# Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships



## ltmaverick25 (17 Jun 2009)

An article on www.ctvnews.ca

Here is the link:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090616/navy_arctic_090616/20090616?hub=Canada

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- The federal government has put off asking shipbuilders for ideas on the construction of a flotilla of Arctic patrol boats, a sign that the two-year-old program is in trouble.

The navy's project management office advised the defence industry on June 10th that the long-anticipated letters of intent had been delayed.

"The extent of the delay is unknown at this time," said the note obtained by The Canadian Press.

The navy's project office describes the postponement as a "glitch," but the officer in charge, navy Capt. Eric Bramwell, declined to explain what the holdup might be.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in July 2007 that the navy would acquire six to eight ice-capable vessels for nearly year-round operation in the Arctic. The announcement was a cornerstone of the Conservatives' northern strategy

At the time, the proposal was a step back from the 2005-06 Tory election promise to build three armed, heavy icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty.

The Conservatives have said the Arctic is a priority as competition for boundaries and resources with other nations, particularly Russia, intensifies. But the heavy cost has increasingly given them pause.

A National Defence estimate last year pegged the annual operating expense of Arctic military operations at $843-million, excluding capital purchases, such as the patrol boats.

As the patrol vessel plan went through the definition phase, the capabilities of the ships were scaled back from the original Conservative proposal in order to stay within the original $3.1-billion budget.

The navy now envisions purchasing just six Class 5 ice-cutting ships and arming them with 25-mm cannons -- the same calibre carried on the army's light armoured vehicles -- as opposed to larger 40-mm weapons.

The ships will also be slower than originally planned and have less cargo capacity.

Despite that, Bramwell says the navy is happy with the look of the ship that's on the drawing board.

"We've been working the issue with our requirement colleagues to keep an eye on affordability," he said.

Cmdr. Dave Soule, who's overseen the ships' development, said a lot of attention has been paid to the smaller gun, which critics suggested turns the warship into nothing more than glorified police boat.

"We've looked at what other navies do for the kinds of missions these ships would be employed," Soule said in an interview Tuesday. "That calibre of gun is suitable."

He said many of the operations envisaged would be in support of domestic operations by other government departments; security and other non-military type threats.

"Those generally tend to be not like a warfare situation."

Defence experts are troubled that the capabilities have been "watered down" and say there is little difference between these ships and the coast guard, the traditional home of the country's icebreaking fleet.

Ken Bowring, an analyst with the Navy League of Canada, described the gun as a "peashooter" and says the symbolism of what it means for the Arctic, especially with a resurgent Russia is hard to miss.

"There are ships out there, other nations; what kind of resolve does it show? How much importance to they put on the Arctic when you put something up there that's got nothing on it?" Bowring asked.

"It's important to have something that shows your resolve."

He said the Conservatives have been trying to shoehorn their purchases into a pre-arranged budget rather picking equipment that makes sense.

"As Canadian citizens, our government should decide what it needs to do the job and then budget accordingly, not pick a budget and then look to see what you can get," said Bowring.

"If this happens, we will wind up spending billions of dollars on ships that can't do the jobs we need, or not have enough of them to job when and where we need it."


----------



## karl28 (17 Jun 2009)

Shouldn't the Navy be more concerned right now with replacing their aging supply ships first ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2009)

Soon the proposal will be for Ranger crewed dogsled teams mounted on waterwings....:


----------



## Otis (17 Jun 2009)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the Navy be more concerned right now with replacing their aging supply ships first ?



That would be perfect, but given the lead time required to plan, design, build and then work up a new vessel (or CLASS of vessels) ... the Navy NEEDS to multitask and work on both projects at once.


----------



## Jammer (17 Jun 2009)

Why build from scratch?
There are good designs out there already that I suspect would come very close to meeting the Navy's requirements.


----------



## Otis (17 Jun 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Why build from scratch?
> There are good designs out there already that I suspect would come very close to meeting the Navy's requirements.



IMHO, it all has to do with politics, job creation and sightlines ... politicians wanting to show that they're creating jobs here in Canada, using Cdn technology etc etc ...

But that's just my opinion as to why we don't buy off-the-shelf plans from other countries ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2009)

Agreed...the need to design and build in Canada I feel is one of the reasons why we go from feast to famine in the navy. buy offshore, plenty of good and proven designs out there.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2009)

Otis said:
			
		

> IMHO, it all has to do with politics, job creation and sightlines ... politicians wanting to show that they're creating jobs here in Canada, using Cdn technology etc etc ...
> 
> But that's just my opinion as to why we don't buy off-the-shelf plans from other countries ...



It is funny how we can buy when it comes to other weapon systems but when it comes to ships the Government gets all nostaglic and mandates we must design and build our own. PITA


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jun 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed...the need to design and build in Canada I feel is one of the reasons why we go from feast to famine in the navy. buy offshore, plenty of good and proven designs out there.



Hey Ex, 

A couple of questions:
1)  Does the new specification of a "Class 5" Ice Cutter actually increase its ice handling capacity as opposed to the previously defined "Ice-Hardened" proposal?  
2)  Is there any way the Navy and Coast Guard could share a common hull, increasing the total number of vessels produced and spreading the up-front investment over more years?


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2009)

Matthew
1) The only thing I know about ice is its best to stay out of it but here is a link from wiki that may help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_class
2) What commonality in tasks would enable us to share the same common hull?


----------



## RC (4 Aug 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> It is funny how we can buy when it comes to other weapon systems but when it comes to ships the Government gets all nostaglic and mandates we must design and build our own. PITA



This is similar to suggesting that we buy OTS bridge designs in hopes of finding one that has just the right length, traffic flow, weight capacity, construction method, etc that we are looking for.  It's not going to happen.  Unlike many other pieces of military hardware, ships have requirements that are very specific to their intended role and operational environment, but are not limited by heavy certification requirements (like aircraft for instance).  To buy one off the shelf would, first of all, not relate to much cost savings as design isn't that great a cost in shipbuilding and you don't save much with OTS, and second of all, introduce a myriad of other problems such as different construction methods between yards, different naval requirements, different philosophies on damage control and so on.

The key is to find a competent designer who has experience with the ship type you are comtemplating.  That way, they are never really starting from scratch as the design you get will be based on a proven design, but tailored to the specific needs of the Canadian Navy.  For many of the ship types that the Government is currently contemplating including AOPS, this capability exists in Canada either through direct experience or access to technology transfer, so offshore off-the-shelf designs are an illusory panacea.

Of course there are also the side benefits of keeping our tax dollars in Canada, creating jobs, and maintaining the strategic capability of the shipbuilding industry.

I would also disagree that there are "plenty" of proven designs out there that come close to meeting the requirements of AOPS.  I know of one that would meet about 80% of the requirements (and happens to have been noted in several media sources as the basis for the present design).  Maybe a second that meets about 60% at a stretch, but after that things drop off pretty quickly to either unarmed icebreaker, or slightly ice-strengthened OPV.


----------



## RC (4 Aug 2009)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Hey Ex,
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 1)  Does the new specification of a "Class 5" Ice Cutter actually increase its ice handling capacity as opposed to the previously defined "Ice-Hardened" proposal?
> ...



I recognize that these were directed questions, but I do know the answers, so hopefully you won't mind me responding.
1)  "Ice hardened" is non-specific and could mean as little as the ability to gently bounce off a few bergy bits of ice in ice infested waters.  Polar Class 5 means the ability to break and transit 1m of first year level ice with some old ice inclusions.  It also needs more specification as it doesn't address transiting ice ridges or maneuvering in ice, but it gives a general indication of the capability of an ice breaker.
2)  No.  Hulls are designed for the specific requirements of a ship.  You have to view the ship as an overall system, where if you were to restrict any one part of it, you substantially compromise the capability of the rest of the system.  Navy and CCG requirements are very different.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2009)

Appreciate the clarifications RC. I do have to disagree with your assesment of OTS designs though, then again I look at it from an Ops Room perspective and see a weapons and sensor combo and say wow or yuck. Engines are not my thing, the only thing I care about from that spectrum of things is how many knots we can go and how far we can travel before being forced to conduct a RAS.


----------



## RC (4 Aug 2009)

Fair enough Ex-Dragoon.  I am coming at it from the platform perspective and see little advantage in OTS.  I expect the weapons/sensor combo on AOPS leaves you with more of a yuck feeling; however, the trafficability, boat ops, and cargo capacity are in my opinion well-considered for her role and have no comparison in any existing ships.  Speed is a major compromise due to the "arctic" designation, but that's a political issue, not a design issue.

AOPS won't be a capable combattant, but I think that the requirements define a ship that will be well suited to the role of patrolling all three of Canada's coast lines.  Provided of course that we can sort out building the ship to the requirements for the budget allowed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2009)

Its downright gross if you ask me...but when I heard there was not going to be an FC radar onboard I knew it was not going to have much in the way of things that go bang.


----------



## RC (4 Aug 2009)

I think there are two things to keep in mind in that regard:

1) Better weapons/sensors are relatively easy to retrofit when you are willing/able to spend the money on some decent gear.  The required margins allow for some substantially better kit to be mounted should the need arise.

2)  I think the Navy wanted it to be absolutely and perfectly clear that AOPS is in no way and no form a practical surface combattant.  Your reaction is exactly what they want.  The reason being that if AOPS were to become a threat to funding for the CPF replacement program, the Navy would rather not have them.  They don't want some ignorant, uppity tax payer coming along and asking what they need more surface combattants for when they have these new AOPS.  I believe they were willing to take a (potentially transitional) hit on AOPS capability to avoid that perception.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2009)

I come to mind that infamous jpeg that pops up from time to time of the dingy with the USCG racing stripe on its side with the mounted .50 cal. Thats how I view the AOPS. Personal opinion of course, but I can't think of anyone in the Navy that is enthusiastic about the project anymore...


----------



## RC (4 Aug 2009)

That's unfortunate.  From my perspective, AOPS gives a whole new dimension to the Canadian Navy's ability to enforce sovereignty.  It has never made sense to me that our Navy doesn't possess OPVs and is forced to perform EEZ patrol with combattants.  While I'd much rather have seen AOPS split into two classes, I think that regardless of some minor sacrifices to fit the budget, they will still fill a void in our current fleet.  Also, I don't think anyone will mistake a 5500T+ helo/boat ops capable icebreaker for a dinghy.

I think perhaps you are commenting more on their overall concept than on the watering down that has occurred.  They were never intended to be a combattant and I think you'll agree that a 40mm vs. a 25mm gun isn't going to bring them into the range of combat capability that would impress you.

I'm personally a fan of commercial grade OPVs simply because they get more hulls in the water and more resources out on patrol without too much impact on the budget for other ships.  To put some numbers against that, a commercialized OPV will have about 15 to 20% budget allocated against combat systems, while a proper surface combattant will be closer to 85 to 90%.  The cost of the platform doesn't change that much.  So if you are looking at a platform cost of say ~180 million you get six non-combattant hulls @ around 210 million for about the price of one combattant @ 1.2 billion.

Keep in mind also that while you can accept a few compromises on a non-combattant to maximize the flexibility of your mission envelope, you wouldn't want to make any compromises at all on a combattant because it could get your sailors killed.  That would drive the price of a capable combattant up still further.  Hence the reason it makes sense to keep AOPS well separated from CPF replacement.


----------



## GAP (19 Aug 2009)

Arctic patrol-vessel plans delayed
 DND insists project isn't on the shelf $3B project unveiled 3 years ago, but hasn't been opened to bidders

By David ********, The Ottawa CitizenAugust 19, 2009
Article Link

he Defence Department will run tests at the end of the month on a model of a proposed new Arctic patrol vessel, but there is still no indication of when it will approach the shipbuilding industry to move ahead with the $3-billion program.

Defence officials are examining procurement strategies to deal with potential delays in the project. But they insist the program to purchase between six and eight ships for patrols in the Arctic and along the coasts is not on hold.

The first signs that the project had run into delays came earlier this month, when the department cancelled a meeting with industry representatives. It has also put on hold the issuing of what is known as a letter of interest.

The letter is a signal to firms that the project is starting down the path with plans to actually build the vessels. Industry officials have been told that no letter will be issued until the government is clear about its future shipbuilding policy, a process company representatives say could take many months.

Defence Department spokesman David Martin did not have a date when the letter of interest would be issued. "We've deferred putting out a letter of interest until the government comes to a decision on a shipbuilding strategy," he said.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Sep 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

Foreign designs for new Navy ships? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/foreign-designs-for-new-navy-ships.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------

