midlife refit for MWS like the KIN. Although I agree that they are more sophisticated than the ships they replace, they don't need to go through a full refit to continue to operate in their current role, well past a 20 year life span.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Loch Sloy! on August 11, 2008, 12:59:49
Quote
Do we have enough people interested up there to crew 6-8 OPVs?

I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Sailorwest on August 11, 2008, 19:28:52
I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.

Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port.
Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 11, 2008, 20:01:26
I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.

which is why I propose that miltary in partnership with other agencies build small patrol vessesl that can be based, maintained and crewed out of the North. Nothing complex for now, basically creating a marine Ranger detachments. Vessels could be either:

http://www.titanboats.com/newboats.html

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sH-M_awQ7g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90

Vessels would be stored out of the water in a hanger in the winter, launching could be by Ramp or trailer. The benifit of this approach is that it lessens the need for southern personal, resources and increases the resources in the Arctic to support operations. Also funding could be tapped from other agencies for the employment of civilan staff to take care of the facilites. it would increase employment and strenghten the bond between the communities and the military.

Maybe I should start up a website promoting my idea, I could call it ARCTICCOMBATREFOMNOW.COM and promote the use of BV210 with 106mm RR on them and the Combat boat 90 of course I will have to come up with some name for them and ataack anyone who does not use it!  ;D

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 12, 2008, 00:25:45
Either I'm going a wee bit dottie, Loch Sloy, or you're ower early for Spring.

But back to the subject.  I have agreed with Colin on this one before, especially with respect to the CF acquiring CBH-90s or, as they are known in Danish service, LCPs (Landing Craft Personnel).

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

They launch the SAR version from a stern ramp (much like a trawler ramp) on their 1700 tonne OPVs.  Scroll down the last link to see a picture.

I think they would make a great addition to both the shore based Rangers as well as the boat inventory of larger vessels.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: gwp on August 15, 2008, 00:11:57
Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port.
Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.
There is a lot of "blue skying" going on here.  This document may help everyone.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2370
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 22, 2008, 19:41:23
Ack. The point is, I don't think you need to have a formalized midlife refit for MWS like the KIN. Although I agree that they are more sophisticated than the ships they replace, they don't need to go through a full refit to continue to operate in their current role, well past a 20 year life span.

The MCDV's were envisioned to have a lifespan of 25 years. The "midlife" they were talking about can be easily turned back on as was turned off. As it stands now one MCDV west coast and east coast is put into extended readiness for a year, with a TRP process up to 6 months. This includes a docking period to inspect the hull, tanks etc. As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars, and new diesel beds among other things.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 22, 2008, 19:44:35
Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on August 22, 2008, 19:49:41
As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars,

Type ?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 22, 2008, 20:00:52
Type ?

Any EWs know? :D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 22, 2008, 20:04:18
Type ?

Bridge Master from Sperry.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 22, 2008, 20:08:15
Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?

Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 22, 2008, 20:09:51
Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.

And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 22, 2008, 20:15:37
And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?

To a certain extent I guess. As it stands the ships are highly reliable due to the redundancy built into the plant.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 22, 2008, 20:21:24
Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2008, 20:27:48
New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on August 22, 2008, 20:38:00
New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?

The original SACM UD 23 diesel was originally a stationary power plant diesel. For it to operate on MCDV's they converted it to "marine use", however the diesel beds weren't heavy enough and we began to have cracking from the weight and vibrations.  The beds are in poor shape , so a hole will be cut in each engine space, the diesel removed , a new more heavier bed will be installed and the original diesel will be reinstalled.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2008, 20:41:04
Ah yes! let me guess they bought these engines as they were able to save some money instead of buying marine diesels........  ::)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on August 23, 2008, 17:46:14
Bridge Master from Sperry.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html

Finally!  The same radar displays as the rest of the fleet, who woulda thought?    :D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Jack Stratton on October 13, 2008, 16:55:32
While the discussion seems to have wondered off into the issues associated with the MCDV. I am wondering why such a minimal spec was developed for the AOPS. If we look at the latest in ice going naval architecture from Finland (Kvaerner) it should be possible using azipod design to develop a vessel capable of actual offshore patrol (adequate speed) while going forwards, and decent ice breaking while in reverse (ability to ride up on ice). On the down side we would have to design a whole new hull and all that so the cost would be relatively higher than a conventional design.

Canada has too much coast line to buy a naval asset not capable of blue water operation, by the same token we probably ought to be able to conduct naval operations in arctic areas where we claim sovereignty. The proposed AOPS seems to be not quite up to either task. AOPS is a great concept, but the specification reminds me of the army AVGP (cougar/grizzly/husky) purchase in the 70s, a vehicle platform that was in theory all things to everyone, but in reality was too small and too poorly armoured for any serious combat and when the army started getting into more actual fights new kit had to bought to get the job done.

Just a newbie to the forums doing some thinking out loud here.  :cdn:

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 13, 2008, 21:54:49
Where in all the literature regarding the the AOPs does it state they will not be capable of blue water operations? As for keeping the price down, we tend to trade off so we will be able to get them in the water sooner rather then later. Off topic, the JSS was a nightmare of a ship that did everything but ended up not getting built. If the AOPV can get the job done, then IMO thats what we need it to do.

WRT to the Cougar I believe that ones who have used in combat would tell you otherwise that it got the job done.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on October 13, 2008, 22:07:25
I'd just be happy to see them settle down on a plan, and order up some ships of ANY sort for the Navy.

Get cutting some steel!

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 13, 2008, 23:03:08
Well any sort of ships within reason NS. Careful you will have some of the forum members salivating at the thought of aircraft carriers or battleships.... ;)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Jack Stratton on October 13, 2008, 23:21:20
Where in all the literature regarding the the AOPs does it state they will not be capable of blue water operations? As for keeping the price down, we tend to trade off so we will be able to get them in the water sooner rather then later. Off topic, the JSS was a nightmare of a ship that did everything but ended up not getting built. If the AOPV can get the job done, then IMO thats what we need it to do.

My concern is that the specification for AOPS seems to produce a ship that will neither be really good in ice nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability and to top it off, the list of things AOPS is not allowed to be is very lengthy - using it in a fleet operation would be challenging. Do not get me wrong I think the Navy should have a ship that can operate in the NW Passage, but my interpretation of the design info out there is that AOPS will only be able to operate part of the year on the periphery of the ice. If the JSS spec was too broad, I think AOPS is going the otherway and not asking for enough.

If the choice is AOPS as currently envisioned or nothing then AOPS is the better choice - but could we do better without breaking the bank?

Like I said I'm new around here and I'm thinking outloud.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 13, 2008, 23:51:51
I still am not sure where you are getting that the AOPS will not be able to conduct its mission as envisioned by Ottawa. Everything I have seen seems to indicate it will be able to do what you fear it will lack.

Jack I am wondering if you read all the posts in this topic, in particular the ones that have illustrated what the AOPS will be able to do?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 14, 2008, 00:01:24
My concern is that the specification for AOPS seems to produce a ship that will neither be really good in ice nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability and to top it off, the list of things AOPS is not allowed to be is very lengthy - using it in a fleet operation would be challenging. Do not get me wrong I think the Navy should have a ship that can operate in the NW Passage, but my interpretation of the design info out there is that AOPS will only be able to operate part of the year on the periphery of the ice. If the JSS spec was too broad, I think AOPS is going the otherway and not asking for enough.

If the choice is AOPS as currently envisioned or nothing then AOPS is the better choice - but could we do better without breaking the bank?

Like I said I'm new around here and I'm thinking outloud.

The specs call for a 6500 nm range and 4 month at sea capability, I would call that pretty effective. When you said that using it in a fleet operation would be challenging, what do you base that on?
I also found it interesting that a ISSC maintenance support contract will be looking after the maintenance requirements of the ship.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Jack Stratton on October 14, 2008, 00:13:17
Could be I thought out loud too soon, the more digging I do on the Svalbard class that seems to the the most likley model for AOPS to be deveoped from the more it looks like a neat little ship.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 14, 2008, 00:21:44
Thats why its always best to read the entire thread before wading in....
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 14, 2008, 00:27:59
Reading the statement of requirements for the proposed platform, the ship will be quite nice to sail on. I wonder what will be the crew mix percentage of reg/res/civ after all is done?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 14, 2008, 00:30:02
Reading the statement of requirements for the proposed platform, the ship will be quite nice to sail on. I wonder what will be the crew mix percentage of reg/res/civ after all is done?

Volunteering for our eventual Arctic port? :D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 14, 2008, 00:37:18
Actually I would love to do a bit of sailing up north. I've already done a couple of OP NANOOK's and I found them a blast. I already sail half the year anyways and going from a MCDV to a AOPS won't be that much of a stretch. If the Arctic port ever gets built, I might even get ashore a bag a muskox or two ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Jack Stratton on October 14, 2008, 01:21:49
Will the MOMT (Musk Ox Management Technician) be a Reg, Res or Civ job?

By the way I freely admit to somehow missing the discussion on hull form in the middle of the posts. My error. Still getting another 2.5 knots out of an AOPS compared to the Svalbard is going to take some doing.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on October 14, 2008, 01:27:51
nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability

The EEZ only extends to 200nm......from what i have read in the specs, its not much of a stretch for the proposed ship.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Jack Stratton on October 14, 2008, 01:35:50
The EEZ only extends to 200nm......from what i have read in the specs, its not much of a stretch for the proposed ship.

Pray forget I mentioned it - no one else seems to think a max speed of 20 knots is a concern for EEZ patrolling and I am apparently out of my depth.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: aesop081 on October 14, 2008, 01:55:05
Pray forget I mentioned it - no one else seems to think a max speed of 20 knots is a concern for EEZ patrolling and I am apparently out of my depth.

20 Kts isnt much but most merchants in the EEZ travel at less than that. It may take additional time but the AOPS will catch up /outrun them. I could be out of my depth as well and i'm not an expert on boats but i do see the EEZ alot.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 14, 2008, 10:54:43
20 Kts isnt much but most merchants in the EEZ travel at less than that. It may take additional time but the AOPS will catch up /outrun them. I could be out of my depth as well and i'm not an expert on boats but i do see the EEZ alot.

No you have summed it up nicely. :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on October 14, 2008, 11:19:29
The EEZ is only 200 nm out at this point...It looks like we'll be asking for more up to 350 nm based on seabed topography. In any case, the EEZ may be shallow, but it's pretty freaking long. Just making it to the far end of the NW Passage is 3400 nm, and that's only patrolling a 40 nm wide strip to get there.

Also, the 20 knot spec is for only 5% (ie 6 days) of a patrols duration. It looks like the AOPS is intended to make long stern chases if they intend to spend 6 days on them.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 16, 2008, 23:23:20
Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone elses territorial waters in most cases.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Sailorwest on October 17, 2008, 11:29:54
Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone else's territorial waters in most cases.
At a certain point it comes down to what is territorial water and what might constitute innocent passage. Although the NW passage narrows to maybe 20 nm at only one point, generally it is wider than 50nm and maybe 100. Being that the islands form an archipelago, it is difficult to see these an an internal waterway that we would have the authority to prevent innocent passage. I would think that our only provision regarding boarding such a vessel would be from an angle of pollution prevention and environmental protection.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on October 17, 2008, 11:50:52
Quote
Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone elses territorial waters in most cases.

I think the motivation is stronger than that for commercial sailors.  Their insurance companies will jack their premiums if they are sailing through contested waters, even if the threat is just from pirates.  I THINK that just demanding right of inspection would NOT scare off commercial traffic, knowing that they would be dealing with Canadian Courts.  However if somebody showed up with a gunboat to contest our right to board their ships then you might see some impact on decision making.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 04, 2009, 15:29:23
For your perusal:

http://www.casr.ca/bg-icebreaker-aops-aker.htm
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 04, 2009, 20:40:35
Really interesting.

Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology (http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rina.org.uk%2Fiqs%2Fsid.00537940334448305906298%2Fwt.html)  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.

I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane. 

Neat stuff anyway.

6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on April 04, 2009, 22:28:00
What a great looking design....
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on April 04, 2009, 22:47:42
I'd like to see it get to the point of hulls being in the water....and hey, if it's such a great design, maybe we can sell some to other countries to pay for our costs!

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2009, 01:18:34
Really interesting.

Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology (http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rina.org.uk%2Fiqs%2Fsid.00537940334448305906298%2Fwt.html)  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.

I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane. 

Neat stuff anyway.

6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.

The Polar 8 was supposed to have a SRN6 Hovercraft slung on davits. Never trust a artist rendition or a concept model!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: karl28 on April 05, 2009, 19:49:52
NavyShooter

         I second that I am just a civy but I am excited about these ships . Will be great to finall get them in the water . Hopefully like you said we could export the design to tother countries
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on April 06, 2009, 00:00:11
Export?  Canada?  Not a chance, besides who would we export the Arctic Patrol vessel to?

We haven't been successful in exporting any of our naval designs.  I recall the CPF being shopped around, along with the MCDV design.

I would rather IMPORT a design from one of the Scandinavian countries.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Antoine on April 06, 2009, 04:55:33
I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?

I hope MP will wake up soon, we are a Nordic country with three coasts (one melting), we need the equipments to keep us in the run with our friendly neighbours. I know, we have other priorities, I hope they just planning something for the near future.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on April 06, 2009, 14:02:26
Unfortunately, Colin P is right.

The BV206 could be fitted, but if you look carefully at the most recent presentations, you'll notice it's no longer a design requirement and the landing craft is not big enough to carry it.  Design speed is now 17 knots.

I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?

Not really.  I'm fairly certain that a lot of the Russian ships are Scandinavian design (many by the same guys doing the AOPS hull form) and build, with the Russians providing the nuclear plant for powering.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on April 06, 2009, 14:08:21
BTW, the ship is not an Aker Arctic design as the CASR article implies; it is a Canadian design based on a Scandinavian reference with an AARC designed hull form.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on April 06, 2009, 14:24:45
Much more current info than the CASR page for those who are interested:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/aops-npea/march2009workinggroup-groupedetravailmars2009-eng.asp (http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/aops-npea/march2009workinggroup-groupedetravailmars2009-eng.asp)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navalgazer on April 06, 2009, 19:46:13
Judging by the attendees the gun will be BAE mk38 mod 2 or OTO Melara 25mm KBA. Yep, definitely a non-combat vessel.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 06, 2009, 20:32:14
I see there is some detailed ships layouts. Looks to be pretty straight forward, lots of space. Apparently it will have room for a pickup truck as well. All PM2 routines will be carried out by ISSC and by the looks of it, the fwd operating base will have spare parts storage and ISSC can fly in to do correctives.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 06, 2009, 20:44:43
I see in the documents this is one of the ships they are looking at:

http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/contentHandler.cfm?id=1561
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on April 06, 2009, 20:58:54
The Palmer is just referenced as an example of simplified hull construction techniques for icebreakers given that there is/was some question as to Canadian yards ability to build fully formed hulls.  It's not a design reference.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on April 06, 2009, 21:02:02
I think the requirement for the landing craft is now that it can hold the pick-up truck or a couple of ATVs.  Should still be quite versatile.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: mjohnston39 on April 10, 2009, 21:56:56
http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://www.rina.org.uk/iqs/sid.00537940334448305906298/wt.html

Pages 12-14 for proposed AOPS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 17, 2009, 17:00:40
A post at The Torch:

Arctic/Offshore patrol ships: More never never land
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-more-never.html

Quote
Guess what? The vessels' planned capabilities are being reduced and the project is being delayed--not enough money...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: karl28 on August 01, 2009, 19:08:58
    Why not just build these ships as a patrol ships alone and than build the armed Ice breakers as a independent project ? That way you get a good product that can do one job really well . Instead of getting one set of ships that can't do the job at all ,  or if they do the job  its done at substandard level because they are being asked to do to much at once .
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: CBH99 on August 01, 2009, 19:29:21
Damnit Karl, quit making sense...

Don't you know - constantly delaying vital projects at a time when we need them most is in our own best interest??  Can't you see that by letting political bickering get in the way of common sense decisions, we can spend substantially more money for the same product - and get it years after we need it??  And in the meantime, passing legislation to give more teeth to certain organizations/agencies is tough to do because every single thing the government tries to do - the opposition wants it changed and threatens an election over it??

Pfffttt.  Build the ships to the standard required to do the job effectively??  Silliest idea I've ever heard...   ;)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Bass ackwards on August 01, 2009, 20:20:11
I am admittedly out of my (shipping) lane here, but from what I've gathered in my reading of Navy threads is that the biggest problem of building two types of ships (patrol ships and armed icebreakers) is, apart from the cost, the simple fact that there aren't enough people to man all these various ships.
I'll gladly take correction on that point (although I do heartily agree with you karl).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: karl28 on August 01, 2009, 21:20:23
CBH99
          ( High Jack alert )
        Hey man I here you I work as a PSW in a Longterm carefacility here in Belleville we deal with the same problems  some things we have lots of  than with other stuff we never have enough .  Same poop different pile in regards to how government handles allocating funding 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 04, 2009, 14:08:42
The problem with two classes, as I understand it, is that the political will exists to fund arctic patrol vessels, but not offshore patrol vessels, whereas the Navy sees more of a need for OPVs.

From an end product perspective it makes the most sense to split the program and get 3 APVs and 3 or 4 OPVs, but practically, if they were to do that, there is a high risk of losing funding for the OPVs, which are the real desired capability.  So instead of 6 AOPS with a balance of ice and open water capabilites, the navy would get 3 APVs with few compromises made for open water.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 19, 2009, 00:17:09
Model tests are underway on the AOPS.  Maybe the first of the planned vessels to hit the water?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/17/mackay-yellowknife-reserve.html
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 23, 2009, 11:20:58
Can someone breakdown the delays in the project?  NDHQ?  Navy?  Government Cabinet?  PWGS?

Although not as bad as the Sea King replacement, I remain disappointed at how many projects appear to be bungled.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was done intentionally to keep "project managers" employed as we have more project managers than are required to efficiently run the projects we can finance.


Matthew.   ???
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 23, 2009, 20:17:35
Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.

The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.

The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different").

The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.

In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).   And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.

This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.

Cheers, Chris.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Thucydides on August 24, 2009, 08:22:07
Another hijack attempt here

While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.

The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in two weeks and built in one year. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.

To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.

If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 24, 2009, 13:25:57
The delay is one of the reasons I have advocated buying offshore for so long. Take for example the new Spanish Juan Carlos I class LHD. Designed in 2005, laid down and constructed between 05-08, launched in 2008 and they will be commissioned later on this year in 2009. Navantia makes quality warships we could learn a lesson or a couple of hundred from them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 24, 2009, 15:59:23
Another hijack attempt here

While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.

The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in two weeks and built in one year. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.

To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.

If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.


Behold the overnight success :

The Spitfire (http://www.spitfiresite.com/reference/variants-technology/2009/05/spitfire-variants-merlin-01.htm) " There were 24 marks of Spitfire, but also, as will be seen, many sub-variants within the marks. The entire Spitfire family may be divided by the generation of Rolls-Royce engines which powered the aircraft. Thus the first generation was powered by single-stage Merlins, from Merlin II to Merlin 50 and resulted in Spitfires Mks. I, II and V as the most prominent fighter variants. Two-stage Merlins (meaning the use of two-stage supercharger for increased altitude performance), from Merlin 61 to Merlin 70, provided the basis of mid-war development, Mks. VIII, IX and XVI being the most prolific versions of this family. Finally, the arrival of Rolls-Royce Griffon provided a basis for the final line of Spitfire development, exemplified by Mks. XII, XIV and their post-war derivatives. ...."


The Rolls-Royce Merlin (http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm):

Need Defined - 1932
Typed 1934
Models B through G tested prior to production as Merlin II ca 1937
Subsequent Models 1939 to 1947 ish: III, X, XII, XX, 45,46, 60, 61, 64, 66,67,76,85,100,130,140,500,600,700......And then there were the Griffon variants.



If you think that was unique check out the Mustangs, Liberators, Lancs and Hurricanes.  And it was not strictly an Air Force problem.   Check for number of Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer classes and their machinery suites.  Or check Shermans and Crusaders....


Projects weren't managed in WW2 so much as new kit was fielded as soon as it was available.  In all likelihood much of the kit would be destroyed before its owner complained about it wearing out.

Imagine the poor Erk, Stoker or REME fitter trying to figure out which piece of hardware he is trying to maintain today.

It took Supermarine Rolls Royce, a private company, 2 years just to get an engine from concept to prototype......
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 24, 2009, 17:50:15
Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on August 24, 2009, 21:21:23
Quote
During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands.

There weren't many "new" combat aircraft fielded by combatants during WWII. They just brought out more variants of what they were already building.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 24, 2009, 21:22:45
Although we are straying off topic....

Milnet.Ca Staff
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 24, 2009, 22:06:04
Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.

The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.

The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different").

The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.

In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).   And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.

This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.

Cheers, Chris.

I'm in project management as well (measured in millions as opposed to billions) and I write most RFP's in a couple of hours.  I'm not going to be silly enough to contend it's apples to apples, but a couple of hours to 3-years means that my process and theirs are completely different. 

If you look at this project from the outset, what would've happened if instead of doing what they did, they said:

We've secured from the taxpayers a budget of $1.5 billion for manufacturing costs.  25-year life cycle costs are not to exceed the capital cost.

Canada requires a minimum of 4 and maximum of 8 arctic patrol vessels.

Vessel Requirements (pulled out of my fanny):
Range:  X kms and X days at sea 
Ice:  Capable of traversing _____ ice.
Helicopter:  Ability to land, hanger and deploy ______ kg helicopter.
Landing Vessels:  Ability to deploy _______ vehicles into the following environments
Non-Crew Contingent:  Ability to carry minimum of 50 specialists
AAW Weapons:  Minimum of Heavy CIWS
ASuW Weapons: Minimum of training CIWS as needed
ASW Weapons: Suite recommended by supplier
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Canadian Content:
100% of Ships hulls must be fabricated in Canadian Shipyards
Minimum of 75% industrial offset

All competitors have 9-months to provide proposals.

All competitors will receive $X million if they provide a qualifying proposal.

From the competitors, a final 2 will be selected.

Information from all submissions will be reviewed by the naval board and an updated "preference list" will be issued within 60 days.

The final two have 90-days to update their submissions at which point a winning bidder will be selected.

Both finalists whether they won or not would again be compensated for their time and contribution.



Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 24, 2009, 23:57:24
So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Larkvall on August 25, 2009, 00:13:22
So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?

Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 25, 2009, 00:34:31
Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.

And they had to strip the entire army of Clansman radios and MILAN MRAAW etc etc just to make things work. A 'damn close run thing' indeed. Don't try this at home kids....
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 25, 2009, 01:12:37
I was commenting on the redesigns and alterations of the vessels used. Falklands, the good and the bad is a good 125+ page thread in itself and already done by better people than me at milphoto's
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 25, 2009, 01:20:47
Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?

The class is not meant to be a major surface combatant. Its sole purpose is establish a naval presence in the Arctic.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 26, 2009, 16:59:34
AOPS project management is progressing.  The cause of the delay is the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, a political plan, which sucked AOPS in but hopefully won't cause significant delays as it can parallel the development of the ship for a while.  We'll see.

As for the timeline, it works about like this:

1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
1 year:  What exactly do we want?
1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.


There is certainly opportunity for cutting that time down.  In my opinion it is during those first 2 1/2 years, but I disagree that going offshore will shorten that time at all since none of that time has to do with actually designing the ship.  You would save roughly 6 months by going offshore, while sacrificing all of the capabilities you wanted beyond what your base vessel happens to have.  Why not take 6 months more and modify a ship like Svalbard to do exactly what you want it to do?

As a side note, no building larger than a two car garage has ever been designed in a week.  It probably took a week for them to sign the build contract for the Empire State building.  While they might have doen the design before hand, that week doesn't really count as doing the design.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Larkvall on August 26, 2009, 17:30:24


1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
1 year:  What exactly do we want?
1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.



Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.

Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2009, 17:58:45
Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.

Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.

::) you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Larkvall on August 26, 2009, 18:43:56
::) you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.

 ::)  right because building schnoors back in the 1920's was such a piece of cake.

How about the Mercury program then. I am telling you we are moving backwards.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 26, 2009, 19:34:03
I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.

You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Larkvall on August 26, 2009, 20:58:03

  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.


Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.

Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.

Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2009, 22:10:10
....but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  .....

Amen Brother - especially at the design definition stage.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2009, 22:12:15
Why do
Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.

Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.

Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.

Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.

4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. ::)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 26, 2009, 22:13:08
I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.

You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.

Well said
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Larkvall on August 27, 2009, 01:45:56
Why do
Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.

4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. ::)

I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.

Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)

I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Sailorwest on August 27, 2009, 11:11:56
I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.

Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)

I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.
I am kind of surprised by the thought that a steel ship in 2010 should be operated in the arctic with wood to reinforce the hull and that it would actually make a difference in the ship coming in contact with significant pack ice. Although I agree ships operated there 300 years ago and they were made of wood, doesn't mean that it should be done that way today.  Also I would hazard a guess that any naval architect would tell you that the complexity of planning, desigining and constructing a fleet of ships to operate in the arctic is exponentially more challenging than building a simple wooden hulled schooner in the 20's.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 27, 2009, 11:30:48
One of Canada's CG Icebreakers had her hull ripped open on a growler, we are talking almost 3" thick steel. It was a near run thing and the ship was saved thanks to a large amount of concrete aboard meant for building beacons. However Larkvill is correct that beams were added to vessels to help prevent them from being crushed and vesselslike the St Roch had Ironwood added as sheathing to make the hull resitant to the ice, although she depend more on her hull shape than the material to protect her when trapped.
That being said our contracting, design and shipbuilding structure is broken. In the late 80's and 90's  I don't think a single CCG vessel was built that didn't have major flaws. The Point class was cancelled after a couple of hulls due to shoddy workmanship, the 41's almost suffered the same fate with the first vessel being rejected, the 500's were built with major stability issues that required 2 active systems and one passive to counter the problem. DFO's Sinclair was barely up to the task. The 47' self-righting lifeboats contract was given to a "shipyard" that had never actually built a boat before, luckily after a couple of boats were built the contract was pulled and given to a competent yard.
The cause of these problems can be pointed at the politicans, Departmental senior management, Public Works and at the ship building business.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 27, 2009, 15:10:58
The current policy under development is supposed to help solve the procurement problems Colin P mentions.  It is a bit ironic though that it could delay AOPS, when that is the sort of problem it is trying to solve.

4x4s might provide cheap, silly ice strengthening for ice infested waters.  There's a pretty big difference between bouncing off the occasional bergy bit without sinking while travelling at sailing ship speed and breaking 1 meter of ice.  Not to mention that 300 years ago, sailors who traveled into the arctic did so at extreme risk to their ships and their lives.

At any rate, I understand Larkvall's concerns about doing a bunch of studies without ever getting anywhere.  However, model testing is clear evidence that an advanced design exists.  Model testing is rarely done until the design is very mature as the hull form must be set before doing it and the hull form can't be set without a solid design.  Have some faith Larkvall.  I have a good feeling about this one.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on August 27, 2009, 15:39:58
Actually, while in the interest of full disclosure I must mention that I speak from a position of extreme bias, I think that the progression of the AOPS program, with its relatively limited complexity, will provide a sucessful spring off point for the rest of the fleet renewal plans.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 27, 2009, 15:47:15
I also agree that using the smaller vessels as a test case to resolve some of the structural problems in the ship acquisition program is a smart move. If the team can then immediately role into the next ship building program so much the better. In fact as one portion of the team finishes the preliminary components of this program, they can then begin to work on the next program, handing off their completed work to the next step, which hopefully would be ready. Having an experienced team with strong network spanning the government/industry to work with would reduce delays and costly errors
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Thucydides on August 29, 2009, 01:27:46
The procurement problem lies in:

1. No one ever seems to have a "Good Idea Cut Off Date", so the project flails about without any clear definitions.

2. Far too many extraneous factors are added to the mix. Regional development, etc. etc. add more layers of "management" to the project.

We are really seeing Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. We want to buy boats, ships, tanks, combat aircraft etc., while Bureaucrats see the projects as ways to stay employed and to increase their budgets and headcounts: DND vs Dilbert...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 29, 2009, 21:51:03
Yep. the good idea and the "multi-tasking ability" became the bane of the Coast Guard boats, talked to Robert Allan who designed the 500class, the Coast guard management forced them to add so much stuff to the vessel that was not required that it became top heavy. He did not have kind words for them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 23, 2010, 23:09:11
I am not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, I couldn't find it on a search.

It is a March 4, 2010 presentation  (http://www.akerarctic.fi/15.%20McGreer_Arctic%20Passion%20Seminar%202010.pdf) by the STX Canada Marine Principal Engineer at the Arctic Passion Seminar in Helsinki.

It seems to detail the latest thinking on the AOPS.

Most noteworthy is that the Project Implementation contract award is anticipated in 2011 with First of Class delivery in 2014.

The design seems to have been simplified and possibly lightened.  The displacement is now 5800 tonnes vice IIRC > 6500 tonnes.  The bow form now seems to be more of a conventional ice-capable bow rather than an open water bow, and most interestingly the Azipods seem to have been ditched (which would be in line with the change in bow form) for a more conventional twin-screw diesel-electric plant with fixed shafts.  Also there is no mention of Active Fin Stabilization.

Or perhaps this is old news to all concerned and I haven't been paying attention.


Cheers.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on May 03, 2010, 05:09:43
The design changes were made in early 2009.  I wouldn't read too much into the designer's interpretation of the government's schedule though.

The bow form didn't change below the water line (ie. it has been a balance between offshore and ice breaking right from the start) and the azipods are arguably better for the ice breaking role, but substantially more expensive.  Retractable fin stabilizers remain in the design.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 03, 2010, 09:24:16
Thanks for the corrections RC.

Much appreciated as always.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on May 06, 2010, 04:37:08
Np. 

Now, if only there was something more to say about the program than this...

I've been out of Canada for a while, is there any news on breaking the Canadian shipbuilding policy log jam?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2010, 19:36:04
Nothing heard.

Other than this.....WMG & Thales Teaming Agreement Signed Wednesday, April 14, 2010 (http://marinelink.com/News/Article/WMG-Thales-Teaming-Agreement-Signed/333940.aspx)

Quote
Washington Marine Group (WMG) announced the signing of a Teaming Agreement with Thales Canada forming a strategic alliance to provide the Government of Canada a single solution for the future build and in service support of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). The AOPS program is worth over $2b dollars, delivering six ice breaking patrol vessels to the Canadian Navy, as part of the Federal Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS). It will provide 700 to 800 skilled jobs to BC shipbuilders and 40 to 60 high technology jobs, in Ontario.


Not sure what that augurs, if anything.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Old Naval Guard on August 07, 2010, 15:39:24
Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? :salute: :cdn:Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on August 08, 2010, 12:01:23
So its a go then, That's great .
Not yet.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 08, 2010, 12:29:44
Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? :salute: :cdn:Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard

Lets wait until the steel is cut and they are being built before getting all riled up.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 11, 2010, 11:34:31
Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? :salute: :cdn:Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard

Sir, I just saw your post.  I'm afraid that I am in much the same boat (or perhaps ship as Old Gate Boat Driver might have it) as yourself.

I come here for enlightenment, to bounce information and ideas off of those who know more than I do.

I agree that the images do indeed look good, and it seems that there is continuing movement on the project but it seems to be too early to say that the project is a a go.

I would highly recommend the comments of RC as a useful guide on status, along with the many comments of othes like OGBD and Ex-Dragoon.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 17, 2010, 16:49:51
Bump:

Quote
The sole-sourcing of the F-35s is not the only dubious procurement decision made in recent years by the Conservatives. Contracts will soon be awarded for between six and eight Arctic patrol ships(some sources think because the ships must be made in Canada -- a more expensive option -- the Canadian Forces Maritime Command will only be able to afford five vessels).

Hardly anyone inside DND believes this is a good use of $4-to $6-billion, particularly in the Navy, which wants nothing to do with constabulary duties in the North. They worry that the cost of the offshore patrol vessels will eat into their budget for new destroyers and frigates and would prefer that the Canadian Coast Guard took over the job of patrolling the Arctic.

That would seem to be what the Jacks in the Canadian Navy would call "common dog" -- good sense. While the Coast Guard is civilian, and so cannot be armed, we are about to buy 65 $138-million fighter jets that can fly at 2,000 kilometres per hour and are bristling with more weaponry than a Klingon Bird of Prey.

That's more than enough muscle to exercise our sovereignty in the North. Surely an F-35 is much more useful than a Arctic slush-breaker when you're staring down the gun-sights of a Russian long-range bomber--an unlikely scenario but one that apparently keeps people awake in the Prime Minister's Office.



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Sole+sourcing+stupid+buzz+jets/3520110/story.html#ixzz0zofQKrSF


This came from John Ivison's National Post column on the F35 procurement.


IF his observarions are correct and IF there is a body of thought in the Navy that does not want these things then that may contribute to escalating prices, decreasing numbers and decreasing capabilities. 

It doesn't seem to be a totally insupportable conclusion.  The Navy is the inheritor of the Rainbow and Niobe, a couple of superannuated vessels too large in size and too small in number to be useful domestically but absolutely wonderful at showng the flag in time of peace, and demonstrating willingness in time of war....and welcomely received by our allies.  They also convinced a francophone PM's (Laurier) fellow citizens, Brit settlers, that he was on the right side of things - critical after the Boer War.  A useful contribution they make but they are not about guarding the frontiers.

Likewise the Army is not geared to domestic ops.  They originate in manning choke points along the globe spanning Imperial Red Route (Halifax, Quebec, Kingston and Esquimalt)... but that is to digress too far.

The Coast Guard, really isn't a Guard at all but rather more of a Garde.  They passively Watch rather than actively Guard.

On top of all that our government, the bureaucrats and our fellow citizens are not thrilled about bumping shoulders with members of the military on a professsional basis.  They much prefer to deal with civilians even if those civilians are armed.... like the Canadian Borders Services, Fisheries and Wildlife and the RCMP.


Which brings me to my solution.

I believe that 6-8 AOPS are a good thing.  I believe that the original Svalbard (with a large helo deck) is also a good thing at the original price and manning levels.

I propose to buy the 6-8 AOPS and turn them over to the RCMP Marine Service.

The RCMP has always been our domestic frontier force: Prairies, Chilcoots, Yukon, Arctic.
They are used to working in a civilian environment with civilian gear and lightly armed.
They don't expect to face down subs or missile carrying cruisers. 
They would probably consider a 25mm ROWS on the foredeck and a large helo-pad back aft as adequate support for dealing with wayward trawlers, hunters and passenger ships.

Besides, they have form in the arctic.  They supplied and supply isolated detachments in the north.  50 shipmates might even be too crowded for some of them.

And beside, the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage from West to East was not a Navy ship, nor even a Coast Guard ship.  It was the RCMP vessel St Roch.

Assign the entire St Roch class of AOPS to the RCMP and let them be responsible for carry CBSA and DFO and enforcing the law... and if they do turn up a marauding LPD well there is always the radio, that helodeck for the Army and an F35 out of Resolute.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 17, 2010, 17:18:48
Kirkhill: Mildly related (though I think the RCMP already has far too much to do to take on a major new mission--see:

Abolish the RCCP
http://unambig.com/abolish-the-rccp/ )

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 17, 2010, 17:19:26
Better yet a combined RCMP and CCG crew would probably work better then a combined Navy and CCG crew.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 17, 2010, 17:40:51
Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

And will continue to on the CCG's new Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0004254

Quote
...
4.2.4 Maritime Security Services

The Fleet supports the Government of Canada's maritime security priorities by providing platforms and maritime expertise to security and law enforcement agencies across the country. In particular, the CCG and RCMP have established the joint Marine Security Enforcement Teams (MSET) Program with armed on-water patrols on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, where the CCG manages, maintains, and operates the vessels while the RCMP provides law enforcement expertise and onboard personnel.

Four mid-shore patrol vessels are being built specifically for the MSET Program. During 2007-2008, CCG dedicated three vessels in support of the MSET program and next year's plan calls for the use of four CCG vessels in support of this program on an interim basis until the four new mid-shore patrol vessels are delivered. In winter, teams operate from icebreakers where and when required...

More on the new vessels:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117784/canada-begins-construction-of-new-patrol-vessels.html

Quote
...
Five of the mid-shore patrol vessels will be used primarily to support Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation and protection programs in the Maritimes, Quebec and Pacific Regions.

The other four vessels will be used in a joint program with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to enhance maritime security along the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system. Since this joint maritime security program was announced in Budget 2007, aging Coast Guard vessels have been performing duties on an interim basis. The new mid-shore patrol vessels will provide a permanent platform for the Coast Guard and RCMP Officers to do their work.

About the new vessels

These new mid-shore patrol vessels are a new type of vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard. Each vessel will support a crew of eight and up to six RCMP Officers or Fishery Officers. Each vessel will be approximately 43 metres in length, have a top speed of 25 knots and a range of 2000 nautical miles, and be able to stay at sea for two weeks without reprovisioning...

In other words faster than the A/OPS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/arcticoffshorepatrolshippmoaops-projetnavirevaisseaudepatrouilleenmerenarctiquebgpnpea-eng.asp

Other CCG vessels can act as platforms for armed RCMP personnel--or CF--as required, and if really necessary weapons can be mounted.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 17, 2010, 17:49:28
There we go.... It's not impossible to find common ground. ;D

I just choose to believe that my opinion on the F35 is better founded than yours.  :warstory:

Cheers, Chris.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on September 17, 2010, 19:17:45
Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm
That is because the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 pretty much prohibits military vessels on the Great Lakes (it allows for each country to station four vessels, each equipped with an 18-pound cannon).  Recently (post 9/11) Canada and the US have agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may have crew served weapons by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.  IIRC, they have agreed to limit this to < .50 cal.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 18, 2010, 14:31:10
I think a Harpoon kind of trumps a 18 pounder.

Quote
Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

I am already aware of that thanks...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 18, 2010, 17:01:59
Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism?  :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 18, 2010, 17:06:14
Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism?  :)

But it is much more then 18 lbs lol.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 05, 2010, 16:58:02
If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab18da1fd-82f5-4280-bb87-13cff78dd5ac

Quote
The Friesland, the third Ocean Going Patrol Vessel (OPV) of the Holland class, was launched this morning at Damen Shipyards in Galati, Romania. Further work will be done on the Friesland in a dock on the Danube, after which the patrol vessel will go to the Netherlands.

The other three OPVs are the Holland, Zeeland, and Groningen. Together with the Friesland, they are being built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in the Netherlands and Romania and will replace the M-frigates.

At the beginning of the week, a naval detachment was established to man the Zeeland. OPV crews will number 50 personnel.

With a displacement of 3,750 tons, a speed of 21.5 knots and a length of 108 meters, the OPV is designed to be a small, flexible patrol ship for missions such as counter-piracy, counter-narcotics and coast guard missions off the coast of the Netherlands and its Caribbean territories.

More from the builder:
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_holland-class-patrol-vessels.htm

Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damennaval.com%2Fdynamisch%2Fgenerator%2F59_OPV_PS_03_04_small_v261108.jpg&hash=f82a0772659d3c2d9ad7c7ed242ab885)

Plus:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 05, 2010, 18:21:50
If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
Mark
Ottawa

You do know that when we get the AOPS they will be used for more then the Arctic right?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 05, 2010, 18:45:39
Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 06, 2010, 13:52:30
Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa

More hulls do squat if we cannot man them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on November 06, 2010, 14:23:30
Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa

Quote
Thank goodness the Navy icebreakers may be sunk--now it only the Coast Guard can get new ones.

Military Current Affairs & News / Re: Military Budget predictions
on: April 20, 2006, 06:17:47

Well I can't fault you for consistency and tenacity Mark.

Passages  open or closed I want an armed government presence everywhere the  Canadian government claims jurisdiction.  If that is an armed Coast Guard with Mounties on board operating  on the Grand Banks, the Charlottes and Lancaster then fine. 

The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3,  that at least some of the Chinooks be fitted with the Air to Air refuelling probes( I believe that the probes can be added as needed) and that Canada retain the air to air, probe and drogue  refuelling capability currently supplied by its 5 C130 H tankers.

Together with the ability to ship a CH147 inside a C17 to any friendly air base te lilly pads of the Navy and the Coastguard would allaow the government to bounce an armed body of troops over great distances and intervene in remote locations.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 06, 2010, 15:33:16
Kirkhill: Your cpmpliment much appreciated ;).  You may be getting part of your wishes:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27961.msg983337.html#msg983337

Quote
Tories to consider arming Arctic-bound coast guard ships...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+consider+arming+Arctic+bound+coast+guard+ships/3707631/story.html#ixzz134n7GvxC

In which case why continue with the A/OPS that are neither fish nor cetacean?  And whose capabilities are being reduced in order to be affordable:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Now if only we could follow the Dutch example and ditch the requirement to build the damn ships in Canada--but politics will not allow any government to do that:

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 06, 2010, 17:10:33
Quote
The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3

I think you would need a ship much larger then 4000 tons to operate an aircraft like the Chinook in SS3. There is a reason why you only see tandem rotor helos based off of larger amphibs and I am betting the ability to recover and launch said aircraft is one of them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 07, 2010, 09:21:43
Fully concur with Ex-D.

First, there is a turbulence problem from superstructure: Single rotors simply correct twisting around their pivot point (right under the main rotor shaft) using the tail rotor. Tandems have to turn the whole body using differential power in the rotors, so lining up is more difficult and they can handle much less turbulence near the landing spot. That is why, you will notice that even on the larger phibs (LSD's, LPD's) that are not "flattops" they always use the after most landing spot.

Second, and for similar reasons, I do not believe (I have never seen one used) that you can operate a beartrap for tandems: The point were vertical force is applied on a single rotor is in vertical line with  the shaft. That is where the beartrap is attached for winching in. The two forces are in line and it creates no moment. I do not think such a single point exists on tandems - the point where the vertical force is concentrated (so to speak) would vary depending on the constant adjustments by the pilot. so we would create a moment while we winch the bird in and either bring it in nose first or tail first: not a good way.

This said, I have seen pictures of one of the old SAR Labrador's landed on the after deck (not a helo platform per se) of a large CCG cutter. But I'm pretty certain it was in sea state near zero and the coast guard was stopped in the water.   
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on November 07, 2010, 10:15:05
Operating from a remote location so can't find the appropriate links but:

I believe that Beedall had planning line drawings of the Type 45 (6000-7500 tonnes) showing a Chinook back aft athwartships.
Also seen, older model USN LPDs (tonnage unremembered - San Jacinto maybe?) embarking 2 Chinooks athwartships - and those had a conventional forward superstructure.
8000 tonne San Giorgios conduct helo ops to include Chinooks owned by Italy.

So suppose we stipulate that 4000 tonnes is too small and SS3 is too high.  What would be the minimum tonnage necessary to operate in SS1-2?
What would be the maximum SS that could support Chinook ops from a 6000 tonne vessel (AOPS, Svalbard, Absalon, Daring, Type 26, San Giorgio, CSC??).
Would there be value to the Canadian Government in having vessels that, even if they had to run for a lea or find harbour, could rapidly embark troops over long ranges?

Even if all things are not possible in all situations surely the option of maintaining a possibility in some situations has value?

If nothing else a larger vessel and a larger flight deck would seem to be likely to increase stability, safety and endurance and enhance helo ops of the smaller CH-148 (not to
mention the CH-146).

In my view the Navy's principal role is to supply little Canadian islands that the government can move around the world to project Canada into the rest of the world's
affairs and thus secure Canada's interests.  If we can't afford a dozen nuclear carriers and amphibs carrying brigades, can't we find a way to support a couple of dozen
islands from which we can bounce platoons and companies?  Maybe not in all sea states and all the time but enough to increase the options available.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 07, 2010, 10:46:24
Whoa whoa whoa.

Ok- helos and ships- my lane.

Ship superstructures do create turbulence issues that helicopters do have to contend with.  For the most part, it is manageable.  I admire your posts Oldgateboatdriver, but in this case, you have it exactly backwards. Helicopters with tail rotors generally have to hover and land nearly into wind, because at some point all of them become tail rotor limited- that is to say that eventually, the force exerted by the tail rotor cannot overcome the torque from the main rotor and the force exerted from the relative wind. Something has to give, so the helicopter will weathercock into the wind (which may not be what you want to happen at that moment). 

Tandem rotor helicopters, on the other hand, do not have relative wind issues.  Their main rotor blades cancel each other out from a torque perspective, because they turn in opposite directions.  A Chinook can hover in nearly any relative wind conditions (I'm sure Good to Golf will be along any second to correct me).

As for twin rotor helicopters and their supposed incompatibilty with hauldown systems- you got me.  To my knowledge, it has never been tried because no one has seriously proposed putting anything bigger than a Merlin on a small ship (where you need a HDS).  I know that in a Sea King, the Main Probe is located near the centre of gravity of the helicopter (it is probably not exact because the CG of changes somewhat over the course of a flight), so the force exerted by the HDS does go mainly through the axis created by the mast.  You might have a compelling theory about tandem rotor helos...I wonder if Baz or H3 Tacco are able to weigh in on this?

A ship's tonnage is usually a good indicator of it's ability to have enough stability to operate a large helo safely, but it is not the whole story.  For instance, a Canadian Frigate is not that far away in displacement from a Canadian Destroyer, yet due to the top-heaviness and hull form of the DDH, it is usually much harder to recover on a DHH than a FFH- the FFH tends to have a stable period that is longer and more frequent than a DDH.   Remember also- the larger the helo, the stronger the flight deck must be. That takes steel and steel adds to ship's displacement (and may create stability issues, if you are not careful about it), which is why small ships tend to carry small helos (Shipbuilding is all about tradeoffs).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 09, 2010, 12:40:14
Thanks for the clarification SKT.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 09, 2010, 15:59:54
I did see a Sea Knight do a pintle landing on Preserver.  She took up a huge amount of territory.  You would need one hell of a flight deck to have these birds fly off of.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 09, 2010, 16:29:16
If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab18da1fd-82f5-4280-bb87-13cff78dd5ac

More from the builder:
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_holland-class-patrol-vessels.htm

Plus:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

Mark
Ottawa

Those aren't OPV's.  They are a poor man's frigate.

There has always been merit to dividing the class into an APV and OPV, but the OPV would be somewhere in the 85-90m and 1800 T displacement range.   Ship's the size of the holland class arent really going to add much to the OPV mission profile.

Plus their cost is about CAD$170 million.  Considering that the hulls are built in Romania, that puts them at a substantially higher relative cost than the AOPS, and about 3 times the price of a decent 85m OPV.

If the Canadian Navy needs overpriced, undergunned, pretend-frigates, then those will be useful.  But I'm betting they don't.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 09, 2010, 17:04:00

Now if only we could follow the Dutch example and ditch the requirement to build the damn ships in Canada--but politics will not allow any government to do that:

I'm tempted to go into an extended rant about the dangers of commenting on something you know nothing about, but instead I'll do my best to explain.

Romanian shipyards are effectively an assembly line for yards in other European nations.  They do the steel work, which is the grunt work in shipbuilding and has low added value.  The hulls are then towed to the other European yards and outfitted.  This works well because everyone makes money and they manage to produce a competitive ship, while the other European yards maintain their strategic advantage in the important outfitting aspects. 

Naturally, since Romania is on the other side of the planet, and the shipping costs would probably be about equal to the labour savings, it probably doesn't make sense for a Canadian yard to consider this arrangement.  Simple geography dictates that we cannot do the same thing and there isn't really a viable North American alternative.

Now, you are correct that it will be more expensive to build the ships in Canada rather than to farm them out to Europe, but, minus the Romanian advantage, that really only holds true for the first few ships.  European yards have a lower labour cost per ton simply because they have some more experience.  If Canadian yards gain that experience and are able to build on it, they will be able to produce ships for Canada at a the same or lower cost than Europeans. 

So why pay the start up costs? 

The main advantage is a strategic one.  We are talking about building Naval ships.  If we go to war, do we really want to be handcuffed by the interests of another sovereign nation in order to supplement our fighting capability, or do we want to be able to maintain our independence? 

The second advantage is economic.  Obviously, importing ships means a negative against Canada's GDP.  Kind of a dumb thing for the government to do when they can keep the money circulating within the country.  I'm not sure what factor you'd have to put on the price of an imported ship to reach equivalence, but I can guarantee it's significant.

The third reason, as you've noted, is political.  Jobs in Canada for Canadians.  Makes sense that the GOC would promote that.  It's not, as you seem to suggest, the result of weak political will.

The fourth reason is the infamous industrial regional benefits (IRBs).  Shipbuilding spawns a whole support network of other companies, which, while the shipyard might go out of business, can remain globally competitive.  I have worked with dozens of people who got their start on the CPF program and are still working successfully in Canada in the industry today.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 09, 2010, 17:57:42
RC: What about the Aussie approach?  Are they, er, out to lunch?

Spanish armada for warship contracts
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/spanish-armada-for-warship-contracts/story-e6frg6nf-1111113785412

Quote
...
Mr Howard said about a quarter of the construction work on the landing ships [sort of big honking] would take place in Australia, generating about 600 jobs...

Mr Howard said the Navantia destroyers had been selected as the "next generation air warfare destroyer" for the Royal Australian Navy.

The three Spanish-designed ships would be delivered in 2014, 2016, and 2017, he said...

The destroyers will be assembled in Adelaide by an alliance between navy shipbuilder ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation and mission systems company Raytheon, he said.

Australian industry will provide around 55 per cent of content and about 3000 Australians across the country will be employed...

I was referring to a general approach, not anything actually specific for Canada.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 10, 2010, 06:25:20
RC: What about the Aussie approach?  Are they, er, out to lunch?

Spanish armada for warship contracts
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/spanish-armada-for-warship-contracts/story-e6frg6nf-1111113785412

I was referring to a general approach, not anything actually specific for Canada.

Mark
Ottawa

Well, you'll notice that they are still doing the outfit work, or at the very least the systems integration in Australia.  Also, Australia has an established naval construction industry, which has built and as far as I know continues to build the ANZAC frigates and numerous other naval vessels.  The decision to built part of these destroyers in Spain may simply have been a schedule and/or capacity issue.  However, Australia has recently displayed some short-term gain, long-term loss style politicking in their national naval industry that in my opinion is indeed out to lunch.

As a counter, look at the Brazilian approach to their NPa and frigate program.  They currently have no naval construction industry (though they have a burgeoning offshore construction industry).  They intend to buy offshore designs with full technology transfer and Brazilian construction.  They have a solid, long term vision of what naval capability will do for Brazil and intend to develop both the design and construction capability by pulling it in from the outside.

First of all though, we need to make a distinction between frigates/destroyers and the OPV type ships we are talking about in this thread.  In the context of the needs of most established navies they are not at all the same thing.

OPVs can be built in a commercial yard and designed to commercial standards.  One of the world leaders in the design of OPVs in this size range is a Canadian company.  It takes about 8 to 10 months to get a design and 3 years to build.  There are few barriers to designing and building this type of ship in Canada.  This applies equally to pretty much everything except combat vessels.  It will be a touch more expensive to build in Canada, but the benefits I mentioned earlier far outweigh the disadvantages.

On the other hand, frigates/destroyers are extremely complex, requiring dedicated, specialized, up to the minute knowledge.  To redevelop all of that knowledge in Canada could take years and a very large budget.  I think something along the lines of the Brazilian approach could work in this case, but it would have to be done right.  GOC buys the design, with full design and construction technology transfer to the yard, put the performance risk on the foreign yard, and build them in Canada.  Canada should never have been placed in a position that we need to be educated in how to supply our Navy, but the fact is that we are, and we need a comprehensive solution that brings us back into the position we should be in.

Simply shopping for vessels offshore will leave us with poorly adapted assets that we don't know how to support, can't replace ourselves if it comes to that, and bring no value for the money back to Canada.  It's the sort of solution employed by third world countries who just can't afford any better.  It will be a sad day for me when we join that rank and we are looking up at Brazil as they establish their own support structure, or England, France, Australia, Germany, the US, China, and so on, who all have their own capability already.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 10, 2010, 09:03:28
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the national Post is a column about the politics of shipbuilding:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/don-martin-b-c-shipbuilder-fears-eastern-bias-in-35b-deal/
Quote
Don Martin: B.C. shipbuilder fears fix is in over $35B deal

Don Martin

November 9, 2010

Canada’s three largest shipbuilders are fighting for two contracts with a estimated value of $35-billion, or roughly four times the pricetag of the F-35 jet fighter contract that’s got everybody in a lather. But with one bidder in Quebec and another just down the road from Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s home harbour in Nova Scotia, the largest west coast shipbuilder is wondering if the political fix is in.

The federal government needs frigates, coast guard vessels, Arctic patrol ships, a huge polar icebreaker and supply ships, with maintenance contracts filling in the lag times between building contracts.

Federal officials are now scouting out the eligible shipyards. To the winners will go many years of stable government contracts. To the loser, a prolonged scramble to stay afloat.

Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, eyes the competition — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax and Davie Yards Inc. of Montreal — and wonders if he’ll be a victim of government meddling with business decisions for political purposes.

Whenever Quebec is in a crucial bidding process, the competition tends to get politically dicey. With Atlantic Canada in need of an economic boost, Halifax gets the empathetic edge. That leaves Vancouver as an early underdog at the cabinet table.

“Have we heard the rumours? Yes. Are we fearful that political answers could sway the opinion? I’ll also say yes,” admits Mr. Whitworth. “But we’re not worrying about other shipyards. We’re making sure the federal government knows what we’re doing and what we’ve done for over 50 years. If it’s an open, fair and transparent decision, we’ll have nothing to worry about.”

The clearest hint at the sensitivity of the issue was a privy council decree banning lobbyists from representing the bidding shipyards to politicians or bureaucrats. There’s to be no perception of key ministers being arm-twisted by old friends, even though plenty of background advice is now in circulation out of the lobbyist registrar’s sight.  If last week’s potash protectionism was a precedent, serious trouble is ahead for a government that continues to value its political payoff above all other considerations. It means Quebec City’s NHL hockey arena is all but guaranteed to receive federal funding to save a handful of vulnerable Conservative seats in the region, opening the vault to taxpayer handouts for all manner of professional sports venues. And it suggests the mother of all regional squabbles is in the offing as the federal government pits three electoral battlegrounds against each other in a fierce competition for its massive ship-buying spree.

What would infuriate the West, perhaps with the visceral intensity of reaction to Brian Mulroney shifting the CF-18 maintenance contract from Winnipeg to Montreal, would be to shun the West and sign the biggest contract with Montreal’s Davie Yards, a possibility considered likely in B.C., one senior MP confided to me this week.

Davie Yards has received almost $700-million in government loans or loan guarantees in the last two years, most of it from the Export Development Corp. of Canada. That is far greater than the  support given to its contract bidding rivals which, in Washington Marine’s case, amounts to zero.

Yet despite all the support at extremely favourable terms, Davie languishes in bankruptcy protection and is looking for buyers all around the world.

Davie communications vice president Marie-Christine St-Pierre declined comment on the company’s efforts to find a buyer beyond confirming interest from two potential investors she declined to name. But she insists the shipyard is ready and able to deliver any contracts it signs with the federal government.

The stakes go far beyond the health of an individual company. The  28 large ships proposed for construction over the next three decades would create two national shipyards and a sustainable economic base for the selected regions.

So far, nobody’s complaining about the preliminary selection process. Requests for proposals will roll out next spring and the contracts likely decided by the federal cabinet in the fall of 2011.

But if the selection process is anything but totally shipshape, western alienation will be back on deck.

National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com


Several years decades back I worked for a very senior officer who had considerable responsibility for, inter alia, building/buying and refitting ships. We despised MIL Davie for inept management, shoddy work and, above all, its  irresistible political connections. But, Davie was the preferred yard because we had to do anything and everything to appease Québec.


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 10, 2010, 12:14:18
I believe it to be a certainty that Irving in Halifax will take the combattant contract.  That leaves WMG and Davie fighting for the non-combattants.

I'd much prefer to see WMG win since, as the article suggests, they have been managing under their own steam for years without government handouts.  Plus, if WMG can demonstrate some capability in big commercial ships, they might get the BCFS market back and a chunk of the eventual arctic offshore market.  But I don't think it will happen.  I think they will give it to Davie and try to appease the West Coast by throwing some of the <1000T and repair contracts that way.

And I think Davie will continue to struggle.  What else have they got?  I don't think they have have much of a natural market.

On the other hand, Davie winning may depend on an external yard taking the gamble and buying them out.  If no one is willing to take the risk, we may finally see Davie put out of its misery. 

There was an accord signed between Davie and Irving about 6 months ago.  I assume that fell through when Davie went into bankruptcy protection.  Anyone know?  The ideal might be for Irving/Davie to team up for the combattant contract.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on November 10, 2010, 17:47:55

If I recall a lab did operate briefly off the back of one of the CCGS Darby on the west coast and I think the Terry Fox or similar on the East coast, this was out of either necessity for a SAR call or trials I can’t remember which.

When the CG let the contract for the 47’ lifeboats it went to the big Quebec yard (CIL or something), they sublet it to a bunch of numnuts in Kingston that had never actually built a proper boat before (direct words from the yard manager to me). They made a complete muck up of the boat, the contract was withdrawn and given to Nanaimo shipyards which had significant experience building aluminum boats. The first boat was rebuilt there as where the subsequent hulls. The same crap happened when the 70’ Point class was being built back East, planned acquisition was 9 hulls, I think only 2 were built and required complete re-welding and the rest of the contract cancelled. Yet the same thing happened also with the 41’ cutters, first one came from back east and was rejected completely as unfit for service, remaining hulls of the class were built by Matsumoto shipyard which did stunningly beautiful work.
Other poorly built boats from Back East
SP barge/landing crafts used by CCG
42’ fiberglass Oil response boats
40’ cutters/crashboats (Black Duck, etc) (Low quality welds throughout)

Other than the barges and oil response boats, all of the above were proven designs bought under license from Europe and the US that were mucked up by shoddy workmanship. I firmly believe this can be traced to the significant patronage given to the yards back East, which the west rarely received. That’s not to say the West Coast has not had a it’s share of issues, like the Weatherships, Class 500, but those were mainly design issues as opposed to poor building techniques.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on November 11, 2010, 02:16:30
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the national Post is a column about the politics of shipbuilding:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/don-martin-b-c-shipbuilder-fears-eastern-bias-in-35b-deal/

Several years decades back I worked for a very senior officer who had considerable responsibility for, inter alia, building/buying and refitting ships. We despised MIL Davie for inept management, shoddy work and, above all, its  irresistible political connections. But, Davie was the preferred yard because we had to do anything and everything to appease Québec.
Interesting opening shot in the PR campaign.  What Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, fails to mention is that they were awarded the $1.5 billion submarine maintenance contract - beating out Irving - and they had the Orca Patrol Craft construction contract as well.  WMG plays just as dirty as the other shipyards and hopefully the are fully rewarded for this interview.  Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on November 11, 2010, 17:29:10
I'd just like to see 'em get off the pot and start DOING something.

I've got 18 years in right now.  I am "looking forward to" having to learn a completely new combat suite on the Post FELEX ships.

I do not, based on current trends, anticipate ever having to learn how a new class of ship works before I leave the CF (be that at 25 or 30 years, we'll see.)

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: FSTO on November 12, 2010, 11:42:11
Interesting opening shot in the PR campaign.  What Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, fails to mention is that they were awarded the $1.5 billion submarine maintenance contract - beating out Irving - and they had the Orca Patrol Craft construction contract as well.  WMG plays just as dirty as the other shipyards and hopefully the are fully rewarded for this interview.  Just my  :2c:

The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 12, 2010, 11:56:15
The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.


I guess it's not betraying anything to say that 15 or so years ago we used to call the Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project (TRUMP) 'one no trump'* because the status of the ship in Davie was always suspect.


----------
* A bridge (http://www.ehow.com/how_2182920_bid-no-trump-bridge-hand-lesson-3.html) player's term, for those unacquainted with it.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 12, 2010, 12:26:04
Is the rumour about Davie burning out every Ops room on the TRUMPs true?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 12, 2010, 12:32:01
Way beyond my ken; I just remember former RAdm (then Mr.) Ed Healy and assorted other RAdms and Cmdres storming about "F___ing Davie." My concern, then, was radar fits and electromagnetic compatibility issues and the like.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cobbler on November 13, 2010, 05:23:54
Well, you'll notice that they are still doing the outfit work, or at the very least the systems integration in Australia.  Also, Australia has an established naval construction industry, which has built and as far as I know continues to build the ANZAC frigates and numerous other naval vessels.  The decision to built part of these destroyers in Spain may simply have been a schedule and/or capacity issue.  However, Australia has recently displayed some short-term gain, long-term loss style politicking in their national naval industry that in my opinion is indeed out to lunch.

The destroyers are being built entirely in Australia. Its the LHDs that are being built in Spain and fitted out in Australia. Due to the fact that no Australian shipyard has the capability to build 28,000 ton flat tops.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on November 13, 2010, 12:47:42
The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.
While they were on-time, the Orcas were a mess when delivered.  Corrosion and dissimilar metals issues IIRC.  Be that as it may, building cadet and navigation training boats to a proven design with no combat systems is a far cry from building complex warships and integrating combat systems from multiple suppliers.  Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on November 13, 2010, 13:02:12
Quick question - aside from repairs what work on major vessels (>4000 tonnes) have any of these three yards done in the last 10 years?  Civil or Military.

When was the last vessel built from the keel up by these yards? I suspect that you might want to have them build the AOPVs first with a planned buy of 8 vessels so that you can scrap the first 2 early as learning experiences and still leave you an operational fleet of 6.  CSCs to follow and JSS to run concurrently with the CSC delivery.

All of these yards seem likely to face really steep learning curves and your first vessels are equally likely to be "challenges" for their crews.

Edit: Actually - just thinking further on this issue it may be appropriate to follow the Dane's lead on the CSC and, despite the urgent need for the Air Defence Vessels, build the simplest vessels first and arguably the simplest vessel is a Command and Support Vessel which is ultimately a hull wrapped around an empty space with an inboard motor.  That vessel can be used to qualify the hull and machinery as well as the primary ships controls while still supplying a useful capability.  The Air Defence Vessels will be the most complex of the variant vessels produced over the next 30 years. They would be better built late in the cycle.  If they are needed immediately then perhaps they should be built off shore by a "practiced" yard and then plan for refits and extensions in Canadian yeards at 10 and 20 year milestones.  Then by the time the 30 year cycle repeats the Canadian yards will be fully up to speed and "practiced" themselves.

A quick question for those in the know - did the decision to outfit the AOPVs with a conventional drive train vice athe Azipod system have anything to do with a desire to have a common Bridge and control architecture across the Navy's fleet?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on November 13, 2010, 17:34:55
A quick question for those in the know - did the decision to outfit the AOPVs with a conventional drive train vice athe Azipod system have anything to do with a desire to have a common Bridge and control architecture across the Navy's fleet?
No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers. 

The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.

Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the Huron billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.

Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forces.gc.ca%2Fadmmat-smamat%2Fdocuments%2FBig%2520AOPS%2520pics%2FAOicefwdport.jpg&hash=4d35e8b34d50f2ad3a27656c1ad457c4)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: FSTO on November 13, 2010, 19:44:05
While they were on-time, the Orcas were a mess when delivered.  Corrosion and dissimilar metals issues IIRC.  Be that as it may, building cadet and navigation training boats to a proven design with no combat systems is a far cry from building complex warships and integrating combat systems from multiple suppliers.  Just my  :2c:

Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS. Crap happens, you fix it and move on. Not like a certain yard on the St Lawrence that we regularly had to steal our ships from to get them finished.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on November 13, 2010, 22:44:09
Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS.
Fixed at Crown expense.

I'm not playing one shipyard against another - merely pointing out that playing dirty politics with ship building is par for the course for all the major yards.  WMG can count the number of MPs in BC from the government side of the house just as well as we can - hence the whine on their bearing.  They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either.  Easy to do when you've got a $1.5 billion submarine contract to tide your shipyard over for the next 15 years.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on November 13, 2010, 23:09:04
.... They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either. ....

I hope you're wrong on this one Lex but I can't bring myself to rule it out.  I have seen major West Coast fishing companies, WMGs customers, playing beggar thy neighbour in the bad old days of the Alaskan pollock derbys.  It was important to catch all the fish you could, even if you couldn't process them all efficiently and had to dump excess waste overboard, just so that they other fleets wouldn't have any fish to catch. Therefore they not only deprived their competitors of revenue but also drove up the value of the fish that they had on hand.

It would seem to answer the question of why we started with a "cheap" and effective Norwegian solution and now we are asking for a less capable beast that will cost more.  The more you ask to be deleted the higher the price seems to climb.

If the Government cant get an honest quote from these three yards maybe it should consider "nationalization" or going offshore.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 14, 2010, 15:19:16
No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers. 

The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.

Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the Huron billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.

Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?


The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.

The azipods were cut due to cost, which was unfortunate, but looking at the cost, the two biggest fators were the speed and the propulsion system.  The Svalbard was a 17 knot ship as well.

I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.  Can you give any more details on what you mean by this?

There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.  BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 14, 2010, 15:22:28
The destroyers are being built entirely in Australia. Its the LHDs that are being built in Spain and fitted out in Australia. Due to the fact that no Australian shipyard has the capability to build 28,000 ton flat tops.

Good to know and good for the Australians.

Thanks for the correction.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 14, 2010, 15:34:43
RC: "Good to know"?

Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/

Quote
Australia’s largest defence project begins with early construction problems

09:41 GMT, October 28, 2010 defpro.com | In April 2010, the Australian shipbuilder ASC proudly announced: “Construction of Australia’s air warfare destroyer (AWD) capability is underway, with three Australian shipyards simultaneously building destroyer blocks.” A little more than six months later, Australia’s largest defence project, with an estimated value of approximately $8 billion, had reportedly experienced its first serious setback. The simultaneous construction of AWD blocks in different Australian shipyards, which was lauded by ASC Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ludlam in April and which is a standard procedure in today’s shipbuilding business, is the origin of technical problems in this particular case.

As “The Australian” reported earlier this week, Williamstown-based shipyards of AWD subcontractor BAE Systems Australia “botched” the construction of the central keel block. The newspaper explained that the technical problems resulted from faulty welding and inadequate quality control, which led to inaccurate dimensions of the manufactured parts (see also http://goo.gl/Ei2T). Furthermore, “The Australian” reports of an alleged rift between BAE Systems Australia and the ship’s Spanish designer, Navantia. The AWD is based on the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán F100-class frigates.

The technical problems in the hull block construction of the ADW flagship HMAS Hobart, reportedly, may entail additional costs worth several million dollars and delay the project by up to six months...

...an unnamed source told the newspaper: “This is not a small problem – this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed.”

Full block production of HMAS Hobert is being carried out at three shipyards across Australia: ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne and Forgacs in Newcastle. Each ship is made up of 31 blocks. ASC has subcontracted the construction of 65 blocks to BAE Systems and FORGACS over the life of the AWD programme. ASC will build 28 blocks, and integrate and consolidate all 93 blocks into the three warships. BAE Systems Australia won the $300 million contract to build 36 blocks in 2009

According to the Australian Department of Defence (DoD), the blocks will be transported in groups by sea, with 15 trips from BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne and eight from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on November 14, 2010, 15:36:38
Quote
the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards

And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards. 

Thanks for the clarification RC.

Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on November 14, 2010, 16:44:51
Whatever they're going to do I wish they would make a decision and start cutting steel. I would like to get commissioning crew on one of these ships before I retire!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 14, 2010, 18:15:51
And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards. 

Thanks for the clarification RC.

Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?

There are a large number of differences between the designs as well.  The AOPS design is loosely based on the Svalbard, but the requirements came 100% from the GOC based on their needs.  Svalbard was a reference, but not a parent.

It does mean that the cost will fall.  There should be improvement in infrastructure costs, labour efficiency, risk management, purchasing negotiations, and so on.  I can't speculate on how the government will manage costs, nor on how the yards will bid the NSPS, but I expect both will try to quantify the cost improvements and negotiate the programmes on that basis.


RC: "Good to know"?

Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/

Mark
Ottawa

I hope you aren't insinuating that BAE Systems is not a credible builder of naval vessels or that the Austrlians would have been better off having it made in Romania?

Would you like to hear about the time my friend had a steel dock building fabricated in Romania and it was shipped back stitch welded together with all of the fillet welds done in silicone sealant painted silver?  Cheaper isn't always better and even the best yards can have a few quality problems on a new product.

Both BAE in Williamstown and Forgacs are capable yards (I don't know the third one mentioned) and I'm sure they'll get this sorted out.  I'm equally sure the media blew this out of proportion and/or got it completely wrong.  You have to realize that while all three are probably capable, they are also competitors.  They will blow each others slip ups, that you would normally never hear about, up as much as possible for commercial reasons.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on November 14, 2010, 22:34:27
I'll ditto in with Stoker....it'd be nice for this to get moving ahead....they've been talking AOPS for what....5 years-ish now?

It'll be nice if they get it right, but it'd be great if they'd get started!!!!!

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lex Parsimoniae on November 14, 2010, 23:24:22
The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.
Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS.

I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.
I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS.

There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.
LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.

BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.
More semantics.  This is no more the completed design than any previous version.  Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 15, 2010, 00:11:49
Lex Parsimoniae:  Which is to say that this government, like its predecessors, has no real concern with how the military (Navy) can serve any intelligent appreciation of national interests weighed against available government financial resources.  In other words, whenever possible, spend the money available to seek votes.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 15, 2010, 04:12:45
Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS.
I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS.

I admit I'm no expert on government budgeting, but I assumed those costs would come from the budgets of the departments doing the work.  At any rate, my point was that regardless of the port or NSPS or any other factors, the budget for the construction of the vessels has remained constant throughout the project thus far.

LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.

There have been two rendered versions of AOPS publically released.  One at 110m, azipods drives, 20 knots, with a huge landing craft on a dedicated davit; the other, a 100m, 17 knot ship as seen in the image you posted.  The first was released in late 2008.  Requirement changes were made in early 2009 with "design changes" (in quotes because in early 2009 the design was very preliminary anyway) made in mid 2009 after which the second image was released.

The image you posted and the changes in it from the previous version have already been discussed at length earlier in this thread.  My point was that nothing substantial has changed since all of that was already discussed.

Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.

I am currently on a ship file that was orginally priced in 2007.  We've been pricing the ship each year since then to renew the offer.  Each year the price has gone down.  To put it in professional terms, imagine that a 6000 tonne ship is not a VW Passat.  Although to be honest, I'd be surprised if there has been that much inflation in the price of a Passat either.  The economic realities of the shipbuilding industry in the past few years can't be that much different from the car industry.

Besides, what makes you think that the budget released in 2007 would have any effect on the price of a ship designed in 2009?  The inflation clock affecting the design started when the pricing for the design was finished, not when the budget was released.  Provided there is inflation.

Having said that, I am in no way trying to argue that they shouldn't get on this and start construction ASAP.

This is no more the completed design than any previous version. 

Actually, it is.  As I said, there have been two versions released.  The first version was based on a list of desires from the GOC that had not been checked against the budget.  The image was based on a GA, weight estimate, stability calculation, and a parametric price estimate.  It was, in every sense, a development image of an early design created to prove viability.  This should not be considered as a design that was changed for price reasons.  It was a set of requirements that were changed to align with the budget.  It happened to have an associated image that was unfortunately released to the public.

That exercise complete, the second version that was released is a completed and approved class package design.  It has everything from paint schedule to structural drawings to mechanical schematics.  It is not the impression of an artist, it is the technical conclusions of naval architects and marine engineers.

If you want to hold the governments feet to the fire over the differences between an image from a viability study and an image from a class approved design, I can't stop you, but please don't argue that it's a semantic difference.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on November 15, 2010, 08:08:28
So RC,

You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?

How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 15, 2010, 12:10:51
So RC,

You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?

How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?

NS

No idea.  It depends on the NSPS now.  They should be able to start the detail design process (selecting specific suppliers and integrating their equipment) the day the NSPS is signed and start cutting steel 3 to 4 months after that, but I don't know if it will happen that way or not.  As announced previously, the design is sitting on the shelf waiting for the government to be ready for it.

It is a Navy crew with the capacity to carry supernumeraries from other military or civilian departments depending on the mission.  The ice navigator and meteorologist on Arctic missions will likely be civilians, at least until the Navy can get some trained onboard the ships.  There will also be some facility for civilian ILS support onboard on an as needed basis.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 15, 2010, 19:46:00
I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 16, 2010, 03:04:39
I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?

There are a large number of factors on a ship.  Hence the reason it doesn't compare very well with a car.  For instance, in 2007, the demand for medium speed engines, or more specifically for their crankshafts had completely blocked the market.  They simply couldn't be produced quickly enough to meet demand.  Delivery times were running over 12 months and the costs were grossly inflated.  As the world demand plummeted after the fall of 2008, the prices of engines and many other pieces of equipment dropped with the demand, as suppliers went from having huge backorder books to struggling for sales.

Also, the volatility of various currencies currently allows yards to cherrypick equipment from cheaper markets.

This is relatively short term though and I believe a recovery is already underway.  It will likely be a while before prices come back to 2007 levels, since they were caused by a demand bubble, but they will quickly rise from where they are now.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on November 16, 2010, 11:31:52
Soooo....

The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right? 

So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?

Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 16, 2010, 13:25:16
Soooo....

The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right? 

So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?

Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?

NS

As far as I know, the RFP for AOPS was scheduled to come out in spring of 2010, before it was delayed by the NSPS.  I would guess under the old process that they would have given 4 months for the yards to evaluate and bid and another 4 months to assess; a process that won't be necessary under the NSPS. 

So if they were to conclude the NSPS today and start the AOPS contract tomorrow, they wouldn't really have lost any ground.  But I don't expect they'll conclude the NSPS until late next spring at the soonest, so I would speculate that it will be delayed by at least 6 months.

My yard would probably be about 30 to 34 months to comfortably build a ship that size with a design in hand.  A Canadian yard will be a little slower, so I'd say 3 to 3.5 years.  If they get on it, that puts us into mid to late 2014.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on November 16, 2010, 19:42:03
RC,

Which yard to you represent?

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 17, 2010, 05:10:28
RC,

Which yard to you represent?

NS

I'm on a two year assignment to build a proposal department in a French shipyard.  I'm on loan from a Canadian company, but not a yard.  So I temporarily represent a French yard, but I don't represent any Canadian yard.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on November 17, 2010, 05:48:29
I was wondering why couldn't something similar to the original HMCS Labrador could be built, obviously updated of course. That design seemed to be highly successful operating in the Arctic.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on November 17, 2010, 11:19:39
I was wondering why couldn't something similar to the original HMCS Labrador could be built, obviously updated of course. That design seemed to be highly successful operating in the Arctic.

What performance aspect of HMCS Labrador is not met by the AOPS?  At a glance, they have relatively similar mission profiles and dimensions, with AOPS being a little lighter, faster, longer, and a lot more modern.

Two of the main differences will be range and survivability, with range going down and survivability going up.  New cleanship regulations for the Arctic mean that there is no fuel against the shell, which naturally means quite a bit less fuel onboard.  And the requisite double hull to meet that regulation, combined with much better stability regulations means better survivability.

Also, with an aft helideck, the Labrador lacked the flexibility of an aft working deck and crane and the benefit of setting the helo down closer to the CG of the vessel in rough weather.

Both have 4 positions for boarding and lifeboats, but the AOPS can be pushed to 6 with all of them protected from the elements and having better launch cover.  AOPS can also carry and launch a raft, truck, and snowmobiles as required, which I don't believe was the case with the Labrador.

The Wind-Class ice-breakers also had a very high draft, which would make access to a lot of areas in the Arctic problematic, increase the likelihood of ice grounding, and make ridge penetration more challenging.  They did have the forward propeller to help with milling, ramming, and clearing, but I think they were usually not mounted as they must have been a pain to maintain.

To be honest though, they'd look quite similar if the AOPS boats and foredeck weren't covered.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: STONEY on November 19, 2010, 16:00:00
I would think that a updated  CCGS Henry Larsen  would be far better than  a Labrador type.  But this ship is probably a lot more ice capable then called for in a AOPS.   Also a ships hull maximized for ice is usually terrible seaboats in open ocean.  Although the Larsen has plenty endurance , nice accomidations and small crew.  I think that suggested design's  are a compromise of various factors mostly $$$$.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on November 19, 2010, 18:09:56
Building a new copy of the HMCS Labrador would be like building a new Centurion tank. It was an excellent tank for it’s day, but technology has moved on.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 24, 2011, 12:08:52
Lazarus rising:

In light of the Resolute Bay air crash, the Air Force report on deploying Trenton Griffons or Pet Chinooks by CC-177s for Majaid, and the pending decision on shipbuilding procurement  I thought it was time to re-open this thread.

The particular point of interest is the availability of air assets north of 60. 

It occurs to me that the AOPS is designed to supply a platform to maintain a presence north of 60 year round,  even if restricted to movement at the ice-edge and in young ice.

The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.

Having said that:

Assume that we are 7 years down the road and there are 2 AOPS permanently on station north of 60 but at the ice edge, one in the Baffin Bay area and the other in the Beaufort Sea area.

With those two platforms in place how would their organic CH-146s influence Majaid planning?
How about if the CH-146s were replaced by the more operationally expensive CH-148s?
Or if a pair of CH-147s were based  at Resolute or Nanisivik to work in conjunction with the AOPS and the Polar Icebreaker?

On another tack:

How do the AOPS hospital and hotel accomodations stack up against the existing land-based infrastructure in terms of quality and availability?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Furniture on August 25, 2011, 20:17:01
It is a Navy crew with the capacity to carry supernumeraries from other military or civilian departments depending on the mission.  The ice navigator and meteorologist on Arctic missions will likely be civilians, at least until the Navy can get some trained on board the ships.  There will also be some facility for civilian ILS support onboard on an as needed basis.

Not to pick fly s**t from pepper, but the RCN has forecasters aboard all of their ships that have an air det. Eventually when the Met trade is up to strength all of the frigates and destroyers will have two forecasters.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on August 25, 2011, 23:38:02
Lazarus rising:

In light of the Resolute Bay air crash, the Air Force report on deploying Trenton Griffons or Pet Chinooks by CC-177s for Majaid, and the pending decision on shipbuilding procurement  I thought it was time to re-open this thread.

The particular point of interest is the availability of air assets north of 60. 

It occurs to me that the AOPS is designed to supply a platform to maintain a presence north of 60 year round,  even if restricted to movement at the ice-edge and in young ice.

The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.

Having said that:

Assume that we are 7 years down the road and there are 2 AOPS permanently on station north of 60 but at the ice edge, one in the Baffin Bay area and the other in the Beaufort Sea area.

With those two platforms in place how would their organic CH-146s influence Majaid planning?
How about if the CH-146s were replaced by the more operationally expensive CH-148s?
Or if a pair of CH-147s were based  at Resolute or Nanisivik to work in conjunction with the AOPS and the Polar Icebreaker?

On another tack:

How do the AOPS hospital and hotel accomodations stack up against the existing land-based infrastructure in terms of quality and availability?

AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.

There is a misconception that landing on a moving ship is so easy, anyone can do it.  It is not (speaking with over 500 deck cycles on HMC and allied ships).

A ship carrying a helo the size of Chinook would have to be much, much larger than what we are planning the AOPs to be.  A Chinook, all up, is about double a Cyclone in weight.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Baz on August 26, 2011, 03:29:21
Quote from: Kirkhill on August 24, 2011, 12:08:52
The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.

AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.

Both incorrect:

Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/DRAFT%20AOPS%20Helicopter%20Interface%20Requirements%20Rev%204.pdf

3.2 Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter

The AOPS will operate a Cnadian Coast Guard helicopter during deployments to the Canadian Arctic.  Characteristics of Canadian Coast Guard helicopter are listed at Appendix A.

The AOPS may operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on occasion during deployments in other Canadian waters, including: the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.

...

The AOPS shall provide the facilities and services required to maintain one Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for deployments of up to 120 days duration, during which the helicopter is assumed to fly for a total of approximately 150 hours.

...

3.3 CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter

The AOPS will support limited operations of a CH-148 Cyclone helicopter on occasion and for short periods during deployments in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and in international waters...

...

The AOPS will have limited ability to support the CH-148 Cyclone ... (no C_RAST, no MPAS, no IVHMS, no ADR, no workshops, no munitions)...

3.4 CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter

The AOPS will provide an emergency flight deck and refuelling services for the CH-149...


The CH-146 or CH-147 or not included.  My preference would be to operate (within appropriate limits), but not necessarily embark, all CF helicopters.  However, that would come with a cost, and there is little wiggle room in AOPS.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 26, 2011, 17:14:52
AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.

There is a misconception that landing on a moving ship is so easy, anyone can do it.  It is not (speaking with over 500 deck cycles on HMC and allied ships).

A ship carrying a helo the size of Chinook would have to be much, much larger than what we are planning the AOPs to be.  A Chinook, all up, is about double a Cyclone in weight.

Coast Guard has had the labs land on the deck of the CCGS Darby which was an ex-oil rig resupply vessel, I think they did the same with the Terry fox, but not 100% sure. A leased oil rig supply vessel would be an excellent way to provide a mobile helicopter support platform. would be worth trying out just for the experiance it would bring. I regularly see a Chinook operating off a 200' foot barge on the central coast as part of a logging operation.
Mind you all of the above are limited to decent weather or sheltered waters.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2011, 18:52:54
Quote from: Kirkhill on August 24, 2011, 12:08:52
The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.

Both incorrect:

Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/DRAFT%20AOPS%20Helicopter%20Interface%20Requirements%20Rev%204.pdf


With Respect to all concerned  - From the same document

Quote
14 Appendix A: Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter

14.1 General

The Canadian Coast Guard is in the early stages of a project to replace its fleet of
helicopters. The project plans to acquire 6 medium twin engine helicopters and 16 light
twin engine helicopters.

The candidates for the medium helicopter requirement include the Bell 412, the
Eurocopter EC155 and the AgustaWestland AW139.

The candidates for the light helicopter requirement include the Bell 429, the Eurocopter
EC135, the Eurocopter EC145 and the AgustaWestland AW109.

For the purposes of this specification and because it has the largest and thus most
demanding folded dimensions, the future Canadian Coast Guard medium helicopter is
assumed to be the Bell 412  with optional blade folding kit.


Canadian Coast Guard helicopters are operated by Transport Canada on behalf of the
Coast Guard.


.....


The Bell 412   helicopter has a skid landing gear with a skid length of 4.87 metres and a
skid width of 3.24 meters.

From the statement that the Coast Guard helicopter is assumed to be the primary tenant while the AOPS is in the arctic, where the AOPS is to spend 2/3 of its time, and that the lead candidate for the Coast Guard helicopter is given as the Bell 412, which (I stand to be corrected) is the civilian designation of the CH-146 Griffon, I assumed that the Griffon would be able to operated from the AOPS.

Lots of assumptions.   I'm sure at least one of them is wrong.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2011, 19:19:12
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.usgs.gov%2Fimages%2F12_09_2008%2Fw06Eu22Tto%2Fmedium%2FIMG_2718.JPG&hash=a1fd971723e1a6b579d293140a92360d)

Not to put too fine a point on it:

Canadian Coast Guard helicopter (MBB Bo105) on skids, on a ship (USCGS Healey) at sea, in the ice.

And also we have this:

http://www.stxmarine.com/lib_cowley.html

Describing the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, which patrols the Grand Banks, as being capable of supporting those same MBB Bo105s.

The Cowley displaces 2080 tonnes and is 72m LOA.


I am going to guess, because I have no knowledge, that an ice-covered sea does not generate the same wave motion as open waters - even if the ice is just slob.

On the other hand, the Cowley operates in the open waters of the North Atlantic without benefit of RAST equipment (as I understand).

The Cowley is broadly in the same class as the Danish OPV Rasmussen, which see  (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,101770.msg1061438.html#msg1061438)

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Baz on August 26, 2011, 19:47:55
From the statement that the Coast Guard helicopter is assumed to be the primary tenant while the AOPS is in the arctic, where the AOPS is to spend 2/3 of its time, and that the lead candidate for the Coast Guard helicopter is given as the Bell 412, which (I stand to be corrected) is the civilian designation of the CH-146 Griffon, I assumed that the Griffon would be able to operated from the AOPS.

Lots of assumptions.   I'm sure at least one of them is wrong.

Nope, none of them are wrong.  But your original port said "designed to operate" a CH-146, which is wrong.  Operate and embark have differnet meanings, and just because a similar type can operate and/or embark, doesn't automatically make a fleet capable of doing so.

AOPS theoritcally could operate the CH-146, but we have no intention of training CH-146 crews to do so.  Coast Guard crews are already trained in Maritime Ops.

As I said, I would like to see all of the CF helicopter inventory able to operate to *some* extent with all CF ships, but the resources required aren't available.  Well, not completely true - the HOSTAC (Helicopter Operations from Ships other Than Aircraft Carriers) may allow some degree of operation, which is TBD.

By the way, VU-32 Hueys operated from, but did not embark on (AFAIK), HMC Ships up until 1992:
http://www.shearwateraviationmuseum.ns.ca/aircraft/twinhuey.htm

They obviously had their own section in the SHOPs (Shipborne Helicopter Operational Procedures).


Editted to Change AOPS could carry...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2011, 21:51:57
...your original port said "designed to operate" a CH-146, which is wrong.  ...

Which is why, at work, we have a bunch of people checking my vocabulary and punctuation...... :-[
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on August 26, 2011, 22:29:43
Describing the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, which patrols the Grand Banks, as being capable of supporting those same MBB Bo105s.

The Cowley is capable of embarking a helicopter, as are the 1100 class ice breakers, some others, and all the larger ships (Larsen, Radisson, Louis, etc, with the exception of the Fox, no hanger facilities), but does not regularly operate with one. It's only embarked as required by mission.

With regards to the ice breakers/arctic ops, the helicopters typically fill the ice recce/resupply role.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2011, 00:18:11
Thanks for continuing my education Sig Op.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on August 27, 2011, 08:54:41
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I only point it out as I know many people assume because the coast guard ships have a hanger, they carry a helicopter (+pilot and mechanic), while reality is they seldom do. Just as often, if not more often, the hanger is used as a cargo deck.

Assuming that the Cowley is operating with a helicopter in the North Atlantic on a regular basis is a bit of a stretch, and comparing coast guard helicopter operations/requirements to naval helicopter operations/requirements would be a bit of a further stretch.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2011, 11:01:15
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not......


I get that a lot actually.  You would think I might have learned by now.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.  I really do appreciate having my misperceptions and outright errors fixed.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2011, 16:20:24
I know this is a bit tangential to the matter at hand but:

The Northwest Passage seems likely to be more of a canal maintained by Transport Canada Ice Breakers and policed by the RCMP with the Navy standing Gate Guard at both ends.  To my eye it seems that that chunk of real estate is more likely to be accessed by planes, helicopters, ATVs and OSVs than it is by ships.

Is it realistic to suggest that perhaps all civilian vessels over a certain size that intend to operate in ice covered Canadian waters should be required to have a large Helicopter Landing Pad - both for their own safety and also to increase the number of "lily pads" available to aircrew and the number or "refuges" available to distressed survivors or disasters.....  But I digress.... A lot.

The thought was prompted by seeing a few minutes of a Mighty Ships episode on the Voisey Bay AC4 Ice Capable Bulk Carrier Umiak 1 (http://www.canship.com/CUL/Vessels/umiak.html) of some approximately 30,000 DWT.  That led me to Canship Ugland (http://www.canship.com/CUL/index.html), which led me to FedNav (http://www.fednav.com/anglais/home.html), which led me to a fleet (http://www.fednav.com/anglais/fleet_all.html) of ice strengthened bulk carriers and tankers, some of which already are equipped with helicopter pads.  Umiak 1 apparently has an older cousin of roughly the same capabilities: Arctic (http://www.fednav.com/anglais/vessels/mvarctic_en.html).

I presume that in addition to servicing the odd northern mine, ( like Voisey Bay, Rankin, Polaris and Nanisivik )  that the bulk of the freight carried is grain and ore on the Great Lakes and, more importantly for this discussion, on Hudson Bay out of Churchill.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on August 27, 2011, 23:53:25
Is it realistic to suggest that perhaps all civilian vessels over a certain size that intend to operate in ice covered Canadian waters should be required to have a large Helicopter Landing Pad - both for their own safety and also to increase the number of "lily pads" available to aircrew and the number or "refuges" available to distressed survivors or disasters.....  But I digress.... A lot.

Don't forget, a helicopter landing pad on it's own isn't that useful. You'd need to add refueling equipment, fuel tanks for the refueling equipment, and training for the flight deck crew.

http://woodwards.nf.ca/

Woodwards does a fair bit of shipping in the Arctic as well.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2011, 00:41:49
Don't forget, a helicopter landing pad on it's own isn't that useful. You'd need to add refueling equipment, fuel tanks for the refueling equipment, and training for the flight deck crew.

........

Understood but I would think that even a platform without fuel would increase the options for a SAR team.

For example - Lots of survivors and fuel running low - the closer the nearest refuge the shorter the distance the helicopter has to lift the survivors increasing the number of survivors that can be transported to safety on each lift and increasing the likelihood of being able to make multiple lifts.

Equally the helicopter itself could put down on the ship and either ride the ship back to port or ..... possibly ..... have fuel flown out to her.   I think. 

Amateur playing silly bugger again.  :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 28, 2011, 15:14:23
I get that a lot actually.  You would think I might have learned by now.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.  I really do appreciate having my misperceptions and outright errors fixed.

Thanks again.

Maybe a :) at the end of your post might help reduce the number of people wondering if you are being sarcastic? Just a suggestion. :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on August 28, 2011, 15:59:00
Perhaps the AOPS electronics suite should include a sarcasm detector?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2011, 21:29:30
Maybe a :) at the end of your post might help reduce the number of people wondering if you are being sarcastic? Just a suggestion. :)

Thanks for the heads up.

Unfortunately it also happens in person. ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Old Sweat on August 28, 2011, 21:41:21
To come to Kirkhill's defence, he comes up with some original thinking. A lot of it fails the "say what" test, but there also are some ideas that merit examination. A lot of those also crash and burn, but a number make it through. He and I have discussed a number of issues by pm and I find him sincere when he said he erred or thanked me for an explanation.

Beside, he is a Scot, like I are by ancestry, and we both feel in our oatmeal slurping bones that happy faces are the works of the Devil, or the English. Still, if it will help, he should go for it.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on September 02, 2011, 04:57:34
The Cowley is capable of embarking a helicopter, as are the 1100 class ice breakers, some others, and all the larger ships (Larsen, Radisson, Louis, etc, with the exception of the Fox, no hanger facilities), but does not regularly operate with one. It's only embarked as required by mission.

With regards to the ice breakers/arctic ops, the helicopters typically fill the ice recce/resupply role.

Not to mention carting crews around to maintain nav aids and such
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 30, 2011, 13:14:59
Colin: Perhaps you can enlighten us a bit more on Coastguard helicopters.

My understanding is that they are civilian helicopters that are restricted to visual flight rules (thus, they do not fly in fog, rain or at night), that they carry no sensors (no surface search radars, FLIR's, light amplification systems for night or TAC displays with links to integrate with their mother ship) and that the fact that they have no deck landing system restricts their use to some pretty low sea states.

Is my understanding correct?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on September 30, 2011, 13:51:24
The helicopters are owned by Transport Canada who leases/rents them and their crews to CCG. They were equipped (90's) with GPS and DF equipment to find the ship. The S61 based in Prince Rupert was equipped with a hoist, and to my knowledge has been used a couple of times, but no one was properly trained on them and may still be a running issue. I suspect most TC helicopters are VFR only, but most TC aircraft (like their King airs) are IFR equipped. I will wander down to civ aviation and ask as to current practices if they know.
Some of the east coast helicopters I think have cameras and FLIRs. We had FLIR on the SRN 6 hovercraft but found it rather useless in the fog.

there is no deck drawdown for the helo so limited sea state are a must, we have used then in certain circumstances in seas, but I can't recall accurate sea states, normally we are close to the coast so worst case the helo flies to shore to await weather or for the ship to find sheltered water. As it got rougher I recall strapping down a cargo net on the flight deck to provide more traction to the skids. Cargo was normally long lined off the well deck, personal was loaded on the flight deck.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 30, 2011, 13:55:22
Thank you - I look forward to the extra info when available as this will greatly enhanced our ongoing discussion on type to embark on AOPS.

BTW, and this may be a personal view, to me Transport Canada aircrew are civilians.
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on September 30, 2011, 17:05:21
that's ok, I consider all police officer citizens also..... ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MightyIndustry on October 20, 2011, 17:11:51
How long does it take a CF-18 with armaments to fly up to the Northwest Passage?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 20, 2011, 17:15:15
Back on topic please.

Milnet.Ca Staff
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 20, 2011, 18:04:49
A note the 1100 uses a retractable hanger. Not sure if it would fit a 412.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xm5Lx47Qgc/Tf6OSCh84xI/AAAAAAAAEfU/iPxqp9Uf9FE/s1600/IMG_3952%2BEC%2Band%2BSWA.jpg
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on October 22, 2011, 16:32:27
A note the 1100 uses a retractable hanger. Not sure if it would fit a 412.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xm5Lx47Qgc/Tf6OSCh84xI/AAAAAAAAEfU/iPxqp9Uf9FE/s1600/IMG_3952%2BEC%2Band%2BSWA.jpg

Navy wasn't interested in that option due to maintenance issues both of the hangar and in the hangar.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 30, 2012, 15:23:29
I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 30, 2012, 17:33:12
I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....
I suspect it might be too small for AOR use.  The question as posed is interesting though.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on January 30, 2012, 17:38:04
The Small LPD for use in Northern Waters might be really interesting.

A way to get our feet wet while operating domestically?  ;D

Perhaps a little more emphasis on Ship to Shore and the LCVPs?  A Domestic Mothership for Danish type SAR/LCPs - Swedish CBH-90s?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 30, 2012, 19:31:22
The Small LPD for use in Northern Waters might be really interesting.

A way to get our feet wet while operating domestically?  ;D

Perhaps a little more emphasis on Ship to Shore and the LCVPs?  A Domestic Mothership for Danish type SAR/LCPs - Swedish CBH-90s?

Honestly, I think we could get alot done with a couple of converted car ferries, and a few landing craft/ LVTP type amphibious vehicles (or BV 206s). You don't need a fully bombed up warship to 'show the flag' in peacetime in your own backyard IMHO.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on January 30, 2012, 20:23:20
Honestly, I think we could get alot done with a couple of converted car ferries, and a few landing craft/ LVTP type amphibious vehicles (or BV 206s). You don't need a fully bombed up warship to 'show the flag' in peacetime in your own backyard IMHO.

Fair enough, but if we're building the blighters in any event why not ensure you can sway out some decent sized boats?  And, if I understand correctly, these AOPS things don't really qualify as fully bombed up warships.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 30, 2012, 23:31:23
Fair enough, but if we're building the blighters in any event why not ensure you can sway out some decent sized boats?  And, if I understand correctly, these AOPS things don't really qualify as fully bombed up warships.

Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 30, 2012, 23:40:34
Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.

Sadly that's true but at least we're getting something and that's better than we have right now SFA. At least the navy is expanding.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: WEng on January 31, 2012, 08:21:45
The naby is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy:) newer ships always present the hope for that.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: STONEY on January 31, 2012, 14:09:34
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
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 01, 2012, 08:58:55
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

You can make your point without being a sarcastic twit. You won't be told again.

Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: WEng on February 01, 2012, 11:01:12
The naby is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy:) newer ships always present the hope for that.

 :facepalm: forgot spell check my bad navy*

 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 01, 2012, 11:04:07
:facepalm: forgot spell check my bad navy*
Guess you weren't having a great Navy day eh?   ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 01:03:09
I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....

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).


Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 01:06:16
Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.

They are designed for their envisioned threat environment.  To my mind it would be waste of money to design them for something that falls outside of their concept of operation.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 03, 2012, 08:43:07
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?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 03, 2012, 11:54:04
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?

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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 04, 2012, 15:03:10
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.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 04, 2012, 15:37:47
A type 45 of the Daring class I believe.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 05, 2012, 00:38:05

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 05, 2012, 13:49:00
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):

Quote
SRD 794 - The AOPS shall have sufficient deck area, structural strength and ISO container securing points that
are compatible with an ISO container twistlock securing system to accommodate each of the
following payload, one payload at any given time, on the quarterdeck:
a. 6 off TEU containers, in one off two container high stack on the ship's centreline with a total
weight not exceeding 30 tonnes and one off two container high stack with a total weight not
exceeding 20 tonnes on each outboard side of the centreline stack, and b. 4 off TEU containers, in two off two container high stacks plus one off landing craft in the place
of one of the outboard stacks.

Would that allow a single AOPS to transport and launch 3 LCVPs similar to the 24 kt/200 NM LCVP Mk5s (http://www.defensie.nl/english/navy/materiel/ships/landing_craft/landing_craft_vehicle_personnel_(lcvp)) if no TEUs were carried?  How about a pair of CBH-90s  (http://www.soldf.com/strb90h.html) 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  (http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/SurfaceShips/PlatformsandProgrammes/GlobalCombatShip/index.htm) aka Type 26/27 (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/).





Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on February 06, 2012, 14:24:44
The first ship in the movie is the BMT Venator.

http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.bmt.org%2Fbmt_media%2Fbmt_images%2F33%2FMSO%2520BMT%2520Venator.jpg&hash=98c4c687df1781f0a2f216ff84e6360d)

Details:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 06, 2012, 14:35:00
The first ship in the movie is the BMT Venator.

http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.bmt.org%2Fbmt_media%2Fbmt_images%2F33%2FMSO%2520BMT%2520Venator.jpg&hash=98c4c687df1781f0a2f216ff84e6360d)

Details:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708

Thanks Shooter
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 06, 2012, 16:58:07
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 (http://www.defensie.nl/english/navy/materiel/ships/landing_craft/landing_craft_vehicle_personnel_(lcvp)) if no TEUs were carried?  How about a pair of CBH-90s  (http://www.soldf.com/strb90h.html) and an LCVP Mk 5?


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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 06, 2012, 19:30:11
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 (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108)  See BAE poster at the bottom.

Type 45 Daring (http://www.hmforces.co.uk/education/articles/369-type-45-destroyers)

HDMS Absalon (http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HDMS-Absalon-L16) (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.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 06, 2012, 23:46:31
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on February 07, 2012, 01:22:41
RC

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 can agree with that.  They have an inherent flexibility that will make them capable for a lot of missions and they could be adapted for many more.

I actually think you could fit an LCVP on the aft deck.  You just wouldn't be able to pull the truck out of the garage or do Mediterranean mooring while it was there and technically it's not designed for it.  I guess we will get the answer about whether I could have added another 6m onto the stern from the Irvings soon enough.  I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be.

Thanks for disagreeing with me on her looks.  It is a distinct challenge to make an icebreaker look like something other than a floating lego block.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 15, 2012, 17:08:50
Senator wants Arctic ship plan sunk

by The Canadian Press - Mar 15, 2012 / 10:48 am

At least $1.4 billion is expected to be carved out of spending at National Defence in the coming fiscal year, but a longtime critic says some politically-motivated programs should not survive Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget axe.

The coming March 29 budget is expected to see $19.8 billion set aside for the military, a seven per cent decrease compared with last year's defence spending plan, according to preliminary federal estimates.

And those forecasts do not reflect the five or 10 per cent reductions the Conservatives have asked all federal departments to deliver.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the former chair of the senate defence and security committee, said if the Harper government wants to make appropriate defence cuts it would look at its pet project of Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships.

The $4.3 billion program was established to build between six and eight light naval icebreakers, slated to be the first military vessels constructed in Halifax under the recently announced national shipbuilding plan.

Expected to be in the range of 6,000 tonnes each, the ships when completed around 2014-15 will operate in the Arctic for up to eight months a year.

"They're just a dumb idea," said Kenny. "They don't break ice and they go 16 knots and that's slower than a fishing boat."

The Arctic ships are the compromise result of the 2006 Conservative election promise to build military icebreakers to enforce Canada's Arctic sovereignty. Initially, the plan was to build three heavily-armed ships capable of cutting through multi-year ice.

A series of budget and design adjustments turned the project into lightly-armed ships that break through only one-year-old ice, a fact which has prompted critics to label them "slush breakers."

Kenny said, with budget reductions underway, the money would be better spent fast-tracking the replacement of the country's nearly 40-year-old flagship command destroyers, as the Navy intended to do before the government saddled it with the Arctic ships.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay declined to comment on the senator's arguments Wednesday.

A spokesman for Julian Fantino, the associate defence minister, said the patrol ships are a key element of not only the government's Arctic strategy, but for the economy.

"Our strategy will result in the creation of thousands of new jobs and billions in economic growth in cities and communities across Canada," said Chris McCluskey in an emailed response.

"This job-creating investment will improve the stability of Canada's shipbuilding industry, and provide vital equipment for our men and women in uniform."

The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy said in a recent interview the flagship destroyers will operate as long as they are needed, but documents released under access to information laws show the Navy is facing a crunch in the availability of ships in the coming years.

Not replacing the Iroquois class warships soon imperils the Navy's ability to put Canadian task forces to sea, meaning the country's naval contingents would have to be commanded by other nations.

Finding crews for the Arctic ships is also straining already thin ranks.

"The Navy has reduced in size," said the Navy's 2010 strategic assessment, which was released late last year. "There is now a steadily increasing strategic risk to both our operational output in the coming years as well as the Navy's institutional capabilities.

"In the next five years, the personnel demands associated with the introduction and sustainment of (Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships), the Orca class and modest Maritime Security requirements necessitate an increase in the Navy's overall establishment."
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 15, 2012, 17:46:15
The AOPS will do 17 knots and break 1m of level first year ice.  The speed is in line with the ice capability and the ice capability is about halfway between a light and medium CCG breaker.  If that makes it a "slush-breaker" then the majority of Canada's Arctic fleet are slush-breakers...  As far as I know the only ship we own that will have a go at multiyear ice is the Louis.

Looks like Colin Kenny has a touch of the clueless about him.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on March 15, 2012, 17:54:30
Meanwhile, Mother Russia plans on having a new bigger nuke icebreaker by 2015.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080609/109670225.html

A good site for large Russian icebreakers
http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/11/1/mammoths-on-ice-the-magnificent-beauty-of-russian-nuclear-powered-icebreakers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 22, 2012, 12:34:11
The AOPS will do 17 knots and break 1m of level first year ice.  The speed is in line with the ice capability and the ice capability is about halfway between a light and medium CCG breaker.  If that makes it a "slush-breaker" then the majority of Canada's Arctic fleet are slush-breakers...  As far as I know the only ship we own that will have a go at multiyear ice is the Louis.

Looks like Colin Kenny has a touch of the clueless about him.
That maybe so, but I have to agree with him in that the AOPS are a waste of money to build.  If they want us to go into the Arctic properly, then do it properly with a ship that is worth the money.  It's the MCDV all over again.  Lackluster performance and not what they could have, should have been.

He did say on an interview that I listened to that he was told by the CCG that they did not mind being armed to do Constabulary duties such as the USCG is.  As long as they received the training to do so etc etc.  I was always under the understanding that the CCG was opposed to arming their vessels etc.  And I could see the Canadian public screaming we are militarizing the CCG, you know "people with guns, on our streets...  :o" crap of not so long ago. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 23, 2012, 07:57:03
That maybe so, but I have to agree with him in that the AOPS are a waste of money to build.  If they want us to go into the Arctic properly, then do it properly with a ship that is worth the money.  It's the MCDV all over again.  Lackluster performance and not what they could have, should have been.

He did say on an interview that I listened to that he was told by the CCG that they did not mind being armed to do Constabulary duties such as the USCG is.  As long as they received the training to do so etc etc.  I was always under the understanding that the CCG was opposed to arming their vessels etc.  And I could see the Canadian public screaming we are militarizing the CCG, you know "people with guns, on our streets...  :o" crap of not so long ago.

The AOPS performance in ice is relatively well suited to the mission profile.  We didn't make that many sacrifices in the ice-breaking performance.  Most of the sacrifices were made in the open water performance.  Redesigned, to "go into the Arctic properly", not very much would change.  The stupid thing about them is that they should have been broken into two separate classes: APV and OPV.  And even then, the primary reason is not performance, but cost.  An OPV is about half the cost of an AOPS.  The Navy could have had 2 AOPS and 8 x 85m OPVs for the same budget.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 23, 2012, 10:54:18
Fully agree with RC's post above. The real issue is non-arctic ops. You need 6 to 8 AOPS to carry out both the Arctic and open water tasks, but the open water task (the one demanding more operating hours by far of the two) is hampered by the Arctic hull/capability compromises.

The main limitation found in the use of MCDV in an offshore protection role is its slow speed. AOPS are barely more than one knot faster and still insufficient in that role. Also, in the offshore protection role - carried out in coastal waters - near shore and "police" like operations require nimble manoeuvring, which a 6000 tons ship with an icebreaker hull doesn't give you.

On top of that, the split between APV and OPV indicated by RC would help alleviate crewing pressures: It is easier for the Navy to find only two crew for extended Arctic operations than six to eight of them. the OPV's, staying tied to Halifax, Esquimalt or St. Johns, would be easier to crew because their crew would know they would not be deployed to the Arctic. I am not even going to get into the details of reduction in engineering and technical personnel that would occur just because a ship deployed to the Arctic for extended period vice an OPV has a much greater need for self repair and maintenance, nor will I go into the fact that a properly designed OPV of 1200 to 1500 tons operating at a continuous speed of 18-20 knots with sprints at 24-25 knots probably burn a lot less fuel than an AOPS of 6000 tons operating continuously at 16-17 knots (and can't sprint). 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on March 23, 2012, 13:11:00
Even if it is relatively capable on it's ice breaking performance, it's still a lackluster ship overall.  Perhaps the suggestion of two different ships to cover all the bases is the way to go.  In the end, I still maintain we will have a ship that won't do well what it really needs to do.  And that, if it comes to pass is a bloody waste of time, resources and manpower in the long game.  If we are going to do it, why not do it right from the get go?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 23, 2012, 15:40:21
Does it make any difference at all that the AOPS carries a helicopter on board and an MCDV doesn't?

Would it make any difference if the AOPS carried boats with a top speed of 40 knots, 200 nm range and ability to stay out on the water overnight?  As in the case of the 12 m Danish LCPs (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm)?

How about if and when something like the MQ-8B firescout is added to the mix?

Does the parent platform have to be fast or does it just have to be stable?  With respect to chasing down errant fishermen: I don't know many 20 knot trawlers out there.

I've always seen the AOPS not as a chase ship but primarily as a moving base from which a variety of operations can be supported.  But I've been wrong before.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on March 23, 2012, 20:03:05
That maybe so, but I have to agree with him in that the AOPS are a waste of money to build.  If they want us to go into the Arctic properly, then do it properly with a ship that is worth the money.  It's the MCDV all over again.  Lackluster performance and not what they could have, should have been.

The AOPS capabilities were continuously reduced to what we have today, much like what happened to the MCDV's. The original concept and capabilities of the MCDV's were sacrificed to save money although they ultimately proved successful for the RCN and probably will be around to 2025. If we are to build these ships then do it right at the get go and go all in and have something capable to operate up there in averse conditions.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 23, 2012, 21:46:10
On the subject of the AOPS:

Can somebody direct me to the Statements of Requirements?   It looks like they have all been pulled from the PMO's site.  Or am I looking in the wrong place?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 23, 2012, 21:53:45
http://www.materiel.forces.gc.ca/en/aops.page

More from the Commander of the RCN:
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/PreparingNavyForUniqueMaritimeTheatreMaddison

(August 2011
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/Defense)

Quote

I mentioned that the Arctic operating environment will exert a major influence on requirements. The Arctic offshore patrol vessel, or AOPS, is a case in point.

AOPS will not be a complex combatant. It will be armed and equipped for a constabulary role in support of other government departments – a role, however, that will require it to operate effectively, safely and reliably within the Arctic Archipelago during the navigable season, and not merely in the low Arctic, as well as in Canada’s other two oceans at other times of the year.

As a result, the ship will exhibit a number of the key characteristics of an icebreaker in terms of hull form, displacement, robustness of propulsion and so on, while preserving the ocean-going stability required in northern Atlantic and Pacific waters...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 23, 2012, 23:38:47
Thanks Mark.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on March 26, 2012, 13:34:24
He did say on an interview that I listened to that he was told by the CCG that they did not mind being armed to do Constabulary duties such as the USCG is.  As long as they received the training to do so etc etc.  I was always under the understanding that the CCG was opposed to arming their vessels etc.  And I could see the Canadian public screaming we are militarizing the CCG, you know "people with guns, on our streets...  :o" crap of not so long ago.

I suspect that that CCG is worried about their future role, most of the buoy tending stuff can be contracted out, even much of SAR can be localized using smaller vessels covering smaller areas using fulltime/part time crews. Having the vessels armed even lightly, makes their future a tad more secure. As I mentioned before, it would cost almost nothing to arm and train the crews with .50cal MG's. The biggest issue is changing the mindsets of the Commanding Officers to get them to deploy them and willing to use them. Frankly I think the Government should force this change onto them, arm most of the major ships with the .50cals now, this will force the fleet to come to terms with the changing roles. Things like larger guns and boarding parties are to big of a bite to take right now.

Came across this site yesterday while searching for something else. The RCMP Navy post WWII was almost as big as the RCN prior to WWII

http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/HistoricalPhotogallery.htm
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 11, 2012, 00:36:02
Last week saw PPT on the plans for the AOP's.  Looks like they are planning to up the tonnage to closer to 6500-7000.  It's looking more and more like the Svalbard.  There is still some discussion on azipods vs traditional shafts .  The deck crane is supposed to reach out 12m from the ship to pick up the equivalent of an F150 truck and place it on the deck.

Length 103+m, beam about 19+m

Enclosed landing craft in a side davit (stbd by the plans).  Enclosed boarding party boat.  Rescue zodiac/RHIB

Filght deck can land anything short of a chinook and they are doing the math on a retractable hangar or half retractable hanger.  Max speed 17 knots, normal speed 12-14.  40 crew with space for 40 extra (full platoon).

4-6 sea cans below the flight deck astern.  Snow mobile storage etc...  The bridge goes all the way to above the flight deck, ops room is aft of the bridge same deck port side.

This thing is completely designed to support other operations with extra embarked pers.  Small teams of rangers, troops doing their patrols.  Perhaps an embarked air det for the Scan eagles or helo's.  Search and rescue.  Fisheries patrols and other boardings. 

40mm and potential for IR type sensors (WESCAM) but those are obviously up for debate.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on June 11, 2012, 02:33:25
Dan McGreer STX 18 Feb 2012 (http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SNAME/ce7dbd62-cb5f-4739-abc2-44ac55b35df0/UploadedImages/AOPS%20SNAME%20PNW%20Section%20Presentation%20Rev2.pdf)

Underway.... Try this one.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on June 11, 2012, 07:10:03
13kw generating capabilities... that's a decent bit of power!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 11, 2012, 10:42:07
Actually Sig Op, it's 13 MW of power generating capacity. However, up to 9 MW are for the propulsion motors.

Since not all four main gensets will operate at the same time (except perhaps  at SSD or when making a speed [???] run), you are likely to have about 1.2 to 1.5 MW available for shipboard power at any given time.

That is one of the beauties of "electric" ships, however, that everything is interchangeable in terms of electric generation and use. If push came to shove, you could probably minimize electrical consumption and drag you butt to harbour at about two knots on the emergency generator alone, while with some of the main gensets running while alongside, you can probably power a small Arctic town while their own power plant gets fixed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on June 11, 2012, 11:19:09
Compared to the 1100 class ice breakers (also polar class 5) it's still a decent power plant/propulsion system.... more or less twice as much for each.

Not bad for "slush breakers"  ;)

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 11, 2012, 11:30:57
True enough, but remember that the 1100 class are about 2000 tonnes lighter than the AOPS will be.

And all that "extra" power only gets you an extra 1.5 kts over them in terms of maximum speed.

That is not surprising, by the way: That last knot always cost you more power than the preceding ones. In the MCDV's, the difference between running at max available power on three DG's as opposed to four is only a little more than one knot. The last 25% of extra generating capacity is needed to give you the last 7% of speed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on June 11, 2012, 11:52:09
...Filght deck can land anything short of a chinook and they are doing the math on a retractable hangar or half retractable hanger.  Max speed 17 knots, normal speed 12-14.  40 crew with space for 40 extra (full platoon).

If the design is the one linked by Kirkhill, then putting a CH147F on AOps can be achieved if the deck is rated for a CH149 Cormorant at max weight.  There is sufficient clearance (at least 5.5m more than required minimums).  In fact, a CH147F would have 2m greater rotor clearance from the ship's superstructure sitting sideways, centered on the flight deck than a CH149 Cormorant does facing forward, similarly centered on the "bull's eye."  'SSF' (sideways, starboard-forward) is the preferred method of Chinooks landing-on to anything down to USS Arleigh Burke size.  AOps looks to have a similar sized flight deck than Arleigh Burke (perhaps about 75-100cm narrower).


Ready aye,
G2G
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 11, 2012, 11:52:44
What is the value of such a ship?

It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?].

It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]

It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act. 

Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?     

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 11, 2012, 12:02:42
That is one of the beauties of "electric" ships, however, that everything is interchangeable in terms of electric generation and use. If push came to shove, you could probably minimize electrical consumption and drag you butt to harbour at about two knots on the emergency generator alone, while with some of the main gensets running while alongside, you can probably power a small Arctic town while their own power plant gets fixed.

I don't think the ship will be set up to export power like that and most likely it will be 600V AC. Most hamlets and villages do not have the ability for a ship to come alongside and thus wouldn't be able to export power like that anyway.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on June 11, 2012, 12:36:28
What is the value of such a ship?

It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?].

It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]

It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act. 

Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?     

With respect Whiskey, a 50 Cal was apparently all that was necessary to convince the Spaniards to cease and desist on the poaching of poor little Greenland Turbot.

Admittedly, coming from a very limited personal experience, but a longer family tradition, I am biased towards the concept of "boots on the ground", I see these vessels as having a very useful role in delivering those same boots.   Both to engage with out friends, and remind them that they have friends to help them, as well as to engage those who would take advantage of a vacuum and remind them there is no vacuum.

The vessel can only reach out and touch to the maximum range of its 25mm and can only outrun trawlers doing less than 17 knots.

On the other hand its RHIBs have MG mounts and can manage 25 to 40 knots (I'm guessing on that speed, but it is speedy).

Also there is nothing to prevent, if the situation warrants, the CCG 412 being replaced with an armed CH-146 from 427 Squadron to give your NBP some cover and range.

And finally, assuming that both I and G2G are correct (he will be,  I may not be) then 450 Squadron should be able to deliver a CSOR platoon to your location if you are within 1000 km or so of a refuelling point, stop over on your deck to gas up, let the troops stretch their legs and grab a hot meal, then proceed to prosecute, in conjunction with the armed CH-146, any target within a 300 km range (limited by the CH-146 and not the CH-147).

Alternately it could be used as a transit point on an evacuation conveyor,  or it could be used as a staging point and Command and Control node for a UUV surveillance network.

And with a radio, if facing an unexpectedly ferocious Danish Cutter, the CF-35s are only a phone call away.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on June 11, 2012, 14:55:24
Other than a sub, everything else you meet up there will have minimal armament as well. The constraints that work on us will be doubled for anyone trying to project into our waters.

Although I would like to see the ships built with extra hardpoints with necceasy cabling and comms already run. there are several self contained weapon systems that could be purchased and stored away.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on June 11, 2012, 15:28:30
Stanflex ALSS (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/36245/?SID=e1357128a50f5593b335588f6bce57e3)

Colin, here's a bolt on sea-can that might come in handy some day.  The Yanks might find it useful on the LCSs for that Over-The-Horizon stuff.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on June 12, 2012, 17:06:59
I don't know if anybody else has noticed the latest kerfuffle over the NSPS programme and it effect on the AOPS project.

Apparently Irving and the Navy are having trouble. The Navy wants many ships for little money.  Irving wants lots of money for no ships.  This is causing the opposition consternation.  Apparently they have never been involved in a commercial negotiation.

The NSPS plan is now being seen askance on two grounds: the negotiators feel they have little leverage and the government isn't directly involved in the negotiations.

Meanwhile, out on the West Coast, Washington Marine is stating they have no problems.

So here's the thought: Could the Government, suggest to Irving that if they are having trouble meeting their commitments then the Government could assist them by taking some of the pressure off them and transferring the AOPS workload to Washington Marine?

After all the AOPS is not REALLY a combatant, it is largely built to Civilian Standards, and Washington Marine has related experience... 

Just offering some deviltry here.  >:D.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: GAP on June 12, 2012, 17:19:00
Well, Irving did bid on building the ships within the stated budget amount....that little problem can be solved quite easily.

It's no skin off the CPC's back. They aren't likely to win many seats come 2015 after changing the status of EI, so solving Irving's banditry should work out.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 12, 2012, 22:37:28
Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.




Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on June 13, 2012, 14:25:10
Quote
how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back

A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.

Quote
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops

A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And then Rescue Stations followed by running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.

Quote
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB

Send the helicopter? Maybe with support from the CF-whatevers and the gun mount?

Quote
and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

Well yes, that's generally how it's done if the call of "Go away" doesn't work. Although the boarding party may not take well to being called "Somalian Pirates". OTOH after 3 months of patrolling the passage, they may insist on saying "Arrrr" all the time and gun-taping wheel spanners to their arms. Depends on the crew.

Quote
There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

There's also nothing that says "She's gonna roll over!" like when the ice accumulates on all that gear. Or even more likely "The parts we need to keep it working are thousands of miles away in Halifax".

Quote
And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel.

How do you figure that? It seems to have at least as good of an outfit as the Kingstons.

Quote
Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

We have UUV's and naval UAV's? I had no idea. When did that happen?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on June 13, 2012, 15:01:38
CHA is deployed with UAV's onboard right now (Scan Eagle)

I was recently involved with UUV's not that long ago.  Not a hard piece of technology, just spendy.

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on June 13, 2012, 15:12:24
Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

While I would love to see some arctic ships that are the equals to the Halifax class, the reality is that any armed vessel will be better than what we have now. We have budget issues already, the vessel you aks for is not going to be built. At best we get a ship fitted for but with some of the systems you suggest.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 15, 2012, 21:11:15
It never fails to amaze me that people think that in order to be an effective platform you need to be armed to the teeth.  99% of security is just presence.  Right now we don't even have that.  AOPS is designed to deal with the presence issue more than anything else.

Quote
how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

It can't and it won't.  Thats not its job.  Thats the job of a Task Group.  Or a submarine.  Or a wing of CF-18's.  The AOPS job is to move army and airforce elements around the arctic for soveriegnty.  It is to provide eyes for the recognized maritime picture (almost entirely civilian ships).  Think of your local security guard.  Are they armed?  Do they even have handcuffs?  No.  Their job is to call 911 when things go south and let the professionals deal with things.  These ships will not operate in a vacuum with no cooperation or intelligence.

If the threat level rises then they will move into a supporting role or will be refitted to deal with threats differently.
If the threat level is what it has been since 1952 then a boarding party of fisheries officers and RCMP won't be hozed by RPG fire from a spanish or danish fishing trawler.  A crew that fights back against that party or takes shots at a helo will find that a modern 25-40mm naval gun and .50cal is perfectly acceptable to "encourage" cooperation.

If someone has to deal with a proper warship then the frigates are called up to deal with the problem.  Constabulatory does not mean SWAT.

ESM and air search not needed.  NORAD does air search/detection just fine.

Finally to this quote the Scan eagle UAV works just fine off an MCDV who trialed the program.  If you can fly one out of the back of a Armoured vehicle you can easily do the same with a ship.  Larger UAV's are controled from a central location on the mainland and flow through a satillite uplink.  If you're flying UAV's then that hangar could easily be the space where you set up shop to fly the thing.

Title: Ottawa signs deal w/Irving shipyard
Post by: milnews.ca on July 10, 2012, 13:36:11
Quote
The federal government has signed a $9.3-million deal with Irving Shipbuilding to get started on the navy shipbuilding contract in Halifax.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the contract will allow the shipbuilding company to review the design and devise a construction plan for the Arctic offshore patrol ships.

Those are the first vessels expected to be built under the overall $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement project.

In October, Ottawa announced that the Irving shipyard would receive the lion's share of the project.

Under its $25-billion deal, Irving will build 21 combat vessels.

The Seaspan Marine Corp. shipyard in Vancouver will construct seven vessels under an $8-billion contract for non-combat ships ....
The Canadian Press, 10 Jul 12 (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ottawa-signs-9-3-million-contract-going-navy-145004642.html)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 11, 2012, 18:15:24
If we don't need to have the capability of hurting anyone with our 'sovereignty ships', here's an excellent and very successful example of a cheap and durable arctic capable ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 05, 2012, 10:47:49
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post breathes some urgency into the AOPS project, and revitalizes the case for an under ice (air independent propulsion system) submarine project, too:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/canada-poised-to-claim-ownership-of-vast-underwater-territory-bigger-than-quebec/
Quote
Canada poised to claim ownership of vast underwater territory bigger than Quebec

Randy Boswell, Postmedia News

Last Updated: Oct 5, 2012

OTTAWA – Canada is poised to claim ownership of a vast new expanse of undersea territory beyond its Atlantic and Arctic coasts that’s greater in size than Quebec and equal to about 20% of the country’s surface area, Postmedia News has learned.

The huge seabed land grab has been in the works since 1994, when federal scientists first conducted a “desktop study” of Canada’s potential territorial expansion under a new UN treaty allowing nations to extend their offshore jurisdictions well past the current 200-nautical-mile (370-km) limit of so-called “Exclusive Economic Zones” in coastal waters.

But the UN also set strict criteria for converting underwater tracts of “no man’s land” into a nation’s territorial possessions, including exhaustive geological studies proving these distant stretches of seabed — including potentially massive oil-and-gas deposits — are “natural prolongations” of each applicant country’s continental bedrock.

At the time, experts from the Geological Survey of Canada and Canadian Hydrographic Service estimated that as much as 1.75 million square kilometres of seafloor to the east and north of Canada’s 9.9-million-sq.-km. land mass — initially described as an area “equivalent to the size of the three Prairie provinces” — might eventually be claimed under provisions of the new international accord on continental shelf extensions, a component of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

Canada’s Pacific Coast, with its “narrow margin” continental shelf and steep slope to deep ocean, generally doesn’t meet the UN criteria for territorial extensions beyond the economic zone.

But now, after years of seafloor surveys covering thousands of kilometres of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans — along with countless hours spent analyzing the collected data — the head of Canada’s UNCLOS mapping project is preparing the country’s final submission to acquire new offshore territory ahead of a December 2013 deadline for the claim.

And Jacob Verhoef, the Halifax-based Natural Resources Canada geologist directing the historic effort to redraw the outer boundary of Canada, says the final proposal is proving “pretty close” in size to what federal scientists predicted nearly 20 years ago.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F10%2Fna1005_ocean_borders2.jpg%3Fw%3D300%26amp%3Bh%3D356&hash=119ac5e8fea601072a09eb9abbd58a8f)
National Post Graphics

“I can’t give you a number, simply because I don’t have a number – we have not calculated the number. But our preliminary outer limit as we are now defining it is pretty close to what we had expected,” Verhoef told Postmedia News.

At the time of the country’s initial estimates, “we didn’t have enough data to substantiate it, so we could not formally define it,” he added. “Now, with all the data sufficient – and now the analysis of the data (nearing completion) – there are differences from what we originally expected, but nothing major.”

That news will be music to the ears of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has touted Arctic mineral wealth and Canada’s offshore resources as a vital economic inheritance for the nation. And despite inevitable controversies over the prospect of exploiting offshore oil, natural gas and frozen methane deposits — especially in the remote and ice-choked waters of Arctic Canada — the UNCLOS mapping project was strongly supported by previous Liberal governments as well.

The claim document now being prepared under Verhoef’s supervision, which he said will run into the “thousands of pages” and encompass at least 25 separate scientific reports, must be delivered to the UN agency handling submissions by the end of next year, 10 years after Canada ratified the UNCLOS convention and initiated its seabed mapping mission in 2003.

An executive summary of the submission and a cartographic representation of the claim – essentially the first map of the proposed new Canada – are now being prepared for public release sometime next year, Verhoef added.

Other countries have already been granted control over great swaths of seafloor using the UN formula. In April 2009, Norway formally acquired about 235,000 square kilometres of undersea Arctic and Atlantic territory.

And in 2008, Australia added an underwater area equal to one-third of the country’s land mass — about 2.5 million square kilometres, or the combined areas of Ontario and Quebec — to its governing authority.

“This is a major boost to Australia’s offshore resource potential and also to our ability to preserve the marine environment on the seabed,” the country’s resources and energy minister, Martin Ferguson, stated at the time.

“The largest island in the world has just been dramatically increased in size,” Ferguson added after UN approval of Australia’s claim. “This is potentially a bonanza.”

The case for gaining possession of undersea territory can be clinched in one of two ways. Countries can claim seabed anywhere they can prove that the continental shelf extends underwater from existing territory — such as the northern mainland and Arctic islands in Canada’s case — until the seabed drops consistently below a depth of 2,500 metres.

The other approach involves measuring offshore seabed sediment — such as the enormous deposits of silt accumulated at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea, discharged from the outlet of the Mackenzie River — and claiming continental extensions under a complex UN formula calculated from the thickness of those deposits and their distance from shore.

Earlier this year, Verhoef told Postmedia News that three scholarly papers had been published in support of Canada’s undersea land claims — an important credibility-building exercise when it comes to demonstrating the soundness of Canada’s eventual UN submission.

One published article was about the Alpha Ridge — a submerged mountain that extends 1,700 kilometres from Canada to Russia past the North Pole.

One of the other papers concerned the Lomonosov Ridge, another undersea mountain range that federal scientists believe is an extension of North America running from Greenland and Ellesmere Island to the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean.


That's a lot of seabed, especially in the Arctic, and it will need patrolling.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 05, 2012, 10:54:52
The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 05, 2012, 12:03:06
The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.


You're right: both Russia and the USA will fight us tooth and nail but we can (hopefully will) force the fight in an arena (UNCLOS) where we have a chance of winning ~ we can probably buy a lot more votes than Russia or America. The USA has not signed UNCLOS but they will end up be obliged to respect its outcomes IF we, and others, are smart enough to refuse to deal with them except on the basis of UNCLOS principles.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 07, 2012, 10:09:10
I can see the American objecting, but the Russians ought to take our side (if only to p*** off the Americans).

First, the Russians themselves are using the UNCLOS rules to do the same thing on their side of the Arctic ocean; and second, the extensions on that map are nowhere near areas the Russians intend to claim.
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on October 07, 2012, 11:43:58
The American's effort to drastically swing American sovereignty into the Beaufort towards the East based primarily on the orientation of a few hundred meters of shoreline at the Alaskan/Yukon border is rather telling of their attitude on how they will likely try to press for control of the Beaufort. That is, principle not by using/conforming to UNCLOS guidelines.  In tho regard, I fully agree with OGBD regarding probable support of Canada's UNCLOS application by Moscow.  Regarding the North, the Americans appear to be taking an ostrich-like approach to the specifics of UNCLOS, and I believe they are doing so to their own detriment.

The effect then I that I don't believe the slower than desired rate of AOPS progress to be as critical as some may make it out to be. Yes, Canada needs an appropriate fleet of ships to reinforce what we will hopefully have secured through our case made to UNCLOS; but vessels will not be the principle sherrifing force in the area, so AOPS should do "well enough" -- nuclear-powered guided missile icebreakers is not really required, nor, given the rate of ice disappearing from the North, AIP a "must have", but rarer a "nice to have."

The Government is putting in place a "system of systems" in the North, realistically 'up to speed' in the early 2020's, and by all indications, I believe the AOPS will be in place as a part of that "system" in time.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2013, 16:22:21
Quote
$288-million deal will kick-start design of Arctic patrol ships, Ottawa announces

National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/288-million-deal-will-kick-start-design-of-arctic-patrol-ships-ottawa-announces/)

So where does this leave the STX design for the AOPS?  Is it incorporated in the Irving / Odense design or are they starting with a clean sheet?

I believe Odense Marine Technology is responsible for the Absalon/Huitfeldt frigates as well as the Maersk container ships.  The good news, if that is the case, is that they are the people responsible for delivering the Danish vessels for approximately half the price of the rest of NATO while working in a Western Labour Environment. (350 MCAD for the Iver Huitfeldt vs 700 MCAD for the Zeven Provincien with the same equipment suite).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on March 07, 2013, 17:30:47
National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/288-million-deal-will-kick-start-design-of-arctic-patrol-ships-ottawa-announces/)
So where does this leave the STX design for the AOPS?  Is it incorporated in the Irving / Odense design or are they starting with a clean sheet?
As I understand it, what this contract award is for is design at a much more detailed level than the STX design we're familiar with. STX designed the overall look, dimensions and layout; this Irving contract will basically create builder's plans for every frame of the ship, electrical wiring diagrams, etc. The STX design is still the one that's being built - this contract just turns the pretty pictures and floor plans into something you can hand to a shipyard and say, "Here: build this."
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 07, 2013, 17:54:52
National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/07/288-million-deal-will-kick-start-design-of-arctic-patrol-ships-ottawa-announces/)

The good news, if that is the case, is that they are the people responsible for delivering the Danish vessels for approximately half the price of the rest of NATO while working in a Western Labour Environment. (350 MCAD for the Iver Huitfeldt vs 700 MCAD for the Zeven Provincien with the same equipment suite).
And, hopefully we can build those frigates with HSLA-100 steel for 1.2 billion, average cost each for the 15 hulls.  They are a very flexible design, able to handle lots of mission modules.  32 SM-2's and 48 ESSM per ship, and hopefully some of the cells will be strike type to handle the SM-3 missle, as we'll then have ballistic missle defence.  They won't be as sexy as some of the designs, but still will be good.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 07, 2013, 18:45:31
Gov't A/OPS release:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/harper-governments-ship-strategy-bolstering-canadas-economy-1765340.htm

More on BMT, STX design involvement (both foreign susbsidiaries, I'd wager a lot of the work done abroad):
http://www.bmt.org/projects/defence-arctic-offshore-patrol-ship-design-engineering-logistics-and-management-support/
http://www.stxmarine.net/ship_ice.html

2012 STX PowerPoint:
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SNAME/ce7dbd62-cb5f-4739-abc2-44ac55b35df0/UploadedImages/AOPS%20SNAME%20PNW%20Section%20Presentation%20Rev2.pdf

STX is also designing the--one only--new CCG icebreaker:
http://www.stxmarine.net/headlines.html#polar
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/hq-ac02-eng.htm

And STX's S. Korean parent is helping Seaspan Vancouver with their shipyard:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Korean+experts+advise+Vancouver+Shipyards+redesign/6490267/story.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2013, 18:55:07
Thanks Mark.

Looks like we're going to be buying a whole lot of offshore assistance for the yards.  I have to believe that, given the state of our industry, its necessary.

And HT.

Thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 07, 2013, 19:05:36
Plus Odense Maritime Technology:
http://www.odensemaritime.com/da-DK/Home.aspx

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 08, 2013, 01:33:05
A few clarifications on the last couple of posts:

STX Canada Marine is about 65 people and is an independent ship design consultant based in Canada.  It is Korean owned, but has no real ties to Korea beyond ownership.  The company has just under 20 OPV designs operating worldwide.

About 95% of the AOPS design was done in Canada.  A few specialized bits of hull shape for ice breaking and winterization were done by a sister company in Finland.

Ship design has several stages.  They are concept, class, functional, production (functional/production are sometimes combined and called detailed and in Europe, class and functional are combined and called basic.).  The AOPS design has been completed to somewhere past a class package, meaning that a Classification society has all it needs to approve the ship for construction.  Much of the engineering required for functional design is also done, but couldn't be taken further without selecting specific equipment.  In short, its a lot more than just arrangements and pretty pictures.

The design is at a stage where a typical shipyard could go ahead and build it after incorporating specific equipment and generating production information.  There's about $7 to $12 million worth of detailed engineering left to get the production information required to build.  The total design cost is normally about 10% of the build cost for this ship type.

I can't reconcile the $288 million for remaining design.  I find it extremely embarassing for both the industry and our country.  It makes no sense and all those of us in the industry can do is laugh and shake our heads.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 08, 2013, 08:20:00
Could this be $$$ for shipyard expansion for future projects. When I say future, I mean out beyond CSC as the goal of NSPS is to create an industry not just 20 or so ships. Again, if I am wrong, I am wrong but I keep trying to envision what may be happenning and what infrastructure companies like Halifax Shipyards will need say 20 years from now. Like an RRSP, people need to look at this in the long term not the short political term we have all become accustomed to.

Pat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 08, 2013, 10:23:55
RC: Thanks for helpful clarifications.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on March 08, 2013, 10:34:12
A few clarifications on the last couple of posts:

STX Canada Marine is about 65 people and is an independent ship design consultant based in Canada.  It is Korean owned, but has no real ties to Korea beyond ownership.  The company has just under 20 OPV designs operating worldwide.

About 95% of the AOPS design was done in Canada.  A few specialized bits of hull shape for ice breaking and winterization were done by a sister company in Finland.

Ship design has several stages.  They are concept, class, functional, production (functional/production are sometimes combined and called detailed and in Europe, class and functional are combined and called basic.).  The AOPS design has been completed to somewhere past a class package, meaning that a Classification society has all it needs to approve the ship for construction.  Much of the engineering required for functional design is also done, but couldn't be taken further without selecting specific equipment.  In short, its a lot more than just arrangements and pretty pictures.

The design is at a stage where a typical shipyard could go ahead and build it after incorporating specific equipment and generating production information.  There's about $7 to $12 million worth of detailed engineering left to get the production information required to build.  The total design cost is normally about 10% of the build cost for this ship type.

I can't reconcile the $288 million for remaining design.  I find it extremely embarassing for both the industry and our country.  It makes no sense and all those of us in the industry can do is laugh and shake our heads.

Just wanted to say thank you for great post....for those of us outside your world, you're definitely teaching us something.


Cheers, Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 08, 2013, 10:46:01
If there isn't a good explanation, someone should prepare a detailed report, and get it into the hands of the opposition in Ottawa and the press.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on March 08, 2013, 11:37:46
If there isn't a good explanation, someone should prepare a detailed report, and get it into the hands of the opposition in Ottawa and the press.
Just because someone on Army.ca cannot come up with a good explanation for this doesn't mean there isn't one. We can speculate all we want but that specific info may not get publicly released and that is not uncommon in the major procurement world. I can say from experience though that every aspect of these Projects is 'over reviewed' by Oversight Committees-If there is anything shady (which I personally do not think is the case here), TB will find it.

Pat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 08, 2013, 12:02:00
Just because someone on Army.ca cannot come up with a good explanation for this doesn't mean there isn't one. We can speculate all we want but that specific info may not get publicly released and that is not uncommon in the major procurement world. I can say from experience though that every aspect of these Projects is 'over reviewed' by Oversight Committees-If there is anything shady (which I personally do not think is the case here), TB will find it.

Pat
I wish I was as confident as you, and frankly, we have a history of overpaying on these projects.  The idea that it would cost up to 4 billion dollars to replace our two re-supply ships, as was released the other day, is absolutely ludicrous.  I would be shocked if we were able to build the Iver Huitfeldt Class for 4 times what the Dutch paid.  It is quite frustrating.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 08, 2013, 12:20:53
Could this be $$$ for shipyard expansion for future projects. When I say future, I mean out beyond CSC as the goal of NSPS is to create an industry not just 20 or so ships. Again, if I am wrong, I am wrong but I keep trying to envision what may be happenning and what infrastructure companies like Halifax Shipyards will need say 20 years from now. Like an RRSP, people need to look at this in the long term not the short political term we have all become accustomed to.

Pat

I believe I read somewhere that this is not permitted under the NSPS umbrella agreement.  They do need to upgrade infrastructure, but they are required to amortize it over the program, not feed it into a single design contract.

On the other coast, Seaspan, who I don't believe are in any better shape in terms of infrastructure and have larger vessels to build, released their cost to design the first vessel that will be built there at less than $15 million.  Obviously it's a smaller civilian vessel, but that can't account for much infrastructure improvement on their side.  Why the discrepancy?

In my opinion, this will kill the AOPS program.  This is more than one would reasonably expect an entire ship to cost (design included), so what are they going to ask to actually build one of these things?  Maybe the strategy is to kill the program, make a huge profit through design and litigation, and get a free upgraded shipyard at taxpayers expense without having to go through the inconvenience of actually building a ship?

My fear is that if AOPS dies a slow enough death, the folks in Seaspan will get the impression that the navy is handing out free cash and the implications for JSS could be very negative.  With this kind of price to design a comparatively basic OPV, what are the implications for CSC?  Why is no one comparing this to the cost of the similar reference ship?  If I recall correctly, that ship was designed AND built for less than half of this budget.

In my opinion this is a very dark day for the Canadian Navy.  I sincerely hope that there is something more to this that will make it all make sense (maybe the budget includes equipment costs on long lead items for six shipsets??), but I just can't see it.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 08, 2013, 12:24:08
I wish I was as confident as you, and frankly, we have a history of overpaying on these projects.  The idea that it would cost up to 4 billion dollars to replace our two re-supply ships, as was released the other day, is absolutely ludicrous.  I would be shocked if we were able to build the Iver Huitfeldt Class for 4 times what the Dutch paid.  It is quite frustrating.

If I was an estimator at Seaspan, I would be looking at the PBO report and this contract with Irving and scratching my head saying "Did I miss a zero?  Why is my number so much less than these other guys?"

Bad, bad news on both fronts.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 08, 2013, 12:32:44
Also, they said on the news just the other day that the upgrades for the Irving shipyards were being covered by a 200 million dollar loan from the provincial government.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2013, 13:09:24
Why is no one comparing this to the cost of the similar reference ship?  If I recall correctly, that ship was designed AND built for less than half of this budget.

The cost of building the Svalbard (the reference vessel?) was
Quote
575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,38894.msg325773.html#msg325773

That would suggest a design cost of 10 MCAD at 10% of build cost.  If I read you right RC.

What are the relative histories of SeaSpan and Irving like?  I believe that SeaSpan has got a more substantive Commercial record than Irving.  Irving, to my understanding, has generally relied on Government work.  Please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 08, 2013, 13:26:56
Some interesting comments. If this is a game of Irving trying to squeeze the Government on price for the AOPS (and who really knows, other than Irving), then I fear that they have seriously misread the political climate.

I do not see this Government overpaying for another defence project.  Contractor beware...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 08, 2013, 13:50:05
Except that the announcement the other day was the government going ahead with that initial money, was it not?  The 288 million is being paid out, so the overspending begins.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2013, 14:18:49
Perhaps Irving took comfort from the recent PBO report that stated categorically that you can't build two ships for less than 4 Billion Canadian Dollars.

That report was modelled by Americans and based on American ships.  The European ships, which formed a distinct low cost cluster, disappeared in the data set just like the Mediaeval Warming Period in Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.

I don't recall seeing anywhere that the Dutch or the Danes or the Norwegians or the Spanish ...... spent Billions "Developing" and "Prototyping" their ships.  They generally seem to design, build, launch, sail.  Just like industry tends to do.  I presume the crews work out the fine points of operating the systems once they get them in their hands.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 08, 2013, 14:25:51
And given the fact that we will be using existing designs, it should minimize design requirements, not make them more expensive!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2013, 14:50:07
This from the Halifax Shipping News (http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2013/03/contracts-signed-for-final-aops-design.html).

The way that I read this is that Irving received 9 MCAD in July to prepare a proposal (Cost usually borne by vendor in my world)

They have since then managed to break the pre-Implementation design phase into 7 separate tasks which, if all authorized, will cost the public purse 288 MCAD.

At this time only two tasks have been authorized at a cost of 136 MCAD, presumably the first two.

The first two tasks are:

1 Project Management of the Design Phase
2 Engineering Design Phase 1

The remaining tasks are:

3 Engineering Design Phase 2
4 Engineering Design Phase 3
5 Project Implementation Proposal Development
6 Test Production Module
7 Long Lead Time Items

Reading the text I see no difference amongst items 2,3 and 4.  They appear to be simple iterations of the same task.  Prepping for implementation.

Item 5:  Why prep a proposal?  They have the contract and after three iterations they should be able to organize a plan, not just a proposal.

Item 6:  Tacit acknowledgement that "we've never done this before, we need to train our welders, fitters, supervisors, contractors and engineers how to work together".

Item 7:  Makes sense.

Item 1:  136 MCAD just to manage the "design" phase and perform 12 MCAD of engineering (RC's estimate) is one heck of a hefty management package.  Nova Scotia's going to get its 200 MCAD in yard loans back from the Fed's in jig time at that rate.  Or it should.

Your comments RC?


Quote
Contracts Signed for Final AOPS Design

The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, along with the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Associate Minister of National Defence, today welcomed the signing of the definition contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. for the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships project through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) at an announcement at halifax Shipyards.

This is the next contract signed after the ancillary one announced in July 2012 and it will be followed by a construction contract in 2015. This definition contract is a task-based contract divided into seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. With this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015. The total potential value of the contract is an estimated $288 million and it will support up to 200 jobs.

Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin.  At the same time, work will begin on improving and upgrading the Irving Shipyard to begin full ship construction in 2015.

During the initial discussions regarding the Navy’s Arctic/Offshore patrol ships, Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. agreed that the first contract should be a smaller preliminary contract, followed by a larger definition contract to complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level, and subsequently an implementation contract to build and deliver the ships.

This “design-then-build” approach will mitigate both technical and cost risks by reducing unknowns, and therefore risks, for the building phase. Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin immediately. This approach is also aligned with the NSPS, which is built upon a more collaborative and risk-sharing relationship.

On July 10, 2012, the Government announced the awarding of a $9.3-million (HST included) preliminary contract to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. Within this preliminary contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. reviewed the existing Canadian-developed Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design and specifications, prepared an execution strategy and delivered a proposal detailing the scope and cost of the subsequent definition contract.

Finally, on March 7, a definition contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. was signed. The total potential value of the contract is an estimated $288 million (taxes included). The definition contract is a task-based contract divided into seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. The first two tasks have been authorized and their total value is approximately $136 million.
The definition contract will last 30 months and we are on track to start cutting steel in 2015.

The Arctic/Offshore patrol ships will be used by National Defence to conduct armed seaborne surveillance in Canada’s economic exclusion zone, including in the Arctic.

The definition contract signed with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is a task-based contract divided into the following seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. With this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015.

Project Management – This task will include all work required to ensure effective planning, management, execution, monitoring and control, and reporting of the definition contract work.

Engineering Design Phase 1 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistical support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the preliminary Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design meets all of the contract design specification requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints.

Engineering Design Phase 2 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistical support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design is a complete and integrated solution that meets all the contract design specification requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints.

Engineering Design Phase 3 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistic support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design is a complete and integrated solution that meets all of the contract design specification requirements and is ready for the start of vessel construction.

Project Implementation Proposal Development – This task will encompass all the procurement, engineering, production and estimating activities required to develop the detailed project implementation proposal, including the required plans and a substantive cost for the implementation contract.

Test Production Module – This task will include all the work required to establish and verify production processes and produce a test module prior to beginning vessel construction.

Long Lead Items Procurement – This task will encompass all of the procurement and supply chain activities required to procure long lead items, which must be purchased prior to the start of vessel construction.

Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on March 08, 2013, 17:01:21
It stands to reason the first ships out of the both the east and west coasts will be over budget, late and need fixing. Hopefully the 2nd ships will show marked improvement on all 3 fronts, followed by a steady decline of those 3 issues.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 10, 2013, 21:21:05
I would like to comment Kirkhill, but I don't even know what to say.  I guess we need to pay Irving to learn to build a ship and Odense (container ship designers) to learn to design an OPV.  It's ridiculous.

The mockery has already begun:

http://www.coltoncompany.com/ (http://www.coltoncompany.com/)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 10, 2013, 21:27:39
Btw, Tim is not at all a fan of NSPS, and I disagree with his stance (I find it a bit hypocritical given how stringently he defends the Jones Act), but we are sure giving him fuel.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 12, 2013, 14:19:55
I would like to comment Kirkhill, but I don't even know what to say.  I guess we need to pay Irving to learn to build a ship and Odense (container ship designers) to learn to design an OPV.  It's ridiculous.

The mockery has already begun:

http://www.coltoncompany.com/ (http://www.coltoncompany.com/)
What about the comment in the article that much of the money will go to Odense Maritime Technology?  I'm under the impression that they were involved in getting the Dutch frigates built at such a good price.  It might be a good thing to have them very much involved, perhaps telling Irving, here's how your going to do things, to keep costs in line.  This is probably just wishful thinking on my part.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: RV on March 13, 2013, 00:28:40
What about the comment in the article that much of the money will go to Odense Maritime Technology?  I'm under the impression that they were involved in getting the Dutch frigates built at such a good price.  It might be a good thing to have them very much involved, perhaps telling Irving, here's how your going to do things, to keep costs in line.  This is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

*Danish frigates

If I was Irving, I'd be a bit wary of taking advice on cost savings measures from ex-members of a shipyard that went out of business.  The Danish frigates were the last thing they ever built.  The vast majority of what they built were tankers, bulkers, and containerships.  It seems both coasts have adopted them, but I still don't see any way in which they could justify this budget for AOPS.

Anyone know what happened with Irving and Bath Ironworks?  Did they run up on the rocky shoals of ITAR restrictions?  BIW has to be the most expensive consultant they could possibly have found in North America.  My theory is that they shopped around for the highest design cost possible to maximize their profits.  Clever move given that profits are fixed.

I'm also wondering how in the world Irving is going to meet IRB requirements if they are sending a large chunk of this work to OMT.  They are required to meet 100% IRB obligations.  I think there will be a few people with things to say if they try to claim an exemption from IRBs for this contract.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 13, 2013, 11:49:40
Yet, interestingly enough, if one looks at Bath Iron Works releases for the Zumwalt destroyers, you can see that for the detailed engineering phase, including a major re-design asked for by the Navy, they got about $100M US.

The Zumwalt's are a radical departure from previous USN designs and power plant configuration and are probably one of the most complex ship ever designed for the Navy. Irving, on the other hand, is basically asked to design a standard civilian light icebreaker, with limited armament and  limited specific military extra gear of a type that already exists and which Irving itself has built in the past (such as the light gun and the "bear trap").
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 13, 2013, 11:54:02
*Danish frigates

If I was Irving, I'd be a bit wary of taking advice on cost savings measures from ex-members of a shipyard that went out of business.  The Danish frigates were the last thing they ever built.  The vast majority of what they built were tankers, bulkers, and containerships.  It seems both coasts have adopted them, but I still don't see any way in which they could justify this budget for AOPS.

Anyone know what happened with Irving and Bath Ironworks?  Did they run up on the rocky shoals of ITAR restrictions?  BIW has to be the most expensive consultant they could possibly have found in North America.  My theory is that they shopped around for the highest design cost possible to maximize their profits.  Clever move given that profits are fixed.

I'm also wondering how in the world Irving is going to meet IRB requirements if they are sending a large chunk of this work to OMT.  They are required to meet 100% IRB obligations.  I think there will be a few people with things to say if they try to claim an exemption from IRBs for this contract.

A while back, I read in an article, that I can no longer find, that the Danish frigates were so cheap because commercial construction, rather than military construction, was used.  I wish I could find the article so I could provide a source.  It was written prior to the launch of any of the hulls.  I was thinking that for 4 times the price, we could upgrade them to military standards, using HSLA 80 or 100 steel.  The cost of the weapon systems should be about the same, so the only variance would be in the construction of the hulls.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on March 13, 2013, 12:11:25
OK, so I just found the article, states that the Frigates were built to commercial specifications.  Also, the stated cost does not seem to include the weapon systems, so I'm wondering what the total cost was.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0708/index.php?startid=28
Title: From ceasefire.ca & the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives ....
Post by: milnews.ca on April 11, 2013, 11:51:24
.... a new report calling for the cancellation of the AOPS work and, instead, going for "6 to 8 purpose-built high-speed offshore patrol ships based on a proven design" - here's the news release (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/procurement-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-contains-titanic-blunder-report-finds) ....
Quote
A new report examining the government’s plans to build Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships has just been released by the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Titanic Blunder: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships on course for disaster was written by University of British Columbia political science professor Michael Byers, and Stewart Webb, visiting research fellow at the Rideau Institute and research associate at the Salt Spring Forum.

The procurement of six to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships was announced in 2007 with a budget of $3.1 billion, with an additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over a projected 25-year lifespan.

The report’s main findings include:

- The A/OPS are compromise vessels that will be ineffective in the Arctic and too slow and unstable for offshore patrol functions along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
- The A/OPS will cost 8 to 10 times per vessel what Australia and the United States are paying for purpose-built high-speed patrol ships.
- Further compromises can be expected, as the Department of National Defence struggles, within a budget that was set in 2007, to complete the procurement of vessels that are based on an entirely new design.
The report makes the following recommendations:

-Cancel the procurement of Naval Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships.
-Commission 6 to 8 purpose-built high-speed offshore patrol ships based on a proven design.
-Rebuild the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet taking into account changing ice conditions and the need for the vessels to fulfill an additional, constabulary role ....
.... and here's a link to the 50 page report (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/04/Titanic_Blunder.pdf)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 11, 2013, 14:40:35
Hamiltongs, if you read the above post, the $3.1 billion is budgeted from the building program only, then the additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over 25 years is budgeted from somewhere else.  They obviously do have both sides accounted for, but the $35 billion ship building budget is the aquisition cost side only. The rest will be there but accounted for somewhere else.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on April 11, 2013, 14:55:49
Hamiltongs, if you read the above post, the $3.1 billion is budgeted from the building program only, then the additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over 25 years is budgeted from somewhere else.  They obviously do have both sides accounted for, but the $35 billion ship building budget is the aquisition cost side only. The rest will be there but accounted for somewhere else.
When you're right, you're right (I normally wouldn't trust anything with Michael Byers' name attached to it, but he reference to the figures is a PMO backgrounder on the subject).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 11, 2013, 15:41:40
When you're right, you're right (I normally wouldn't trust anything with Michael Byers' name attached to it, but he reference to the figures is a PMO backgrounder on the subject).
OK, so when we consider just the AOP's, the ships are based on the Svalbard class which cost around $100 million to build and have the bofors 57mm.  So, 6-8 of these would cost Norway approximately $600-800 million, yet our budget is $3.1 billion and we just paid $288 million just for design, which would be half the budget for 6 ships if Norway was building them.  The costs just seem way, way out of whack. 

Please understand, I want our sailors to have the very best, I'm just frustrated by these crazy quotes in comparison with other existing ships, same with the destroyers.  And we hear talk of reducing numbers or capability because of cost, when our budget should be more than adequate.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  But it's not because I have some agenda, other than getting the best for our sailors.  Cheers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoCGV_Svalbard
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: milnews.ca on April 11, 2013, 20:27:20
Coincidentally, CF/DND has issued a news release with no discernable "news" in it (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4718) ....
Quote
In procuring the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships the Government of Canada is acting to meet established Royal Canadian Navy requirements. These requirements are guided by a recognition of new and evolving threats to the sovereignty of Canada’s domestic coast line and commercial shipping lanes. As northern waters become more navigable, there is a need for the Royal Canadian Navy to have greater capabilities for supporting search and rescue and other domestic operations in the Arctic.

“The strategy for procuring these new ships, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, was established and is being implemented through extensive consultations with the marine industry and with consistent third party monitoring,” said the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and Minister for Status of Women.

“Our government's commitment to build these ships in Canada should create 15 000 jobs and over $2 billion in annual economic benefits over 30 years," said the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. "The strategy set forth by our government ensures that the Navy and Coast Guard have the ships they need to keep Canada safe while also revitalizing an important industry."

“Our Government is committed to providing our Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment they need to conduct their missions," said the Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Q.C., Associate Minister of National Defence and Member of Parliament for Delta-Richmond East. "I am confident the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships will give the Navy an unprecedented capability to operate in arctic ice conditions and enable them to have persistent northern presence during the arctic navigable season."

Last month, the Government of Canada awarded Irving Shipbuilding Inc. a contract, with a maximum value of $288 million, to complete the Canadian-developed, preliminary design for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships. This detailed and complex work is underway and progressing well. Refined cost estimates and construction schedules will, in due course, be informed by this completed design.

The Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships will give the Royal Canadian Navy an unprecedented capability, to operate in the ice, in both the low Arctic and high Arctic, and to have a persistent Arctic presence during the navigable season. This will bolster the Government of Canada’s ability to deliver on its commitment to protecting and promoting Canada’s Arctic sovereignty on behalf of all Canadians, for generations to come. The Government of Canada has made Canada’s North a cornerstone of its agenda, and the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship project activities are aligned in support of this priority.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 12, 2013, 10:36:13
Wow, the Svalbard class looks like it's a great ship.  Have had the opportunity to see a few of the various Norwegian, Danish and other viking descendents  ships and was hugely impressed, both from and engineering nerd side and from their normal operations.  I think if we ended up with something similar our sailors would be happy.  (As an aside, they are also a lot of fun during port visits to go run ashore with)

With regards to the previous posting on the design phases, the resign why there are numerous design phases is because it'll be done using a similar process to this;

http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model

So the first round is the napkin sketch; the next one is the roughly dimensioned and fitted one once equipment is picked, and the last is the final blueprinting.

Bit more complicated then that, but that's the gist.  The reason why that is used is that there are a lot of inter relationships between major systems, and the way you go with one will affect one of the others.  For example, hull form/size will drive the power requirement, power requirement will drive the sizing of the propulsion plant, type of propulsion plant will affect the hull form (ie azipods vs shaft driven).... so you have to do it all iteratively.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on April 12, 2013, 17:44:08
OK, so when we consider just the AOP's, the ships are based on the Svalbard class which cost around $100 million to build and have the bofors 57mm.  So, 6-8 of these would cost Norway approximately $600-800 million, yet our budget is $3.1 billion and we just paid $288 million just for design, which would be half the budget for 6 ships if Norway was building them.  The costs just seem way, way out of whack. 

Please understand, I want our sailors to have the very best, I'm just frustrated by these crazy quotes in comparison with other existing ships, same with the destroyers.  And we hear talk of reducing numbers or capability because of cost, when our budget should be more than adequate.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  But it's not because I have some agenda, other than getting the best for our sailors.  Cheers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoCGV_Svalbard
My suspicion is that we're still comparing apples and footballs. According to this article (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2000/01/feature/no0001175f.htm), the Norwegian government paid a subsidy to shipyards worth about USD$400M per year in 1999. It also notes that the subsidy fell in 2000 due to new OECD regulations, but that the old direct subsidy was substituted with various indirect subsidies. Norway is not a big country, and USD$400M every year in return for no ships at all strikes me as an expensive way to secure an OPV cheaply when you do eventually buy one. At $100M for a one-off vessel, it wouldn't surprise me if the yard agreed not to charge anything for design as part of the subsidy deal, but I don't have any details on how that cost broke down and it doesn't seem like any are available.

Also, Svalbard is a Coast Guard vessel, so it's almost certainly built to civilian spec. All we know is that Langsten (now STX) handed over the vessel to the Coast Guard at a cost of $100M; we don't know if that included C2 system integration, commissioning, etc, which may well have been done by third parties or the CG itself. Again - I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying we don't and can't know.

What we do know, and what's been made very clear by gov't communications on the NSPS, is that the programme is partially intended to support (one might say "subsidize") Canadian shipbuilding so that it can provide service to the RCN and CCG when needed. Regardless of what we may feel about that, it's official policy and it's what pretty much every developed country in the world does. It appears that the federal government is essentially paying that subsidy in the form of buying expensive ships, rather than in the form of no-strings-attached cash like Norway.

On the subject of the expensive design phase awarded to Irving, a friend who was present at a recent NSPS-focused industry conference out west (he works for part of one of the losing consortiums) said that the consensus seems to be that the gov't recognizes that while Irving got the big contract, they got slightly hosed in that the ships they were awarded (RCN, vice CCG) aren't going to start building for years. Thus, the big design phase contract is intended to provide a bit of upfront subsidy, but since it's coming out of the same total acquisition cost, it's really just a matter of "when" the money is paid and won't alter the final cost. And it appears that it will be a bottom-up redesign, apparently at the department's request.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 12, 2013, 20:00:15
OK, that's all good to know. Thanks.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 12, 2013, 20:58:44
My suspicion is that we're still comparing apples and footballs. According to this article (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2000/01/feature/no0001175f.htm), the Norwegian government paid a subsidy to shipyards worth about USD$400M per year in 1999. It also notes that the subsidy fell in 2000 due to new OECD regulations, but that the old direct subsidy was substituted with various indirect subsidies. Norway is not a big country, and USD$400M every year in return for no ships at all strikes me as an expensive way to secure an OPV cheaply when you do eventually buy one. At $100M for a one-off vessel, it wouldn't surprise me if the yard agreed not to charge anything for design as part of the subsidy deal, but I don't have any details on how that cost broke down and it doesn't seem like any are available.

Also, Svalbard is a Coast Guard vessel, so it's almost certainly built to civilian spec. All we know is that Langsten (now STX) handed over the vessel to the Coast Guard at a cost of $100M; we don't know if that included C2 system integration, commissioning, etc, which may well have been done by third parties or the CG itself. Again - I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying we don't and can't know.

What we do know, and what's been made very clear by gov't communications on the NSPS, is that the programme is partially intended to support (one might say "subsidize") Canadian shipbuilding so that it can provide service to the RCN and CCG when needed. Regardless of what we may feel about that, it's official policy and it's what pretty much every developed country in the world does. It appears that the federal government is essentially paying that subsidy in the form of buying expensive ships, rather than in the form of no-strings-attached cash like Norway.

On the subject of the expensive design phase awarded to Irving, a friend who was present at a recent NSPS-focused industry conference out west (he works for part of one of the losing consortiums) said that the consensus seems to be that the gov't recognizes that while Irving got the big contract, they got slightly hosed in that the ships they were awarded (RCN, vice CCG) aren't going to start building for years. Thus, the big design phase contract is intended to provide a bit of upfront subsidy, but since it's coming out of the same total acquisition cost, it's really just a matter of "when" the money is paid and won't alter the final cost. And it appears that it will be a bottom-up redesign, apparently at the department's request.


Hamiltongs:

When you are right you are right.   :)

There is the cost of maintaining the shipbuilding capability and there is the cost of building the ship.  And the Europeans do subsidize their strategic assets.  It shouldn't surprise me that they distribute costs over three or four sets of books.  We're in the process of building a capability that they already have.

The thing is, if this is a national asset then it should be more broadly funded (ie funded with HRDC labour grants, IRAP grants, Industry Canada grants, DFAIT grants for export assistance). That would put the Canadian yards on par with the Euro yards.

The RCN would then get the vessels at production cost (just like the F-35s we're supposed to get) with the yards and the government carrying the overhead costs.

If that plan doesn't work for Canada's accountants and those costs have to be borne by the RCN and Coast Guard in their entirety (which in effect means you might as well make the yards departments of the RCN and Coast Guard) then the government should be very clear in demonstrating those cost differences to the public.

With respect to the Svalbard.  She was built to civilian standards.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 12, 2013, 22:33:47
I'm OK with overpaying for the ships right up until the point that we have to cut back on numbers or capability and that's the line where we are overpaying by too much.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on April 14, 2013, 10:55:56
The thing is, if this is a national asset then it should be more broadly funded (ie funded with HRDC labour grants, IRAP grants, Industry Canada grants, DFAIT grants for export assistance). That would put the Canadian yards on par with the Euro yards.

The RCN would then get the vessels at production cost (just like the F-35s we're supposed to get) with the yards and the government carrying the overhead costs.
The risk I see with that plan is the one that happened in Norway (can't find the link to this story now): the $400M subsidy was paid every year, but the Coast Guard's shipbuilding plan for Svalbard was delayed from 1994 to 2002 due to "lack of funds". Once the politicians get an industrial subsidy gravy boat set up, priorities for little things like defence fall to the wayside. By lumping the subsidy funds in with ship acquisition, the government is making sure that the subsidy expires if the shipbuilding stops.

The other way of looking at it is that the subsidy is intended to enhance the yards' ability to provide Navy- and Coast Guard-specific support (there is a lot that we do differently from industry). If that's the case then it makes sense to see the money budgeted under National Defence and DFO, rather than Industry.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 14, 2013, 14:58:21
The problem we end up dancing around is maintaining the long term viability of the yards.

Yards that can build commercial and naval vessels have two potential income streams.  Currently our yards have neither stream.  The Euros have both streams.  The issue is with how the subsidies are managed.  Subsidies to yards end up subsidizing commercial shipbuilding which contravenes WTO requirements.  Subsidies for strategic assets, like naval shipbuilding are exempt from such rules, but if a "naval" yard competes for and wins a "commercial" contract it can be challenged, as I understand it.

Accordingly the issue becomes one of managing the subsidies and ensuring that the subsidies are directed against the project.  Fair enough. That will inevitably drive up the cost to the taxpayer of the project.  If that is where we are with the AOPS and NSPS projects then I am good with that.  Essentially we are covering not just the cost of building vessels but building graving yards and dry docks as well.  Those costs will become sunk costs (sorry about talking about sinking in a shipbuilding discussion :) ).  Ultimately the cost of those yards and docks will disappear as more ships are built.  Just as comparable costs (tools, hangars and jigs) will disappear over the life of the F35.

Once those yards are built then the shipyards will be better positioned to compete on the commercial market.

Another interesting aspect to this is there seems to be a tendency to have bare bones hulls built in low wage environments and then have the hulls delivered to national yards for fitting out.  The optics of this can be a bit difficult as the public sees the hull as the ship even though the majority of the costs will come during the fitting out process.

The Dutch get their hulls built on the Black Sea (in Romania), the Danes have had theirs built on the Baltic (Poland) and the Aussies on the Atlantic (Spain).  All three countries returned their hulls to national yards for machinery, hotel and weapons.

I guess I would just like to see some more detail in the accounting on the NSPS - and less wailing and gnashing of teeth about not being able to afford hulls.   Hulls are cheap.  It is the stuff you guys want to pack into them that costs money.  Maybe if you spread that wealth a bit, and invested less in each hull you could afford to put more of them in the water.   

And I still prefer to look out on the horizon and see the lights of another ship than feel all alone on the briny.  As I've said before: the best form of compartmentalization going as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on April 14, 2013, 19:55:23
The problem we end up dancing around is maintaining the long term viability of the yards.

Yards that can build commercial and naval vessels have two potential income streams.  Currently our yards have neither stream. 
If the two streams you're talking about are civilian and military business, both Seaspan and Irving have been doing quite well on the civilian front. In the case of Irving, they're having to add a dry dock to their capacity to support the new military business: a big up-front cost for them to swallow on the infirm commitment of a government's word.

Quote
Another interesting aspect to this is there seems to be a tendency to have bare bones hulls built in low wage environments and then have the hulls delivered to national yards for fitting out.  The optics of this can be a bit difficult as the public sees the hull as the ship even though the majority of the costs will come during the fitting out process.

The Dutch get their hulls built on the Black Sea (in Romania), the Danes have had theirs built on the Baltic (Poland) and the Aussies on the Atlantic (Spain).  All three countries returned their hulls to national yards for machinery, hotel and weapons.
Not sure how much saving this would yield. The hull component of the overall project cost is pretty marginal, and is itself 80% driven by the price of steel. I don't think you'd end up saving much by outsourcing hull construction to a lower-wage environment.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 14, 2013, 21:52:18
If the two streams you're talking about are civilian and military business, both Seaspan and Irving have been doing quite well on the civilian front. In the case of Irving, they're having to add a dry dock to their capacity to support the new military business: a big up-front cost for them to swallow on the infirm commitment of a government's word.
Not sure how much saving this would yield. The hull component of the overall project cost is pretty marginal, and is itself 80% driven by the price of steel. I don't think you'd end up saving much by outsourcing hull construction to a lower-wage environment.

Agreed throughout.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 14, 2013, 23:24:24
Numerous news releases about the project team for AOPs include a design review by Lloyds.  No reason to do that if AOPs wasn't going to be built to the civilian standards for an icebreaker.  However, still a lot more to the hull and structure then the typical commercial work.  The big cost saving for going to somewhere with cheaper labour is that the bulk of the costs for putting the hull together is that it is all very labour intensive.  The number of hours for specilist welders, journeymen, testing etc are going to be insane, as this isn't something running through an assembly line with robots.

http://www.stxmarine.net/headlines.html (near the bottom)

Wrt the two yards, Seaspan does far more commercial business; Irving does do some commercial work but not the same scale (cruise ships, tankers etc).  Also, believe the new drydock was funded by a loan by the provincial govt to the tune of about 300 million.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1006956-ns-offer-to-irving-shipyard-dwarfed-bc-bid

So in addition to the subsidies from the program, there is also the provincial funding.  All that to say it gets extremely complicated trying to figure out what the real costs are.  At least with the NSPS you have a pretty reasonable idea as the two umbrellla contracts should capture the bulk of the costs for any of the ships that get built, with provincial subsidies aside.

Still going to be a huge sticker shock though; there are a lot of zeroes.  A significant portion of it will eventually wind up back in govt coffers though (business taxes, income taxes etc), and it is keeping a lot of people working, including all the suppliers spread across canada providing materiel and parts.  Think it's generally a good program, as long as its done properly, and doesn't get cut to irrelevance.  Huge difference between fixing ships and building ships, so if we are going to invest the money, may as well do it once then keep going rather then another boom/bust cycle.  The only other alternatives are to either buy foreign built ships (political suicide) or get rid of the navy all together.

In the end AOPs may end up costing more then comparable ships, as I think a lot of costs are going to be directly related to building up the capability/experience, but that should mean we get a good value/product with the CSC, even if I may be retired by the time they hit the water.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 14, 2013, 23:38:19
The weapon systems are all standard, so the only place for huge cost overruns is in the hulls.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 15, 2013, 01:03:02
The weapon systems are all standard, so the only place for huge cost overruns is in the hulls.

Believe me, it ain't anywhere close to being that easy.

integrating those weapons with your sensors on a command and control backbone that actually works will kill you (budget-wise) every time.  "Plug and play" sounds good on PowerPoint and in the shiny sales brochure.  Dollars to donuts says that the real world is different.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 02:31:43
Believe me, it ain't anywhere close to being that easy.

integrating those weapons with your sensors on a command and control backbone that actually works will kill you (budget-wise) every time.  "Plug and play" sounds good on PowerPoint and in the shiny sales brochure.  Dollars to donuts says that the real world is different.
These are the same systems already working on multiple existing warships, no need to re-invent a thing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on April 15, 2013, 09:58:37
Let's take a micro-sample of "integration" issues.

Let's look at a Pre-FELEX Halifax Class warship:

Take an American Long Range Search Radar (SPS-49) and tie it into a computer system that hands taget info over to a Saab Sea Giraffe 150 Radar, which then ties into Signaal's STIR fire Control radars, which pass information to a Swedish Bofors 57mm gun, and Sea Sparrow Missiles...with Canadian Electronic Warfare systems....

So, we have equipment from 5 different nations, multiple different manufacturers, all with potential proprietary software interfaces, possibly different operating systems, etc etc...

Getting systems to the point of full integration is probably the biggest hurdle....but, that's just my personal thoughts.

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 10:36:38
We don't try to re-invent the wheel.  We look at what is currently working on existing warships, pick the best and go with that configuration.  We already are partners on APAR, have been for years.  If we bought into the current upgrades being done on Smart-L we could likely be a partner there also.  Thales will know about integration, we select the systems that are already known to work the best together. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 15, 2013, 10:37:58
These are the same systems already working on multiple existing warships, no need to re-invent a thing.

I'm sorry, but your experience on these type of systems is precisely, what?

I'm going with what Navy Shooter said?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 11:00:40
I'm sorry, but your experience on these type of systems is precisely, what?

I'm going with what Navy Shooter said?
These systems are up and running on multiple warships, that's the experience which is relevant.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 15, 2013, 11:25:05
These systems are up and running on multiple warships, that's the experience which is relevant.


Yes, but which ships have integrated the weapon and control systems from four or five different countries ~ and what did it cost? (See NavyShooter's expert comment.)

We know how difficult and expensive it was on existing HMC Ships. What makes you think doing it again, on a new ship, will be less complex and less expensive?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 15, 2013, 11:45:32
Alex,

Integration will be the difficult part.

The hull is a building.  That is all.  A floating, mobile building but a building nonetheless.

What you want to do in that building makes all the difference in the world.  And how you want to do it makes greater differences.

It is pricey enough if you get L-M or GD to build you a complete boat (take the LCS for example) using their proprietary systems.

But if, as Navy Shooter, SKT and ERC suggest, they end up using Thales, Atlas, L-M, GD and various Canadian national suppliers, amongst others, and they want to get all the pieces talking to each other on the bridge, in the CIC and in the engine room then that requires some effort.   Establishing a common communications protocol, compatible PLC and SCADA hardware and then writing the code to make it all march in time with each other, is a lengthy process.

Bolting pieces onto the ship is the easy part.  Connecting them to system (Plug) is harder.  Getting them to work together (Play) requires many hours (read PYs) of time to write the code and get it to a beta form.  And even then you will be sorting out glitches as long as the hulls are in the water.

I do understand that there are costs involved in building these vessels - as much as most, or indeed anyone does.

I also understand that there are complexities in pricing due to facilities and subsidies and ........

My concern, the one I share with you, is that Canadians are left with the impression that their costs are exceptional when compared to the rest of the world - to be honest I don't know if they are or not.  And I consider myself better informed on the subject than your average taxpayer.

A good start would be a better line item accounting of projected costs.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 11:58:41

Yes, but which ships have integrated the weapon and control systems from four or five different countries ~ and what did it cost? (See NavyShooter's expert comment.)

We know how difficult and expensive it was on existing HMC Ships. What makes you think doing it again, on a new ship, will be less complex and less expensive?
At this point the experience with the pre-FELIX Halifax Class is relevant then more than now, let's try to keep our heads in the present.  At present Thales and BAE are present in multiple countries and we are no longer looking at integration from 4 or 5 different countries, because it is all Thales or all BAE or all someone else.  We have been partners in Thales APAR for years, it is the same APAR system used by the Germans, the Dutch and the Dannish.  If we were to invest in the Smart-L upgrades, for which I suspect the money would be greatly appreciated, we would likely be partners there also, and those two systems are already working very well together, there is no need for us to change anything. 

We simply find out from Thales which systems are presently working best, or will be working best by the time we will be ready for them, we then pay any license fees required, and we proceed.  You seem to think we are starting from scratch here, which is not the case.  Rather, we are taking existing systems and puting them on new hulls.  In a way, the more time that goes by here actually benefits us, because it gives these other countries more time to streamline their current systems and we then get to see what works the best, and then go with that.  There is no need to re-invent.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 12:02:00
Alex,

Integration will be the difficult part.

The hull is a building.  That is all.  A floating, mobile building but a building nonetheless.

What you want to do in that building makes all the difference in the world.  And how you want to do it makes greater differences.

It is pricey enough if you get L-M or GD to build you a complete boat (take the LCS for example) using their proprietary systems.

But if, as Navy Shooter, SKT and ERC suggest, they end up using Thales, Atlas, L-M, GD and various Canadian national suppliers, amongst others, and they want to get all the pieces talking to each other on the bridge, in the CIC and in the engine room then that requires some effort.   Establishing a common communications protocol, compatible PLC and SCADA hardware and then writing the code to make it all march in time with each other, is a lengthy process.

Bolting pieces onto the ship is the easy part.  Connecting them to system (Plug) is harder.  Getting them to work together (Play) requires many hours (read PYs) of time to write the code and get it to a beta form.  And even then you will be sorting out glitches as long as the hulls are in the water.

I do understand that there are costs involved in building these vessels - as much as most, or indeed anyone does.

I also understand that there are complexities in pricing due to facilities and subsidies and ........

My concern, the one I share with you, is that Canadians are left with the impression that their costs are exceptional when compared to the rest of the world - to be honest I don't know if they are or not.  And I consider myself better informed on the subject than your average taxpayer.

A good start would be a better line item accounting of projected costs.
Kirkhill, these sytems already do exist, are in place, are communicating with each other, this work has already been done.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 15, 2013, 12:10:35
With respect Alex:

I agree the systems exist.  I agree that they have been made to work.  Unfortunately everytime that they are recombined in a different configuration they have to be done over again.

Now some integrated systems do exist (like the Thales integrated mast the Dutch are using). That may reduce the number of hours necessary.  But the more cherry-picking the client indulges in (selecting each component for its optimal characteristics rather than just accepting adequate systems that will get the job done) then the more complex the integration becomes because the closer to first principles you have to go. 

If you want things done cheap and fast then you must give up on good..... if you define good as perfect.  If you define good as good enough then the cheapest, fastest way to get the job done is to buy exactly what somebody else is buying off of their production line with no options.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 12:33:28
With respect Alex:

I agree the systems exist.  I agree that they have been made to work.  Unfortunately everytime that they are recombined in a different configuration they have to be done over again.

Now some integrated systems do exist (like the Thales integrated mast the Dutch are using). That may reduce the number of hours necessary.  But the more cherry-picking the client indulges in (selecting each component for its optimal characteristics rather than just accepting adequate systems that will get the job done) then the more complex the integration becomes because the closer to first principles you have to go. 

If you want things done cheap and fast then you must give up on good..... if you define good as perfect.  If you define good as good enough then the cheapest, fastest way to get the job done is to buy exactly what somebody else is buying off of their production line with no options.
I would argue that your looking at this entirely the wrong way.

We are partners in APAR, have been for years.  That means that as APAR develops, we develop with it.  The key here is to partner up on these systems, so that as they develop, we go along for the ride.  we then get in on the stream at it's most advanced state, at the time we are ready for the systems, and then get updates as part of a partnership with other countries.  This makes things cheaper and more efficient for everyone.  What we do not do, is go our own way so that costs get out of control.

The Smart-L system can already detect Raptors at around 80km, and as the technology advences this range will increase.  The current upgrades to Smart-L will take the range from 400km to over 1000km, and I've heard as much as 2000km for ballistic missle detection.  The original range of APAR was 150km, but I understand will be or is 500km or better.  As these systems advance and develop we need only advance and develop with them.  It is a mistake to think that what we go with initially is final, as it isn't.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 12:47:35
Also, as these systems are constantly being developed and improved, there is no such thing as "perfect," as what is perfect today is only going to at best be adequate tomorrow.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on April 15, 2013, 13:32:33
According to the mouse-pad I have in front of me (unclassified/Open Source) the following companies are involved in the Combat System Integrator:

Saab Systems (CEROS 200)
Saab Microwave (SG-180)
IBM Canada (DLPS)
Telephonics (IFF)
Elisra Electronic Systems (ESM)
Raytheon Anschuetz GmbH (X and S band Nav Radars)
Thales (Smart-S)

So there's 7 companies...some of them competitors.  In a VERY competitive global market for a LIMITED number of hulls/systems/etc. 

Sharing with Lockheed Martin, their proprietary interface data....another competitor for ALL of them.

Sure, there's countries out there that have bought some of these systems, and deployed them, and gotten them to work together. 

How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.

These upgrades are not like swapping out your car stereo, with a common form factor, and simple installation instructions.

I have done a *tiny* bit of playing with standard format computer languages....for example, G-code for a computerized Mill, or NMEA 0183 data in serial comms from shipboard navigation gear.   Every CNC system now uses G-codes....they all speak the same language, and they all run the same way.

Proprietary sensor systems from different manufacturers will probably need converters of some sort built into them, or their interfaces, so that they're all talking the same language.  It'd be like trying to get my shipboard GPS to send position updates to my CNC mill, converting the NMEA 0183 to G-codes....Sound like fun?  Do-able...time consuming...and probably expensive.

I have NOT yet receieved any detailed info on the new systems (this summer I hope!) but knowing how many major software revisions it's taken to get our pre-FELEX ships up to their current status, well, I'm wondering how long it'll take to get the new ships going, and how many revisions.

NS

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 13:45:42
How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.

We know the costs of many of the warships, the Dutch, the German, the Spanish with the Aegis system, so the cost is included.  For instance, the Dutch DeZeven Provincien all in cost is around $700-$800 million, includes the hull and systems.  Spanish F100's cost say $600-$700 million, including systems, the F105 cost just under $1 billion because they upgraded to high quality steel. 

So, we know the cost for everything is under $1 billion per ship, including integration.  The point is, the cost is only so much, and it's included.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 13:49:59
According to the mouse-pad I have in front of me (unclassified/Open Source) the following companies are involved in the Combat System Integrator:

Saab Systems (CEROS 200)
Saab Microwave (SG-180)
IBM Canada (DLPS)
Telephonics (IFF)
Elisra Electronic Systems (ESM)
Raytheon Anschuetz GmbH (X and S band Nav Radars)
Thales (Smart-S)

So there's 7 companies...some of them competitors.  In a VERY competitive global market for a LIMITED number of hulls/systems/etc. 

Sharing with Lockheed Martin, their proprietary interface data....another competitor for ALL of them.

Sure, there's countries out there that have bought some of these systems, and deployed them, and gotten them to work together. 

How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.

These upgrades are not like swapping out your car stereo, with a common form factor, and simple installation instructions.

I have done a *tiny* bit of playing with standard format computer languages....for example, G-code for a computerized Mill, or NMEA 0183 data in serial comms from shipboard navigation gear.   Every CNC system now uses G-codes....they all speak the same language, and they all run the same way.

Proprietary sensor systems from different manufacturers will probably need converters of some sort built into them, or their interfaces, so that they're all talking the same language.  It'd be like trying to get my shipboard GPS to send position updates to my CNC mill, converting the NMEA 0183 to G-codes....Sound like fun?  Do-able...time consuming...and probably expensive.

I have NOT yet receieved any detailed info on the new systems (this summer I hope!) but knowing how many major software revisions it's taken to get our pre-FELEX ships up to their current status, well, I'm wondering how long it'll take to get the new ships going, and how many revisions.

NS
What you're failing to recognize here is that the Smart-L/APAR combination is already up and running on a number of ships including, the Germans, the Dutch, the Dannish and at least one other, the Nansen Class (Norway).  So, we are doing what has already been done.  Of course, it is still involved, but it isn't starting from scratch.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on April 15, 2013, 14:12:35
Production cost won't include integration development effort.

Navy shooter is right. As an example, it cost over $1 billion to integrate a new command system into the Collins submarines, and that's with very few "new" interfaces. Integrating all those different pieces of equipment is very tough. It would still be tough even if we took a pre-integrated system due to RFI and HERO on a new hull.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 14:23:50
Production cost won't include integration development effort.

Navy shooter is right. As an example, it cost over $1 billion to integrate a new command system into the Collins submarines, and that's with very few "new" interfaces. Integrating all those different pieces of equipment is very tough. It would still be tough even if we took a pre-integrated system due to RFI and HERO on a new hull.
$1.3 billion per hull would still be within the budget of $20 billion for the 15 hulls.  If we can't get the integration done, using a pre-integrated system, then there is something seriously wrong.  That would still be paying a premium for the ships.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 15, 2013, 14:42:29
One way that costs could be contained would be to accept the complete design, in its entirety, of a vessel like the Huitfeldt/Absalons or the Zeven Provinces, or the F125..... and just have it built in Canada exactly to that spec.  That would give you an apples to apples comparison.  You would then be looking at Denmark's five ships, or Holland's four ships, or Germany's four ships, as prototypes for Canada's 15 ships.  I believe there is merit to that approach.

The risk can be managed further by breaking the 15 ships into 3 flights of 5 vessels (or even 5 flights of 3 vessels or 1 flight of 3 Absolon type GP vessels and 2 flights of 6 AAW/ASW vessels).

The problems will multiply if a green design team is married with a green client over a clean sheet of paper.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 15:20:11
One way that costs could be contained would be to accept the complete design, in its entirety, of a vessel like the Huitfeldt/Absalons or the Zeven Provinces, or the F125..... and just have it built in Canada exactly to that spec.  That would give you an apples to apples comparison.  You would then be looking at Denmark's five ships, or Holland's four ships, or Germany's four ships, as prototypes for Canada's 15 ships.  I believe there is merit to that approach.

The risk can be managed further by breaking the 15 ships into 3 flights of 5 vessels (or even 5 flights of 3 vessels or 1 flight of 3 Absolon type GP vessels and 2 flights of 6 AAW/ASW vessels).
Yes, I agree.  Use the Huitfeldt Class, with the flexible midship missle bay.  Only difference between Destoyers and Frigates is put more VLS 41 cells on Destroyers, leave more room for mission modules on Frigates, give Destroyers more command and control hardware and give them the bigger 150mm guns with extended range shells.

I'd also like a quote for using high grade steel, like HSLA 80 or 100, or some other good but cheaper option.

If we can't just switch the design from commercial to military specs, then go with the DeZeven Provinciel design strait up, still look at upgrading the steel.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 15:57:52
Also the Huitfeldt Class can handle 20 tons on the flightdeck which means Chinook, although it wouldn't be able to carry more than 6 tons of cargo. Not sure if the hanger is long enough, would need more than 100 feet.  Read something about frigates being able to operate Chinooks for certain operations as part of mission capabilities.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on April 15, 2013, 16:38:48
What you're failing to recognize here is that the Smart-L/APAR combination is already up and running on a number of ships including, the Germans, the Dutch, the Dannish and at least one other, the Nansen Class (Norway).  So, we are doing what has already been done.  Of course, it is still involved, but it isn't starting from scratch.

And....there's where we come off the rails.

Because there is no ship in the world with the same systems as a combined whole.  Period.
 
The Smart-S might be tied in, but let's look at the WHOLE picture for a moment.   

Tom Clancy scenario time...
 
We have a ship operating in EMCON, (radar silent) and they detect on the ESM that there's a radar looking at us (high PRF indicating lock) 
 
Response?  Transmit on all radars...look for the target, detect it, lock it up ourselves, and fire our 57mm gun at it. 

What does all that take.  Well, more than just the Smart-S radar. 

We have the initial ESM contact...that's one system.
 
Then we have the radars (Smart S, already integrated) and the SG-180 (That's 2 systems) 
 
Now we have to pass the target designation on to the appropriate fire control radar....the CEROS 200.  (That's 3 systems)
 
Now once we've locked the target up and decide to fire, we have to have our 57mm brought into the loop (that's 4 systems)
 
Sooooo....while the Smart-S might be tied in, there's a multitude of other systems that are not, and need to be in order for the whole picture to work.
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, they can do it (and in fact, ARE doing it right now.)
 
BUT.
 
It's time consuming, and expensive when you have to integrate multiple sensors to provide overlapping information layers to the ship's team...
 
It'll work out in the end, but getting everything to talk is a significant challenger I'm sure, just based on open-source review of what they're trying to integrate.
 
Comparing apples to apples....the German F124 class is a good example, it has the Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, plus the Thales SIRIUS, and Atlas Radar/EO FC systems....so, they have 2 manufacturers for most of their gear (3 if you include their ESM) while we have....um....9 was it? Yeah, the Germans have it a lot easier....they really do in this case.  They're not integrating to the same extent as we are.
NS
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 16:42:30

Comparing apples to apples....the German F124 class is a good example, it has the Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, plus the Thales SIRIUS, and Atlas Radar/EO FC systems....so, they have 2 manufacturers for most of their gear (3 if you include their ESM) while we have....um....9 was it? Yeah, the Germans have it a lot easier....they really do in this case.  They're not integrating to the same extent as we are.
NS
OK, but we don't have to integrate any more than this either, talking about the new ships, not the FELIX upgrade.  We could even choose the exact same systems, meaning they're pre-integrated, and this is the exact approach we should be taking.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on April 15, 2013, 16:50:38
You do realize that pits things like dropping in more Mk 41 modules and 155 mm guns out of the question, right?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 15, 2013, 16:51:20
AlexanderM: Re CSC:

"$1.3 billion per hull would still be within the budget of $20 billion for the 15 hulls [emphasis added]."

This from 2010:

"...Vanguard spoke with Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ian Mack, National Defence’s Director General for Major Project Delivery (Land and Sea) about the navy’s shipbuilding program...

Canadian Surface Combatant
The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With acquisition costs of about $26 billion [emphasis added] and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans..."
http://vanguardcanada.com/new-fleet-in-sight-canadian-navy-builds-for-tomorrow/

And I believe those 2010 number are supposed to be fixed and not to be upped for inflation.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 17:30:35
Mark, as I understand it, those number are not relevant.  The current budget for the 15 CSC is $20 billion, not $26 billion.  Or, at least, those are the numbers under the current building program.  I think the $26 billion figure was someone's wish list prior to the announcement of the current program.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 17:32:43
You do realize that pits things like dropping in more Mk 41 modules and 155 mm guns out of the question, right?
Or it would mean that would be the full extent of additional integration required. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 15, 2013, 18:26:15
AlexanderM: Have you got a link to an official source (or a media one) for the $20 billion figure?

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 15, 2013, 18:48:38
There are a number of sources, I'll look it up later.  The $25 billion awarded to Irvings was, $20 billion for the CSC, then remainder for the AOP's, and perhaps something else.

Here is one that says $25 billion for Destroyers, frigates and AOP's.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/10/14/ns-faq-halifax-shipbuilding-bid.html

http://www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.ca/mobile/issues/ABM_v22n6/upfront.php

http://www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.ca/departments/upfront/abmupfront-5/
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 16, 2013, 11:37:37
AlexanderM:  As far as I know that $25 billion figure for combat ships appears only in the media, not in any official sources:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=canada+shipbuilding+%2433+billion+%2425+billion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

All the gov't has said that I can find is that there is a total of $33 billion for both combat and non-combat vessels:

"The total value of both packages is $33 billion and will span 20 to 30 years."
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=629989

"1. What is the value of the packages?

The government has announced $33 billion for the construction of Canada's large vessels. The specific value will be determined through contract negotiations on each project."
1. What is the value of the packages?
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/faq-eng.html

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 16, 2013, 13:43:39
Well, we do know that Irving got $25 billion and Sea Span $8 billion, total $33 billion.  So, if Irving's contract is $25 billion for 21 ships, being 15 Destroyers/Frigates and 6 AOP's, then it can't be $26 billion just for Destroyers/Frigates.  The media would have recieved their numbers from somewhere.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 16, 2013, 14:30:05
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/gptm-pgtm-eng.html
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 16, 2013, 17:54:43
But still no official gov't figure for the CSCs.  One wonders why.  Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged--remember that $26 billion figure from an admiral who should know.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 16, 2013, 17:59:01
Or perhaps the suit will be tailored to suit the cloth?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 16, 2013, 18:12:05
But still no official gov't figure for the CSCs.  One wonders why.  Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged--remember that $26 billion figure from an admiral who should know.

Mark
Ottawa
OK, but they just paid out $288 million for the design of the AOP's, so I doubt they're planning on cancelling them.  Also, that would leave us with one new icebreaker, and we do need more ships that can operate in the north, even though the AOP's are limited, can't operate in thick ice, they still will give us a needed presence.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 17, 2013, 09:54:08
AlexanderM: "Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged..."--I was not referring to the A/OPSs, rather the "latter", the CSCs.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 17, 2013, 10:39:37
Well, this is the point that some of us have been trying to make, that the budget should be sufficient, $20 billion should be enough for the 15 CSC's.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on April 17, 2013, 11:49:27
That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 17, 2013, 12:11:21
That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much ....

Yes it is.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 17, 2013, 12:19:19
That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.
It's easily double what it has cost other countries to build their ships.  Even if some of those building programs have been subsidized, it would have to be as much as $500 to $600 million per ship.  This would be in comparison with the cost of the Dutch, Dannish, Spanish or Norwegian ships.  The Dutch and Spanish came in at $600 to $800 million, the Dannish and Norwegians even less.  So we are essentially looking at subsidizing by about $500 to $600 million per ship, over 15 hulls, so total subsidy of $7.5 to $9.0 billion dollars, for the CSC portion of the program.

As a taxpayer, if it can't be done for that, then I say build the hulls in Korea, and install the weapon systems here.  Then take the money we save and create jobs somewhere else in our economy.

And please keep in mind, that whatever one says we have to do, that makes the ships expensive, these other countries also had to do, and it's done.  So, in theory, anything they can do, we can do also, and the cost should not be more than double.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 17, 2013, 12:20:34
Yes it is.
Agreed! It should be plenty.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on April 17, 2013, 23:36:45
A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background

$1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.

Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).

My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 18, 2013, 00:28:58
Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.

The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.

Quote
Type 26 frigate design

The basic GCS frigate has a flexible design to allow it to adapt to a range of weaponry and sensors. It will allow new technology upgrades and execute different strategic landscape shifts.

The frigate is designed for modularity and flexibility. It has clean angular lines for operating stealth. The stern has a mission bay.
A ramp at the bay allows deployment of rigid-hulled inflatable boats, unmanned surface vehicles or a towed array sonar. The flight deck of the frigate allows landing of a heavy lift helicopter such as a Chinook.

The design details of the ship were slightly pared to the initial specifications revealed in 2009, to cut down its building costs. The new design in 2011 shows the Type 26 to have a displacement of 5,400t, length of 148m and maximum beam of 19m.
The GCS will have a crew of 130 and berths to accommodate 36 embarked troops.

Proposed variation models under the Global Combat Ship programme

The Type 26 programme is planned to develop three variants - anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) and general purpose (GP) vessels.

Type 26 Link (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/)

I think it highly unlikely that the RCN would even contemplate buying 15 Type 45s.

And the RN isn't unionized either (although they have always been a bit Bolshie).

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on April 18, 2013, 01:04:34
Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.

The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.

Type 26 Link (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/)



Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naval-technology.com%2Fprojects%2F6906%2Fimages%2F139294%2Flarge%2F3-type-26-gcs.jpg&hash=22fdbb7638e0624994338ca1fbc2f884)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on April 18, 2013, 01:59:54


Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naval-technology.com%2Fprojects%2F6906%2Fimages%2F139294%2Flarge%2F3-type-26-gcs.jpg&hash=22fdbb7638e0624994338ca1fbc2f884)

The landing, yes.  It's the "taking off again" portion that I wonder about ;)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 18, 2013, 02:47:58
A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background

$1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.

Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).

My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.
We don't need Type 45 Destroyers.  The De Zeven Provincien would be just fine, as would the Danish design, both much less expensive than the Type 45.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on April 18, 2013, 07:54:55
Back to the AOPS...does anyone want to start a betting pool on what day they actually start cutting steel?

I'll put my name down for 15 Mar 2016.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 19, 2013, 16:56:13
AlexanderM: This from 2011 looks fairly official for 26 billion for CSC acquisition:

Quote
...
Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News...

...Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers...
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=6814616

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on April 19, 2013, 17:26:56
Thank you for that Mark. I knew that was the figure but having worked on the Project when in Ottawa, I wasn't sure if I had gotten in from a press release or some of the classified documentation associated with the Project. This weekend FS Aquitaine is in town on a CSC sales pitch...but back to AOPS, I am going to say late 14-early 15
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 19, 2013, 17:32:52
Well, if that's the case, there has been no change of plans announced from the $25 billion contract awarded to Irvings for the CSC's and the AOP's.  Second, if that is indeed the budget, then we had better see some kick butt ships at that price, no excuses at all, as that's $1.73 billion per.  I would not have a problem with that budget, not sure about the rest of the public, but if they (Irving) start saying it's still not enough, then we hang them up by their toenails.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on April 19, 2013, 17:36:35
Simply dividing total budget by number of vessels does not accurately reflect how Vote 5 acquisition budgets are actually apportioned.  Although I do not know the specifics of the CSC apportionment, I would not be surprised only a half to two thirds of the allocated funds would actually be assigned specifically to hulls.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 19, 2013, 17:43:23
AlexanderM:  One cannot square 26 billion for the CSCs alone with $25 billion for both the CSC and A/OPS.  The likely result is that less of the $33 billion NSPS total will be for non-combat ships, affecting mainly the Canadian Coast Guard rather than the RCN's JSS.  Instead of needed new CCG vessels for a very aging fleet--see "Table 4: Age of Vessels, 2009-2010"  here,
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0015223

the government is just going to "extend" the life of most of those ships and only one new icebreaker will be built:

"Harper Government to Extend the Life of the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet"
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/hq-ac02-eng.htm

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on April 19, 2013, 18:40:28
Frankly, 20 to 26 BCAD at this stage of the game amounts to the limits of an estimation.  That equals 22 BCAD +20% and -10%.  That is a relatively tight estimate.

You are trying to sort fly do-do from pepper at this point in time.

G2G:

Even at 20 and only half apportioned to the hulls, those Chinook-capable Type 26s are targeted for a delivery cost of 250 to 350 MUKP for a mixed fleet of GPs, ASWs ans AAWs.

At current exchange rates that's about 400 to 500 MCADs apiece.

Assume that the high end is for the AAW version and the low end is for the GP version with the ASW version somewhere in between 10 BCAD should buy something like 20 AAWs or 25 GPs.   Allow for a 50% escalator and you are looking at least at 13 to 17 hulls while leaving 10 BCAD in the pot.

Costs can be adjusted using the Stanflex model of fitting ships "for not with" and varying the ratios of AAW:ASW:GP

I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on April 19, 2013, 18:57:46
I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.
We are already right off the map in approximating what the rest of the world is paying.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 20, 2013, 12:03:03
Ok guys stick with the AOPS as its the topic at hand

Milnet.Ca Staff
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 02, 2013, 18:09:22
There's a new report on CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html) that repreats pretty much what other have said here: we're paying way too much compared to other countries.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Privateer on May 02, 2013, 18:28:41
Quote
CBC News also asked MacKay to explain why Canada would pay Irving ten times as much for the design as other shipyards say it should cost.

MacKay replied "other shipyards are wrong," and left it at that.

Hmmm...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Seyek on May 02, 2013, 18:51:28
Quote
"We are implementing what's called a design and then build strategy," the minister told CBC News.

Hopefully the navy types here will have a better idea than myself, but is there any way of building a ship that DOESN'T first require you design it? Or do other navies just haphazardly throw parts together until something's floating?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 02, 2013, 20:11:13
There's one curious bit of info that was news to me:

We actually own design for the Svalbard - purchased for 5 MCAD.

Good, bad or indifferent we could have started cutting steel for carbon copies at the time that design was purchased and had at least a couple of hulls in the water by this time.

Which, as the esteemed MND has said, good, bad or indifferent, would have meant a capability we don't have.  In addition it would have meant a design that could have been evaluated in the field and modified in the next flight........

But hey, we have experts purchasing this stuff..... and so we are going offshore to find people to keep track of the projects

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/cmms-nr-eng.html
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: S.M.A. on May 04, 2013, 19:34:43
Ahhh yes, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives...  ::)

link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canada-arctic-patrol-ship-program-same-course-f-204909780.html)

Quote
Is Canada’s Arctic patrol ship program on the same course as the F-35s?  

Screwing up military procurement contacts is as Canadian as shinny and maple syrup.

Word that there are questions surrounding the Conservative government's program for new Arctic patrol ships, including of course the cost, should startle no one.

You can go back a century to the infamous Ross rifle that Canadian soldiers took into the trenches in the First World War, only to find the mud made them jam and worse — the bolts sometimes fell out or even flew back and hit soldiers in the face when they fired.

Flash forward to more recent history and you've got the Liberals' purchase of second-hand British submarines that have been in the repair dock more than at sea, the endlessly delayed replacement for the navy's ancient Sea King helicopters and of course the budget-busting F-35 stealth fighter program.

It is surprising that the government appears to be circling the wagons on questions about the plan to build eight ice-capable offshore patrol vessels, just as it did when questions were first raised about the F-35 program's soaring costs.

CBC News is reporting that Ottawa appears to be overpaying for the design of the new ships, based on the costs of similar vessels bought by other countries.

The $288-million price tag for Halifax shipbuilder J.D. Irving to design the ships is many times higher than for ice-capable patrol vessels bought by Norway, Denmark and Ireland, according to ship-building experts CBC News interviewed.

And that's before construction of the ships, which is covered under a separate contract between Irving and Public Works Canada, which is administering the program for the Department of National Defence. The total cost of the program as announced in 2007 was estimated at $3.1 billion.


According to CBC News, Norway paid just $5 million to design the Svalbard, the vessel on which the Canadian ships' design will be based. The total cost including construction was $100 million in 2002. Denmark got two similar ships for $105 million in 2007, all in. The Irish navy is spending $125 million for two patrol ships now under construction, CBC News said.

Shipbuilding experts said vessel design normally makes up 10 to 20 per cent of the total cost of a ship.

CBC News said neither Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, Defence Minister Peter MacKay nor officials in Ambrose's department could explain the cost discrepancy.

When confronted with the opinions of experts from other shipyards, MacKay said simply, "other shipyards are wrong."

If the defence minister's, um, defensiveness sounds familiar, it's because MacKay stonewalled questions about the F-35 program's costs for months before conceding it had grown to $25 billion from a previous estimate of $15 billion, as critics had warned. The original estimate was $9 billion.

The assessment was confirmed last year in a report by the auditor general, who hammered MacKay's department for keeping Parliament in the dark. A further review put the total life-cycle cost of the fighters at almost $46 billion.

The entire fighter program has now been "reset" to see if there are cheaper alternatives to the F-35, further delaying replacement of the RCAF's aging CF-18 Hornets. The process was put in the hands of a separate National Fighter Jet Procurement Secretariat under Public Works.

Is the patrol-ship program following the same narrative arc?

Last month, the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, along with the Rideau Institute, produced a report warning the program was a "titanic blunder," CBC News reported.

It took issue not just with the costs but with the kind of vessels the government wanted, saying the Svalbard-class light icebreaker's design contained too many compromises to fulfill Canadian requirements.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 04, 2013, 20:26:37
Unfortunately we keep setting up targets that are impossible to miss.  At times I'm convinced that folks like Irving are on the same side as the "policy alternative" folks. 

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on May 06, 2013, 12:19:39
The conservatives should say; "We have listened to the advice of the Liberals and the NDP and will purchase these ships offshore. We wish to thank the parties for putting the interests of the treasury ahead of regional benefits" then sit back and watch them spin.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 06, 2013, 12:28:34
There's a new report on CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/02/pol-milewski-shipbuilding-design-mystery.html) that repreats pretty much what other have said here: we're paying way too much compared to other countries.


And, in a full page ad in (at least) the Ottawa Citizen, Irving fights back:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fipolitics_assets.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FIrving-Ad.png&hash=3d699325b9679824eef49e34be502db4)
Source: iPolitics (http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/05/06/irving-hits-back-over-cbc-arctic-patrol-ship-story/)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on May 06, 2013, 12:56:53
This is just another example of a potential procurement boondoggle in a long list of other boondoggles.  We're so bassackwards when it comes to procurement it really isn't funny anymore.  From flash to bang it takes our military so long to get the necessary equipment into the hands of our soldiers/sailors/air force personnel that by the time it does come around it's a surprise that it shows up because people almost forget it was in process to begin with.

I am ofcourse being extra sarcastic and facetious in my statements.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2013, 13:20:44
Irving's position still doesn't rationalize the procedures of other yards which design-build-modify-build-modify-build-build-build....

288 MCAD for Irving to figure out how to do the stuff they said they could do at the time they got the NSPS (AOPS-CSC) contract.

I have no problem with Canada standing up the industrial capability to build ships.  I think it is an excellent idea.

Equally I have no problem with paying the extra dollar to create that capability. 

I do have a problem with costs not being clearly defined.

Irving will build a non-functional module to train its team to build these ships.  That's fair.  They don't have that capability just now. They not only have to design a vessel and build it.   Damen, Langsten, Ulstein and the Odense yards have(had) that capability and it is regularly exercised.  Irving also has to learn how to design and build vessels.  If they knew how I don't believe they would have to go offshore to buy the expertise from an outfit like Odense.

Let's not pretend that Irving has the capability - they are embarking on a very steep learning curve.  And even with the test module I doubt if the first complete AOPS will be like the last one or have the same life.  I consider that cost an acceptable cost - within limits.

Equally we need clarity in the accounting to be able to clearly delineate the point in time when Irving has learned its trade and vessels are delivered at their real production cost - not the subsidized cost to develop the industry.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 06, 2013, 14:08:32
Like Kirkhill, I have some real problems with this which I lay at the feet of PW, the government and NDHQ.

My objective in all this is: "Build the ships in Canada."

I want the labour here....

The design I'm less concerned about....and in fact, buying only off-the-shelf tested designs has a lot of merit to me.

The fact that NDHQ appears to have a strong need to "Canadianize" everything to me appears to often to be an employment justifier as opposed to an operational necessity.

Me again....I would've pooled the 20-year build plan and bid out the entire thing to the world's biggest military builders and let them make recommendations about fleet composition and necessary inclusions....then let them negotiate with Canadian shipyards as I'm damn-sure they'd do a better job than the silly buggers at NDHQ/PW.

If they decided to use Irving, good for them. 

If they decide not to because they think Irving is a bunch of nincompoops, and instead want to build a new state-of-the-art facility from scratch....also good for them.

But for the Love of God, pick one location and build the facility out right.  Make it the most high-tech facility in the world so that after it's done building out our military ships, capacity is fought for to produce civil vessels.  Do not try to spread it around.  Military procurement should never be mixed in with provincial hand-outs....but as long as it is, we will see this same absurd process repeat itself.


Matthew.

P.S.  As a side note, I think military procurement of items produced in Canada should be billed to the military 'net of' income taxes and HST.  Why the military is forced to pay these taxes given its role, is beyond me.  If the military did not spend, the taxes would not exist.  So wipe the slate and do all cost calculations exclusive of those taxes (fuel taxes too).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: GR66 on May 06, 2013, 15:47:47
I've got no problem with the idea of "buying Canadian" and supporting Canadian industry IF that industry can be competitive in the global market. 

It's nice to say "let's build a Canadian Shipbuilding industry" but is there a long-term market for the products that we would produce?  Once we tool up, train the labour force, obtain the know how and build our Canadian ships (at great start-up expense), is there an ongoing market out there for what we can produce and can we be competitive in that market?  If not, they we've just misallocated precious resources that could have been better invested in other industries where we CAN be competitive in the long term rather than an ongoing drain on the economy in the form of industrial subsidies, etc.  I'd be curious to know if anyone has made such an assessment in this case.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2013, 15:55:54
GR66

I have a lower standard than export potential.

All that I ask is that the effort is fully engaged supplying a service, at reasonable market price, that we can utilize.  When UPS outperforms Canada Post then Canada Post is surplus to requirement.

If we need ships, and I mean really need them and intend to use them effectively, and can build them domestically at a reasonably competitive rate,  then by all means build them here.  I don't really care if they never get sold off shore.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: GR66 on May 06, 2013, 16:12:22
If we need ships, and I mean really need them and intend to use them effectively, and can build them domestically at a reasonably competitive rate,  then by all means build them here.  I don't really care if they never get sold off shore.

If the cost of buying those ships domestically "at a reasonably competitive rate" involves massive start-up costs, industrial subsidies and re-tooling/re-training expenses that will soon be lost once our immediate domestic orders are filled and the industry then withers on the vine because it can't sell offshore then it is not a good investment.  That money could be much better invested in viable industries that will generate ongoing employment (and tax revenue from a healthy industry).

If I thought Canada could/would have an ongoing ship procurement strategy that could keep domestic shipyards working indefinitely instead of one spurt to fill our order then decades of nothing then I'd agree with you.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 06, 2013, 17:18:10
If I thought Canada could/would have an ongoing ship procurement strategy that could keep domestic shipyards working indefinitely instead of one spurt to fill our order then decades of nothing then I'd agree with you.

We are in violent agreement then. 

I HOPE that a long term strategy can be created and maintained. 

I HOPE that this NSPS plan can be moulded to that outcome.

I FEAR that the early indications are not conducive to such ends.

It is not only the yards themselves (not wanting to point fingers anymore than I have) but it is also the lack of a consistent strategy that enjoys real all party support.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: dapaterson on May 06, 2013, 17:30:03
For a bit of clarification:  DND get spending authorities including HST.  When DND spends money, it is chaarged amounts net of HST.  HST amounts are charged to an account that is not part of DND's allocation.

Clear as mud?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on May 06, 2013, 17:42:43
If the government of Canada had been doing their job and buiding and maintaining a fleet all along none of this discussion would be taking place.  For a nation the size of Canada with the coastline we have to protect there is an ongoing requirement for a navy which also means an ongoing requirement for ships.  We should have been launching several ships per year, every year since the frigate contract was completed.  Then Irving wouldn't be re-learning skills that should never have been let go.  But we haven't, we didn't, and now we are paying a very steep price for that neglect.  The airforce is in the same boat or even worse.  Now NDHQ don't make it any easier by Canadianizing everything they buy including trucks and Johnnies and that is probably Peter's biggest problem.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on May 10, 2013, 18:50:46
If the government of Canada had been doing their job and buiding and maintaining a fleet all along none of this discussion would be taking place.  For a nation the size of Canada with the coastline we have to protect there is an ongoing requirement for a navy which also means an ongoing requirement for ships.  We should have been launching several ships per year, every year since the frigate contract was completed.  Then Irving wouldn't be re-learning skills that should never have been let go.  But we haven't, we didn't, and now we are paying a very steep price for that neglect.  The airforce is in the same boat or even worse.  Now NDHQ don't make it any easier by Canadianizing everything they buy including trucks and Johnnies and that is probably Peter's biggest problem.

Not sure why you think it's NDHQ.  Ever hear of 'Industrial Regional Benefits'?

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00016.html

So we can buy a ship design, and copy it, but govt policy is that it should be provided by a Canadian supplier, and spread across the country.  Aside from PWGSC and DND, pretty sure Industry Canada is also involved in NSPS.

For some reason the phrase 'competing priorities' comes to mind.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 10, 2013, 19:05:56

For some reason the phrase 'competing priorities' comes to mind.

Indeed.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sim-cnmi.nsf/eng/uv00050.html
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 13, 2013, 21:53:00
This information pertains to the Danish Absalon/Huitfeldt ships but it details the design-build planning sequence and the Danish costs for producing the first two of a 5 ship class - a class that could be in contention, not for the AOPS programme, but for the much more sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant programme.

Quote
Denmark – Absalon Class Support Ship (Flexible Support Ship)
Rewritten – February 2006

 
L-16 Absalon underway
Program Status: Complete – Final Report. Both units of the class, L-16 Absalon and L-17 Esbern Snare, were constructed at the Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark and have been accepted by the Royal Danish Navy (RDN). The first unit, Absalon, was launched on 25 February 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 19 October 2004. The second unit, Esbern Snare, was launched on 21 June 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 18 April 2005.

Operational Requirement: The RDN has a requirement for a class of multi-purpose ships that can perform a wide range of duties, including conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace support, humanitarian relief, and general naval combat operations.

Program Background: In April 1996, the Danish Ministry of Defense established an expert committee (the Committee Concerning the Armed Forces’ Equipment) to evaluate the suitability of existing defense materiel systems, and to recommend what major materiel acquisitions should be made over the period 2000 - 2011. In August 1997, the committee completed its evaluation by submitting its 300-page report, The Report from the Committee Concerning the Armed Forces’ Equipment, to Parliament. The report recommended replacing the three Niels Juel class corvettes, four Falster class minelayers, and ten Willemoes class fast attack craft (FAC) with six units of a new design, referred to as the "Large Standard Vessel". Two of the Large Standard Ships would be Command & Support Vessels, and four additional units would be Large Patrol Vessels (Frigates). All six of the Large Standard Vessels would be based on the RDN’s Standard Flex (STANFLEX) concept.

Passed by Parliament in 1999, Defense Agreement 2000-2004 provided for the construction of two Command & Support Vessels, and lays the groundwork for the future construction of the Large Patrol Vessels (Frigate). Construction of three of the originally planned four Large Patrol Vessels was authorized in 2004 under Defense Agreement 2005-2009.

Program Acquisition Plan: The Naval Material Command (NMC), in cooperation with a number of foreign designers, initiated a pre-feasibility study for the two Flexible Support Ships authorized under Defense Agreement 2000-2004. An integrated part of the study was the derivative design for the Patrol Ship variants.

Feasibility studies for the program, involving Direction Constructions des Navales International (DCNI) (now Armaris) and BAE Systems, were completed by the end of 1999. Three Danish shipyards (Oerskov Steel Shipyard, Odense Steel Shipyard (Lindoe Yard), and Danyard Aalborg Shipyard) were selected to submit detailed designs and prices by May 2001. Danyard Aalborg Shipyard declined to bid on this program. Tenders were returned in late June 2001, however, both were above the set ceiling price of US$110M (hull, mechanical, and electrical systems only).

On 03 August 2001, the NMC cancelled the tender activity and entered into parallel negotiations with Oerskov and Odense yards. Several meetings were held to clarify the specifications, and to mitigate areas of risk and identify cost savings in order to reduce the overall price. On 15 October 2001, as a result of these negotiations, Odense Steel Shipyard was awarded a US$110M contract for the detailed design and construction of the two ships. First steel was cut for Absalon on 30 April 2003, launched on 25 February 2004 and accepted by the Royal Danish Navy (RDN) on 19 October 2004. The second unit, Esbern Snare, was launched on 21 June 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 18 April 2005.

An additional US$256M was authorized to complete the construction and integrate both units of the class, allowing a total cost of US$183M per unit. The US$183M does not include the containerized STANFLEX systems, which are already in stock or funded through a separate budget.


The construction schedule for the class is as follows:

Hull

Name

Laid Down

Launched

Commissioned

1

Absalon

28 Nov 03

25 Feb 04

19 Oct 04

2

Esbern Snare

May 04

21 Jun 04

18 Apr 05

 
L-17 Esbern Snare pierside
Design and Construction Considerations: The Flexible Support Ship is to some extent based on the earlier Thetis class design, and includes the successful STANFLEX Concept. The ships are longer than the Thetis class (137m/452ft vice 112.5m/369.1ft) in order to incorporate a mid-ship "multi-function" plug. The beam has grown from 14.4m/47.5ft in Thetis to 19.5m/64.4ft in the new class. An all-diesel propulsion plant driving two shafts (compared to the one-shaft propulsion system chosen for the Thetis class due to the requirement to navigate in ice) allows for a maximum speed of 24 knots. The superstructure is designed and constructed to enhance the ships’ stealth characteristics. Additionally, a flight deck and hangar to support flight operations by two helicopters up to 15 tons.

The stern and the deck below the flight deck is designed for roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) of vehicles up to Main Battle Tank size (62 tons). Alternatively, the 900 square meter multi-purpose deck (245 lane-meters) can take 75% of an Army reconnaissance battalion, a containerized hospital with a capacity for 10 surgeries a day, a containerized command module for a staff of up to 70 personnel, a container accommodation for emergency evacuations, or up to 300 mines in modular rails. Facilities for carrying two high-speed insertion craft (Swedish Type SRC-90E) are included. Light displacement will be approximately 4,500 tons and full load displacement of around 6,300 tons.

The design features five STANFLEX container positions amidships. In principle, any combination of STANFLEX weapon/equipment container suites developed for the Flyvefisken class will fit on the Flexible Support Ship. However, the mission-specific STANFLEX weapon/equipment container suites that are found on the Absalon class include:

A surface-to-air missile (SAM) module consisting of twelve Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. Raytheon developed a dual pack Mk 56 launcher for ESSM for the RDN that will replace the Mk 48 Mod 0 at a later date.

A surface-to-surface missile (SSM) module for two quad Boeing Harpoon launchers.

An anti-submarine torpedo module with Eurotorp’s MU90 lightweight torpedoes.

An ELINT module.

A basic storage module.
The STANFLEX containers are manufactured in Denmark by Promecon (a subsidiary of Monberg & Thorsen). They are 3m in length, 3.5m in width, and 2.5m in height. Containers are craned into wells in each ship, with standard interface connections providing access to ship’s services (power, communications, ventilation, water, and data). Installation of a single container is typically accomplished in about 30 minutes, and depending upon the weapon/equipment being installed, system checks are generally complete with a few hours. If one or more container positions are left unoccupied, purpose-made hatch covers are fitted to seal the wells.

In October 2002, the RDN announced the procurement of two United Defense Industries (now BAE Systems Land and Armaments Systems) Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm/54 guns, one for each of the Flexible Support Ships. As this type of gun is not planned for installation on other future RDN units, they will not be containerized. The RDN also intends to procure the Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) for the 127mm gun.

Ship Characteristics:

Vessel Type   Auxiliary
Country   Denmark
Program   Flexible Support Ship
Total Number   2
Unit Cost (US$)   183M
Builder   Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark
Displ. Tons   4,500 (light); 6,300 (full load)
Length   137m (452ft)
Beam   19.5m (64.4ft)
Draft   6.3m (20.6ft)
Machinery   Diesel: Two MTU 8000 diesel engines (22,300 hp each, providing a total of 16.63MW of power); two shafts; two controllable pitch propellers; bow thruster.
Speed (Knots)   24
Range   9,000nm at 15 knots.
Complement   100, accommodation for up to 170
Weapons   Guns: One BAE Systems Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm/54 gun; four 12.7mm machine guns.
Close-in-Weapons System (CIWS): Two Oerlikon Contraves- 35mm GDM08 Millenium guns with Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction (AHEAD) air burst munitions.

Torpedoes: STANFLEX Anti-submarine module with Eurotorp MU90 lightweight anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedoes.

Mines: Modular mine rails can be mounted to provide a capacity for 300 mines.

Missiles   Surface-to-surface missiles (SSM): STANFLEX modules containing two quad launchers for eight Boeing Harpoon Block II SSMs.
Surface-to-air missiles (SAM): STANFLEX modules each containing three Mk 48 Mod 0 dual pack vertical launcher Sea Sparrow launchers. Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) launched from the Mk 56 VLS.

Military lift   Sufficient deck space to embark a containerized hospital consisting of twenty-five 20-ft standard containers or 75% of an Army reconnaissance battalion.
Cargo Capacity   140 square meters.
CMS/Fire Control   Combat Management System (CMS): Terma Elektronik C-Flex CMS.
Fire Control System (FCS): SaabTech Ceros 200.

Radar   Air/surface search: Thales Naval Nederland SMART-S 3D Mk 2.
Navigation: Furuno Danmark X and L band.

Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS)   Rockwell Automation IPMS.
Integrated Bridge System (IBS)   Rockwell Automation IBS.
Integrated Communications Suite (ICS)   Infocom 2000 ICS.
Countermeasures   Electronic Support Measures (ESM): EDO ES 3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures and Surveillance System.
Decoys: Terma Elektronik Soft Kill Weapon System (SKWS) with two DL-12T twelve-barreled chaff/IR launchers.

Sonar   Atlas Elektronik hull-mounted active search and attack sonar.
Helicopter   Flight deck and hangar for two EH-101 helicopters.
Key Personnel:

Royal Danish Navy

Rear Admiral Nils Christian Wang
Admiral of the Danish Fleet
Admiral Danish Fleet Headquarters
P.O. Box 483 DK-8100 , Arhus C
Denmark
Tel: + 45 89 433 099
Fax: + 45 89 433 141
E-mail: sok@sok.dk
Royal Danish Navy Material Command (Defense Acquisition)

Rear Admiral Kristen Husted Winther
Royal Danish Naval Materiel Command
Lautrupbjerg 1-5
DK-2750 Ballerup
Denmark
Tel : + 45 32 663 266
Fax : + 45 32 663 299
E-mail : smk-ck@nmc.dk
Contract Department
Naval Materiel Command Denmark
Attn: Contract Department
Danneskiold-Samsoes Alle 1
DK-1434 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel : + 45 32 663 266
Fax : + 45 32 663 299
E-mail: ka@nmc.dk
Website: http://www.smk.svn.dk

Link: amiinter (http://www.amiinter.com/samples/denmark/DA6001.html)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on May 22, 2013, 12:19:42
 Seems we are not alone in our lack of capacity, Canada gets a good nod in this article.


Coast Guard To Navy: Arctic’s Covered; White House OKs Arctic Icebreaker
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.   on May 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM
The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent makes an approach to the Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean Sept. 5, 2009. The two ships are taking part in a multi-year, multi-agency Arctic survey that will help define the Arctic continental shelf. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer Patrick Kelley.

[updated with Adm. Greenert comment] WASHINGTON: While the Navy pivots to the Pacific, the Coast Guard has got their northern flank: the once icebound but now rapidly opening waters of the Arctic Ocean, with its new opportunities for oil, gas, and trade through the fabled Northwest Passage. For the chronically underfunded and “oversubscribed” service, however, the challenge is rebuilding Arctic skills and capabilities that have atrophied for decades – including construction of a new heavy-duty icebreaker that might cost up to a $1 billion, said Coast Guard Commandant, Adm. Robert Papp.

“The United States Navy’s not up there,” Papp told reporters after a speech this morning to roll out the service’s new Arctic strategy, “or if they’re up there, they’re not on the surface of the water”: Nuclear submarines are great for many missions, but not so much for search and rescue, fisheries patrol, or stopping oil spills.

“The United States Navy is forward deployed; it’s fighting wars,” Papp went on. So in the Arctic, “we have not had any participation with the US Navy nor have I asked them for any up there right now. I think the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert] would tell you they are fully employed with their responsibilities around the world; and given this is more of a maritime governance issue and not a national defense issue, they are just as happy that the United States Coast Guard is taking on those responsibilities.”

That said, Papp is hoping the Arctic will get more high-level attention now that the administration has released its May 10 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. (He’d also like the Senate to finally ratify the Law of the Sea treaty, a political longshot but something he said he gets “lectured” about by his international counterparts at every meeting on regulating the Arctic). When Adm. Greenert gives his standard slideshow on strategic chokepoints around the world, “he does not show the Bering Strait,” Papp told the audience after his remarks. In fact, the CNO uses a map projection that, while accurate at lower latitudes, makes the Bering Strait look much wider than in reality, where it narrows to as little as 50 miles. “I’ve teased him about that,” Papp said, and, indeed, since November the CNO has added an entire slide devoted to the Arctic.

I got a chuckle out of the good-natured Adm. Greenert when I mentioned Adm. Papp’s anecdote to him before a speech later the same day– and during his remarks, despite the topic of the evening being the Pacific, the CNO made sure to show off his Arctic Ocean slide. “Working with the Canadian Navy, this is becoming a big topic of conversation, as well as with my partner in the Coast Guard,” Greenert told the audience. While his status reports can show dozens of ships in the Pacific, he said ruefully, ”here’s what we’ve got in the Arctic region: one SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine]. So we’ve got a lot of work to do.”

That includes making sure that whatever the Navy procures can operate in the extreme cold of the far north, Greenert said, rather than “learn[ing] the hard way” about the rigors of a new environment, as the fleet did in the 1990s when it took equipment designed for the North Atlantic into the heat and sand of the Persian Gulf.

Not every defense official, however, is catching up quite as quickly as Adm. Greenert. At one recent meeting with the Canadians, a Defense Department official Papp declined to name stood up and said “we see no conflict [in the Arctic], there are no threats, the Defense Department has no plans for the next 10 years,” Papp said. The senior Canadian present, he recalled, “turned very red.”

In fact, it’s the Coast Guard, not the Defense Department, that’s taken the lead on Arctic cooperation with the Canadian Navy, as well as the Canadian Coast Guard. For example, the American Coasties regularly send a cutter to participate in Canada’s annual “Operation Nanook” exercise “even when the Navy has had to back out” to cover commitments elsewhere, Papp said. For the future, the commandant expects to see close cooperation with the Canadians in the Arctic on the model already proven on the Great Lakes, where the two countries share icebreakers and helicopters. But the Canadians themselves are stretched thin over their own vast Arctic territories, so they’ve concentrated their resources on the eastern (Atlantic) side, leaving the western (Pacific) side largely to the US Coast Guard — which, of course, is the side on which we have a little thing called Alaska, which stretches across almost to Russia.

“We’re relearning all those lessons up there,” Papp told reporters. “The good thing is I also have the knowledge we’ve done it before.” It’s been a while, though: “The heyday was 1955 through ’58,” he said when the Coast Guard worked with Canada and the Navy to build the DEW Line to provide “distant early warning” of Soviet nuclear attack. That history proves that the nation can commit resources to far north when it has to, Papp said, and “that national imperative in the Arctic is upon us again.”

One of Papp’s proudest achievements as commandant has been to get the nation’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, out of mothballs and back into service: It’ll be heading north soon to start training the crew. But the Star, built in 1976, won’t last forever, and the nation’s only other icebreaker is the much smaller Healy, so Papp has won administration approval to explore developing a new heavy-duty icebreaker. (Once again, he’s working with the Canadians, who “are probably about a year or two ahead of us” in looking at heavy icebreaker designs). While Papp doesn’t think Arctic-capable ships built by oil companies have enough icebreaking power, he does see some Scandinavian designs that might be good starting points for the US to modify.

It’s expensive, Papp admits, at least by Coast Guard standards: “The high end is a billion dollars, but I think that’s a good investment for something you’re going to use for forty years.” (For comparison, the Navy’s workhorse DDG-51 destroyers cost a couple of billion, and the fleet has more than 60 of them).

Besides icebreakers, though, Papp must also pay the bill for the Coast Guard’s new flagships, the National Security Cutters, and, soon, for a smaller Offshore Patrol Cutter to replace its 14 aging Reliance-class medium-endurance cutters:  “We don’t even send them to Alaska,” he said, and in fact the 1960s-vintage vessels have trouble even in calm water. “We’re constantly plugging holes in hulls,” he sighed, and one cutter, the Dauntless, just went into “emergency drydock” to repair a dangerously rusted hull.

Will the Coast Guard be asking for more National Security Cutters and Offshore Patrol Cutters than currently planned to cover its growing Arctic responsibilities? “No,” Papp said flatly. “I’m having enough of a challenge just getting the program of record,” he said, having fought a successful battle just last year to restore the seventh and eighth National Security Cutters to the budget.

It’ll be those big cutters that will act as the mobile headquarters for the Coast Guard as it surges to the North Slope of Alaska every summer in the coming years. “There’s no permanent infrastructure or operating forces” on Alaska’s northern coast, Papp said, nor does he think it wise to build them, at least in the near term. For the next decade, he said, the ice will remain bad enough in winter that commercial traffic will stay out and only a seasonal Coast Guard presence, about nine months a year, is necessary.

“One of the things that Shell found last year” – when some of the oil company’s craft got badly battered – “and that kind of surprised us as well, was the amount of ice still floating around up there,” Papp said. While the Arctic is opening for energy exploration, trade, and even tourism, it’s still unwise to underestimate its dangers.

Nevertheless, the Far North is changing inexorably. In his own first tour as a young Coast Guard officer, Papp recalled, he reported to the cutter Ironwood in Alaska, where he encountered the worst weather of his almost 40-year career. In 1976, when Ironwood tried to pass through the Bering Strait to patrol Alaska’s North Slope, it could find no way through the ice. In 2010, as Commandant, Papp went back to the same place: “I looked out as far as I could see, and there was no ice.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/21/coast-guard-to-navy-weve-got-arctic-covered-sort-of-white-house-oks-arctic-icebreaker-studies/
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: STONEY on August 21, 2013, 22:12:37
For Info;  Irvings Halifax Shipyard has begun completely flattening 3/4 of its site and construction has begun
on a completely new expanded site including a huge building hall that towers to a height of 16 stories high and is several football fields long. New piers are being built at a cost of 300 million. They have also acquired a closed steel facility across the harbour in Dartmouth which will be modernised for cutting steel to ship to the yard. So it looks like things are finally getting underway.

Cheers
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on August 22, 2013, 16:30:00
For Info;  Irvings Halifax Shipyard has begun completely flattening 3/4 of its site and construction has begun
on a completely new expanded site including a huge building hall that towers to a height of 16 stories high and is several football fields long. New piers are being built at a cost of 300 million. They have also acquired a closed steel facility across the harbour in Dartmouth which will be modernised for cutting steel to ship to the yard. So it looks like things are finally getting underway.

Cheers

I find it painfully ironic that Irving is laying off (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/21/ns-irving-shipyard-layoffs.html) people to create more jobs.  Just brutal for those families.  Hopefully they stick around instead of heading west otherwise it will be tough to hire them back.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on August 22, 2013, 16:51:22
Aye, and how much work are they going to attract to a yard when 75% of its facilities are being destroyed/replaced and the other 25%, no doubt, impacted by construction activities. 

Part of the plan might have included a furlough package for key personnel.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on August 22, 2013, 17:29:37
Aye, and how much work are they going to attract to a yard when 75% of its facilities are being destroyed/replaced and the other 25%, no doubt, impacted by construction activities. 

Part of the plan might have included a furlough package for key personnel.

From the company that lays off guys on Thursday to hire them back Monday or Tuesday?  I think the 'furlough package' is probably EI.

I think the cash cow that is the RCN is probably all the business they really need. Why get other customers when you can screw the govt and not worry about poor quality workmanship or meeting the schedule?  Even better, if you mess something up, you blame the customer.  Ideal really.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 22, 2013, 19:25:07
My youngest is being offered a job there to paint for them.  Minimum 2 years at $17/hr.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on August 26, 2013, 15:11:34
From the company that lays off guys on Thursday to hire them back Monday or Tuesday?  I think the 'furlough package' is probably EI.

I think the cash cow that is the RCN is probably all the business they really need. Why get other customers when you can screw the govt and not worry about poor quality workmanship or meeting the schedule?  Even better, if you mess something up, you blame the customer.  Ideal really.

In some ways being the poor cousin out west has been good for us, our shipyards had to compete for customers and apparently built a decent rep for on time reliable repairs.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: milnews.ca on September 22, 2013, 19:53:40
Point (via CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-was-warned-about-arctic-patrol-ships-high-price-1.1859387)):
Quote
Two days before signing a contract to begin work on a $3-billion shipbuilding project, the federal government was warned by its own advisers that the contract was overpriced — but signed it anyway.

The warning was contained in a previously confidential independent review of the initial phase of the government's plan to spend $3.1 billion on a fleet of Arctic offshore patrol ships, known as AOPS.

The report, by International Marine Consultants of Vancouver (IMC), was commissioned by the Department of Public Works and obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act. It says the number of man-hours quoted by Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax was "very high and considerably more than we would have expected for a shipbuilding program for vessels of the size and complexity of the AOPS."

Although the report was delivered on March 5 of this year, the government signed the contract at Irving's Halifax shipyard two days later, on March 7 — leaving no time to do anything about the report's findings ....

Counterpoint (via PWGSC Info-machine (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/comm/vedette-features/2013-09-18-00-eng.html)):
Quote
International Marine Consultants Ltd. (IMC) was engaged by the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) project office to conduct an Independent 3rd Party Review of the Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) Proposal to Canada which set out indicative (estimated) costs for AOPS tasked-based Definition Contract. The role of 3rd party experts is to help inform the decisions that are made by Canada. IMC commented on these indicative costs in January 2013, and the government's negotiations with ISI on Tasks 1 (Project Management) and 2 (Engineering Design Phase 1) of the Definition Contract were directly informed by IMC's observations.

In assessing IMC's observations, Canada also took into consideration that comparisons to traditional build/design processes reflected by IMC were not being used for AOPS. Indeed, as Canada has indicated on many occasions, including at a recent technical briefing in June, ISI is taking a comprehensive design, then build, approach to AOPS. The net effect is an increased cost of design in order to generate more significant savings in construction. Thus a straight comparison to earlier or other projects that have not taken this approach is not valid. A description of the definition contract is provided on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) website.

Equally important is that this third party review was conducted in the context of a ship design exercise. In fact, ISI is being tasked to set up the capability to design and build ships for the Government of Canada over the next 30 years, which includes preparations for construction that are taking place now for use during the entire duration of the shipbuilding strategy. ISI announced in August its $300M shipyard improvement initiative, which speaks directly to the long-term view that is being taken, with the first ships, AOPS, benefitting from that approach.

Costs negotiated for Task 1, which is a firm-fixed price task, represent fair and reasonable costs for the work to be done. For Task 2, which is a cost reimbursable incentive fee task, the costs and profits are estimates only at this time.

The review of Task 2 (i.e. costs of the Design Agent, the Command and Surveillance System Integrator, etc) raised important points that are being monitored during the execution of the contract. The basis of payment for this task is time and material, in an open book environment. In fact, the entire contract with ISI is being undertaken on an open book basis. As a result, the Crown will only pay for work actually performed by ISI and its subcontractors. If the effort is actually overestimated, as suggested by the third party review, the ultimate payment for Task 2 will be less than quoted.

It should be noted that in their report, IMC provided a general comment that "“Irving Shipbuilding Inc. had presented a comprehensive, high quality proposal that accurately describes the work associated with Task 1 and Task 2 of the Contract Definition Phase of this important project.”" They also stated that "“the amount of resources being allocated and associated level of effort proposed should ensure that a near-optimum Build Strategy can be developed for the Implementation Phase of the Project which in turn should allow the material procurement and actual ship construction to run smoothly using the minimal number of man-hours and full utilization of the available infrastructure.”" IMC provided their opinion that this will enable the "“AOPS to be built and commissioned into service in a timely manner.”"
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 22, 2013, 20:34:41
I don't often say this but I find the CBC report to be more persuasive than the Government/ISL response.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 23, 2013, 15:00:17
I hope David Parkins, commenting in the Globe and Mail, isn't being prescient:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/xxxxx/article14052163/#dashboard/follows/
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fincoming%2Farticle14445777.ece%2FBINARY%2Fw620%2FWEBmonedcar23col1.jpg&hash=16865bf40ea5d3e0178201689c917bf7)
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on September 23, 2013, 15:14:11
Are those things stabilized?   ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 23, 2013, 15:50:17
Let's take an (Arctic) sea cruise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EVDdt5jrUY

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 08, 2013, 13:24:03
Posted the link to the buyandsell.gc.ca link to the call for interested bidders under the 'What's Canada buying Nov 2013' thread over here (http://forums.navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,112703.0.html)

buyandsell.gc.ca quicklink (https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-AO-009-24104)

The pdf at the bottom which is viewable by all shows the proposed outline of the concept of support, in case you were curious what the scope of the ISSC might be.  Will be refined with the industry input, but it's an interesting read.

Note that this is more extensive then the current ISSC for the MCDVs or the Vic subs, but that's directed by the current CAF policy on ISSC.  This will be the first kick at a large scale long term ISSC for a ship, and should go cradle to grave.

If you look at the scope, this isn't something that either of the NSPS shipyards could do on their own, and is probably more appropriate for a large engineering/ project management firm along with a few partners to cover off various aspects of the support.  The ships will still need repaired though, so they will go out to tender for the yards to bid on, except it will be done by the ISSC on behalf of the RCN rather then through PWGSC.  Think AOPs docking is something like every 30 months to inspect the icebreaking hull integrity under the class rules, so should be interesting.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 05, 2014, 15:53:54
This article came out in Nov, so its the vintage of the last discussion post on this thread, I thought it might be interesting.

http://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/what-the-third-party-report-does-and-does-not-say-about-irving-shipbuilding/

In particular I find it funny that the 30 month design phase conicides with the shipyard rebuild.

Also this is older as well but a power point presentation at Dal regarding the design and operational challenges of the AOPS,
and some of the solutions provided. 

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/Events/Soule_AOPS_CFPS_Sep11.pdf

Understanding that some of the yardsticks have moved since 2011,  I find most remarkable that helo's are an absolute for proper ice
navigation (perhaps a scaneagle would suffice these days), what classifies as first years ice (hardly slushbreaking), and the distances
involved in arctic travel.  Also the design is to have room for a larger gun armament that is initially listed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on May 05, 2014, 16:52:54
Funny they mentioned the CCGS Henry Larson, she suffered a major failure of a large electrical piece during her trial runs and sat tied to the wall for 6 months. As I recall it was a manufacturing defect, not a shipyard fault.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 18, 2014, 19:53:51
The Prime mMinister has announced (http://pm.gc.ca/news/2014/09/18/pm-announces-name-first-royal-canadian-navys-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships) that the class and first of class will be named for VAdm Harry DeWolf CBE DSO DSC CD.

(https://legionmagazine.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/LeadersDewolf.jpg)

Admiral DeWolf was known as "Hard-over Harry" for his bold handling of his ship, Haida in battle in 1943/44.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 18, 2014, 20:13:41
I like that decision.  He's an excellent choice for the lead in the class.  Wish they'd get the finger out and get things rolling faster.  Thanks for sharing that, ER.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 19, 2014, 13:05:14
This may offer some additional capabilities to the AOPS and reduce the need (not eliminate the need, just reduce it) for long endurance submarines in the arctic.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/157133/five-unmanned-boats-maneuver-as-one.html

If they can solve the problem of transferring data from one small platform to another underwater, joined with an ability to transfer power (http://www.wfs-tech.com/index.php/products/wireless-power/) or use long endurance underwater gliders (http://www.whoi.edu/main/slocum-glider), then the AOPS can become a command post and service station for an underwater network of sensors that can relocate toward threats. They can also move out of the way of big chunks of ice that drag across the bottom.


Quote
   Five Marine Vehicles Behave As One Ensemble: Full Supra Vehicle Successfully Tested for the First Time In Azores
   
   
(Source: NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation; issued Sept 16, 2014)
 
 
   
   From 8 to 18 September 2014, the Center of IMAR of the University of the Azores is hosting the sea trials of a new type of robotics-based distributed sensor system, aimed at affording marine scientists and commercial operators a revolutionary tool for marine habitat mapping in complex 3D environments. The tests are performed in the scope of the European Commission research project MORPH (Marine Robotic System of Self-Organising, Logically Linked Physical Nodes).

Launched in February 2012, the 4-year research project MORPH is partly funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme with a budget of 8,5 million Euros.
The major goal of the project is to develop a distributed robotic underwater system carrying complementary sensors for complex underwater mapping missions. At the core of the innovative solution adopted is the concerted operation of a number of relatively simple, affordable vehicles, capable of cooperating seamlessly and behave as an ensemble, yielding a "MORPH Supra Vehicle".

The role of CMRE within MORPH is to provide the communication infrastructure between the individual modules (vehicles). The ability to share data between submerged vehicles is in fact crucial for the implementation of cooperative control schemes. CMRE is exploring novel techniques that allow embedding location awareness into the underwater communications network, solving both the problems of inter-vehicle data exchange and relative positioning.

For the Azores trials, research engineers, marine biologists, and commercial partners are working together to meet the formidable challenge of affording scientific and commercial end-users an advanced mapping system capable of accessing inhospitable areas and operating under scenarios that defy current technology; e.g., to perform underwater surveys over high-relief seafloor with complex 3D structures (canyons and rugged cliff areas) in the presence of reduced visibility and natural unforeseen obstacles.

To prove the concept of a MORPH Supra Vehicle, the tests is taking place in the beautiful setting of "Baia de Porto Pim", in Faial Island (Azores). The area is perfect to operate a MORPH ensemble of five vehicles for the first time, undergoing cooperative motion while acquiring video and sonar data to map the sea bottom.

What is so special about the MORPH Supra Vehicle is that its building blocks (a set of small robotic marine vehicles) operate in a cooperative manner, as if they were a single, powerful vehicle, capable of carrying advanced, complementary sensor suites, and reacting to environmental conditions in real time.

The Azores trials focus on the execution of an optical and acoustic survey mission with one surface and four underwater vehicles moving in formation and avoiding obstacles detected online.

This is an important step towards the execution of the final scenario mission, planned for 2015 in the Azores, where the system will be used to perform an underwater survey to acquire data and map black coral communities growing in an underwater cliff in Monte da Guia, Faial Island.

The MORPH system developed in the scope of the project is expected to offer an innovative solution to a number of problems in field applications such as: environmental monitoring, exploration of marine resources, archaeological surveys, harbour protection, monitoring of industrial infrastructures (offshore wind power installations, pipeline), and sea mine detection, to name a few. From an engineering standpoint, the problems that are being addressed and solved are at the forefront of underwater robotics technology, namely in what concerns cooperative mission programming, navigation, and control, as well as acoustic communications and vision-based habitat mapping.

In addition to CMRE, the MORPH team participating in the trials consist of 35 scientists from five countries and nine member organizations: ATLAS ELEKTRONIK (Germany, coordinator), IMAR (Institute of Marine Research, Portugal), Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST, Portugal), Jacobs University Bremen (Germany), Ilmenau University of Technology (Germany), Ifremer (France), Universitat de Girona – Computer Vision and Robotics Research Institute (Spain), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto di Studi sui Sistemi Intelligenti per l'Automazione (CNR-ISSIA, Italy).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on September 23, 2014, 13:04:38
I did some support work in the 90's to the SFU's Underwater Research lab where they were trying to deal with that communication issues.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS- harper-trims-the-number-of-arctic-warships
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 20, 2014, 23:18:34
Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC:


OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.

So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.

Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.

Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.

At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North.

The government now plans to buy just five light icebreakers, with an option for a sixth


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-trims-the-number-of-arctic-warships-on-order-1.2062482#ixzz3Gk3jaaUT



 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS- harper-trims-the-number-of-arctic-warships
Post by: milnews.ca on October 28, 2014, 16:56:41
Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC:

OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.

So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.

Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.

Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.

At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North ....
Interestingly enough, this just out today (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/28/canada-arctic-idUSL1N0SN1G020141028):
Quote
Canada will fail to deliver a proposed fleet of six to eight Arctic patrol ships unless it spends significantly more than the C$2.8 billion ($2.51 billion) planned, the Canadian Parliament's budget watchdog said on Tuesday.

The Conservative government had announced plans to build the fleet of polar-capable ships over the next decade as part of its strategy to exert sovereignty over the region and increase operating capability there.

But a review by the Parliamentary Budget Office, set up in 2006 to provide independent analysis to legislators, concluded that the government's existing plan would only deliver three or four ships.

"It is not possible at any confidence level to build eight or six ships for the C$2.8 billion budget," said the report released by Jean-Denis Fréchette, Canada's parliamentary budget officer.

A government spokesman rejected the analysis.

"The numbers provided by the PBO are based on erroneous data, rough cost estimates of international vessels with varied capabilities and derived using inaccurate specifications," said Marcel Poulin, a spokesman for Canada's Public Works Minister Diane Finley.

Fréchette said that there was insufficient contemporary Canadian data on an acquisition of this nature. He also wrote that Canada's defense department had removed details of the fleet's proposed capabilities from its website and declined to share technical details ....
PBO deck and report here (http://bit.ly/1tfwgz9) and here (http://bit.ly/1DXQ8cZ).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on October 28, 2014, 18:49:39
So over $400 million per ship!!!  I wish we could cancell the selection of Irving and go with Davie.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 29, 2014, 12:49:53
When Davies is better than your current selection you have serious problems.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on October 29, 2014, 14:25:31
We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: GK .Dundas on October 29, 2014, 15:44:09
We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.
Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental.
 The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 .
 It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved.
 After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically they screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on October 29, 2014, 16:05:57
Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental.
 The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 .
 It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved.
 After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically the screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .
As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 29, 2014, 16:45:57
both in time and money
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 31, 2014, 19:31:34
As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.

Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:

Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: AlexanderM on October 31, 2014, 19:46:20
Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:

Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D
I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on November 01, 2014, 00:29:27
If by 'vapourizing' you mean having each dollar cycle approximately nine-fold* within the Canadian economy before being attrited to a negligible value, then yes...

G2G

* searching for the reference I read recently about the recursive value of each dollar of taxpayers' money spent within Canada's economy.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on November 02, 2014, 11:57:17
I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.

"better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 03, 2014, 11:26:43
Without getting them made in China, I could not see anything wrong with Irving deciding to get the hulls assembled in, say, Poland, and then towed/shipped to Halifax for fitting out. That is what the Danes did for their Knud Rasmunssen class. After all, an ice capable hull is expensive to make because of he thickness of the steel and more complex welding process that results from it so, why not use a shipyard that already has welders that mastered that art?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on November 03, 2014, 13:25:02
"better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.

It's a common practice to look at factory codes in China as some factories have reps for quality products and others for utter crap. Most of the high end pianos are made in China and then sold under other brand names.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: misratah500 on December 30, 2014, 19:17:59
I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.

If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or ******* want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Tcm621 on December 30, 2014, 20:29:43
I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.

If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or ******* want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.
The coast guard doesn't actually guard a coast and the North needs guarding. Right now there are 4 major claimants to the resources up there including one which just named NATO it's biggest threat. With no presence up there it weakens our position to that area. This is the point of a naval forces up their. To guard our 3rd coast.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: misratah500 on December 30, 2014, 21:53:32
The fact that the coast guard doesn't actually guard anything should probably be something that needs to be looked at. They should actually be armed and a part of the military not fisheries and oceans.

These vessels will be only useful in the summer time when winter ice is it's thinnest. Those nuclear Russian icebreakers on the other hand will have free reign where we won't. If they were serious about Arctic defence (they're not) then we would have other ships, subs and bases that could deal with the Arctic year round.

It's all PR photo ops.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on December 30, 2014, 22:24:02
Oh,

That is soooo cynical. 

True.

But cynical!

NS
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ringo on December 31, 2014, 02:54:34
Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 31, 2014, 07:57:54
Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.

From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.  You'd have pushback from that quarter.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on December 31, 2014, 11:26:36
Fisheries used to have armed vessels and the RCMP had a significant fleet including a frigate. The CCG does a lot of work that does not requiring being armed. It will be much easier to start arming ships with heavy MG's to support boarding parties from other agencies. The CCG crews are not trained or interested in boarding. The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required.

http://www.forposterityssake.ca/Navy/HMCS_BROCKVILLE_J270_178.htm


(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forposterityssake.ca%2FJPGs%2FSHIPS%2FRCMP_Vessel_Laurier.jpg&hash=7bf21a15f2498952067c377af3c8d8ef) (She is still afloat)

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Rifleman62 on December 31, 2014, 13:47:15
jollyjacktar:
Quote
From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.You'd have pushback from that quarter.

If the government wishes to change the Role of the CCG, then the union mbrs can pushback all they want. I don't think all the Cdn border guards wanted to be armed.

If the Role changes (and I doubt it will), then FRP/Reaganize them (Reaganize = air traffic controllers).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on December 31, 2014, 14:11:20
The CCG is struggling to get people with marine tickets as it is now (because the pay sucks compared to the rest of the marine industry) so you can't force to hard. teaching them to shoot MG's would likely be seen as fun by most and would not unduly interfere with the rest of their duties. Training the deck crew to shoot the MG's and drive the boats for the boarding parties will be the easy part. Getting the Captains and senior management to accept the responsibility of giving the orders to open fire to cause harm or death will be the hardest part. Hence the reason why I suggest the phased approach and planning for the fitting of armaments and supporting systems. Some people who have other unique skillsets in demand will not buy into the new role and you still need them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on December 31, 2014, 14:25:43
You cannot have a situation where one crew can respond whilst another can't.  Coast guard is needed for clean-up, maintaining channels, surface rescue and clearing ice channels.  These skill sets do not require the use of an mg. Requirement for an armed naval vessel with other than first year ice capabilities is very limited.  After all, if the ice is that bad what are you going in after?  Anyone up there is going to be iced in unless it is another ice breaker and no one is going to invade Canada from the north at 5 knots or less.  Better to return to the armed fisheries or RCMP model if the navy isn't going to be properly expanded to satisfy the defense role.  IMHO expanding naval capabilities is by far the best solution. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on December 31, 2014, 18:23:44
....The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required.


The issue I see is not so much one of finding Coast Guard members willing to fire the guns but finding members willing to continue firing when fire is returned.

Chasing Spanish Fishermen is not the same as chasing Armed Smugglers and Pirates.

On the other hand - I see nothing wrong with the government building vessels that can be employed unarmed by the Coast Guard and armed by the RCN.

Make like the Danes and put Stanflex positions on the AOPS and anything over 1000 tonnes.  Then you can drop in a OM76 or a Bofors 57 (or even a 40) or a 25mm RCWS as the mission requires - and you can drop in an RCNR crew along with the weapons.

By the way - you should probably add Scan Eagles to every CCG and RCN platform as a matter of course.  It would enhance their search and surveillance capabilities immeasurably (and likely reduce helicopter search time).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: NavyShooter on January 01, 2015, 11:57:52
All that makes sense....which is probably why it ain't gonna happen!  ;-)

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on January 02, 2015, 16:37:55
You cannot have a situation where one crew can respond whilst another can't.  Coast guard is needed for clean-up, maintaining channels, surface rescue and clearing ice channels.  These skill sets do not require the use of an mg. Requirement for an armed naval vessel with other than first year ice capabilities is very limited.  After all, if the ice is that bad what are you going in after?  Anyone up there is going to be iced in unless it is another ice breaker and no one is going to invade Canada from the north at 5 knots or less.  Better to return to the armed fisheries or RCMP model if the navy isn't going to be properly expanded to satisfy the defense role.  IMHO expanding naval capabilities is by far the best solution.

The purpose of the MG is to cover the boarding party and that sort of stuff does happen even now. I have done boardings with fisheries officers and RCMP, other guys I know have supported military boardings over the years from CCG ships. Since these ships may be the only presence in the Arctic, then have the MG allows a reasonable show of force, enough to make the point. Kirkhill, since most CCG ships can't run away, they have no choice but to return fire. Thankfully a icebreaker has a fairly thick hull and upperworks compared to naval vessels
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: quadrapiper on January 02, 2015, 17:41:21
Would DEMS provide a useful model for equipping CCG vessels that, for whatever reason, might require armament?

Also, would seem to make sense to have Federal vessels beyond a certain size fitted for but not with whatever small arms might be useful should there be an RCN or RCMP role requiring that vessel: perhaps hardpoints for .50s, provisions for boarding party small arms lockers, and ammunition storage.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: The_Dictat on January 16, 2015, 13:02:01
Taken from ctvnews.ca.

Ottawa inks Arctic patrol ship deal with Irving Shipbuilding

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-inks-arctic-patrol-ship-deal-with-irving-shipbuilding-1.2192175#ixzz3P0M5O7HD

The Canadian Press
Published Friday, January 16, 2015 11:59AM EST


OTTAWA - The Harper government has inked a contract to build its long-promised Arctic patrol ships, but it had to increase the overall project budget to get there.
 
Officials from Public Works and National Defence, along with Irving Shipbuilding President Kevin McCoy, made the announcement today in Ottawa ahead of a planned event next week in Halifax.
 
The entire program is now expected to cost $3.5 billion, instead of the $3.1 billion initially proposed when the ships were first announced back in 2007 as part of the Conservative government's ambitious plan to rebuild the military.
 
The agreement is to construct six of the light icebreakers for the navy's use in the North and off both coasts, but officials acknowledge that could slip to five if the program runs into trouble.
 
The deal provides incentives to Irving to keep costs down in order to deliver all six ships on time and on budget.
 
The parliamentary budget office warned last fall that delays and the corrosive effect of inflation would force the Conservative government to buy fewer ships if it stuck


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-inks-arctic-patrol-ship-deal-with-irving-shipbuilding-1.2192175#ixzz3P0LyYZTy
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: captloadie on January 16, 2015, 14:32:05
A convenient time for a downturn in the Alberta economy. All the east coast tradesmen that will be out of work out west can now join Irving and reduce their commute.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 16, 2015, 14:45:50
This is ridiculous.

We don't want a contract with incentives to Irving to stay on time and budget - We want SEVERE penalties to Irving for failing to do so. They should get NO PROFIT WHATSOEVER for merely doing that which the contract requires them to do.
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Halifax Tar on January 16, 2015, 15:22:25
This the CCP getting their ducks in a row for a looming election.

Smoke and mirrors.  When will they start cutting steel again ?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 16, 2015, 15:24:52
When will they start cutting steel again ?
September, according to my son who works there.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Halifax Tar on January 16, 2015, 15:46:37
September, according to my son who works there.

That would be nice! 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MCG on January 17, 2015, 00:21:00
My guess is that we will only ever see five of these.  The potential, optional sixth will be killed by inflation.
Quote
Canada's navy to get 5 or 6 Arctic ships, not 8
Price jumps to $3.5 billion, first vessel scheduled for 2018

JAMES CUDMORE, CBC NEWS
16 Jan 2015

Seven years after announcing a plan to buy Arctic patrol ships for the navy, the Conservative government announced Friday it has signed a contract guaranteeing delivery of five of the vessels, with the possibility of a sixth, if the shipyard can pull it off.

The announcement put an end — finally — to the pretext the government could buy as many as eight ships within the $3.1-billion budget set in 2007 for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship program.

The questions of cost and quantity have been alive for years, and doubts about the program's ability to produce the required number of vessels without blowing the budget have featured in reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the auditor general.

Friday, the government effectively bowed to those criticisms, announcing the program's $3.1-billion cap had recently been expanded to $3.5-billion to ensure a cash buffer for at least five, if not six, ships.
At a technical briefing, a senior government official said the contract marked a milestone in the government's high-stakes, $35-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

Rebuilding industry to rebuild the fleet

The strategy was launched in 2010 as a co-operative program with industry to provide access to qualified Canadian shipbuilding in rebuilding the fleet.

The government says it will create 15,000 jobs over 30 years.

The program includes new supply ships and warships for the navy, new patrol vessels and an icebreaker for the Coast Guard, and the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships to be built by Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.
Observers have paid close attention to this program, seeing it as a barometer of success for the government's strategy.

"The fact an AOPS contract has been agreed is significant," the official said. "But there is still risk ahead."
"The AOPS is a new design and a new class of ship being built in a brand new shipyard. These factors bring risks with them," the official said.

"The challenge is to find the appropriate balance between risk and cost certainty."

6 ships or 8? How about 5?

That risk is already manifest in the re-evaluation of the number of ships to be delivered. The initial plan called for as many as eight vessels, and the program was designed to deliver between six and eight. Friday's contract with Irving Shipbuilding guarantees only five ships, but there is strong desire for a sixth if Irving can get it done.

Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, said Friday the company believes it will build that sixth ship.

"We expect to deliver six ships for the Royal Canadian Navy," he said.

Stated broadly, the contract includes costs for the ship and the shipbuilding, and a separate fee charged by Irving to account for profit. If Irving keeps its costs down enough to get the sixth ship built, the fees go up. If the costs go up, the fees go down.

"We are highly incentivized to reduce spending so that our overall profit fee is maximized," McCoy said.
But Irving's pursuit of low costs and higher profit has led to concern in some corners that subcontractors are being pushed to aggressively reduce their own bills to win Irving business.

McCoy said Irving is applying that tough approach inside its operations, too.

"We have brought in outside advisers over the last five months alone, twice, to challenge us internally on our costs and our assumptions," he said.

"We are doing the same approach with our subcontractors for the budget and to deliver six ships here."
A senior government official Friday praised that approach.

"We have been equally heavy-handed with Irving Shipbuilding on its costs," the official said. "There was a lot of back and forth about making sure that we could drive costs as low as absolutely possible and this is done in making sure we can maximize the amount of the budget that can be spent on ships."

Production to start just before election

Production is expected to begin in September, one month before the Oct. 19 date fixed for the next federal election.

The first ship is due in 2018, with subsequent ships following at nine-month intervals. However much effort is being spent on cost containment, defence economist Dave Perry believes paying too high a price at the front end of the patrol-ship process will likely lead to lower costs and more secure delivery later on.
The more costly and arguably more important combat-ship program will follow at Irving's Halifax shipyard.

That program is worth roughly $25 billion for some 23 new combatant ships to replace the Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois-class Air Defence Destroyers.

"If you take the approach that is not a $3-billion project in isolation, but $30-billion worth of work, then I think it makes an awful lot of sense to potentially spend a bit more money up front on the small project to get everyone up to speed, to make sure the workforce is in place," Perry said.

"NSPS is not just a shipbuilding strategy, it's a strategy to build the industry to build the ships."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-to-get-5-or-6-arctic-ships-not-8-1.2913159
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 17, 2015, 09:54:54
I am pretty confident (for what it is worth) that we will see 6...maybe still 6-8 even.
http://rcn-mrc.mil.ca/repository/pa-ap/RCN-AOPS-Fact-Sheet-Eng.pdf
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: sunrayRnfldR on February 17, 2015, 20:12:29
Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
Brian
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MCG on February 17, 2015, 21:35:20
Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
Brian
If that is a realistic eventuality, the consequences will likely be unfortunate.
Where does the money come from?  Will there be fewer CSCs to pay for this?  Don't expect any possible government to throw more cash into the pot.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 17, 2015, 23:31:04
Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
Brian

Personally I think 6 AOPS only will be built and Irving will make a big deal how they did it efficiently enough to have enough money for the 6th hull. I also think the CSC will start on time as everything by that time should be in place and ready to go.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 17, 2015, 23:37:46
Has anyone read anything on what the weaponry will be like on the new Dewolf class ships?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: dapaterson on February 17, 2015, 23:49:03
Has anyone read anything on what the weaponry will be like on the new Dewolf class ships?

Given the cost premium we're paying for Canadian-built ships, I can only assume it's going to be armed with sharks.  Sharks with frickin' laser beams.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Thumper81 on February 17, 2015, 23:56:10
From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.   
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 18, 2015, 00:12:40
Given the cost premium we're paying for Canadian-built ships, I can only assume it's going to be armed with sharks.  Sharks with frickin' laser beams.

You may want to paten that idea as it sounds like the next "sharknado" could be something like "Lazer Sharks"!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 18, 2015, 00:17:51
From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.   
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs

I wonder when they will implement it into our training, as ive never heard of it being used on ship. Any idea what the cannon will be? I assume it will be similiar to the MCDV's 40.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: dapaterson on February 18, 2015, 00:27:25
You may want to paten that idea as it sounds like the next "sharknado" could be something like "Lazer Sharks"!

Thank you for making me feel old.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F53513266.jpg&hash=5511835d8aae4aa591195c7c48b1a0e2)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 18, 2015, 00:31:25
 :facepalm: :facepalm: I totally forgot about that movie... shows you how much time I spend watching movies or online.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Thumper81 on February 18, 2015, 00:32:24
Click the link that I put there.  It's a remotely operated system.  It's similar to the Typhoon RWS.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 18, 2015, 05:39:01
I just realized that the link I put in above is a DIN link so you will have to check it out from work but I am pretty sure there is a description of the single gun.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 18, 2015, 08:15:30
I wonder when they will implement it into our training, as ive never heard of it being used on ship. Any idea what the cannon will be? I assume it will be similiar to the MCDV's 40.

Eventually if some reservists may get the training if they are on a course that offers it. There will probably be a few reservist on short term contracts on AOPS, but not like it was on MCDV's. It will not be offered at CFFS(Q). It is a remote controlled 25MM gun producted by BAE systems, so nowhere alike the 40MM
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 18, 2015, 08:23:17
From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.   
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs

I don't think it requires a heavy gun as it will never see combat. There is a lot more things required to have a 57 mm, ammo handling system, bigger mag, more weapon techs etc. The 25mm will be plenty for what it will be required to do.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 18, 2015, 09:11:13
It is actually being referred to officially as a Constabulary vice Combat vessel.
This was made clear in Cdr MacLean's brief to MARLANT anyway.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on February 18, 2015, 10:21:08
I don't think it requires a heavy gun as it will never see combat. There is a lot more things required to have a 57 mm, ammo handling system, bigger mag, more weapon techs etc. The 25mm will be plenty for what it will be required to do.
Yep - it's primarily an ISR platform, not a combattant.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 18, 2015, 10:36:32
From an article under the name of VADM Maddison in 2011 (scroll down):

Quote
...
AOPS will not be a complex combatant. It will be armed and equipped for a constabulary role in support of other government departments...
http://vanguardcanada.com/preparing-for-a-unique-maritime-theatre/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 18, 2015, 10:40:13
I wonder if the fleet will be assisting with Parks Canada on their research intiatives in the arctic? That would be a sail I would want to go on!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on February 18, 2015, 10:52:55
I wonder if the fleet will be assisting with Parks Canada on their research intiatives in the arctic? That would be a sail I would want to go on!
We are already. Have a look at some of the images from the discovery of the EREBUS. You will see the ocassional grey thing in the background. As well, side scan sonar operators from the RCN have sailed on other vessels.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on February 18, 2015, 11:11:50
It is actually being referred to officially as a Constabulary vice Combat vessel.
This was made clear in Cdr MacLean's brief to MARLANT anyway.

One can make the same argument about the USCG ships and they are armed with heavier weapons. This is cost cutting dressed up in words.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Naval Reservist on February 18, 2015, 11:59:09
We are already. Have a look at some of the images from the discovery of the EREBUS. You will see the ocassional grey thing in the background. As well, side scan sonar operators from the RCN have sailed on other vessels.

That's awesome, everybody I talked to at my home unit has never heard of any partnership. Im glad to hear that though. Hopefully I get the oppurtunity to serve on that operation.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 18, 2015, 12:22:15
Yep - it's primarily an ISR platform, not a combattant.

Just because it's anticipated as such, doesn't mean it won't be thrust upon it one day.  If, the Arctic is going to be a potential flash point who knows what might happen done the road.  I am sure there are many examples of Constabulary forces thrust into combat unexpectedly.  (NWMP in 1885 for one)  And even they had field guns.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2015, 12:25:18
One can make the same argument about the USCG ships and they are armed with heavier weapons. This is cost cutting dressed up in words.

Colin (and Jack), I think you are treading the same path as the critics of the Yankee LCS programme - in days gone by guns were the only means of reaching out and touching somebody.  Missiles changed that game and perhaps more thought should go into leaving deck space for bolt on systems like the Harpoon and SeaRAM.  But most folks don't seem to see the role of the armed helo, and more to the point the armed UAV (like the Firescout), in extending the surveillance envelope as well as the range at which targets can be engaged while the launching platform is mast-down over the horizon.

If any CF vessel on patrol is actively engaged by a near-peer vessel in a one-on-one engagement I am guessing that that is not a preferred scenario for any skipper.  Ideally I would think the preferred plan would be to detect before being detected and then vector HE to the target. That HE can be delivered by Patrol Aircraft, Fighter, Armed Helo, Predator, Firescout or those traditional, disposable UAVs -guided missiles.

But the AOPS, I don't believe, is expected to be operating in those types of situations.  Most of its time is going to be spent in boring show-the-flag sovereignty patrols in a very quiet arctic while standing as gate guard on the Northwest Passage and as SAR guard for civil air traffic.

The rest of the time will be spent with the following comms "Radio Check" and "Nothing to Report".

But....

Having said that, it is important that those negative reports be filed as they verify our claim to the territory by right of regular usage.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 18, 2015, 13:19:13
Colin (and Jack), I think you are treading the same path as the critics of the Yankee LCS programme - in days gone by guns were the only means of reaching out and touching somebody.  Missiles changed that game and perhaps more thought should go into leaving deck space for bolt on systems like the Harpoon and SeaRAM.  But most folks don't seem to see the role of the armed helo, and more to the point the armed UAV (like the Firescout), in extending the surveillance envelope as well as the range at which targets can be engaged while the launching platform is mast-down over the horizon.

If any CF vessel on patrol is actively engaged by a near-peer vessel in a one-on-one engagement I am guessing that that is not a preferred scenario for any skipper.  Ideally I would think the preferred plan would be to detect before being detected and then vector HE to the target. That HE can be delivered by Patrol Aircraft, Fighter, Armed Helo, Predator, Firescout or those traditional, disposable UAVs -guided missiles.

But the AOPS, I don't believe, is expected to be operating in those types of situations.  Most of its time is going to be spent in boring show-the-flag sovereignty patrols in a very quiet arctic while standing as gate guard on the Northwest Passage and as SAR guard for civil air traffic.

The rest of the time will be spent with the following comms "Radio Check" and "Nothing to Report".

But....

Having said that, it is important that those negative reports be filed as they verify our claim to the territory by right of regular usage.

From what I have seen after deploying to the Arctic on ship five times now, the stuff we did will mostly likely be the same kind of stuff AOPS will be doing and 99% percent of that is very boring but absoultely needed. If we need an armed combatant AOPS will call in Air or vector in a warship. AOPS will be ill suited to survive any direct combat situation, its simply not built for that.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on February 18, 2015, 13:42:32
Just because it's anticipated as such, doesn't mean it won't be thrust upon it one day.  If, the Arctic is going to be a potential flash point who knows what might happen done the road.  I am sure there are many examples of Constabulary forces thrust into combat unexpectedly.  (NWMP in 1885 for one)  And even they had field guns.
The NWMP were formed and equipped to put down another Red River Rebellion-style armed insurrection.

Using your line of logic we might as well have mounted Harpoons and a CIWS on QUEST. Weapons' fit isn't static; whatever geopolitical situation may be developing in the arctic is developing slowly enough that we'll have loooots of time to upgrade the deck gun if and when needed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 18, 2015, 13:53:18
From what I have seen after deploying to the Arctic on ship five times now, the stuff we did will mostly likely be the same kind of stuff AOPS will be doing and 99% percent of that is very boring but absoultely needed. If we need an armed combatant AOPS will call in Air or vector in a warship. AOPS will be ill suited to survive any direct combat situation, its simply not built for that.

And neither would one of our current MCDV survive such combat as they are also not built for that, as neither were the minesweepers before; and neither could a WWII corvette have survived contact with the Bismark, etc. etc.

That does not mean that they are not warships or that they serve no purpose, just that their purpose does not require them to be Battleships.

AOPS will be constabulary, but my suspicion is that they won't ever have to fire a shot in anger. So much so, in fact, that I would not be surprised to see them being turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of entering service. IMO, the most useful thing they could possibly do would be to load the survey gear and assist with the surveying required to completely update the nautical charts for the area, which to this day remain the most incomplete ones in Canada.

As for the 25 mm gun, too bad it's going to be the BAE one. Would have loved to see us adopt the same Raphael Typhoon the Aussies use: That could have justified "training" exchanges with the RAN on their Armidale patrol boats.  One can always dream.  :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 18, 2015, 14:21:04
And neither would one of our current MCDV survive such combat as they are also not built for that, as neither were the minesweepers before; and neither could a WWII corvette have survived contact with the Bismark, etc. etc.

That does not mean that they are not warships or that they serve no purpose, just that their purpose does not require them to be Battleships.

AOPS will be constabulary, but my suspicion is that they won't ever have to fire a shot in anger. So much so, in fact, that I would not be surprised to see them being turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of entering service. IMO, the most useful thing they could possibly do would be to load the survey gear and assist with the surveying required to completely update the nautical charts for the area, which to this day remain the most incomplete ones in Canada.

As for the 25 mm gun, too bad it's going to be the BAE one. Would have loved to see us adopt the same Raphael Typhoon the Aussies use: That could have justified "training" exchanges with the RAN on their Armidale patrol boats.  One can always dream.  :)

I agree that they will most likely never fire a shot in anger, most of what they will do is exactly what the MCDV's currently do and that is to show the flag, patrol and an armed presence in the Arctic. When not in the Arctic, they will do fisheries, relief missions and anything else the RCN deems for them, just like what the MCDV's currently do but with a more capable platform. I would imagine they will a large role in force generation as well as they will have a large number of training bunks. I highly doubt the AOPS will be turned over to CCG willingly, memories of HMCS Labrador still are fresh and if Adm Newton is still about this will never happen. I agree that hydrographic work will be a major task for them, just as HMCS Kingston only recently did off Arctic Bay last fall.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 18, 2015, 14:48:15
Don't know what you means concerning the LABRADOR, Chief.

She was transferred to the Coast Guard in 1957. A boy seaman serving onboard would be 75 years old today, so I have no idea who could possibly have a fresh memory of her.

There never was any "bad" memory of this transfer by the Navy. I joined in 1975 and never did I hear anyone bemoan the fact that we "got rid of LABRADOR". She did her few patrols - mostly helped with the original DEW line radar sites construction, and was quietly turned over to the CG near the height of the RCN post war fleet build up, not as a cost cutting measure, but because it was quickly found she served no real defence purpose.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 18, 2015, 15:01:27
The NWMP were formed and equipped to put down another Red River Rebellion-style armed insurrection.

Using your line of logic we might as well have mounted Harpoons and a CIWS on QUEST. Weapons' fit isn't static; whatever geopolitical situation may be developing in the arctic is developing slowly enough that we'll have loooots of time to upgrade the deck gun if and when needed.

Actually, no, the NWMP were not formed for that reason.  My Great Grandfather was one of the original 300.  They were formed to try and put down the Whiskey Trade that was originating from Montana as well as to bring law and order to the territories.  The NW Rebellion of 1885 came 12 years after the creation of the NWMP in 1873. 

My point, is that just because the GoC envisions a constabulary presence in the form of AOPS being just a constabulary presence doesn't mean that they might not find themselves in the shyte all of a sudden.  I am not suggesting the 25mm gun is enough or not enough for that role.  Only that, that role, might all of a sudden change into something bigger.  As someone else pointed out the USCG is a constabulary force overall, but they are prepared to do more if forced upon it, as has happened.  That, was my point.



Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2015, 15:06:52
Then put a big enough hole in the deck in which you can bury a container that can handle the 25, a 57, a 76 or even a pack of ESSMs.

It has been done before.  You could even put a removable whisky locker in the space if the primary purpose was to keep Hans Island free of Danes in a non-threatening manner.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Monsoon on February 18, 2015, 16:08:41
Actually, no, the NWMP were not formed for that reason.  My Great Grandfather was one of the original 300.  They were formed to try and put down the Whiskey Trade that was originating from Montana as well as to bring law and order to the territories.  The NW Rebellion of 1885 came 12 years after the creation of the NWMP in 1873. 
And the Red River Rebellion of 1869/70 came about three years prior to the formation of the NWMP. As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you not to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated. I concede that the NWMP subsequently did lots of customs enforcement, but that's not why they were given cannons.

Quote
My point, is that just because the GoC envisions a constabulary presence in the form of AOPS being just a constabulary presence doesn't mean that they might not find themselves in the shyte all of a sudden.  I am not suggesting the 25mm gun is enough or not enough for that role.  Only that, that role, might all of a sudden change into something bigger.  As someone else pointed out the USCG is a constabulary force overall, but they are prepared to do more if forced upon it, as has happened.  That, was my point.
If something like that happened "all of the sudden" without any I&W leading up to it, it would be pretty unprecedented. At present, we have no reason to expect an armed confrontation in the arctic and have equipped ourselves accordingly. What we do need is ISR, and we're getting that.

Then put a big enough hole in the deck in which you can bury a container that can handle the 25, a 57, a 76 or even a pack of ESSMs.
It's fitted for a payload. Modularized packages that carry everything from ESSMs to Harpoons are readily available for purchase off the shelf (the sort the Danish Flyvefisken-class OPVs use). If and when we decide we need them.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 18, 2015, 16:37:20
Don't know what you means concerning the LABRADOR, Chief.

She was transferred to the Coast Guard in 1957. A boy seaman serving onboard would be 75 years old today, so I have no idea who could possibly have a fresh memory of her.

There never was any "bad" memory of this transfer by the Navy. I joined in 1975 and never did I hear anyone bemoan the fact that we "got rid of LABRADOR". She did her few patrols - mostly helped with the original DEW line radar sites construction, and was quietly turned over to the CG near the height of the RCN post war fleet build up, not as a cost cutting measure, but because it was quickly found she served no real defence purpose.

The Labrador gave the RCN a capability way back in the 50's that we never regained. Many people today call for "armed icebreakers" to built rather than the AOPS. It was a crying shame that the RCN gave her up and many at the time didn't agree with it due to the cold war. Many of the charts we still use today were based on hydrographic work conducted in Labrador while in the RCN.  I had a opportunity to talk with the MARLANT Commander only recently and we drew many comparisions with Labrador and Harry DeWolf. AOPS will give the RCN some of the similar capability that we lost when Labrador was transferred.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2015, 16:39:47
It's fitted for a payload. Modularized packages that carry everything from ESSMs to Harpoons are readily available for purchase off the shelf (the sort the Danish Flyvefisken-class OPVs use). If and when we decide we need them.

Eggzackly - The Danish Stanflex System - http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/STANFLEX-modules.htm

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd1%2FUS_Navy_070220-N-3642E-009_Secretary_of_the_Navy_%2528SECNAV%2529%252C_the_Honorable_Donald_C._Winter_receives_a_brief_on_the_concept_of_operations_of_an_anti-mine_warfare_module.jpg%2F300px-thumbnail.jpg&hash=bb3dc47b2d7e3e4e0b8ceebc5897c9a6)

The squarish bucket below holds all the mechanical and electrical systems and drops into the hole.  The stuff on top sticks out on top of the deck and does the work.

And the Red River Rebellion of 1869/70 came about three years prior to the formation of the NWMP. As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you not to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated. I concede that the NWMP subsequently did lots of customs enforcement, but that's not why they were given cannons.

WRT NWMP 9 Pdrs - This is why they took 2x 9 Pdrs and 2x Brass Mortars.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.specialx.net%2Fspecialxdotnet%2Fimages%2Ffortwhoopup.jpg&hash=c96b6fb222bfad5e16763def982b4f7b)
(https://www.glenbow.org/exhibitions/online/libpics/fort1.jpg)

The Whisky Traders at Whoop Up were a bit more than a Customs and Excise problem.

No doubt Louis Riel, and the Fenians, and the Blackfoot, and Sitting Bull and the US Army played into the decisions in terms of arming the 300.  But even the "the non-state actors" of the day presented a significant problem.  (Actually, come to think of it the only State Actors in the picture were the US Army and they were likely the least of the problems).

Here's how the locals rationalize the raising of the NWMP.

http://nwmp.wikispaces.com/1870+-+Danger+in+the+West

And THIS  (https://books.google.ca/books?id=vtKNTy2iMDgC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=nwmp+9+pdrs+1873&source=bl&ots=VnJj6bW7ZW&sig=YCqomFwK3AAB0Vo8wNW0XYHFOgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zPXkVNO3IfPhsASX8YDICw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=nwmp%209%20pdrs%201873&f=false)one
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Old Sweat on February 18, 2015, 16:47:31
Mods, we might e creating another thread here.

Actually the NWMP took 2 7-pdrs that had been used by the artillery detachment in the Red River garrison established after the Red River expedition. Strange as it seems, the Liberals, who had replaced the Conservatives because of the Pacific Scandal, did not want to form the force because of the costs. Instead, according to a report by the Governor General to the Colonial Office (which I have read,) Prime Minister Mackenzie wanted to ask the US Army to pacify the Canadian West. The GG was not impressed.

What this has to do with AOPS beats me, but somebody might be able to connect the dots.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Goose15 on February 18, 2015, 16:50:55
Thank you for making me feel old.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F53513266.jpg&hash=5511835d8aae4aa591195c7c48b1a0e2)

Don't feel old! I'm "just a young'un" and I almost cried when I read that  first post ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2015, 17:00:40
Mods, we might e creating another thread here.

Actually the NWMP took 2 7-pdrs that had been used by the artillery detachment in the Red River garrison established after the Red River expedition. Strange as it seems, the Liberals, who had replaced the Conservatives because of the Pacific Scandal, did not want to form the force because of the costs. Instead, according to a report by the Governor General to the Colonial Office (which I have read,) Prime Minister Mackenzie wanted to ask the US Army to pacify the Canadian West. The GG was not impressed.

What this has to do with AOPS beats me, but somebody might be able to connect the dots.

Gilbert and Sullivan to the Rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpVbBH9Ip8I

Constabulary work donchano?  ;D

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2015, 17:01:32
Gilbert and Sullivan to the Rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpVbBH9Ip8I

Constabulary work donchano?  ;D

Maybe that will make Goose15 happier.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 18, 2015, 18:42:32
As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you not to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated.

No worries, I won't try to convince you as you have your own opinions and theories. 

Kirkhill does have some nice photos of Ft Whoop-Up posted which was at present day Lethbridge, AB, 50 km east of where I grew up and where the NWMP started to really operate from.  When they arrived in force at the fort they found it to be very recently abandoned by the Whiskey Traders who had fled in advance of first contact.  And I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on February 18, 2015, 19:00:47
and the Cougars would never deploy.....

These ships need to be built with enough hardpoints to be able to mount enough armaments and counter measures to be effective. Any gun is better than no gun, but chances are that this type of ships may very well be involved in some heavy diplomacy by itself, far from support and it will be a close in shoving match and the meanest looking ship is going to win, even if not a shot is fired. The problem with a missile is it does not lend itself well to warning shots. Frankly a 57mm and some missiles along with counter measures is the way to go. Possibly in their life time they will also mount small defensive lasers. Walking softly while carrying a big enough stick often solve problems before they get out of hand.

Plus the people who don't like you, consider any of your naval vessels a warship and will treat it as such. Regardless of what you think or say you are doing.

I also think every CCG large vessel need integrated hardpoints in the design with supporting comms, electrical services fitted. I would like to see a war stock of naval weapons stored that can be fitted on short notice to the above mentioned hardpoints and ships and crews cycled throuhg     
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 08, 2015, 21:37:44
Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.
   
Quote
  Strengthening Canada's Capability In The Arctic; Lockheed Martin Canada Awarded Implementation Subcontract For Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships

Published: Apr 8, 2015 9:00 a.m. ET     

OTTAWA, April 8, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin Canada [LMT: NYSE] announced today that it has been awarded the implementation subcontract by Irving Shipbuilding Inc. as command and surveillance system integrator for the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) new class of Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS).

Lockheed Martin Canada is one of AOPS Prime Contractor Irving Shipbuilding's Tier 1 suppliers for delivering the AOPS vessels as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS). With a contract valued at more than C$170M, Lockheed Martin Canada is responsible for key integration of data and information sources to increase the ships' situational awareness and provide command, control and decision support at all levels of command for the new vessels.

Rosemary Chapdelaine, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada's Ottawa-based Mission Systems and Training (MST) business, said "Our team facilitates tight collaboration with the shipyard, subcontractors and the Navy, and we are pleased to be moving to the next stage of the AOPS program on schedule. Our ability to coordinate among these stakeholders on complex programs is our blueprint for success."

Lockheed Martin Canada was able to leverage its innovative combat management system from the Halifax Class Modernization (HCM) program for surveillance purposes on AOPS, offering a highly capable, low-risk solution for the project.

Chapdelaine continues, "This award, along with our continued milestone achievements to extend the life of the Halifax-class patrol frigates, strengthens our team's capability to deliver enduring value for the RCN and for Canada."

The naval capability built in Canada also provides an entry into the world market. The recent contract award for the New Zealand Frigate System Upgrade is directly attributable to the expertise and record of success Lockheed Martin Canada has established with HCM and now AOPS.

Success on these Canadian naval programs is in large part attributed to Lockheed Martin Canada's strong Canadian supply chain. LM Canada manages four Canada-based subcontractors as part of the AOPS contract. These subcontractors were selected from a competition during the design phase. Across all programs, the company has managed over 700 contracts with Canadian companies across nine provinces in the country. This work offers Canadian companies an opportunity to broaden their portfolios to sustain and grow their businesses.

"Lockheed Martin Canada is a key partner in achieving best quality and value for Canada in the production of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships," said Kevin McCoy, President of Irving Shipbuilding Inc.  "We have worked with them over the last 3 years to find the right command and surveillance solution to best serve the Navy in these important ships and to achieve the best overall benefit to Canada. I am pleased to have them on the AOPS team."

AOPS is a Government of Canada procurement project for the RCN. The project is expected to equip the Canadian Forces with six naval ice-capable offshore patrol ships able to assert and enforce sovereignty in Canada's waters where and when necessary, including the Arctic. The ships will conduct missions for northern surveillance, search and rescue, and interoperation with the Canadian Forces and other government organizations. The first Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship is scheduled to be delivered in 2018.

About Lockheed Martin CanadaLockheed Martin Canada has more than 850 employees at major facilities in Ottawa, Montreal, Dartmouth, Calgary, and Victoria, as well as Department of National Defence sites across the country, and is a leader in the delivery and integration of naval combat systems, radar platforms, avionics, electronic warfare, data fusion, commercial engine repair and overhaul, and performance-based logistics.

About NSPS Combatant Fleet Contract:In 2011, with the goal of building Canadian ships in Canada, the federal government established a strategic relationship with two Canadian shipyards, selected through an open and fair national competition, for large ship construction and designated them as sources of supply, one for combat vessels and the other for non-combat vessels.

Irving Shipbuilding was selected as Canada's Combatant Shipbuilder under the merit-based National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) and is in the early stages of a 30-year military shipbuilding program. The company is currently working on the Definition Contract for the first set of vessels, the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), working toward the September 2015 cut steel date for the AOPS ships.  The combatant portion of the NSPS program is comprised of 6 ice-capable AOPS, as well as up to 15 Canadian Surface Combatants, to replace the Canadian Navy's current frigates and destroyers. The NSPS program is designed to generate opportunities for shipbuilding trades, technology and systems suppliers, marine professionals and knowledge building partners across Canada, returning economic benefits to Canadians.

For additional information, visit our website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20141118/159313LOGO

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/strengthening-canadas-capability-in-the-arctic-lockheed-martin-canada-awarded-implementation-subcontract-for-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-300062607.html

SOURCE Lockheed Martin Canada

Copyright (C) 2015 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

 Article Link  (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/strengthening-canadas-capability-in-the-arctic-lockheed-martin-canada-awarded-implementation-subcontract-for-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-2015-04-08)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 12, 2015, 23:53:31
Ship named after 100-year-old Sask war hero

Saskatchewan nurse Margaret Brooke was aboard the SS Caribou when it was torpedoed off the coast of Newfoundland on Oct. 13, 1942.

Brooke’s heroic actions in the aftermath of the ship’s sinking earned her the Order of the British Empire, making her the only Canadian nurse to receive such an honour during the Second World War.

Now Brooke, who turned 100 years old Saturday, is being honoured again. The federal government announced a Canadian Arctic patrol ship will bear her name. Construction of the HMCS Margaret Brooke is set to begin in the fall.

The Royal Canadian Navy will employ the patrol ship to conduct sovereignty and surveillance operations in Canadian waters on all three coasts, including in the Arctic, according to a federal government news release.

Brooke said in a statement Saturday she was “amazed” and “honoured” to hear about the ship being named after her. She was told personally in a phone call Friday by Minister of National Defence Jason Kenney.

On Saturday — her 100th birthday — Brooke received a visit and birthday wishes from Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, Commander Canadian Fleet Pacific,

“I was and remain very proud of my years serving in the Royal Canadian Navy and thank all who were involved in making my 100th birthday an even more memorable occasion,” Brooke said.

Kenney said in a statement the arctic/offshore patrol ships are being named after Canadian naval heroes “who displayed outstanding leadership and heroism” while serving during wartime.

“It is in fact a privilege for our country that Margaret Brooke will lend her name to one of our naval ships, as her courage and self-sacrifice have inspired, and will continue to inspire, generations of Canadian Naval personnel for years to come.”

Brooke was born in Ardath, a village located approximately 70 kilometres southwest of Saskatoon.

She enlisted in the Second World War on March 9, 1942, as a “nursing sister/dietician.” She was eventually promoted to the rank of lieutenant-commander. She was a passenger on the SS Caribou Oct. 13, 1942, as it attempted to cross the Cabot Strait off the coast of Newfoundland.

The ship was hunted and torpedoed by the German submarine U-69, according to government records. It took only five minutes for the Caribou to sink.

Submerged in the icy water, Brooke clung to a rope on a capsized life boat. She spotted friend and fellow nurse, Sub-Lt. Agnes Wilkie similarly clinging to a rope on the life boat. Wilkie, however, was weakening.

Brooke took one hand off the rope and held Wilkie. For more than two hours, Brooke kept Wilkie from drowning.

Eventually, the frigid water proved too much. Wilkie died.

Brooke was rescued, and was named a Member of the Order of the British Empire for her heroism the following year.

Brooke returned to her studies at the University of Saskatchewan. She earned a doctorate in paleontology and went on to author several major research studies in her field.

She retired to Victoria, B.C., where she still lives.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 11:05:24
Far from me to want to diminish the recognition of Lcdr Brooke's heroism in any way, but am I the only one here who feels the ships naming process has been hijacked by the Government for pure political reasons lately?

First, it was the supply vessels that got names from land battles in a war that pre-dates Confederation and the creation of the Navy, and was for all practical purpose between the USA and England - not "Canada" per se. Now we are naming ships after people - people that did something out of the ordinary to be sure - but still, people, which is an American tradition, not a Canadian one.

What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country, which was reactivated starting with the CPF's? Naming ships after people, like De Wolf and Brooke does not create any connection with Canadian communities and, IMO will not cause too many people to want to go and check who they were, to learn more on their personal histories.

Mods, perhaps this post and the replies to it should go in anew tread, perhaps called "Political interference in ship's naming" or "Ship's naming gone bonkers!"
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on April 13, 2015, 11:15:49
On the bright side, they aren't naming them after flowers  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 11:19:39
We never did !
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: George Wallace on April 13, 2015, 11:34:29
Far from me to want to diminish the recognition of Lcdr Brooke's heroism in any way, but am I the only one here who feels the ships naming process has been hijacked by the Government for pure political reasons lately?

First, it was the supply vessels that got names from land battles in a war that pre-dates Confederation and the creation of the Navy, and was for all practical purpose between the USA and England - not "Canada" per se. Now we are naming ships after people - people that did something out of the ordinary to be sure - but still, people, which is an American tradition, not a Canadian one.

What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country, which was reactivated starting with the CPF's? Naming ships after people, like De Wolf and Brooke does not create any connection with Canadian communities and, IMO will not cause too many people to want to go and check who they were, to learn more on their personal histories.

Mods, perhaps this post and the replies to it should go in anew tread, perhaps called "Political interference in ship's naming" or "Ship's naming gone bonkers!"

Perhaps it is in the tradition of naming our "Icebreakers" after people.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 11:48:29
That's the Coastguard, not the Navy. The Navy's icebreaker was HMCS LABRADOR.

Besides, other than the Louis St-Laurent, the Coastguard ones (Arctic capable) are named after explorers of the Arctic.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on April 13, 2015, 12:42:06
We never did !
Actually, we did...sort of. The first 10 Canadian built corvettes were actully built for the Royal Navy and were commissioned as such. When their Canadian crews delivered them to England, they were handed right back as the RN was short on man power to crew them. Hence HMC Ships Windflower, Trillium, Hepatica, Arrowhead, Snowberry, Eyebright, Mayflower, Spikenard, Fennel and Bittersweet.

And you thought you wouldn't learn anything today!!

Pat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 12:56:51
True enough, but Canada did not name them - the Brits did, and then we inherited them and did not bother renaming them. :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Spencer100 on April 13, 2015, 13:07:00
The naming of ships has always had a political and/or historical spin.  I like the War of 1812 spin with it there would be no Canada.  But I am of U.E.L. stock.  City class were names of Liberal voting cities for the most part.  (I know this is going to start something >:D)

As long as they don't start naming ships after living pols.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 13:14:42
The decision to name the CPF's and MCDV's after cities, and then towns was made by the Navy (and by the way, were in most instances made under Mulroney - so much for Liberal cities). The choice of cities was simple: One per Province - two for the larger ones (ON and QC) - with cities with a Naval Reserve Unit as first choice.

If you think the cities and towns chosen were so because they were Liberal, then it's an unfortunate side effect of the fact that the Conservatives all live in the back woods of the countryside :) :) :)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 13, 2015, 13:46:01
I would have perferrred the first of class be named after HMCS Labrador, and subsequent naming of Northern communities. That being said I think its very fitting that we name them after Canadian Military hero's and perhaps the start of a new tradition.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: FSTO on April 13, 2015, 16:56:31
I really, really hope that when we get the first batch of CSC's (I think that certain number will be AAW/Command and Control) that they will be the Tribals once again. The remainder (Frigate replacements) should be named after our rivers.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Spencer100 on April 13, 2015, 17:07:29
Love that idea.  I think we should reuse the Tribal names.  But in this "new" age of PC can the navy use them?  Example Sports team names.

I would say no current or future government would even think of going there.

Question:  Can you name a RCN ship the HMCS Haida with the original still around as a museum?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on April 13, 2015, 18:18:33
Actually the tribes would likely go for that if asked beforehand, the big issue is which ones get it. How about HMCS Halfway River, HMCS Dog River, HMCS Slaves to name a few
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on April 13, 2015, 18:32:53
I really, really hope that when we get the first batch of CSC's (I think that certain number will be AAW/Command and Control) that they will be the Tribals once again. The remainder (Frigate replacements) should be named after our rivers.

[tangent] 

...and JSS 1 and JSS 2 to be MAG and BON, respectively?

[/tangent]
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: FSTO on April 13, 2015, 20:06:50
[tangent] 

...and JSS 1 and JSS 2 to be MAG and BON, respectively?

[/tangent]


Save those for when we get those Mistrals!  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MilEME09 on April 13, 2015, 22:31:36
Save those for when we get those Mistrals!  ;D

And a third one named Warrior right?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 13, 2015, 23:48:18
Actually the tribes would likely go for that if asked beforehand, the big issue is which ones get it. How about HMCS Halfway River, HMCS Dog River, HMCS Slaves to name a few

Aren't you supposed to spit when you say Dog River ?  … Whoops, my bad  .. it's when you say Wullerton /SPIT ON/SPIT OFF//
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Furniture on April 15, 2015, 01:26:39
What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country,...

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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on April 15, 2015, 07:34:54
Personally I feel more of a connection to a city, town or province of this country than I do to a particular individual.  I would prefer that they continue to name the ships after places rather than individuals.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: George Wallace on April 15, 2015, 08:47:50
Personally I feel more of a connection to a city, town or province of this country than I do to a particular individual.  I would prefer that they continue to name the ships after places rather than individuals.

I suppose you could be correct.  It could become controversial in some cases naming ships after individuals.   We have seen some instances of that in the US.  What would happen if someone tried to name one of our ships after Louis Riel?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 15, 2015, 08:56:12
I suppose you could be correct.  It could become controversial in some cases naming ships after individuals.   We have seen some instances of that in the US.  What would happen if someone tried to name one of our ships after Louis Riel?

I would imagine the ships naming committee will be vetting the names very carefully.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: George Wallace on April 15, 2015, 09:34:05
I would imagine the ships naming committee will be vetting the names very carefully.

I would hope so, but we have seen it in the US where some of the naming protocols in naming their ships have raised the ire of some.  Here at home, we now have schools named after Louis Riel.  I could use that as an example to counter your statement; as I am sure they also had committees set up to choose the name of the schools.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on April 15, 2015, 09:43:15
I would hope so, but we have seen it in the US where some of the naming protocols in naming their ships have raised the ire of some.  Here at home, we now have schools named after Louis Riel.  I could use that as an example to counter your statement; as I am sure they also had committees set up to choose the name of the schools.

Well the names are supposed to be Canadian Naval hero's, so I doubt if you'll see something like that. I suppose if they used Cornwallis or something similar, it may cause some protest. Lets hope there's no skeletons in the individuals closets.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 15, 2015, 10:02:55
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: George Wallace on April 15, 2015, 10:19:59
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.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on April 15, 2015, 10:50:58
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Occam on April 15, 2015, 11:47:00
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2015, 12:24:43
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.   

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccg-gcc.gc.ca%2Ffolios%2F00790%2Fimages%2Fdfo-photo-708-multimedia-eng.jpg&hash=1534e81b17feb7f0bac74735e6453deb)

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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Furniture on April 16, 2015, 00:02:24
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 08, 2015, 14:38:21
Whats in a name?

http://www.navalreview.ca/2015/03/naming-ships/ (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...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 08, 2015, 17:18:28
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).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 08, 2015, 17:38:02
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?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 08, 2015, 19:24:42
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 08, 2015, 19:38:28
Thanks OGBD.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Occam on May 08, 2015, 22:16:14
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
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 08, 2015, 23:18:18
I stand corrected. Forgot about that one.

Occam, I shall drop and give you fifty. :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 09, 2015, 00:16:58
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...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 09, 2015, 00:34:05
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)?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Occam on May 09, 2015, 00:35:08
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. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 09, 2015, 00:37:34
... 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?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on May 09, 2015, 06:02:39
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
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 10, 2015, 18:49:38
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.
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 25, 2015, 11:40:17
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  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 25, 2015, 12:33:49
.....

A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 25, 2015, 14:52:50
.........
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 25, 2015, 16:07:55
Ask the British about lessons learned on electrical systems? Are you mad? Have you never heard of Lucas?  :o
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 25, 2015, 16:22:55
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.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 25, 2015, 16:29:16
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
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on May 25, 2015, 17:04:35
Ask the British about lessons learned on electrical systems? Are you mad? Have you never heard of Lucas?  :o

Prince of Darkness
Lucas refrigerators the reason Brits drink warm beer
Lucas switches have 3 settings: Dim, Flicker and smoke
Lucas made a vacuum, it was their only product that didn't suck
I could go on and on, but my memory bank uses a Lucas switch  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on May 25, 2015, 17:12:24
Ahh,  Aaahh,  Aaaahh, Chicoutimi...... Excuse me for sneezing.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on May 25, 2015, 22:57:45
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

You are quite correct.  There is a block named after him there.  He's perhaps the best choice of name yet.

Prince of Darkness aside  >:D

According to Wiki this is the 45 setup

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.

There's quite a good video on the making of the type 45 out there and it shows the GTs in action.  It's basically as you say.  The GTs kick in when you really need the power. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Infanteer on May 25, 2015, 23:41:14
You are quite correct.  There is a block named after him there.  He's perhaps the best choice of name yet.

Wow, what a bio.  Never read about him before.  Great name.   :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 25, 2015, 23:49:49
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  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


AOPS will have 4 x 3600 kW DGs, 2 x 4.5 MW GE Propulsion Motors 1 x 1360 kW DG (Harbour/Emerg). Range will be in excess of 6800NM @14 Kts. As more DG's are brought online the faster the ship will go, much the same as KINGSTON Class.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 01, 2015, 17:33:52

Quote from: Kirkhill on May 25, 2015, 16:22:55
Prince of Darkness aside  >:D

According to Wiki this is the 45 setup

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.

There's quite a good video on the making of the type 45 out there and it shows the GTs in action.  It's basically as you say.  The GTs kick in when you really need the power.

That is not the way the T45's work.

The GT's are for propulsion, the DG's for shipboard service.

Because it is an integrated electrical system, all power from any source is "dumped" on a "bus" from which everyone draws power. So, in theory, any one of the power sources can provide power to any drawing "client" for that power.

In practice, however, the DG's, even both together, would only let you drag your arse at about 4 knots once the systems and hotel load are taken out. They are an ultimate backup to the GT's, but the are there primarily to provide the ship's service load in harbour or at anchor.

Standard at sea operations is one GT, providing enough power to get up to about 18-19 knots, and one DG providing for the shipboard load (so as to not take GT power away from propulsion) with the second GT kicking in for higher speeds. The second DG is there as the emergency back up for the first DG and to provide for alternating between the two of them.

Having four DG in the AOPS, instead of two DG and two GT, is not a different strategy. Using diesels vs gas turbines is not a "strategy", it's a matter of power. The strategy is having an integrated electrical propulsion system, and it is the same in both cases.

BTW using electric motors on the AOPS for propulsion is in no way indicative of what will be in the CSC's. Using electrical motors on ice capable ships, and particularly ice breakers, is a job requirement: Think about your little 1.5 volt hand held plastic fan. If you stick your hand in it, you'll stop the rotation - remove your finger and it works as if nothing happened. If it was an internal combustion engine spinning it, you would lose your finger. It's the same for operating in ice: If you go over a large ice chunk with the screws of an electric motor ship, the screws will "give" and the electric motors will suddenly draw with greater resistance (causing shipboard brown outs), but it will not break anything and once the ice clears, all will be back to normal. With standard propulsion, something has to give and it won't be the ice. So you will either break/twist a screw or strip gears in the gearbox or worse blow you engine's gasket. 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on June 01, 2015, 20:13:32
Type 45s are electric drive with generator power coming from an assortment of engines including gas turbines. Gas turbines provide immediate high power which a diesel can't maintain when the ship increases speed rapidly above intermediate power levels or at high speed. As for slippage-could be wrong but I don't think so.
Title: The latest ....
Post by: milnews.ca on June 23, 2015, 17:18:58
.... via the RCN Info-machine (http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=construction-of-test-production-module-begins-on-arctic-offshore-patrol-ship/ib6aqvns):
Quote
Building of a test module for the first Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) is underway. The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, pressed the button that began construction for the Harry DeWolf Class test module at the newest Irving Shipbuilding Inc. facility in Dartmouth on June 18, 2015.

Building this test module will enable the shipyard to test its new processes, get personnel familiar with the new equipment, and streamline construction for when full production begins in the fall of 2015.

Army veteran Peter Douglas, spry at 95 years old, was a guest at the ceremony. Prior to serving as a mechanical engineer with the Queen’s Own Rifles during the Second World War, Mr. Douglas worked in Halifax at the shipyard as a foundry pattern maker. After the ceremony, Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd, Deputy Commander Royal Canadian Navy, enjoyed a conversation with the veteran.
Also attached if link doesn't work for you - sounds like more tomorrow.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Navy_Pete on June 23, 2015, 18:09:27
Type 45s are electric drive with generator power coming from an assortment of engines including gas turbines. Gas turbines provide immediate high power which a diesel can't maintain when the ship increases speed rapidly above intermediate power levels or at high speed. As for slippage-could be wrong but I don't think so.

Aside from the acceleration/decceleration, GTs also have a much higher power to weight ratio, even if you include all the trunking.

With something like the AOPS, extra weight and quick speed changes don't matter, so diesels are great, and use much less fuel, so you get better range.  It also gives you a lot more redundancy in prime movers, which is nice when you could be stranded in the middle of an iceflow, and you can divert a lot of it for other things with step down transformers if required.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on June 23, 2015, 22:58:49
With something like the AOPS, extra weight and quick speed changes don't matter, so diesels are great, and use much less fuel, so you get better range.  It also gives you a lot more redundancy in prime movers, which is nice when you could be stranded in the middle of an iceflow, and you can divert a lot of it for other things with step down transformers if required.

So long as you don't short out your marinized flux capacitor.   ;D
Title: New naval ship to be named for Hall
Post by: cupper on June 26, 2015, 22:47:26
New naval ship to be named for Hall

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1295674-new-naval-ship-to-be-named-for-hall

Quote
As a young boy, Phillip Safire heard many stories about the heroics of William Hall.

“Growing up, we heard lots and lots of stories, my brother and I, and my cousins. This was just our aunts and uncles and grandparents talking, but I never learned about it in school,” said Safire, a sergeant in the Canadian Forces.

Safire was among about a dozen of Hall’s descendants, who attended at an event in Halifax Friday announcing that a new Royal Canadian naval ship will be named after Hall, the first black man and first Nova Scotian to be awarded the Victoria Cross.

One of Canada’s six new Arctic offshore patrol ships will bear Hall’s name, Julian Fantino, associate minister of National Defence told a crowd at Africville Park.

Safire said he hopes the move will inspire more Canadians to learn of Hall’s story, as well as stories of other Canadian heroes who were not in school textbooks.

“I hope this is a start of more people learning about other members of other groups and their contributions so they can be proud,” Safire said in an interview.

“Canadian history is made up of a lot of different groups. …Recognizing a part of that history that is not well known is a great day.”

Hall was born in Horton Bluff, near Hantsport, in April 1827. An able seaman in the Royal Navy, Hall fought in some of “history’s most intense naval battles,” Fantino told the crowd.

He is honoured for his actions at Lucknow, India, in 1857. Hall was serving on the frigate HMS Shannon, and was part of a relief force sent to Calcutta, British India, to relieve a garrison under attack.

Hall volunteered for a position on one of two gun crews ordered to break through the walls of the Shah Najaf mosque where the rebel army was positioned.

“Guns from his ship were brought inland almost 1,000 kilometres from Calcutta, where the Shannon was docked in an attempt to breach the rebel fort. Their barrage was met with an intense onslaught of grenades, which killed almost everyone but Hall and his fellow sailor, Lieutenant Thomas James Young,” Fantino said.

“Together, they fired the last cannon shot— shot within 20 yards— a shot that ultimately penetrated the fortress,” he said.

Rear Admiral John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, told the crowd that even as naval officer he had never heard about Hall or his heroic deeds.

“In time, I learned of William Hall, encouraged by a slowly changing attitude of society and the hard, hard, work of the black Nova Scotian community,” he said.

Sharon Rivest said the naming of the ship after her great great-uncle is both “healing and overwhelming.”

“I’m just thankful that he will not just go and disappear in history,” said Rivest, who travelled from her home in Quebec for the announcement.

“Every time someone steps on the ship, they are going to ask what the story is. That’s all we want,” she said.

Dorothy Brown, another family member, lives in Lockhartville, not far from where William Hall lived.

“The old house (where he lived) is still standing, but it has been remodelled, of course,” she said.

The ships, to be built by Irving Shipyard, are being named in honour of Canadian heroes who served in the Royal Canadian Navy. The lead ship has been named HMCS Harry DeWolf, and the class is known at the Harry DeWolf class.

DeWolf was the captain of HMCS Haida, and was decorated for service throughout his naval career. The second ship was named for Margaret Brooke, an RCN nursing sister, lauded for her actions during the Second World War. The third was named for Max Bernays, another naval hero, who served as a coxswain on HMCS Assiniboine during the Battle of the Atlantic, a federal release said.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 26, 2015, 22:55:09
I knew it.  My Admin O owes me a beer in the mess.  Here's to Hall,  provider of beer and THE inspiration for the Naval Gun run in Canada!  An excellent pick and the first Canadian sailor to win the VC.  They are really doing a solid job with the ship names for the class.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: dapaterson on June 26, 2015, 23:12:59
They are really doing a solid job with the ship names for the class.

Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 26, 2015, 23:20:14
Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.

Yes it is, and yes it's true.  But, they're not naming them after asshats but truly inspirational people.  And at least they've got Naval connections unlike the new JSS names...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: LunchMeat on June 26, 2015, 23:20:52
Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.

Is it really tradition though? Vessels in the RCN fleet vary in name from cities, to bodies of water and landmarks, to animals and First Nations tribes. I think we have not broken tradition, but rather our tradition is evolving by honouring important Canadian icons, regardless of whether they're a person or not.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 26, 2015, 23:52:03
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 27, 2015, 10:00:57
While there may have been some traditional ways of naming ships int he RCN, some adopted or taken straight out of the British Admiralty books, there are no such things as Rules to be Followed for Ship's Naming.

Normally, the Naval Board has a sub-committee which proposes the naming rule for a given class, and then comes up with recommendations for names. What galls me though, is that the more recent names chosen, including their grand standing political presentation by politicians, are exactly that: Politically interfered with or even handed down from the politicians for the purpose of scoring political points.

This by no way diminishes the value of the heroics of the individuals so honoured.

Take Mr. Hall for instance. Clearly the government has selected him for the purpose of appearing to be inclusive of minorities. Don't get me wrong: He has fully deserved his VC and his conduct is worth proclaiming. But can he be said to be a Canadian hero in any sense of the word?

At the time of his birth, he was a British subject born in the Nova Scotia colony of England, not a self ruling or  "Canadian" land at all. If Canada existed at the time, it was either Lower Canada (now Quebec) and Upper canada (now Ontario), who where in the trows of their rebellion to get responsible government. They sort of got it a few years latter in 1841, through Union, which created "Canada" for the first time, but made up of the old Lower and Upper Canada only. Nova Scotia did not become "Canada" before 1867, which is well after the time Mr. Hall earned his VC. I submit he cannot be considered a Canadian in any sense of the term.

Moreover, He never served in Canada's Navy, which would not come into being before 1910 - or even in the "fisheries" department ships of the Dominion that preceded that, but with the Royal Navy. He is a British sailor, not Canadian.

Finally, his deed that obtained him the VC has nothing to do with Canada, not even indirectly by protecting Canada as a colony from external danger directed at it, but rather purely in a internal colonial matter of the British empire in putting down an internal revolt in one of its overseas territory. He may have been a hero of the British empire, but not of Canada, and I have no doubt that this is how it was presented and celebrated at the time in Nova Scotia.

Again, don't get me wrong, His own personal deeds were heroic and deserving of  recognition in and of themselves, but it is stretching it to call him a Canadian hero IMHO.

This said, if in 2015 creating the appearance of society inclusive of visible minorities is important to the Canadian government, then Mr. Hall is deserving of this honour. I am sure, however, that his descendants will agree that "Canadian" and British society of the mid 1800's was anything but inclusive and one might wonder at how inclusive we have been in the mean time since, apparently, a visible minority true Canadian naval hero could not be found between then and now.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 27, 2015, 17:09:58
While there may have been some traditional ways of naming ships int he RCN, some adopted or taken straight out of the British Admiralty books, there are no such things as Rules to be Followed for Ship's Naming.

Normally, the Naval Board has a sub-committee which proposes the naming rule for a given class, and then comes up with recommendations for names. What galls me though, is that the more recent names chosen, including their grand standing political presentation by politicians, are exactly that: Politically interfered with or even handed down from the politicians for the purpose of scoring political points.

This by no way diminishes the value of the heroics of the individuals so honoured.

Take Mr. Hall for instance. Clearly the government has selected him for the purpose of appearing to be inclusive of minorities. Don't get me wrong: He has fully deserved his VC and his conduct is worth proclaiming. But can he be said to be a Canadian hero in any sense of the word?

At the time of his birth, he was a British subject born in the Nova Scotia colony of England, not a self ruling or  "Canadian" land at all. If Canada existed at the time, it was either Lower Canada (now Quebec) and Upper canada (now Ontario), who where in the trows of their rebellion to get responsible government. They sort of got it a few years latter in 1841, through Union, which created "Canada" for the first time, but made up of the old Lower and Upper Canada only. Nova Scotia did not become "Canada" before 1867, which is well after the time Mr. Hall earned his VC. I submit he cannot be considered a Canadian in any sense of the term.

Moreover, He never served in Canada's Navy, which would not come into being before 1910 - or even in the "fisheries" department ships of the Dominion that preceded that, but with the Royal Navy. He is a British sailor, not Canadian.

Finally, his deed that obtained him the VC has nothing to do with Canada, not even indirectly by protecting Canada as a colony from external danger directed at it, but rather purely in a internal colonial matter of the British empire in putting down an internal revolt in one of its overseas territory. He may have been a hero of the British empire, but not of Canada, and I have no doubt that this is how it was presented and celebrated at the time in Nova Scotia.

Again, don't get me wrong, His own personal deeds were heroic and deserving of  recognition in and of themselves, but it is stretching it to call him a Canadian hero IMHO.

This said, if in 2015 creating the appearance of society inclusive of visible minorities is important to the Canadian government, then Mr. Hall is deserving of this honour. I am sure, however, that his descendants will agree that "Canadian" and British society of the mid 1800's was anything but inclusive and one might wonder at how inclusive we have been in the mean time since, apparently, a visible minority true Canadian naval hero could not be found between then and now.

He was a Canadian when he died and that's good enough for me. A interesting note that he also served in the US Navy for 2 years on the USS Ohio.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2015, 18:18:57
 :goodpost:

He arrived and departed this mortal coil a Nova Scotian.  We all were until the 1970's, British Subjects, for that matter.  So what of it?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 27, 2015, 19:43:30
We have so few national myths, Hall is one of them.  We've adopted him long before this naming.  The gun run used him as an example and told his legend while the sailors set up for their demonstration.  Next you're gonna try and tell us that Canadians didn't burn down the Whitehouse, and then go into a dissertation on the militia myth.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 27, 2015, 20:23:44
:goodpost:

He arrived and departed this mortal coil a Nova Scotian.  We all were until the 1970's, British Subjects, for that matter.  So what of it?

He was also a fellow C&PO. good enough for me.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 27, 2015, 20:35:23
 :nod:  Agreed.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cupper on June 27, 2015, 21:33:31
Next you're gonna try and tell us that Canadians didn't burn down the Whitehouse

Even though I can smell the dripping sarcasm, in clarification, We didn't. British regular troops led by Gen. Robert Ross shipped from Spain after the victory in the Peninsular Campaign took an essentially deserted Washington after routing American troops at the Battle of Bladensburg.

However it still pisses the local off when you remind them of that fact. >:D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on June 27, 2015, 22:59:59
We didn't. British regular troops led by Gen. Robert Ross shipped from Spain after the victory in the Peninsular Campaign took an essentially deserted Washington after routing American troops at the Battle of Bladensburg.

Lalalalalala can't hear you.  Ignore evidence...national myth.  Nothing to see here folks, move along.... :salute: ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: cavalryman on June 27, 2015, 23:48:23
However it still pisses the local off when you remind them of that fact. >:D

Good enough for me  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 29, 2015, 19:46:51
Lalalalalala can't hear you.  Ignore evidence...national myth.  Nothing to see here folks, move along.... :salute: ;D

At the risk of a tangent, another great Canadian victory with a strong role played by a British chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Byng,_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy  ;D :highjack:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: dapaterson on June 29, 2015, 19:56:52
At the risk of a tangent, another great Canadian victory with a strong role played by a British chap:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Byng,_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy  ;D :highjack:

Talking about his little contretemps with the Prime Minister? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_Affair)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 05, 2015, 15:11:56
Found a neat little graphic on the deWolfs created by the infomachine at this link:

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/aops-factsheet.pdf

Perhaps somebody can paste the actual image to the site.  It is beyond my ken.  Figured it out.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0jbn2b7.jpg&hash=5cf9303800f6b3b7584c19806f03c72e)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on July 05, 2015, 21:01:30
I have that printed out and on the office bulletin board.  6440 tonnes is heavier than other publications, but I suppose we won't fully know until the first ship is completed.

Its role is nicely summarized in the fact sheet.  Armed sea-borne surveillance, support to OGD's.  She's a mobile base not a proper warship.

It's said that the Inuit see no difference between the ice and the land.  It seems like the A/OPS is taking its cue from them with all that shore deployable gear.  Now we just need to get that 25mm on the MCDV's to replace the Bofors.....  I also heard that the other side of the ship will have a davit for a covered landing craft.  I also don't understand why the crew compliment is so large.  It shouldn't need more than 40 pers, same as an MCDV to operate.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 05, 2015, 23:10:11
I have that printed out and on the office bulletin board.  6440 tonnes is heavier than other publications, but I suppose we won't fully know until the first ship is completed.

Its role is nicely summarized in the fact sheet.  Armed sea-borne surveillance, support to OGD's.  She's a mobile base not a proper warship.

It's said that the Inuit see no difference between the ice and the land.  It seems like the A/OPS is taking its cue from them with all that shore deployable gear.  Now we just need to get that 25mm on the MCDV's to replace the Bofors.....  I also heard that the other side of the ship will have a davit for a covered landing craft.  I also don't understand why the crew compliment is so large.  It shouldn't need more than 40 pers, same as an MCDV to operate.

The crewing mimics most larger warships with a EO, baby EO, log O and so forth. I believe 12 officers alone. The Engineering section is 22 pers, so quite a bit different than a MCDV.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 05, 2015, 23:40:14
Chief Stoker has it right. The extra personnel is mostly in the engineering side as the type of deployment expected from the AOPS means they have to be more self reliant when fixing problems is required than for an MCDV, which is supported by civilian contractors out of Halifax or Esquimalt dockyards for second and third tier engineering support.

For instance, considering their size and the environment they are getting into, I expect the AOPS to carry a certain number of hull techs, The MCDV's don't. Similarily, they have to provide their own logistical support at greater distances for a more complex vessel, so it is logical to carry a Log O and a few supply techs. Finally, in view of the longer duration of deployments than the ones you see in MCDV's and the "individual" deployment of the AOPS vice the MCDV's, I expect a few extra seaman and so forth in order to keep a reasonable harbour/at anchor watch keeping schedule, since you cannot spread them between a number of ships operating together.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 06, 2015, 07:37:39
The crewing mimics most larger warships with a EO, baby EO, log O and so forth. I believe 12 officers alone. The Engineering section is 22 pers, so quite a bit different than a MCDV.

Yes, as I understand the initial thought was for a P2 and LS HT.  This has now been revised to be more or less what is carried on a CPF if I have heard correctly.  While there is going to provisions for Irving to do the maintenance alongside as part of the package they will still need people to fix things while they're away from home port.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 08:38:14
Yes, as I understand the initial thought was for a P2 and LS HT.  This has now been revised to be more or less what is carried on a CPF if I have heard correctly.  While there is going to provisions for Irving to do the maintenance alongside as part of the package they will still need people to fix things while they're away from home port.

Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them. I would imagine though that the manning will be adjusted over time as well.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 06, 2015, 08:49:21
Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them.


And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N (https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10306393_1533755883505511_5985160260031063467_n.jpg?oh=f81fd21be636bd2035646c5968bcec10&oe=5612BA25), not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 08:57:37

And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N (https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10306393_1533755883505511_5985160260031063467_n.jpg?oh=f81fd21be636bd2035646c5968bcec10&oe=5612BA25), not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...

True it was as I was the Chief Engineer. I was more concerned when the CO went into the ocean at 80 for the ice bucket challenge though :nod:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 10:27:51
I always thought they sent the wrong MCDV for that one. The honour obviously should have been kept for HMCS GLACE BAY  ;D.

Also, they were up in Kane Basin at the top of Baffin Bay, an area that now clears of ice at the end of the summer/beginning of fall up to somewhere between 81 and 82 degrees North. Still lots of dangerous things floating in the area, but not "in" ice. The AOPS will actually be going into the ice and staying up there longer than the MCDV's or FFH.

Nevertheless, SHAWINIGAN  :salute:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 06, 2015, 12:13:57
I suspect the first few trips into the ice will be in the company of a CCG Ice Breaker
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on July 06, 2015, 15:16:33
I suspect the first few trips into the ice will be in the company of a CCG Ice Breaker

Probably not wrong on that, also there might be a need for them in the Gulf of St. Laurence during sealing season.  Actually the Gulf up to Quebec city could be a good shakeout ice testing ground.  It's first year ice, and you're close to home with lots of help in case something goes wrong.

Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them. I would imagine though that the manning will be adjusted over time as well.

Whats the CSE complement?  Same as MCDV with one WEng Tech or more robust?


And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N (https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10306393_1533755883505511_5985160260031063467_n.jpg?oh=f81fd21be636bd2035646c5968bcec10&oe=5612BA25), not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...

Interestingly enough FFH's have an Arctic Class  that is type E vs MCDV's which are type D.  Arctic Class is a classification system that is primarily based on Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations and include Ice Strengthening requirements, special bunkering, upper deck fittings, fire mains, exhaust, propulsion, etc....  Type A would be thick first year ice and Type E would be no ice at all.
I've seen photos of MCDV's breaking through 2"-3" estuary ice on the West Coast in late fall.

Polar Class is based almost entirely on an ability to negotiate ice, and the classification system goes much higher than thick first year ice...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 06, 2015, 15:32:03
Long time since I read up on it, but ice classification is different for river and ocean as well. River icebreakers were traditionally built with longitudinal strength in mind and ocean for lateral strength to resist being crushed by ice movement.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 15:52:21
Where on god's green earth was that??? I have never seen ice on the West Coast of Canada, not even on the coldest winter day.

In any event  two to three inches of just formed ice is nothing and I would expect any ship to go through that, FFH included.

Now six to 8 inches in Bedford basin in Halifax, that used to prevent any of the DDH's or DDE's from being able to go to the ammo jetty, and if absolutely necessary, then they would call on the Gate Vessels to open the way (The GV's were rated for up to two feet of ice - the last armoured hulls in the Navy).

I remember one week in February, circa 1988-89, we took the two GV out for a week and, on the last Friday evening, pulled into Shelburne for a one day visit. Temperature turned very cold, wind came in from the sea and on Saturday afternoon the whole bay was in six inches of ice and all the local fisherman, with their wooden boats, were trapped. In mid afternoon, we started our engines, and I guess the word spread around quickly because all the fishing crew came running down to their boats, and as we left, they all followed tucked in our wake, where we had basically cleared the ice. The buffer asked me if he should acquire some bright red paint for the hull.  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 06, 2015, 16:05:52
The Camsull got sliced in the Western Arctic. We do get the occasional ice on the Fraser and in small harbours where a layer of fresh water is on top of the salt. That thin layer of ice can be deadly to wooden recreational craft as it can saw through the hull in a night. We had a bright spark in a Avon Sea Rider attempt to break that type of ice....... ::) He spent a good chunk of the patrol repairing the tubes.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on July 06, 2015, 16:13:32
Where on god's green earth was that??? I have never seen ice on the West Coast of Canada, not even on the coldest winter day.

It was a trip up to Anchorage Alaska.  I'm not sure if it was Queen Charlottes or they were in Alaska by then as it was years ago, so perhaps not in Canada at all!  Essentially the fresh water from the river froze over top of the salt oceanic water.  Fresh water ice is also more brittle than sea ice so aside from a bit of a crunching noise it was no issue, even for ice getting into intakes.  It made for some beautiful pictures in a unique circumstance.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 16:15:31
Probably not wrong on that, also there might be a need for them in the Gulf of St. Laurence during sealing season.  Actually the Gulf up to Quebec city could be a good shakeout ice testing ground.  It's first year ice, and you're close to home with lots of help in case something goes wrong.

Whats the CSE complement?  Same as MCDV with one WEng Tech or more robust?
Interestingly enough FFH's have an Arctic Class  that is type E vs MCDV's which are type D.  Arctic Class is a classification system that is primarily based on Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations and include Ice Strengthening requirements, special bunkering, upper deck fittings, fire mains, exhaust, propulsion, etc....  Type A would be thick first year ice and Type E would be no ice at all.
I've seen photos of MCDV's breaking through 2"-3" estuary ice on the West Coast in late fall.

Polar Class is based almost entirely on an ability to negotiate ice, and the classification system goes much higher than thick first year ice...


Five WENGS for AOPS.  I have broken some ice in a MCDV, however very unnerving knowing the ships capabilities. I would imagine the first deployment for AOPS will try and do a transit of the Passage much like HMCS Labrador did.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 16:17:51
In the Western Arctic, fine. I don't consider that the West Coast of Canada even if Canadian ships deploying there come from the West Coast.

Similarly, icing in bays/estuaries in Alaska, starting about 60-70 NM North of Ketchikan, is frequent in winter. But I don't consider that the West Coast of Canada.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 16:21:14
Are they serious Chief? Five WEng for a single 25 mm main gun and two .50 cal's? Or are they expecting to carry torps at all times or add a CWIS on top of the hangar?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 16:30:29
Are they serious Chief? Five WEng for a single 25 mm main gun and two .50 cal's? Or are they expecting to carry torps at all times or add a CWIS on top of the hangar?

That's straight from the AOPS presentation I have. There are a lot of electronics on the ship and I would imagine quite a bit of first line maintenance will need to be done.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 16:39:45
Is there that much more electronics than on the MCDV's?

They have the same number and general class of radars as MCDV's, I suspect there may be some redundancies on the radios side, but still not that much more than what is found on the MCDV's. Probably about the same amount of navigation electronics. Perhaps a few more "ops" consoles and an electro-optical system of sorts, but that is about it. I could be wrong, but I get a feeling they will end up doing a lot more seamanship than practicing their trade.  :nod:
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 16:47:57
Is there that much more electronics than on the MCDV's?

They have the same number and general class of radars as MCDV's, I suspect there may be some redundancies on the radios side, but still not that much more than what is found on the MCDV's. Probably about the same amount of navigation electronics. Perhaps a few more "ops" consoles and an electro-optical system of sorts, but that is about it. I could be wrong, but I get a feeling they will end up doing a lot more seamanship than practicing their trade.  :nod:

There is a lot and like you mentioned redundancies for the radios and so forth. There is lots more ops consoles in a proper ops room and also all the bridge equipment as well. I would imagine several of WENGS to look after the gun and most likely one of them will be the Mag Yeoman as well. You also must keep in mind that these numbers may change as time goes on.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: IN ARDUA NITOR on July 06, 2015, 16:51:59
Taken in April 2009 in Tracy Arm, AK. The Sawyer Glacier is pictured, which, for the sake of interest originates in Canada.

It was all first year ice - varying from slush at the start to 4-6" elsewhere.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%2520Apr%252009.jpg&hash=9482410810e92aac712547f235fdba0a)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%2520Apr%252009%2520-%25202.jpg&hash=3c5171ca38d040270b26d275723b7c35)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%252009%2520-3.jpg&hash=2aa0445bc62671eb648d542c7030f4b7)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2015, 17:13:32
Any chance they could make like the Norwegians and split that crew of 65 into 3 divisions?  Only two divisions are on board at any one time.  The divisions rotate in and out for long patrols.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 18:18:30
Taken in April 2009 in Tracy Arm, AK. The Sawyer Glacier is pictured, which, for the sake of interest originates in Canada.

It was all first year ice - varying from slush at the start to 4-6" elsewhere.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%2520Apr%252009.jpg&hash=9482410810e92aac712547f235fdba0a)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%2520Apr%252009%2520-%25202.jpg&hash=3c5171ca38d040270b26d275723b7c35)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy146%2FCronicbny%2FWHI%2520-%2520Tracy%2520Arm%252009%2520-3.jpg&hash=2aa0445bc62671eb648d542c7030f4b7)

And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 06, 2015, 18:22:01
Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: IN ARDUA NITOR on July 06, 2015, 18:28:42
And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.

Yes, I posted to agree with you, not to bring your statement into disrepute.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 06, 2015, 18:47:08
Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch

Great to see we have the CCG approval ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 06, 2015, 18:50:32
Should we start painting the hulls red?  ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 07, 2015, 11:51:20
Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D

The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 07, 2015, 11:54:37
Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D

The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's

It does and we also have arctic cooling as well when operating in slush.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Spencer100 on July 17, 2015, 11:29:13
Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette. 

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero (http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero)

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: FSTO on July 17, 2015, 12:18:37
Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette. 

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero (http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero)

Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 17, 2015, 12:28:54
Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.

I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 17, 2015, 13:52:46
I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.

Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on July 17, 2015, 14:15:02
Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JvchsfnmQ
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Dimsum on July 17, 2015, 14:20:16
Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?

Yes.   >:D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Spencer100 on July 17, 2015, 17:02:53
Sorry, I will never do that again.   :o
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on July 21, 2015, 21:04:25
So any guesses on whether they will bother naming a 6th ship only to cancel after the election, or wait until they figure there's enough money in the kitty to pay up for the 6th one.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ringo on July 21, 2015, 21:42:27
IMHO 5 AOPS types will be enough leave money in the kitty for more important programs.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on July 21, 2015, 23:11:48
With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 22, 2015, 00:49:06
I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Harrigan on July 22, 2015, 04:44:51
I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.

Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on July 22, 2015, 09:16:00
Perhaps wintering in Halifax but it is a long voyage from there to even Hudson's Bay.  You are going to need a northern port (perhaps Churchill?) to use as a summer base otherwise a third of your deployment will be taken up with transit.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Pat in Halifax on July 22, 2015, 09:27:27
I have actually said Churchill before many times in various circles. In the past, it has been utilized as a FLS for northern deployments. The infrastructure is there (though privately owned apparently by an American company) and I would suggest that in 10-15 years, Churchill itself may become an ice free port meaning a possible third major Naval Base. Actually for the time being, basing AOPS out of St John's vice Halifax makes far more sense (for the northern deployments). I suppose one must keep in mind that these vessels are also mandated as Offshore Patrol as well.

Pat
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: YZT580 on July 22, 2015, 10:31:55
Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan

The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Harrigan on July 22, 2015, 11:03:03
The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west

I know it may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually not the easier quickest passage to the Beaufort Sea.  While it is marginally shorter than going from Halifax (Alaska is big), there are no places to get fuel north of Dutch Harbour in the Aleutians.  Using Nuuk, Thule (in Greenland) and Nanisivik when (if) it becomes active make operating across the Arctic far more feasible from the East than the West.

As for the commercial activity, they have been waiting decades for the Mackenzie Delta to be economically viable for extraction purposes and to justify building the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, but they are still waiting.....  Meanwhile, there are plenty of mines in Nunavut that are either operating now or opening up, and that is increasing commercial shipping traffic.  For the foreseeable future, the Eastern High Arctic is where the action is.

Harrigan
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 22, 2015, 11:08:04
Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan

CCG also bases a 1100 class in the Pacific as the Pacific region is responsible for the Western Arctic.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 22, 2015, 12:54:20
With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO

I would say AOPS will be extremely busy in the Arctic, there's lots of work for them to do.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 22, 2015, 14:52:11
CCG also bases a 1100 class in the Pacific as the Pacific region is responsible for the Western Arctic.

You mean the slush-breakers like the Martha L. Black? Same ice rating as the AOPS.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on July 22, 2015, 15:04:37
Oh we broke more than slush on the Pearkes.  ;D

We used to have the Pearkes and the Black on the west Coast, till we got screwed with the worn out stuff they sent us.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ringo on July 22, 2015, 17:10:59
5 AOPS will be enough, base them all on East coast, likely all that can be built with current budget anyway.

Would prefer 6 C-17's and 5 AOPS rather than 6 AOPS and 5 C-17's. 

Would love to see Coast guard get three heavy icebreakers, build oilers overseas to save money.
   
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 22, 2015, 17:52:58
Dream Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! on:

Quote
The Great Canadian National Shipbuilding Procurement Screw-Up (aka NSPS), Icebreaker Section, Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-national-shipbuilding-procurement-screw-up-aka-nsps-icebreaker-section-part-2/

(https://i2.wp.com/www.rcinet.ca/regard-sur-arctique/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/03/fednav-ltd-latest-icebreaker-en-route-to-the-arctic.jpg)

From DFO on the CCGS Diefenbreaker, supposed now to be delivered 2021-22 (hah!),
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.4

construction only to start after JSS are finished,
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/

and named in 2008 and then supposed to be in service in 2017! Swiftboating, eh?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/new-arctic-icebreaker-to-be-named-after-diefenbaker-1.772716

By the way the cost has already almost doubled from $720 million to $1.3 billion:
http://o.canada.com/news/coast-guards-new-icebreaker-to-cost-twice-as-much-as-originally-estimated

Bets on that new number?

Mark
Ottawa
 
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: George Wallace on September 02, 2015, 12:03:01
Construction has started at Halifax Shipyard on first Arctic patrol ship

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Quote
Construction starts at Halifax Shipyard on first Arctic patrol ship (http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/construction-starts-at-halifax-shipyard-on-first-arctic-patrol-ship-1.2543465)

The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:27PM EDT
Last Updated Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:55PM EDT

HALIFAX -- Irving Shipbuilding has started building Canada's first Arctic offshore patrol ship at the company's massive shipyard in Halifax.

Hundreds of employees gathered Tuesday in the new assembly hall as a huge sheet of cut steel was hoisted into place and a special ceremony was held to mark the occasion.

Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding, says welders, pipefitters, marine fabricators and ironworkers are involved in the project, which is on schedule.

"Today is a milestone we have all been anticipating," McCoy said in a statement. "It is a great day to be a shipbuilder in Nova Scotia as we mark the beginning of this generational opportunity."

The company says the ship will the first of up to 21 vessels that will renew Canada's fleet of warships over the next 30 years.

About 900 Irving employees are working on the project at two locations in the Halifax area, but that number is expected to jump to 1,600 over the next two years.

The federal government's $35-billion national shipbuilding strategy saw shipyards chosen to do the work in 2011.
Last September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the first patrol vessel would be named after Vice-Admiral Harry DeWolf, a Nova Scotia native who was one of Canada's most distinguished sailors during the Second World War. DeWolf's lengthy naval career included command of HMCS St. Laurent and HMCS Haida from 1939 until 1944.

In January, federal officials formally announced that Irving Shipbuilding had been awarded a $2.3-billion build contract for a total six Arctic patrol vessels.

The first patrol ship is expected to be completed in 2018. McCoy has said the final patrol ship will be delivered in 2022.

Irving Shipbuilding says employment at the company is expected to grow to 2,500 when peak production is reached with construction of the larger surface combatant vessels, which will replace Canada's current fleet of Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers.

Irving Shipbuilding, under the name Saint John Shipbuilding, was the lead contractor on the construction of the existing frigates in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

Video and more on LINK (http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/construction-starts-at-halifax-shipyard-on-first-arctic-patrol-ship-1.2543465).
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 02, 2015, 12:55:22
Neat simulations - and very good to see steel being cut.

Further to George's post, here is the production schedule for the AOPS as presented in the Halifax Shipping News in January.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-EE3FDUtr-eg%2FVLz_botl1hI%2FAAAAAAAAJ7Y%2FHCq7SRQpQx8%2Fs1600%2FUntitled.png&hash=980510f31446987300c447d12de2f639)

Link (http://haligonia.ca/halifax-ns-news/columns/halifax-shipping-news/9475-ships-starting-here-aops-contract-signed.html)

Given that this is Sept 2015 and steel is being cut, as the plan projects - perhaps we can believe timeline.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on September 05, 2015, 20:22:37
Congrats, they are on time at the start of the schedule.  Now to see if it slips!

The unwritten part of that schedule is that the CSC is supposed to start in 2020, so if the 6th ship doesn't get built then they are going to have layoffs for a good portion of the workforce.  Not a big surprise, but something to consider.

Looking forward to 2018 when we can see these ships in the water!
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 05, 2015, 20:31:26
It is curious that the timeline for the construction of the A/OPs shows very little reduction in the time to build each additional ship--learning curve?

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2015, 11:18:43
Well if they keep the timeframe looking the same and then finish early, they look good. Always overestimate the job by a bit and look good.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lumber on September 10, 2015, 09:41:25
How do we know that graphic wasn't produced and quietly released the day before steel was cut so it looks like they are on schedule?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: PuckChaser on September 10, 2015, 11:33:55
Your tinfoil hat might be too tight there...
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on September 10, 2015, 11:52:05
How do we know that graphic wasn't produced and quietly released the day before steel was cut so it looks like they are on schedule?

 :facepalm:

Schedules are project management tools.  They are regularly reset to reflect reality, otherwise they become irrelevant and ineffective as planning aids.  They are future oriented documents.

Accountants, Politicians and Historians get hung up on them, like all other documents, when they go seeking ammunition.  By the time that they are paying attention: "it just doesn't matter".
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ChosenBosn on October 03, 2015, 15:31:56
I've been following this thread for quite some time and please forgive my ignorance, the closest thing to any sort of naval experience I have is being in the royal canadian sea cadets, but there's one 'issue' that perplexes about this ship.

If the heaviest armament on this ship is a 25mm gun, how can it be expected to hold up for a ship it's size in a defence role and/or on multinational exercises? I'm sure against an armed drug trafficking vessel or pirate ship it could get the job done, but my concern is when it is paired up against a first world naval ship.

I am aware that the CH-146 can and will provide extra firepower, but it will not be in the sky ready to respond to sudden threats 100% of the time as a standing missile defence system on the ship would.

Once again I'm just some ignorant 17 year old and the only ships I have ever been around are the Orcas, so I'm sorry if I just wasted anybody's time.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lumber on October 03, 2015, 15:52:55
I've been following this thread for quite some time and please forgive my ignorance, the closest thing to any sort of naval experience I have is being in the royal canadian sea cadets, but there's one 'issue' that perplexes about this ship.

If the heaviest armament on this ship is a 25mm gun, how can it be expected to hold up for a ship it's size in a defence role and/or on multinational exercises? I'm sure against an armed drug trafficking vessel or pirate ship it could get the job done, but my concern is when it is paired up against a first world naval ship.

I am aware that the CH-146 can and will provide extra firepower, but it will not be in the sky ready to respond to sudden threats 100% of the time as a standing missile defence system on the ship would.

Once again I'm just some ignorant 17 year old and the only ships I have ever been around are the Orcas, so I'm sorry if I just wasted anybody's time.

Short answer: it won't; it wasn't meant to.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ChosenBosn on October 03, 2015, 16:06:30
Short answer: it won't; it wasn't meant to.

So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on October 03, 2015, 16:12:35
So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?

Short answer: Yep.

Blake, I was overly flippant.  The AOPS is intended to be a mobile outpost of the federal government in the Arctic.  It will be a service base, an observation post and an command and control centre, that will control access during the navigation season and stay on station longer than most of the civilian vessels in the area.  It has enough firepower to convince most vessels in the area to comply the wishes of the nice officers of the RCN and the RCMP that are also likely to be on board.  As Lumber says, it wasn't meant to be a major combat vessel going toe-to-toe with submarines and frigates.  It can also respond to disaster relief events and Search and Rescue events.

Hope that helps and it is good that you are taking an interest in this stuff.

Cheers.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ChosenBosn on October 03, 2015, 16:19:56
Short answer: Yep.

Blake, I was overly flippant.  The AOPS is intended to be a mobile outpost of the federal government in the Arctic.  It will be a service base, an observation post and an command and control centre, that will control access during the navigation season and stay on station longer than most of the civilian vessels in the area.  It has enough firepower to convince most vessels in the area to comply the wishes of the nice officers of the RCN and the RCMP that are also likely to be on board.  As Lumber says, it wasn't meant to be a major combat vessel going toe-to-toe with submarines and frigates.  It can also respond to disaster relief events and Search and Rescue events.

Hope that helps and it is good that you are taking an interest in this stuff.

Cheers.


Short answer: Yep.

Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D :salute: (no sarcasm intended)

Edited to add additional response: (I typed my reply before it was added)

Okay, thank you, that does make much more sense to me. I feel more reassured about the relevance of the AOPS now for sure, that's what I was mainly worried about. I'll be sending in my application in a couple years so maybe I'll get to crew one of these ships and see my question answered first hand  ;D

Cheers, Blake
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on October 03, 2015, 16:21:27
Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D :salute: (no sarcasm intended)

See above for the edit Blake.  And nice handling on the short answers.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: ChosenBosn on October 03, 2015, 16:31:49
See above for the edit Blake.  And nice handling on the short answers.

Fixed my reply above, and thanks ;D
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 03, 2015, 17:37:56
Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D :salute: (no sarcasm intended)

Edited to add additional response: (I typed my reply before it was added)

Okay, thank you, that does make much more sense to me. I feel more reassured about the relevance of the AOPS now for sure, that's what I was mainly worried about. I'll be sending in my application in a couple years so maybe I'll get to crew one of these ships and see my question answered first hand  ;D

Cheers, Blake

Well, Blake, it will be a couple of years until they start to come into service.  You never know, your timing might just be right to get in as a plank owner (a member of the commissioning crew) of one of them.  Good luck.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on October 12, 2015, 23:05:12
So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?

When you think of it the AOPS is a security guard.  Security guards check the fences, have a presence, get to know their area so they know when things are "off".  They check out noises and work with the "company" to ensure that the  business runs properly and no unauthorized people get in without having the papers checked.

If something bad actually happens then security might be able to escort compliant violators off the property, and can probably handle the odd upset employee or protester with little or no capability to fight back.

However if someone shows up with a gun or as an organized criminal enterprise security guards call the cops.  Because the cops are trained to deal with all sorts of stuff and have the capability, training, equipment and firepower to deal with everything. 

AOPS is the security guard.  The CF-18, subs and major surface combatants are the police.

Now you can add a bunch of capabilities to the AOPS to help forces ashore, do SAR, provide C&C, attached Air Dets the whole works but they are essentially a security guard at the end of the day.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 14, 2015, 18:11:44
Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.

Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chris Pook on October 14, 2015, 18:26:56
Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.

Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.

Respectfully disagree.  Painting them Red and/or putting a Red Cross on them is an alternate strategy.  Lighting them up brightly with bands playing has also been used. None of them are a sure cure against being sunk.

It is all about managed risk.  The risk of running into an undetected enemy in our near shore waters is rated very low.  Low enough that unarmed civilians can operate there freely.  Before the ship's radar detects incoming air elements NORAD, and even NAVCan will likely have been tracking the target.

Far better to save the defensive bucks for vessels that are going into high threat areas.

Having said that: if somebody decides to send a brightly lit vessel, with bands playing and no defences into a high threat area - now that would be criminal.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on October 14, 2015, 18:34:02
Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.

Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.

So then what armament and defenses should they have against an Akula III?

[asked only half tongue in cheek]

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 14, 2015, 18:47:05
Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.

Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.

I just spent a number of weeks at Gascoyne Inlet laying acoustic sensors across part of the Northwest passage for Northern watch. Once the system is in place, we'll have lots of warning to call in the big guys.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on October 14, 2015, 19:13:59
So then what armament and defenses should they have against an Akula III?

[asked only half tongue in cheek]

Cheers
G2G

If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Good2Golf on October 14, 2015, 19:18:38
If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.

Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on October 14, 2015, 19:42:58
Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.

True.

Even the Halifax class would be hard pressed to find and deal with an Akula III by itself any way.  That's why you have SOSUS, MPA's and MH's etc...  Teamwork is key.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2015, 12:27:33
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2015, 13:07:48
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   

CPFs and CSCs can still operate in the high arctic. No one really has armed icebreakers, and certainly nothing that's going to be any more menacing than the DeWolfe-class.

So, if anyone does send a surface ship that is well armed to challenge our sovereignty, then it will have to be in conditions that will allow us to send CPFs/CSCs in response. Ergo, you don't need to arm the Harries to the teeth.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2015, 15:07:47
I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Lumber on October 16, 2015, 15:35:28
I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)

Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.

Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:

"New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"

"New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"

"HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 16, 2015, 15:38:51
You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 16, 2015, 15:42:45
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   

Actually Colin, I am sorry to say on this one you are wrong.

I wish people talking about Arctic sovereignty would take the time, first to look at the situation on a globe, not on flattened and distorted maps.

ABOVE (considering the North Pole to be "Up") the northernmost Canadian piece of land, on one side, and the European/Asian northernmost piece of land is a huge expanse of water called the Arctic ocean. It is three times the size of the Mediterranean sea. That Arctic ocean is international water, like any other ocean, as of now.

In practice, with very few exceptions, no one goes there other than Canadian, American and Russian ice breakers doing mostly research and show the flag because it is iced over permanently, except near the edges. As a result, the various Nations surrounding the Arctic ocean (and there is a very limited number of them) are proposing that each one of them exercise sovereignty over activities going on on the ice in their "sector", the boundaries of which are being negotiated between them, but which would all meet at the North pole. This is a huge departure from the Law of the Sea ("LOS") and it is far from clear that the other seafaring nations of the world would recognize such claim on the exercise of sovereign powers (I know for sure the Chinese will never agree to this). There is also a process in place and currently being followed by all interested parties for the determination of the extent of each bordering nation's contiguous continental shelf as such shelf's sea based resources belong to the nation whose shelf is contiguous.

As for Canadian sovereignty on our land territory up there, Colin, with the exception of the little fracas with Denmark over Hans Island, NOBODY is contesting our sovereignty or our land borders. This means that they also recognize our twelve nautical miles territorial sea and our 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone. The exact angle and shape of these territorial waters and economic zone, at their ends where we meet with American claims and Danish ones are not set but subject of ongoing discussions.

Now, the closest point between Russia's and Canada's land masses are 1200 Km apart, and permanently ice covered. So the Russian hordes are not about to come across the Arctic, at five Km/h on ten to fifteen big, hard to maneuver icebreakers each carrying a single platoon of soldiers. Our CF-18 would dispose of the lot in a few minutes, with days if not weeks to prepare the assault and deploy to execute it.

As for "heavily armed" vessels getting on our Canadian side of the ocean, as Lumber pointed out, there are no icebreakers so armed in the world so it would have to be regular surface warships coming in either from the Bering straight in the West or the Labrador sea in the East. If they can go (because there is no ice) then so can we with our own heavily armed warships. Moreover, we, and nobody else, have military capable airfields up there so we can mount attacks on other nation's "heavies".

You may have noticed that I did not talk about sovereignty of waters between the Islands of the Canadian archipelago yet. That is the real crux of the matter, actually, and is subject to a dispute between us and the "major" ally you did not name: the Americans.

A quick lesson in LOS for all here: there are four "type" of waters defined under international LOS:

1- International waters: everything not otherwise internal or territorial. Basically, all seas and oceans when more than 12 nautical miles from land. In these waters, there are no national claims to the application of one's laws to someone else (we'll see the EEZ exception later), and ships are free to use these waters as they see fit and of putting themselves under the protection of whichever country they want that will accept them.

2- Territorial waters: waters contiguous to a country, extending from the limits of the nation's internal waters (usually the low tide mark) to twelve miles out. In these waters, the contiguous state can impose its laws on all ships found within these waters, with the exception that, in peace time, it cannot deny the right to innocent passage to  merchant ship's of another nation but may make it conditional on requesting permission to transit through, and can only close these waters to them under special circumstances, However, warships of another nation cannot enter these waters at all without the permission of the nation whose waters these are.

3- Internal waters: Thes are the waters found between the low and high water mark of the shore, the harbours, ports, bays and other similar enclosed waters of a country. The country whose waters these are can do as it pleases with them, even denying access to them to anyone on whim. Obviously that states laws apply in these waters without any restrictions. Where bays are concerned, there is a formula whereby basically, a bay that is "deeper" than it is "wide" at its entrance can be enclosed by drawing a straight line at the mouth and all waters inside it  are internal, and the 12 Nm territorial sea extends from those straight lines.

4- Of course, without changing the designation of Territorial or international waters, a nation can claim in the seas contiguous to its coasts an Exclusive economic zone up to 200 Nautical miles out from its internal waters. This only gives them the power to regulate economic activities in that zone.

There is also an animal called "international straight" which is a narrow passage which may be bordered on each side by different countries or by the same country and may be comprised of international or territorial sea, and which links two bodies of international waters or of different nation's territorial seas (think Juan de Fuca straight for instance). The difference between an International Straight and ordinary territorial waters of a country is that even though these are "territorial" by definition, there are no circumstances under which the right of innocent passage can be denied and this right of innocent passage includes innocent passage (all weapons in "harbour" position and unloaded/submarines surfaced only) by any nation's warships and this right entails that no permission to transit can be required.

And this is where we (and the Russians as regards their own "North-East" passage BTW) are at odds with the Americans.

The USA recognizes our claim to the lands we claim as our own up in the Arctic; they recognize our claim to our "12 NM" territorial sea up there and the attendant 200 NM EEZ, but not from where we calculate it. What they don't recognize is the fact that we have elected, unilaterally and without supporting LOS or international recognition of such method, to draw "straight lines" (like the ones used in LOS for bays and fiords, as described above) not at the entrance of bays but at the entrance of every straight or passage found between the islands and calling all enclosed waters therein "internal" under LOS, in effect making like the whole archipelago is a single land mass belonging to Canada, and calculating our 12 and 200 NM zones accordingly.

The USA is quite willing to recognize 12 nm territorial seas around every island we have up here and 200 nm around these same islands for EEZ (which in effect is just about the same as under our claim since there are no points where the islands are more than 400 nm away from one another), but not our straight lines making larger internal waters than anywhere else in the world. Moreover, because they see the North-West passage (and the "Russian" North-East passage too) as International Straight as it links two international bodies of water: the Beaufort sea and the Labrador sea). Thus they claim aright to innocent passage without permission, even for their warships.

Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS? Or are we going to resolve it between us, knowing that nobody else is really interested in the security of these waters. After all, even for their own security, the American don't want to see everybody and their dog's warships up there, so will certainly be amenable to finding a solution that accommodate everyone.       
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 16, 2015, 15:46:51
You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.

Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Chief Engineer on October 16, 2015, 15:52:14
Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.

Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:

"New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"

"New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"

"HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"

The drawings that I saw of the gun has an enclosed cupola.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Not a Sig Op on October 16, 2015, 16:56:20
Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.

Almost all the bouy tenders are/were ice breakers, the Camsell was part of an evolution of designs that lead to the 1100 boats built in the 80s.

Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Underway on October 16, 2015, 22:07:28

Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS?

This is not entirely true.  Many countries go by the straight baseline theory.  North Korea, Lybia, Russia, Japan etc...  Basically if you have a large bay type area then you usually cleave to the straight baselines (like Hudson Bay).  The main claim to Canada's Arctic is based upon the archipelago concept that in the LotS if you are an archipelagic nation (Phillipines) you can draw straight baselines around your outer islands and call the inside territorial waters.  Canada though a continental country is claiming this same rule applies to us.

There are plenty of things in the baseline rules that are arguable and not clear, hence the interpretation of straight baselines.  The only reason that the US doesn't respect straight baselines is that they don't have any reason where that would be an advantage to them and their waters.

Canada has plenty of evidence and support from many other countries that our interpretation is correct.  It's hardly unilateral or illegal.  It hasn't been tested in any type of court either.  There's a reason that RCN ships who were in the Med during the Regan years didn't go into the Gulf of Sirte claimed by Lybia, while the US just sailed right up to the 12 mile limit.  It's all about straight baselines.
Title: Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
Post by: Colin P on October 17, 2015, 04:21:53