Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[RC]

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.

 

[Rifleman62]

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."

 

[RC]

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[jollyjacktar]

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...  " crap of not so long ago. 

 

[RC]

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...  " 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.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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). 

 

[jollyjacktar]

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?

 

[Kirkhill]

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?

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.

 

[Stoker]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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?

 

[MarkOttawa]

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)

…
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

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Mark.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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...  " 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

 

[Underway]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

Dan McGreer STX 18 Feb 2012

Underway.... Try this one.

 

[chrisf]

13kw generating capabilities... that's a decent bit of power!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

 

[chrisf]

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" 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.