Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 524463 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,615
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1850 on: May 22, 2019, 20:19:38 »
Further to this post,
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64037.msg1572468.html#msg1572468

18 years time for new RCN frigate to hit water--that's about as long as Canada's involvement in WW I, WW II, Korean War and combat in Afghanistan, 2002 and then 2006-2011, combined!!!

Quote
Afghanistan and Fact-Challenged Canadian Media
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mark-collins-afghanistan-and-fact-challenged-canadian-media/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1851 on: May 22, 2019, 20:57:46 »
I'm pretty confident from my rumour mill that this won't be the case.  I expect steel to be cut starting in the 2023 timeframe as that's the AOPV build schedule as per 8 AOPV's.  I expect the supplying companies will be building stuff well before this to make sure it gets to Irving on time.  Long lead items need to be ordered and built.  Radars need to be manufactured.  Etc.. etc..  I'm not sure how long that takes but as soon as that ink is dry on the deal phone calls are going to be made to start building kit that goes into the ship.

That’s much more realistic, to my way of thinking. I can’t imagine an 11 year lead time on eqpt for the CSC, given it’d be obsolete before it was wet at that point.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1852 on: May 22, 2019, 21:02:40 »
How useful would the AOPS be to the Coast Guard?  Could they replace a number of the planned different ships they have under the current strategy?

Would it make sense to transfer ALL of the AOPS to the CCG?  If this reduced the number of ships in Seaspan's production queue they could move up construction of the JSS and reduce the urgency for stop-gap measure like Obelisk.  The reduced number of ships being produced by Seaspan could be offset by adding a 3rd JSS (giving the RCN the desired "spare") and an additional Polar Class Icebreaker for the CCG.

Davie as the new, 3rd shipyard could take on the CCG multi-mission boats to start and planning could begin for a replacement for the Kingston-Class to follow.

Just a thought.

It’d be interesting if there was a community of interest between the CCG multi mission vessel and an MDDV replacement. Sort of like the AOPS being used between RCN and CCG. It would be hard to see how that might work for mine related missions, though.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1853 on: May 22, 2019, 21:25:20 »
All the OSFV are well underway and the first JSS is started.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,193
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1854 on: May 22, 2019, 23:07:43 »
This brings me back to a post I made in December.


https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,90990.msg1555804.html#msg1555804


I actually wrote up a 'modest proposal' on line of thinking...I'm pondering adding it here...

Post it. I agree the CSC is becoming a fleeting dream. The equipment they are contracting to buy can be installed on other ships under construction.
Living the lean life

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,643
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1855 on: May 22, 2019, 23:50:53 »
Are all these ships possible? Even adding Davie into the mix we will have three yards building non stop for 30 years at current rate.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,193
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1856 on: May 23, 2019, 00:54:06 »
Are all these ships possible? Even adding Davie into the mix we will have three yards building non stop for 30 years at current rate.

don't question the boss..
Living the lean life

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1857 on: May 23, 2019, 07:58:22 »
With Seaspan wrapped up with their current work load of the 3 OFSV, the 2 JSS and 1 OOSV ships, added into the mix the up to 16 other CCGS ships just announced.  I think that its safe to say that Davie will get the contract for the Dief, as well as any other vessels for the CCG and they'll most likely get the Kingston replacements once that's decided upon.
Neither Irving nor Seaspan will have any capacity left to build anything over the next 25+yrs.

Also looks like the Thales contract to maintain the AOPS's just got a bit bigger as I assume (a mistake to do so?) they will get the maintenance for the 2 CCG AOPS's as well.

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,836
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1858 on: May 23, 2019, 08:05:31 »
Can we give all the AOPS to the CCG?

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1859 on: May 23, 2019, 08:25:43 »
Can we give all the AOPS to the CCG?

Have the CCG run them and the RCMP the armament.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 25,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1860 on: May 23, 2019, 08:43:32 »
With Seaspan wrapped up with their current work load of the 3 OFSV, the 2 JSS and 1 OOSV ships, added into the mix the up to 16 other CCGS ships just announced.  I think that its safe to say that Davie will get the contract for the Dief, as well as any other vessels for the CCG and they'll most likely get the Kingston replacements once that's decided upon.
Neither Irving nor Seaspan will have any capacity left to build anything over the next 25+yrs.

Also looks like the Thales contract to maintain the AOPS's just got a bit bigger as I assume (a mistake to do so?) they will get the maintenance for the 2 CCG AOPS's as well.
I wouldn't bet on it.  There is no love lost between the liberals and Davie, especially after the Norman fiasco.  Either Seaspan or Irving could use the guaranteed business to expand their yard or to partner with another shipyard i.e. Port Weller so as to keep the profits in house.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 555,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,182
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1861 on: May 23, 2019, 09:19:14 »
….partner with another shipyard i.e. Port Weller...
Well, Port Weller does have a Liberal MP, not like those Lévis voters (Davie) who elected a Conservative.

….not that any of this is politicized in any way.   ;)

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1862 on: May 23, 2019, 11:30:27 »
I wouldn't bet on it.  There is no love lost between the liberals and Davie, especially after the Norman fiasco.  Either Seaspan or Irving could use the guaranteed business to expand their yard or to partner with another shipyard i.e. Port Weller so as to keep the profits in house.

Could be.
But if you look on the updated NSS website under the PWC site it lists the shipbuilder for the Dief as 'TBD'. 

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1863 on: May 23, 2019, 12:08:12 »
Well, Port Weller does have a Liberal MP, not like those Lévis voters (Davie) who elected a Conservative.

….not that any of this is politicized in any way.   ;)

I don't even know if Port Weller is solvent...  Davie is going to win this easy.  But you can say you had a competition to avoid issues.

Could be.
But if you look on the updated NSS website under the PWC site it lists the shipbuilder for the Dief as 'TBD'. 

Because the contract hasn't been awarded yet.  It seems a formality to me.  I would argue that midshore support ships are much more important then a heavy ice breaker.  They will service more populated and more travelled navigational routes.  Arctic is really a minor side show to the Gulf of St. Laurence,  and the approaches to Halifax/Vancouver.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1864 on: May 23, 2019, 12:31:48 »
So the original NSS called for Irving to get the Combat work and Seaspan to get the Non-Combat work.

In my mind that meant that Irving would be getting the frigates while Seaspan would be getting the AOPS - a west coast designed ship built to commercial standards and following on from a similarly designed and built Norwegian ship supplied by a company with a long association to the west coast.

Instead the AOPS was navified and canadianized and given to Irving until decisions could be made on the CSC.

Seaspan got 3 OFSV, 1 OOSV, 2 JSS and 1 PI.  - Arguably a more difficult and less profitable build due to all the concurrent designs to be managed to meet the needs of different customers.

Then Irving's work load was cut from 8 AOPS to 6 to 5 for a larger budget.

Seaspan was presented with the possibility of an additional 3.8 BCAD of work for a mix of 10 MEMTV and OPV at some point in the future.

Then Irving develops a gap due to the lack of decision making on the CSC - a decision making process in which it is intimately involved - and the government decides to buy another AOPS at a higher price than the original 5.

That still doesn't cover the gap so the government decides to award non-combat work, in the form of two civil duties AOPS, arguably poaching work from Seaspan for Irving.

And, in best Ottawa fashion, the government announces that Seaspan will be getting, at some point in the future, a contract for 16 MEMTVs - 10 of which were proposed back in 2013 (as a mix of OPVs and MEMTVs).  None of the OPVs or MEMTVs have yet been designed.

Meanwhile the Diefenbaker work has been pulled and sent to political never-never land - probably to go to a competing yard.

I can see how Seaspan would be thrilled.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1865 on: May 23, 2019, 12:34:27 »
... Arctic is really a minor side show to the Gulf of St. Laurence,  and the approaches to Halifax/Vancouver.

And that is why the arctic islands have Brit and Norwegian names...

The arctic is a minor side show.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1866 on: May 23, 2019, 12:45:56 »
So the original NSS called for Irving to get the Combat work and Seaspan to get the Non-Combat work.

In my mind that meant that Irving would be getting the frigates while Seaspan would be getting the AOPS - a west coast designed ship built to commercial standards and following on from a similarly designed and built Norwegian ship supplied by a company with a long association to the west coast.

Instead the AOPS was navified and canadianized and given to Irving until decisions could be made on the CSC.

Seaspan got 3 OFSV, 1 OOSV, 2 JSS and 1 PI.  - Arguably a more difficult and less profitable build due to all the concurrent designs to be managed to meet the needs of different customers.

Then Irving's work load was cut from 8 AOPS to 6 to 5 for a larger budget.

Seaspan was presented with the possibility of an additional 3.8 BCAD of work for a mix of 10 MEMTV and OPV at some point in the future.

Then Irving develops a gap due to the lack of decision making on the CSC - a decision making process in which it is intimately involved - and the government decides to buy another AOPS at a higher price than the original 5.

That still doesn't cover the gap so the government decides to award non-combat work, in the form of two civil duties AOPS, arguably poaching work from Seaspan for Irving.

And, in best Ottawa fashion, the government announces that Seaspan will be getting, at some point in the future, a contract for 16 MEMTVs - 10 of which were proposed back in 2013 (as a mix of OPVs and MEMTVs).  None of the OPVs or MEMTVs have yet been designed.

Meanwhile the Diefenbaker work has been pulled and sent to political never-never land - probably to go to a competing yard.

I can see how Seaspan would be thrilled.

I don't see Seaspan running out of ships to build any time soon.  They were originally thrilled because they though Davie would win because of politics.  I'm sure they have their hands full dealing with what they have to deal with right now.  They don't have any production gap worries.

And that is why the arctic islands have Brit and Norwegian names...

The arctic is a minor side show.

Simplifies the issue extraordinary.  Competition between the UK and Norway to discover and reach all the random corners of the world was a national obsession and much of it was done by private individuals.  Explorers were the professional athletes of their time.  Not to mention that Canada was British at the time.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1867 on: May 23, 2019, 12:57:26 »
Very well written article on the impacts and uses of the AOPV for the CCG from Eye on the Arctic section of CBC news.

Few tidbits that I really like:

Quote
Choi said if the purchase of the two ships does indeed go through, it would be a rare case in Canadian, and indeed Western, military/paramilitary procurement where the number of equipment purchased is the same as initially promised.

This made me laugh.  Actually getting the full 8 ships initially promised. Much increased cost but actually getting them never happens in world military procurement circles.

Quote
For the coast guard, the most obvious advantage of having the two AOPS would be that its ageing fleet will receive two long-endurance, helicopter-carrying, offshore vessels much earlier than expected, Choi said.

Quote
...the first of the new CCG offshore patrol vessels would not likely enter service until the late 2020s if they are contracted at all – there have been no movements in that regard,” Choi said. “Whereas the two AOPS could be built at the end of the currently ‘hot’ construction line and be completed much earlier to help replace older ships like the Cape Roger and its sister Cygnus as they reach the end of their service lives.”

This is a big improvement to relieve some of the older ships their yeomans work. 

Quote
Some experts have noted that AOPS may not be fast enough for fisheries patrol duties, though the ships they would replace, the Cape Roger and Cygnus, are only a knot faster and that is without accounting for their greater age that might reduce their actual top speed, Choi said.

“In any case, the AOPS benefits from having the much faster helicopter and room for fast boats that can make up for the platform’s moderate speed: a combination used by the Norwegian and United States coast guards, for example, who rarely depend on their ships to chase down violators and instead employ tactics that leverage their helicopter and fast boats,” Choi said.

This.  The MCDV's can do their job because of using these tactics.  AOPV both CCG and RCN versions will be even better at it because of the ability to take a helo and bigger/faster ships boats.  These ships go fast enough to do the job they need to do with the right ancillary kit.

Quote
To stave off the expected layoffs, the federal announced in November that it would order a sixth AOPS, but at nearly $800 million this ship was expected cost almost twice as much as its predecessors.

However, adding two more ships to the production queue means that the shipyard no longer needs to artificially extend the construction time for the sixth AOPS.

“The amount of time required to build AOPS 7 and 8 should be more than enough to span the gap until the Canadian Surface Combatants can be built, eliminating the need to pay the shipyard to artificially extend any of the AOPS’ construction times or to retain idle workers,” Choi said. “In sum, the logic of it may be, ‘If we’re paying double for AOPS 6, why don’t we just use the extra cost to help pay for a seventh and eight ship, and also skip the whole workforce retention issue?’”

What is said here makes sense.  I just don't expect the contract to make sense.  I expect the CCG ships will be $800 mil each.  Perhaps it will work out. But if I'm Irving, I would say tough, you already signed for $800mil for the 6th ship.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,615
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1868 on: May 23, 2019, 13:23:18 »
Tweet from Finnish icebreaker-design firm:

Quote
Aker Arctic
‏@AkerArctic

Despite yesterday's news for fleet renewal, there are still no publicized plans to fully replace CCG's aging medium-heavy #icebreaker fleet.
https://twitter.com/AkerArctic/status/1131547448659329024

Besides maybe the now one only polar icebreaker planned, might some further icebreakers go the Davie?

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1869 on: May 23, 2019, 14:11:04 »
So the original NSS called for Irving to get the Combat work and Seaspan to get the Non-Combat work.

In my mind that meant that Irving would be getting the frigates while Seaspan would be getting the AOPS - a west coast designed ship built to commercial standards and following on from a similarly designed and built Norwegian ship supplied by a company with a long association to the west coast.

Instead the AOPS was navified and canadianized and given to Irving until decisions could be made on the CSC.

Seaspan got 3 OFSV, 1 OOSV, 2 JSS and 1 PI.  - Arguably a more difficult and less profitable build due to all the concurrent designs to be managed to meet the needs of different customers.

Then Irving's work load was cut from 8 AOPS to 6 to 5 for a larger budget.

Seaspan was presented with the possibility of an additional 3.8 BCAD of work for a mix of 10 MEMTV and OPV at some point in the future.

Then Irving develops a gap due to the lack of decision making on the CSC - a decision making process in which it is intimately involved - and the government decides to buy another AOPS at a higher price than the original 5.

That still doesn't cover the gap so the government decides to award non-combat work, in the form of two civil duties AOPS, arguably poaching work from Seaspan for Irving.

And, in best Ottawa fashion, the government announces that Seaspan will be getting, at some point in the future, a contract for 16 MEMTVs - 10 of which were proposed back in 2013 (as a mix of OPVs and MEMTVs).  None of the OPVs or MEMTVs have yet been designed.

Meanwhile the Diefenbaker work has been pulled and sent to political never-never land - probably to go to a competing yard.

I can see how Seaspan would be thrilled.


Seaspan also has the sub contract and is the only Canadian yard that I am aware of doing work on foreign naval vessels, hopefully a trend that will continue.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1870 on: May 23, 2019, 14:42:51 »
And that is why the arctic islands have Brit and Norwegian names...

The arctic is a minor side show.

Maybe in a generation or two those Brit and Norwegian names will be Russian and/or Chinese instead....

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1871 on: May 23, 2019, 15:15:34 »
What is said here makes sense.  I just don't expect the contract to make sense.  I expect the CCG ships will be $800 mil each.  Perhaps it will work out. But if I'm Irving, I would say tough, you already signed for $800mil for the 6th ship.

Coming from the Sackville Tribune "The two AOPS are expected to cost $1.5 billion, and the other 16 vessels approximately $14.2 billion"

So, I guess one can surmise that the BAE 25mm cannon, related C&C infrastructure and military grade radar costs only 50$ million per ship if the 6th AOPS cost us 800$ million and these run us 750$ million.

Any thoughts if the CCG will need to be buying any new helo's for these ships?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1872 on: May 23, 2019, 15:33:15 »
CCG does not base their helo's to a ship, but assigns them as needed, the Helo's and crews are actually on contract from Transport Canada, the helicopters were recently replaced so they would use the existing fleet. Tasks would include ice reconnaissance and navaids repair.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,615
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1873 on: May 23, 2019, 15:34:40 »
In 2015 cost of five RCN A/OPS from Irving was $3.5B or $700M each:
https://www.cgai.ca2015_status_report_on_major_defence_equipment_procurements#ArcticOffshorePatrolShip

Sixth ship added and cost went to $4.3B, last ship most expensive (!) at $800M:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html

Cost of two more for CCG "Under review":
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html#s7

So the costing for Justin's big 18 new vessels for CCG announced May 22 is thin to say the least. Last minute effort to buy votes without proper procurement groundwork having been done.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,615
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1874 on: May 23, 2019, 15:46:46 »
Further to this post,
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64037.msg1572544.html#msg1572544

other icebreakers that might go to Davie?

Quote
Vard explores concepts for Canadian Coast Guard future fleet

Vancouver, B.C., based Vard Marine, Inc. reports that the Canadian Coast Guard has awarded it an engineering services contract to explore concepts for the Coast Guard’s future fleet renewal program.

Vard says that the work scope is aligned with the company’s core competencies in tailored, fit for purpose, multi-mission ship design. It includes parametric concept design, feasibility studies and operational analysis, system design studies, trade-off analysis, and cost modeling. The work is intended to explore requirements for multiple future fleet ship types and could stretch over several years.

The contract continues a relationship between the Canadian Coast Guard and Vard Marine that began with Vard Marine designed patrol and science vessels built in the mid 1980’s and carrying on with the development of the designs for the Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel and the Polar Icebreaker.


https://www.marinelog.com/news/vard-explores-concepts-for-canadian-coast-guard-future-fleet/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.