Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 299833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #975 on: March 31, 2017, 13:34:13 »
Serger - thanks for that.

Despite some concerns over special pleading on the part of Davie and also local MPs defending Irving and Seaspan the testimony brought out a few points of interest:

Warships - 40% ship 60% weapons
Ships - 50% labour 50% materials

Engineering costs on Asterix/Resolve 30,000,000 CAD
Labour costs in Canada comparable to Europe

Canadian costs for AOPS vs Svalbard undefined/undefinable
Canadian costs for JSS vs Berlin undefined/undefinable.

Some Canadian companies can meet foreign suppliers needs more easily than they can meet domestic needs.

Davie is arguing Capacity is the problem with the NSPS
But that only applies if there is money to build the ships "needed" faster.

Now admittedly it does seem that some of that money could come from the "savings" possible between the price of Svalbard and Berlin vs the price of AOPS and JSS.  But that would mean reducing the money going to Irving and Seaspan for the same amount of work - probably not a bad thing but how do you do it?

Davie seems to be arguing that there is no reason why Canada can't build ships competitively with European yards, regardless of subsidies.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #976 on: March 31, 2017, 17:26:04 »
I put this here because of the reference to the design:

Quote
Ice-class tanker reaches remote port in Russian push to open Arctic Ocean to oil and gas shipments
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/ice-class-tanker-reaches-remote-port-in-russian-push-to-open-arctic-ocean-to-oil-and-gas-shipments


This image got my attention - going backwards through the ice.


From a separate article
http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,daewoo-readies-prototype-yamal-icebreaking-lngc-for-action_43397.htm

Quote
Super carriers

Yamal’s 15 icebreaking LNGCs are being built to the double-acting ship (DAS) design developed by Aker Arctic in 2003 for a pair of 110,000 dwt oil tankers for use in Neste Shipping’s Baltic Sea operations. The DAS technology enables ice class vessels to proceed in the conventional bow forward direction in open seas and thin ice but astern in thicker ice and the full icebreaking mode.

Astern icebreaking operations on the Yamal LNGCs will be assisted by a heavy-scantling, aft hull structure and a podded propulsion system. Each ship will employ six Wärtsilä dual-fuel engines, comprising four 12-cylinder and two 9-cylinder 50DF units. The complement is able to deliver up to 45MW of power to the three ABB Azipod propeller units on each vessel.
Wärtsilä engines were considered as being the most suitable for handling the extreme engine load variations that can occur within a short timespan when a ship is proceeding through thick ice.

The Azipod units also facilitate icebreaking operations. When a podded ship runs astern in ice, the propellers mill the underwater part of the ridge, cutting a passage through, and at the same time generating a flow of water flow which flushes the hull, facilitating progress through the ridge field.

 

This was the design rejected for the AOPS.  A design with a Canadian west coast connection and one which was adopted in the 70 MUSD Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard and which permits optimization of the hull for ocean going operations when going forwards and ice operations when going backwards.

But that'll never work.



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #977 on: March 31, 2017, 17:50:28 »
I see lots of pictures of heavy commercial ice breakers and makes mention often of the Norwegian Navy Svalbard Class ship. The way I look at it AOPS will be able to operate quite well during the time and season the RCN has decided in its concept of operations. They will be heavily utilized on other missions throughout the rest of the year so they certainly won't be tied up. To compare it and its capabilities to another navy or commercial interests is wrong as their requirements for their own vessels and what the government wants them to do or go is determined by the government of that nation.
When complete they will put the RCN back to the Arctic in a bigger way and be able to on a regular basis conduct fisheries patrols, wildlife patrols etc and actually police the Arctic in conjunction with other government departments. My experience patrolling the Arctic waters on missions the AOPS will do is extensive and these will add great RCN capability and do things the CCG won't do.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #978 on: March 31, 2017, 18:41:12 »
I can accept a charge of 'catalogue shopping'.  I will even accept being accused of 'situating the estimate' by deciding on a vessel first and then designing a concept of operations afterwards.

What I struggle with is that prior to the entry of the Svalbard concept into the discussion there was no Concept of Operations for the RCN in the Arctic.  So then the RCN created a Concept of Operations that resulted in something close to, but not identical to, the Svalbard which seems to have resulted in delays and costs to produce a novel design.

I don't doubt that the AOPS will increase the RCN's presence in the North, and possibly even the Arctic, but wouldn't the original Svalbard design have done at least as well?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 992
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #979 on: March 31, 2017, 18:56:04 »
Yeah - I don't understand why we didn't just buy the design and build it.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #980 on: March 31, 2017, 18:59:17 »
I can accept a charge of 'catalogue shopping'.  I will even accept being accused of 'situating the estimate' by deciding on a vessel first and then designing a concept of operations afterwards.

What I struggle with is that prior to the entry of the Svalbard concept into the discussion there was no Concept of Operations for the RCN in the Arctic.  So then the RCN created a Concept of Operations that resulted in something close to, but not identical to, the Svalbard which seems to have resulted in delays and costs to produce a novel design.

I don't doubt that the AOPS will increase the RCN's presence in the North, and possibly even the Arctic, but wouldn't the original Svalbard design have done at least as well?

There actually was an idea of what they were to do if anything based on what the Kingston Class have been doing there for the last decade and what the original requirements were. Much of the concept of operations was based on lessons learned in the Arctic by the RCN, reaching back to HMCS Labrador. Concept of operations are written while ships are being built or sometime after as they often change. I would imagine the AOPS concept of operations will continue to be rewritten over the years as the class matures. I can't argue that the Svalbard design would have sufficed but that was based on what could be had in Canada for the budget the government provided. Building offshore was never an option and little appetite to build a direct copy.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #981 on: March 31, 2017, 20:06:43 »

Warships - 40% ship 60% weapons
Ships - 50% labour 50% materials


Following on from this -

1,000,000,000 CAD for a warship

400,000,000 CAD for the ship and its systems (coincidentally the rough price of the Danish Absalons and Huitfeldts which had the weapons and sensors priced under a separate budget)
600,000,000 CAD for the weapons and sensors  - How much of that is actually going to be spent in Canada?  We don't build guns, missiles or torpedoes.  We build some radars and some sonars but do we build the ones we want to buy?

400,000,000 CAD for the ship and its systems

200,000,000 CAD for material and ship systems - How much of that is actually going to be spent in Canada?  Do we build engines?  Steel of the right grade?
200,000,000 CAD for labour - Really?  $100 CAD/Hr = 2,000,000 hours = 1000 PYs per hull.  Order of magnitude feels right but are all the delays and negotiations and markups worth it for 1000 PYs added to the Canadian economy?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #982 on: April 01, 2017, 11:00:02 »
I don't doubt that the AOPS will increase the RCN's presence in the North, and possibly even the Arctic, but wouldn't the original Svalbard design have done at least as well?

I don't belive it would have. The Svalbard isn't designed to carry trucks/snowmobiles/ATV's and place them on the ice 10m away from the ship with the crane.  It's also not designed to carry a Cyclone size/weight helo. There is also the launch/recovery/carry of a covered assault boat, and covered boarding party boats and then support those forces ashore with C4I.  You can't easily reinforce or reorient a preexisting design like the Svalbard to deal with all of those static/mechanical load changes, let alone the internal restructure that would be needed.

Based on the concept of ops; a design from the ground up does make more sense as it probably saves complications in the long run. But you can see where they borrowed heavily from the Svalbard in the general lines of the ship (though that's more likely a proven icebreaker shape than anything else) and used the Svalbard as a starting point for their final design.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #983 on: April 01, 2017, 11:25:10 »


I'll stand corrected but that looks to me like an NH90 coming in for a landing (6400 kg dry - 10,600 kg wet vs the CH-148 7070 kg dry vs 13,000 kg wet), with a long boom crane on the after deck and accommodation for ships boats.

I can appreciate that details matter but did it necessitate a wholesale redesign?  I suggest that at the very least that is a debatable point.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 84,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,642
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #984 on: April 01, 2017, 12:12:53 »
You are right, Chris: details matter  ;D

See How the safety nets and barriers around the flight deck are all up, and there is a black object of some sort smack at the centre of the landing point. That helicopter is not coming for a landing: it's coming in either to do a hot refuelling (helicopter stays up in the air hovering) or to collect something with a which - but it's not landing. So it proves nothing (you could have done the same with a Chinook, yet the Svalbard cannot land one of those).

Just sayin'

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #985 on: April 01, 2017, 12:34:29 »
Your point, Sir!  [:D

This doesn't quite resolve the issue but it does approach it!

Quote
The crew of the KV "Svalbard" responds that they are not being used in rescue operations. Here during a press viewing of the new NH90 helicopters.

*Actually that article is interesting from an entirely separate point - Coordination between departments.   Apparently, with the Norwegian Coast Guard being a "civil" component of the Norwegian Department of Defence they still can't get their lines of communication straight. 

Quote
The Coast Guard advised of accidents through Teletext

Commanding the KV Svalbard fear lives have been lost because of the lack of coordination of rescue operations.

The crew of the KV "Svalbard" responds that they are not being used in rescue operations. Here during a press viewing of the new NH90 helicopters.

- I have personally experienced that we read on teletext about things that have happened, so we contacted the Joint Rescue Coordination Center, and when we come on site, it turns out that we are the first ones there. Several of my colleagues have also experienced it. It goes without saying that things are not working as it should, and that it takes too long, said chief of the Coast Guard vessel "Svalbard", Charles Blålid NRK.

KV "Svalbard" is equipped with a 337-helicopter. Blålid has repeatedly experienced that his ship is located right next to the scene of an accident, however, comes another helicopter in and pick up the patient.

- It's embarrassing
- We are often the closest and could have been faster in space than land-based rescue helicopter. It is embarrassing that we, as has often been the closest ones who need us, they are coming up last to assist, says Blålid.

When the civil emergency services need the assistance of defense, taking the various agencies contact with Joint Headquarters (FOH), which determines which resources will be submitted.

Also read: Fears that the Coast Guard gets billion helicopters without medical equipment
Coast Guard vessel "Svalbard" sends daily its position and planned route to the FOH, which then sends the fax on to Hovedredningssentralen so that the date on which the ship is located.

- Going beyond the life and health
Also personnel in 337 Squadron feel neglected.

- I think it's sad that it's like that. We have the privilege of having a job that is all about saving human lives. When we are not used we can not do our job. It goes beyond the people, their health and in some cases their lives, says Karl Christian pimples, rescuer in 337 Squadron.

Also read: Lover medical equipment for new Coast Guard helicopters
FOH says to NRK that they do not recognize themselves in the situation. They write to NRK that they treat all incidents in a good way out of the situation, demand and available capacity.

Sorry for the drift.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 222
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #986 on: April 01, 2017, 12:39:44 »
I thought the Svalbard carried the NH90 :dunno:

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #987 on: April 01, 2017, 12:43:23 »
I thought the Svalbard carried the NH90 :dunno:

Yes they operated the NH90 from 2009 onward.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 84,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,642
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #988 on: April 01, 2017, 12:49:41 »
Pretty sure the Svalbard is capable of operating a NH-90, I was just jesting with Chris' point that details matter  [:D.

On the other hand, while capable, I believe that they still only have the Lynx onboard as deployed helicopter because the NH-90 are used by the Navy and the Svalbard is Cost Guard. But don't quote me on that.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 222
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #989 on: April 01, 2017, 12:52:09 »
Yes they operated the NH90 from 2009 onward.

so the cyclone/cormorant is just a little too much then?

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #990 on: April 01, 2017, 12:55:39 »
so the cyclone/cormorant is just a little too much then?

Who knows as its a different helo, Harry DeWolf will be able to operate with the cyclone.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #991 on: April 01, 2017, 13:10:54 »
so the cyclone/cormorant is just a little too much then?

I agree with Chief Stoker - Who knows.  As I said, details matter.

I just keep stumbling over building the Svalbard in two years for 70 MUSD in 2002 vice buying her drawings for 5 to 10 MCAD, re-engineering them twice for another 5 to 10 MCAD, spending 250 MCAD for a yard to decide if it could build them and then another few Billion for an ever decreasing number of ships.   And the yard now wants more money to top the contract back up to its original level of 8 hulls.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #992 on: April 01, 2017, 13:23:54 »
I agree with Chief Stoker - Who knows.  As I said, details matter.

I just keep stumbling over building the Svalbard in two years for 70 MUSD in 2002 vice buying her drawings for 5 to 10 MCAD, re-engineering them twice for another 5 to 10 MCAD, spending 250 MCAD for a yard to decide if it could build them and then another few Billion for an ever decreasing number of ships.   And the yard now wants more money to top the contract back up to its original level of 8 hulls.

Details do matter, especially in aerospace design, as the Cyclone is about 3 tons heavier, 3m longer and blade width is larger.  That changes quite a bit in the margins of error the engineers/flight safety folks are willing to accept in flight deck size, flight deck load, crash load design, hangar space etc...

Cost is a different thing.  It might have worked out the same cost for a redesign of the Svalbard.  We'll never know.  As for the build costs, how much you want to bet it would have been the same expense to build 6-8 Svalbards at Irving.

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 728,432
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,426
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #993 on: April 01, 2017, 13:35:29 »
I agree with Chief Stoker - Who knows.  As I said, details matter.

I just keep stumbling over building the Svalbard in two years for 70 MUSD in 2002 vice buying her drawings for 5 to 10 MCAD, re-engineering them twice for another 5 to 10 MCAD, spending 250 MCAD for a yard to decide if it could build them and then another few Billion for an ever decreasing number of ships.   And the yard now wants more money to top the contract back up to its original level of 8 hulls.


Well figuring in the cost of maintenance for 25 years which the budget covers, wages over here compared to Norway, the fact Irving had to spend several years to tool up and build facilities. Also keep in mind 70 MUSD is in 2002 dollars and I know for certain the sensors, machinery control, ships boats and everything else will be top of the line and looks to be better outfitted than Svalbard. The only other thing is Irving is not building the ships for free. All this adds up to build ships in Canada you will pay for it.

Bottom line the ships will increase the capability and presence in the Arctic which is a good thing and to do so we have to pay for it.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #994 on: April 01, 2017, 13:53:55 »

Bottom line the ships will increase the capability and presence in the Arctic which is a good thing and to do so we have to pay for it.

Agreed Chief.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 51,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,402
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #995 on: April 19, 2017, 22:08:31 »
New Russian AOPS laid down--lots more firepower than ours (note RCN near end):

Quote
Russia lays down icebreaker patrol boat to bolster Navy’s Arctic presence (VIDEO)

 A St. Petersburg shipyard has laid down a new ship that will be used to ensure the Russian Navy’s presence in the Arctic region. The ‘Ivan Papanin’ was designed as a multipurpose patrol ship that can serve as an icebreaker and a tow boat.

The lead ship of the new class was laid down on Wednesday by the Admiralty Shipyard in St. Petersburg. Russian Navy Commander Adm. Vladimir Korolev led the ceremony.

“We are marking an important event for the Navy’s operations as well as for naval shipbuilding today,” he said. “The ice-rated patrol ship will be built on an order from the defense minister to protect the Arctic strategic direction.”

Officially named Project 23550, the new class is unique in the Russian military arsenal. It would be able to guide other warships through ice up to 1.5 meters thick or conduct solo patrol missions.

The ‘Ivan Papanin’ will be 114 meters long, with a displacement of roughly 7,000 tons and a crew of 49, with an option to transport 47 additional troops. It is designed to cover a distance of some 6,000 naval miles (11,100km) without needing to resupply.

The ship will be armed with two cruise missiles from the Kalibr family and an A-190 100-mm cannon. The design includes a helipad intended for a Kamov Ka-27 helicopter, the workhorse of Russian anti-submarine warfare. It also has bays for two Raptor-class speedboats.

The ship is named after Ivan Papanin, the famous Soviet Arctic explorer who held the rank of a Navy rear-admiral, among other distinctions. Papanin headed a series of pioneering expeditions in the north during the 1930s, as well as heading the rescue operation which brought back the icebreaker ‘Georgy Sedov’ after an epic 800-day stay in an ice trap.

The Russian Arctic warship is comparable to the Norwegian Coast Guard icebreaker and offshore patrol vessel ‘Svalbard’ in specification. The European Arctic nation has only one such ship, the biggest in its military fleet, but Canada has ordered two icebreakers of this design for its navy [emphasis added].

The Russian Defense Ministry contracted two Project 23550 ships last year. The second will be named after another Arctic explorer and oceanographer, Nikolay Zubov, who was the first person to sail around Franz Josef Land. The ‘Nikolay Zubov’ is to be laid down sometime in late 2017...


https://www.rt.com/news/385328-russian-navy-icebreaker-patrol/

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

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,624
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #996 on: April 19, 2017, 23:51:10 »
Mark,

Need to extend her work deck



and ship a couple of these sea cans



and presto-chango you have the Russian boat.  Just need to add the SR76s from the Tribals instead of the 25s.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 992
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #997 on: April 20, 2017, 10:33:14 »
It's kind of amazing how much they look alike actually....

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #998 on: April 24, 2017, 15:18:41 »
It's kind of amazing how much they look alike actually....

It's the icebreaking hull-form.  If you want to do icebreaking of first-year ice, then the ships shape looks like that.  Add to the fact that the tonnages are similar and that they all carry helo's, and you want limited space for ice buildup on the upper works you just end up with the same shaped ship.  They all look like pregnant guppies to me...  I wonder if the Russian one will have stabilization fins on the bottom or not.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,537
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #999 on: April 28, 2017, 22:41:12 »
wind tunnel testing of Interim AOR and Cyclone helicopter  https://www.skiesmag.com/news/testing-turbulence-landing-cyclone/