Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[NCRCrow]

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)

 

[Sub_Guy]

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? 

 

[NCRCrow]

I knew I would get a bite on that comment.

 

[tabernac]

Why not make it a central arctic OPS center?   

Was the deep water port not planned to be in Iqaluit?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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.

 

[NCRCrow]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

SOR (D) 4.2.1.9 - note 21

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?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the info on power:displacement drunknsubmrnr.

That would put her intermediate between these Danish Offshore Patrol Vessels (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

I also think that the CF spec would benefit from replacing the RHIB spec with the LCP 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.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why not one of the LCVPs that the AORs have?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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. 

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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