# Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS



## Privateer

The following Backgrounder is reproduced from the National Defence site:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2370



> Backgrounder
> Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships
> 
> BG–07.023 - July 10, 2007
> 
> In the current and future security environment, the Government of Canada must have effective tools for exercising control of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs, or 200 nautical mile limit) in all three oceans, particularly the Arctic. This Government recognizes that an increased Canadian Forces (CF) presence in the Arctic is essential to achieving our goals in this region, which is critical to our national interest and sense of identity.
> 
> Currently, the Canadian Navy can patrol the coastal waters of Canada’s East and West Coasts, but it does not have the capability to effectively patrol all three oceans. The Navy can only operate in northern waters for a short period of time, and only when there is no ice.
> 
> While the Navy can effectively patrol our close coastal waters in the Atlantic and Pacific with its Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs), these ships cannot be used effectively out to the limits of Canada’s EEZs. They have limited ability to operate in the open ocean, limited speed, limited capacity to support boarding operations and lack the ability to support a helicopter. The Navy must use its large combatant vessels – destroyers and frigates, which are expensive to operate and already over-tasked - to patrol the open ocean.
> 
> To fill this capability gap, the Navy will acquire up to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPS). The estimated cost of acquiring these ships is $3.1 billion, with approximately $4.3 billion provided for operations and maintenance over the 25-year lifespan of the ship.
> 
> The multi-purpose, ice-capable offshore patrol ship will enhance Canada’s ability to enforce its right, under international law, to be notified when foreign ships enter Canadian waters. The primary tasks of the A/OPS would be to conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in Canada’s EEZs, including the Arctic; provide cross-governmental situation awareness of activities and events in the regions; and cooperate with other elements of the CF and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, when and where necessary.
> 
> These ships will also provide the flexibility for the Navy to operate in both the Arctic and offshore environments, allowing them to be used year-round in a variety of roles, including domestic surveillance, search and rescue and support to other government departments.
> 
> The Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship offers the best blend of capabilities in one platform; however, a ship with these capabilities does not currently exist and would have to be designed to meet a series of high-level requirements:
> 
> Seakeeping: The A/OPSs must be able to operate independently and effectively in Canada’s EEZs, including such diverse environments as the Canadian Arctic, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Northwest Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The ship must also be capable of navigating the St. Lawrence River year-round and berthing at Quebec City.
> 
> Ice Capability: The hull of the A/OPS must be ice strengthened to operate in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions - old ice that is denser and may strike the hull of the ship. This ice capability is exclusively for the ships’ own mobility, not to provide icebreaking services to other ships.
> 
> Endurance/Range: The ship must have the ability to sustain operations for up to four months and must have a range of at least 6,000 nautical miles.
> 
> Command and Control: The ship’s electronic equipment must have the ability to ensure safety of navigation and flight, as well as sufficient command, control and communications capability to provide and receive real-time information to and from the CF Common Operating Picture.
> 
> Speed: The ship must be able to maintain an economical speed of 14 knots and attain a maximum speed of at least 20 knots.
> 
> Armament: The ship must have gun armament to assert Canadian sovereignty.
> 
> Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.
> 
> Class Life: The ships should remain operational for 25 years.
> 
> The ship may also be designed to embark and operate an on-board helicopter, as well as house one flying crew and one maintenance crew.
> Procurement Strategy
> 
> The two-phased process of procuring the A/OPS will be an innovative, fair and transparent means of guaranteeing the requirements of the CF are met in a timely manner, while ensuring value for Canadians’ tax dollars and maximizing opportunities for Canadian industry. Industrial and regional benefits totalling 100 per cent of the contract value would be sought for the implementation contract.
> 
> A project definition phase of 24 months will be needed to develop the functional design, refine the high-level statement of operational requirements (SORs), complete and issue the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the implementation phase of the project and evaluate responses. A competitive process will be used to select a Definition, Engineering, Logistics and Management Support (DELMS) contractor, who will develop the design used to refine the requirements and provide input into the RFP. During this time, consulting engineering contractors will also deliver a functional design for the infrastructure needed to support the A/OPS.
> 
> Throughout the project definition phase, industry will be kept engaged and informed of progress and design work. Interest from industry will be sought through a Letter of Interest to allow potential bidders to self-identify, and qualified teams will be invited to comment on the draft project implementation (PI) RFP. The definition phase of the procurement process would end with the release and evaluation of this RFP.
> 
> The implementation phase of the process would involve the successful contractor completing a detailed design of the ships, followed by construction and the provision of integrated logistics support, and initial in-service support. Delivery of the first Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship is expected in 2013.
> 
> The procurement strategy would conform to the Canadian Shipbuilding Policy Framework, which provides that the federal government will continue to procure, repair and refit vessels in Canada, subject to operational requirements and the continued existence of a competitive domestic marketplace.
> 
> This acquisition will create long-term industrial development for Canadians. The Government's policy requires that prime contractors on defence procurements undertake business activities in Canada, usually in an amount equal to the value of the contract they have won. This helps Canadian companies maintain globally competitive operations in the country and effectively support future national security requirements.
> 
> The acquisition of these ships will deliver maximum high-quality industrial benefits to Canadians and the Canadian shipbuilding industry is well positioned to play a significant role as this project proceeds.



A number of points caught my attention:

1.  These vessels have transformed from purely arctic icebreakers to arctic AND offshore patrol ships.  I imagine that this multi-mission goal may be necessary to sell the ships to the government and/or the public, but I worry about multiple missions resulting in a ship that can't do any of those missions in a truly satisfactory way.  Shades of the MCDV here?

2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?

3.  The ships must be able to "support operations ashore via landing craft".  I wonder what is being envisioned here.

I wonder if any thought has been given to the question of whether or not reservists will play a role in crewing the vessels.  Does MARCOM plan on having sufficient personnel to crew the ships solely with reg force members?

Finally, there is the issue of the possible location for the northern station ("base" probably being too grand a word for it) for these vessels.  I would be interested in hearing from anyone with actual experience in the north as to what location they think would be best and why.  Thanks!


----------



## GAP

Churchill already has a deep water port, long airport strip ( former base) and is rail linked year round...


----------



## navymich

For those that are interested in more information, the news stories regarding the ships are posted  here.


----------



## MarkOttawa

To repeat a comment at the other thread:



> From the _Globe and Mail_ story:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070710.HARPERSUB10/TPStory/Front
> 
> "Each will be about 100 metres long and displace about 3,000 metric tonnes..."
> 
> Svalbard displaces over 6,000 t:
> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-icebreaker-svalbard.htm
> 
> Unless the story is inaccurate (good chance!) the 3,000 tonnes figure is ridiculous.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Neill McKay

Privateer said:
			
		

> 2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?



Speculation: NAVRES has a fleet school there.  Also, some sort of role in border security on the Lakes may be envisioned.


----------



## PO2FinClk

Privateer said:
			
		

> 2.  The ships must be able to berth in Quebec City?  Why?


The waterway normally freezes up to Quebec City during winter months, although it does freeze further south never as consistantly. I would go as far as speculating on Border Security as I believe it would enfringe on CCG responsibilities.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Churchill already has a deep water port, long airport strip ( former base) and is rail linked year round...


Agreed, but is located some distance from the Northwest Passage where Resolute is centered on the passage itself. However perhaps it could be used for other purposes based on existing ressources.


----------



## Greymatters

I'm curious as to how it would stop a foreign submarine transitting Canadian waters...


----------



## hugh19

Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter.


----------



## Spencer100

sledge said:
			
		

> Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter.



Something I have always thought about, how do you hunt down a sub under the ice with aircraft and surface ships?  And also how does sonar work up north with all the noise generated by the ice breaking and cracking?


----------



## Greymatters

sledge said:
			
		

> Hunt it down with a ASW helicopter.



And then what? 

a) Tell them to heave to? 
b) Shoot a missile? 
c) Lodge a protest?
d) All of the above?
e) None of the above?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> And then what?
> 
> a) Tell them to heave to?
> b) Shoot a missile?
> c) Lodge a protest?
> d) All of the above?
> e) None of the above?



We have ways of getting our message across to subs for aircraft by ways we don't need to get into here at all....


----------



## cameron

Coincidentally Privateer, on point no. 3 and your question about reserve crewmembers, I was asking myself the same questions.  As long as they are well built, and can capably carry out their various roles, I think they're a great idea.


----------



## Greymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> We have ways of getting our message across to subs for aircraft by ways we don't need to get into here at all....



I'm aware of that, but was curious as to what Sledge was going to offer as an opinion.


----------



## navymich

Privateer said:
			
		

> I wonder if any thought has been given to the question of whether or not reservists will play a role in crewing the vessels.



How?  Unless things have changed dramatically over the past few months, NavRes is having enough trouble manning their own boats, much less others.  Yes, I realize that the APVs aren't scheduled until 2013, but if the current slide of lack of personnel continues...


----------



## Privateer

> How?  Unless things have changed dramatically over the past few months, NavRes is having enough trouble manning their own boats, much less others.  Yes, I realize that the APVs aren't scheduled until 2013, but if the current slide of lack of personnel continues...



I take your point, but it seems like the A/OPS are intended to take over some tasks currently done by MCDVs such as fisheries patrol, and the recently (re)instated arctic deployments .  I speculate that the introduction of the A/OPS may result in less operational deployments for the MCDVs (leaving them in primarily a training role), resulting in the opportunity / need to use some (reserve) pers previously employed on MCDVs on the A/OPS.


----------



## Kirkhill

This SPECULATION comes from Canadian Press and the VCMS  (Can it be speculation if it comes from the VCMS?)

Parkas all around for you Naval Reserve types.   




> New icebreakers mean early retirement for navy's coastal patrol ships: expert
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservative government's plan to build Arctic patrol ships could send some of Canada's maritime coastal defence vessels into early retirement.
> 
> Already short of sailors and struggling with budget shortfalls, the navy is working out how to crew and operate the six-to-eight new ice-capable corvettes that were announced this week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> "We think that these vessels are going to be the natural replacement for the (coastal defence vessels)," Commodore Kelly Williams, vice chief of maritime staff, said Wednesday in an interview.
> 
> The $3.1-billion program to build armed Class 5 medium icebreakers to enforce Canada's northern sovereignty was announced Monday with much fanfare at Esquimalt, B.C., the navy's principle West Coast base.
> 
> An additional $4 billion will be set aside over 25 years to operate the ships.
> 
> The smaller Kingston-class coastal defence vessels, built in the 1990s by the former Liberal government at a cost of $650 million, will be "transitioned" to a new role, Williams said.
> 
> It's still unclear what that role will be and whether the navy will have the sailors or money to keep all 12 of the 934-tonne ships. Senior naval staff met this week in Ottawa to discuss those questions.
> 
> With the first of the new Arctic ships not due until 2013 at the earliest, Williams said there is plenty of time to make decisions.
> 
> The 55-metre coastal ships, originally conceived as minesweepers, are not suitable for patrols in choppy seas beyond the immediate coastline. At a top speed of 15 knots, they're also considered slow.
> 
> Most warships have a 30-to 35-year lifespan and the Kingston-class, the last of which hit the water in 1999, are at only the mid-point in their service life.
> 
> "There's an awful lot of work that remains to be taken out of those ships," said Williams. "Canadians would expect us, having invested in those vessels, to use them to the maximum advantage possible."
> 
> He said he could see them used for training and ideally would like to keep some for patrols close to the coastline, while the Arctic corvettes and frigates work farther offshore.
> 
> But a retired fleet commander said that was unlikely.
> 
> "We're in a resource-strained environment," said Eric Lerhe, a retired commodore and member of Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax.
> 
> "The navy would undoubtedly love to keep the (maritime coastal defence vessels). They've been a success story."
> 
> A planned $100-million, life-extending refit for the coastal vessels has already been shelved by the navy.
> 
> Senator Colin Kenny, whose security and defence committee has recommended Canada's defence budget be increased to $25 billion by 2010, from its current $18 billion, agreed with Lerhe's assessment.
> 
> The Conservative government shows no appetite for boosting defence spending to that level, he said.
> 
> A strategic assessment, written last year and obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, sounded blunt warnings about the navy's future.
> 
> Among other things, it called for a massive injection of capital to upgrade existing vessels and to begin building the next generation of warships. Some of those concerns were addressed with the Arctic ships plan and the announcement that the country's 12 Halifax-class frigates will receive a $3.1 billion modernization.
> 
> But the assessment also painted a stark picture of the navy's struggle to live within its current $701-million operating budget, with the rising cost of fuel and maintenance and the departures of experienced sailors.
> 
> In early 2006, there was a shortage 276 qualified personnel, a situation that hasn't improved much in the last year, a navy official acknowledged.
> 
> With the regular navy stretched, Williams said the new icebreakers will likely be crewed by reservists.
> 
> "We really don't have a detailed answer yet for crewing concepts, but we think the naval reserves are going to play a massive role in the manning of these vessels," he said.
> 
> Unlike the army and the air force, which plug reservists into empty slots within existing units, the navy has a designated role for its existing 4,500 part-time sailors. They form entire ship's companies, crewing all 12 of the Kingston-class vessels.
> 
> Although Harper's government has pledged to add 13,000 reservists to the Canadian Forces, the bulk of them are destined for the army.
> 
> Asking reservists to crew the new Arctic ships will present some training challenges in terms of technology and the addition of helicopters, said Williams, but added he's confident they're up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> © The Canadian Press, 2007


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Any bets on where the MCDV's go?

Are they a good fit for the Coast Guard?

Would anyone buy them?


Matthew.    ???

P.S.  As a guy from Ontario, I had no idea the Coast Guard had so many vessels: 

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Of note, it looks like there are quite a few mid-70's vintage ships that could use replacing.


----------



## navymich

> It's still unclear what that role will be


I'm sure the rumourmill aka 'shadline', is running full out on this!



> The 55-metre coastal ships, originally conceived as minesweepers, are not suitable for patrols in choppy seas beyond the immediate coastline. At a top speed of 15 knots, they're also considered slow.


Can I see a show of hands who _didn't_ know this?  Duh! :  But that's for another topic, which I know there are many of around here.



> They've been a success story.


For all the naysayers  :nana: It's about time this was said in print!  And yet again off-topic for this thread, but I had to say it!



> Asking reservists to crew the new Arctic ships will present some training challenges in terms of technology and the addition of helicopters, said Williams, but added he's *confident they're up to the task*.


This is great to hear!  Of course they are up to the challenge.  They are chomping at the bit to get more qualifications.  There are too many supervisors on the boats that are doing a great job, but they are junior in rank and TI, and especially lacking in qualifications.  And the biggest reason for this is manpower.  There is no spare manpower to allow these personnel the opportunity to increase their knowledge base.  Not to mention the whole money and politics behind the "reserve qual does not equal reg qual" (note:  I am aware this is not true for all trades, but it is for a majority of the ones employed on the MCDVs).  They advance within their trade, but are sorely lacking for current training in keeping pace with their reg force counterparts. 


Even though I am no longer a part of the NavRes community, I was for too long not to be interested in how this story goes.  This announcement has really shaken things up, and my opinion is that it is what the shad world needs right now!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Cdn Blackshirt: I can't see the MCDVs having any particular utility for the CCG, which anyway has its own patrol vessel program underway:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-556243.html#msg556243

As for asserting sovereignty in Arctic waterways, an excellent article by a former CCG Deputy Commissioner (a brilliant public servant whom I knew):

A job for the Coast Guard
It's too bad that the Harper government's preoccupation with the military has caused it to overlook a more sensible solution to Arctic sovereignty
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88

Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cameron

I know it may be a bit early to ask about these kinds of details but still I guess it can't hurt to ask, apart from the ASW helos that these ships may be embarking,  will the ships themselves be equipped with ASW sonar?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Cdn Blackshirt: I can't see the MCDVs having any particular utility for the CCG, which anyway has its own patrol vessel program underway:
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-556243.html#msg556243
> 
> As for asserting sovereignty in Arctic waterways, an excellent article by a former CCG Deputy Commissioner (a brilliant public servant whom I knew):
> 
> A job for the Coast Guard
> It's too bad that the Harper government's preoccupation with the military has caused it to overlook a more sensible solution to Arctic sovereignty
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thanks for the update on the CCG program.

RE:  The article about the CCG doing the arctic patrols - until the CCG decides it's going to be an "armed" force, I totally disagree.


Matthew.


----------



## newfin

If you are looking for what sort of "mix" the Navy is hoping for in the future then check out this link:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_strat/strat-issues_e.asp?category=57&id=620&x=2

2x  littoral manoeuvre ships (LPD's?)
3x  JSS's
4-6x  submarines (I think that number is going to stay stuck at 4 for a very long time)
4x  AAD's
12-14x  frigates
28x  CH-148's 
16x  CP-140's 
8x A/OPS's
4-6x *coastal defence vessels*
*8-16x internal waters/inshore patrol vessels* (there's something new)
numerous TUAV's operated from ships and submarines

Thoughts?
Looks like the Kingston's numbers are to be reduced dramatically and numerous smaller inshore patrol vessels are to be added.  Perhaps similar in size and function to the Coast Guard's MSPV's? 

And I would like to know if 28x CH-148's are enough anymore?  With 6-8 more vessels of the A/OPS class requiring helo's that were not acounted for when the original order was placed, doesn't this mean that the Navy will find itself short on airframes?  Especially if you take into account the air requirements of those 2 Littoral Manoeuvre ships he refers to.  I personally think that you have seen the last of the big ticket items that this government is going to spend on the Navy for a long time now.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

newfin said:
			
		

> If you are looking for what sort of "mix" the Navy is hoping for in the future then check out this link:
> 
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_strat/strat-issues_e.asp?category=57&id=620&x=2
> 
> 2x  littoral manoeuvre ships (LPD's?)
> 3x  JSS's
> 4-6x  submarines (I think that number is going to stay stuck at 4 for a very long time)
> 4x  AAD's
> 12-14x  frigates
> 28x  CH-148's
> 16x  CP-140's
> 8x A/OPS's
> 4-6x *coastal defence vessels*
> *8-16x internal waters/inshore patrol vessels* (there's something new)
> numerous TUAV's operated from ships and submarines
> 
> Thoughts?
> Looks like the Kingston's numbers are to be reduced dramatically and numerous smaller inshore patrol vessels are to be added.  Perhaps similar in size and function to the Coast Guard's MSPV's?
> 
> And I would like to know if 28x CH-148's are enough anymore?  With 6-8 more vessels of the A/OPS class requiring helo's that were not acounted for when the original order was placed, doesn't this mean that the Navy will find itself short on airframes?  Especially if you take into account the air requirements of those 2 Littoral Manoeuvre ships he refers to.  I personally think that you have seen the last of the big ticket items that this government is going to spend on the Navy for a long time now.



I still would like to see (4) heavy armed ice breakers added to the mix.  

The potential resource in the Northwest Passage is huge and I don't think we should be cutting corners by not providing a year-round armed presence in those waters.

If it were me, I still would've bought the heavy ice breakers first, and then added the A/OPS second.

The one caveat is that I wonder from a technical standpoint if in order to have the capability to build heavy icebreaking vessels in Canada, we first need to be able to build ice-hardened ships like the A/OPV.  

If that is the case (and to me it would be somewhat logical), then I completely understand the order of procurement.


Matthew.


----------



## 30 for 30

Regarding the retired CGG executive's letter, don't we need capable, armed enforcement, at least at the entrances to the Northwest Passage, if large numbers of foreign merchant vessels start to use our northern waters as a shortcut a few years down the road? If we want to control the situation, don't we need the ability to use force? CCG patrols would be incapable of this role, and it would seem a few Mounties onboard would not be sufficient to do the job. 

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here. Mark knows a lot more about CGG than me, so I'm interested to hear that perspective.


----------



## Neill McKay

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> RE:  The article about the CCG doing the arctic patrols - until the CCG decides it's going to be an "armed" force, I totally disagree.



Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?

Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Senor Mono: There are two things.

1) Asserting sovereignty over the waterways by being able to maintain a government presence in them--it doesn't matter much in terms of law if that presence is civil or military.  And even if we did physically assert our presence in the waterways, if they become navigable we still might not win the case in international law (see the various straits in SE Asia, Dover Strait, many others).  It is noteworthy that the EU, Japan and Russia also do not recognize our claim to the Northwest Passage, a point our media usually ignore in painting the Americans as the threatening bad guys.

2) For dealing with any non-military problem CCG vessels can be armed with weapons  (e.g. machine guns) operated by others--Fishery Officers, RCMP, even the Navy.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?
> 
> Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.



I agree that building infrastructure is MORE important and that should happen regardless of what vessels are tasked with sovereignty patrols.

That being said, I think your other argument is downright silly.

History has shown that those who do not take pro-active measures to protect their assets, immediately have others begin eyeing those assets and pondering the risk-reward of taking them by force.  More to the point, those that don't pre-emptively protect their assets with sufficient armed force, invariable lose that sovereignty.  My own opinion is that there is an ever-greater likelihood of an energy-war within the next 20 years due to the dynamics of falling world supply and ballooning global demand.  With that in mind, I think Canada should be positioning ever-increasing military capability (as well as sovereign infrastructure, as per your point) in the north, to keep ratcheting up the "risk" side of that equation for anyone who is considering doing something stupid.  And should they still decide to do something stupid, then yes, I think you fight.  That's the point of sovereignty.  If it's yours, you fight for it.   So if that's the underlying principle of sovereignty that I assume we agree upon, and we're prepared to protect our sovereignty, procurement and planning should be based on *winning* any conflict that could take place in our north....and investing in unarmed Coast Guard Vessels adds nothing to that equation.


Matthew.


----------



## 30 for 30

It's a warm arctic July in 2020, and the Passage has turned into a convenient summer freeway for all manner of shipping. Let's say a particular merchant vessel wanted to transit, and let's say we had major concerns regarding this particular VOI with respect to the risk of an environmental accident in our waters. How will unarmed CCG ships prevent this vessel's transit? This was an example that came to mind.  

Good points all around, thanks for the insight.


----------



## Privateer

With respect to the northern station (base) for these vessels, my initial thought (not based on actual arctic experience) would be that the most preferable solution would include:

- Two stations, one near each end of the Northwest passage.  While two stations may sound extravagant, would it not cut down on the the cost in time and fuel of transiting from one end of the passage to a centrally located station?  I don't imagine that the northern stations would look anything like the dockyards in Esquimalt or Halifax:  They would just be for fueling, reprovisioning (perhaps) and possible crew change.  (Or am I missing something?)

- On the continental mainland:  So that they can be accessed year-round, possibly by rail, for ease of maintenance and resupply.

Thoughts?  Any suggestions for locations (in addition to Churchill)?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Senor Mono: 





> How will unarmed CCG ships prevent this vessel's transit?



The same way they do now in all other Canadian waters, which is assume the vessel will obey instructions.  Why should we be more worried about hypothetical Arctic cases than about present reality?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 30 for 30

Seen. From my perspective I envision a hypothetical, law-breaking, problematic VOI being stopped in other Canadian waters (ie. East Coast/West Coast), if necessary, by naval assets who have the ability to control movement. As we have no such capability in arctic waters, I understand the desire for that armed presence in the arctic that can control a situation versus standing by and watching laws being broken (or other applicable problems). 

Of course this isn't a common scenario, but it could be, and military forces ideally exist for all contingencies. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mark, I can't do it.  I have tried but I can't help myself.  

Canada has exchanged shots over fish.  Britain and Iceland have bumped over fish.  China and Vietnam, Italy and Greece, and France and Spain.  The US arrests Canadian fishermen in disputed waters.  Personally I know of American fishermen trading shots over fishing spots in the North Pacific and American trawlers outrunning Russian Coast Guards.

The Inuit have been complaining about Greenlanders poaching bears on Baffin Island and lack of control over the shrimp fishery.  Poachers are a sufficiently lawless bunch that Park Wardens and Game Officers have been asking to be armed for years - and have been subsequently told not to enforce the laws - leave that up to the RCMP.

Piracy is a common enough event where there is inadequate supervision of the seas.  We don't have piracy because we don't have ships using the arctic.  Presumably if we do have ships up there, and we don't police the area vigorously then piracy becomes an issue.

We have not yet got to bumping hulls with the Danish Navy over Hans Island, or the US over fishing in the Beaufort but given open water......

The USCG seems to feel the need to be heavily armed so as to be able to interdict smugglers of all stripes.


I agree - the Coast Guard needs to have its ice-breaking fleet renewed, heavied up and probably expanded.  But I can't believe that you can bridge the culture gap within that organisation between those that are comfortable with shooting and being shot at and those that aren't.  You have the Park Warden, Border Services issue all over again.

The preferred solution seems to be to call for the RCMP to come along to do the dangerous bits.  And that isn't such a bad idea.  It might make more sense to put the RCMP onto border and internal policing duties with additional numbers and relieve them of some of their other "security investigation" files.  Apply that paramilitary culture to a paramilitary environment.

But can you tell me that Coast Guard vessels, even if they were armed with guns manned by the RCMP, would be comfortable closing with other vessels that are shooting back?  You say that you work now with the expectation that people will obey the law and cooperate.  People don't obey the law and cooperate on the 401 or at Yonge and Bloor.  Why would they do it any more willingly 500 miles from the nearest witness?

It seems to me to be a much better division of labour to have the Coast Guard operating the SAR, the aids to navigation, the permissive enforcement of civil law, support for research  and hydrography etc while the Navy trails along on the horizon reminding the locals to behave and play nice.  With these A/OPVs the Navy can more closely escort CG breakers, or perhaps it should be that the CG breakers could create highways in the ice that commercial ships can transit and the Navy patrol.


Cheers Mark ------ What Round Number is this?   I have lost count. ;D




http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010347

1995 - Canada (a DFO vessel) fired on the Spanish trawler Estai 



> 1) China and Vietnam have exchanged gunshots over fishing rights surrounding the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
> 
> 2) Italy and Greece have squabbled over the former’s use of drift nets in the Mediterranean.
> 
> 3) The U.S. Coast Guard has arrested Canadian fishing boats in waters that both countries claim off the British Columbia coast north of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
> 
> 4) France and Spain, allies in the confrontation with Canada over turbot, have themselves traded machine-gun fire in a dispute over fishing in the Bay of Biscay.




Britain and Iceland Cod Wars.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nationonfilm/topics/fishing/background_decline.shtml



> Cod Wars
> 
> The first 'Cod war' took place in 1958, when Iceland, extended its coastal fishing limit, from 4 miles, to 12 miles.
> 
> The Second Cod War started in 1972 when Iceland extended its coastal non-fishing limit to 50 miles.
> 
> It ended with an agreement between the two countries that limited British fishing to restricted areas, within the 50-mile limit.
> 
> This agreement was valid for two years and expired on November 13 1975, when the third "Cod War" started.
> 
> Between November 1975, and June 1976, the cod brought two NATO allies to the brink of war.
> 
> Great Britain and Iceland confronted each other as Iceland proclaimed its authority to 200 miles from its coastline.
> 
> British trawlers had their nets cut by Icelandic Coast Guard vessels and there were numerous rammings between Icelandic ships and British trawlers and frigates.
> 
> Iceland claimed that it was merely enforcing what would soon be international law.



International Maritime Bureau live map on Piracy Attacks

http://www.icc-ccs.org/extra/display.php

No attacks in the Arctic but, there again, no ships in the Arctic.


Edit:  I just can't see anybody running down a fleeing ship in an icefield with an ice-breaker.  Get out the helicopter.  Get out the snowmobile.  Or get out and walk  and you could catch up faster.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: 





> It seems to me to be a much better division of labour to have the Coast Guard operating the SAR, the aids to navigation, the permissive enforcement of civil law, support for research  and hydrography etc while the Navy trails along on the horizon reminding the locals to behave and play nice.  With these A/OPVs the Navy can more closely escort CG breakers, or perhaps it should be that the CG breakers could create highways in the ice that commercial ships can transit and the Navy patrol.
> 
> Cheers Mark ------ What Round Number is this?   I have lost count. Grin



OK.  Then buy maybe four A/OPVs just in case somebody might have to threaten force sometime in the Arctic.  Which has never happened in actual Canadian territorial waters short of war--the Estai was not in territorial waters and the Navy wasn't used (on the surface).  Much political and nationalist ado about nothing that won't in the end be settled under international law without any Canadian vessel ever firing a shot .  Meanwhile CCG icebreakers can do all that can be done, under international law, to try and establish a claim that the Northwest Passage is a Canadian sovereign inland waterway.

I am dubious about the claim if the ice really does melt.  But that's another issue .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with you on the ice question Mark.  Too early to tell.

Actually I am hoping that the final design of these A/OPVs will be more like a pocket LPD like the Kiwi's Canterbury but based on the Svalbard.  Useful for ice operations, supporting domestic littoral operations, EEZ patrols and disaster response.  Vessels that are workhorses but that can also be used to work the kinks out of Army/Navy cooperation before spending some big bucks on LPDs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill:
> OK.  Then buy maybe four A/OPVs just in case somebody might have to threaten force sometime in the Arctic.  Which has never happened in actual Canadian territorial waters short of war--the Estai was not in territorial waters and the Navy wasn't used (on the surface).  Much political and nationalist ado about nothing that won't in the end be settled under international law without any Canadian vessel ever firing a shot .  Meanwhile CCG icebreakers can do all that can be done, under international law, to try and establish a claim that the Northwest Passage is a Canadian sovereign inland waterway.
> 
> I am dubious about the claim if the ice really does melt.  But that's another issue .
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Mark, I beg to differ on the Estai incident...I was on the Terra Nova when we helped bring her in.


----------



## Neill McKay

Senor Mono said:
			
		

> It's a warm arctic July in 2020, and the Passage has turned into a convenient summer freeway for all manner of shipping.



In which case, who needs icebreakers?  MCDVs (which, one presumes, will still be in service then!  ) would be fine for the job.


----------



## Neill McKay

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I agree that building infrastructure is MORE important and that should happen regardless of what vessels are tasked with sovereignty patrols.
> 
> That being said, I think your other argument is downright silly.
> 
> History has shown that those who do not take pro-active measures to protect their assets, immediately have others begin eyeing those assets and pondering the risk-reward of taking them by force.  More to the point, those that don't pre-emptively protect their assets with sufficient armed force, invariable lose that sovereignty.  My own opinion is that there is an ever-greater likelihood of an energy-war within the next 20 years due to the dynamics of falling world supply and ballooning global demand.  With that in mind, I think Canada should be positioning ever-increasing military capability (as well as sovereign infrastructure, as per your point) in the north, to keep ratcheting up the "risk" side of that equation for anyone who is considering doing something stupid.  And should they still decide to do something stupid, then yes, I think you fight.  That's the point of sovereignty.  If it's yours, you fight for it.   So if that's the underlying principle of sovereignty that I assume we agree upon, and we're prepared to protect our sovereignty, procurement and planning should be based on *winning* any conflict that could take place in our north....and investing in unarmed Coast Guard Vessels adds nothing to that equation.



I think we're talking about two quite different situations here.  You're contemplating a shooting war over territory, and I agree that if such a thing becomes a realistic possibility then we should be prepared to fight.

But that's worlds apart from us wanting to stop peaceful use of our waters by merchant traffic.  Firing at a freighter because it wants to go through our waters against our desires is an extremely serious matter, and I strongly doubt we will ever see it in our lifetimes.  If it comes to that then it will definitely be a naval matter, because the next ship that comes by is likely to be a warship from the same country as the freighter.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem with icebreaking with it being left in the CCG hands is as a unionized body they have the right to go on strike and with that we put people at risk. I saw ice breaking is a role that should go to the Navy.


----------



## Kirkhill

OOOH.  Ex-D plays the "essential service" card....... >


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: Sorry about HMCS Terra Nova; but I believe the actual shooting was done by a DFO vessel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Terra_Nova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War



> ...The Estai cut its weighted trawl net and fled, resulting in a chase which stretched over several hours and ended only after the Canadian Fisheries Patrol vessel Cape Roger firing of a .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun across the bow of the Estai. The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Sir Wilfred Grenfell used high-pressure fire-fighting water cannons to deter other Spanish fishing vessels from disrupting the enforcement operation. Finally, armed DFO and RCMP officers boarded the vessel in international waters on the Grand Banks and placed it and its crew under arrest...



The CCG was under Transport Canada in March 1995.  Shortly thereafter it was transferred to DFO and in 1996/97 the two civilian fleets were merged under the Coast Guard.

I don't think icebreaking operations have ever been seriously dislocated by union actions;  CCG personnel tend to be very devoted to their work.  And I think Navy people would be bored stiff if they took over all icebreaking including in the St. Lawrence.

Maybe we could use water cannon to cause civilian vessels to heave to in the Northwest Passage! 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

newfin: I can't believe we still have a government that doesn't take the Coast Guard seriously enough .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

newfin said:
			
		

> I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships.



As soon as they're willing to be armed, great.  Until then, I'd be cutting their procurement and roles, and re-assigning to the navy.

You want to be unarmed?  Great, you're in charge of fisheries and buoy's....and minesweeping.

I should add, as a person who has ZERO faith in unions, I'd also be pushing to de-unionize and have the Coast Guard operate as a branch of the armed forces, under the same rules.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon: Sorry about HMCS Terra Nova; but I believe the actual shooting was done by a DFO vessel:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Terra_Nova
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War
> 
> The CCG was under Transport Canada in March 1995.  Shortly thereafter it was transferred to DFO and in 1996/97 the two civilian fleets were merged under the Coast Guard.
> 
> I don't think icebreaking operations have ever been seriously dislocated by union actions;  CCG personnel tend to be very devoted to their work.  And I think Navy people would be bored stiff if they took over all icebreaking including in the St. Lawrence.
> 
> Maybe we could use water cannon to cause civilian vessels to heave to in the Northwest Passage!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I never said we did the shooting but you made it sound like there was no naval participation there at all, I was clarifying there was.


----------



## newfin

I'd like to know if anyone has any idea about what is meant by the phrase "support operation ashore via landing craft"?

Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.

I mean, I know what a landing craft is (at least I think I do).  Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well?  Does the Navy envision being able to put soldiers and materiel ashore via an undefended beach, such as are common in the Arctic?  I just can't think of what they have in mind here.


----------



## R933ex

Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well?  

Actually the CCG has craft akin to I believe LCVPs that they use to support fuel resupply in the communities they are launched by crane off of ships that are within the same size bracket (I saw a couple of them last year in Nunavut)

As per base resolute right in the center, home of the AWS why not??


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

While a RHIB or Zodiac are not lamding craft by definition we do send large parties ashore in them. I also believe the quasi frigate Absalon class that the Danes use carry LCVPs. You are forgetting that this new class of ship we are looking at will be doing a lot of independent operations and it only makes sense to give it auxiliary craft that it may have to use instead of or in addition to the conventional rhibs and zodiacs we give them today.


----------



## newfin

Thanks Dragoon.  I'll look up the Absalon class to have a look at the LCVP.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons


 that can serve in any icebreaking role and also have substantial naval capabilities?  I still think the displacement of the new vessels must have been misreported.  The Svalbard is about the same length but weighs twice as much.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Neill McKay

Stoker said:
			
		

> Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.



It was considered several years ago and rejected; but the DFO fisheries patrol fleet was merged into the CCG.  Some of the reasons presumably were that CCG members are cheaper to train than naval personnel (e.g. apart from officers, the Coast Guard doesn't take people off the street and train them from the ground up to be sailors -- Coast Guard ratings join with experience elsewhere.)  CF training costs a fortune.

Skill sets are another issue: why train all of the deck officers in the considerable number of Coast Guard ships in the strictly naval subjects when most of those skillsets aren't required in Coast Guard operations?

Also, the working conditions are radically different.  A person can join the Coast Guard as an officer and stay a seagoing officer until retirement if he wants to, while a reg. force naval officer will get his sea postings, but with staff jobs ashore mixed in (and more and more of them as he goes on).  My usual comment on the subject goes along the lines and merging the Coast Guard with the navy would be something like merging the fire department with the police -- different roles, different culture, different working conditions -- it's not much of a stretch to say that all they have in common is that they work in ships and wear blue shirts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy
> 
> Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.



I agree with you that we need to bolster our presence in the arctic. I'm heading there in the near future as part of OP NANOOK. The ship i'm on presently has limited ice capability so we'll certainly have to watch ourselves. I think its great that i'll have the chance to sail on one of the new ice strengthened corvettes, I actually am hoping to get a posting to the project staff of these ships once the manning for them is announced.


----------



## Stoker

So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?


----------



## PO2FinClk

Stoker said:
			
		

> So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?


Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.


----------



## Stoker

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?
> 
> I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.



I would say Churchill because of the existing infrastructure, airstrip and access to rail would be a better choice. The ships could also get some 2nd line maintenance and fuel there as well. The ships would be based in Halifax and Victoria.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

An interesting perspective....in which he highlights my biggest concern with our to-be-procured "ice-hardened ships".


Matthew.     



> The true North may be strong, but the plan to protect it is feeble
> By PETER WILSON
> Former director of informatics and communications, Nunavut Planning Commission
> Tuesday, July 17, 2007 – Page A17
> 
> Stephen Harper touted his announcement last week of $3.1-billion worth of patrol ships for the Arctic as a declaration of sovereignty, and it is. But it's a declaration of sovereignty by Ottawa over the people who have lived in Canada's Arctic for thousands of years, not a declaration of our sovereignty to other nations.
> 
> *The federal government plans to spend billions of dollars to create jobs in southern Canada by building patrol vessels for the North. When they're ready, around 2014, the "slushbreakers" won't actually be capable of operating in the Arctic year-round; they'll have to retreat to the South when it gets too cold for them up North. So midwinter would be a good time for other nations such as the U.S. or Russia to visit, because they have the capability to cruise through or under Canadian Arctic waters in any season and there'll be plenty of mooring space available at our new northern port.*
> 
> When it's too cold for Canada's new ships to operate, we'll rely on "monitoring" the Arctic, using satellite images, interpreted by experts in the South, like some kind of video game. At least we won't get cold.
> 
> This is an embarrassment. There are many important things that only Canada can do in its Arctic - all of them assert sovereignty. And we can do them right now, for very little money.
> 
> Monitor and report on the Arctic environment.
> 
> Nunavut, a territory so big it would be the 14th-largest country on Earth, has no environmental monitoring program (despite the 14-year-old Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that calls for one). A pan-Arctic environmental monitoring and reporting program would tell the world that Canada understands and cares about its Arctic environment.
> 
> Provide better wildlife management.
> 
> We can only guess at the population of the two great herds of caribou in the North. The good news is that, after 13 years, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board has cobbled together donations of cash and jet fuel from provincial and territorial governments, an environmental group, and industry - enough to conduct a survey of one of the two herds this summer. Surveying one herd every 13 years is a national disgrace.
> 
> Create a realistic search and rescue operation.
> 
> With commercial aircraft crisscrossing the Canadian Arctic, it's unacceptable to base Arctic search and rescue in Trenton, Ont. Trenton is closer to Quito, Ecuador, than it is to our military base at Alert. A northern-based search and rescue operation is a declaration of sovereignty and a service Canadians will increasingly need as northern development increases.
> 
> Let Northern people manage northern resources.
> 
> Nunavut doesn't have the talented people required to manage its lands and resources. Scientific and survey methods, satellite images, aerial photographs and geographic information systems are the modern tools of land and resource management. Add skills in these areas to the traditional knowledge of northerners and Canada will benefit from the type of responsible land use envisioned in northern land claims agreements.
> 
> Improve regulatory efficiency.
> 
> The North is rich in diamonds, gold, uranium, oil and gas, base metals, and much more, but mining companies complain that access is difficult because of the complicated regulatory environment. A national program that provided online map staking and a one-window Internet-based land-use application system would go a long way toward showing the world that we are administering our resources fairly and efficiently.
> 
> So, here's the plan. For a tiny fraction of what taxpayers will spend on Mr. Harper's patrol vessels, the federal government could operate a northern-based Arctic aerial monitoring program. Inuit and other northern residents could be trained to fly Canadian-built bush planes from community bases across the Arctic, from Labrador to Yukon. These small northern-based teams could provide regular, low cost, sovereignty patrols, general environmental monitoring, ice patrols, land-use permit inspections and enforcement, search and rescue, aerial photography and wildlife surveys.
> 
> There's a plethora of groups, governments and industries that need these services. Such a program would reduce duplication, provide the services and information required to manage resources and assert sovereignty over our North. It would increase the efficiency of access to land by resource developers, and provide training and employment for northerners. The entire plan could be set up and operated for less than 5 per cent of the cost of the patrol vessels announced last week.
> 
> The only catch: We might get cold in the winter.
> 
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070717/COARCTIC17/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways.  

International offshore boundaries are also still not settled, nor use of seabed resources.  But these will settled on the basis of customary and treaty international law, not the patrolling of vessels.   The situation in the waterways we consider "domestic" (and practically everyone else disagrees) will also eventually be settled under international law; being able to maintain a presence there at most times (which only new CCG icebreakers could do) might help our case but is not likely to be determinative.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Neill McKay

I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?


 For some strange reason I have a vision of Hippos dancing?


----------



## Greymatters

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways.



I think he is refering to the is recent challenge here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464921
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=41c21a5a-d645-4108-b5ce-2df30551470e&k=15448

Now, I couldnt find it on the net, but the original news story showed the Russian arctic claim reaching into Canada's northern islands based on continental shelf projections.  Nearly every map Ive seen since then has different claim areas.  Its uncertain at this time just how much land the Russians are attempting to lay claim to.


----------



## LakeSup

New article today:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/589c552e-45eb-11dc-b359-0000779fd2ac.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

This makes sense to me--and then the patrol ships could be redesigned to be much more capable vessels, to replace or supplement the MCDVs, without a serious icebreaking capability

New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=852819



> While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.
> 
> In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.
> 
> Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:
> 
> • Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.
> 
> • Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.
> 
> • Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.
> 
> • Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.
> 
> • Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)
> 
> • The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.
> 
> The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.
> 
> New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers...
> 
> Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I think it remains an absolutely insane place to invest scarce $ as long as the Coast Guard demands to continue to remain an unarmed service.  

Sovereignty isn't only being there....it's demonstrating an ability to defend said area.  Spending $600 million on an unarmed unionized vessel versus $1 billion on an armed military vessel is apples & oranges in terms of your ROI.  

In case no one else has noticed, the Russians are really ratcheting things up with their long-range bomber flights and all indications are they are only going to get more, rather than less aggressive in coming years.  To plan on things remaining as per status quo has never been wise.  The trend unfortunately is for increased tension and as such putting unarmed vessels into that environment (if the union drivers will even agree to go which sadly is something that needs to be considered if tension levels do ramp up) borders upon negligence.


Matthew.    ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agree Matthew(lol thats a wierd occurence  )Personally I think if a ship will be used in the law enforcement role or perform any naval mission it should be armed. The CCG should drop any sort of enforcement from their mandate totally.


----------



## cameron

I too have to agree completely with Matthew.  At a time when Russia is ratcheting up tensions, in the Arctic and elsewhere, an unarmed icebreaker would be  unrealistic and inadequate for defending Canada's arctic sovereignty.  As far as i'm concerned as long as the Coast Guard refuses to take up a more aggressive mandate then guarding Canada's arctic should rest squarely with the navy.

I should also point out that a few months ago I started a thread expressing my concerns that the war in Afghanistan, as completely justified as it is, seemed to giving some of our leaders tunnel vision and our navy was being neglected.  Let's hope the very loud and threatening growls being made by the Russian bear will be a wake up call to them. 

Also while the new Arctic/Offshore patrol ships and FELEX program for the Canadian Navy are welcome news, much more needs to be done if Canada is to have a credible naval deterrent to any designs the Russians and others have on her arctic territory.  I argued in another recent thread that it takes too long for new ships to be brought to the fleet.  I see no good reason why Canada couldn't be at the same stage of progress as Australia right now when it comes to acquiring a next generation frigate/destroyer.  In fact it would have made sense for Canada to cooperate with the Aussies on their AAW destroyer (each party of course tailoring a ship to meet their unique needs), this would give the Canadian Navy a capability it needs (and which it needs now more than ever) much sooner at much less cost, we still have too long a wait for the SCSC to become a reality (if it isn't axed before that happens).  

Canada also needs a credible submarine deterrent.  I'm not talking about nuclear subs here, as we all know a good diesel boat is a significant threat to even the most powerful destroyer, cruiser or aircraft carrier.  In the face of Russia's advances in the arctic Canada needs subs THAT ACTUALLY WORK.  Having a boat with great capabilities on paper is no help.  

Last of all let me repeat a point that i've belaboured before, when making budget cuts politicians (and some military leaders) need to seek expert advice and analyse the long term picture, not just current threats.  Just a few years ago the possibility of a showdown between Canada and Russia in the arctic would have been scoffed at by many.  And just a few months ago many were arguing that the only likely battleground the CF would find themselves engaged on is in Kandahar.   Just because on the 15th of August 2006 there doesn't seem to be any apparent adversary that would challenge the Canadian Navy or Air Force in Canadian territorial waters or airspace doesn't mean that will be the case on 15th August 2007.


----------



## STONEY

1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.

2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

3. You are really dreaming if you actually think any Arctic disputes would ever be decided by anything other than international tribunals.

4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required

5. Just what would Navy icebreakers do in the Arctic besides steaming around in circles boring their crews to death. The Coast Guard has many essential jobs it does in the Arctic , in fact usually more than it has ships for that just can't practially be done by the Navy.

6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.

7. Remember when the Navy had a ice breaker , HMCS Labrador it was fitted for but not with weapons and after a very short period the Navy realised it really didn't need it and gave it to the Coast guard who used it for a further 30 odd years. You may want a Navy icebreaker but i doubt very much the Navy agrees with you. Now the Coast Guard is a different story , they would really like to have some new Heavy Icebreakers if the Government would give them the money to operate them. Canada's present largest icebreaker spends a great deal of time alongside because the Coast Guard doesn't have the funds to operate it as much as it would like. As a matter of fact the ship along with the only other large icebreaker is due to move to another region of the country because the government has sold its old operating base along with 2 other Coast Guard bases in the Maritimes.  So in a few years the Maritimes went from 5 large icebreakers to 0 and the rest of the fleet wasn't spared either. For the Gov. to pretend interest in the arctic again ( its happened before but fades after a couple years) it has a funny way of showing it.

Cheers


----------



## MarkOttawa

Stoney: Exactly.  And as I have pointed out several times at various topics, CCG vessels do carry armed RCMP when necessary--now regularly on the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes--and presumably could act as a platform for CF personnel and their weapons (including mounting machine guns) if that was considered necessary.

The idea that our Navy, even if capable, would engage in a shoot-out with the Russians or Americans (or Danes) in the Arctic is simply silly.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am glad your crystal ball is better then mine but to totally discount we won't be muscled out of the Arctic by the Russians or anyone else borders on stupidity. We need to prepare for the worse case scenario just in case the fit hits the shan. If we don't, we up the chance we lose people. Who knows in the future who will also decide they want a claim in the resources of the Arctic, you just cannot dismiss the possibility so cavalierly.

As for only small armed equipped ships in the Arctic, last I checked the Thetis class carried a 76mm.

One of the Zoomies will verify this but I think the CP140s lost their capability for fire missiles a long time ago...


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoney and Mark:

The Danes are armed with guns so as to "out-gun" trawlers from Spain, Portugal, Iceland, the US, Russia, Norway and Canada.  

Their sailors get "bored silly" cruising in circles defending Denmark's right to lay claim to Lomontsov Ridge and Hans Island, just as their soldiers get bored silly doing Sirius Patrols of the Coast of Greenland.  They do it because they can and it works when laying claim in court.  (It'll be a heck of a thing if the Danes prove that the Lomontsov Ridge CONNECTS Greenland to Russia.  Will Denmark lay claim to Russia?)

Most sovereignty patrols are boring - as are most night-watchman's jobs.  That doesn't mean they don't have to be done.

Cruising in circles to support fisheries and anti-smuggling operations in the Open Water EEZ or the High Seas is also boring.  They also need to be done.

I don't care if these vessels WERE bought to:

"...spend the bulk of there (sic) time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments."

Or that:

"They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters."

As you say:

"... given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened."

As I have said, the primary advantage of them is that they are "platforms/tin-cans/tupper-ware containers" with motors and flags manned by people who EXPECT to have to close on people shooting at them - and here I am talking about criminals and terrorists armed, potentially, with weapons that could include ATGMs or even SSMs.  

It seems reasonable that if this platform can supply 80% of Gordon O'Connor's "Canada First" Intent AND 80% of what the Navy wanted for an OPV that was both domestically effective and deployable AND would free up the CPFs for overseas deployments then it justifies itself as a useful buy.

You are right.  It is silly to envisage the Louis St-Laurent trading shots with the Healey.  It'd be worse than Fontenoy or Trafalgar - a 4 MPH approach speed and no room to manoeuvre. Just sit there and slug it out.  Tain't gonna hoppen.

Besides the Americans aren't bothered about meeting our Navy in the North.  They are bothered about NOT meeting our navy in the North and having the place open to the use of other, less friendly individuals.  And they have already demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq a willingness to "mow the neighbour's lawn" if the neighbour isn't taking care of it to their satisfaction.

BY ALL MEANS (sorry for the caps) buy new, heavier, unarmed breakers to maintain the CIVIL infrastructure up north - clearing industrial sites and navigable routes.  By all means they should have helicopter platforms and hotels on board.  And, by all means, make sure there is an RCMP/DFO det on board to enforce the laws.

However we all seem to be forgetting the "Reach Back Principle".  Properly applied it means the "night watchman" doesn't need to be armed.  He can reach back for assistance from an armed policeman on patrol in the area.  If the policeman can't get the job done he reaches back for an infantry platoon.  If that doesn't work time to call up a LAV Company, then an Armoured Battle Group, then Air Support, etc (mix and match to suit your tastes).

All of which supports your contention that the Breakers don't need to be armed. 

It also supports the need for the NAVY to be able to operate in your vicinity.  If it can't patrol in your Area of Operations, if it can't deliver heavy weapons to your Area of Operations then, when you "reach back" there will be no one there to hand you the support you need.

As to the Navy not being able to operate in your Area of Operations I would suggest that you figure out how to help them get up to speed fast.

Their lack of experience is a result of both lack of appropriate kit and lack of interest.  Interest now seems to be there and kit seems to be coming.

And, once again, I hope that you get your heavy, unarmed, ice-breakers.  There's work for them.  

There is also work for the A/OPVs that is separate from your requirements.

Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm just wanted to address two key points you raised:



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> 1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.



Which is why DND hires the senior people who do know the area like the back of their hands as trainers/advisors and you disseminate that knowledge

Capability does not need to be, and should not be stove-piped, nor ever used as an excuse not to re-allocate responsibilities.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> 2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..



I think pre-emptively abandoning military dominance over an area we're supposedly laying sovereign claim to, only invites others to bully us in that region, which in turn heightens, not reduces the likelihood of future conflict.


Matthew.


----------



## MarkOttawa

_The Economist_ assesses Arctic realities (good map):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012


> ...
> For all the historic resonance of Russia's flag-planting foray, the current dash to the Arctic is not—or at any rate, not yet—a simple race to create “facts on the ground” which can then be consolidated, and if necessary defended, by military power. It has more to do with the establishment of legal arguments, which have to be shored up by scientific data.
> 
> All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.
> 
> Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.
> 
> As for the United States, it respects the convention in practice but has not ratified it, because some senators fear a loss of American sovereignty. The bodies created by the convention—the International Seabed Authority, and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—worry conservative American groups like the Heritage Foundation which fear global bureaucracies.
> 
> These objections may soon be overcome: the Bush administration, along with moderate Republican senators like Richard Lugar now want to sign up to the convention and start making America's case.
> 
> But between setting out a claim under the Law of the Sea and enjoying the fruits of ownership there is a long route to be trodden. An agency called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf decides on the merits of the case, but it has no powers of enforcement. A ruling may lead to counter-claims by other countries. In the end, bilateral talks may be needed; they can last for decades. There have been calls, over the years, for a more sensible way of dividing up the Arctic—but as the prizes look more tantalising, setting rules for the game will probably get even harder...
> 
> Take the Northwest Passage, to which the newly proclaimed Canadian port of Nanisivik marks the eastern entrance. At the moment, this route through the Canadian archipelago is navigable at best for a brief summer spell. (Sovereignty over the passage is one of the Arctic's many unresolved issues: Canada claims it, but the United States says the waters are international  [as does just about everybody else].) In theory, a complete opening of the Northwest Passage can shave 2,500 miles off a journey from Europe to Asia. But Lawson Brigham of the United States Arctic Research Commission, based in Alaska, is not convinced the financial gains will be dramatic. “Has anybody done the economics?” the former coastguard captain asks. In fact, he and fellow researchers from the Arctic Council are doing some sums at the moment; they will complete their assessment of global warming's impact on shipping next year.
> 
> Despite the appearance of a free-for-all, governments and scientists still co-operate over the Arctic; often there is no choice. In the Danish expedition that set sail this week, the Swedish ice-breaker is being led northwards by a larger Russian one, the 50 Years of Victory. And, despite a Canadian-Danish tiff over tiny Hans Island, the Canadians will help the Danes by providing some data on the ridge...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> _The Economist_ assesses Arctic realities (good map):
> http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012
> Mark
> Ottawa



And all as it should be....

That doesn't prevent us arming police officers in low crime areas.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

STONEY said:
			
		

> 2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..



I really don't think that Rusky submarine only had a flag onboard, cash strapped as they are I'm pretty sure they had torpedos.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> 4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required


The Aurora doesn't operate solely in the arctic, they are a Martime Patrol Aircraft, and being an ex sailor who's never visited the Arctic, I've worked with more than a few in my time.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> 6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.



What? and the CPF's and 280's dont spend a signifigant amount of time doing just that now.

I understand the CCG wants icebreakers at any cost but our sovereingty is being challanged for the first time since 1812, and I'm sorry no offence meant to the RCMP but a handful of pistols will do not good against a russion sub, even as a detterent. It's a grander version of why police carry pistols, not to shoot bad guys with, but to make bad guys think twice about shooting in the first place.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ArtyNewbie: What about the Fenian Raids of 1866?
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3030166.html

Not to mention U-boats in the St. Lawrence during WW II.
http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-mob-gol-e.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Navy and the Coast Guard are two very different beasts with different tasks, however the Navy is going to need some Arctic capability and the Coast Guard is going to need to become a lightly armed service in support and defense of Canada’s coastlines. The arming of the Coast Guard will always be secondary to it’s primary tasks which are: SAR, Nav-Aids, Icebreaking and ocean science support. The first step for the Coast Guard is to set up the larger ships to mount HMG’s and secure comm’s (I think this is already happening) so they can support/protect boarding parties. The boarding parties will need to be made up of other services for now. The guard is far more economical in crew size than the navy, a 1100 class Icebreaker (272’) has a crew of 26, they don’t have enough crew for a dedicated boarding party and they don’t have the funds to increase crew size. The arming of the ships with HMG’s will be fairly cheap and training can take place at sea during regular crew hours. Also the possible use of a remote weapon station using a 25mm gun is quite feasible and enables the gunner to be on the bridge under the Captain’s control. This is another issue to be dealt with, is that the Captains are Merchant Seaman and may not be up to ordering their crews to firing on another ship, the guard would be loath to replace an otherwise excellent captain because of this issue. The Guard will need to start training young officers now in basic use of armed force to build the expertise. The other option is to place a senior naval officer aboard with the responsibility to handle the armed portion of a action, acting in a similar authority role as a Ships Pilot. So the real issue about arming the Guard is not the technical side, but creating a cultural shift to build the skills and attitudes required without also effecting their primary responsibilities.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Then there was the Alaska Boundary Dispute settled against Canada's claims in 1903.
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000107

Of course in 1812 there was no one "Canada" and in 1866 and 1903 we were not fully sovereign.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I stand corrected 

There were also some Japanese shootings (from a submarine I might add) on the west coast during WWII
http://www.pinetreeline.org/rds/detail/rds99-34.html

So there have been a few but this is the first time a Nation other than the US has attempted to claim Canadian Territory as thier own. If you boil it right down that would be like walking across the US Border at Seward and planting a Canadian Flag.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ArtyNewbie: Nobody is claiming any *territory* that Canada says is ours.  Moreover other countries are not "claiming" the maritime passageways--they are simply saying they are international waters, not Canadian domestic waterways.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## old medic

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ArtyNewbie: Nobody is claiming any *territory* that Canada says is ours.  Moreover other countries are not "claiming" the maritime passageways--they are simply saying they are international waters, not Canadian domestic waterways.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I don't quite understand your claim that nobody is claiming territory. The CBC website 
lists five claims against Canadian territory.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/boundary_disputes/

The Canadian Geographic Society lists six on their website.
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mapping/mappingcanada/1999.asp


----------



## aesop081

STONEY said:
			
		

> 4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic ,



We are already being used everywhere in the world, not just the arctic.  We can be armed with other things than torps as it is now, always have been.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Old medic:  We're only talking about the Arctic.  I forgot about Hans Island.   I admit also that I forgot the Beufort Sea maritime boundary dispute with the US.  But that's it.  To reiterate nobody is claiming the NW Passage as theirs, they're just saying it isn't ours but rather international.  There are likely to be conflicting claims to the seabed but no formal claims have yet been made by any country.  Other than Hans there are no land claims against Canadian territory.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

What exactly do you call planting a national flag or representation thereof if not a land (seabed) claim?


----------



## Kirkhill

The Fenians are an interesting case.

Non-State actors, they were civilians in uniform with military training and experience and the best modern military equipment available at the time.

Were they criminals, terrorists, religious fanatics or freedom fighters?  Given that they operated freely in the US, organizing and collecting donations, would Canada and Britain have been justified in attacking the US (the Fenians in Ireland were a threat to the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and an armed insurgency)?

Would the Geneva Conventions, first approved in 1864, two years before the first of the Fenian Raids, have applied to this armed NGO?

The Fenians also had an on-again/off-again relation with Louis Riel but ultimately Riel organized arms against the Fenians.  Suppose that the two parties had managed to find common ground against the fledgling liberal democracy that Canada was?

1864-1875 was a fairly fraught period for Canada.  Not all of the interested parties were states.

History has a way of repeating itself with new casts of characters.


----------



## MarkOttawa

ArtyNewbie: The flag planting was not a legal claim, it was a demonstration.  
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/DA431318-92ED-493C-8797-9C2C38CD6344.html



> They [Russians] had a go at this already in 2001, where they put a claim in to the commission that examines these claims, and they weren't able to supply enough information to support the claim. So it looks like right now they are trying to get more data to support a resubmission.



Once again from _The Economist_ (the "claims" mentioned are not yet formal legal ones under the Law of the Sea Convention):



> All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.
> 
> Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because *any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009* [emphasis added]. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.



At this point Canada does not say that any of the seabed is formally our "territory"--whereas all the land surface areas in the Arctic  that we say are part of Canada (Hans aside) are internationally recognized as such.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Symbologicaly planting or erecting a flag for the "motherland" signifying occupation of that patch of grass or seabed or whatever it may be. I agree it is a demonstration, a demonstration that had better say wake up Canada time to start paying attention to the north.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I was no aware that Russian sub was even an SSN or SSK I was under the impression it was a research sub so why would it have been armed in the first place...?


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I was no aware that Russian sub was even an SSN or SSK



It wasnt.....


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

MY bad I was reading 2 articles at the same time ignore the armed sub


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> MY bad I was reading 2 articles at the same time ignore the armed sub



Attention to detail will kill you every time.....


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

indeed thanks for pointing it out


----------



## 3rd Herd

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> I stand corrected
> 
> There were also some Japanese shootings (from a submarine I might add) on the west coast during WWII
> http://www.pinetreeline.org/rds/detail/rds99-34.html



Sometimes a site search is better than an internet search:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60381/post-562273.html#msg562273

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62924.0.html


----------



## Greymatters

Since we're on the subject... another Canada-US conflict of the past...

The San Juan island 'Pig War' of 1859
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War


----------



## 3rd Herd

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Since we're on the subject... another Canada-US conflict of the past...
> 
> The San Juan island 'Pig War' of 1859
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War



Covered in the question of the hour.
I hate wiki!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Greymatters

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Covered in the question of the hour.  I hate wiki!!!!!!!!!



Unfortunately, the way Google is designed keeps it at the top of the search results... but agree it is not the best source to quote...


----------



## Navy_Blue

Well I looked last week and sure enough we have a project web site for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship.  I Glanced through the draft SOR and was surprised to see we are going to make it a noncombatant.  It would seem so much more useful to make a patrol boat with some teeth.  A 20mm - 40mm for warning/disabling shots is a pathetic gesture.  Along with that 14 - 20 knots.  I know moving through Ice is a slow time evolution but what about fisheries?  

I was also very surprise to see how quickly we have gone from the government announcement of the program to its present state.  

Anyways just thought you may be interested.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp

NB


----------



## YZT580

I am not navy, but I can read and it would appear that you will be receiving an vessel capable of some command and control functions plus the capacity to at least scare the pants off someone who is trespassing.
Project M1216 will deliver to the Canadian Forces, six to eight fully supported Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships capable of: 

conducting armed sea-borne surveillance of Canada's waters, including the Arctic; 
providing government situational awareness of activities and events in these regions; and 
cooperating with other elements of the Canadian Forces and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, when and where necessary. 
Just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Well I looked last week and sure enough we have a project web site for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship.  I Glanced through the draft SOR and was surprised to see we are going to make it a noncombatant.  It would seem so much more useful to make a patrol boat with some teeth.  A 20mm - 40mm for warning/disabling shots is a pathetic gesture.  Along with that 14 - 20 knots.  I know moving through Ice is a slow time evolution but what about fisheries?
> 
> I was also very surprise to see how quickly we have gone from the government announcement of the program to its present state.
> 
> Anyways just thought you may be interested.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/index_e.asp
> 
> NB



See sub-para i here; it says, in the list of Proposed Ship Capabilities: "gun armament".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well considering a good percentage of  OPVs generally have 20-40mm guns I am not sure why its considered a pathetic gesture. Had we gun with 57mm or 76mm we would have to place a fire control radar onboard. I guess this means no NESOPs will be posted north.


----------



## Sub_Guy

According to Annex A of the Statement of operational requirement there will be 1 NESOP sailing on her.

I did notice that they will be capable of carrying a smaller helo (limited support for the Cyclone), so I guess we are either going to lease or buy smaller helicopters for this thing.

If we can manage to get 8 of these I will be impressed.


----------



## Navy_Blue

From reading the SOR it seems like an ice capable MCDV with a flight deck.  There is nothing scary or deterring about an MCDV.  For the trouble it will cause us to man it they should paint it Red and white and hand it over to the Coast Guard now.  Beggars can't be choosers but wouldn't you like something that has teeth?  Modern missiles, sensors and CWIS?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Definitely would prefer something with teeth, personally I don't think we need to fit missiles on it but I suppose they could be fitted for. 57mm and CIWS/RAM with 4-6 .50s would get the message across.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> According to Annex A of the Statement of operational requirement there will be 1 NESOP sailing on her.
> 
> I did notice that they will be capable of carrying a smaller helo (limited support for the Cyclone), so I guess we are either going to lease or buy smaller helicopters for this thing.
> 
> If we can manage to get 8 of these I will be impressed.



Bet they would be MBB 105s the CCG uses.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Most likely, at least that is what the presentation I found on the Din indicated.

I found this interesting "The AOPS core crew may be comprised of a mix of Regular Force, Primary Reserve and
potentially civilians in designated technician positions"    What kind of technician positions would be manned by civilians?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Air crew for the MBB105s?


----------



## YZT580

Question: won't the absense of a haul-down winch seriously limit helicopter operations, particularly for S&R efforts.  Deck landings limited to force 3 doesn't seem like a great capability


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CCG ships seem to do well without it for their helicopters. Most likely if they are patrolling the Atlantic or Pacific they probably will not have an air det.


----------



## Navy_Blue

This is what I was looking for earlier.

4.2.2 As it is not expected to engage enemy combatants, AOPS shall not:
4.2.2.1 possess anti-submarine warfare capabilities, including Torpedo Defence;
4.2.2.2 possess anti-air warfare capabilities;
4.2.2.3 possess anti-ship warfare capabilities other than for constabulary purposes;
4.2.2.4 possess offensive or defensive Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological (CBNR)
capabilities;
4.2.2.5 possess organic Mine Counter Measure (MCM) capabilities;
4.2.2.6 be considered an amphibious platform; and
4.2.2.7 be considered a combatant.

Right there is everything a full capable warship should be.

4.2.3.5 be able to land, launch, house and re-fuel a CH 148 Cyclone

4.2.3.6 conduct CH 148 flight operations using “Aviation Night Vision Imaging System”
(ANVIS)60;
4.2.3.7 provide, within the limitations of para 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.3.4, to the extent practicable,
support for limited CH 148 operations to include limited and emergency maintenance routines;
4.2.3.8 be able to land, launch and re-fuel a CH 149 Cormorant61

If they want to do this why not fit a bear trap?

As far any of the gear I keep harping about.  Make the ship a combatant and "fit the ship for but not with" That means you have room for an extra Sea container but if it required a rack of Harpoons/Sea Sparows could be mounted or give it a magazine capable of holding/firing torps but use it as storage.   Leave room on the mast for capable sensors and radars.  If it were the coast gaurd I wouldn't think its nessisary.  We're the Navy and we are here to do the messy stuff why not build these ships to be capable of it?  I think this non combatant thing is a way of cutting cost using more civilian spec gear and putting on blinders to what the Navy could use.  Capable hulls in the water are better than an ice capable tugboat.


----------



## Privateer

40mm?  Maybe they'll decommission (hey, is it decommission or pay-off?  Just kidding!) a few MCDV's and transfer the Bofors...  :blotto:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

25 mm Bushmasters would do the trick well if the Navy insist they stay with a small caliber auto cannon.


----------



## DONT_PANIC

Privateer said:
			
		

> 40mm?  Maybe they'll decommission (hey, is it decommission or pay-off?  Just kidding!) a few MCDV's and transfer the Bofors...  :blotto:



They might not transfer the 40mm by paying off the MCDVs, but if the crew is going to be a mix of reg force and shads, where else will they find reservists to crew the a/opvs?


----------



## tabernac

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> From reading the SOR it seems like an ice capable MCDV with a flight deck. There is nothing scary or deterring about an MCDV. For the trouble it will cause us to man it they should paint it Red and white and hand it over to the Coast Guard now. Beggars can't be choosers but wouldn't you like something that has teeth? Modern missiles, sensors and CWIS?



Agreed. As someone who will be coming on-line as MARS (hopefully) in the next few years, and considering my first ship might be one of these things, I DON'T like the notion it would be toothless. 

One thing that particularly has me tweaked is that it would have no ASW capability. In this day where undersea sovereignty is on the line - and the potential for foreign subs in our waters is heightened -  our "war" ships need to be just that, ships capable of war. Not toothless poseurs.

Otherwise just paint it red and white and give it to the CGG.


----------



## aesop081

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> One thing that particularly has me tweaked is that it would have no ASW capability.



Exactly what capability would you want a ship of that size to have when it comes to ASW ?


----------



## tabernac

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Exactly what capability would you want a ship of that size to have when it comes to ASW ?



Keeping in mind that I know very little about space requirements, personnel requirements, etc. (and as a civvie  ) I would want to see it have the capability to defend from, or if warranted, attack a belligerent submarine. At the very least, the capability to detect it, and have the proposed CH 148 (armed, of course) prosecute it.


----------



## aesop081

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind that I know very little about space requirements, personnel requirements, etc. (and as a civvie  ) I would want to see it have the capability to defend from, or if warranted, attack a belligerent submarine. At the very least, the capability to detect it, and have the proposed CH 148 (armed, of course) prosecute it.



I very higly doubt that these ships will have sufficient space for everything that is required for ASW. You (IMHO) will need passive & actve sonar, the necessary operator stations for the sonar equipment, extensive communications suite, radar ..........then add in torpedo launchers, sonobouys, weapons storage spaces for the torps ( for your "defend from" )

I do ASW from the air so i could be ROTL..........


----------



## Sub_Guy

The vessels sit just fine with me, because I feel that the arctic isn't going to be ice free any time soon.  I know they are saying that it could be for a few months this summer, but I doubt it.  

Lets establish the military presence, the bases, and lets take it from there, small steps.  Who knows, global cooling could make a come back!


----------



## dimsum

DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> They might not transfer the 40mm by paying off the MCDVs



I can almost imagine the howls of joy by the Bosuns who won't have to do 3-hour pre/post fire maintenance, and the DeckOs who don't have to schedule CTWSC and INO Tech Certs!   ;D


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Looks like they're trying to specify something like a Mk 44 mount. The old Boffin mounts from the MCDV's won't meet the spec.



> SRD-728 The AOPS shall have a primary gun weapons system
> that:
> a.  has a calibre of between 20mm and 40mm,
> b.  is stabilized,
> c.  provides clear firing arcs over an arc of not less than
> 45 degrees abaft the beam on one side, through the
> bow, to an arc of not less than 45 degrees abaft the
> beam on the other side,
> d.  has elevation limits not less than 10 degrees below
> the horizontal and 80 degrees above the horizontal,
> e.  has dual ammunition feed system that allows the
> operator to select either of two types of ammunition
> instantly,
> f.  has selectable rates of fire,
> g.  has the ability to display firing arcs and gun vector
> line,
> h.  is integrated with a laser range-finding system,
> i.  is integrated with a single on-mount or off-mount all-
> weather, day and night, electro-
> optical fire control system for weapon target designation
> in manual and automatic modes,
> j.  requires no more than a single operator,
> k.  receives surface target designation from the
> navigation radar,
> l.  supports automatic collection of video and other data,
> and
> The gun weapons system will be selected
> or detailed requirements will be developed
> by PMO AOPS during definition.
> The electro-optical system could include
> television, IR and thermal imaging
> elements and should be capable of electro-
> optic surveillance independant of the gun
> system.
> The location of the weapon system shall
> take into account maintenance
> requirements, weather effects on the
> system and facilitate the load/un-load and
> operational use.
> A gun calibre of between 20mm and 40
> mm is likely appropriate.


----------



## STONEY

ASW is not very practical on an ARCTIC patrol vessel.

Ships require Sonar to detect Subs. Sonar requires a sonar dome protruding below the hull of the ship to transmit/receive into the water. I'm afraid the ice would make short work of a sonar dome as it would be smashed in short order. Secondly ice itself is very noisey and a ship traveling thru ice is extremely noisey making listening to sound emitting from subs difficult to say the least. Acoustic homing A/S torpodoes also don't perform well if at all in ice infested waters. The vessel will have a towed side scan sonar which will give it some underwater picture when it is able to tow it in open water.

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Question: won't the absense of a haul-down winch seriously limit helicopter operations, particularly for S&R efforts.  Deck landings limited to force 3 doesn't seem like a great capability



A haul-down system adds weight and complexity to the ship.  It also requires a pilot to operate it, which implies that you are assigning a Det to the ship.  If you are not putting a hangar on the ship, you are not assigning it a helicopter- period.  It would be unserviceable in short order being exposed to the elements.

Giving the AOPV a flight deck that will be Cyclone capable, however, is a good move.  Having a large flat surface on a the top part of a ship usually comes in handy and doesn't cost much.  Being able to land a helo on for short periods of time is useful, too.


----------



## h3tacco

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If you are not putting a hangar on the ship, you are not assigning it a helicopter- period.  It would be unserviceable in short order being exposed to the elements.



Actually I think they intend to have a hangar in order to operate a CH148 



> SRD-740 The AOPS shall have a flight deck and hangar to
> operate and shelter one CH-148 Cyclone helicopter.



The CH148 will bring a pretty robust ASW capability to the AOPS. As long as they have magazines for the torpedoes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Actually I think they intend to have a hangar in order to operate a CH148



My mistake!

So they intend to traverse it how exactly without a RAST?


----------



## h3tacco

Not sure what they plan. 

It also says on their website that they want 1 maintenance and one flight crew, which, is strange because the 1 flight crew would be a departure from our normal detachment concept. Not sure if they have talked to anyone at 12 Wing.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

They're also using a civilian-pattern Bell 212 for planning purposes and have a reference to CHC and civilian crews. Maybe they're planning to lease the helos.


----------



## h3tacco

Looks like I was wrong. SKT had it right in the first place. 

Despite what the website says, a more up to date brief indicates the AOPs will most likely not have a hangar for the CH148.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.

Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat


----------



## Cronicbny

And a massive range of 500NM... interesting, but unsuitable for anything beyond a training role for Canada


----------



## tabernac

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.
> 
> Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat





			
				Cronicbny said:
			
		

> And a massive range of 500NM... interesting, but unsuitable for anything beyond a training role for Canada



Why does it seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?

Edit: To clarify.


----------



## hugh19

Personally I dislike people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, commenting on things they know very little about.


----------



## aesop081

sledge said:
			
		

> Personally I dislike people who have very little idea of what they are talking about, commenting on things they know very little about.



Got a specific beef ?


----------



## hugh19

Yes I do actually. People who think small missile boats are a great idea for Canadian waters. As well, who plans a half-assed boat?





			
				cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Why does it always seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I would think in this day and age some counter measures and some missile capability would make sense. Hell almost every tinpot navy has missile boats.
> 
> Not suitable for ice but gives you an idea what others are building.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina_class_missile_boat


----------



## tabernac

Thats my bad, I quoted the wrong thing. 

It was the 500 NM I was trying to get at. Just as a regular patrol, without prepostioned fuel, you would only be able to go out 250 NM. Thats not exactly a patrol ship. More a pleasure boat. With a gun or two.  :

As well, if some "tin pot" navy can get missle boats, why can't we? Isn't that why we have arms races, to get to the same level, or higher, of a belligerent's capability?

Edit: To add.


----------



## hugh19

We have ships with missiles. Thats my point. We can't use bathtub toys to deliver them, we need big ships to get them there.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Why does it seem like we always plan to build half-assed boats?



What half assed boats do we have now? Please show me the perfect ship. If you are referring to the MCDVs, yeah they have their issues but you know what, they did a stellar job for the Reserves for what they need to do. They also gave us a degree of mine warfare capability.

As for having missile boats i.e. IDF SAAR types, good luck in having them for the Atlantic and the Pacific. We need OPVs with a decent gun. When you start adding missiles for the Arctic you over complicate things.


----------



## dimsum

MCDVs are great for MARS 4 training...shallow draft and manoeuvrability (thanks to Z-drives) makes it suitable for navigation training (and pissing off BC Ferries)  ;D


----------



## Klinkaroo

Why I think alot of people complain about the MCDVs is because they are often trying to use them as patrol boats but they we're designed as a Minesweeper. No need for a minesweeper to do 30 knots.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mine countermeasures was _one_ of its functions.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kingston/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sledge said:
			
		

> We have ships with missiles. Thats my point. We can't use bathtub toys to deliver them, we need big ships to get them there.



The Finnish boat shown was demonstrate a point that almost every other country feels that smaller vessels should be heavily armed. this particular boat is designed with Finlands short coastline and likely enemy in mind. Consider the effect that the Hezbollah had with their anti-ship missile hit on the IDF Corvette, it shows that this is a likely possibility to encounter, as much as I like guns on ships, having a missile armed vessel means it can have a wider area of effect and not required to close to closely with an adversary.

The MCDV are leaps and bounds ahead of their predecessors and I commend the people that made sure they were armed, clearly a 180 degree change in thinking and a beginning. 

The "experts" in the world thought it was a great idea to remove all of the guns on their ships as they wouldn't be needed, funny how quickly they changed their minds when the poop hit the fan. I am a belt and braces type. Even if the vessels are equipped for but not always armed with missiles means the capacity will be available if needed.


----------



## tabernac

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> When you start adding missiles for the Arctic you over complicate things.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Even if the vessels are equipped for but not always armed with missiles means the capacity will be available if needed.



Would it be feasible to do that?



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What half assed boats do we have now? Please show me the perfect ship.



Unfortunately, you're right, the perfect ship will never exist. But we can try to build the best possible. Settling for 2nd is never a good defence policy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cheeky...Sometimes you have to settle for 2nd when the alternative is nothing at all. We all want the best but come on the financial realities of military procurement will always raise its ugly head. if you sailed on a ship that was half assed can you tell me which one and why you feel it was half assed?

As for the first part of your post there are plenty of instances where ships are fitted for but do not carry a specific weapon system so it is definitely feasible.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

What kind of missiles? And for what purpose?

As far as I know, we have 3 types of naval in service, and I'm not sure any of them make sense for a minor warship.


----------



## Navy_Blue

As we have already talked about we are talking about a ship that is some where between a CPF and a MCDV.  Anything with a hanger and enough space for several Sea Cans will be medium to large.  Now I'm not sure but this could be about the size of a an effective Litoral Combat ship capable of operating in the our climate.  If you take into account the cooling required to operate in the Gulf or the Caribian we would have 6 - 8 very capable warships.  Why build 6 to 8 hulls and not try and account for all the possible tasks it could be given in at least the next 5 to 10 years.  We don't like Swiss army knife ships but an armed capable warship is a good tool.  These things are like the Quest with guns.

 :warstory:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I just want to throw this out there....

I was kicking it around the other night and I asked myself "Why not transfer the entire avionics/weapons/communications kit that's already functioning in the Iroquois-class directly into these new hulls?"  To me, the components are already paid for, integrated and should be able to be dropped as a modular solution directly into the new-builds (the only additional tie-in required being propulsion/steering/etc.).

The Svalbard has enough weight to carry the load at 6,100 tonnes vs 5,100 tonnes for the Iroquois.

In essence it provides an immediate armed (deterrent) solution by simply re-using components we already have....and as a bonus to making the vessel exponentially more capable, would require limited retraining for those who operate in the Command and Communications Rooms.....and on top of that if anyone says anything about "escalation" we can just say we're being efficient by re-using old kit.

In particular, if we kept the stripped components from the Huron, we could actually start a daisy-chain of production & retirement on a 1-for-1 basis with the Iroquois class crews being transferred to the new OPV's as they're constructed.

Anyone?



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.



I don't know Ex.  You're in the services and I'm not, but this sounds a lot like a previous argument in which I was once told in response to my statement pre-Afghanistan deployment that we should be hardening all our vehicles as it was my belief the enemy would always try to target the weakest link in order to maximize casualties: [paraphrasing] "Well, we only need a light-skinned vehicles because of how we plan on deploying them....and besides the costs of uparmouring the supply train are huge both in terms of up-front costs, and then operating costs due to additional fuel consumption and maintenance." [/paraphrasing]

Bottom Line:  Based on history, I think it's prudent to always overbuild than underbuild any assets we procure....


Matthew.


----------



## hugh19

Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Harpoon would be nice but may be to big for the smaller vessel, a anti-ship missile would be my choice, I suspect AD would less of an issue and might be addressed with some counter measures, maingun and Manpads if the likely need arose. 

I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage. A naval ship of any type is a fighting ship, whether it fights defensively or offensively. Building a platform that not suitable armed to exert a robust presence in such a remote and contested area is a true waste of money. In the game we are playing presence is everything, having a ship that can exert it’s influence in it’s operating area will be key in the next 20 years.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

sledge said:
			
		

> Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.



What?  You have a real problem comprehending analogies don't you?

The point was that procuring based on a best case scenario of how you think something is going to be deployed can often leave you with equipment incapable of dealing with heightened threat environment.  As such, it's prudent to procure based on the higher threat environment from the outset, and if it ends up being overkill for 90% of its useful life then so be it. 

I think the proverb goes "It's better to have and not need it, then need it and not have it."


Matthew.


----------



## dimsum

It sounds good in theory, but try explaining that to the general public.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.

If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.
> 
> If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.



To your second point, I understand the argument and IF we were talking about buying all new systems (let's say new build SPY-1F with ESSM, etc) then I'd agree with you.  But we're not.  We're talking about taking an existing set of paid for systems and instead of throwing them out, we migrate them to new hulls.

To your first point, the Svalbard is actually larger, is it not?  Shorter in length yes, but it's wider with a deeper draft and more than 15% heavier.


Matthew.


----------



## Neill McKay

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage.



I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the _Estai_) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.


----------



## DONT_PANIC

I think that the abilities of the crews of the a/ops need to be considered too.  Generally, it is sounding like reservists will make up a significant portion of the crew.  Systems need to be simple enough that they can be learned and understood over a relatively short period of time.  Taking the latest and greatest systems might only place a higher manning burden on the reg force, when simpler systems might allow greater access to the manpower of the reserves.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is my own personal catalog of options.... The fleet of the Royal Danish Navy.  Lots of interesting and innovative options, including arctic patrol vessels that operate landing craft and helicopters.  I love the "mothership" concept.

As to the Svalbard, check this link and the accompanying discussion.




> The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.



The two helicopters that the Svalbard can operate are NH-90s.  The NH-90s are 9 tonne class helicopters.  Link.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the _Estai_) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.



2 types spring to mind, escorted exploration ship with a stare down between the two naval ships, the one that brings the smallest punch loses the fight, regardless of no shots being fired.

The other would a Q ship run by terrorists or a rogue nation mostly likely equipped with a anti-ship missile and mines.


----------



## Kirkhill

Presumably the Terr Q ship would not be operating with an accompanying Terr Aircraft Carrier.  Meanwhile the AOPS is operating under CF-18/CP-140 air cover.  

If the AOPS determines that they have encountered a suspicious or prosecutable contact it can always drop back and shadow until air support shows up.

As to foreign nations supplying air support for their surface effort - that would leave the US (everything in their inventory), the Russians (Tu-95 perhaps), maybe the Chinese (in the future), and possibly the Danes (operating out of Greenland).  We would would be well positioned against everybody except the Americans.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So we are giving the terrorists a navy now?? oh boy.....

Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance. When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance.



Dunno about spending time alongside. The ships usually just sail with the systems deadlined. Especially the TRUMPs...the spare parts budget was slashed in the early 90's, leading to a lack of spares. By the time the budgets were restored, the parts were no longer made. Coupled with failure predictions that were err..."excessively optimistic" it would be insane to reuse that gear on another class.

On top of that, the systems involved are so large that the ship would have to be redesigned around them, and a lot of parts would have to be remade to fit into even a redesigned ship. ie piping, waveguides etc



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.



I agree. There's no requirement for all that gear on a glorified OPV.


----------



## NCRCrow

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agree they are awesome little platforms, however could it handle conditions in the North? Is it ice capable? Their big downfall I think is they don't operate helo and I think any ship you send up there should have that option.


----------



## 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

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> 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

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Why not make it a central arctic OPS center?



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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> 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

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 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

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 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

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> 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

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 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



It depends how much more capability they give me in the environment as opposed to the less maintenance intensive option.  If they can be used on open water, over broken ice or pack ice (and that happens to be superior to what we can do in an LCVP-type vehicle), then 'yes', I'd probably go for the maintenance pig.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

They don't add any capability if they are down for repairs or sidelined for maintenance all the time....

Admittedly its been several years since I did any sort of Arctic training but from what I remember equipment that required less maintenance was more desired...of course things may have changed...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 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


Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs= correct

would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate= Already been done, one of the SRN6 I worked on in the CCG spent most of it's life in the Arctic. ATL also used large Finnish hoverferries converted to hovercraft as well, they lacked directioal stabilty due to their bag design.


My personal favorite are these boats (giving people a chance to drive one these would help with recruiting!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYXBvCrzbHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPmVuXqENM&feature=related


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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.



The requirement is for 10 tons, but 14 tons is preferred. That moves it into LCM/LCU territory. Both vessels are way too big to be operated from an AOPS.

Apparently they want to be able to land a Viking. We don't have any, but maybe they're thinking of buying them too.

D Contains all AOPS Technical Statement of 
Requirements as of 14 April 2008 
DELMS Contractor Notes BMT comments PMO AOPS comments 
SRD-496 The AOPS shall have one landing craft that: 
a.  complies with appropriate Classification Society or 
equivalent standards, 
b.  has a diesel powered propulsion system, 
c.  can maintain a speed of at least 15 knots at full 
power when fully loaded, 
d.  has a range of at least 250 nautical miles at 15 knots 
when fully loaded, 
e.  has load carrying capability - in addition to fuel, crew 
and crew effects - of not less than 10 tonnes (desirable 
14 tonnes), 
f.  can transport a land force or OGD contingent of up to 
forty personnel with their personal weapons and 
equipment, 
g.  has a load carrying area sufficient in size and 
configuration to accommodate one Carrier, Utility, 
Articulated, Tracked, Amphibious, BV206, 
h.  has the beaching capability and ramp suitable for 
landing and recovering Carrier, Utility, Articulated, 
Tracked, Amphibious, BV206, 
i.  has a fully enclosed, weather tight, environmentally 
controlled, “walk around” cabin/wheelhouse, 
j.  has a portable canopy system sufficient to shelter the 
whole load carrying area, and 
k.  is fitted with one marine head with associated sanitary facilities and holding tanks. This requirement will be further developed 
by PMO AOPS during definition. 
For the purposes of this requirement, the 
Carrier, Utility, Articulated, Tracked, 
Amphibious, BV206 shall be assumed to 
have the dimensions, weight and other 
relevant characteristics of the BAE 
Systems Hägglunds BvS 10 (essentially a 
slightly larger and armored version of the 
Bv206). 
The DELMS Contractor to conduct a 
market search for possible solutions. 
The DELMS Contractor to identify the 
Classification or equivalent standards: 
applied to any off-the-shelf landing craft, or 
that need to be mandated for a 
new/modified landing craft. 
The requirement is to carry 40 personnel or 
vehicles/cargo, not both simultaneously.


----------



## Kirkhill

You're right DSM.

I read that but ended up focusing on the 6 tonne Bv206 vice the 10 tonne Viking.

If anybody were asking, and they ain't, I would be building the Volume necessary to hold the LCM/LCU, and keep the Jetboats under cover.  As I understand it, (and poorly), it doesn't cost very much to wrap some steel around an empty space - as opposed to building Accomodation or a Combat space for example.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST. 

Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST.
> 
> Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.



Actually the DEW line was built using LST's if I recall correctly. Landing craft have have become commercially non viable for a variety of reasons, including manning requirement, lack of flexibility. The ramp equipped barge has taken their place. We could use a notched barge with a pusher tug, which is generally faster than towing. But this could also limit flexibility for naval ops. A dedicated shallow draft LST could operate well up there, but they are pigs in a heavy sea. They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.


----------



## DONT_PANIC

Colin P said:
			
		

> They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.



There have often been troubles in finding enough shads for the MCDVs to sail.  I doubt that this would be a more popular option, once the novelty of not always being on an MCDV wears off.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?



That's what I mean, having small patrol vessels based in the Arctic and manned by people that live there, it would provide employment, build a corp of people used to the North and minimize using human assets from down south. It would take time to build it up, likely start one unit in the Western Arctic and one in the East, later maybe more units in Cambridge and Coppermine. They could work close with the Rangers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Do we have enough people interested up there to crew 6-8 OPVs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt right away. I would start out with a couple of 40' patrol boats at each end. They are big enough to do overnight patrols, teach basic skills and be mainatined locally and can be hauled out and dry stored on land in the winter, this was how ATL handled it's fleet. As i understand it Invuik had a military base with up to 250 people on it. This would be a good place to start again. it will take time to build the skill sets and get people in long enough to get promoted.



Some light reading

http://www.usmm.org/msts/arctic.html

http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/Arctic.htm

http://www.mfa.is/media/Utgafa/Breaking_The_Ice_Conference_Report.pdf

http://www.akeryards.com/?page=580&xml=A/134984/PR/200802/1193541


----------



## NavyShooter

Enough people of Arctic ships?

Do we have enough people for 12 frigates, 3 destroyers and a couple of AOR's?

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.



Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.



I would also suspect the Kingston class would be slowly withdrawn from service to free up some personnel for the AOPs.


----------



## HalfmyLife

I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.


----------



## Sailorwest

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.


The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?

The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.


----------



## HalfmyLife

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?
> 
> The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.



Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though


----------



## Sailorwest

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though


Ack. The point is, I don't think you need to have a formalized midlife refit for MWS like the KIN. Although I agree that they are more sophisticated than the ships they replace, they don't need to go through a full refit to continue to operate in their current role, well past a 20 year life span.


----------



## Loch Sloy!

> Do we have enough people interested up there to crew 6-8 OPVs?



I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.


----------



## Sailorwest

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.
> 
> Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.



Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port. 
Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.
> 
> Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.



which is why I propose that miltary in partnership with other agencies build small patrol vessesl that can be based, maintained and crewed out of the North. Nothing complex for now, basically creating a marine Ranger detachments. Vessels could be either:

http://www.titanboats.com/newboats.html

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sH-M_awQ7g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90

Vessels would be stored out of the water in a hanger in the winter, launching could be by Ramp or trailer. The benifit of this approach is that it lessens the need for southern personal, resources and increases the resources in the Arctic to support operations. Also funding could be tapped from other agencies for the employment of civilan staff to take care of the facilites. it would increase employment and strenghten the bond between the communities and the military.

Maybe I should start up a website promoting my idea, I could call it ARCTICCOMBATREFOMNOW.COM and promote the use of BV210 with 106mm RR on them and the Combat boat 90 of course I will have to come up with some name for them and ataack anyone who does not use it!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Either I'm going a wee bit dottie, Loch Sloy, or you're ower early for Spring.

But back to the subject.  I have agreed with Colin on this one before, especially with respect to the CF acquiring CBH-90s or, as they are known in Danish service, LCPs (Landing Craft Personnel).

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

They launch the SAR version from a stern ramp (much like a trawler ramp) on their 1700 tonne OPVs.  Scroll down the last link to see a picture.

I think they would make a great addition to both the shore based Rangers as well as the boat inventory of larger vessels.


----------



## gwp

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port.
> Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.


There is a lot of "blue skying" going on here.  This document may help everyone.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2370


----------



## Stoker

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Ack. The point is, I don't think you need to have a formalized midlife refit for MWS like the KIN. Although I agree that they are more sophisticated than the ships they replace, they don't need to go through a full refit to continue to operate in their current role, well past a 20 year life span.



The MCDV's were envisioned to have a lifespan of 25 years. The "midlife" they were talking about can be easily turned back on as was turned off. As it stands now one MCDV west coast and east coast is put into extended readiness for a year, with a TRP process up to 6 months. This includes a docking period to inspect the hull, tanks etc. As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars, and new diesel beds among other things.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?


----------



## aesop081

Stoker said:
			
		

> As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars,



Type ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Type ?



Any EWs know?


----------



## Stoker

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Type ?



Bridge Master from Sperry.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?



Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Stoker said:
			
		

> Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.



And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?



To a certain extent I guess. As it stands the ships are highly reliable due to the redundancy built into the plant.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?



The original SACM UD 23 diesel was originally a stationary power plant diesel. For it to operate on MCDV's they converted it to "marine use", however the diesel beds weren't heavy enough and we began to have cracking from the weight and vibrations.  The beds are in poor shape , so a hole will be cut in each engine space, the diesel removed , a new more heavier bed will be installed and the original diesel will be reinstalled.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ah yes! let me guess they bought these engines as they were able to save some money instead of buying marine diesels........  :


----------



## dimsum

Stoker said:
			
		

> Bridge Master from Sperry.
> 
> http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html



Finally!  The same radar displays as the rest of the fleet, who woulda thought?


----------



## Jack Stratton

While the discussion seems to have wondered off into the issues associated with the MCDV. I am wondering why such a minimal spec was developed for the AOPS. If we look at the latest in ice going naval architecture from Finland (Kvaerner) it should be possible using azipod design to develop a vessel capable of actual offshore patrol (adequate speed) while going forwards, and decent ice breaking while in reverse (ability to ride up on ice). On the down side we would have to design a whole new hull and all that so the cost would be relatively higher than a conventional design.

Canada has too much coast line to buy a naval asset not capable of blue water operation, by the same token we probably ought to be able to conduct naval operations in arctic areas where we claim sovereignty. The proposed AOPS seems to be not quite up to either task. AOPS is a great concept, but the specification reminds me of the army AVGP (cougar/grizzly/husky) purchase in the 70s, a vehicle platform that was in theory all things to everyone, but in reality was too small and too poorly armoured for any serious combat and when the army started getting into more actual fights new kit had to bought to get the job done.

Just a newbie to the forums doing some thinking out loud here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Where in all the literature regarding the the AOPs does it state they will not be capable of blue water operations? As for keeping the price down, we tend to trade off so we will be able to get them in the water sooner rather then later. Off topic, the JSS was a nightmare of a ship that did everything but ended up not getting built. If the AOPV can get the job done, then IMO thats what we need it to do.

WRT to the Cougar I believe that ones who have used in combat would tell you otherwise that it got the job done.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'd just be happy to see them settle down on a plan, and order up some ships of ANY sort for the Navy.

Get cutting some steel!

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well any sort of ships within reason NS. Careful you will have some of the forum members salivating at the thought of aircraft carriers or battleships....


----------



## Jack Stratton

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Where in all the literature regarding the the AOPs does it state they will not be capable of blue water operations? As for keeping the price down, we tend to trade off so we will be able to get them in the water sooner rather then later. Off topic, the JSS was a nightmare of a ship that did everything but ended up not getting built. If the AOPV can get the job done, then IMO thats what we need it to do.



My concern is that the specification for AOPS seems to produce a ship that will neither be really good in ice nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability and to top it off, the list of things AOPS is not allowed to be is very lengthy - using it in a fleet operation would be challenging. Do not get me wrong I think the Navy should have a ship that can operate in the NW Passage, but my interpretation of the design info out there is that AOPS will only be able to operate part of the year on the periphery of the ice. If the JSS spec was too broad, I think AOPS is going the otherway and not asking for enough.

If the choice is AOPS as currently envisioned or nothing then AOPS is the better choice - but could we do better without breaking the bank?

Like I said I'm new around here and I'm thinking outloud.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I still am not sure where you are getting that the AOPS will not be able to conduct its mission as envisioned by Ottawa. Everything I have seen seems to indicate it will be able to do what you fear it will lack.

Jack I am wondering if you read all the posts in this topic, in particular the ones that have illustrated what the AOPS will be able to do?


----------



## Stoker

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> My concern is that the specification for AOPS seems to produce a ship that will neither be really good in ice nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability and to top it off, the list of things AOPS is not allowed to be is very lengthy - using it in a fleet operation would be challenging. Do not get me wrong I think the Navy should have a ship that can operate in the NW Passage, but my interpretation of the design info out there is that AOPS will only be able to operate part of the year on the periphery of the ice. If the JSS spec was too broad, I think AOPS is going the otherway and not asking for enough.
> 
> If the choice is AOPS as currently envisioned or nothing then AOPS is the better choice - but could we do better without breaking the bank?
> 
> Like I said I'm new around here and I'm thinking outloud.



The specs call for a 6500 nm range and 4 month at sea capability, I would call that pretty effective. When you said that using it in a fleet operation would be challenging, what do you base that on?
I also found it interesting that a ISSC maintenance support contract will be looking after the maintenance requirements of the ship.


----------



## Jack Stratton

Could be I thought out loud too soon, the more digging I do on the Svalbard class that seems to the the most likley model for AOPS to be deveoped from the more it looks like a neat little ship.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thats why its always best to read the entire thread before wading in....


----------



## Stoker

Reading the statement of requirements for the proposed platform, the ship will be quite nice to sail on. I wonder what will be the crew mix percentage of reg/res/civ after all is done?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Stoker said:
			
		

> Reading the statement of requirements for the proposed platform, the ship will be quite nice to sail on. I wonder what will be the crew mix percentage of reg/res/civ after all is done?



Volunteering for our eventual Arctic port?


----------



## Stoker

Actually I would love to do a bit of sailing up north. I've already done a couple of OP NANOOK's and I found them a blast. I already sail half the year anyways and going from a MCDV to a AOPS won't be that much of a stretch. If the Arctic port ever gets built, I might even get ashore a bag a muskox or two ;D


----------



## Jack Stratton

Will the MOMT (Musk Ox Management Technician) be a Reg, Res or Civ job?

By the way I freely admit to somehow missing the discussion on hull form in the middle of the posts. My error. Still getting another 2.5 knots out of an AOPS compared to the Svalbard is going to take some doing.

Cheers


----------



## aesop081

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> nor have enough legs for effective EEZ patrol capability



The EEZ only extends to 200nm......from what i have read in the specs, its not much of a stretch for the proposed ship.


----------



## Jack Stratton

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The EEZ only extends to 200nm......from what i have read in the specs, its not much of a stretch for the proposed ship.



Pray forget I mentioned it - no one else seems to think a max speed of 20 knots is a concern for EEZ patrolling and I am apparently out of my depth.


----------



## aesop081

Jack Stratton said:
			
		

> Pray forget I mentioned it - no one else seems to think a max speed of 20 knots is a concern for EEZ patrolling and I am apparently out of my depth.



20 Kts isnt much but most merchants in the EEZ travel at less than that. It may take additional time but the AOPS will catch up /outrun them. I could be out of my depth as well and i'm not an expert on boats but i do see the EEZ alot.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> 20 Kts isnt much but most merchants in the EEZ travel at less than that. It may take additional time but the AOPS will catch up /outrun them. I could be out of my depth as well and i'm not an expert on boats but i do see the EEZ alot.



No you have summed it up nicely.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The EEZ is only 200 nm out at this point...It looks like we'll be asking for more up to 350 nm based on seabed topography. In any case, the EEZ may be shallow, but it's pretty freaking long. Just making it to the far end of the NW Passage is 3400 nm, and that's only patrolling a 40 nm wide strip to get there.

Also, the 20 knot spec is for only 5% (ie 6 days) of a patrols duration. It looks like the AOPS is intended to make long stern chases if they intend to spend 6 days on them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone elses territorial waters in most cases.


----------



## Sailorwest

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone else's territorial waters in most cases.


At a certain point it comes down to what is territorial water and what might constitute innocent passage. Although the NW passage narrows to maybe 20 nm at only one point, generally it is wider than 50nm and maybe 100. Being that the islands form an archipelago, it is difficult to see these an an internal waterway that we would have the authority to prevent innocent passage. I would think that our only provision regarding boarding such a vessel would be from an angle of pollution prevention and environmental protection.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Knowing that an area of patrolled and the possibility that your ship might be boarded and your crew may be arrested tends to give honest seafarers pause before they encroach into someone elses territorial waters in most cases.



I think the motivation is stronger than that for commercial sailors.  Their insurance companies will jack their premiums if they are sailing through contested waters, even if the threat is just from pirates.  I THINK that just demanding right of inspection would NOT scare off commercial traffic, knowing that they would be dealing with Canadian Courts.  However if somebody showed up with a gunboat to contest our right to board their ships then you might see some impact on decision making.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

For your perusal:

http://www.casr.ca/bg-icebreaker-aops-aker.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

Really interesting.

Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.

I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane.  

Neat stuff anyway.

6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

What a great looking design....


----------



## NavyShooter

I'd like to see it get to the point of hulls being in the water....and hey, if it's such a great design, maybe we can sell some to other countries to pay for our costs!

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Really interesting.
> 
> Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.
> 
> I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane.
> 
> Neat stuff anyway.
> 
> 6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.



The Polar 8 was supposed to have a SRN6 Hovercraft slung on davits. Never trust a artist rendition or a concept model!


----------



## karl28

NavyShooter

         I second that I am just a civy but I am excited about these ships . Will be great to finall get them in the water . Hopefully like you said we could export the design to tother countries


----------



## Sub_Guy

Export?  Canada?  Not a chance, besides who would we export the Arctic Patrol vessel to?

We haven't been successful in exporting any of our naval designs.  I recall the CPF being shopped around, along with the MCDV design.

I would rather IMPORT a design from one of the Scandinavian countries.


----------



## Antoine

I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?

I hope MP will wake up soon, we are a Nordic country with three coasts (one melting), we need the equipments to keep us in the run with our friendly neighbours. I know, we have other priorities, I hope they just planning something for the near future.


----------



## RC

Unfortunately, Colin P is right.

The BV206 could be fitted, but if you look carefully at the most recent presentations, you'll notice it's no longer a design requirement and the landing craft is not big enough to carry it.  Design speed is now 17 knots.



			
				Antoine said:
			
		

> I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?



Not really.  I'm fairly certain that a lot of the Russian ships are Scandinavian design (many by the same guys doing the AOPS hull form) and build, with the Russians providing the nuclear plant for powering.


----------



## RC

BTW, the ship is not an Aker Arctic design as the CASR article implies; it is a Canadian design based on a Scandinavian reference with an AARC designed hull form.


----------



## RC

Much more current info than the CASR page for those who are interested:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/aops-npea/march2009workinggroup-groupedetravailmars2009-eng.asp


----------



## Navalgazer

Judging by the attendees the gun will be BAE mk38 mod 2 or OTO Melara 25mm KBA. Yep, definitely a non-combat vessel.


----------



## Stoker

I see there is some detailed ships layouts. Looks to be pretty straight forward, lots of space. Apparently it will have room for a pickup truck as well. All PM2 routines will be carried out by ISSC and by the looks of it, the fwd operating base will have spare parts storage and ISSC can fly in to do correctives.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I see in the documents this is one of the ships they are looking at:

http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/contentHandler.cfm?id=1561


----------



## RC

The Palmer is just referenced as an example of simplified hull construction techniques for icebreakers given that there is/was some question as to Canadian yards ability to build fully formed hulls.  It's not a design reference.


----------



## RC

I think the requirement for the landing craft is now that it can hold the pick-up truck or a couple of ATVs.  Should still be quite versatile.


----------



## mjohnston39

http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://www.rina.org.uk/iqs/sid.00537940334448305906298/wt.html

Pages 12-14 for proposed AOPS


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_:

Arctic/Offshore patrol ships: More never never land 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-more-never.html



> Guess what? The vessels' planned capabilities are being reduced and the project is being delayed--not enough money...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## karl28

Why not just build these ships as a patrol ships alone and than build the armed Ice breakers as a independent project ? That way you get a good product that can do one job really well . Instead of getting one set of ships that can't do the job at all ,  or if they do the job  its done at substandard level because they are being asked to do to much at once .


----------



## CBH99

Damnit Karl, quit making sense...

Don't you know - constantly delaying vital projects at a time when we need them most is in our own best interest??  Can't you see that by letting political bickering get in the way of common sense decisions, we can spend substantially more money for the same product - and get it years after we need it??  And in the meantime, passing legislation to give more teeth to certain organizations/agencies is tough to do because every single thing the government tries to do - the opposition wants it changed and threatens an election over it??

Pfffttt.  Build the ships to the standard required to do the job effectively??  Silliest idea I've ever heard...


----------



## Bass ackwards

I am admittedly out of my (shipping) lane here, but from what I've gathered in my reading of Navy threads is that the biggest problem of building two types of ships (patrol ships and armed icebreakers) is, apart from the cost, the simple fact that there aren't enough people to man all these various ships. 
I'll gladly take correction on that point (although I do heartily agree with you karl).


----------



## karl28

CBH99
          ( High Jack alert )
        Hey man I here you I work as a PSW in a Longterm carefacility here in Belleville we deal with the same problems  some things we have lots of  than with other stuff we never have enough .  Same poop different pile in regards to how government handles allocating funding


----------



## RC

The problem with two classes, as I understand it, is that the political will exists to fund arctic patrol vessels, but not offshore patrol vessels, whereas the Navy sees more of a need for OPVs.

From an end product perspective it makes the most sense to split the program and get 3 APVs and 3 or 4 OPVs, but practically, if they were to do that, there is a high risk of losing funding for the OPVs, which are the real desired capability.  So instead of 6 AOPS with a balance of ice and open water capabilites, the navy would get 3 APVs with few compromises made for open water.


----------



## RC

Model tests are underway on the AOPS.  Maybe the first of the planned vessels to hit the water?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/08/17/mackay-yellowknife-reserve.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Can someone breakdown the delays in the project?  NDHQ?  Navy?  Government Cabinet?  PWGS?

Although not as bad as the Sea King replacement, I remain disappointed at how many projects appear to be bungled.

If I didn't know better I'd think it was done intentionally to keep "project managers" employed as we have more project managers than are required to efficiently run the projects we can finance.


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.

The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.

The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different"). 

The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.

In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).   And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.

This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## a_majoor

Another hijack attempt here

While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.

The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in _two weeks_ and built in _one year_. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).

During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.

To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.

If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The delay is one of the reasons I have advocated buying offshore for so long. Take for example the new Spanish Juan Carlos I class LHD. Designed in 2005, laid down and constructed between 05-08, launched in 2008 and they will be commissioned later on this year in 2009. Navantia makes quality warships we could learn a lesson or a couple of hundred from them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another hijack attempt here
> 
> While Kirkhill is speaking from experience about how long it takes to do project definition etc., I still find it to be incredible that we allow such things.
> 
> The Empire State Building, then the world's tallest structure, was designed in _two weeks_ and built in _one year_. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#Design_and_construction).
> 
> During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands. During the same period, aircraft design moved from propellers to jet and rocket technology (and guided missiles and bombs were also introduced during the war). Ship, weapons and AFV technology also advanced at a very rapid pace, although not as fast as aviation.
> 
> To suggest that today, when we can reference things very rapidly using computer data bases and make 3D designes on CAD (and transfer the approved designs directly to CNC machines for production anywhere in the world) we need to spend years or even decades to do project definition speaks to the entrenched bureaucracy rather than our ability to actually do these projects.
> 
> If "we" demanded things on a WWII timescale, I suspect that we would also get things a lot cheaper, since we would not be paying the wages of armies of paper pushers for a decade or more as part of the deal.




Behold the overnight success :

The Spitfire " There were 24 marks of Spitfire, but also, as will be seen, many sub-variants within the marks. The entire Spitfire family may be divided by the generation of Rolls-Royce engines which powered the aircraft. Thus the first generation was powered by single-stage Merlins, from Merlin II to Merlin 50 and resulted in Spitfires Mks. I, II and V as the most prominent fighter variants. Two-stage Merlins (meaning the use of two-stage supercharger for increased altitude performance), from Merlin 61 to Merlin 70, provided the basis of mid-war development, Mks. VIII, IX and XVI being the most prolific versions of this family. Finally, the arrival of Rolls-Royce Griffon provided a basis for the final line of Spitfire development, exemplified by Mks. XII, XIV and their post-war derivatives. ...."


The Rolls-Royce Merlin:

Need Defined - 1932
Typed 1934
Models B through G tested prior to production as Merlin II ca 1937
Subsequent Models 1939 to 1947 ish: III, X, XII, XX, 45,46, 60, 61, 64, 66,67,76,85,100,130,140,500,600,700......And then there were the Griffon variants.



If you think that was unique check out the Mustangs, Liberators, Lancs and Hurricanes.  And it was not strictly an Air Force problem.   Check for number of Corvette, Frigate and Destroyer classes and their machinery suites.  Or check Shermans and Crusaders....


Projects weren't managed in WW2 so much as new kit was fielded as soon as it was available.  In all likelihood much of the kit would be destroyed before its owner complained about it wearing out.

Imagine the poor Erk, Stoker or REME fitter trying to figure out which piece of hardware he is trying to maintain today.

It took Supermarine Rolls Royce, a private company, 2 years just to get an engine from concept to prototype......


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> During World War Two, entire generations of combat aircraft were designed using paper and pen, and built in the thousands.



There weren't many "new" combat aircraft fielded by combatants during WWII. They just brought out more variants of what they were already building.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Although we are straying off topic....

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Matt, in defence of project managers everywhere I don't think 2-3 years definition on a project like this is unseemly.
> 
> The government set a intention (a desire) and a budget (tentative) then put it to industry to see what was possible.  Industry has responded and now the government has to cut the suit to fit the cloth available.  In this particular case our requirements are not common to those of many other nations.  Denmark, possibly Norway, Sweden and Finland,  and perhaps Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and the Falklands have some similar requirements (excluding Russia for reasons of purely personal animus).  At first blush Norway's Svalbard has appealed to me but the limits of its operational envelope have yet to be explored in the context of Canada's needs.
> 
> The fact that they have a testable hull-form at this point speaks to the continuation of this project.  This is not even like the CH-148 Cyclone where there was a choice of platforms ( and we decided to do the Monty Python and picked "something completely different").
> 
> The Navy has to define and choose a completely new hull form.  Industry has to prove that their proposed hull forms will get the job done.
> 
> In civvy street I have often been confronted with projects going through a 3 year plus definition phase (7 years are not unheard of).   And that is with well defined components, capabilities and structures.
> 
> This project seems to be moving reasonably well, IMHO.
> 
> Cheers, Chris.



I'm in project management as well (measured in millions as opposed to billions) and I write most RFP's in a couple of hours.  I'm not going to be silly enough to contend it's apples to apples, but a couple of hours to 3-years means that my process and theirs are completely different.  

If you look at this project from the outset, what would've happened if instead of doing what they did, they said:

We've secured from the taxpayers a budget of $1.5 billion for manufacturing costs.  25-year life cycle costs are not to exceed the capital cost.

Canada requires a minimum of 4 and maximum of 8 arctic patrol vessels.

Vessel Requirements (pulled out of my fanny):
Range:  X kms and X days at sea  
Ice:  Capable of traversing _____ ice.
Helicopter:  Ability to land, hanger and deploy ______ kg helicopter.
Landing Vessels:  Ability to deploy _______ vehicles into the following environments
Non-Crew Contingent:  Ability to carry minimum of 50 specialists
AAW Weapons:  Minimum of Heavy CIWS 
ASuW Weapons: Minimum of training CIWS as needed
ASW Weapons: Suite recommended by supplier
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Canadian Content:
100% of Ships hulls must be fabricated in Canadian Shipyards
Minimum of 75% industrial offset 

All competitors have 9-months to provide proposals.

All competitors will receive $X million if they provide a qualifying proposal.

From the competitors, a final 2 will be selected.

Information from all submissions will be reviewed by the naval board and an updated "preference list" will be issued within 60 days.

The final two have 90-days to update their submissions at which point a winning bidder will be selected.

Both finalists whether they won or not would again be compensated for their time and contribution.



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?


----------



## Larkvall

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So why are you adding an AAW and ASW weapons fit when the project does not require either?



Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Another more modern example is the British preparation for the Falkland invasion, to be fair not all went as expected, the issue of deck tiedowns delayed the conversion of the containership far more than was expected.



And they had to strip the entire army of Clansman radios and MILAN MRAAW etc etc just to make things work. A 'damn close run thing' indeed. Don't try this at home kids....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was commenting on the redesigns and alterations of the vessels used. Falklands, the good and the bad is a good 125+ page thread in itself and already done by better people than me at milphoto's


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Isn't it easier to add them now then to wait for the government to add them later?



The class is not meant to be a major surface combatant. Its sole purpose is establish a naval presence in the Arctic.


----------



## RC

AOPS project management is progressing.  The cause of the delay is the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, a political plan, which sucked AOPS in but hopefully won't cause significant delays as it can parallel the development of the ship for a while.  We'll see.

As for the timeline, it works about like this:

1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
1 year:  What exactly do we want?
1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.


There is certainly opportunity for cutting that time down.  In my opinion it is during those first 2 1/2 years, but I disagree that going offshore will shorten that time at all since none of that time has to do with actually designing the ship.  You would save roughly 6 months by going offshore, while sacrificing all of the capabilities you wanted beyond what your base vessel happens to have.  Why not take 6 months more and modify a ship like Svalbard to do exactly what you want it to do?

As a side note, no building larger than a two car garage has ever been designed in a week.  It probably took a week for them to sign the build contract for the Empire State building.  While they might have doen the design before hand, that week doesn't really count as doing the design.


----------



## Larkvall

RC said:
			
		

> 1 1/2 years:  Do we really want this program?  Do we have money for it?
> 1 year:  What exactly do we want?
> 1/2 year:  Develop a design for bid based on what we want.
> 9 months: Bid and bid evaluation.
> 3 years: Develop the design for construction and build it.



Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.

Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good make work project for desk jockeys.
> 
> Look at the time it took to design and build the Bluenose. We are moving backwards.



: you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.


----------



## Larkvall

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> : you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.



 :  right because building schnoors back in the 1920's was such a piece of cake.

How about the Mercury program then. I am telling you we are moving backwards.


----------



## RC

I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.

You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.


----------



## Larkvall

RC said:
			
		

> You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.



Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.



Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.

Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

RC said:
			
		

> ....but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  .....



Amen Brother - especially at the design definition stage.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Why do





			
				Larkvall said:
			
		

> Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.
> 
> Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.
> 
> Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.



Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.

4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

RC said:
			
		

> I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.
> 
> You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.
> 
> It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.
> 
> Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.



Well said


----------



## Larkvall

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why do
> Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.
> 
> 4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. :



I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.

Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)

I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.


----------



## Sailorwest

Larkvall said:
			
		

> I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
> Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.
> 
> Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)
> 
> I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.


I am kind of surprised by the thought that a steel ship in 2010 should be operated in the arctic with wood to reinforce the hull and that it would actually make a difference in the ship coming in contact with significant pack ice. Although I agree ships operated there 300 years ago and they were made of wood, doesn't mean that it should be done that way today.  Also I would hazard a guess that any naval architect would tell you that the complexity of planning, desigining and constructing a fleet of ships to operate in the arctic is exponentially more challenging than building a simple wooden hulled schooner in the 20's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One of Canada's CG Icebreakers had her hull ripped open on a growler, we are talking almost 3" thick steel. It was a near run thing and the ship was saved thanks to a large amount of concrete aboard meant for building beacons. However Larkvill is correct that beams were added to vessels to help prevent them from being crushed and vesselslike the St Roch had Ironwood added as sheathing to make the hull resitant to the ice, although she depend more on her hull shape than the material to protect her when trapped.
That being said our contracting, design and shipbuilding structure is broken. In the late 80's and 90's  I don't think a single CCG vessel was built that didn't have major flaws. The Point class was cancelled after a couple of hulls due to shoddy workmanship, the 41's almost suffered the same fate with the first vessel being rejected, the 500's were built with major stability issues that required 2 active systems and one passive to counter the problem. DFO's Sinclair was barely up to the task. The 47' self-righting lifeboats contract was given to a "shipyard" that had never actually built a boat before, luckily after a couple of boats were built the contract was pulled and given to a competent yard. 
The cause of these problems can be pointed at the politicans, Departmental senior management, Public Works and at the ship building business.


----------



## RC

The current policy under development is supposed to help solve the procurement problems Colin P mentions.  It is a bit ironic though that it could delay AOPS, when that is the sort of problem it is trying to solve.

4x4s might provide cheap, silly ice strengthening for ice infested waters.  There's a pretty big difference between bouncing off the occasional bergy bit without sinking while travelling at sailing ship speed and breaking 1 meter of ice.  Not to mention that 300 years ago, sailors who traveled into the arctic did so at extreme risk to their ships and their lives.

At any rate, I understand Larkvall's concerns about doing a bunch of studies without ever getting anywhere.  However, model testing is clear evidence that an advanced design exists.  Model testing is rarely done until the design is very mature as the hull form must be set before doing it and the hull form can't be set without a solid design.  Have some faith Larkvall.  I have a good feeling about this one.


----------



## RC

Actually, while in the interest of full disclosure I must mention that I speak from a position of extreme bias, I think that the progression of the AOPS program, with its relatively limited complexity, will provide a sucessful spring off point for the rest of the fleet renewal plans.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I also agree that using the smaller vessels as a test case to resolve some of the structural problems in the ship acquisition program is a smart move. If the team can then immediately role into the next ship building program so much the better. In fact as one portion of the team finishes the preliminary components of this program, they can then begin to work on the next program, handing off their completed work to the next step, which hopefully would be ready. Having an experienced team with strong network spanning the government/industry to work with would reduce delays and costly errors


----------



## a_majoor

The procurement problem lies in:

1. No one ever seems to have a "Good Idea Cut Off Date", so the project flails about without any clear definitions.

2. Far too many extraneous factors are added to the mix. Regional development, etc. etc. add more layers of "management" to the project.

We are really seeing Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. _We_ want to buy boats, ships, tanks, combat aircraft etc., while _Bureaucrats_ see the projects as ways to stay employed and to increase their budgets and headcounts: DND vs Dilbert...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yep. the good idea and the "multi-tasking ability" became the bane of the Coast Guard boats, talked to Robert Allan who designed the 500class, the Coast guard management forced them to add so much stuff to the vessel that was not required that it became top heavy. He did not have kind words for them.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, I couldn't find it on a search.

It is a March 4, 2010 presentation  by the STX Canada Marine Principal Engineer at the Arctic Passion Seminar in Helsinki.

It seems to detail the latest thinking on the AOPS.

Most noteworthy is that the Project Implementation contract award is anticipated in 2011 with First of Class delivery in 2014.

The design seems to have been simplified and possibly lightened.  The displacement is now 5800 tonnes vice IIRC > 6500 tonnes.  The bow form now seems to be more of a conventional ice-capable bow rather than an open water bow, and most interestingly the Azipods seem to have been ditched (which would be in line with the change in bow form) for a more conventional twin-screw diesel-electric plant with fixed shafts.  Also there is no mention of Active Fin Stabilization.

Or perhaps this is old news to all concerned and I haven't been paying attention.


Cheers.


----------



## RC

The design changes were made in early 2009.  I wouldn't read too much into the designer's interpretation of the government's schedule though.

The bow form didn't change below the water line (ie. it has been a balance between offshore and ice breaking right from the start) and the azipods are arguably better for the ice breaking role, but substantially more expensive.  Retractable fin stabilizers remain in the design.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the corrections RC.

Much appreciated as always.


----------



## RC

Np.  

Now, if only there was something more to say about the program than this...

I've been out of Canada for a while, is there any news on breaking the Canadian shipbuilding policy log jam?


----------



## Kirkhill

Nothing heard.

Other than this.....WMG & Thales Teaming Agreement Signed Wednesday, April 14, 2010



> Washington Marine Group (WMG) announced the signing of a Teaming Agreement with Thales Canada forming a strategic alliance to provide the Government of Canada a single solution for the future build and in service support of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). The AOPS program is worth over $2b dollars, delivering six ice breaking patrol vessels to the Canadian Navy, as part of the Federal Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS). It will provide 700 to 800 skilled jobs to BC shipbuilders and 40 to 60 high technology jobs, in Ontario.




Not sure what that augurs, if anything.


----------



## Old Naval Guard

Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments?  Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> So its a go then, That's great .


Not yet.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments?  Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard



Lets wait until the steel is cut and they are being built before getting all riled up.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments?  Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard



Sir, I just saw your post.  I'm afraid that I am in much the same boat (or perhaps ship as Old Gate Boat Driver might have it) as yourself.

I come here for enlightenment, to bounce information and ideas off of those who know more than I do.

I agree that the images do indeed look good, and it seems that there is continuing movement on the project but it seems to be too early to say that the project is a a go.

I would highly recommend the comments of RC as a useful guide on status, along with the many comments of othes like OGBD and Ex-Dragoon.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump:



> The sole-sourcing of the F-35s is not the only dubious procurement decision made in recent years by the Conservatives. Contracts will soon be awarded for between six and eight Arctic patrol ships(some sources think because the ships must be made in Canada -- a more expensive option -- the Canadian Forces Maritime Command will only be able to afford five vessels).
> 
> Hardly anyone inside DND believes this is a good use of $4-to $6-billion, particularly in the Navy, which wants nothing to do with constabulary duties in the North. They worry that the cost of the offshore patrol vessels will eat into their budget for new destroyers and frigates and would prefer that the Canadian Coast Guard took over the job of patrolling the Arctic.
> 
> That would seem to be what the Jacks in the Canadian Navy would call "common dog" -- good sense. While the Coast Guard is civilian, and so cannot be armed, we are about to buy 65 $138-million fighter jets that can fly at 2,000 kilometres per hour and are bristling with more weaponry than a Klingon Bird of Prey.
> 
> That's more than enough muscle to exercise our sovereignty in the North. Surely an F-35 is much more useful than a Arctic slush-breaker when you're staring down the gun-sights of a Russian long-range bomber--an unlikely scenario but one that apparently keeps people awake in the Prime Minister's Office.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Sole+sourcing+stupid+buzz+jets/3520110/story.html#ixzz0zofQKrSF




This came from John Ivison's National Post column on the F35 procurement.


IF his observarions are correct and IF there is a body of thought in the Navy that does not want these things then that may contribute to escalating prices, decreasing numbers and decreasing capabilities.  

It doesn't seem to be a totally insupportable conclusion.  The Navy is the inheritor of the Rainbow and Niobe, a couple of superannuated vessels too large in size and too small in number to be useful domestically but absolutely wonderful at showng the flag in time of peace, and demonstrating willingness in time of war....and welcomely received by our allies.  They also convinced a francophone PM's (Laurier) fellow citizens, Brit settlers, that he was on the right side of things - critical after the Boer War.  A useful contribution they make but they are not about guarding the frontiers.

Likewise the Army is not geared to domestic ops.  They originate in manning choke points along the globe spanning Imperial Red Route (Halifax, Quebec, Kingston and Esquimalt)... but that is to digress too far.

The Coast Guard, really isn't a Guard at all but rather more of a Garde.  They passively Watch rather than actively Guard.

On top of all that our government, the bureaucrats and our fellow citizens are not thrilled about bumping shoulders with members of the military on a professsional basis.  They much prefer to deal with civilians even if those civilians are armed.... like the Canadian Borders Services, Fisheries and Wildlife and the RCMP.


Which brings me to my solution.

I believe that 6-8 AOPS are a good thing.  I believe that the original Svalbard (with a large helo deck) is also a good thing at the original price and manning levels.

I propose to buy the 6-8 AOPS and turn them over to the RCMP Marine Service.

The RCMP has always been our domestic frontier force: Prairies, Chilcoots, Yukon, Arctic.
They are used to working in a civilian environment with civilian gear and lightly armed.
They don't expect to face down subs or missile carrying cruisers.  
They would probably consider a 25mm ROWS on the foredeck and a large helo-pad back aft as adequate support for dealing with wayward trawlers, hunters and passenger ships.

Besides, they have form in the arctic.  They supplied and supply isolated detachments in the north.  50 shipmates might even be too crowded for some of them.

And beside, the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage from West to East was not a Navy ship, nor even a Coast Guard ship.  It was the RCMP vessel St Roch.

Assign the entire St Roch class of AOPS to the RCMP and let them be responsible for carry CBSA and DFO and enforcing the law... and if they do turn up a marauding LPD well there is always the radio, that helodeck for the Army and an F35 out of Resolute.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Mildly related (though I think the RCMP already has far too much to do to take on a major new mission--see:

Abolish the RCCP
http://unambig.com/abolish-the-rccp/ )

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Better yet a combined RCMP and CCG crew would probably work better then a combined Navy and CCG crew.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

And will continue to on the CCG's new Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0004254



> ...
> 4.2.4 Maritime Security Services
> 
> The Fleet supports the Government of Canada's maritime security priorities by providing platforms and maritime expertise to security and law enforcement agencies across the country. In particular, the CCG and RCMP have established the joint Marine Security Enforcement Teams (MSET) Program with armed on-water patrols on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, where the CCG manages, maintains, and operates the vessels while the RCMP provides law enforcement expertise and onboard personnel.
> 
> Four mid-shore patrol vessels are being built specifically for the MSET Program. During 2007-2008, CCG dedicated three vessels in support of the MSET program and next year's plan calls for the use of four CCG vessels in support of this program on an interim basis until the four new mid-shore patrol vessels are delivered. In winter, teams operate from icebreakers where and when required...



More on the new vessels:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117784/canada-begins-construction-of-new-patrol-vessels.html



> ...
> Five of the mid-shore patrol vessels will be used primarily to support Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation and protection programs in the Maritimes, Quebec and Pacific Regions.
> 
> The other four vessels will be used in a joint program with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to enhance maritime security along the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system. Since this joint maritime security program was announced in Budget 2007, aging Coast Guard vessels have been performing duties on an interim basis. The new mid-shore patrol vessels will provide a permanent platform for the Coast Guard and RCMP Officers to do their work.
> 
> About the new vessels
> 
> These new mid-shore patrol vessels are a new type of vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard. Each vessel will support a crew of eight and up to six RCMP Officers or Fishery Officers. Each vessel will be approximately 43 metres in length, have a top speed of 25 knots and a range of 2000 nautical miles, and be able to stay at sea for two weeks without reprovisioning...



*In other words faster than the A/OPS*:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/arcticoffshorepatrolshippmoaops-projetnavirevaisseaudepatrouilleenmerenarctiquebgpnpea-eng.asp

Other CCG vessels can act as platforms for armed RCMP personnel--or CF--as required, and if really necessary weapons can be mounted.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

There we go.... It's not impossible to find common ground. ;D

I just choose to believe that my opinion on the F35 is better founded than yours.  :warstory:

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm


That is because the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 pretty much prohibits military vessels on the Great Lakes (it allows for each country to station four vessels, each equipped with an 18-pound cannon).  Recently (post 9/11) Canada and the US have agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may have crew served weapons by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.  IIRC, they have agreed to limit this to < .50 cal.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think a Harpoon kind of trumps a 18 pounder.



> Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm



I am already aware of that thanks...


----------



## Kirkhill

Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism?



But it is much more then 18 lbs lol.


----------



## MarkOttawa

If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab18da1fd-82f5-4280-bb87-13cff78dd5ac



> The Friesland, the third Ocean Going Patrol Vessel (OPV) of the Holland class, was launched this morning at Damen Shipyards in Galati, Romania. Further work will be done on the Friesland in a dock on the Danube, after which the patrol vessel will go to the Netherlands.
> 
> The other three OPVs are the Holland, Zeeland, and Groningen. Together with the Friesland, they are being built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in the Netherlands and Romania and will replace the M-frigates.
> 
> At the beginning of the week, a naval detachment was established to man the Zeeland. OPV crews will number 50 personnel.
> 
> With a displacement of 3,750 tons, a speed of 21.5 knots and a length of 108 meters, the OPV is designed to be a small, flexible patrol ship for missions such as counter-piracy, counter-narcotics and coast guard missions off the coast of the Netherlands and its Caribbean territories.



More from the builder:
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_holland-class-patrol-vessels.htm



>



Plus:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
> Mark
> Ottawa



You do know that when we get the AOPS they will be used for more then the Arctic right?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



More hulls do squat if we cannot man them.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa





> Thank goodness the Navy icebreakers may be sunk--now it only the Coast Guard can get new ones.


Military Current Affairs & News / Re: Military Budget predictions
on: April 20, 2006, 06:17:47 

Well I can't fault you for consistency and tenacity Mark.

Passages  open or closed I want an armed government presence everywhere the  Canadian government claims jurisdiction.  If that is an armed Coast Guard with Mounties on board operating  on the Grand Banks, the Charlottes and Lancaster then fine.  

The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3,  that at least some of the Chinooks be fitted with the Air to Air refuelling probes( I believe that the probes can be added as needed) and that Canada retain the air to air, probe and drogue  refuelling capability currently supplied by its 5 C130 H tankers.

Together with the ability to ship a CH147 inside a C17 to any friendly air base te lilly pads of the Navy and the Coastguard would allaow the government to bounce an armed body of troops over great distances and intervene in remote locations.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Your cpmpliment much appreciated .  You may be getting part of your wishes:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-983337.html#msg983337



> Tories to consider arming Arctic-bound coast guard ships...
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+consider+arming+Arctic+bound+coast+guard+ships/3707631/story.html#ixzz134n7GvxC



In which case why continue with the A/OPS that are neither fish nor cetacean?  And whose capabilities are being reduced in order to be affordable:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Now if only we could follow the Dutch example and ditch the requirement to build the damn ships in Canada--but politics will not allow any government to do that:

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3



I think you would need a ship much larger then 4000 tons to operate an aircraft like the Chinook in SS3. There is a reason why you only see tandem rotor helos based off of larger amphibs and I am betting the ability to recover and launch said aircraft is one of them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fully concur with Ex-D. 

First, there is a turbulence problem from superstructure: Single rotors simply correct twisting around their pivot point (right under the main rotor shaft) using the tail rotor. Tandems have to turn the whole body using differential power in the rotors, so lining up is more difficult and they can handle much less turbulence near the landing spot. That is why, you will notice that even on the larger phibs (LSD's, LPD's) that are not "flattops" they always use the after most landing spot.

Second, and for similar reasons, I do not believe (I have never seen one used) that you can operate a beartrap for tandems: The point were vertical force is applied on a single rotor is in vertical line with  the shaft. That is where the beartrap is attached for winching in. The two forces are in line and it creates no moment. I do not think such a single point exists on tandems - the point where the vertical force is concentrated (so to speak) would vary depending on the constant adjustments by the pilot. so we would create a moment while we winch the bird in and either bring it in nose first or tail first: not a good way.

This said, I have seen pictures of one of the old SAR Labrador's landed on the after deck (not a helo platform per se) of a large CCG cutter. But I'm pretty certain it was in sea state near zero and the coast guard was stopped in the water.


----------



## Kirkhill

Operating from a remote location so can't find the appropriate links but:

I believe that Beedall had planning line drawings of the Type 45 (6000-7500 tonnes) showing a Chinook back aft athwartships.
Also seen, older model USN LPDs (tonnage unremembered - San Jacinto maybe?) embarking 2 Chinooks athwartships - and those had a conventional forward superstructure.
8000 tonne San Giorgios conduct helo ops to include Chinooks owned by Italy.

So suppose we stipulate that 4000 tonnes is too small and SS3 is too high.  What would be the minimum tonnage necessary to operate in SS1-2?
What would be the maximum SS that could support Chinook ops from a 6000 tonne vessel (AOPS, Svalbard, Absalon, Daring, Type 26, San Giorgio, CSC??).
Would there be value to the Canadian Government in having vessels that, even if they had to run for a lea or find harbour, could rapidly embark troops over long ranges?

Even if all things are not possible in all situations surely the option of maintaining a possibility in some situations has value?

If nothing else a larger vessel and a larger flight deck would seem to be likely to increase stability, safety and endurance and enhance helo ops of the smaller CH-148 (not to
mention the CH-146).

In my view the Navy's principal role is to supply little Canadian islands that the government can move around the world to project Canada into the rest of the world's 
affairs and thus secure Canada's interests.  If we can't afford a dozen nuclear carriers and amphibs carrying brigades, can't we find a way to support a couple of dozen 
islands from which we can bounce platoons and companies?  Maybe not in all sea states and all the time but enough to increase the options available.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Whoa whoa whoa.

Ok- helos and ships- my lane.

Ship superstructures do create turbulence issues that helicopters do have to contend with.  For the most part, it is manageable.  I admire your posts Oldgateboatdriver, but in this case, you have it exactly backwards. Helicopters with tail rotors generally have to hover and land nearly into wind, because at some point all of them become tail rotor limited- that is to say that eventually, the force exerted by the tail rotor cannot overcome the torque from the main rotor and the force exerted from the relative wind. Something has to give, so the helicopter will weathercock into the wind (which may not be what you want to happen at that moment).  

Tandem rotor helicopters, on the other hand, do not have relative wind issues.  Their main rotor blades cancel each other out from a torque perspective, because they turn in opposite directions.  A Chinook can hover in nearly any relative wind conditions (I'm sure Good to Golf will be along any second to correct me).

As for twin rotor helicopters and their supposed incompatibilty with hauldown systems- you got me.  To my knowledge, it has never been tried because no one has seriously proposed putting anything bigger than a Merlin on a small ship (where you need a HDS).  I know that in a Sea King, the Main Probe is located near the centre of gravity of the helicopter (it is probably not exact because the CG of changes somewhat over the course of a flight), so the force exerted by the HDS does go mainly through the axis created by the mast.  You might have a compelling theory about tandem rotor helos...I wonder if Baz or H3 Tacco are able to weigh in on this?

A ship's tonnage is usually a good indicator of it's ability to have enough stability to operate a large helo safely, but it is not the whole story.  For instance, a Canadian Frigate is not that far away in displacement from a Canadian Destroyer, yet due to the top-heaviness and hull form of the DDH, it is usually much harder to recover on a DHH than a FFH- the FFH tends to have a stable period that is longer and more frequent than a DDH.   Remember also- the larger the helo, the stronger the flight deck must be. That takes steel and steel adds to ship's displacement (and may create stability issues, if you are not careful about it), which is why small ships tend to carry small helos (Shipbuilding is all about tradeoffs).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks for the clarification SKT.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I did see a Sea Knight do a pintle landing on Preserver.  She took up a huge amount of territory.  You would need one hell of a flight deck to have these birds fly off of.


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab18da1fd-82f5-4280-bb87-13cff78dd5ac
> 
> More from the builder:
> http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_holland-class-patrol-vessels.htm
> 
> Plus:
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Those aren't OPV's.  They are a poor man's frigate.

There has always been merit to dividing the class into an APV and OPV, but the OPV would be somewhere in the 85-90m and 1800 T displacement range.   Ship's the size of the holland class arent really going to add much to the OPV mission profile.

Plus their cost is about CAD$170 million.  Considering that the hulls are built in Romania, that puts them at a substantially higher relative cost than the AOPS, and about 3 times the price of a decent 85m OPV.

If the Canadian Navy needs overpriced, undergunned, pretend-frigates, then those will be useful.  But I'm betting they don't.


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now if only we could follow the Dutch example and ditch the requirement to build the damn ships in Canada--but politics will not allow any government to do that:



I'm tempted to go into an extended rant about the dangers of commenting on something you know nothing about, but instead I'll do my best to explain.

Romanian shipyards are effectively an assembly line for yards in other European nations.  They do the steel work, which is the grunt work in shipbuilding and has low added value.  The hulls are then towed to the other European yards and outfitted.  This works well because everyone makes money and they manage to produce a competitive ship, while the other European yards maintain their strategic advantage in the important outfitting aspects.  

Naturally, since Romania is on the other side of the planet, and the shipping costs would probably be about equal to the labour savings, it probably doesn't make sense for a Canadian yard to consider this arrangement.  Simple geography dictates that we cannot do the same thing and there isn't really a viable North American alternative.

Now, you are correct that it will be more expensive to build the ships in Canada rather than to farm them out to Europe, but, minus the Romanian advantage, that really only holds true for the first few ships.  European yards have a lower labour cost per ton simply because they have some more experience.  If Canadian yards gain that experience and are able to build on it, they will be able to produce ships for Canada at a the same or lower cost than Europeans.  

So why pay the start up costs?  

The main advantage is a strategic one.  We are talking about building Naval ships.  If we go to war, do we really want to be handcuffed by the interests of another sovereign nation in order to supplement our fighting capability, or do we want to be able to maintain our independence?  

The second advantage is economic.  Obviously, importing ships means a negative against Canada's GDP.  Kind of a dumb thing for the government to do when they can keep the money circulating within the country.  I'm not sure what factor you'd have to put on the price of an imported ship to reach equivalence, but I can guarantee it's significant.

The third reason, as you've noted, is political.  Jobs in Canada for Canadians.  Makes sense that the GOC would promote that.  It's not, as you seem to suggest, the result of weak political will.

The fourth reason is the infamous industrial regional benefits (IRBs).  Shipbuilding spawns a whole support network of other companies, which, while the shipyard might go out of business, can remain globally competitive.  I have worked with dozens of people who got their start on the CPF program and are still working successfully in Canada in the industry today.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RC: What about the Aussie approach?  Are they, er, out to lunch?

Spanish armada for warship contracts 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/spanish-armada-for-warship-contracts/story-e6frg6nf-1111113785412



> ...
> Mr Howard said about a quarter of the construction work on the landing ships [sort of big honking] would take place in Australia, generating about 600 jobs...
> 
> Mr Howard said the Navantia destroyers had been selected as the "next generation air warfare destroyer" for the Royal Australian Navy.
> 
> The three Spanish-designed ships would be delivered in 2014, 2016, and 2017, he said...
> 
> The destroyers will be assembled in Adelaide by an alliance between navy shipbuilder ASC, the Defence Materiel Organisation and mission systems company Raytheon, he said.
> 
> Australian industry will provide around 55 per cent of content and about 3000 Australians across the country will be employed...



I was referring to a general approach, not anything actually specific for Canada.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RC: What about the Aussie approach?  Are they, er, out to lunch?
> 
> Spanish armada for warship contracts
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/spanish-armada-for-warship-contracts/story-e6frg6nf-1111113785412
> 
> I was referring to a general approach, not anything actually specific for Canada.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well, you'll notice that they are still doing the outfit work, or at the very least the systems integration in Australia.  Also, Australia has an established naval construction industry, which has built and as far as I know continues to build the ANZAC frigates and numerous other naval vessels.  The decision to built part of these destroyers in Spain may simply have been a schedule and/or capacity issue.  However, Australia has recently displayed some short-term gain, long-term loss style politicking in their national naval industry that in my opinion is indeed out to lunch.

As a counter, look at the Brazilian approach to their NPa and frigate program.  They currently have no naval construction industry (though they have a burgeoning offshore construction industry).  They intend to buy offshore designs with full technology transfer and Brazilian construction.  They have a solid, long term vision of what naval capability will do for Brazil and intend to develop both the design and construction capability by pulling it in from the outside.

First of all though, we need to make a distinction between frigates/destroyers and the OPV type ships we are talking about in this thread.  In the context of the needs of most established navies they are not at all the same thing.

OPVs can be built in a commercial yard and designed to commercial standards.  One of the world leaders in the design of OPVs in this size range is a Canadian company.  It takes about 8 to 10 months to get a design and 3 years to build.  There are few barriers to designing and building this type of ship in Canada.  This applies equally to pretty much everything except combat vessels.  It will be a touch more expensive to build in Canada, but the benefits I mentioned earlier far outweigh the disadvantages.

On the other hand, frigates/destroyers are extremely complex, requiring dedicated, specialized, up to the minute knowledge.  To redevelop all of that knowledge in Canada could take years and a very large budget.  I think something along the lines of the Brazilian approach could work in this case, but it would have to be done right.  GOC buys the design, with full design and construction technology transfer to the yard, put the performance risk on the foreign yard, and build them in Canada.  Canada should never have been placed in a position that we need to be educated in how to supply our Navy, but the fact is that we are, and we need a comprehensive solution that brings us back into the position we should be in.

Simply shopping for vessels offshore will leave us with poorly adapted assets that we don't know how to support, can't replace ourselves if it comes to that, and bring no value for the money back to Canada.  It's the sort of solution employed by third world countries who just can't afford any better.  It will be a sad day for me when we join that rank and we are looking up at Brazil as they establish their own support structure, or England, France, Australia, Germany, the US, China, and so on, who all have their own capability already.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _national Post_ is a column about the politics of shipbuilding:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/don-martin-b-c-shipbuilder-fears-eastern-bias-in-35b-deal/ 


> Don Martin: B.C. shipbuilder fears fix is in over $35B deal
> 
> Don Martin
> 
> November 9, 2010
> 
> Canada’s three largest shipbuilders are fighting for two contracts with a estimated value of $35-billion, or roughly four times the pricetag of the F-35 jet fighter contract that’s got everybody in a lather. But with one bidder in Quebec and another just down the road from Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s home harbour in Nova Scotia, the largest west coast shipbuilder is wondering if the political fix is in.
> 
> The federal government needs frigates, coast guard vessels, Arctic patrol ships, a huge polar icebreaker and supply ships, with maintenance contracts filling in the lag times between building contracts.
> 
> Federal officials are now scouting out the eligible shipyards. To the winners will go many years of stable government contracts. To the loser, a prolonged scramble to stay afloat.
> 
> Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, eyes the competition — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax and Davie Yards Inc. of Montreal — and wonders if he’ll be a victim of government meddling with business decisions for political purposes.
> 
> Whenever Quebec is in a crucial bidding process, the competition tends to get politically dicey. With Atlantic Canada in need of an economic boost, Halifax gets the empathetic edge. That leaves Vancouver as an early underdog at the cabinet table.
> 
> “Have we heard the rumours? Yes. Are we fearful that political answers could sway the opinion? I’ll also say yes,” admits Mr. Whitworth. “But we’re not worrying about other shipyards. We’re making sure the federal government knows what we’re doing and what we’ve done for over 50 years. If it’s an open, fair and transparent decision, we’ll have nothing to worry about.”
> 
> The clearest hint at the sensitivity of the issue was a privy council decree banning lobbyists from representing the bidding shipyards to politicians or bureaucrats. There’s to be no perception of key ministers being arm-twisted by old friends, even though plenty of background advice is now in circulation out of the lobbyist registrar’s sight.  If last week’s potash protectionism was a precedent, serious trouble is ahead for a government that continues to value its political payoff above all other considerations. It means Quebec City’s NHL hockey arena is all but guaranteed to receive federal funding to save a handful of vulnerable Conservative seats in the region, opening the vault to taxpayer handouts for all manner of professional sports venues. And it suggests the mother of all regional squabbles is in the offing as the federal government pits three electoral battlegrounds against each other in a fierce competition for its massive ship-buying spree.
> 
> What would infuriate the West, perhaps with the visceral intensity of reaction to Brian Mulroney shifting the CF-18 maintenance contract from Winnipeg to Montreal, would be to shun the West and sign the biggest contract with Montreal’s Davie Yards, a possibility considered likely in B.C., one senior MP confided to me this week.
> 
> Davie Yards has received almost $700-million in government loans or loan guarantees in the last two years, most of it from the Export Development Corp. of Canada. That is far greater than the  support given to its contract bidding rivals which, in Washington Marine’s case, amounts to zero.
> 
> Yet despite all the support at extremely favourable terms, Davie languishes in bankruptcy protection and is looking for buyers all around the world.
> 
> Davie communications vice president Marie-Christine St-Pierre declined comment on the company’s efforts to find a buyer beyond confirming interest from two potential investors she declined to name. But she insists the shipyard is ready and able to deliver any contracts it signs with the federal government.
> 
> The stakes go far beyond the health of an individual company. The  28 large ships proposed for construction over the next three decades would create two national shipyards and a sustainable economic base for the selected regions.
> 
> So far, nobody’s complaining about the preliminary selection process. Requests for proposals will roll out next spring and the contracts likely decided by the federal cabinet in the fall of 2011.
> 
> But if the selection process is anything but totally shipshape, western alienation will be back on deck.
> 
> National Post
> dmartin@nationalpost.com




Several years decades back I worked for a very senior officer who had considerable responsibility for, _inter alia_, building/buying and refitting ships. We *despised* MIL Davie for inept management, shoddy work and, above all, its  irresistible political connections. But, _Davie_ was the preferred yard because we had to do anything and everything to _appease_ Québec.


----------



## RC

I believe it to be a certainty that Irving in Halifax will take the combattant contract.  That leaves WMG and Davie fighting for the non-combattants.

I'd much prefer to see WMG win since, as the article suggests, they have been managing under their own steam for years without government handouts.  Plus, if WMG can demonstrate some capability in big commercial ships, they might get the BCFS market back and a chunk of the eventual arctic offshore market.  But I don't think it will happen.  I think they will give it to Davie and try to appease the West Coast by throwing some of the <1000T and repair contracts that way.

And I think Davie will continue to struggle.  What else have they got?  I don't think they have have much of a natural market. 

On the other hand, Davie winning may depend on an external yard taking the gamble and buying them out.  If no one is willing to take the risk, we may finally see Davie put out of its misery.  

There was an accord signed between Davie and Irving about 6 months ago.  I assume that fell through when Davie went into bankruptcy protection.  Anyone know?  The ideal might be for Irving/Davie to team up for the combattant contract.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If I recall a lab did operate briefly off the back of one of the CCGS Darby on the west coast and I think the Terry Fox or similar on the East coast, this was out of either necessity for a SAR call or trials I can’t remember which.

When the CG let the contract for the 47’ lifeboats it went to the big Quebec yard (CIL or something), they sublet it to a bunch of numnuts in Kingston that had never actually built a proper boat before (direct words from the yard manager to me). They made a complete muck up of the boat, the contract was withdrawn and given to Nanaimo shipyards which had significant experience building aluminum boats. The first boat was rebuilt there as where the subsequent hulls. The same crap happened when the 70’ Point class was being built back East, planned acquisition was 9 hulls, I think only 2 were built and required complete re-welding and the rest of the contract cancelled. Yet the same thing happened also with the 41’ cutters, first one came from back east and was rejected completely as unfit for service, remaining hulls of the class were built by Matsumoto shipyard which did stunningly beautiful work. 
Other poorly built boats from Back East
SP barge/landing crafts used by CCG
42’ fiberglass Oil response boats
40’ cutters/crashboats (Black Duck, etc) (Low quality welds throughout)

Other than the barges and oil response boats, all of the above were proven designs bought under license from Europe and the US that were mucked up by shoddy workmanship. I firmly believe this can be traced to the significant patronage given to the yards back East, which the west rarely received. That’s not to say the West Coast has not had a it’s share of issues, like the Weatherships, Class 500, but those were mainly design issues as opposed to poor building techniques.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _national Post_ is a column about the politics of shipbuilding:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/09/don-martin-b-c-shipbuilder-fears-eastern-bias-in-35b-deal/
> 
> Several years decades back I worked for a very senior officer who had considerable responsibility for, _inter alia_, building/buying and refitting ships. We *despised* MIL Davie for inept management, shoddy work and, above all, its  irresistible political connections. But, _Davie_ was the preferred yard because we had to do anything and everything to _appease_ Québec.


Interesting opening shot in the PR campaign.  What Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, fails to mention is that they were awarded the $1.5 billion submarine maintenance contract - beating out Irving - and they had the Orca Patrol Craft construction contract as well.  WMG plays just as dirty as the other shipyards and hopefully the are fully rewarded for this interview.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## NavyShooter

I'd just like to see 'em get off the pot and start DOING something.

I've got 18 years in right now.  I am "looking forward to" having to learn a completely new combat suite on the Post FELEX ships.

I do not, based on current trends, anticipate ever having to learn how a new class of ship works before I leave the CF (be that at 25 or 30 years, we'll see.)

NS


----------



## FSTO

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Interesting opening shot in the PR campaign.  What Jonathan Whitworth, CEO of Vancouver-based Washington Marine Group, fails to mention is that they were awarded the $1.5 billion submarine maintenance contract - beating out Irving - and they had the Orca Patrol Craft construction contract as well.  WMG plays just as dirty as the other shipyards and hopefully the are fully rewarded for this interview.  Just my  :2c:



The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.




I guess it's not betraying anything to say that 15 or so years ago we used to call the *Tr*ibal Class *U*pdate and *M*odernization *P*roject (TRUMP) 'one no trump'* because the status of the ship in _Davie_ was always suspect.


----------
* A bridge player's term, for those unacquainted with it.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Is the rumour about Davie burning out every Ops room on the TRUMPs true?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Way beyond my ken; I just remember former RAdm (then Mr.) Ed Healy and assorted other RAdms and Cmdres _storming_ about "F___ing Davie." My concern, then, was radar fits and electromagnetic compatibility issues and the like.


----------



## cobbler

RC said:
			
		

> Well, you'll notice that they are still doing the outfit work, or at the very least the systems integration in Australia.  Also, Australia has an established naval construction industry, which has built and as far as I know continues to build the ANZAC frigates and numerous other naval vessels.  *The decision to built part of these destroyers in Spain * may simply have been a schedule and/or capacity issue.  However, Australia has recently displayed some short-term gain, long-term loss style politicking in their national naval industry that in my opinion is indeed out to lunch.



The destroyers are being built entirely in Australia. Its the LHDs that are being built in Spain and fitted out in Australia. Due to the fact that no Australian shipyard has the capability to build 28,000 ton flat tops.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

FSTO said:
			
		

> The difference between WMG built ships/boats and Irving or MIL Davie built ships/boats is that they come in under the time frame, under budget and they work.


While they were on-time, the Orcas were a mess when delivered.  Corrosion and dissimilar metals issues IIRC.  Be that as it may, building cadet and navigation training boats to a proven design with no combat systems is a far cry from building complex warships and integrating combat systems from multiple suppliers.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

Quick question - aside from repairs what work on major vessels (>4000 tonnes) have any of these three yards done in the last 10 years?  Civil or Military.

When was the last vessel built from the keel up by these yards? I suspect that you might want to have them build the AOPVs first with a planned buy of 8 vessels so that you can scrap the first 2 early as learning experiences and still leave you an operational fleet of 6.  CSCs to follow and JSS to run concurrently with the CSC delivery.

All of these yards seem likely to face really steep learning curves and your first vessels are equally likely to be "challenges" for their crews.

Edit: Actually - just thinking further on this issue it may be appropriate to follow the Dane's lead on the CSC and, despite the urgent need for the Air Defence Vessels, build the simplest vessels first and arguably the simplest vessel is a Command and Support Vessel which is ultimately a hull wrapped around an empty space with an inboard motor.  That vessel can be used to qualify the hull and machinery as well as the primary ships controls while still supplying a useful capability.  The Air Defence Vessels will be the most complex of the variant vessels produced over the next 30 years. They would be better built late in the cycle.  If they are needed immediately then perhaps they should be built off shore by a "practiced" yard and then plan for refits and extensions in Canadian yeards at 10 and 20 year milestones.  Then by the time the 30 year cycle repeats the Canadian yards will be fully up to speed and "practiced" themselves.

A quick question for those in the know - did the decision to outfit the AOPVs with a conventional drive train vice athe Azipod system have anything to do with a desire to have a common Bridge and control architecture across the Navy's fleet?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A quick question for those in the know - did the decision to outfit the AOPVs with a conventional drive train vice athe Azipod system have anything to do with a desire to have a common Bridge and control architecture across the Navy's fleet?


No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers.  

The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.

Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the _Huron _ billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.

Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?


----------



## FSTO

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> While they were on-time, the Orcas were a mess when delivered.  Corrosion and dissimilar metals issues IIRC.  Be that as it may, building cadet and navigation training boats to a proven design with no combat systems is a far cry from building complex warships and integrating combat systems from multiple suppliers.  Just my  :2c:



Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS. Crap happens, you fix it and move on. Not like a certain yard on the St Lawrence that we regularly had to steal our ships from to get them finished.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yep and they were all brought into drydock and fixed with no lawsuits or other BS.


Fixed at Crown expense.

I'm not playing one shipyard against another - merely pointing out that playing dirty politics with ship building is par for the course for all the major yards.  WMG can count the number of MPs in BC from the government side of the house just as well as we can - hence the whine on their bearing.  They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either.  Easy to do when you've got a $1.5 billion submarine contract to tide your shipyard over for the next 15 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> .... They're not trying to win the contracts but rather kill them all together by poisoning public opinion on naval ship building so that their competition don't win either. ....



I hope you're wrong on this one Lex but I can't bring myself to rule it out.  I have seen major West Coast fishing companies, WMGs customers, playing beggar thy neighbour in the bad old days of the Alaskan pollock derbys.  It was important to catch all the fish you could, even if you couldn't process them all efficiently and had to dump excess waste overboard, just so that they other fleets wouldn't have any fish to catch. Therefore they not only deprived their competitors of revenue but also drove up the value of the fish that they had on hand.

It would seem to answer the question of why we started with a "cheap" and effective Norwegian solution and now we are asking for a less capable beast that will cost more.  The more you ask to be deleted the higher the price seems to climb.

If the Government cant get an honest quote from these three yards maybe it should consider "nationalization" or going offshore.


----------



## RC

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> No - cut due to cost.  The propulsion plant is proposed to be diesel-electric twin shafts with bolt on propellers, similar to existing CCG icebreakers.
> 
> The current plan is for 6 AOPS maximum but that is still too expensive for the $ allocated which was in 2007 dollars.  Delays due to alignment with the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) timeline will also reduce the numbers of hulls as will paying for the NSPS which came in the form of a tax on all ship construction projects.  I would be surprised if more than 4 are ordered.
> 
> Many commentators miss the fact that the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) funding also includes building a deep water naval port at Nanisivik.  The other constraint is that the navy must crew AOPS from the current personnel establishment, which is smaller than when AOPS was announced due to the loss of the _Huron _ billets to the air force and army.  Your guess as to where the AOPS crew billets will come from is as good as mine.
> 
> Attached is the latest artist's impression...notice anything that has been down-sized?



The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.

The azipods were cut due to cost, which was unfortunate, but looking at the cost, the two biggest fators were the speed and the propulsion system.  The Svalbard was a 17 knot ship as well.

I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.  Can you give any more details on what you mean by this?

There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.  BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.


----------



## RC

cobbler said:
			
		

> The destroyers are being built entirely in Australia. Its the LHDs that are being built in Spain and fitted out in Australia. Due to the fact that no Australian shipyard has the capability to build 28,000 ton flat tops.



Good to know and good for the Australians.

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RC: "Good to know"?

Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas 
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/



> *Australia’s largest defence project begins with early construction problems*
> 
> 09:41 GMT, October 28, 2010 defpro.com | In April 2010, the Australian shipbuilder ASC proudly announced: “Construction of Australia’s air warfare destroyer (AWD) capability is underway, with three Australian shipyards simultaneously building destroyer blocks.” A little more than six months later, Australia’s largest defence project, with an estimated value of approximately $8 billion, had reportedly experienced its first serious setback. The simultaneous construction of AWD blocks in different Australian shipyards, which was lauded by ASC Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ludlam in April and which is a standard procedure in today’s shipbuilding business, is the origin of technical problems in this particular case.
> 
> As “The Australian” reported earlier this week, Williamstown-based shipyards of AWD subcontractor BAE Systems Australia “botched” the construction of the central keel block. The newspaper explained that the technical problems resulted from faulty welding and inadequate quality control, which led to inaccurate dimensions of the manufactured parts (see also http://goo.gl/Ei2T). Furthermore, “The Australian” reports of an alleged rift between BAE Systems Australia and the ship’s Spanish designer, Navantia. The AWD is based on the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán F100-class frigates.
> 
> The technical problems in the hull block construction of the ADW flagship HMAS Hobart, reportedly, may entail additional costs worth several million dollars and delay the project by up to six months...
> 
> ...an unnamed source told the newspaper: “This is not a small problem – this is a major headache for us. This will have a ripple effect on the whole project because that hull block is critical, and if that block is delayed, then a raft of other things also get delayed.”
> 
> Full block production of HMAS Hobert is being carried out at three shipyards across Australia: ASC in Adelaide, BAE Systems in Melbourne and Forgacs in Newcastle. Each ship is made up of 31 blocks. ASC has subcontracted the construction of 65 blocks to BAE Systems and FORGACS over the life of the AWD programme. ASC will build 28 blocks, and integrate and consolidate all 93 blocks into the three warships. BAE Systems Australia won the $300 million contract to build 36 blocks in 2009
> 
> According to the Australian Department of Defence (DoD), the blocks will be transported in groups by sea, with 15 trips from BAE Systems shipyard in Melbourne and eight from the Forgacs shipyard in Newcastle...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards



And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards.  

Thanks for the clarification RC.

Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?


----------



## Stoker

Whatever they're going to do I wish they would make a decision and start cutting steel. I would like to get commissioning crew on one of these ships before I retire!


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And that explains the cost differential between Svalbard and the AOPS -  the Norwegians already had adequate yards.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification RC.
> 
> Does that mean that once the yards are refitted that the cost of building future vessels will fall?  Should the various shipbuilding programmes be rebid once the yards are upgraded?



There are a large number of differences between the designs as well.  The AOPS design is loosely based on the Svalbard, but the requirements came 100% from the GOC based on their needs.  Svalbard was a reference, but not a parent.

It does mean that the cost will fall.  There should be improvement in infrastructure costs, labour efficiency, risk management, purchasing negotiations, and so on.  I can't speculate on how the government will manage costs, nor on how the yards will bid the NSPS, but I expect both will try to quantify the cost improvements and negotiate the programmes on that basis.




			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RC: "Good to know"?
> 
> Australian Air Warfare Destroyer Construction in Choppy Seas
> http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/681/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I hope you aren't insinuating that BAE Systems is not a credible builder of naval vessels or that the Austrlians would have been better off having it made in Romania?

Would you like to hear about the time my friend had a steel dock building fabricated in Romania and it was shipped back stitch welded together with all of the fillet welds done in silicone sealant painted silver?  Cheaper isn't always better and even the best yards can have a few quality problems on a new product.

Both BAE in Williamstown and Forgacs are capable yards (I don't know the third one mentioned) and I'm sure they'll get this sorted out.  I'm equally sure the media blew this out of proportion and/or got it completely wrong.  You have to realize that while all three are probably capable, they are also competitors.  They will blow each others slip ups, that you would normally never hear about, up as much as possible for commercial reasons.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'll ditto in with Stoker....it'd be nice for this to get moving ahead....they've been talking AOPS for what....5 years-ish now?

It'll be nice if they get it right, but it'd be great if they'd get started!!!!!

NS


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

RC said:
			
		

> The port as well as the ILS component are separate budgets from the construction budget.


Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS. 



			
				RC said:
			
		

> I've not heard anything about paying for the NSPS program with the ship budgets, unless you mean the cost of paying for whatever upgrades the chosen yards need, which will likely be the responsibility of the yards and thus I suppose you could consider as a "tax" against the programs.


I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS. 



			
				RC said:
			
		

> There haven't been any substantial design changes since early 2009, so nothing new downsized in that rendering.


LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> BTW, it's not really an artists impression.  It's a rendering of the completed design.  An artist's impression is usually done at the beginning of a project before there is a design and is imaginary, thus the name impression.


More semantics.  This is no more the completed design than any previous version.  Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lex Parsimoniae:  Which is to say that this government, like its predecessors, has no real concern with how the military (Navy) can serve any intelligent appreciation of national interests weighed against available government financial resources.  In other words, whenever possible, spend the money available to seek votes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Semantics.  The radar budget is different from the RHIB budget but it all comes from the vote 5 allocation for AOPS.
> I’m talking about NSPS staff, project office, selection of yards, legal fees, etc.  Check the budget estimates and try and find a line item that covers the cost of running the NSPS.



I admit I'm no expert on government budgeting, but I assumed those costs would come from the budgets of the departments doing the work.  At any rate, my point was that regardless of the port or NSPS or any other factors, the budget for the construction of the vessels has remained constant throughout the project thus far.



			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> LOL – so you read the watermarked date too?  A fair amount has been changed in that drawing from the previous version.



There have been two rendered versions of AOPS publically released.  One at 110m, azipods drives, 20 knots, with a huge landing craft on a dedicated davit; the other, a 100m, 17 knot ship as seen in the image you posted.  The first was released in late 2008.  Requirement changes were made in early 2009 with "design changes" (in quotes because in early 2009 the design was very preliminary anyway) made in mid 2009 after which the second image was released.

The image you posted and the changes in it from the previous version have already been discussed at length earlier in this thread.  My point was that nothing substantial has changed since all of that was already discussed.



			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Every passing day means that the 2007 budget buys less and thus the project staff have to cut more.  To put it in layman’s terms, imagine ordering a 2011 VW Passat for your entire family with the budget for a 2007 VW Passat.  You’re going to have to drop the heated seats, spare tire, etc until eventually you’re down to a single VW Golf and three or four bus passes.



I am currently on a ship file that was orginally priced in 2007.  We've been pricing the ship each year since then to renew the offer.  Each year the price has gone down.  To put it in professional terms, imagine that a 6000 tonne ship is not a VW Passat.  Although to be honest, I'd be surprised if there has been that much inflation in the price of a Passat either.  The economic realities of the shipbuilding industry in the past few years can't be that much different from the car industry.

Besides, what makes you think that the budget released in 2007 would have any effect on the price of a ship designed in 2009?  The inflation clock affecting the design started when the pricing for the design was finished, not when the budget was released.  Provided there is inflation.

Having said that, I am in no way trying to argue that they shouldn't get on this and start construction ASAP.



			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> This is no more the completed design than any previous version.



Actually, it is.  As I said, there have been two versions released.  The first version was based on a list of desires from the GOC that had not been checked against the budget.  The image was based on a GA, weight estimate, stability calculation, and a parametric price estimate.  It was, in every sense, a development image of an early design created to prove viability.  This should not be considered as a design that was changed for price reasons.  It was a set of requirements that were changed to align with the budget.  It happened to have an associated image that was unfortunately released to the public.

That exercise complete, the second version that was released is a completed and approved class package design.  It has everything from paint schedule to structural drawings to mechanical schematics.  It is not the impression of an artist, it is the technical conclusions of naval architects and marine engineers.

If you want to hold the governments feet to the fire over the differences between an image from a viability study and an image from a class approved design, I can't stop you, but please don't argue that it's a semantic difference.


----------



## NavyShooter

So RC,

You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?

How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?

NS


----------



## RC

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> So RC,
> 
> You seem to be more in the "know".....any idea when they're going to start building them?
> 
> How about crew break-down?  Will it be all Military, or will there be a military/civilian component?
> 
> NS



No idea.  It depends on the NSPS now.  They should be able to start the detail design process (selecting specific suppliers and integrating their equipment) the day the NSPS is signed and start cutting steel 3 to 4 months after that, but I don't know if it will happen that way or not.  As announced previously, the design is sitting on the shelf waiting for the government to be ready for it.

It is a Navy crew with the capacity to carry supernumeraries from other military or civilian departments depending on the mission.  The ice navigator and meteorologist on Arctic missions will likely be civilians, at least until the Navy can get some trained onboard the ships.  There will also be some facility for civilian ILS support onboard on an as needed basis.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?


----------



## RC

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am curious that the prices could be going down for these vessels as the price for steel is rapidly rising.  Or are the (in Passat terms) optional equipment getting pared down and or switched for cheaper options?



There are a large number of factors on a ship.  Hence the reason it doesn't compare very well with a car.  For instance, in 2007, the demand for medium speed engines, or more specifically for their crankshafts had completely blocked the market.  They simply couldn't be produced quickly enough to meet demand.  Delivery times were running over 12 months and the costs were grossly inflated.  As the world demand plummeted after the fall of 2008, the prices of engines and many other pieces of equipment dropped with the demand, as suppliers went from having huge backorder books to struggling for sales.

Also, the volatility of various currencies currently allows yards to cherrypick equipment from cheaper markets.

This is relatively short term though and I believe a recovery is already underway.  It will likely be a while before prices come back to 2007 levels, since they were caused by a demand bubble, but they will quickly rise from where they are now.


----------



## NavyShooter

Soooo....

The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right?  

So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?

Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?

NS


----------



## RC

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Soooo....
> 
> The AOPS is linked directly to the NSPS....right?
> 
> So how much slippage in the plan does this mean?
> 
> Is the a guestimate as to when the first hull will be delivered?
> 
> NS



As far as I know, the RFP for AOPS was scheduled to come out in spring of 2010, before it was delayed by the NSPS.  I would guess under the old process that they would have given 4 months for the yards to evaluate and bid and another 4 months to assess; a process that won't be necessary under the NSPS.  

So if they were to conclude the NSPS today and start the AOPS contract tomorrow, they wouldn't really have lost any ground.  But I don't expect they'll conclude the NSPS until late next spring at the soonest, so I would speculate that it will be delayed by at least 6 months.

My yard would probably be about 30 to 34 months to comfortably build a ship that size with a design in hand.  A Canadian yard will be a little slower, so I'd say 3 to 3.5 years.  If they get on it, that puts us into mid to late 2014.


----------



## NavyShooter

RC,

Which yard to you represent?

NS


----------



## RC

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> RC,
> 
> Which yard to you represent?
> 
> NS



I'm on a two year assignment to build a proposal department in a French shipyard.  I'm on loan from a Canadian company, but not a yard.  So I temporarily represent a French yard, but I don't represent any Canadian yard.


----------



## Stoker

I was wondering why couldn't something similar to the original HMCS Labrador could be built, obviously updated of course. That design seemed to be highly successful operating in the Arctic.


----------



## RC

Stoker said:
			
		

> I was wondering why couldn't something similar to the original HMCS Labrador could be built, obviously updated of course. That design seemed to be highly successful operating in the Arctic.



What performance aspect of HMCS Labrador is not met by the AOPS?  At a glance, they have relatively similar mission profiles and dimensions, with AOPS being a little lighter, faster, longer, and a lot more modern.

Two of the main differences will be range and survivability, with range going down and survivability going up.  New cleanship regulations for the Arctic mean that there is no fuel against the shell, which naturally means quite a bit less fuel onboard.  And the requisite double hull to meet that regulation, combined with much better stability regulations means better survivability.

Also, with an aft helideck, the Labrador lacked the flexibility of an aft working deck and crane and the benefit of setting the helo down closer to the CG of the vessel in rough weather.

Both have 4 positions for boarding and lifeboats, but the AOPS can be pushed to 6 with all of them protected from the elements and having better launch cover.  AOPS can also carry and launch a raft, truck, and snowmobiles as required, which I don't believe was the case with the Labrador.

The Wind-Class ice-breakers also had a very high draft, which would make access to a lot of areas in the Arctic problematic, increase the likelihood of ice grounding, and make ridge penetration more challenging.  They did have the forward propeller to help with milling, ramming, and clearing, but I think they were usually not mounted as they must have been a pain to maintain.

To be honest though, they'd look quite similar if the AOPS boats and foredeck weren't covered.


----------



## STONEY

I would think that a updated  CCGS Henry Larsen  would be far better than  a Labrador type.  But this ship is probably a lot more ice capable then called for in a AOPS.   Also a ships hull maximized for ice is usually terrible seaboats in open ocean.  Although the Larsen has plenty endurance , nice accomidations and small crew.  I think that suggested design's  are a compromise of various factors mostly $$$$.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Building a new copy of the HMCS Labrador would be like building a new Centurion tank. It was an excellent tank for it’s day, but technology has moved on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Lazarus rising:

In light of the Resolute Bay air crash, the Air Force report on deploying Trenton Griffons or Pet Chinooks by CC-177s for Majaid, and the pending decision on shipbuilding procurement  I thought it was time to re-open this thread.

The particular point of interest is the availability of air assets north of 60.  

It occurs to me that the AOPS is designed to supply a platform to maintain a presence north of 60 year round,  even if restricted to movement at the ice-edge and in young ice.

The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.

Having said that:

Assume that we are 7 years down the road and there are 2 AOPS permanently on station north of 60 but at the ice edge, one in the Baffin Bay area and the other in the Beaufort Sea area.

With those two platforms in place how would their organic CH-146s influence Majaid planning?
How about if the CH-146s were replaced by the more operationally expensive CH-148s?
Or if a pair of CH-147s were based  at Resolute or Nanisivik to work in conjunction with the AOPS and the Polar Icebreaker?

On another tack:

How do the AOPS hospital and hotel accomodations stack up against the existing land-based infrastructure in terms of quality and availability?


----------



## Furniture

RC said:
			
		

> It is a Navy crew with the capacity to carry supernumeraries from other military or civilian departments depending on the mission.  The ice navigator and meteorologist on Arctic missions will likely be civilians, at least until the Navy can get some trained on board the ships.  There will also be some facility for civilian ILS support onboard on an as needed basis.



Not to pick fly s**t from pepper, but the RCN has forecasters aboard all of their ships that have an air det. Eventually when the Met trade is up to strength all of the frigates and destroyers will have two forecasters.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Lazarus rising:
> 
> In light of the Resolute Bay air crash, the Air Force report on deploying Trenton Griffons or Pet Chinooks by CC-177s for Majaid, and the pending decision on shipbuilding procurement  I thought it was time to re-open this thread.
> 
> The particular point of interest is the availability of air assets north of 60.
> 
> It occurs to me that the AOPS is designed to supply a platform to maintain a presence north of 60 year round,  even if restricted to movement at the ice-edge and in young ice.
> 
> The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.
> 
> Having said that:
> 
> Assume that we are 7 years down the road and there are 2 AOPS permanently on station north of 60 but at the ice edge, one in the Baffin Bay area and the other in the Beaufort Sea area.
> 
> With those two platforms in place how would their organic CH-146s influence Majaid planning?
> How about if the CH-146s were replaced by the more operationally expensive CH-148s?
> Or if a pair of CH-147s were based  at Resolute or Nanisivik to work in conjunction with the AOPS and the Polar Icebreaker?
> 
> On another tack:
> 
> How do the AOPS hospital and hotel accomodations stack up against the existing land-based infrastructure in terms of quality and availability?



AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.

There is a misconception that landing on a moving ship is so easy, anyone can do it.  It is not (speaking with over 500 deck cycles on HMC and allied ships).

A ship carrying a helo the size of Chinook would have to be much, much larger than what we are planning the AOPs to be.  A Chinook, all up, is about double a Cyclone in weight.


----------



## Baz

Quote from: Kirkhill on August 24, 2011, 12:08:52
The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.



Both incorrect:

Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/DRAFT%20AOPS%20Helicopter%20Interface%20Requirements%20Rev%204.pdf

3.2 Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter

The AOPS will operate a Cnadian Coast Guard helicopter during deployments to the Canadian Arctic.  Characteristics of Canadian Coast Guard helicopter are listed at Appendix A.

The AOPS may operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on occasion during deployments in other Canadian waters, including: the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.

...

The AOPS shall provide the facilities and services required to maintain one Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for deployments of up to 120 days duration, during which the helicopter is assumed to fly for a total of approximately 150 hours.

...

3.3 CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter

The AOPS will support limited operations of a CH-148 Cyclone helicopter on occasion and for short periods during deployments in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and in international waters...

...

The AOPS will have limited ability to support the CH-148 Cyclone ... (no C_RAST, no MPAS, no IVHMS, no ADR, no workshops, no munitions)...

3.4 CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter

The AOPS will provide an emergency flight deck and refuelling services for the CH-149...


The CH-146 or CH-147 or not included.  My preference would be to operate (within appropriate limits), but not necessarily embark, all CF helicopters.  However, that would come with a cost, and there is little wiggle room in AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> AOPS will not carry anything besides a Cyclone.  Trying carry a non-marinized army helo on a naval ship (especially one wth skids)  is a disaster in the offing.
> 
> There is a misconception that landing on a moving ship is so easy, anyone can do it.  It is not (speaking with over 500 deck cycles on HMC and allied ships).
> 
> A ship carrying a helo the size of Chinook would have to be much, much larger than what we are planning the AOPs to be.  A Chinook, all up, is about double a Cyclone in weight.



Coast Guard has had the labs land on the deck of the CCGS Darby which was an ex-oil rig resupply vessel, I think they did the same with the Terry fox, but not 100% sure. A leased oil rig supply vessel would be an excellent way to provide a mobile helicopter support platform. would be worth trying out just for the experiance it would bring. I regularly see a Chinook operating off a 200' foot barge on the central coast as part of a logging operation.
Mind you all of the above are limited to decent weather or sheltered waters.


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> Quote from: Kirkhill on August 24, 2011, 12:08:52
> The AOPS as currently configured, is designed to carry a CH-146 or a CH-148 and be able to launch and recover a CH-149.  I personally think the deck should be big and strong to launch and recover the CH-147 as well.
> 
> Both incorrect:
> 
> Ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/DRAFT%20AOPS%20Helicopter%20Interface%20Requirements%20Rev%204.pdf



With Respect to all concerned  - From the same document



> 14 Appendix A: Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter
> 
> 14.1 General
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard is in the early stages of a project to replace its fleet of
> helicopters. The project plans to acquire 6 medium twin engine helicopters and 16 light
> twin engine helicopters.
> 
> *The candidates for the medium helicopter requirement include the Bell 412*, the
> Eurocopter EC155 and the AgustaWestland AW139.
> 
> The candidates for the light helicopter requirement include the Bell 429, the Eurocopter
> EC135, the Eurocopter EC145 and the AgustaWestland AW109.
> 
> *For the purposes of this specification and because it has the largest and thus most
> demanding folded dimensions, the future Canadian Coast Guard medium helicopter is
> assumed to be the Bell 412  with optional blade folding kit.*
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard helicopters are operated by Transport Canada on behalf of the
> Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> The *Bell 412   helicopter has a skid landing gear *with a skid length of 4.87 metres and a
> skid width of 3.24 meters.



From the statement that the Coast Guard helicopter is assumed to be the primary tenant while the AOPS is in the arctic, where the AOPS is to spend 2/3 of its time, and that the lead candidate for the Coast Guard helicopter is given as the Bell 412, which (I stand to be corrected) is the civilian designation of the CH-146 Griffon, I assumed that the Griffon would be able to operated from the AOPS.

Lots of assumptions.   I'm sure at least one of them is wrong.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not to put too fine a point on it:

Canadian Coast Guard helicopter (MBB Bo105) on skids, on a ship (USCGS Healey) at sea, in the ice.

And also we have this:

http://www.stxmarine.com/lib_cowley.html

Describing the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, which patrols the Grand Banks, as being capable of supporting those same MBB Bo105s.

The Cowley displaces 2080 tonnes and is 72m LOA.


I am going to guess, because I have no knowledge, that an ice-covered sea does not generate the same wave motion as open waters - even if the ice is just slob.

On the other hand, the Cowley operates in the open waters of the North Atlantic without benefit of RAST equipment (as I understand).

The Cowley is broadly in the same class as the Danish OPV Rasmussen, which see


----------



## Baz

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From the statement that the Coast Guard helicopter is assumed to be the primary tenant while the AOPS is in the arctic, where the AOPS is to spend 2/3 of its time, and that the lead candidate for the Coast Guard helicopter is given as the Bell 412, which (I stand to be corrected) is the civilian designation of the CH-146 Griffon, I assumed that the Griffon would be able to operated from the AOPS.
> 
> Lots of assumptions.   I'm sure at least one of them is wrong.



Nope, none of them are wrong.  But your original port said "designed to operate" a CH-146, which is wrong.  Operate and embark have differnet meanings, and just because a similar type can operate and/or embark, doesn't automatically make a fleet capable of doing so.

AOPS theoritcally could operate the CH-146, but we have no intention of training CH-146 crews to do so.  Coast Guard crews are already trained in Maritime Ops.

As I said, I would like to see all of the CF helicopter inventory able to operate to *some* extent with all CF ships, but the resources required aren't available.  Well, not completely true - the HOSTAC (Helicopter Operations from Ships other Than Aircraft Carriers) may allow some degree of operation, which is TBD.

By the way, VU-32 Hueys operated from, but did not embark on (AFAIK), HMC Ships up until 1992:
http://www.shearwateraviationmuseum.ns.ca/aircraft/twinhuey.htm

They obviously had their own section in the SHOPs (Shipborne Helicopter Operational Procedures).


Editted to Change AOPS could carry...


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> ...your original port said "designed to operate" a CH-146, which is wrong.  ...



Which is why, at work, we have a bunch of people checking my vocabulary and punctuation...... :-[


----------



## chrisf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Describing the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, which patrols the Grand Banks, as being capable of supporting those same MBB Bo105s.



The Cowley is capable of embarking a helicopter, as are the 1100 class ice breakers, some others, and all the larger ships (Larsen, Radisson, Louis, etc, with the exception of the Fox, no hanger facilities), but does not regularly operate with one. It's only embarked as required by mission.

With regards to the ice breakers/arctic ops, the helicopters typically fill the ice recce/resupply role.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for continuing my education Sig Op.


----------



## chrisf

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

I only point it out as I know many people assume because the coast guard ships have a hanger, they carry a helicopter (+pilot and mechanic), while reality is they seldom do. Just as often, if not more often, the hanger is used as a cargo deck.

Assuming that the Cowley is operating with a helicopter in the North Atlantic on a regular basis is a bit of a stretch, and comparing coast guard helicopter operations/requirements to naval helicopter operations/requirements would be a bit of a further stretch.


----------



## Kirkhill

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not......



I get that a lot actually.  You would think I might have learned by now.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.  I really do appreciate having my misperceptions and outright errors fixed.

Thanks again.


----------



## Kirkhill

I know this is a bit tangential to the matter at hand but:

The Northwest Passage seems likely to be more of a canal maintained by Transport Canada Ice Breakers and policed by the RCMP with the Navy standing Gate Guard at both ends.  To my eye it seems that that chunk of real estate is more likely to be accessed by planes, helicopters, ATVs and OSVs than it is by ships.

Is it realistic to suggest that perhaps all civilian vessels over a certain size that intend to operate in ice covered Canadian waters should be required to have a large Helicopter Landing Pad - both for their own safety and also to increase the number of "lily pads" available to aircrew and the number or "refuges" available to distressed survivors or disasters.....  But I digress.... A lot.

The thought was prompted by seeing a few minutes of a Mighty Ships episode on the Voisey Bay AC4 Ice Capable Bulk Carrier Umiak 1 of some approximately 30,000 DWT.  That led me to Canship Ugland, which led me to FedNav, which led me to a fleet of ice strengthened bulk carriers and tankers, some of which already are equipped with helicopter pads.  Umiak 1 apparently has an older cousin of roughly the same capabilities: Arctic.

I presume that in addition to servicing the odd northern mine, ( like Voisey Bay, Rankin, Polaris and Nanisivik )  that the bulk of the freight carried is grain and ore on the Great Lakes and, more importantly for this discussion, on Hudson Bay out of Churchill.


----------



## chrisf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is it realistic to suggest that perhaps all civilian vessels over a certain size that intend to operate in ice covered Canadian waters should be required to have a large Helicopter Landing Pad - both for their own safety and also to increase the number of "lily pads" available to aircrew and the number or "refuges" available to distressed survivors or disasters.....  But I digress.... A lot.



Don't forget, a helicopter landing pad on it's own isn't that useful. You'd need to add refueling equipment, fuel tanks for the refueling equipment, and training for the flight deck crew.

http://woodwards.nf.ca/

Woodwards does a fair bit of shipping in the Arctic as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Don't forget, a helicopter landing pad on it's own isn't that useful. You'd need to add refueling equipment, fuel tanks for the refueling equipment, and training for the flight deck crew.
> 
> ........



Understood but I would think that even a platform without fuel would increase the options for a SAR team.

For example - Lots of survivors and fuel running low - the closer the nearest refuge the shorter the distance the helicopter has to lift the survivors increasing the number of survivors that can be transported to safety on each lift and increasing the likelihood of being able to make multiple lifts.

Equally the helicopter itself could put down on the ship and either ride the ship back to port or ..... possibly ..... have fuel flown out to her.   I think.  

Amateur playing silly bugger again.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I get that a lot actually.  You would think I might have learned by now.
> 
> No, I wasn't being sarcastic.  I really do appreciate having my misperceptions and outright errors fixed.
> 
> Thanks again.



Maybe a  at the end of your post might help reduce the number of people wondering if you are being sarcastic? Just a suggestion.


----------



## chrisf

Perhaps the AOPS electronics suite should include a sarcasm detector?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggXmKPMaHMo


----------



## Kirkhill

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Maybe a  at the end of your post might help reduce the number of people wondering if you are being sarcastic? Just a suggestion.



Thanks for the heads up.

Unfortunately it also happens in person. ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

To come to Kirkhill's defence, he comes up with some original thinking. A lot of it fails the "say what" test, but there also are some ideas that merit examination. A lot of those also crash and burn, but a number make it through. He and I have discussed a number of issues by pm and I find him sincere when he said he erred or thanked me for an explanation.

Beside, he is a Scot, like I are by ancestry, and we both feel in our oatmeal slurping bones that happy faces are the works of the Devil, or the English. Still, if it will help, he should go for it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The Cowley is capable of embarking a helicopter, as are the 1100 class ice breakers, some others, and all the larger ships (Larsen, Radisson, Louis, etc, with the exception of the Fox, no hanger facilities), but does not regularly operate with one. It's only embarked as required by mission.
> 
> With regards to the ice breakers/arctic ops, the helicopters typically fill the ice recce/resupply role.



Not to mention carting crews around to maintain nav aids and such


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin: Perhaps you can enlighten us a bit more on Coastguard helicopters.

My understanding is that they are civilian helicopters that are restricted to visual flight rules (thus, they do not fly in fog, rain or at night), that they carry no sensors (no surface search radars, FLIR's, light amplification systems for night or TAC displays with links to integrate with their mother ship) and that the fact that they have no deck landing system restricts their use to some pretty low sea states.

Is my understanding correct?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The helicopters are owned by Transport Canada who leases/rents them and their crews to CCG. They were equipped (90's) with GPS and DF equipment to find the ship. The S61 based in Prince Rupert was equipped with a hoist, and to my knowledge has been used a couple of times, but no one was properly trained on them and may still be a running issue. I suspect most TC helicopters are VFR only, but most TC aircraft (like their King airs) are IFR equipped. I will wander down to civ aviation and ask as to current practices if they know.
Some of the east coast helicopters I think have cameras and FLIRs. We had FLIR on the SRN 6 hovercraft but found it rather useless in the fog. 

there is no deck drawdown for the helo so limited sea state are a must, we have used then in certain circumstances in seas, but I can't recall accurate sea states, normally we are close to the coast so worst case the helo flies to shore to await weather or for the ship to find sheltered water. As it got rougher I recall strapping down a cargo net on the flight deck to provide more traction to the skids. Cargo was normally long lined off the well deck, personal was loaded on the flight deck.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thank you - I look forward to the extra info when available as this will greatly enhanced our ongoing discussion on type to embark on AOPS.

BTW, and this may be a personal view, to me Transport Canada aircrew are civilians.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

that's ok, I consider all police officer citizens also..... ;D


----------



## MightyIndustry

How long does it take a CF-18 with armaments to fly up to the Northwest Passage?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Back on topic please.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A note the 1100 uses a retractable hanger. Not sure if it would fit a 412.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xm5Lx47Qgc/Tf6OSCh84xI/AAAAAAAAEfU/iPxqp9Uf9FE/s1600/IMG_3952%2BEC%2Band%2BSWA.jpg


----------



## RC

Colin P said:
			
		

> A note the 1100 uses a retractable hanger. Not sure if it would fit a 412.
> 
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6xm5Lx47Qgc/Tf6OSCh84xI/AAAAAAAAEfU/iPxqp9Uf9FE/s1600/IMG_3952%2BEC%2Band%2BSWA.jpg



Navy wasn't interested in that option due to maintenance issues both of the hangar and in the hangar.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....


I suspect it might be too small for AOR use.  The question as posed is interesting though.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Small LPD for use in Northern Waters might be really interesting.

A way to get our feet wet while operating domestically?  ;D

Perhaps a little more emphasis on Ship to Shore and the LCVPs?  A Domestic Mothership for Danish type SAR/LCPs - Swedish CBH-90s?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Small LPD for use in Northern Waters might be really interesting.
> 
> A way to get our feet wet while operating domestically?  ;D
> 
> Perhaps a little more emphasis on Ship to Shore and the LCVPs?  A Domestic Mothership for Danish type SAR/LCPs - Swedish CBH-90s?



Honestly, I think we could get alot done with a couple of converted car ferries, and a few landing craft/ LVTP type amphibious vehicles (or BV 206s). You don't need a fully bombed up warship to 'show the flag' in peacetime in your own backyard IMHO.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think we could get alot done with a couple of converted car ferries, and a few landing craft/ LVTP type amphibious vehicles (or BV 206s). You don't need a fully bombed up warship to 'show the flag' in peacetime in your own backyard IMHO.



Fair enough, but if we're building the blighters in any event why not ensure you can sway out some decent sized boats?  And, if I understand correctly, these AOPS things don't really qualify as fully bombed up warships.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but if we're building the blighters in any event why not ensure you can sway out some decent sized boats?  And, if I understand correctly, these AOPS things don't really qualify as fully bombed up warships.



Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.


----------



## Stoker

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.



Sadly that's true but at least we're getting something and that's better than we have right now SFA. At least the navy is expanding.


----------



## Richard.Donafeld

The naby is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy newer ships always present the hope for that.


----------



## STONEY

Using a AOPS hull form for other types of ships is makes about as much sense as entering a chuckwagon in the INDY 500.
The AOPS uses a single hull optomized for slow speed in ice. The hull uses reinforced specially shaped hull form to ride up on then break thru 
ice. This shape makes it a lousy seakeeping boat in open ocean.  The AOR uses a double hull that is fat and deep to hold large amounts of
fuel oil and supplies and the structure of hull and shape is entirely different.  A LPD is as different again as day is to night and the hull shape 
so radically different from the other two to make it very , very , impractical.  Would you use a Herc to replace a CF-18, a 30-30 deer rifle to replace 
a c-7 .  Would you use the hull of a LAV III to build a replacement for a Leopard II , makes about as much sense as using a AOPS hull for other types of ships.  Its enough to make a ship designer cry. Are you on crack.

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones

STONEY said:
			
		

> Using a AOPS hull form for other types of ships is makes about as much sense as entering a chuckwagon in the INDY 500.
> The AOPS uses a single hull optomized for slow speed in ice. The hull uses reinforced specially shaped hull form to ride up on then break thru
> ice. This shape makes it a lousy seakeeping boat in open ocean.  The AOR uses a double hull that is fat and deep to hold large amounts of
> fuel oil and supplies and the structure of hull and shape is entirely different.  A LPD is as different again as day is to night and the hull shape
> so radically different from the other two to make it very , very , impractical.  Would you use a Herc to replace a CF-18, a 30-30 deer rifle to replace
> a c-7 .  Would you use the hull of a LAV III to build a replacement for a Leopard II , makes about as much sense as using a AOPS hull for other types of ships.  Its enough to make a ship designer cry. Are you on crack.
> 
> Cheers



You can make your point without being a sarcastic twit. You won't be told again.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Richard.Donafeld

WEng said:
			
		

> The *naby* is expanding and thats a great thing I just hope there comfy newer ships always present the hope for that.



 :facepalm: forgot spell check my bad navy*


----------



## jollyjacktar

WEng said:
			
		

> :facepalm: forgot spell check my bad navy*


Guess you weren't having a great Navy day eh?   ;D


----------



## RC

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if there has been any discussion in using the AOPS as a common hull for other ship types. For example could it be used to design a small LPD, AOR or support vessel? Just musing....



The original concept of the AOPS had a lot of LPD like features.  Wouldn't take much more than money or a sacrifice of some of the other features to bring them back.  It would only make sense if she was meant for transiting ice though.

Similar argument for a support vessel.  There are too many sacrifices for ice breaking to make the hull form practical for use out of ice.  Contrary to popular media tripe, they are quite capable at breaking ice falling roughly halfway between the type 1100 and the type 1200 in terms of capability.  They have quite a bit of deck and cargo space, so they could make a decent ice-capable multi-role vessel.

As an AOR, they don't really have the capacity.  To put things in perspective, the full displacement weight of the AOPS is roughly equivalent to the weight of the fuel that will be on the Polar icebreaker.

PS.  On behalf of ship designers, I apologize for Stoney (provided he is one as implied).  We aren't all sarcastic pricks.  Just most of us.  The AOPS is neither optimized for slow speed in ice, nor is it meant to ride up on ice while breaking (except when ridge ramming).


----------



## RC

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sadly, they are anything but warships....maybe enhanced surveillance sovereignty cutters.



They are designed for their envisioned threat environment.  To my mind it would be waste of money to design them for something that falls outside of their concept of operation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thank you for the clarifications, RC.

So RC just to confirm, unlike what _STONEY_ has alluded to, the AOPS _does _ have the capability to have a multi role function but in doing so would lessen its utility as an arctic patrol vessel?


----------



## RC

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thank you for the clarifications, RC.
> 
> So RC just to confirm, unlike what _STONEY_ has alluded to, the AOPS _does _ have the capability to have a multi role function but in doing so would lessen its utility as an arctic patrol vessel?



It has the capability, with the caveat that it would only be practical if used in ice.  If you didn't intend to use it in ice, you would adapt the hull form to the traditional styles of those particular vessel types and make it lighter, weaker, and less powerful. 

Ship design is always a balancing act.  AOPS was a particularly interesting one since the Navy wanted to optimize for somewhat contradictory capabilities.  It came out reasonably well, so the idea of using it as a base platform for other mission capabilities could be a good one if the operational need is there in the future.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

I was looking at this video about the Sea Ceptor (CAMM(M)) missile system and became intrigued by the computer generated graphics of the vessel from which it is being launched.  Does anybody recognize the Type or is it strictly notional?

The reason I include it here under the AOPS thread is it seems to bear some resemblance in capabilities to vessels like the AOPS, LCS and HDMS Absalon.

It seems to be primarily a platform rather than a fighting ship in its own right.   The view from the stern is what interests me.

The after deck is a weather deck, as is the case of the AOPS and like the AOPS it is avaiable for storing TEUs.  But unlike the AOPS with its single arm crane it has a gantry crane.   That crane straddles a trawler-style ramp from which small boats can be launched and recovered (similar in concept to the covered ramp of the Danish Knud Rasmussens).

The flight deck seems to be quite large in relation to the size of the hangar - suggesting that the vessel would normally operate a single small helicopter but could receive and launch much larger helicopters.

The space under the flight deck suggests a potential "Mission Bay/Flex Deck" as in the Absalon and the LCS.

Forard of the flight deck are the ships RHIBs.

Armament is sparse (apparently just a 57 or 76mm and 16 of these CAMM(M) thingies (EDIT: Just spotted a pair of  what look like Goalkeepers between the Hangar and the RHIBs).

Are there elements of this design (eg stern ramp, gantry crane, mission bay, larger flight deck/smaller hangar) that could easily, effectively and usefully be incorporated in the AOPS design at this stage in its development?  Or has the design been fixed?  Are changes of this type necessary?

As suggested in a previous post my own personal preference/belief is that AOPS would serve best optimized for use as a domestic platform specializing as a Mothership and in Ship to Shore movements.  Some of the design elements in that "cartoon" seem to my untutored eye to be a good/better fit for the AOPS.


----------



## jollyjacktar

A type 45 of the Daring class I believe.


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Are there elements of this design (eg stern ramp, gantry crane, mission bay, larger flight deck/smaller hangar) that could easily, effectively and usefully be incorporated in the AOPS design at this stage in its development?  Or has the design been fixed?  Are changes of this type necessary?
> 
> As suggested in a previous post my own personal preference/belief is that AOPS would serve best optimized for use as a domestic platform specializing as a Mothership and in Ship to Shore movements.  Some of the design elements in that "cartoon" seem to my untutored eye to be a good/better fit for the AOPS.



Stern Ramp
I personally dislike stern ramps, but regardless, you can't put one on a ship designed to break ice in reverse. AOPS can launch and recover from the two boarding RHIB davits, two flex davits, and the crane, with the four davits being faster, safer, and more effective in high sea states than a stern ramp.  A stern ramp would be a little better than using the crane to launch the landing craft, but doesn't justify the lost deck space imo.  The original AOPS concept was to davit launch the landing craft from an almost-well deck, but it was too expensive and likely would have had some reliability issues.  I think the crane will work fine.

Gantry crane
I can't watch the video right now, so maybe i'm missing something, but one of the primary functions of the crane is loading things from ship to barge/dock/ice/landing craft.  How would a gantry manage this function?  A gantry would be better for shifting cargo on deck, but even science vessels, which shift a lot of kit, don't use them because they aren't as flexible.

Mission bay
AOPS has a large garage with a roll up door under the flight deck for this purpose (although it also houses the ship's truck and other land vehicles).

Heli deck and hangar
The AOPS hangar is designed to maitain a Bell 212 or house a CH 148.  The heli deck can land and refuel up to a CH 149.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks RC.

So, short form, as a General Duties platform the AOPS has at least the range of capabilities apparently allowed for in the vessel described in the CAMM(M) video. It may not be able to carry as many TEUs, or LCVPs, or land as large a helicopter as the CH-147, or launch boats in as high a sea state, or carry as many vehicles but it has some of all of the above capabilities.  As well as having secure communications and potentially offering a platform for UAVs.

The afterdeck of the AOPS is specified to be able to stow (Draft SRD Sept 2010): 



> SRD 794 - The AOPS shall have sufficient deck area, structural strength and ISO container securing points that
> are compatible with an ISO container twistlock securing system to accommodate each of the
> following payload, one payload at any given time, on the quarterdeck:
> a. 6 off TEU containers, in one off two container high stack on the ship's centreline with a total
> weight not exceeding 30 tonnes and one off two container high stack with a total weight not
> exceeding 20 tonnes on each outboard side of the centreline stack, and b. 4 off TEU containers, in two off two container high stacks plus one off landing craft in the place
> of one of the outboard stacks.



Would that allow a single AOPS to transport and launch 3 LCVPs similar to the 24 kt/200 NM LCVP Mk5s if no TEUs were carried?  How about a pair of CBH-90s  and an LCVP Mk 5?

And Jollyjacktar:

After doing a little more digging on the internet I think I have found another possibility for the ship itself.  It looks like it could be modelled as a design variant for the RN's Global Combat Ship  aka Type 26/27.


----------



## NavyShooter

The first ship in the movie is the BMT Venator.

http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/







Details:

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The first ship in the movie is the BMT Venator.
> 
> http://www.bmtdsl.com/?/196/853/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Details:
> 
> http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/196/853/1708



Thanks Shooter


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thanks RC.
> 
> So, short form, as a General Duties platform the AOPS has at least the range of capabilities apparently allowed for in the vessel described in the CAMM(M) video. It may not be able to carry as many TEUs, or LCVPs, or land as large a helicopter as the CH-147, or launch boats in as high a sea state, or carry as many vehicles but it has some of all of the above capabilities.  As well as having secure communications and potentially offering a platform for UAVs.
> 
> The afterdeck of the AOPS is specified to be able to stow (Draft SRD Sept 2010):
> 
> Would that allow a single AOPS to transport and launch 3 LCVPs similar to the 24 kt/200 NM LCVP Mk5s if no TEUs were carried?  How about a pair of CBH-90s  and an LCVP Mk 5?



I would challenge you on most of the limitations mentioned if you are comparing AOPS directly to the BMT concept.  

Helo-ops:
I see very little chance the BMT Venator would be able to land a CH-149 (much less a CH-147) on that deck (it looks like a 6T deck and the spec mentions _light _ helos), and they wouldn't be able to house a CH-148 with the hangar.  The AOPS can in theory house a CH-148 and land a CH-149 at the same time in an emergency, which the BMT concept would not be able to do.   (Sidebar: is there any ship other than a helo-carrier that can land a CH-147?  That thing is a monster!).  AOPS would be slightly worse for horizontal launch UAVs due to turbulence on deck created by the full size hangar, but the hangar would offer better stowage and maintenance space for same.

Boat ops:
The BMT concept has only two davits, fairly close to the water.  That is half the capacity of AOPS and likely less capability in high sea state.  Their only visible advantage is having a pure open water hull form.  I don't count the ramp as an advantage as it is more limited in sea state than a davit.  I'm not really sure what the advantage of a ramp is other than being new and flashy...

Cargo capacity:
The BMT concept limits TEU's to one high and loses the center stowage to the ramp.  AOPS can carry up to 8 containers /w 6 on the aft deck and 2 on the flight deck.  The BMT concept can carry 2 on the aft deck, maybe three in the cargo hangar, and none on the flight deck without a crane to handle them, so I'd put the tally at 8 for AOPS and 5 for the Venator.  As mentioned, the lack of a crane on the BMT concept is a severe disadvantage for cargo.

LCVP: 
I think the BMT concept, if they are able to proceed with the cargo bay doors open might be able to carry one, but they have no clear way of launching it.  The LCVP Mk5 was in the original AOPS SRD as the landing craft, but it can't be carried anymore due to its length (15m vs. 12m aft deck space).  The AOPS landing craft will be a barge type like the CCG uses, suitable for unloading in the shallow arctic waters.   

Vehicles:
The AOPS does have a dedicated vehicle garage, with multiple ship vehicles, whereas the BMT concept would be a flex fit (ie. carry a TEU _or_ a truck), so it's hard to compare.  In terms of a cargo mission fit, AOPS has the potential to carry 8 containers, a truck, several snowmobiles, and loose fit cargo, whereas the BMT concept would probably be limited to 3 containers, a truck, snowmobiles, and minimal loose cargo.

In short, here is a brief summary of things AOPS does well and things it does not so well:
Well:
Carry cargo, vehicles, boats, and helos.  This is what it is designed for.
Balance ice-breaking and open water performance.

Not so well:
Go fast.
Handle in open water.
Look pretty.


----------



## Kirkhill

RC 

I thought the vessel in question displaced more.  Now that NavyShooter has positively identified is as BMT's Venator I understand it to be a Corvette/Minehunter type of vessel with a displacement I would guess at being around 2000 tonnes.  Given that, I understand all of your points.

I was anticipating a vessel in the 6000 tonne class like the Type 26/27, Type 45 or the Absalons, vessels that were more directly comparable to the AOPS in displacement if not in overall dimensions.  (By the way: all of the above are either able to land, or will be designed to land, a CH-147 - and given that the RCAF will have CH-147s but probably not CH-148s by the time the AOPS is in the water......jus' sayin').

Type 26/27 Global Combat Ship  See BAE poster at the bottom.

Type 45 Daring

HDMS Absalon (This one states that the Flight Deck is 850 m2 on a ship with a beam of 19.5 m which equals a length of about 44 m).

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.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Maybe we are getting hung up in trying to designate the AOPS as a specific type of ship and trying to shoehorn traditional capabilities  of destroyers/frigates/etc where this is no need to do so. I think like the USNs LCS, the RCN is slowly creating a new vessel type thats is all together different and gaining a uniquely Canadian mission.


----------



## RC

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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

RC said:
			
		

> 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

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> 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

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> 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

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> ...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).



If the design is the one linked by Kirkhill, then putting a CH147F on AOps can be achieved if the deck is rated for a CH149 Cormorant at max weight.  There is sufficient clearance (at least 5.5m more than required minimums).  In fact, a CH147F would have 2m greater rotor clearance from the ship's superstructure sitting sideways, centered on the flight deck than a CH149 Cormorant does facing forward, similarly centered on the "bull's eye."  'SSF' (sideways, starboard-forward) is the preferred method of Chinooks landing-on to anything down to USS Arleigh Burke size.  AOps looks to have a similar sized flight deck than Arleigh Burke (perhaps about 75-100cm narrower).


Ready aye,
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover

What is the value of such a ship? 

It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?]. 

It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]

It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act.  

Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.



I don't think the ship will be set up to export power like that and most likely it will be 600V AC. Most hamlets and villages do not have the ability for a ship to come alongside and thus wouldn't be able to export power like that anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> What is the value of such a ship?
> 
> It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?].
> 
> It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]
> 
> It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act.
> 
> Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?



With respect Whiskey, a 50 Cal was apparently all that was necessary to convince the Spaniards to cease and desist on the poaching of poor little Greenland Turbot.

Admittedly, coming from a very limited personal experience, but a longer family tradition, I am biased towards the concept of "boots on the ground", I see these vessels as having a very useful role in delivering those same boots.   Both to engage with out friends, and remind them that they have friends to help them, as well as to engage those who would take advantage of a vacuum and remind them there is no vacuum.

The vessel can only reach out and touch to the maximum range of its 25mm and can only outrun trawlers doing less than 17 knots.

On the other hand its RHIBs have MG mounts and can manage 25 to 40 knots (I'm guessing on that speed, but it is speedy).

Also there is nothing to prevent, if the situation warrants, the CCG 412 being replaced with an armed CH-146 from 427 Squadron to give your NBP some cover and range.

And finally, assuming that both I and G2G are correct (he will be,  I may not be) then 450 Squadron should be able to deliver a CSOR platoon to your location if you are within 1000 km or so of a refuelling point, stop over on your deck to gas up, let the troops stretch their legs and grab a hot meal, then proceed to prosecute, in conjunction with the armed CH-146, any target within a 300 km range (limited by the CH-146 and not the CH-147).

Alternately it could be used as a transit point on an evacuation conveyor,  or it could be used as a staging point and Command and Control node for a UUV surveillance network.

And with a radio, if facing an unexpectedly ferocious Danish Cutter, the CF-35s are only a phone call away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Other than a sub, everything else you meet up there will have minimal armament as well. The constraints that work on us will be doubled for anyone trying to project into our waters.

Although I would like to see the ships built with extra hardpoints with necceasy cabling and comms already run. there are several self contained weapon systems that could be purchased and stored away.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stanflex ALSS

Colin, here's a bolt on sea-can that might come in handy some day.  The Yanks might find it useful on the LCSs for that Over-The-Horizon stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know if anybody else has noticed the latest kerfuffle over the NSPS programme and it effect on the AOPS project.

Apparently Irving and the Navy are having trouble. The Navy wants many ships for little money.  Irving wants lots of money for no ships.  This is causing the opposition consternation.  Apparently they have never been involved in a commercial negotiation. 

The NSPS plan is now being seen askance on two grounds: the negotiators feel they have little leverage and the government isn't directly involved in the negotiations.

Meanwhile, out on the West Coast, Washington Marine is stating they have no problems.

So here's the thought: Could the Government, suggest to Irving that if they are having trouble meeting their commitments then the Government could assist them by taking some of the pressure off them and transferring the AOPS workload to Washington Marine?

After all the AOPS is not REALLY a combatant, it is largely built to Civilian Standards, and Washington Marine has related experience...  

Just offering some deviltry here.  >.


----------



## GAP

Well, Irving did bid on building the ships within the stated budget amount....that little problem can be solved quite easily.

It's no skin off the CPC's back. They aren't likely to win many seats come 2015 after changing the status of EI, so solving Irving's banditry should work out.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon. 

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> how will this ship deal with:
> a missile fired from a Bear bomber
> A ship that shoots back



A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.



> A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops



A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And then Rescue Stations followed by running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.



> A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB



Send the helicopter? Maybe with support from the CF-whatevers and the gun mount?



> and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.



Well yes, that's generally how it's done if the call of "Go away" doesn't work. Although the boarding party may not take well to being called "Somalian Pirates". OTOH after 3 months of patrolling the passage, they may insist on saying "Arrrr" all the time and gun-taping wheel spanners to their arms. Depends on the crew.



> There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.



There's also nothing that says "She's gonna roll over!" like when the ice accumulates on all that gear. Or even more likely "The parts we need to keep it working are thousands of miles away in Halifax".



> And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel.



How do you figure that? It seems to have at least as good of an outfit as the Kingstons.



> Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.



We have UUV's and naval UAV's? I had no idea. When did that happen?


----------



## NavyShooter

CHA is deployed with UAV's onboard right now (Scan Eagle)

I was recently involved with UUV's not that long ago.  Not a hard piece of technology, just spendy.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.
> 
> how will this ship deal with:
> a missile fired from a Bear bomber
> A ship that shoots back
> A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
> A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.
> 
> There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.
> 
> And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.



While I would love to see some arctic ships that are the equals to the Halifax class, the reality is that any armed vessel will be better than what we have now. We have budget issues already, the vessel you aks for is not going to be built. At best we get a ship fitted for but with some of the systems you suggest.


----------



## Underway

It never fails to amaze me that people think that in order to be an effective platform you need to be armed to the teeth.  99% of security is just presence.  Right now we don't even have that.  AOPS is designed to deal with the presence issue more than anything else.



> how will this ship deal with:
> a missile fired from a Bear bomber
> A ship that shoots back
> A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
> A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.
> 
> There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.
> 
> And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.



It can't and it won't.  Thats not its job.  Thats the job of a Task Group.  Or a submarine.  Or a wing of CF-18's.  The AOPS job is to move army and airforce elements around the arctic for soveriegnty.  It is to provide eyes for the recognized maritime picture (almost entirely civilian ships).  Think of your local security guard.  Are they armed?  Do they even have handcuffs?  No.  Their job is to call 911 when things go south and let the professionals deal with things.  These ships will not operate in a vacuum with no cooperation or intelligence.

If the threat level rises then they will move into a supporting role or will be refitted to deal with threats differently.
If the threat level is what it has been since 1952 then a boarding party of fisheries officers and RCMP won't be hozed by RPG fire from a spanish or danish fishing trawler.  A crew that fights back against that party or takes shots at a helo will find that a modern 25-40mm naval gun and .50cal is perfectly acceptable to "encourage" cooperation.

If someone has to deal with a proper warship then the frigates are called up to deal with the problem.  Constabulatory does not mean SWAT.

ESM and air search not needed.  NORAD does air search/detection just fine.

Finally to this quote the Scan eagle UAV works just fine off an MCDV who trialed the program.  If you can fly one out of the back of a Armoured vehicle you can easily do the same with a ship.  Larger UAV's are controled from a central location on the mainland and flow through a satillite uplink.  If you're flying UAV's then that hangar could easily be the space where you set up shop to fly the thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The federal government has signed a $9.3-million deal with Irving Shipbuilding to get started on the navy shipbuilding contract in Halifax.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the contract will allow the shipbuilding company to review the design and devise a construction plan for the Arctic offshore patrol ships.
> 
> Those are the first vessels expected to be built under the overall $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement project.
> 
> In October, Ottawa announced that the Irving shipyard would receive the lion's share of the project.
> 
> Under its $25-billion deal, Irving will build 21 combat vessels.
> 
> The Seaspan Marine Corp. shipyard in Vancouver will construct seven vessels under an $8-billion contract for non-combat ships ....


The Canadian Press, 10 Jul 12


----------



## daftandbarmy

If we don't need to have the capability of hurting anyone with our 'sovereignty ships', here's an excellent and very successful example of a cheap and durable arctic capable ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ breathes some urgency into the AOPS project, and revitalizes the case for an _under ice_ (air independent propulsion system) submarine project, too:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/canada-poised-to-claim-ownership-of-vast-underwater-territory-bigger-than-quebec/


> Canada poised to claim ownership of vast underwater territory bigger than Quebec
> 
> Randy Boswell, Postmedia News
> 
> Last Updated: Oct 5, 2012
> 
> OTTAWA – Canada is poised to claim ownership of a vast new expanse of undersea territory beyond its Atlantic and Arctic coasts that’s greater in size than Quebec and equal to about 20% of the country’s surface area, Postmedia News has learned.
> 
> The huge seabed land grab has been in the works since 1994, when federal scientists first conducted a “desktop study” of Canada’s potential territorial expansion under a new UN treaty allowing nations to extend their offshore jurisdictions well past the current 200-nautical-mile (370-km) limit of so-called “Exclusive Economic Zones” in coastal waters.
> 
> But the UN also set strict criteria for converting underwater tracts of “no man’s land” into a nation’s territorial possessions, including exhaustive geological studies proving these distant stretches of seabed — including potentially massive oil-and-gas deposits — are “natural prolongations” of each applicant country’s continental bedrock.
> 
> At the time, experts from the Geological Survey of Canada and Canadian Hydrographic Service estimated that as much as 1.75 million square kilometres of seafloor to the east and north of Canada’s 9.9-million-sq.-km. land mass — initially described as an area “equivalent to the size of the three Prairie provinces” — might eventually be claimed under provisions of the new international accord on continental shelf extensions, a component of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.
> 
> Canada’s Pacific Coast, with its “narrow margin” continental shelf and steep slope to deep ocean, generally doesn’t meet the UN criteria for territorial extensions beyond the economic zone.
> 
> But now, after years of seafloor surveys covering thousands of kilometres of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans — along with countless hours spent analyzing the collected data — the head of Canada’s UNCLOS mapping project is preparing the country’s final submission to acquire new offshore territory ahead of a December 2013 deadline for the claim.
> 
> And Jacob Verhoef, the Halifax-based Natural Resources Canada geologist directing the historic effort to redraw the outer boundary of Canada, says the final proposal is proving “pretty close” in size to what federal scientists predicted nearly 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> National Post Graphics
> 
> “I can’t give you a number, simply because I don’t have a number – we have not calculated the number. But our preliminary outer limit as we are now defining it is pretty close to what we had expected,” Verhoef told Postmedia News.
> 
> At the time of the country’s initial estimates, “we didn’t have enough data to substantiate it, so we could not formally define it,” he added. “Now, with all the data sufficient – and now the analysis of the data (nearing completion) – there are differences from what we originally expected, but nothing major.”
> 
> That news will be music to the ears of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has touted Arctic mineral wealth and Canada’s offshore resources as a vital economic inheritance for the nation. And despite inevitable controversies over the prospect of exploiting offshore oil, natural gas and frozen methane deposits — especially in the remote and ice-choked waters of Arctic Canada — the UNCLOS mapping project was strongly supported by previous Liberal governments as well.
> 
> The claim document now being prepared under Verhoef’s supervision, which he said will run into the “thousands of pages” and encompass at least 25 separate scientific reports, must be delivered to the UN agency handling submissions by the end of next year, 10 years after Canada ratified the UNCLOS convention and initiated its seabed mapping mission in 2003.
> 
> An executive summary of the submission and a cartographic representation of the claim – essentially the first map of the proposed new Canada – are now being prepared for public release sometime next year, Verhoef added.
> 
> Other countries have already been granted control over great swaths of seafloor using the UN formula. In April 2009, Norway formally acquired about 235,000 square kilometres of undersea Arctic and Atlantic territory.
> 
> And in 2008, Australia added an underwater area equal to one-third of the country’s land mass — about 2.5 million square kilometres, or the combined areas of Ontario and Quebec — to its governing authority.
> 
> “This is a major boost to Australia’s offshore resource potential and also to our ability to preserve the marine environment on the seabed,” the country’s resources and energy minister, Martin Ferguson, stated at the time.
> 
> “The largest island in the world has just been dramatically increased in size,” Ferguson added after UN approval of Australia’s claim. “This is potentially a bonanza.”
> 
> The case for gaining possession of undersea territory can be clinched in one of two ways. Countries can claim seabed anywhere they can prove that the continental shelf extends underwater from existing territory — such as the northern mainland and Arctic islands in Canada’s case — until the seabed drops consistently below a depth of 2,500 metres.
> 
> The other approach involves measuring offshore seabed sediment — such as the enormous deposits of silt accumulated at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea, discharged from the outlet of the Mackenzie River — and claiming continental extensions under a complex UN formula calculated from the thickness of those deposits and their distance from shore.
> 
> Earlier this year, Verhoef told Postmedia News that three scholarly papers had been published in support of Canada’s undersea land claims — an important credibility-building exercise when it comes to demonstrating the soundness of Canada’s eventual UN submission.
> 
> One published article was about the Alpha Ridge — a submerged mountain that extends 1,700 kilometres from Canada to Russia past the North Pole.
> 
> One of the other papers concerned the Lomonosov Ridge, another undersea mountain range that federal scientists believe is an extension of North America running from Greenland and Ellesmere Island to the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean.




That's a lot of seabed, especially in the Arctic, and it will need patrolling.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.




You're right: both Russia and the USA will fight us tooth and nail but we can (hopefully will) force the _fight_ in an arena (UNCLOS) where we have a chance of winning ~ we can probably buy a lot more votes than Russia or America. The USA has not signed UNCLOS but they will end up be obliged to respect its outcomes IF we, and others, are smart enough to refuse to deal with them except on the basis of UNCLOS principles.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I can see the American objecting, but the Russians ought to take our side (if only to p*** off the Americans).

First, the Russians themselves are using the UNCLOS rules to do the same thing on their side of the Arctic ocean; and second, the extensions on that map are nowhere near areas the Russians intend to claim.


----------



## Good2Golf

The American's effort to drastically swing American sovereignty into the Beaufort towards the East based primarily on the orientation of a few hundred meters of shoreline at the Alaskan/Yukon border is rather telling of their attitude on how they will likely try to press for control of the Beaufort. That is, principle not by using/conforming to UNCLOS guidelines.  In tho regard, I fully agree with OGBD regarding probable support of Canada's UNCLOS application by Moscow.  Regarding the North, the Americans appear to be taking an ostrich-like approach to the specifics of UNCLOS, and I believe they are doing so to their own detriment. 

The effect then I that I don't believe the slower than desired rate of AOPS progress to be as critical as some may make it out to be. Yes, Canada needs an appropriate fleet of ships to reinforce what we will hopefully have secured through our case made to UNCLOS; but vessels will not be the principle sherrifing force in the area, so AOPS should do "well enough" -- nuclear-powered guided missile icebreakers is not really required, nor, given the rate of ice disappearing from the North, AIP a "must have", but rarer a "nice to have."

The Government is putting in place a "system of systems" in the North, realistically 'up to speed' in the early 2020's, and by all indications, I believe the AOPS will be in place as a part of that "system" in time.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

> $288-million deal will kick-start design of Arctic patrol ships, Ottawa announces



National Post

So where does this leave the STX design for the AOPS?  Is it incorporated in the Irving / Odense design or are they starting with a clean sheet?

I believe Odense Marine Technology is responsible for the Absalon/Huitfeldt frigates as well as the Maersk container ships.  The good news, if that is the case, is that they are the people responsible for delivering the Danish vessels for approximately half the price of the rest of NATO while working in a Western Labour Environment. (350 MCAD for the Iver Huitfeldt vs 700 MCAD for the Zeven Provincien with the same equipment suite).


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> National Post
> So where does this leave the STX design for the AOPS?  Is it incorporated in the Irving / Odense design or are they starting with a clean sheet?


As I understand it, what this contract award is for is design at a much more detailed level than the STX design we're familiar with. STX designed the overall look, dimensions and layout; this Irving contract will basically create builder's plans for every frame of the ship, electrical wiring diagrams, etc. The STX design is still the one that's being built - this contract just turns the pretty pictures and floor plans into something you can hand to a shipyard and say, "Here: build this."


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> National Post
> 
> The good news, if that is the case, is that they are the people responsible for delivering the Danish vessels for approximately half the price of the rest of NATO while working in a Western Labour Environment. (350 MCAD for the Iver Huitfeldt vs 700 MCAD for the Zeven Provincien with the same equipment suite).


And, hopefully we can build those frigates with HSLA-100 steel for 1.2 billion, average cost each for the 15 hulls.  They are a very flexible design, able to handle lots of mission modules.  32 SM-2's and 48 ESSM per ship, and hopefully some of the cells will be strike type to handle the SM-3 missle, as we'll then have ballistic missle defence.  They won't be as sexy as some of the designs, but still will be good.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't A/OPS release:
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/harper-governments-ship-strategy-bolstering-canadas-economy-1765340.htm

More on BMT, STX design involvement (both foreign susbsidiaries, I'd wager a lot of the work done abroad):
http://www.bmt.org/projects/defence-arctic-offshore-patrol-ship-design-engineering-logistics-and-management-support/
http://www.stxmarine.net/ship_ice.html

2012 STX PowerPoint:
http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SNAME/ce7dbd62-cb5f-4739-abc2-44ac55b35df0/UploadedImages/AOPS%20SNAME%20PNW%20Section%20Presentation%20Rev2.pdf

STX is also designing the--one only--new CCG icebreaker:
http://www.stxmarine.net/headlines.html#polar
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/hq-ac02-eng.htm

And STX's S. Korean parent is helping Seaspan Vancouver with their shipyard:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Korean+experts+advise+Vancouver+Shipyards+redesign/6490267/story.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Mark.

Looks like we're going to be buying a whole lot of offshore assistance for the yards.  I have to believe that, given the state of our industry, its necessary.

And HT.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Plus Odense Maritime Technology:
http://www.odensemaritime.com/da-DK/Home.aspx

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RC

A few clarifications on the last couple of posts:

STX Canada Marine is about 65 people and is an independent ship design consultant based in Canada.  It is Korean owned, but has no real ties to Korea beyond ownership.  The company has just under 20 OPV designs operating worldwide.

About 95% of the AOPS design was done in Canada.  A few specialized bits of hull shape for ice breaking and winterization were done by a sister company in Finland.

Ship design has several stages.  They are concept, class, functional, production (functional/production are sometimes combined and called detailed and in Europe, class and functional are combined and called basic.).  The AOPS design has been completed to somewhere past a class package, meaning that a Classification society has all it needs to approve the ship for construction.  Much of the engineering required for functional design is also done, but couldn't be taken further without selecting specific equipment.  In short, its a lot more than just arrangements and pretty pictures.

The design is at a stage where a typical shipyard could go ahead and build it after incorporating specific equipment and generating production information.  There's about $7 to $12 million worth of detailed engineering left to get the production information required to build.  The total design cost is normally about 10% of the build cost for this ship type.

I can't reconcile the $288 million for remaining design.  I find it extremely embarassing for both the industry and our country.  It makes no sense and all those of us in the industry can do is laugh and shake our heads.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Could this be $$$ for shipyard expansion for future projects. When I say future, I mean out beyond CSC as the goal of NSPS is to create an industry not just 20 or so ships. Again, if I am wrong, I am wrong but I keep trying to envision what may be happenning and what infrastructure companies like Halifax Shipyards will need say 20 years from now. Like an RRSP, people need to look at this in the long term not the short political term we have all become accustomed to.

Pat


----------



## MarkOttawa

RC: Thanks for helpful clarifications.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

RC said:
			
		

> A few clarifications on the last couple of posts:
> 
> STX Canada Marine is about 65 people and is an independent ship design consultant based in Canada.  It is Korean owned, but has no real ties to Korea beyond ownership.  The company has just under 20 OPV designs operating worldwide.
> 
> About 95% of the AOPS design was done in Canada.  A few specialized bits of hull shape for ice breaking and winterization were done by a sister company in Finland.
> 
> Ship design has several stages.  They are concept, class, functional, production (functional/production are sometimes combined and called detailed and in Europe, class and functional are combined and called basic.).  The AOPS design has been completed to somewhere past a class package, meaning that a Classification society has all it needs to approve the ship for construction.  Much of the engineering required for functional design is also done, but couldn't be taken further without selecting specific equipment.  In short, its a lot more than just arrangements and pretty pictures.
> 
> The design is at a stage where a typical shipyard could go ahead and build it after incorporating specific equipment and generating production information.  There's about $7 to $12 million worth of detailed engineering left to get the production information required to build.  The total design cost is normally about 10% of the build cost for this ship type.
> 
> I can't reconcile the $288 million for remaining design.  I find it extremely embarassing for both the industry and our country.  It makes no sense and all those of us in the industry can do is laugh and shake our heads.



Just wanted to say thank you for great post....for those of us outside your world, you're definitely teaching us something.


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## AlexanderM

If there isn't a good explanation, someone should prepare a detailed report, and get it into the hands of the opposition in Ottawa and the press.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If there isn't a good explanation, someone should prepare a detailed report, and get it into the hands of the opposition in Ottawa and the press.


Just because someone on Army.ca cannot come up with a good explanation for this doesn't mean there isn't one. We can speculate all we want but that specific info may not get publicly released and that is not uncommon in the major procurement world. I can say from experience though that every aspect of these Projects is 'over reviewed' by Oversight Committees-If there is anything shady (which I personally do not think is the case here), TB will find it.

Pat


----------



## AlexanderM

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Just because someone on Army.ca cannot come up with a good explanation for this doesn't mean there isn't one. We can speculate all we want but that specific info may not get publicly released and that is not uncommon in the major procurement world. I can say from experience though that every aspect of these Projects is 'over reviewed' by Oversight Committees-If there is anything shady (which I personally do not think is the case here), TB will find it.
> 
> Pat


I wish I was as confident as you, and frankly, we have a history of overpaying on these projects.  The idea that it would cost up to 4 billion dollars to replace our two re-supply ships, as was released the other day, is absolutely ludicrous.  I would be shocked if we were able to build the Iver Huitfeldt Class for 4 times what the Dutch paid.  It is quite frustrating.


----------



## RC

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Could this be $$$ for shipyard expansion for future projects. When I say future, I mean out beyond CSC as the goal of NSPS is to create an industry not just 20 or so ships. Again, if I am wrong, I am wrong but I keep trying to envision what may be happenning and what infrastructure companies like Halifax Shipyards will need say 20 years from now. Like an RRSP, people need to look at this in the long term not the short political term we have all become accustomed to.
> 
> Pat



I believe I read somewhere that this is not permitted under the NSPS umbrella agreement.  They do need to upgrade infrastructure, but they are required to amortize it over the program, not feed it into a single design contract.

On the other coast, Seaspan, who I don't believe are in any better shape in terms of infrastructure and have larger vessels to build, released their cost to design the first vessel that will be built there at less than $15 million.  Obviously it's a smaller civilian vessel, but that can't account for much infrastructure improvement on their side.  Why the discrepancy?

In my opinion, this will kill the AOPS program.  This is more than one would reasonably expect an entire ship to cost (design included), so what are they going to ask to actually build one of these things?  Maybe the strategy is to kill the program, make a huge profit through design and litigation, and get a free upgraded shipyard at taxpayers expense without having to go through the inconvenience of actually building a ship?

My fear is that if AOPS dies a slow enough death, the folks in Seaspan will get the impression that the navy is handing out free cash and the implications for JSS could be very negative.  With this kind of price to design a comparatively basic OPV, what are the implications for CSC?  Why is no one comparing this to the cost of the similar reference ship?  If I recall correctly, that ship was designed AND built for less than half of this budget.

In my opinion this is a very dark day for the Canadian Navy.  I sincerely hope that there is something more to this that will make it all make sense (maybe the budget includes equipment costs on long lead items for six shipsets??), but I just can't see it.


----------



## RC

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I wish I was as confident as you, and frankly, we have a history of overpaying on these projects.  The idea that it would cost up to 4 billion dollars to replace our two re-supply ships, as was released the other day, is absolutely ludicrous.  I would be shocked if we were able to build the Iver Huitfeldt Class for 4 times what the Dutch paid.  It is quite frustrating.



If I was an estimator at Seaspan, I would be looking at the PBO report and this contract with Irving and scratching my head saying "Did I miss a zero?  Why is my number so much less than these other guys?"

Bad, bad news on both fronts.


----------



## AlexanderM

Also, they said on the news just the other day that the upgrades for the Irving shipyards were being covered by a 200 million dollar loan from the provincial government.


----------



## Kirkhill

RC said:
			
		

> Why is no one comparing this to the cost of the similar reference ship?  If I recall correctly, that ship was designed AND built for less than half of this budget.



The cost of building the Svalbard (the reference vessel?) was 





> 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006)


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894/post-325773.html#msg325773

That would suggest a design cost of 10 MCAD at 10% of build cost.  If I read you right RC.

What are the relative histories of SeaSpan and Irving like?  I believe that SeaSpan has got a more substantive Commercial record than Irving.  Irving, to my understanding, has generally relied on Government work.  Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Some interesting comments. If this is a game of Irving trying to squeeze the Government on price for the AOPS (and who really knows, other than Irving), then I fear that they have seriously misread the political climate.

I do not see this Government overpaying for another defence project.  Contractor beware...


----------



## AlexanderM

Except that the announcement the other day was the government going ahead with that initial money, was it not?  The 288 million is being paid out, so the overspending begins.


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps Irving took comfort from the recent PBO report that stated categorically that you can't build two ships for less than 4 Billion Canadian Dollars.

That report was modelled by Americans and based on American ships.  The European ships, which formed a distinct low cost cluster, disappeared in the data set just like the Mediaeval Warming Period in Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.

I don't recall seeing anywhere that the Dutch or the Danes or the Norwegians or the Spanish ...... spent Billions "Developing" and "Prototyping" their ships.  They generally seem to design, build, launch, sail.  Just like industry tends to do.  I presume the crews work out the fine points of operating the systems once they get them in their hands.


----------



## AlexanderM

And given the fact that we will be using existing designs, it should minimize design requirements, not make them more expensive!


----------



## Kirkhill

This from the Halifax Shipping News.

The way that I read this is that Irving received 9 MCAD in July to prepare a proposal (Cost usually borne by vendor in my world)

They have since then managed to break the pre-Implementation design phase into 7 separate tasks which, if all authorized, will cost the public purse 288 MCAD.

At this time only two tasks have been authorized at a cost of 136 MCAD, presumably the first two.

The first two tasks are:

1 Project Management of the Design Phase
2 Engineering Design Phase 1

The remaining tasks are:

3 Engineering Design Phase 2
4 Engineering Design Phase 3
5 Project Implementation Proposal Development
6 Test Production Module
7 Long Lead Time Items

Reading the text I see no difference amongst items 2,3 and 4.  They appear to be simple iterations of the same task.  Prepping for implementation.

Item 5:  Why prep a proposal?  They have the contract and after three iterations they should be able to organize a plan, not just a proposal.

Item 6:  Tacit acknowledgement that "we've never done this before, we need to train our welders, fitters, supervisors, contractors and engineers how to work together".

Item 7:  Makes sense.

Item 1:  136 MCAD just to manage the "design" phase and perform 12 MCAD of engineering (RC's estimate) is one heck of a hefty management package.  Nova Scotia's going to get its 200 MCAD in yard loans back from the Fed's in jig time at that rate.  Or it should.

Your comments RC?




> Contracts Signed for Final AOPS Design
> 
> The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, along with the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Associate Minister of National Defence, today welcomed the signing of the definition contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. for the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships project through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) at an announcement at halifax Shipyards.
> 
> This is the next contract signed after the ancillary one announced in July 2012 and it will be followed by a construction contract in 2015. This definition contract is a task-based contract divided into seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. With this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015. The total potential value of the contract is an estimated $288 million and it will support up to 200 jobs.
> 
> Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin.  At the same time, work will begin on improving and upgrading the Irving Shipyard to begin full ship construction in 2015.
> 
> During the initial discussions regarding the Navy’s Arctic/Offshore patrol ships, Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. agreed that the first contract should be a smaller preliminary contract, followed by a larger definition contract to complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level, and subsequently an implementation contract to build and deliver the ships.
> 
> This “design-then-build” approach will mitigate both technical and cost risks by reducing unknowns, and therefore risks, for the building phase. Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin immediately. This approach is also aligned with the NSPS, which is built upon a more collaborative and risk-sharing relationship.
> 
> On July 10, 2012, the Government announced the awarding of a $9.3-million (HST included) preliminary contract to Irving Shipbuilding Inc. Within this preliminary contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. reviewed the existing Canadian-developed Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design and specifications, prepared an execution strategy and delivered a proposal detailing the scope and cost of the subsequent definition contract.
> 
> Finally, on March 7, a definition contract with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. was signed. The total potential value of the contract is an estimated $288 million (taxes included). The definition contract is a task-based contract divided into seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. The first two tasks have been authorized and their total value is approximately $136 million.
> The definition contract will last 30 months and we are on track to start cutting steel in 2015.
> 
> The Arctic/Offshore patrol ships will be used by National Defence to conduct armed seaborne surveillance in Canada’s economic exclusion zone, including in the Arctic.
> 
> The definition contract signed with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. is a task-based contract divided into the following seven work packages (or tasks) that could be awarded. With this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015.
> 
> Project Management – This task will include all work required to ensure effective planning, management, execution, monitoring and control, and reporting of the definition contract work.
> 
> Engineering Design Phase 1 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistical support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the preliminary Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design meets all of the contract design specification requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints.
> 
> Engineering Design Phase 2 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistical support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design is a complete and integrated solution that meets all the contract design specification requirements with acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints.
> 
> Engineering Design Phase 3 – This task will include the system engineering activities, integrated logistic support analysis and supplier engagement activities that are necessary to demonstrate that the Arctic/Offshore patrol ship design is a complete and integrated solution that meets all of the contract design specification requirements and is ready for the start of vessel construction.
> 
> Project Implementation Proposal Development – This task will encompass all the procurement, engineering, production and estimating activities required to develop the detailed project implementation proposal, including the required plans and a substantive cost for the implementation contract.
> 
> Test Production Module – This task will include all the work required to establish and verify production processes and produce a test module prior to beginning vessel construction.
> 
> Long Lead Items Procurement – This task will encompass all of the procurement and supply chain activities required to procure long lead items, which must be purchased prior to the start of vessel construction.
> 
> Once completed, the definition contract will enable Irving Shipbuilding Inc. to know exactly what to build and how to build it. It will ensure that once the build contract is signed, construction of the ships will begin.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It stands to reason the first ships out of the both the east and west coasts will be over budget, late and need fixing. Hopefully the 2nd ships will show marked improvement on all 3 fronts, followed by a steady decline of those 3 issues.


----------



## RC

I would like to comment Kirkhill, but I don't even know what to say.  I guess we need to pay Irving to learn to build a ship and Odense (container ship designers) to learn to design an OPV.  It's ridiculous.

The mockery has already begun:

http://www.coltoncompany.com/


----------



## RC

Btw, Tim is not at all a fan of NSPS, and I disagree with his stance (I find it a bit hypocritical given how stringently he defends the Jones Act), but we are sure giving him fuel.


----------



## AlexanderM

RC said:
			
		

> I would like to comment Kirkhill, but I don't even know what to say.  I guess we need to pay Irving to learn to build a ship and Odense (container ship designers) to learn to design an OPV.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> The mockery has already begun:
> 
> http://www.coltoncompany.com/


What about the comment in the article that much of the money will go to Odense Maritime Technology?  I'm under the impression that they were involved in getting the Dutch frigates built at such a good price.  It might be a good thing to have them very much involved, perhaps telling Irving, here's how your going to do things, to keep costs in line.  This is probably just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## RC

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> What about the comment in the article that much of the money will go to Odense Maritime Technology?  I'm under the impression that they were involved in getting the Dutch frigates built at such a good price.  It might be a good thing to have them very much involved, perhaps telling Irving, here's how your going to do things, to keep costs in line.  This is probably just wishful thinking on my part.



*Danish frigates

If I was Irving, I'd be a bit wary of taking advice on cost savings measures from ex-members of a shipyard that went out of business.  The Danish frigates were the last thing they ever built.  The vast majority of what they built were tankers, bulkers, and containerships.  It seems both coasts have adopted them, but I still don't see any way in which they could justify this budget for AOPS.

Anyone know what happened with Irving and Bath Ironworks?  Did they run up on the rocky shoals of ITAR restrictions?  BIW has to be the most expensive consultant they could possibly have found in North America.  My theory is that they shopped around for the highest design cost possible to maximize their profits.  Clever move given that profits are fixed. 

I'm also wondering how in the world Irving is going to meet IRB requirements if they are sending a large chunk of this work to OMT.  They are required to meet 100% IRB obligations.  I think there will be a few people with things to say if they try to claim an exemption from IRBs for this contract.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yet, interestingly enough, if one looks at Bath Iron Works releases for the Zumwalt destroyers, you can see that for the detailed engineering phase, including a major re-design asked for by the Navy, they got about $100M US.

The Zumwalt's are a radical departure from previous USN designs and power plant configuration and are probably one of the most complex ship ever designed for the Navy. Irving, on the other hand, is basically asked to design a standard civilian light icebreaker, with limited armament and  limited specific military extra gear of a type that already exists and which Irving itself has built in the past (such as the light gun and the "bear trap").


----------



## AlexanderM

RC said:
			
		

> *Danish frigates
> 
> If I was Irving, I'd be a bit wary of taking advice on cost savings measures from ex-members of a shipyard that went out of business.  The Danish frigates were the last thing they ever built.  The vast majority of what they built were tankers, bulkers, and containerships.  It seems both coasts have adopted them, but I still don't see any way in which they could justify this budget for AOPS.
> 
> Anyone know what happened with Irving and Bath Ironworks?  Did they run up on the rocky shoals of ITAR restrictions?  BIW has to be the most expensive consultant they could possibly have found in North America.  My theory is that they shopped around for the highest design cost possible to maximize their profits.  Clever move given that profits are fixed.
> 
> I'm also wondering how in the world Irving is going to meet IRB requirements if they are sending a large chunk of this work to OMT.  They are required to meet 100% IRB obligations.  I think there will be a few people with things to say if they try to claim an exemption from IRBs for this contract.



A while back, I read in an article, that I can no longer find, that the Danish frigates were so cheap because commercial construction, rather than military construction, was used.  I wish I could find the article so I could provide a source.  It was written prior to the launch of any of the hulls.  I was thinking that for 4 times the price, we could upgrade them to military standards, using HSLA 80 or 100 steel.  The cost of the weapon systems should be about the same, so the only variance would be in the construction of the hulls.


----------



## AlexanderM

OK, so I just found the article, states that the Frigates were built to commercial specifications.  Also, the stated cost does not seem to include the weapon systems, so I'm wondering what the total cost was.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0708/index.php?startid=28


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... a new report calling for the cancellation of the AOPS work and, instead, going for "6 to 8 purpose-built high-speed offshore patrol ships based on a proven design" - here's the news release ....


> A new report examining the government’s plans to build Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships has just been released by the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
> 
> _Titanic Blunder: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships on course for disaster_ was written by University of British Columbia political science professor Michael Byers, and Stewart Webb, visiting research fellow at the Rideau Institute and research associate at the Salt Spring Forum.
> 
> The procurement of six to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships was announced in 2007 with a budget of $3.1 billion, with an additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over a projected 25-year lifespan.
> 
> The report’s main findings include:
> 
> - The A/OPS are compromise vessels that will be ineffective in the Arctic and too slow and unstable for offshore patrol functions along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
> - The A/OPS will cost 8 to 10 times per vessel what Australia and the United States are paying for purpose-built high-speed patrol ships.
> - Further compromises can be expected, as the Department of National Defence struggles, within a budget that was set in 2007, to complete the procurement of vessels that are based on an entirely new design.
> The report makes the following recommendations:
> 
> -Cancel the procurement of Naval Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships.
> -Commission 6 to 8 purpose-built high-speed offshore patrol ships based on a proven design.
> -Rebuild the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet taking into account changing ice conditions and the need for the vessels to fulfill an additional, constabulary role ....


.... and here's a link to the 50 page report


----------



## AlexanderM

Hamiltongs, if you read the above post, the $3.1 billion is budgeted from the building program only, then the additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over 25 years is budgeted from somewhere else.  They obviously do have both sides accounted for, but the $35 billion ship building budget is the aquisition cost side only. The rest will be there but accounted for somewhere else.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Hamiltongs, if you read the above post, the $3.1 billion is budgeted from the building program only, then the additional $4.3 billion for operations and maintenance over 25 years is budgeted from somewhere else.  They obviously do have both sides accounted for, but the $35 billion ship building budget is the aquisition cost side only. The rest will be there but accounted for somewhere else.


When you're right, you're right (I normally wouldn't trust anything with Michael Byers' name attached to it, but he reference to the figures is a PMO backgrounder on the subject).


----------



## AlexanderM

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> When you're right, you're right (I normally wouldn't trust anything with Michael Byers' name attached to it, but he reference to the figures is a PMO backgrounder on the subject).


OK, so when we consider just the AOP's, the ships are based on the Svalbard class which cost around $100 million to build and have the bofors 57mm.  So, 6-8 of these would cost Norway approximately $600-800 million, yet our budget is $3.1 billion and we just paid $288 million just for design, which would be half the budget for 6 ships if Norway was building them.  The costs just seem way, way out of whack.  

Please understand, I want our sailors to have the very best, I'm just frustrated by these crazy quotes in comparison with other existing ships, same with the destroyers.  And we hear talk of reducing numbers or capability because of cost, when our budget should be more than adequate.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  But it's not because I have some agenda, other than getting the best for our sailors.  Cheers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoCGV_Svalbard


----------



## The Bread Guy

Coincidentally, CF/DND has issued a news release with no discernable "news" in it ....


> In procuring the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships the Government of Canada is acting to meet established Royal Canadian Navy requirements. These requirements are guided by a recognition of new and evolving threats to the sovereignty of Canada’s domestic coast line and commercial shipping lanes. As northern waters become more navigable, there is a need for the Royal Canadian Navy to have greater capabilities for supporting search and rescue and other domestic operations in the Arctic.
> 
> “The strategy for procuring these new ships, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, was established and is being implemented through extensive consultations with the marine industry and with consistent third party monitoring,” said the Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and Minister for Status of Women.
> 
> “Our government's commitment to build these ships in Canada should create 15 000 jobs and over $2 billion in annual economic benefits over 30 years," said the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. "The strategy set forth by our government ensures that the Navy and Coast Guard have the ships they need to keep Canada safe while also revitalizing an important industry."
> 
> “Our Government is committed to providing our Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment they need to conduct their missions," said the Honourable Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Q.C., Associate Minister of National Defence and Member of Parliament for Delta-Richmond East. "I am confident the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships will give the Navy an unprecedented capability to operate in arctic ice conditions and enable them to have persistent northern presence during the arctic navigable season."
> 
> Last month, the Government of Canada awarded Irving Shipbuilding Inc. a contract, with a maximum value of $288 million, to complete the Canadian-developed, preliminary design for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships. This detailed and complex work is underway and progressing well. Refined cost estimates and construction schedules will, in due course, be informed by this completed design.
> 
> The Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships will give the Royal Canadian Navy an unprecedented capability, to operate in the ice, in both the low Arctic and high Arctic, and to have a persistent Arctic presence during the navigable season. This will bolster the Government of Canada’s ability to deliver on its commitment to protecting and promoting Canada’s Arctic sovereignty on behalf of all Canadians, for generations to come. The Government of Canada has made Canada’s North a cornerstone of its agenda, and the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship project activities are aligned in support of this priority.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Wow, the Svalbard class looks like it's a great ship.  Have had the opportunity to see a few of the various Norwegian, Danish and other viking descendents  ships and was hugely impressed, both from and engineering nerd side and from their normal operations.  I think if we ended up with something similar our sailors would be happy.  (As an aside, they are also a lot of fun during port visits to go run ashore with)

With regards to the previous posting on the design phases, the resign why there are numerous design phases is because it'll be done using a similar process to this;

http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model

So the first round is the napkin sketch; the next one is the roughly dimensioned and fitted one once equipment is picked, and the last is the final blueprinting.

Bit more complicated then that, but that's the gist.  The reason why that is used is that there are a lot of inter relationships between major systems, and the way you go with one will affect one of the others.  For example, hull form/size will drive the power requirement, power requirement will drive the sizing of the propulsion plant, type of propulsion plant will affect the hull form (ie azipods vs shaft driven).... so you have to do it all iteratively.


----------



## Monsoon

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> OK, so when we consider just the AOP's, the ships are based on the Svalbard class which cost around $100 million to build and have the bofors 57mm.  So, 6-8 of these would cost Norway approximately $600-800 million, yet our budget is $3.1 billion and we just paid $288 million just for design, which would be half the budget for 6 ships if Norway was building them.  The costs just seem way, way out of whack.
> 
> Please understand, I want our sailors to have the very best, I'm just frustrated by these crazy quotes in comparison with other existing ships, same with the destroyers.  And we hear talk of reducing numbers or capability because of cost, when our budget should be more than adequate.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  But it's not because I have some agenda, other than getting the best for our sailors.  Cheers.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoCGV_Svalbard


My suspicion is that we're still comparing apples and footballs. According to this article (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2000/01/feature/no0001175f.htm), the Norwegian government paid a subsidy to shipyards worth about USD$400M per year in 1999. It also notes that the subsidy fell in 2000 due to new OECD regulations, but that the old direct subsidy was substituted with various indirect subsidies. Norway is not a big country, and USD$400M _every year_ in return for _no ships at all_ strikes me as an expensive way to secure an OPV cheaply when you do eventually buy one. At $100M for a one-off vessel, it wouldn't surprise me if the yard agreed not to charge anything for design as part of the subsidy deal, but I don't have any details on how that cost broke down and it doesn't seem like any are available.

Also, Svalbard is a Coast Guard vessel, so it's almost certainly built to civilian spec. All we know is that Langsten (now STX) handed over the vessel to the Coast Guard at a cost of $100M; we don't know if that included C2 system integration, commissioning, etc, which may well have been done by third parties or the CG itself. Again - I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying we don't and can't know.

What we do know, and what's been made very clear by gov't communications on the NSPS, is that the programme is partially intended to support (one might say "subsidize") Canadian shipbuilding so that it can provide service to the RCN and CCG when needed. Regardless of what we may feel about that, it's official policy and it's what pretty much every developed country in the world does. It appears that the federal government is essentially paying that subsidy in the form of buying expensive ships, rather than in the form of no-strings-attached cash like Norway.

On the subject of the expensive design phase awarded to Irving, a friend who was present at a recent NSPS-focused industry conference out west (he works for part of one of the losing consortiums) said that the consensus seems to be that the gov't recognizes that while Irving got the big contract, they got slightly hosed in that the ships they were awarded (RCN, vice CCG) aren't going to start building for years. Thus, the big design phase contract is intended to provide a bit of upfront subsidy, but since it's coming out of the same total acquisition cost, it's really just a matter of "when" the money is paid and won't alter the final cost. And it appears that it will be a bottom-up redesign, apparently at the department's request.


----------



## AlexanderM

OK, that's all good to know. Thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> My suspicion is that we're still comparing apples and footballs. According to this article (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2000/01/feature/no0001175f.htm), the Norwegian government paid a subsidy to shipyards worth about USD$400M per year in 1999. It also notes that the subsidy fell in 2000 due to new OECD regulations, but that the old direct subsidy was substituted with various indirect subsidies. Norway is not a big country, and USD$400M _every year_ in return for _no ships at all_ strikes me as an expensive way to secure an OPV cheaply when you do eventually buy one. At $100M for a one-off vessel, it wouldn't surprise me if the yard agreed not to charge anything for design as part of the subsidy deal, but I don't have any details on how that cost broke down and it doesn't seem like any are available.
> 
> Also, Svalbard is a Coast Guard vessel, so it's almost certainly built to civilian spec. All we know is that Langsten (now STX) handed over the vessel to the Coast Guard at a cost of $100M; we don't know if that included C2 system integration, commissioning, etc, which may well have been done by third parties or the CG itself. Again - I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying we don't and can't know.
> 
> What we do know, and what's been made very clear by gov't communications on the NSPS, is that the programme is partially intended to support (one might say "subsidize") Canadian shipbuilding so that it can provide service to the RCN and CCG when needed. Regardless of what we may feel about that, it's official policy and it's what pretty much every developed country in the world does. It appears that the federal government is essentially paying that subsidy in the form of buying expensive ships, rather than in the form of no-strings-attached cash like Norway.
> 
> On the subject of the expensive design phase awarded to Irving, a friend who was present at a recent NSPS-focused industry conference out west (he works for part of one of the losing consortiums) said that the consensus seems to be that the gov't recognizes that while Irving got the big contract, they got slightly hosed in that the ships they were awarded (RCN, vice CCG) aren't going to start building for years. Thus, the big design phase contract is intended to provide a bit of upfront subsidy, but since it's coming out of the same total acquisition cost, it's really just a matter of "when" the money is paid and won't alter the final cost. And it appears that it will be a bottom-up redesign, apparently at the department's request.




Hamiltongs:

When you are right you are right.   

There is the cost of maintaining the shipbuilding capability and there is the cost of building the ship.  And the Europeans do subsidize their strategic assets.  It shouldn't surprise me that they distribute costs over three or four sets of books.  We're in the process of building a capability that they already have.

The thing is, if this is a national asset then it should be more broadly funded (ie funded with HRDC labour grants, IRAP grants, Industry Canada grants, DFAIT grants for export assistance). That would put the Canadian yards on par with the Euro yards.

The RCN would then get the vessels at production cost (just like the F-35s we're supposed to get) with the yards and the government carrying the overhead costs.

If that plan doesn't work for Canada's accountants and those costs have to be borne by the RCN and Coast Guard in their entirety (which in effect means you might as well make the yards departments of the RCN and Coast Guard) then the government should be very clear in demonstrating those cost differences to the public.

With respect to the Svalbard.  She was built to civilian standards.


----------



## AlexanderM

I'm OK with overpaying for the ships right up until the point that we have to cut back on numbers or capability and that's the line where we are overpaying by too much.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The thing is, if this is a national asset then it should be more broadly funded (ie funded with HRDC labour grants, IRAP grants, Industry Canada grants, DFAIT grants for export assistance). That would put the Canadian yards on par with the Euro yards.
> 
> The RCN would then get the vessels at production cost (just like the F-35s we're supposed to get) with the yards and the government carrying the overhead costs.


The risk I see with that plan is the one that happened in Norway (can't find the link to this story now): the $400M subsidy was paid every year, but the Coast Guard's shipbuilding plan for Svalbard was delayed from 1994 to 2002 due to "lack of funds". Once the politicians get an industrial subsidy gravy boat set up, priorities for little things like defence fall to the wayside. By lumping the subsidy funds in with ship acquisition, the government is making sure that the subsidy expires if the shipbuilding stops.

The other way of looking at it is that the subsidy is intended to enhance the yards' ability to provide Navy- and Coast Guard-specific support (there is a lot that we do differently from industry). If that's the case then it makes sense to see the money budgeted under National Defence and DFO, rather than Industry.


----------



## Kirkhill

The problem we end up dancing around is maintaining the long term viability of the yards.

Yards that can build commercial and naval vessels have two potential income streams.  Currently our yards have neither stream.  The Euros have both streams.  The issue is with how the subsidies are managed.  Subsidies to yards end up subsidizing commercial shipbuilding which contravenes WTO requirements.  Subsidies for strategic assets, like naval shipbuilding are exempt from such rules, but if a "naval" yard competes for and wins a "commercial" contract it can be challenged, as I understand it.

Accordingly the issue becomes one of managing the subsidies and ensuring that the subsidies are directed against the project.  Fair enough. That will inevitably drive up the cost to the taxpayer of the project.  If that is where we are with the AOPS and NSPS projects then I am good with that.  Essentially we are covering not just the cost of building vessels but building graving yards and dry docks as well.  Those costs will become sunk costs (sorry about talking about sinking in a shipbuilding discussion  ).  Ultimately the cost of those yards and docks will disappear as more ships are built.  Just as comparable costs (tools, hangars and jigs) will disappear over the life of the F35.

Once those yards are built then the shipyards will be better positioned to compete on the commercial market.

Another interesting aspect to this is there seems to be a tendency to have bare bones hulls built in low wage environments and then have the hulls delivered to national yards for fitting out.  The optics of this can be a bit difficult as the public sees the hull as the ship even though the majority of the costs will come during the fitting out process.

The Dutch get their hulls built on the Black Sea (in Romania), the Danes have had theirs built on the Baltic (Poland) and the Aussies on the Atlantic (Spain).  All three countries returned their hulls to national yards for machinery, hotel and weapons.

I guess I would just like to see some more detail in the accounting on the NSPS - and less wailing and gnashing of teeth about not being able to afford hulls.   Hulls are cheap.  It is the stuff you guys want to pack into them that costs money.  Maybe if you spread that wealth a bit, and invested less in each hull you could afford to put more of them in the water.    

And I still prefer to look out on the horizon and see the lights of another ship than feel all alone on the briny.  As I've said before: the best form of compartmentalization going as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Monsoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem we end up dancing around is maintaining the long term viability of the yards.
> 
> Yards that can build commercial and naval vessels have two potential income streams.  Currently our yards have neither stream.


If the two streams you're talking about are civilian and military business, both Seaspan and Irving have been doing quite well on the civilian front. In the case of Irving, they're having to add a dry dock to their capacity to support the new military business: a big up-front cost for them to swallow on the infirm commitment of a government's word.



> Another interesting aspect to this is there seems to be a tendency to have bare bones hulls built in low wage environments and then have the hulls delivered to national yards for fitting out.  The optics of this can be a bit difficult as the public sees the hull as the ship even though the majority of the costs will come during the fitting out process.
> 
> The Dutch get their hulls built on the Black Sea (in Romania), the Danes have had theirs built on the Baltic (Poland) and the Aussies on the Atlantic (Spain).  All three countries returned their hulls to national yards for machinery, hotel and weapons.


Not sure how much saving this would yield. The hull component of the overall project cost is pretty marginal, and is itself 80% driven by the price of steel. I don't think you'd end up saving much by outsourcing hull construction to a lower-wage environment.


----------



## Kirkhill

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> If the two streams you're talking about are civilian and military business, both Seaspan and Irving have been doing quite well on the civilian front. In the case of Irving, they're having to add a dry dock to their capacity to support the new military business: a big up-front cost for them to swallow on the infirm commitment of a government's word.
> Not sure how much saving this would yield. The hull component of the overall project cost is pretty marginal, and is itself 80% driven by the price of steel. I don't think you'd end up saving much by outsourcing hull construction to a lower-wage environment.



Agreed throughout.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Numerous news releases about the project team for AOPs include a design review by Lloyds.  No reason to do that if AOPs wasn't going to be built to the civilian standards for an icebreaker.  However, still a lot more to the hull and structure then the typical commercial work.  The big cost saving for going to somewhere with cheaper labour is that the bulk of the costs for putting the hull together is that it is all very labour intensive.  The number of hours for specilist welders, journeymen, testing etc are going to be insane, as this isn't something running through an assembly line with robots.

http://www.stxmarine.net/headlines.html (near the bottom)

Wrt the two yards, Seaspan does far more commercial business; Irving does do some commercial work but not the same scale (cruise ships, tankers etc).  Also, believe the new drydock was funded by a loan by the provincial govt to the tune of about 300 million.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1006956-ns-offer-to-irving-shipyard-dwarfed-bc-bid

So in addition to the subsidies from the program, there is also the provincial funding.  All that to say it gets extremely complicated trying to figure out what the real costs are.  At least with the NSPS you have a pretty reasonable idea as the two umbrellla contracts should capture the bulk of the costs for any of the ships that get built, with provincial subsidies aside.

Still going to be a huge sticker shock though; there are a lot of zeroes.  A significant portion of it will eventually wind up back in govt coffers though (business taxes, income taxes etc), and it is keeping a lot of people working, including all the suppliers spread across canada providing materiel and parts.  Think it's generally a good program, as long as its done properly, and doesn't get cut to irrelevance.  Huge difference between fixing ships and building ships, so if we are going to invest the money, may as well do it once then keep going rather then another boom/bust cycle.  The only other alternatives are to either buy foreign built ships (political suicide) or get rid of the navy all together.

In the end AOPs may end up costing more then comparable ships, as I think a lot of costs are going to be directly related to building up the capability/experience, but that should mean we get a good value/product with the CSC, even if I may be retired by the time they hit the water.


----------



## AlexanderM

The weapon systems are all standard, so the only place for huge cost overruns is in the hulls.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The weapon systems are all standard, so the only place for huge cost overruns is in the hulls.



Believe me, it ain't anywhere close to being that easy.

integrating those weapons with your sensors on a command and control backbone that actually works will kill you (budget-wise) every time.  "Plug and play" sounds good on PowerPoint and in the shiny sales brochure.  Dollars to donuts says that the real world is different.


----------



## AlexanderM

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Believe me, it ain't anywhere close to being that easy.
> 
> integrating those weapons with your sensors on a command and control backbone that actually works will kill you (budget-wise) every time.  "Plug and play" sounds good on PowerPoint and in the shiny sales brochure.  Dollars to donuts says that the real world is different.


These are the same systems already working on multiple existing warships, no need to re-invent a thing.


----------



## NavyShooter

Let's take a micro-sample of "integration" issues.

Let's look at a Pre-FELEX Halifax Class warship:

Take an American Long Range Search Radar (SPS-49) and tie it into a computer system that hands taget info over to a Saab Sea Giraffe 150 Radar, which then ties into Signaal's STIR fire Control radars, which pass information to a Swedish Bofors 57mm gun, and Sea Sparrow Missiles...with Canadian Electronic Warfare systems....

So, we have equipment from 5 different nations, multiple different manufacturers, all with potential proprietary software interfaces, possibly different operating systems, etc etc...

Getting systems to the point of full integration is probably the biggest hurdle....but, that's just my personal thoughts.

NS


----------



## AlexanderM

We don't try to re-invent the wheel.  We look at what is currently working on existing warships, pick the best and go with that configuration.  We already are partners on APAR, have been for years.  If we bought into the current upgrades being done on Smart-L we could likely be a partner there also.  Thales will know about integration, we select the systems that are already known to work the best together.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> These are the same systems already working on multiple existing warships, no need to re-invent a thing.



I'm sorry, but your experience on these type of systems is precisely, what?

I'm going with what Navy Shooter said?


----------



## AlexanderM

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but your experience on these type of systems is precisely, what?
> 
> I'm going with what Navy Shooter said?


These systems are up and running on multiple warships, that's the experience which is relevant.


----------



## Edward Campbell

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> These systems are up and running on multiple warships, that's the experience which is relevant.




Yes, but which ships have _integrated_ the weapon and control systems from four or five different countries ~ and what did it cost? (See NavyShooter's expert comment.)

We know how difficult and expensive it was on existing HMC Ships. What makes you think doing it again, on a new ship, will be less complex and less expensive?


----------



## Kirkhill

Alex, 

Integration will be the difficult part.

The hull is a building.  That is all.  A floating, mobile building but a building nonetheless.

What you want to do in that building makes all the difference in the world.  And how you want to do it makes greater differences.

It is pricey enough if you get L-M or GD to build you a complete boat (take the LCS for example) using their proprietary systems.

But if, as Navy Shooter, SKT and ERC suggest, they end up using Thales, Atlas, L-M, GD and various Canadian national suppliers, amongst others, and they want to get all the pieces talking to each other on the bridge, in the CIC and in the engine room then that requires some effort.   Establishing a common communications protocol, compatible PLC and SCADA hardware and then writing the code to make it all march in time with each other, is a lengthy process.

Bolting pieces onto the ship is the easy part.  Connecting them to system (Plug) is harder.  Getting them to work together (Play) requires many hours (read PYs) of time to write the code and get it to a beta form.  And even then you will be sorting out glitches as long as the hulls are in the water.

I do understand that there are costs involved in building these vessels - as much as most, or indeed anyone does.

I also understand that there are complexities in pricing due to facilities and subsidies and ........

My concern, the one I share with you, is that Canadians are left with the impression that their costs are exceptional when compared to the rest of the world - to be honest I don't know if they are or not.  And I consider myself better informed on the subject than your average taxpayer.

A good start would be a better line item accounting of projected costs.


----------



## AlexanderM

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, but which ships have _integrated_ the weapon and control systems from four or five different countries ~ and what did it cost? (See NavyShooter's expert comment.)
> 
> We know how difficult and expensive it was on existing HMC Ships. What makes you think doing it again, on a new ship, will be less complex and less expensive?


At this point the experience with the pre-FELIX Halifax Class is relevant then more than now, let's try to keep our heads in the present.  At present Thales and BAE are present in multiple countries and we are no longer looking at integration from 4 or 5 different countries, because it is all Thales or all BAE or all someone else.  We have been partners in Thales APAR for years, it is the same APAR system used by the Germans, the Dutch and the Dannish.  If we were to invest in the Smart-L upgrades, for which I suspect the money would be greatly appreciated, we would likely be partners there also, and those two systems are already working very well together, there is no need for us to change anything.  

We simply find out from Thales which systems are presently working best, or will be working best by the time we will be ready for them, we then pay any license fees required, and we proceed.  You seem to think we are starting from scratch here, which is not the case.  Rather, we are taking existing systems and puting them on new hulls.  In a way, the more time that goes by here actually benefits us, because it gives these other countries more time to streamline their current systems and we then get to see what works the best, and then go with that.  There is no need to re-invent.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Alex,
> 
> Integration will be the difficult part.
> 
> The hull is a building.  That is all.  A floating, mobile building but a building nonetheless.
> 
> What you want to do in that building makes all the difference in the world.  And how you want to do it makes greater differences.
> 
> It is pricey enough if you get L-M or GD to build you a complete boat (take the LCS for example) using their proprietary systems.
> 
> But if, as Navy Shooter, SKT and ERC suggest, they end up using Thales, Atlas, L-M, GD and various Canadian national suppliers, amongst others, and they want to get all the pieces talking to each other on the bridge, in the CIC and in the engine room then that requires some effort.   Establishing a common communications protocol, compatible PLC and SCADA hardware and then writing the code to make it all march in time with each other, is a lengthy process.
> 
> Bolting pieces onto the ship is the easy part.  Connecting them to system (Plug) is harder.  Getting them to work together (Play) requires many hours (read PYs) of time to write the code and get it to a beta form.  And even then you will be sorting out glitches as long as the hulls are in the water.
> 
> I do understand that there are costs involved in building these vessels - as much as most, or indeed anyone does.
> 
> I also understand that there are complexities in pricing due to facilities and subsidies and ........
> 
> My concern, the one I share with you, is that Canadians are left with the impression that their costs are exceptional when compared to the rest of the world - to be honest I don't know if they are or not.  And I consider myself better informed on the subject than your average taxpayer.
> 
> A good start would be a better line item accounting of projected costs.


Kirkhill, these sytems already do exist, are in place, are communicating with each other, this work has already been done.


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect Alex:

I agree the systems exist.  I agree that they have been made to work.  Unfortunately everytime that they are recombined in a different configuration they have to be done over again.

Now some integrated systems do exist (like the Thales integrated mast the Dutch are using). That may reduce the number of hours necessary.  But the more cherry-picking the client indulges in (selecting each component for its optimal characteristics rather than just accepting adequate systems that will get the job done) then the more complex the integration becomes because the closer to first principles you have to go.  

If you want things done cheap and fast then you must give up on good..... if you define good as perfect.  If you define good as good enough then the cheapest, fastest way to get the job done is to buy exactly what somebody else is buying off of their production line with no options.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect Alex:
> 
> I agree the systems exist.  I agree that they have been made to work.  Unfortunately everytime that they are recombined in a different configuration they have to be done over again.
> 
> Now some integrated systems do exist (like the Thales integrated mast the Dutch are using). That may reduce the number of hours necessary.  But the more cherry-picking the client indulges in (selecting each component for its optimal characteristics rather than just accepting adequate systems that will get the job done) then the more complex the integration becomes because the closer to first principles you have to go.
> 
> If you want things done cheap and fast then you must give up on good..... if you define good as perfect.  If you define good as good enough then the cheapest, fastest way to get the job done is to buy exactly what somebody else is buying off of their production line with no options.


I would argue that your looking at this entirely the wrong way.

We are partners in APAR, have been for years.  That means that as APAR develops, we develop with it.  The key here is to partner up on these systems, so that as they develop, we go along for the ride.  we then get in on the stream at it's most advanced state, at the time we are ready for the systems, and then get updates as part of a partnership with other countries.  This makes things cheaper and more efficient for everyone.  What we do not do, is go our own way so that costs get out of control.

The Smart-L system can already detect Raptors at around 80km, and as the technology advences this range will increase.  The current upgrades to Smart-L will take the range from 400km to over 1000km, and I've heard as much as 2000km for ballistic missle detection.  The original range of APAR was 150km, but I understand will be or is 500km or better.  As these systems advance and develop we need only advance and develop with them.  It is a mistake to think that what we go with initially is final, as it isn't.


----------



## AlexanderM

Also, as these systems are constantly being developed and improved, there is no such thing as "perfect," as what is perfect today is only going to at best be adequate tomorrow.


----------



## NavyShooter

According to the mouse-pad I have in front of me (unclassified/Open Source) the following companies are involved in the Combat System Integrator:

Saab Systems (CEROS 200)
Saab Microwave (SG-180)
IBM Canada (DLPS) 
Telephonics (IFF)
Elisra Electronic Systems (ESM)
Raytheon Anschuetz GmbH (X and S band Nav Radars)
Thales (Smart-S)

So there's 7 companies...some of them competitors.  In a VERY competitive global market for a LIMITED number of hulls/systems/etc.  

Sharing with Lockheed Martin, their proprietary interface data....another competitor for ALL of them.

Sure, there's countries out there that have bought some of these systems, and deployed them, and gotten them to work together.  

How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.

These upgrades are not like swapping out your car stereo, with a common form factor, and simple installation instructions.

I have done a *tiny* bit of playing with standard format computer languages....for example, G-code for a computerized Mill, or NMEA 0183 data in serial comms from shipboard navigation gear.   Every CNC system now uses G-codes....they all speak the same language, and they all run the same way. 

Proprietary sensor systems from different manufacturers will probably need converters of some sort built into them, or their interfaces, so that they're all talking the same language.  It'd be like trying to get my shipboard GPS to send position updates to my CNC mill, converting the NMEA 0183 to G-codes....Sound like fun?  Do-able...time consuming...and probably expensive.

I have NOT yet receieved any detailed info on the new systems (this summer I hope!) but knowing how many major software revisions it's taken to get our pre-FELEX ships up to their current status, well, I'm wondering how long it'll take to get the new ships going, and how many revisions.

NS


----------



## AlexanderM

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.


We know the costs of many of the warships, the Dutch, the German, the Spanish with the Aegis system, so the cost is included.  For instance, the Dutch DeZeven Provincien all in cost is around $700-$800 million, includes the hull and systems.  Spanish F100's cost say $600-$700 million, including systems, the F105 cost just under $1 billion because they upgraded to high quality steel.  

So, we know the cost for everything is under $1 billion per ship, including integration.  The point is, the cost is only so much, and it's included.


----------



## AlexanderM

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> According to the mouse-pad I have in front of me (unclassified/Open Source) the following companies are involved in the Combat System Integrator:
> 
> Saab Systems (CEROS 200)
> Saab Microwave (SG-180)
> IBM Canada (DLPS)
> Telephonics (IFF)
> Elisra Electronic Systems (ESM)
> Raytheon Anschuetz GmbH (X and S band Nav Radars)
> Thales (Smart-S)
> 
> So there's 7 companies...some of them competitors.  In a VERY competitive global market for a LIMITED number of hulls/systems/etc.
> 
> Sharing with Lockheed Martin, their proprietary interface data....another competitor for ALL of them.
> 
> Sure, there's countries out there that have bought some of these systems, and deployed them, and gotten them to work together.
> 
> How much has it cost them?  I personally have no idea.
> 
> These upgrades are not like swapping out your car stereo, with a common form factor, and simple installation instructions.
> 
> I have done a *tiny* bit of playing with standard format computer languages....for example, G-code for a computerized Mill, or NMEA 0183 data in serial comms from shipboard navigation gear.   Every CNC system now uses G-codes....they all speak the same language, and they all run the same way.
> 
> Proprietary sensor systems from different manufacturers will probably need converters of some sort built into them, or their interfaces, so that they're all talking the same language.  It'd be like trying to get my shipboard GPS to send position updates to my CNC mill, converting the NMEA 0183 to G-codes....Sound like fun?  Do-able...time consuming...and probably expensive.
> 
> I have NOT yet receieved any detailed info on the new systems (this summer I hope!) but knowing how many major software revisions it's taken to get our pre-FELEX ships up to their current status, well, I'm wondering how long it'll take to get the new ships going, and how many revisions.
> 
> NS


What you're failing to recognize here is that the Smart-L/APAR combination is already up and running on a number of ships including, the Germans, the Dutch, the Dannish and at least one other, the Nansen Class (Norway).  So, we are doing what has already been done.  Of course, it is still involved, but it isn't starting from scratch.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Production cost won't include integration development effort. 

Navy shooter is right. As an example, it cost over $1 billion to integrate a new command system into the Collins submarines, and that's with very few "new" interfaces. Integrating all those different pieces of equipment is very tough. It would still be tough even if we took a pre-integrated system due to RFI and HERO on a new hull.


----------



## AlexanderM

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Production cost won't include integration development effort.
> 
> Navy shooter is right. As an example, it cost over $1 billion to integrate a new command system into the Collins submarines, and that's with very few "new" interfaces. Integrating all those different pieces of equipment is very tough. It would still be tough even if we took a pre-integrated system due to RFI and HERO on a new hull.


$1.3 billion per hull would still be within the budget of $20 billion for the 15 hulls.  If we can't get the integration done, using a pre-integrated system, then there is something seriously wrong.  That would still be paying a premium for the ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

One way that costs could be contained would be to accept the complete design, in its entirety, of a vessel like the Huitfeldt/Absalons or the Zeven Provinces, or the F125..... and just have it built in Canada exactly to that spec.  That would give you an apples to apples comparison.  You would then be looking at Denmark's five ships, or Holland's four ships, or Germany's four ships, as prototypes for Canada's 15 ships.  I believe there is merit to that approach.

The risk can be managed further by breaking the 15 ships into 3 flights of 5 vessels (or even 5 flights of 3 vessels or 1 flight of 3 Absolon type GP vessels and 2 flights of 6 AAW/ASW vessels).

The problems will multiply if a green design team is married with a green client over a clean sheet of paper.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> One way that costs could be contained would be to accept the complete design, in its entirety, of a vessel like the Huitfeldt/Absalons or the Zeven Provinces, or the F125..... and just have it built in Canada exactly to that spec.  That would give you an apples to apples comparison.  You would then be looking at Denmark's five ships, or Holland's four ships, or Germany's four ships, as prototypes for Canada's 15 ships.  I believe there is merit to that approach.
> 
> The risk can be managed further by breaking the 15 ships into 3 flights of 5 vessels (or even 5 flights of 3 vessels or 1 flight of 3 Absolon type GP vessels and 2 flights of 6 AAW/ASW vessels).


Yes, I agree.  Use the Huitfeldt Class, with the flexible midship missle bay.  Only difference between Destoyers and Frigates is put more VLS 41 cells on Destroyers, leave more room for mission modules on Frigates, give Destroyers more command and control hardware and give them the bigger 150mm guns with extended range shells. 

I'd also like a quote for using high grade steel, like HSLA 80 or 100, or some other good but cheaper option.

If we can't just switch the design from commercial to military specs, then go with the DeZeven Provinciel design strait up, still look at upgrading the steel.


----------



## AlexanderM

Also the Huitfeldt Class can handle 20 tons on the flightdeck which means Chinook, although it wouldn't be able to carry more than 6 tons of cargo. Not sure if the hanger is long enough, would need more than 100 feet.  Read something about frigates being able to operate Chinooks for certain operations as part of mission capabilities.


----------



## NavyShooter

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> What you're failing to recognize here is that the Smart-L/APAR combination is already up and running on a number of ships including, the Germans, the Dutch, the Dannish and at least one other, the Nansen Class (Norway).  So, we are doing what has already been done.  Of course, it is still involved, but it isn't starting from scratch.


 
And....there's where we come off the rails.

Because there is no ship in the world with the same systems as a combined whole.  Period.

The Smart-S might be tied in, but let's look at the WHOLE picture for a moment.    

Tom Clancy scenario time...

We have a ship operating in EMCON, (radar silent) and they detect on the ESM that there's a radar looking at us (high PRF indicating lock)  

Response?  Transmit on all radars...look for the target, detect it, lock it up ourselves, and fire our 57mm gun at it.  

What does all that take.  Well, more than just the Smart-S radar.  

We have the initial ESM contact...that's one system.

Then we have the radars (Smart S, already integrated) and the SG-180 (That's 2 systems)  

Now we have to pass the target designation on to the appropriate fire control radar....the CEROS 200.  (That's 3 systems)

Now once we've locked the target up and decide to fire, we have to have our 57mm brought into the loop (that's 4 systems)

Sooooo....while the Smart-S might be tied in, there's a multitude of other systems that are not, and need to be in order for the whole picture to work.

Please don't take this the wrong way, they can do it (and in fact, ARE doing it right now.)

BUT. 

It's time consuming, and expensive when you have to integrate multiple sensors to provide overlapping information layers to the ship's team...

It'll work out in the end, but getting everything to talk is a significant challenger I'm sure, just based on open-source review of what they're trying to integrate.

Comparing apples to apples....the German F124 class is a good example, it has the Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, plus the Thales SIRIUS, and Atlas Radar/EO FC systems....so, they have 2 manufacturers for most of their gear (3 if you include their ESM) while we have....um....9 was it? Yeah, the Germans have it a lot easier....they really do in this case.  They're not integrating to the same extent as we are.
NS


----------



## AlexanderM

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Comparing apples to apples....the German F124 class is a good example, it has the Thales Smart-L and APAR radars, plus the Thales SIRIUS, and Atlas Radar/EO FC systems....so, they have 2 manufacturers for most of their gear (3 if you include their ESM) while we have....um....9 was it? Yeah, the Germans have it a lot easier....they really do in this case.  They're not integrating to the same extent as we are.
> NS


OK, but we don't have to integrate any more than this either, talking about the new ships, not the FELIX upgrade.  We could even choose the exact same systems, meaning they're pre-integrated, and this is the exact approach we should be taking.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You do realize that pits things like dropping in more Mk 41 modules and 155 mm guns out of the question, right?


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM: Re CSC:

"$1.3 billion per hull would still be within the budget of _$20 billion for the 15 hulls_ [emphasis added]."

This from 2010:

"...Vanguard spoke with Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Ian Mack, National Defence’s Director General for Major Project Delivery (Land and Sea) about the navy’s shipbuilding program...

Canadian Surface Combatant
The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With _acquisition costs of about $26 billion_ [emphasis added] and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans..."
http://vanguardcanada.com/new-fleet-in-sight-canadian-navy-builds-for-tomorrow/

And I believe those 2010 number are supposed to be fixed and not to be upped for inflation.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

Mark, as I understand it, those number are not relevant.  The current budget for the 15 CSC is $20 billion, not $26 billion.  Or, at least, those are the numbers under the current building program.  I think the $26 billion figure was someone's wish list prior to the announcement of the current program.


----------



## AlexanderM

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You do realize that pits things like dropping in more Mk 41 modules and 155 mm guns out of the question, right?


Or it would mean that would be the full extent of additional integration required.


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM: Have you got a link to an official source (or a media one) for the $20 billion figure?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

There are a number of sources, I'll look it up later.  The $25 billion awarded to Irvings was, $20 billion for the CSC, then remainder for the AOP's, and perhaps something else.

Here is one that says $25 billion for Destroyers, frigates and AOP's.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/10/14/ns-faq-halifax-shipbuilding-bid.html

http://www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.ca/mobile/issues/ABM_v22n6/upfront.php

http://www.atlanticbusinessmagazine.ca/departments/upfront/abmupfront-5/


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM:  As far as I know that $25 billion figure for combat ships appears only in the media, not in any official sources:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=canada+shipbuilding+%2433+billion+%2425+billion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

All the gov't has said that I can find is that there is a total of $33 billion for both combat and non-combat vessels:

"The total value of both packages is $33 billion and will span 20 to 30 years."
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=629989

"1. What is the value of the packages?

The government has announced $33 billion for the construction of Canada's large vessels. The specific value will be determined through contract negotiations on each project."
1. What is the value of the packages?
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/faq-eng.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

Well, we do know that Irving got $25 billion and Sea Span $8 billion, total $33 billion.  So, if Irving's contract is $25 billion for 21 ships, being 15 Destroyers/Frigates and 6 AOP's, then it can't be $26 billion just for Destroyers/Frigates.  The media would have recieved their numbers from somewhere.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/gptm-pgtm-eng.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

But still no official gov't figure for the CSCs.  One wonders why.  Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged--remember that $26 billion figure from an admiral who should know.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Or perhaps the suit will be tailored to suit the cloth?


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But still no official gov't figure for the CSCs.  One wonders why.  Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged--remember that $26 billion figure from an admiral who should know.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


OK, but they just paid out $288 million for the design of the AOP's, so I doubt they're planning on cancelling them.  Also, that would leave us with one new icebreaker, and we do need more ships that can operate in the north, even though the AOP's are limited, can't operate in thick ice, they still will give us a needed presence.


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM: "Perhaps the money won't really be there for 6 A/OPSs and 15 CSCs as the latter have been envisaged..."--I was not referring to the A/OPSs, rather the "latter", the CSCs.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

Well, this is the point that some of us have been trying to make, that the budget should be sufficient, $20 billion should be enough for the 15 CSC's.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.


----------



## Kirkhill

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much ....



Yes it is.


----------



## AlexanderM

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That's only $1.3 billion each, in current dollars. That's not very much even if we do full copies of foreign designs with no system integration required.


It's easily double what it has cost other countries to build their ships.  Even if some of those building programs have been subsidized, it would have to be as much as $500 to $600 million per ship.  This would be in comparison with the cost of the Dutch, Dannish, Spanish or Norwegian ships.  The Dutch and Spanish came in at $600 to $800 million, the Dannish and Norwegians even less.  So we are essentially looking at subsidizing by about $500 to $600 million per ship, over 15 hulls, so total subsidy of $7.5 to $9.0 billion dollars, for the CSC portion of the program.

As a taxpayer, if it can't be done for that, then I say build the hulls in Korea, and install the weapon systems here.  Then take the money we save and create jobs somewhere else in our economy.

And please keep in mind, that whatever one says we have to do, that makes the ships expensive, these other countries also had to do, and it's done.  So, in theory, anything they can do, we can do also, and the cost should not be more than double.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Yes it is.


Agreed! It should be plenty.


----------



## Navy_Pete

A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background

$1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.

Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).

My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.


----------



## Kirkhill

Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.

The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.



> Type 26 frigate design
> 
> The basic GCS frigate has a flexible design to allow it to adapt to a range of weaponry and sensors. It will allow new technology upgrades and execute different strategic landscape shifts.
> 
> The frigate is designed for modularity and flexibility. It has clean angular lines for operating stealth. The stern has a mission bay.
> A ramp at the bay allows deployment of rigid-hulled inflatable boats, unmanned surface vehicles or a towed array sonar. The flight deck of the frigate allows landing of a heavy lift helicopter such as a Chinook.
> 
> The design details of the ship were slightly pared to the initial specifications revealed in 2009, to cut down its building costs. The new design in 2011 shows the Type 26 to have a displacement of 5,400t, length of 148m and maximum beam of 19m.
> The GCS will have a crew of 130 and berths to accommodate 36 embarked troops.
> 
> Proposed variation models under the Global Combat Ship programme
> 
> The Type 26 programme is planned to develop three variants - anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-aircraft warfare (AAW) and general purpose (GP) vessels.



Type 26 Link

I think it highly unlikely that the RCN would even contemplate buying 15 Type 45s.

And the RN isn't unionized either (although they have always been a bit Bolshie).


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Type 45 is too rich for the RN.  They reduced their buy of 8 to 6 due to cost.
> The Crew of the Type 45 is 190 (smaller than the 7 Provinces) and carries an additional 60 berths.
> 
> The Type 26 is the likely CSC competitor/contender.
> The Crew's a bit bigger than the 100 or so of the Euros at 130 - but it also sails with berths for 36 OGDs.
> 130 is still approximately half of the number of crew in Halifax or Iroquois.
> 
> Type 26 Link





Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:


http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...."The flight deck of the Type 26 GCS can allow landing of a Chinook."  Giddy up! :nod:
> 
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme/global-combat-ship-gcs-programme3.html



The landing, yes.  It's the "taking off again" portion that I wonder about


----------



## AlexanderM

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> A better comparison may be the RN type 45s; they cost 6.5 billion pounds for 6.  The exchange rate varied over the years (between 1.5 to over 2 CAD per pound), but still probably somewhere around $1.6 billion each CAD.  And that was started a decade ago.  Add in inflation and another 10 years before they start and equivalent costs go up more.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Background
> 
> $1.3 billion per is a lot of money, but could quite easily cost a lot more then what is currently budgeted.  Keep in mind the RN has the similar policy for 'regional benefits' so even though they had a better developed industry, building the modules was spread around a few yards all over the UK, then brought together for final assembly on the Clyde.
> 
> Sure, they are the cadillac of modern warships, but as they operate on roughly similar requirements as the CSC, and the RN has very similar crewing and operating philosophies as that's where we got ours from (some officer training is still provided in the UK) so it's a better benchmark then the Danish, Dutch, Spanish or Norwegian ships as their navies operate completely differently then ours (ie we aren't unionized).
> 
> My guess is the 15 ships at that budget was a WAG and unless they increase the budget, will probably realistically end up with somewhere around 10.


We don't need Type 45 Destroyers.  The De Zeven Provincien would be just fine, as would the Danish design, both much less expensive than the Type 45.


----------



## NavyShooter

Back to the AOPS...does anyone want to start a betting pool on what day they actually start cutting steel?

I'll put my name down for 15 Mar 2016.


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM: This from 2011 looks fairly official for 26 billion for CSC acquisition:



> ...
> Briefing notes prepared for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino in May 2011 and obtained by Postmedia News...
> 
> ...Fantino's briefing notes warned that the "critical" $26.6-billion Canadian-surface-combatant (CSC) project to replace the destroyers...


http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=6814616

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Thank you for that Mark. I knew that was the figure but having worked on the Project when in Ottawa, I wasn't sure if I had gotten in from a press release or some of the classified documentation associated with the Project. This weekend FS Aquitaine is in town on a CSC sales pitch...but back to AOPS, I am going to say late 14-early 15


----------



## AlexanderM

Well, if that's the case, there has been no change of plans announced from the $25 billion contract awarded to Irvings for the CSC's and the AOP's.  Second, if that is indeed the budget, then we had better see some kick butt ships at that price, no excuses at all, as that's $1.73 billion per.  I would not have a problem with that budget, not sure about the rest of the public, but if they (Irving) start saying it's still not enough, then we hang them up by their toenails.


----------



## Good2Golf

Simply dividing total budget by number of vessels does not accurately reflect how Vote 5 acquisition budgets are actually apportioned.  Although I do not know the specifics of the CSC apportionment, I would not be surprised only a half to two thirds of the allocated funds would actually be assigned specifically to hulls.

Regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

AlexanderM:  One cannot square 26 billion for the CSCs alone with $25 billion for _both_ the CSC and A/OPS.  The likely result is that less of the $33 billion NSPS total will be for non-combat ships, affecting mainly the Canadian Coast Guard rather than the RCN's JSS.  Instead of needed new CCG vessels for a very aging fleet--see "Table 4: Age of Vessels, 2009-2010"  here,
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0015223

the government is just going to "extend" the life of most of those ships and only one new icebreaker will be built:

"Harper Government to Extend the Life of the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet"
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2013/hq-ac02-eng.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Frankly, 20 to 26 BCAD at this stage of the game amounts to the limits of an estimation.  That equals 22 BCAD +20% and -10%.  That is a relatively tight estimate.

You are trying to sort fly do-do from pepper at this point in time.

G2G:

Even at 20 and only half apportioned to the hulls, those Chinook-capable Type 26s are targeted for a delivery cost of 250 to 350 MUKP for a mixed fleet of GPs, ASWs ans AAWs.

At current exchange rates that's about 400 to 500 MCADs apiece.

Assume that the high end is for the AAW version and the low end is for the GP version with the ASW version somewhere in between 10 BCAD should buy something like 20 AAWs or 25 GPs.   Allow for a 50% escalator and you are looking at least at 13 to 17 hulls while leaving 10 BCAD in the pot.

Costs can be adjusted using the Stanflex model of fitting ships "for not with" and varying the ratios of AAW:ASW:GP

I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.


----------



## AlexanderM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that we can get hulls in the water at something approximating what the rest of the world is paying.  400 to 500 MCAD is on par with Huitfeldt, Absalon, FREMM, Nansen and Bazan.


We are already right off the map in approximating what the rest of the world is paying.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ok guys stick with the AOPS as its the topic at hand

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's a new report on CBC News that repreats pretty much what other have said here: we're paying way too much compared to other countries.


----------



## Privateer

> CBC News also asked MacKay to explain why Canada would pay Irving ten times as much for the design as other shipyards say it should cost.
> 
> MacKay replied "other shipyards are wrong," and left it at that.



Hmmm...


----------



## Seyek

> "We are implementing what's called a design and then build strategy," the minister told CBC News.



Hopefully the navy types here will have a better idea than myself, but is there any way of building a ship that DOESN'T first require you design it? Or do other navies just haphazardly throw parts together until something's floating?


----------



## Kirkhill

There's one curious bit of info that was news to me:

We actually own design for the Svalbard - purchased for 5 MCAD.

Good, bad or indifferent we could have started cutting steel for carbon copies at the time that design was purchased and had at least a couple of hulls in the water by this time.

Which, as the esteemed MND has said, good, bad or indifferent, would have meant a capability we don't have.  In addition it would have meant a design that could have been evaluated in the field and modified in the next flight........

But hey, we have experts purchasing this stuff..... and so we are going offshore to find people to keep track of the projects

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/cmms-nr-eng.html


----------



## CougarKing

Ahhh yes, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives...  :

link



> *Is Canada’s Arctic patrol ship program on the same course as the F-35s?*
> 
> Screwing up military procurement contacts is as Canadian as shinny and maple syrup.
> 
> Word that there are questions surrounding the Conservative government's program for new Arctic patrol ships, including of course the cost, should startle no one.
> 
> You can go back a century to the infamous Ross rifle that Canadian soldiers took into the trenches in the First World War, only to find the mud made them jam and worse — the bolts sometimes fell out or even flew back and hit soldiers in the face when they fired.
> 
> Flash forward to more recent history and you've got the Liberals' purchase of second-hand British submarines that have been in the repair dock more than at sea, the endlessly delayed replacement for the navy's ancient Sea King helicopters and of course the budget-busting F-35 stealth fighter program.
> 
> It is surprising that the government appears to be circling the wagons on questions about the plan to build eight ice-capable offshore patrol vessels, just as it did when questions were first raised about the F-35 program's soaring costs.
> 
> CBC News is reporting that Ottawa appears to be overpaying for the design of the new ships, based on the costs of similar vessels bought by other countries.
> 
> *The $288-million price tag for Halifax shipbuilder J.D. Irving to design the ships is many times higher than for ice-capable patrol vessels bought by Norway, Denmark and Ireland, according to ship-building experts CBC News interviewed.
> 
> And that's before construction of the ships, which is covered under a separate contract between Irving and Public Works Canada, which is administering the program for the Department of National Defence. The total cost of the program as announced in 2007 was estimated at $3.1 billion.*
> 
> According to CBC News, Norway paid just $5 million to design the Svalbard, the vessel on which the Canadian ships' design will be based. The total cost including construction was $100 million in 2002. Denmark got two similar ships for $105 million in 2007, all in. The Irish navy is spending $125 million for two patrol ships now under construction, CBC News said.
> 
> Shipbuilding experts said vessel design normally makes up 10 to 20 per cent of the total cost of a ship.
> 
> CBC News said neither Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, Defence Minister Peter MacKay nor officials in Ambrose's department could explain the cost discrepancy.
> 
> When confronted with the opinions of experts from other shipyards, MacKay said simply, "other shipyards are wrong."
> 
> If the defence minister's, um, defensiveness sounds familiar, it's because MacKay stonewalled questions about the F-35 program's costs for months before conceding it had grown to $25 billion from a previous estimate of $15 billion, as critics had warned. The original estimate was $9 billion.
> 
> The assessment was confirmed last year in a report by the auditor general, who hammered MacKay's department for keeping Parliament in the dark. A further review put the total life-cycle cost of the fighters at almost $46 billion.
> 
> The entire fighter program has now been "reset" to see if there are cheaper alternatives to the F-35, further delaying replacement of the RCAF's aging CF-18 Hornets. The process was put in the hands of a separate National Fighter Jet Procurement Secretariat under Public Works.
> 
> Is the patrol-ship program following the same narrative arc?
> 
> Last month, *the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, along with the Rideau Institute, produced a report warning the program was a "titanic blunder,"* CBC News reported.
> 
> It took issue not just with the costs but with the kind of vessels the government wanted, saying the Svalbard-class light icebreaker's design contained too many compromises to fulfill Canadian requirements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Unfortunately we keep setting up targets that are impossible to miss.  At times I'm convinced that folks like Irving are on the same side as the "policy alternative" folks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The conservatives should say; "We have listened to the advice of the Liberals and the NDP and will purchase these ships offshore. We wish to thank the parties for putting the interests of the treasury ahead of regional benefits" then sit back and watch them spin.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's a new report on CBC News that repreats pretty much what other have said here: we're paying way too much compared to other countries.




And, in a full page ad in (at least) the _Ottawa Citizen_, Irving fights back:






Source: _iPolitics_


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

This is just another example of a potential procurement boondoggle in a long list of other boondoggles.  We're so bassackwards when it comes to procurement it really isn't funny anymore.  From flash to bang it takes our military so long to get the necessary equipment into the hands of our soldiers/sailors/air force personnel that by the time it does come around it's a surprise that it shows up because people almost forget it was in process to begin with.

I am ofcourse being extra sarcastic and facetious in my statements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Irving's position still doesn't rationalize the procedures of other yards which design-build-modify-build-modify-build-build-build....

288 MCAD for Irving to figure out how to do the stuff they said they could do at the time they got the NSPS (AOPS-CSC) contract.

I have no problem with Canada standing up the industrial capability to build ships.  I think it is an excellent idea.

Equally I have no problem with paying the extra dollar to create that capability.  

I do have a problem with costs not being clearly defined.

Irving will build a non-functional module to train its team to build these ships.  That's fair.  They don't have that capability just now. They not only have to design a vessel and build it.   Damen, Langsten, Ulstein and the Odense yards have(had) that capability and it is regularly exercised.  Irving also has to learn how to design and build vessels.  If they knew how I don't believe they would have to go offshore to buy the expertise from an outfit like Odense.

Let's not pretend that Irving has the capability - they are embarking on a very steep learning curve.  And even with the test module I doubt if the first complete AOPS will be like the last one or have the same life.  I consider that cost an acceptable cost - within limits.

Equally we need clarity in the accounting to be able to clearly delineate the point in time when Irving has learned its trade and vessels are delivered at their real production cost - not the subsidized cost to develop the industry.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Like Kirkhill, I have some real problems with this which I lay at the feet of PW, the government and NDHQ.

My objective in all this is: "Build the ships in Canada."

I want the labour here....

The design I'm less concerned about....and in fact, buying only off-the-shelf tested designs has a lot of merit to me.

The fact that NDHQ appears to have a strong need to "Canadianize" everything to me appears to often to be an employment justifier as opposed to an operational necessity.

Me again....I would've pooled the 20-year build plan and bid out the entire thing to the world's biggest military builders and let them make recommendations about fleet composition and necessary inclusions....then let them negotiate with Canadian shipyards as I'm damn-sure they'd do a better job than the silly buggers at NDHQ/PW.

If they decided to use Irving, good for them.  

If they decide not to because they think Irving is a bunch of nincompoops, and instead want to build a new state-of-the-art facility from scratch....also good for them.

But for the Love of God, pick one location and build the facility out right.  Make it the most high-tech facility in the world so that after it's done building out our military ships, capacity is fought for to produce civil vessels.  Do not try to spread it around.  Military procurement should never be mixed in with provincial hand-outs....but as long as it is, we will see this same absurd process repeat itself.


Matthew. 

P.S.  As a side note, I think military procurement of items produced in Canada should be billed to the military 'net of' income taxes and HST.  Why the military is forced to pay these taxes given its role, is beyond me.  If the military did not spend, the taxes would not exist.  So wipe the slate and do all cost calculations exclusive of those taxes (fuel taxes too).


----------



## GR66

I've got no problem with the idea of "buying Canadian" and supporting Canadian industry IF that industry can be competitive in the global market.  

It's nice to say "let's build a Canadian Shipbuilding industry" but is there a long-term market for the products that we would produce?  Once we tool up, train the labour force, obtain the know how and build our Canadian ships (at great start-up expense), is there an ongoing market out there for what we can produce and can we be competitive in that market?  If not, they we've just misallocated precious resources that could have been better invested in other industries where we CAN be competitive in the long term rather than an ongoing drain on the economy in the form of industrial subsidies, etc.  I'd be curious to know if anyone has made such an assessment in this case.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66

I have a lower standard than export potential.

All that I ask is that the effort is fully engaged supplying a service, at reasonable market price, that we can utilize.  When UPS outperforms Canada Post then Canada Post is surplus to requirement.

If we need ships, and I mean really need them and intend to use them effectively, and can build them domestically at a reasonably competitive rate,  then by all means build them here.  I don't really care if they never get sold off shore.


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If we need ships, and I mean really need them and intend to use them effectively, and can build them domestically at a reasonably competitive rate,  then by all means build them here.  I don't really care if they never get sold off shore.



If the cost of buying those ships domestically "at a reasonably competitive rate" involves massive start-up costs, industrial subsidies and re-tooling/re-training expenses that will soon be lost once our immediate domestic orders are filled and the industry then withers on the vine because it can't sell offshore then it is not a good investment.  That money could be much better invested in viable industries that will generate ongoing employment (and tax revenue from a healthy industry).

If I thought Canada could/would have an ongoing ship procurement strategy that could keep domestic shipyards working indefinitely instead of one spurt to fill our order then decades of nothing then I'd agree with you.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:
			
		

> If I thought Canada could/would have an ongoing ship procurement strategy that could keep domestic shipyards working indefinitely instead of one spurt to fill our order then decades of nothing then I'd agree with you.



We are in violent agreement then.  

I HOPE that a long term strategy can be created and maintained.  

I HOPE that this NSPS plan can be moulded to that outcome.

I FEAR that the early indications are not conducive to such ends.

It is not only the yards themselves (not wanting to point fingers anymore than I have) but it is also the lack of a consistent strategy that enjoys real all party support.


----------



## dapaterson

For a bit of clarification:  DND get spending authorities including HST.  When DND spends money, it is chaarged amounts net of HST.  HST amounts are charged to an account that is not part of DND's allocation.

Clear as mud?


----------



## YZT580

If the government of Canada had been doing their job and buiding and maintaining a fleet all along none of this discussion would be taking place.  For a nation the size of Canada with the coastline we have to protect there is an ongoing requirement for a navy which also means an ongoing requirement for ships.  We should have been launching several ships per year, every year since the frigate contract was completed.  Then Irving wouldn't be re-learning skills that should never have been let go.  But we haven't, we didn't, and now we are paying a very steep price for that neglect.  The airforce is in the same boat or even worse.  Now NDHQ don't make it any easier by Canadianizing everything they buy including trucks and Johnnies and that is probably Peter's biggest problem.


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If the government of Canada had been doing their job and buiding and maintaining a fleet all along none of this discussion would be taking place.  For a nation the size of Canada with the coastline we have to protect there is an ongoing requirement for a navy which also means an ongoing requirement for ships.  We should have been launching several ships per year, every year since the frigate contract was completed.  Then Irving wouldn't be re-learning skills that should never have been let go.  But we haven't, we didn't, and now we are paying a very steep price for that neglect.  The airforce is in the same boat or even worse.  Now NDHQ don't make it any easier by Canadianizing everything they buy including trucks and Johnnies and that is probably Peter's biggest problem.



Not sure why you think it's NDHQ.  Ever hear of 'Industrial Regional Benefits'?

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/042.nsf/eng/h_00016.html

So we can buy a ship design, and copy it, but govt policy is that it should be provided by a Canadian supplier, and spread across the country.  Aside from PWGSC and DND, pretty sure Industry Canada is also involved in NSPS.

For some reason the phrase 'competing priorities' comes to mind.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For some reason the phrase 'competing priorities' comes to mind.



Indeed.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/sim-cnmi.nsf/eng/uv00050.html


----------



## Kirkhill

This information pertains to the Danish Absalon/Huitfeldt ships but it details the design-build planning sequence and the Danish costs for producing the first two of a 5 ship class - a class that could be in contention, not for the AOPS programme, but for the much more sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant programme.



> Denmark – Absalon Class Support Ship (Flexible Support Ship)
> Rewritten – February 2006
> 
> 
> L-16 Absalon underway
> Program Status: Complete – Final Report. Both units of the class, L-16 Absalon and L-17 Esbern Snare, were constructed at the Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark and have been accepted by the Royal Danish Navy (RDN). The first unit, Absalon, was launched on 25 February 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 19 October 2004. The second unit, Esbern Snare, was launched on 21 June 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 18 April 2005.
> 
> Operational Requirement: The RDN has a requirement for a class of multi-purpose ships that can perform a wide range of duties, including conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace support, humanitarian relief, and general naval combat operations.
> 
> Program Background: In April 1996, the Danish Ministry of Defense established an expert committee (the Committee Concerning the Armed Forces’ Equipment) to evaluate the suitability of existing defense materiel systems, and to recommend what major materiel acquisitions should be made over the period 2000 - 2011. In August 1997, the committee completed its evaluation by submitting its 300-page report, The Report from the Committee Concerning the Armed Forces’ Equipment, to Parliament. The report recommended replacing the three Niels Juel class corvettes, four Falster class minelayers, and ten Willemoes class fast attack craft (FAC) with six units of a new design, referred to as the "Large Standard Vessel". Two of the Large Standard Ships would be Command & Support Vessels, and four additional units would be Large Patrol Vessels (Frigates). All six of the Large Standard Vessels would be based on the RDN’s Standard Flex (STANFLEX) concept.
> 
> Passed by Parliament in 1999, Defense Agreement 2000-2004 provided for the construction of two Command & Support Vessels, and lays the groundwork for the future construction of the Large Patrol Vessels (Frigate). Construction of three of the originally planned four Large Patrol Vessels was authorized in 2004 under Defense Agreement 2005-2009.
> 
> *Program Acquisition Plan: The Naval Material Command (NMC), in cooperation with a number of foreign designers, initiated a pre-feasibility study for the two Flexible Support Ships authorized under Defense Agreement 2000-2004. An integrated part of the study was the derivative design for the Patrol Ship variants.
> 
> Feasibility studies for the program, involving Direction Constructions des Navales International (DCNI) (now Armaris) and BAE Systems, were completed by the end of 1999. Three Danish shipyards (Oerskov Steel Shipyard, Odense Steel Shipyard (Lindoe Yard), and Danyard Aalborg Shipyard) were selected to submit detailed designs and prices by May 2001. Danyard Aalborg Shipyard declined to bid on this program. Tenders were returned in late June 2001, however, both were above the set ceiling price of US$110M (hull, mechanical, and electrical systems only).
> 
> On 03 August 2001, the NMC cancelled the tender activity and entered into parallel negotiations with Oerskov and Odense yards. Several meetings were held to clarify the specifications, and to mitigate areas of risk and identify cost savings in order to reduce the overall price. On 15 October 2001, as a result of these negotiations, Odense Steel Shipyard was awarded a US$110M contract for the detailed design and construction of the two ships. First steel was cut for Absalon on 30 April 2003, launched on 25 February 2004 and accepted by the Royal Danish Navy (RDN) on 19 October 2004. The second unit, Esbern Snare, was launched on 21 June 2004 and accepted by the RDN on 18 April 2005.
> 
> An additional US$256M was authorized to complete the construction and integrate both units of the class, allowing a total cost of US$183M per unit. The US$183M does not include the containerized STANFLEX systems, which are already in stock or funded through a separate budget.
> *
> 
> The construction schedule for the class is as follows:
> 
> Hull
> 
> Name
> 
> Laid Down
> 
> Launched
> 
> Commissioned
> 
> 1
> 
> Absalon
> 
> 28 Nov 03
> 
> 25 Feb 04
> 
> 19 Oct 04
> 
> 2
> 
> Esbern Snare
> 
> May 04
> 
> 21 Jun 04
> 
> 18 Apr 05
> 
> 
> L-17 Esbern Snare pierside
> Design and Construction Considerations: The Flexible Support Ship is to some extent based on the earlier Thetis class design, and includes the successful STANFLEX Concept. The ships are longer than the Thetis class (137m/452ft vice 112.5m/369.1ft) in order to incorporate a mid-ship "multi-function" plug. The beam has grown from 14.4m/47.5ft in Thetis to 19.5m/64.4ft in the new class. An all-diesel propulsion plant driving two shafts (compared to the one-shaft propulsion system chosen for the Thetis class due to the requirement to navigate in ice) allows for a maximum speed of 24 knots. The superstructure is designed and constructed to enhance the ships’ stealth characteristics. Additionally, a flight deck and hangar to support flight operations by two helicopters up to 15 tons.
> 
> The stern and the deck below the flight deck is designed for roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) of vehicles up to Main Battle Tank size (62 tons). Alternatively, the 900 square meter multi-purpose deck (245 lane-meters) can take 75% of an Army reconnaissance battalion, a containerized hospital with a capacity for 10 surgeries a day, a containerized command module for a staff of up to 70 personnel, a container accommodation for emergency evacuations, or up to 300 mines in modular rails. Facilities for carrying two high-speed insertion craft (Swedish Type SRC-90E) are included. Light displacement will be approximately 4,500 tons and full load displacement of around 6,300 tons.
> 
> The design features five STANFLEX container positions amidships. In principle, any combination of STANFLEX weapon/equipment container suites developed for the Flyvefisken class will fit on the Flexible Support Ship. However, the mission-specific STANFLEX weapon/equipment container suites that are found on the Absalon class include:
> 
> A surface-to-air missile (SAM) module consisting of twelve Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles. Raytheon developed a dual pack Mk 56 launcher for ESSM for the RDN that will replace the Mk 48 Mod 0 at a later date.
> 
> A surface-to-surface missile (SSM) module for two quad Boeing Harpoon launchers.
> 
> An anti-submarine torpedo module with Eurotorp’s MU90 lightweight torpedoes.
> 
> An ELINT module.
> 
> A basic storage module.
> The STANFLEX containers are manufactured in Denmark by Promecon (a subsidiary of Monberg & Thorsen). They are 3m in length, 3.5m in width, and 2.5m in height. Containers are craned into wells in each ship, with standard interface connections providing access to ship’s services (power, communications, ventilation, water, and data). Installation of a single container is typically accomplished in about 30 minutes, and depending upon the weapon/equipment being installed, system checks are generally complete with a few hours. If one or more container positions are left unoccupied, purpose-made hatch covers are fitted to seal the wells.
> 
> In October 2002, the RDN announced the procurement of two United Defense Industries (now BAE Systems Land and Armaments Systems) Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm/54 guns, one for each of the Flexible Support Ships. As this type of gun is not planned for installation on other future RDN units, they will not be containerized. The RDN also intends to procure the Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) for the 127mm gun.
> 
> Ship Characteristics:
> 
> Vessel Type	Auxiliary
> Country	Denmark
> Program	Flexible Support Ship
> Total Number	2
> Unit Cost (US$)	183M
> Builder	Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark
> Displ. Tons	4,500 (light); 6,300 (full load)
> Length	137m (452ft)
> Beam	19.5m (64.4ft)
> Draft	6.3m (20.6ft)
> Machinery	Diesel: Two MTU 8000 diesel engines (22,300 hp each, providing a total of 16.63MW of power); two shafts; two controllable pitch propellers; bow thruster.
> Speed (Knots)	24
> Range	9,000nm at 15 knots.
> Complement	100, accommodation for up to 170
> Weapons	Guns: One BAE Systems Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm/54 gun; four 12.7mm machine guns.
> Close-in-Weapons System (CIWS): Two Oerlikon Contraves- 35mm GDM08 Millenium guns with Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction (AHEAD) air burst munitions.
> 
> Torpedoes: STANFLEX Anti-submarine module with Eurotorp MU90 lightweight anti-submarine warfare (ASW) torpedoes.
> 
> Mines: Modular mine rails can be mounted to provide a capacity for 300 mines.
> 
> Missiles	Surface-to-surface missiles (SSM): STANFLEX modules containing two quad launchers for eight Boeing Harpoon Block II SSMs.
> Surface-to-air missiles (SAM): STANFLEX modules each containing three Mk 48 Mod 0 dual pack vertical launcher Sea Sparrow launchers. Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) launched from the Mk 56 VLS.
> 
> Military lift	Sufficient deck space to embark a containerized hospital consisting of twenty-five 20-ft standard containers or 75% of an Army reconnaissance battalion.
> Cargo Capacity	140 square meters.
> CMS/Fire Control	Combat Management System (CMS): Terma Elektronik C-Flex CMS.
> Fire Control System (FCS): SaabTech Ceros 200.
> 
> Radar	Air/surface search: Thales Naval Nederland SMART-S 3D Mk 2.
> Navigation: Furuno Danmark X and L band.
> 
> Integrated Platform Management System (IPMS)	Rockwell Automation IPMS.
> Integrated Bridge System (IBS)	Rockwell Automation IBS.
> Integrated Communications Suite (ICS)	Infocom 2000 ICS.
> Countermeasures	Electronic Support Measures (ESM): EDO ES 3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures and Surveillance System.
> Decoys: Terma Elektronik Soft Kill Weapon System (SKWS) with two DL-12T twelve-barreled chaff/IR launchers.
> 
> Sonar	Atlas Elektronik hull-mounted active search and attack sonar.
> Helicopter	Flight deck and hangar for two EH-101 helicopters.
> Key Personnel:
> 
> Royal Danish Navy
> 
> Rear Admiral Nils Christian Wang
> Admiral of the Danish Fleet
> Admiral Danish Fleet Headquarters
> P.O. Box 483 DK-8100 , Arhus C
> Denmark
> Tel: + 45 89 433 099
> Fax: + 45 89 433 141
> E-mail: sok@sok.dk
> Royal Danish Navy Material Command (Defense Acquisition)
> 
> Rear Admiral Kristen Husted Winther
> Royal Danish Naval Materiel Command
> Lautrupbjerg 1-5
> DK-2750 Ballerup
> Denmark
> Tel : + 45 32 663 266
> Fax : + 45 32 663 299
> E-mail : smk-ck@nmc.dk
> Contract Department
> Naval Materiel Command Denmark
> Attn: Contract Department
> Danneskiold-Samsoes Alle 1
> DK-1434 Copenhagen K
> Denmark
> Tel : + 45 32 663 266
> Fax : + 45 32 663 299
> E-mail: ka@nmc.dk
> Website: http://www.smk.svn.dk



Link: amiinter


----------



## Colin Parkinson

*Seems we are not alone in our lack of capacity, Canada gets a good nod in this article.*


Coast Guard To Navy: Arctic’s Covered; White House OKs Arctic Icebreaker
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.	on May 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM
The Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St-Laurent makes an approach to the Coast Guard Cutter Healy in the Arctic Ocean Sept. 5, 2009. The two ships are taking part in a multi-year, multi-agency Arctic survey that will help define the Arctic continental shelf. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer Patrick Kelley.

[updated with Adm. Greenert comment] WASHINGTON: While the Navy pivots to the Pacific, the Coast Guard has got their northern flank: the once icebound but now rapidly opening waters of the Arctic Ocean, with its new opportunities for oil, gas, and trade through the fabled Northwest Passage. For the chronically underfunded and “oversubscribed” service, however, the challenge is rebuilding Arctic skills and capabilities that have atrophied for decades – including construction of a new heavy-duty icebreaker that might cost up to a $1 billion, said Coast Guard Commandant, Adm. Robert Papp.

“The United States Navy’s not up there,” Papp told reporters after a speech this morning to roll out the service’s new Arctic strategy, “or if they’re up there, they’re not on the surface of the water”: Nuclear submarines are great for many missions, but not so much for search and rescue, fisheries patrol, or stopping oil spills.

“The United States Navy is forward deployed; it’s fighting wars,” Papp went on. So in the Arctic, “we have not had any participation with the US Navy nor have I asked them for any up there right now. I think the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert] would tell you they are fully employed with their responsibilities around the world; and given this is more of a maritime governance issue and not a national defense issue, they are just as happy that the United States Coast Guard is taking on those responsibilities.”

That said, Papp is hoping the Arctic will get more high-level attention now that the administration has released its May 10 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. (He’d also like the Senate to finally ratify the Law of the Sea treaty, a political longshot but something he said he gets “lectured” about by his international counterparts at every meeting on regulating the Arctic). When Adm. Greenert gives his standard slideshow on strategic chokepoints around the world, “he does not show the Bering Strait,” Papp told the audience after his remarks. In fact, the CNO uses a map projection that, while accurate at lower latitudes, makes the Bering Strait look much wider than in reality, where it narrows to as little as 50 miles. “I’ve teased him about that,” Papp said, and, indeed, since November the CNO has added an entire slide devoted to the Arctic.

I got a chuckle out of the good-natured Adm. Greenert when I mentioned Adm. Papp’s anecdote to him before a speech later the same day– and during his remarks, despite the topic of the evening being the Pacific, the CNO made sure to show off his Arctic Ocean slide. “Working with the Canadian Navy, this is becoming a big topic of conversation, as well as with my partner in the Coast Guard,” Greenert told the audience. While his status reports can show dozens of ships in the Pacific, he said ruefully, ”here’s what we’ve got in the Arctic region: one SSN [nuclear-powered attack submarine]. So we’ve got a lot of work to do.”

That includes making sure that whatever the Navy procures can operate in the extreme cold of the far north, Greenert said, rather than “learn[ing] the hard way” about the rigors of a new environment, as the fleet did in the 1990s when it took equipment designed for the North Atlantic into the heat and sand of the Persian Gulf.

Not every defense official, however, is catching up quite as quickly as Adm. Greenert. At one recent meeting with the Canadians, a Defense Department official Papp declined to name stood up and said “we see no conflict [in the Arctic], there are no threats, the Defense Department has no plans for the next 10 years,” Papp said. The senior Canadian present, he recalled, “turned very red.”

In fact, it’s the Coast Guard, not the Defense Department, that’s taken the lead on Arctic cooperation with the Canadian Navy, as well as the Canadian Coast Guard. For example, the American Coasties regularly send a cutter to participate in Canada’s annual “Operation Nanook” exercise “even when the Navy has had to back out” to cover commitments elsewhere, Papp said. For the future, the commandant expects to see close cooperation with the Canadians in the Arctic on the model already proven on the Great Lakes, where the two countries share icebreakers and helicopters. But the Canadians themselves are stretched thin over their own vast Arctic territories, so they’ve concentrated their resources on the eastern (Atlantic) side, leaving the western (Pacific) side largely to the US Coast Guard — which, of course, is the side on which we have a little thing called Alaska, which stretches across almost to Russia.

“We’re relearning all those lessons up there,” Papp told reporters. “The good thing is I also have the knowledge we’ve done it before.” It’s been a while, though: “The heyday was 1955 through ’58,” he said when the Coast Guard worked with Canada and the Navy to build the DEW Line to provide “distant early warning” of Soviet nuclear attack. That history proves that the nation can commit resources to far north when it has to, Papp said, and “that national imperative in the Arctic is upon us again.”

One of Papp’s proudest achievements as commandant has been to get the nation’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, out of mothballs and back into service: It’ll be heading north soon to start training the crew. But the Star, built in 1976, won’t last forever, and the nation’s only other icebreaker is the much smaller Healy, so Papp has won administration approval to explore developing a new heavy-duty icebreaker. (Once again, he’s working with the Canadians, who “are probably about a year or two ahead of us” in looking at heavy icebreaker designs). While Papp doesn’t think Arctic-capable ships built by oil companies have enough icebreaking power, he does see some Scandinavian designs that might be good starting points for the US to modify.

It’s expensive, Papp admits, at least by Coast Guard standards: “The high end is a billion dollars, but I think that’s a good investment for something you’re going to use for forty years.” (For comparison, the Navy’s workhorse DDG-51 destroyers cost a couple of billion, and the fleet has more than 60 of them).

Besides icebreakers, though, Papp must also pay the bill for the Coast Guard’s new flagships, the National Security Cutters, and, soon, for a smaller Offshore Patrol Cutter to replace its 14 aging Reliance-class medium-endurance cutters:  “We don’t even send them to Alaska,” he said, and in fact the 1960s-vintage vessels have trouble even in calm water. “We’re constantly plugging holes in hulls,” he sighed, and one cutter, the Dauntless, just went into “emergency drydock” to repair a dangerously rusted hull.

Will the Coast Guard be asking for more National Security Cutters and Offshore Patrol Cutters than currently planned to cover its growing Arctic responsibilities? “No,” Papp said flatly. “I’m having enough of a challenge just getting the program of record,” he said, having fought a successful battle just last year to restore the seventh and eighth National Security Cutters to the budget.

It’ll be those big cutters that will act as the mobile headquarters for the Coast Guard as it surges to the North Slope of Alaska every summer in the coming years. “There’s no permanent infrastructure or operating forces” on Alaska’s northern coast, Papp said, nor does he think it wise to build them, at least in the near term. For the next decade, he said, the ice will remain bad enough in winter that commercial traffic will stay out and only a seasonal Coast Guard presence, about nine months a year, is necessary.

“One of the things that Shell found last year” – when some of the oil company’s craft got badly battered – “and that kind of surprised us as well, was the amount of ice still floating around up there,” Papp said. While the Arctic is opening for energy exploration, trade, and even tourism, it’s still unwise to underestimate its dangers.

Nevertheless, the Far North is changing inexorably. In his own first tour as a young Coast Guard officer, Papp recalled, he reported to the cutter Ironwood in Alaska, where he encountered the worst weather of his almost 40-year career. In 1976, when Ironwood tried to pass through the Bering Strait to patrol Alaska’s North Slope, it could find no way through the ice. In 2010, as Commandant, Papp went back to the same place: “I looked out as far as I could see, and there was no ice.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/21/coast-guard-to-navy-weve-got-arctic-covered-sort-of-white-house-oks-arctic-icebreaker-studies/


----------



## STONEY

For Info;  Irvings Halifax Shipyard has begun completely flattening 3/4 of its site and construction has begun
on a completely new expanded site including a huge building hall that towers to a height of 16 stories high and is several football fields long. New piers are being built at a cost of 300 million. They have also acquired a closed steel facility across the harbour in Dartmouth which will be modernised for cutting steel to ship to the yard. So it looks like things are finally getting underway.

Cheers


----------



## Underway

STONEY said:
			
		

> For Info;  Irvings Halifax Shipyard has begun completely flattening 3/4 of its site and construction has begun
> on a completely new expanded site including a huge building hall that towers to a height of 16 stories high and is several football fields long. New piers are being built at a cost of 300 million. They have also acquired a closed steel facility across the harbour in Dartmouth which will be modernised for cutting steel to ship to the yard. So it looks like things are finally getting underway.
> 
> Cheers



I find it painfully ironic that Irving is laying off people to create more jobs.  Just brutal for those families.  Hopefully they stick around instead of heading west otherwise it will be tough to hire them back.


----------



## Kirkhill

Aye, and how much work are they going to attract to a yard when 75% of its facilities are being destroyed/replaced and the other 25%, no doubt, impacted by construction activities.  

Part of the plan might have included a furlough package for key personnel.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Aye, and how much work are they going to attract to a yard when 75% of its facilities are being destroyed/replaced and the other 25%, no doubt, impacted by construction activities.
> 
> Part of the plan might have included a furlough package for key personnel.



From the company that lays off guys on Thursday to hire them back Monday or Tuesday?  I think the 'furlough package' is probably EI.

I think the cash cow that is the RCN is probably all the business they really need. Why get other customers when you can screw the govt and not worry about poor quality workmanship or meeting the schedule?  Even better, if you mess something up, you blame the customer.  Ideal really.


----------



## jollyjacktar

My youngest is being offered a job there to paint for them.  Minimum 2 years at $17/hr.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> From the company that lays off guys on Thursday to hire them back Monday or Tuesday?  I think the 'furlough package' is probably EI.
> 
> I think the cash cow that is the RCN is probably all the business they really need. Why get other customers when you can screw the govt and not worry about poor quality workmanship or meeting the schedule?  Even better, if you mess something up, you blame the customer.  Ideal really.



In some ways being the poor cousin out west has been good for us, our shipyards had to compete for customers and apparently built a decent rep for on time reliable repairs.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Point (via CBC.ca):


> Two days before signing a contract to begin work on a $3-billion shipbuilding project, the federal government was warned by its own advisers that the contract was overpriced — but signed it anyway.
> 
> The warning was contained in a previously confidential independent review of the initial phase of the government's plan to spend $3.1 billion on a fleet of Arctic offshore patrol ships, known as AOPS.
> 
> The report, by International Marine Consultants of Vancouver (IMC), was commissioned by the Department of Public Works and obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act. It says the number of man-hours quoted by Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax was "very high and considerably more than we would have expected for a shipbuilding program for vessels of the size and complexity of the AOPS."
> 
> Although the report was delivered on March 5 of this year, the government signed the contract at Irving's Halifax shipyard two days later, on March 7 — leaving no time to do anything about the report's findings ....



Counterpoint (via PWGSC Info-machine):


> International Marine Consultants Ltd. (IMC) was engaged by the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) project office to conduct an Independent 3rd Party Review of the Irving Shipbuilding Inc. (ISI) Proposal to Canada which set out indicative (estimated) costs for AOPS tasked-based Definition Contract. The role of 3rd party experts is to help inform the decisions that are made by Canada. IMC commented on these indicative costs in January 2013, and the government's negotiations with ISI on Tasks 1 (Project Management) and 2 (Engineering Design Phase 1) of the Definition Contract were directly informed by IMC's observations.
> 
> In assessing IMC's observations, Canada also took into consideration that comparisons to traditional build/design processes reflected by IMC were not being used for AOPS. Indeed, as Canada has indicated on many occasions, including at a recent technical briefing in June, ISI is taking a comprehensive design, then build, approach to AOPS. The net effect is an increased cost of design in order to generate more significant savings in construction. Thus a straight comparison to earlier or other projects that have not taken this approach is not valid. A description of the definition contract is provided on the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) website.
> 
> Equally important is that this third party review was conducted in the context of a ship design exercise. In fact, ISI is being tasked to set up the capability to design and build ships for the Government of Canada over the next 30 years, which includes preparations for construction that are taking place now for use during the entire duration of the shipbuilding strategy. ISI announced in August its $300M shipyard improvement initiative, which speaks directly to the long-term view that is being taken, with the first ships, AOPS, benefitting from that approach.
> 
> Costs negotiated for Task 1, which is a firm-fixed price task, represent fair and reasonable costs for the work to be done. For Task 2, which is a cost reimbursable incentive fee task, the costs and profits are estimates only at this time.
> 
> The review of Task 2 (i.e. costs of the Design Agent, the Command and Surveillance System Integrator, etc) raised important points that are being monitored during the execution of the contract. The basis of payment for this task is time and material, in an open book environment. In fact, the entire contract with ISI is being undertaken on an open book basis. As a result, the Crown will only pay for work actually performed by ISI and its subcontractors. If the effort is actually overestimated, as suggested by the third party review, the ultimate payment for Task 2 will be less than quoted.
> 
> It should be noted that in their report, IMC provided a general comment that "“Irving Shipbuilding Inc. had presented a comprehensive, high quality proposal that accurately describes the work associated with Task 1 and Task 2 of the Contract Definition Phase of this important project.”" They also stated that "“the amount of resources being allocated and associated level of effort proposed should ensure that a near-optimum Build Strategy can be developed for the Implementation Phase of the Project which in turn should allow the material procurement and actual ship construction to run smoothly using the minimal number of man-hours and full utilization of the available infrastructure.”" IMC provided their opinion that this will enable the "“AOPS to be built and commissioned into service in a timely manner.”"


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't often say this but I find the CBC report to be more persuasive than the Government/ISL response.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I hope David Parkins, commenting in the _Globe and Mail_, isn't being prescient:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/xxxxx/article14052163/#dashboard/follows/





Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## AlexanderM

Are those things stabilized?   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Let's take an (Arctic) sea cruise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EVDdt5jrUY

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Posted the link to the buyandsell.gc.ca link to the call for interested bidders under the 'What's Canada buying Nov 2013' thread over here

buyandsell.gc.ca quicklink

The pdf at the bottom which is viewable by all shows the proposed outline of the concept of support, in case you were curious what the scope of the ISSC might be.  Will be refined with the industry input, but it's an interesting read.

Note that this is more extensive then the current ISSC for the MCDVs or the Vic subs, but that's directed by the current CAF policy on ISSC.  This will be the first kick at a large scale long term ISSC for a ship, and should go cradle to grave.

If you look at the scope, this isn't something that either of the NSPS shipyards could do on their own, and is probably more appropriate for a large engineering/ project management firm along with a few partners to cover off various aspects of the support.  The ships will still need repaired though, so they will go out to tender for the yards to bid on, except it will be done by the ISSC on behalf of the RCN rather then through PWGSC.  Think AOPs docking is something like every 30 months to inspect the icebreaking hull integrity under the class rules, so should be interesting.


----------



## Underway

This article came out in Nov, so its the vintage of the last discussion post on this thread, I thought it might be interesting.

http://www.navalreview.ca/2013/11/what-the-third-party-report-does-and-does-not-say-about-irving-shipbuilding/

In particular I find it funny that the 30 month design phase conicides with the shipyard rebuild.

Also this is older as well but a power point presentation at Dal regarding the design and operational challenges of the AOPS, 
and some of the solutions provided.  

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/Events/Soule_AOPS_CFPS_Sep11.pdf

Understanding that some of the yardsticks have moved since 2011,  I find most remarkable that helo's are an absolute for proper ice 
navigation (perhaps a scaneagle would suffice these days), what classifies as first years ice (hardly slushbreaking), and the distances
involved in arctic travel.  Also the design is to have room for a larger gun armament that is initially listed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny they mentioned the CCGS Henry Larson, she suffered a major failure of a large electrical piece during her trial runs and sat tied to the wall for 6 months. As I recall it was a manufacturing defect, not a shipyard fault.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Prime mMinister has announced that the class and first of class will be named for VAdm Harry DeWolf CBE DSO DSC CD.






Admiral DeWolf was known as "Hard-over Harry" for his bold handling of his ship, _Haida_ in battle in 1943/44.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I like that decision.  He's an excellent choice for the lead in the class.  Wish they'd get the finger out and get things rolling faster.  Thanks for sharing that, ER.


----------



## Kirkhill

This may offer some additional capabilities to the AOPS and reduce the need (not eliminate the need, just reduce it) for long endurance submarines in the arctic.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/157133/five-unmanned-boats-maneuver-as-one.html

If they can solve the problem of transferring data from one small platform to another underwater, joined with an ability to transfer power or use long endurance underwater gliders, then the AOPS can become a command post and service station for an underwater network of sensors that can relocate toward threats. They can also move out of the way of big chunks of ice that drag across the bottom.




> Five Marine Vehicles Behave As One Ensemble: Full Supra Vehicle Successfully Tested for the First Time In Azores
> 
> 
> (Source: NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation; issued Sept 16, 2014)
> 
> 
> 
> From 8 to 18 September 2014, the Center of IMAR of the University of the Azores is hosting the sea trials of a new type of robotics-based distributed sensor system, aimed at affording marine scientists and commercial operators a revolutionary tool for marine habitat mapping in complex 3D environments. The tests are performed in the scope of the European Commission research project MORPH (Marine Robotic System of Self-Organising, Logically Linked Physical Nodes).
> 
> Launched in February 2012, the 4-year research project MORPH is partly funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme with a budget of 8,5 million Euros.
> The major goal of the project is to develop a distributed robotic underwater system carrying complementary sensors for complex underwater mapping missions. At the core of the innovative solution adopted is the concerted operation of a number of relatively simple, affordable vehicles, capable of cooperating seamlessly and behave as an ensemble, yielding a "MORPH Supra Vehicle".
> 
> The role of CMRE within MORPH is to provide the communication infrastructure between the individual modules (vehicles). The ability to share data between submerged vehicles is in fact crucial for the implementation of cooperative control schemes. CMRE is exploring novel techniques that allow embedding location awareness into the underwater communications network, solving both the problems of inter-vehicle data exchange and relative positioning.
> 
> For the Azores trials, research engineers, marine biologists, and commercial partners are working together to meet the formidable challenge of affording scientific and commercial end-users an advanced mapping system capable of accessing inhospitable areas and operating under scenarios that defy current technology; e.g., to perform underwater surveys over high-relief seafloor with complex 3D structures (canyons and rugged cliff areas) in the presence of reduced visibility and natural unforeseen obstacles.
> 
> To prove the concept of a MORPH Supra Vehicle, the tests is taking place in the beautiful setting of "Baia de Porto Pim", in Faial Island (Azores). The area is perfect to operate a MORPH ensemble of five vehicles for the first time, undergoing cooperative motion while acquiring video and sonar data to map the sea bottom.
> 
> What is so special about the MORPH Supra Vehicle is that its building blocks (a set of small robotic marine vehicles) operate in a cooperative manner, as if they were a single, powerful vehicle, capable of carrying advanced, complementary sensor suites, and reacting to environmental conditions in real time.
> 
> The Azores trials focus on the execution of an optical and acoustic survey mission with one surface and four underwater vehicles moving in formation and avoiding obstacles detected online.
> 
> This is an important step towards the execution of the final scenario mission, planned for 2015 in the Azores, where the system will be used to perform an underwater survey to acquire data and map black coral communities growing in an underwater cliff in Monte da Guia, Faial Island.
> 
> The MORPH system developed in the scope of the project is expected to offer an innovative solution to a number of problems in field applications such as: environmental monitoring, exploration of marine resources, archaeological surveys, harbour protection, monitoring of industrial infrastructures (offshore wind power installations, pipeline), and sea mine detection, to name a few. From an engineering standpoint, the problems that are being addressed and solved are at the forefront of underwater robotics technology, namely in what concerns cooperative mission programming, navigation, and control, as well as acoustic communications and vision-based habitat mapping.
> 
> In addition to CMRE, the MORPH team participating in the trials consist of 35 scientists from five countries and nine member organizations: ATLAS ELEKTRONIK (Germany, coordinator), IMAR (Institute of Marine Research, Portugal), Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST, Portugal), Jacobs University Bremen (Germany), Ilmenau University of Technology (Germany), Ifremer (France), Universitat de Girona – Computer Vision and Robotics Research Institute (Spain), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto di Studi sui Sistemi Intelligenti per l'Automazione (CNR-ISSIA, Italy).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I did some support work in the 90's to the SFU's Underwater Research lab where they were trying to deal with that communication issues.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the _Fair Dealings _provisions of the _Copyright Act, RSC_:


OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.

So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.

Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.

Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.

At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North.

The government now plans to buy just five light icebreakers, with an option for a sixth


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/harper-trims-the-number-of-arctic-warships-on-order-1.2062482#ixzz3Gk3jaaUT


----------



## The Bread Guy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Not surprisingly, the planned order for AOPS is being trimmed to perhaps only 5 vessels: Shared from CTV news and the Canadian Press authors in accordance with the _Fair Dealings _provisions of the _Copyright Act, RSC_:
> 
> OTTAWA -- The Harper government is trimming its expected order of Arctic patrol ships and evaluating a set of unsolicited proposals to convert civilian cargo ships for use by the Canadian navy.
> 
> So say several government, defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Both steps are a sign that more modest expectations have been set for the government's national shipbuilding strategy, which after three years has yet to deliver any new vessels.
> 
> Sources familiar with the plan, but not authorized to discuss it publicly, say National Defence and Public Works are studying a proposal from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec for a five-year lease of bulked-up civilian cargo ships.
> 
> At the same time, negotiations with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for the construction of Arctic offshore patrol ships have seen the government scale back a plan to buy as many as eight vessels to enforce sovereignty in the North ....


Interestingly enough, this just out today:


> Canada will fail to deliver a proposed fleet of six to eight Arctic patrol ships unless it spends significantly more than the C$2.8 billion ($2.51 billion) planned, the Canadian Parliament's budget watchdog said on Tuesday.
> 
> The Conservative government had announced plans to build the fleet of polar-capable ships over the next decade as part of its strategy to exert sovereignty over the region and increase operating capability there.
> 
> But a review by the Parliamentary Budget Office, set up in 2006 to provide independent analysis to legislators, concluded that the government's existing plan would only deliver three or four ships.
> 
> "It is not possible at any confidence level to build eight or six ships for the C$2.8 billion budget," said the report released by Jean-Denis Fréchette, Canada's parliamentary budget officer.
> 
> A government spokesman rejected the analysis.
> 
> "The numbers provided by the PBO are based on erroneous data, rough cost estimates of international vessels with varied capabilities and derived using inaccurate specifications," said Marcel Poulin, a spokesman for Canada's Public Works Minister Diane Finley.
> 
> Fréchette said that there was insufficient contemporary Canadian data on an acquisition of this nature. He also wrote that Canada's defense department had removed details of the fleet's proposed capabilities from its website and declined to share technical details ....


PBO deck and report here and here.


----------



## AlexanderM

So over $400 million per ship!!!  I wish we could cancell the selection of Irving and go with Davie.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When Davies is better than your current selection you have serious problems.


----------



## AlexanderM

We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.


----------



## GK .Dundas

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> We do have serious problems, being the cost of domestic ships compared to outsourcing.


 Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental. 
 The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 . 
 It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved. 
 After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically they screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .


----------



## AlexanderM

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Actually the system works perfectly when you understand it is designed to produce jobs, votes  and DND / Treasury board pensions.The production of of any military equipment  is quite frankly a byproduct of the process, and sometimes almost accidental.
> The only truly successfull procurement program in the last ten years was the C 17 .
> It also provided both proof of my argument and some inadvertent humour on the part of the political leaders involved.
> After the announcement of the C 17 purchase  three provincial  premiers held a hastily called press conference where basically the screamed like a collection of cheated whores .Because the contract wouldn't generate any or very few jobs in Canada . I still get a delightful case of the warm and fuzzies when recalling this incident .


As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

both in time and money


----------



## daftandbarmy

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> As a taxpayer it makes me sick what we are going to have to pay for these ships and how much of the money cannot have anything to do with the building of the ships, as we could really build the ships 2 or 3 times over.



Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:

Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D


----------



## AlexanderM

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Murphy's Rules of Armed Conflict:
> 
> Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder  ;D


I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.


----------



## Good2Golf

If by 'vapourizing' you mean having each dollar cycle approximately nine-fold* within the Canadian economy before being attrited to a negligible value, then yes...

G2G

* searching for the reference I read recently about the recursive value of each dollar of taxpayers' money spent within Canada's economy.


----------



## Navy_Pete

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I agree with the point, don't want our ships to have made in China stamped on the bottom, but alot of that money is not going towards getting a better ship, it's just vaporizing out of tax payers pockets.



"better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Without getting them made in China, I could not see anything wrong with Irving deciding to get the hulls assembled in, say, Poland, and then towed/shipped to Halifax for fitting out. That is what the Danes did for their Knud Rasmunssen class. After all, an ice capable hull is expensive to make because of he thickness of the steel and more complex welding process that results from it so, why not use a shipyard that already has welders that mastered that art?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> "better" is relative; a lot of the valve bodies etc are now coming out of China, and are of high quality.  There is plenty of expensive poor quality work getting done in Canada at premium dollars.  I don't think anyone minds paying more for Canadian made, but the old assumption that it's better (or at least comparable) quality doesn't always work.



It's a common practice to look at factory codes in China as some factories have reps for quality products and others for utter crap. Most of the high end pianos are made in China and then sold under other brand names.


----------



## misratah500

I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.

If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or fucking want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.


----------



## TCM621

misratah500 said:
			
		

> I still don't know what the point of these vessels are? They navy doesn't deal with the arctic, the coast guard does. Will these ships be deployable? Are they replacing the MCDV's as coastal vessels? Can they RAS or integrate into a task group.
> 
> If feels to me that the navy is being shoved something it doesn't need or ******* want. Just to fulfill the Con's promises of arctic icebreakers and protect the north blah blah blah.


The coast guard doesn't actually guard a coast and the North needs guarding. Right now there are 4 major claimants to the resources up there including one which just named NATO it's biggest threat. With no presence up there it weakens our position to that area. This is the point of a naval forces up their. To guard our 3rd coast.


----------



## misratah500

The fact that the coast guard doesn't actually guard anything should probably be something that needs to be looked at. They should actually be armed and a part of the military not fisheries and oceans. 

These vessels will be only useful in the summer time when winter ice is it's thinnest. Those nuclear Russian icebreakers on the other hand will have free reign where we won't. If they were serious about Arctic defence (they're not) then we would have other ships, subs and bases that could deal with the Arctic year round. 

It's all PR photo ops.


----------



## NavyShooter

Oh,

That is soooo cynical.  

True.

But cynical!

NS


----------



## ringo

Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ringo said:
			
		

> Limit AOPS to three ships ordered additional icebreakers for Coast Guard and arm Coast Guard.



From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.  You'd have pushback from that quarter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fisheries used to have armed vessels and the RCMP had a significant fleet including a frigate. The CCG does a lot of work that does not requiring being armed. It will be much easier to start arming ships with heavy MG's to support boarding parties from other agencies. The CCG crews are not trained or interested in boarding. The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required. 

http://www.forposterityssake.ca/Navy/HMCS_BROCKVILLE_J270_178.htm








 (She is still afloat)


----------



## Rifleman62

jollyjacktar: 





> From my understanding, Coast Guard personnel don't wish to become an armed entity.You'd have pushback from that quarter.



If the government wishes to change the Role of the CCG, then the union mbrs can pushback all they want. I don't think all the Cdn border guards wanted to be armed.

If the Role changes (and I doubt it will), then FRP/Reaganize them (Reaganize = air traffic controllers).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG is struggling to get people with marine tickets as it is now (because the pay sucks compared to the rest of the marine industry) so you can't force to hard. teaching them to shoot MG's would likely be seen as fun by most and would not unduly interfere with the rest of their duties. Training the deck crew to shoot the MG's and drive the boats for the boarding parties will be the easy part. Getting the Captains and senior management to accept the responsibility of giving the orders to open fire to cause harm or death will be the hardest part. Hence the reason why I suggest the phased approach and planning for the fitting of armaments and supporting systems. Some people who have other unique skillsets in demand will not buy into the new role and you still need them.


----------



## YZT580

You cannot have a situation where one crew can respond whilst another can't.  Coast guard is needed for clean-up, maintaining channels, surface rescue and clearing ice channels.  These skill sets do not require the use of an mg. Requirement for an armed naval vessel with other than first year ice capabilities is very limited.  After all, if the ice is that bad what are you going in after?  Anyone up there is going to be iced in unless it is another ice breaker and no one is going to invade Canada from the north at 5 knots or less.  Better to return to the armed fisheries or RCMP model if the navy isn't going to be properly expanded to satisfy the defense role.  IMHO expanding naval capabilities is by far the best solution.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> ....The biggest issue will be training the Captains to willingly use the ROE's given. Training the crews to use the MG's will be easy and will fit into normal crew cycles. The new CCG vessels should be designed to accept bigger armament with hard points, comms, electrical connections in place. Which would allow much faster arming of the vessels if required.



The issue I see is not so much one of finding Coast Guard members willing to fire the guns but finding members willing to continue firing when fire is returned.

Chasing Spanish Fishermen is not the same as chasing Armed Smugglers and Pirates.

On the other hand - I see nothing wrong with the government building vessels that can be employed unarmed by the Coast Guard and armed by the RCN.

Make like the Danes and put Stanflex positions on the AOPS and anything over 1000 tonnes.  Then you can drop in a OM76 or a Bofors 57 (or even a 40) or a 25mm RCWS as the mission requires - and you can drop in an RCNR crew along with the weapons.

By the way - you should probably add Scan Eagles to every CCG and RCN platform as a matter of course.  It would enhance their search and surveillance capabilities immeasurably (and likely reduce helicopter search time).


----------



## NavyShooter

All that makes sense....which is probably why it ain't gonna happen!  ;-)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> You cannot have a situation where one crew can respond whilst another can't.  Coast guard is needed for clean-up, maintaining channels, surface rescue and clearing ice channels.  These skill sets do not require the use of an mg. Requirement for an armed naval vessel with other than first year ice capabilities is very limited.  After all, if the ice is that bad what are you going in after?  Anyone up there is going to be iced in unless it is another ice breaker and no one is going to invade Canada from the north at 5 knots or less.  Better to return to the armed fisheries or RCMP model if the navy isn't going to be properly expanded to satisfy the defense role.  IMHO expanding naval capabilities is by far the best solution.



The purpose of the MG is to cover the boarding party and that sort of stuff does happen even now. I have done boardings with fisheries officers and RCMP, other guys I know have supported military boardings over the years from CCG ships. Since these ships may be the only presence in the Arctic, then have the MG allows a reasonable show of force, enough to make the point. Kirkhill, since most CCG ships can't run away, they have no choice but to return fire. Thankfully a icebreaker has a fairly thick hull and upperworks compared to naval vessels


----------



## quadrapiper

Would DEMS provide a useful model for equipping CCG vessels that, for whatever reason, might require armament?

Also, would seem to make sense to have Federal vessels beyond a certain size fitted for but not with whatever small arms might be useful should there be an RCN or RCMP role requiring that vessel: perhaps hardpoints for .50s, provisions for boarding party small arms lockers, and ammunition storage.


----------



## The_Dictat

Taken from ctvnews.ca.

Ottawa inks Arctic patrol ship deal with Irving Shipbuilding

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-inks-arctic-patrol-ship-deal-with-irving-shipbuilding-1.2192175#ixzz3P0M5O7HD

The Canadian Press 
Published Friday, January 16, 2015 11:59AM EST 


OTTAWA - The Harper government has inked a contract to build its long-promised Arctic patrol ships, but it had to increase the overall project budget to get there.

Officials from Public Works and National Defence, along with Irving Shipbuilding President Kevin McCoy, made the announcement today in Ottawa ahead of a planned event next week in Halifax.

The entire program is now expected to cost $3.5 billion, instead of the $3.1 billion initially proposed when the ships were first announced back in 2007 as part of the Conservative government's ambitious plan to rebuild the military.

The agreement is to construct six of the light icebreakers for the navy's use in the North and off both coasts, but officials acknowledge that could slip to five if the program runs into trouble.

The deal provides incentives to Irving to keep costs down in order to deliver all six ships on time and on budget.

The parliamentary budget office warned last fall that delays and the corrosive effect of inflation would force the Conservative government to buy fewer ships if it stuck


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ottawa-inks-arctic-patrol-ship-deal-with-irving-shipbuilding-1.2192175#ixzz3P0LyYZTy


----------



## captloadie

A convenient time for a downturn in the Alberta economy. All the east coast tradesmen that will be out of work out west can now join Irving and reduce their commute.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This is ridiculous.

We don't want a contract with incentives to Irving to stay on time and budget - We want SEVERE penalties to Irving for failing to do so. They should get NO PROFIT WHATSOEVER for merely doing that which the contract requires them to do.


----------



## Halifax Tar

This the CCP getting their ducks in a row for a looming election. 

Smoke and mirrors.  When will they start cutting steel again ?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> When will they start cutting steel again ?


September, according to my son who works there.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> September, according to my son who works there.



That would be nice!


----------



## McG

My guess is that we will only ever see five of these.  The potential, optional sixth will be killed by inflation.


> *Canada's navy to get 5 or 6 Arctic ships, not 8*
> Price jumps to $3.5 billion, first vessel scheduled for 2018
> JAMES CUDMORE, CBC NEWS
> 16 Jan 2015
> 
> Seven years after announcing a plan to buy Arctic patrol ships for the navy, the Conservative government announced Friday it has signed a contract guaranteeing delivery of five of the vessels, with the possibility of a sixth, if the shipyard can pull it off.
> 
> The announcement put an end — finally — to the pretext the government could buy as many as eight ships within the $3.1-billion budget set in 2007 for the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship program.
> 
> The questions of cost and quantity have been alive for years, and doubts about the program's ability to produce the required number of vessels without blowing the budget have featured in reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the auditor general.
> 
> Friday, the government effectively bowed to those criticisms, announcing the program's $3.1-billion cap had recently been expanded to $3.5-billion to ensure a cash buffer for at least five, if not six, ships.
> At a technical briefing, a senior government official said the contract marked a milestone in the government's high-stakes, $35-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.
> 
> *Rebuilding industry to rebuild the fleet*
> 
> The strategy was launched in 2010 as a co-operative program with industry to provide access to qualified Canadian shipbuilding in rebuilding the fleet.
> 
> The government says it will create 15,000 jobs over 30 years.
> 
> The program includes new supply ships and warships for the navy, new patrol vessels and an icebreaker for the Coast Guard, and the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships to be built by Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.
> Observers have paid close attention to this program, seeing it as a barometer of success for the government's strategy.
> 
> "The fact an AOPS contract has been agreed is significant," the official said. "But there is still risk ahead."
> "The AOPS is a new design and a new class of ship being built in a brand new shipyard. These factors bring risks with them," the official said.
> 
> "The challenge is to find the appropriate balance between risk and cost certainty."
> 
> *6 ships or 8? How about 5?*
> 
> That risk is already manifest in the re-evaluation of the number of ships to be delivered. The initial plan called for as many as eight vessels, and the program was designed to deliver between six and eight. Friday's contract with Irving Shipbuilding guarantees only five ships, but there is strong desire for a sixth if Irving can get it done.
> 
> Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, said Friday the company believes it will build that sixth ship.
> 
> "We expect to deliver six ships for the Royal Canadian Navy," he said.
> 
> Stated broadly, the contract includes costs for the ship and the shipbuilding, and a separate fee charged by Irving to account for profit. If Irving keeps its costs down enough to get the sixth ship built, the fees go up. If the costs go up, the fees go down.
> 
> "We are highly incentivized to reduce spending so that our overall profit fee is maximized," McCoy said.
> But Irving's pursuit of low costs and higher profit has led to concern in some corners that subcontractors are being pushed to aggressively reduce their own bills to win Irving business.
> 
> McCoy said Irving is applying that tough approach inside its operations, too.
> 
> "We have brought in outside advisers over the last five months alone, twice, to challenge us internally on our costs and our assumptions," he said.
> 
> "We are doing the same approach with our subcontractors for the budget and to deliver six ships here."
> A senior government official Friday praised that approach.
> 
> "We have been equally heavy-handed with Irving Shipbuilding on its costs," the official said. "There was a lot of back and forth about making sure that we could drive costs as low as absolutely possible and this is done in making sure we can maximize the amount of the budget that can be spent on ships."
> 
> *Production to start just before election*
> 
> Production is expected to begin in September, one month before the Oct. 19 date fixed for the next federal election.
> 
> The first ship is due in 2018, with subsequent ships following at nine-month intervals. However much effort is being spent on cost containment, defence economist Dave Perry believes paying too high a price at the front end of the patrol-ship process will likely lead to lower costs and more secure delivery later on.
> The more costly and arguably more important combat-ship program will follow at Irving's Halifax shipyard.
> 
> That program is worth roughly $25 billion for some 23 new combatant ships to replace the Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois-class Air Defence Destroyers.
> 
> "If you take the approach that is not a $3-billion project in isolation, but $30-billion worth of work, then I think it makes an awful lot of sense to potentially spend a bit more money up front on the small project to get everyone up to speed, to make sure the workforce is in place," Perry said.
> 
> "NSPS is not just a shipbuilding strategy, it's a strategy to build the industry to build the ships."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-s-navy-to-get-5-or-6-arctic-ships-not-8-1.2913159


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I am pretty confident (for what it is worth) that we will see 6...maybe still 6-8 even.
http://rcn-mrc.mil.ca/repository/pa-ap/RCN-AOPS-Fact-Sheet-Eng.pdf


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
Brian


----------



## McG

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
> Brian


If that is a realistic eventuality, the consequences will likely be unfortunate.
Where does the money come from?  Will there be fewer CSCs to pay for this?  Don't expect any possible government to throw more cash into the pot.


----------



## Stoker

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> Pat: I don't think your forecast of 6+ Harry Dewolf Class is unrealistic. If the destroyer replacement program is delayed, the shipyard will have to construct something to fill the gap and prevent lay-offs of experienced staff. The only ship design ready for construction at that point will be the Dewolfs. They may be modified to take into account early operational experience or new needs.
> Brian



Personally I think 6 AOPS only will be built and Irving will make a big deal how they did it efficiently enough to have enough money for the 6th hull. I also think the CSC will start on time as everything by that time should be in place and ready to go.


----------



## Naval Reservist

Has anyone read anything on what the weaponry will be like on the new Dewolf class ships?


----------



## dapaterson

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> Has anyone read anything on what the weaponry will be like on the new Dewolf class ships?



Given the cost premium we're paying for Canadian-built ships, I can only assume it's going to be armed with sharks.  Sharks with frickin' laser beams.


----------



## Thumper81

From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.    
http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs


----------



## Naval Reservist

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the cost premium we're paying for Canadian-built ships, I can only assume it's going to be armed with sharks.  Sharks with frickin' laser beams.



You may want to paten that idea as it sounds like the next "sharknado" could be something like "Lazer Sharks"!


----------



## Naval Reservist

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.
> http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs



I wonder when they will implement it into our training, as ive never heard of it being used on ship. Any idea what the cannon will be? I assume it will be similiar to the MCDV's 40.


----------



## dapaterson

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> You may want to paten that idea as it sounds like the next "sharknado" could be something like "Lazer Sharks"!



Thank you for making me feel old.


----------



## Naval Reservist

:facepalm: :facepalm: I totally forgot about that movie... shows you how much time I spend watching movies or online.


----------



## Thumper81

Click the link that I put there.  It's a remotely operated system.  It's similar to the Typhoon RWS.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I just realized that the link I put in above is a DIN link so you will have to check it out from work but I am pretty sure there is a description of the single gun.


----------



## Stoker

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I wonder when they will implement it into our training, as ive never heard of it being used on ship. Any idea what the cannon will be? I assume it will be similiar to the MCDV's 40.



Eventually if some reservists may get the training if they are on a course that offers it. There will probably be a few reservist on short term contracts on AOPS, but not like it was on MCDV's. It will not be offered at CFFS(Q). It is a remote controlled 25MM gun producted by BAE systems, so nowhere alike the 40MM


----------



## Stoker

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> From the handouts from the presentation on the AOPS I went to it looks like a BAE Systems Mk 38 25-mm Chain Gun (Bushmaster. Same as the LAV III) and some Browning 0.50 HMGs.  Disappointing as I figured they'd arm it with a Bofors 57-mm to keep commonality with the CPFs.  It is also a far more effective weapon.  It's sad when the US Coast Guard has better armed ships than our Navy does.
> http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020038/mk-38-mod-2-machine-gun-system-mgs



I don't think it requires a heavy gun as it will never see combat. There is a lot more things required to have a 57 mm, ammo handling system, bigger mag, more weapon techs etc. The 25mm will be plenty for what it will be required to do.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

It is actually being referred to officially as a Constabulary vice Combat vessel.
This was made clear in Cdr MacLean's brief to MARLANT anyway.


----------



## Monsoon

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I don't think it requires a heavy gun as it will never see combat. There is a lot more things required to have a 57 mm, ammo handling system, bigger mag, more weapon techs etc. The 25mm will be plenty for what it will be required to do.


Yep - it's primarily an ISR platform, not a combattant.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From an article under the name of VADM Maddison in 2011 (scroll down):



> ...
> AOPS will not be a complex combatant. It will be armed and equipped for a constabulary role in support of other government departments...
> http://vanguardcanada.com/preparing-for-a-unique-maritime-theatre/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Naval Reservist

I wonder if the fleet will be assisting with Parks Canada on their research intiatives in the arctic? That would be a sail I would want to go on!


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I wonder if the fleet will be assisting with Parks Canada on their research intiatives in the arctic? That would be a sail I would want to go on!


We are already. Have a look at some of the images from the discovery of the EREBUS. You will see the ocassional grey thing in the background. As well, side scan sonar operators from the RCN have sailed on other vessels.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> It is actually being referred to officially as a Constabulary vice Combat vessel.
> This was made clear in Cdr MacLean's brief to MARLANT anyway.



One can make the same argument about the USCG ships and they are armed with heavier weapons. This is cost cutting dressed up in words.


----------



## Naval Reservist

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> We are already. Have a look at some of the images from the discovery of the EREBUS. You will see the ocassional grey thing in the background. As well, side scan sonar operators from the RCN have sailed on other vessels.



That's awesome, everybody I talked to at my home unit has never heard of any partnership. Im glad to hear that though. Hopefully I get the oppurtunity to serve on that operation.


----------



## jollyjacktar

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Yep - it's primarily an ISR platform, not a combattant.



Just because it's anticipated as such, doesn't mean it won't be thrust upon it one day.  If, the Arctic is going to be a potential flash point who knows what might happen done the road.  I am sure there are many examples of Constabulary forces thrust into combat unexpectedly.  (NWMP in 1885 for one)  And even they had field guns.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> One can make the same argument about the USCG ships and they are armed with heavier weapons. This is cost cutting dressed up in words.



Colin (and Jack), I think you are treading the same path as the critics of the Yankee LCS programme - in days gone by guns were the only means of reaching out and touching somebody.  Missiles changed that game and perhaps more thought should go into leaving deck space for bolt on systems like the Harpoon and SeaRAM.  But most folks don't seem to see the role of the armed helo, and more to the point the armed UAV (like the Firescout), in extending the surveillance envelope as well as the range at which targets can be engaged while the launching platform is mast-down over the horizon.

If any CF vessel on patrol is actively engaged by a near-peer vessel in a one-on-one engagement I am guessing that that is not a preferred scenario for any skipper.  Ideally I would think the preferred plan would be to detect before being detected and then vector HE to the target. That HE can be delivered by Patrol Aircraft, Fighter, Armed Helo, Predator, Firescout or those traditional, disposable UAVs -guided missiles.

But the AOPS, I don't believe, is expected to be operating in those types of situations.  Most of its time is going to be spent in boring show-the-flag sovereignty patrols in a very quiet arctic while standing as gate guard on the Northwest Passage and as SAR guard for civil air traffic.

The rest of the time will be spent with the following comms "Radio Check" and "Nothing to Report".

But....

Having said that, it is important that those negative reports be filed as they verify our claim to the territory by right of regular usage.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Colin (and Jack), I think you are treading the same path as the critics of the Yankee LCS programme - in days gone by guns were the only means of reaching out and touching somebody.  Missiles changed that game and perhaps more thought should go into leaving deck space for bolt on systems like the Harpoon and SeaRAM.  But most folks don't seem to see the role of the armed helo, and more to the point the armed UAV (like the Firescout), in extending the surveillance envelope as well as the range at which targets can be engaged while the launching platform is mast-down over the horizon.
> 
> If any CF vessel on patrol is actively engaged by a near-peer vessel in a one-on-one engagement I am guessing that that is not a preferred scenario for any skipper.  Ideally I would think the preferred plan would be to detect before being detected and then vector HE to the target. That HE can be delivered by Patrol Aircraft, Fighter, Armed Helo, Predator, Firescout or those traditional, disposable UAVs -guided missiles.
> 
> But the AOPS, I don't believe, is expected to be operating in those types of situations.  Most of its time is going to be spent in boring show-the-flag sovereignty patrols in a very quiet arctic while standing as gate guard on the Northwest Passage and as SAR guard for civil air traffic.
> 
> The rest of the time will be spent with the following comms "Radio Check" and "Nothing to Report".
> 
> But....
> 
> Having said that, it is important that those negative reports be filed as they verify our claim to the territory by right of regular usage.



From what I have seen after deploying to the Arctic on ship five times now, the stuff we did will mostly likely be the same kind of stuff AOPS will be doing and 99% percent of that is very boring but absoultely needed. If we need an armed combatant AOPS will call in Air or vector in a warship. AOPS will be ill suited to survive any direct combat situation, its simply not built for that.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just because it's anticipated as such, doesn't mean it won't be thrust upon it one day.  If, the Arctic is going to be a potential flash point who knows what might happen done the road.  I am sure there are many examples of Constabulary forces thrust into combat unexpectedly.  (NWMP in 1885 for one)  And even they had field guns.


The NWMP were formed and equipped to put down another Red River Rebellion-style armed insurrection.

Using your line of logic we might as well have mounted Harpoons and a CIWS on QUEST. Weapons' fit isn't static; whatever geopolitical situation may be developing in the arctic is developing slowly enough that we'll have loooots of time to upgrade the deck gun if and when needed.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I have seen after deploying to the Arctic on ship five times now, the stuff we did will mostly likely be the same kind of stuff AOPS will be doing and 99% percent of that is very boring but absoultely needed. If we need an armed combatant AOPS will call in Air or vector in a warship. AOPS will be ill suited to survive any direct combat situation, its simply not built for that.



And neither would one of our current MCDV survive such combat as they are also not built for that, as neither were the minesweepers before; and neither could a WWII corvette have survived contact with the Bismark, etc. etc.

That does not mean that they are not warships or that they serve no purpose, just that their purpose does not require them to be Battleships.

AOPS will be constabulary, but my suspicion is that they won't ever have to fire a shot in anger. So much so, in fact, that I would not be surprised to see them being turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of entering service. IMO, the most useful thing they could possibly do would be to load the survey gear and assist with the surveying required to completely update the nautical charts for the area, which to this day remain the most incomplete ones in Canada.

As for the 25 mm gun, too bad it's going to be the BAE one. Would have loved to see us adopt the same Raphael Typhoon the Aussies use: That could have justified "training" exchanges with the RAN on their Armidale patrol boats.  One can always dream.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And neither would one of our current MCDV survive such combat as they are also not built for that, as neither were the minesweepers before; and neither could a WWII corvette have survived contact with the Bismark, etc. etc.
> 
> That does not mean that they are not warships or that they serve no purpose, just that their purpose does not require them to be Battleships.
> 
> AOPS will be constabulary, but my suspicion is that they won't ever have to fire a shot in anger. So much so, in fact, that I would not be surprised to see them being turned over to the Coast Guard within 5 years of entering service. IMO, the most useful thing they could possibly do would be to load the survey gear and assist with the surveying required to completely update the nautical charts for the area, which to this day remain the most incomplete ones in Canada.
> 
> As for the 25 mm gun, too bad it's going to be the BAE one. Would have loved to see us adopt the same Raphael Typhoon the Aussies use: That could have justified "training" exchanges with the RAN on their Armidale patrol boats.  One can always dream.



I agree that they will most likely never fire a shot in anger, most of what they will do is exactly what the MCDV's currently do and that is to show the flag, patrol and an armed presence in the Arctic. When not in the Arctic, they will do fisheries, relief missions and anything else the RCN deems for them, just like what the MCDV's currently do but with a more capable platform. I would imagine they will a large role in force generation as well as they will have a large number of training bunks. I highly doubt the AOPS will be turned over to CCG willingly, memories of HMCS Labrador still are fresh and if Adm Newton is still about this will never happen. I agree that hydrographic work will be a major task for them, just as HMCS Kingston only recently did off Arctic Bay last fall.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't know what you means concerning the LABRADOR, Chief.

She was transferred to the Coast Guard in 1957. A boy seaman serving onboard would be 75 years old today, so I have no idea who could possibly have a fresh memory of her.

There never was any "bad" memory of this transfer by the Navy. I joined in 1975 and never did I hear anyone bemoan the fact that we "got rid of LABRADOR". She did her few patrols - mostly helped with the original DEW line radar sites construction, and was quietly turned over to the CG near the height of the RCN post war fleet build up, not as a cost cutting measure, but because it was quickly found she served no real defence purpose.


----------



## jollyjacktar

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The NWMP were formed and equipped to put down another Red River Rebellion-style armed insurrection.
> 
> Using your line of logic we might as well have mounted Harpoons and a CIWS on QUEST. Weapons' fit isn't static; whatever geopolitical situation may be developing in the arctic is developing slowly enough that we'll have loooots of time to upgrade the deck gun if and when needed.



Actually, no, the NWMP were not formed for that reason.  My Great Grandfather was one of the original 300.  They were formed to try and put down the Whiskey Trade that was originating from Montana as well as to bring law and order to the territories.  The NW Rebellion of 1885 came 12 years after the creation of the NWMP in 1873.  

My point, is that just because the GoC envisions a constabulary presence in the form of AOPS being just a constabulary presence doesn't mean that they might not find themselves in the shyte all of a sudden.  I am not suggesting the 25mm gun is enough or not enough for that role.  Only that, that role, might all of a sudden change into something bigger.  As someone else pointed out the USCG is a constabulary force overall, but they are prepared to do more if forced upon it, as has happened.  That, was my point.


----------



## Kirkhill

Then put a big enough hole in the deck in which you can bury a container that can handle the 25, a 57, a 76 or even a pack of ESSMs.

It has been done before.  You could even put a removable whisky locker in the space if the primary purpose was to keep Hans Island free of Danes in a non-threatening manner.


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Actually, no, the NWMP were not formed for that reason.  My Great Grandfather was one of the original 300.  They were formed to try and put down the Whiskey Trade that was originating from Montana as well as to bring law and order to the territories.  The NW Rebellion of 1885 came 12 years after the creation of the NWMP in 1873.


And the Red River Rebellion of 1869/70 came about three years prior to the formation of the NWMP. As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you _not_ to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated. I concede that the NWMP subsequently did lots of customs enforcement, but that's not why they were given cannons.



> My point, is that just because the GoC envisions a constabulary presence in the form of AOPS being just a constabulary presence doesn't mean that they might not find themselves in the shyte all of a sudden.  I am not suggesting the 25mm gun is enough or not enough for that role.  Only that, that role, might all of a sudden change into something bigger.  As someone else pointed out the USCG is a constabulary force overall, but they are prepared to do more if forced upon it, as has happened.  That, was my point.


If something like that happened "all of the sudden" without any I&W leading up to it, it would be pretty unprecedented. At present, we have no reason to expect an armed confrontation in the arctic and have equipped ourselves accordingly. What we do need is ISR, and we're getting that.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Then put a big enough hole in the deck in which you can bury a container that can handle the 25, a 57, a 76 or even a pack of ESSMs.


It's fitted for a payload. Modularized packages that carry everything from ESSMs to Harpoons are readily available for purchase off the shelf (the sort the Danish Flyvefisken-class OPVs use). If and when we decide we need them.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't know what you means concerning the LABRADOR, Chief.
> 
> She was transferred to the Coast Guard in 1957. A boy seaman serving onboard would be 75 years old today, so I have no idea who could possibly have a fresh memory of her.
> 
> There never was any "bad" memory of this transfer by the Navy. I joined in 1975 and never did I hear anyone bemoan the fact that we "got rid of LABRADOR". She did her few patrols - mostly helped with the original DEW line radar sites construction, and was quietly turned over to the CG near the height of the RCN post war fleet build up, not as a cost cutting measure, but because it was quickly found she served no real defence purpose.



The Labrador gave the RCN a capability way back in the 50's that we never regained. Many people today call for "armed icebreakers" to built rather than the AOPS. It was a crying shame that the RCN gave her up and many at the time didn't agree with it due to the cold war. Many of the charts we still use today were based on hydrographic work conducted in Labrador while in the RCN.  I had a opportunity to talk with the MARLANT Commander only recently and we drew many comparisions with Labrador and Harry DeWolf. AOPS will give the RCN some of the similar capability that we lost when Labrador was transferred.


----------



## Kirkhill

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's fitted for a payload. Modularized packages that carry everything from ESSMs to Harpoons are readily available for purchase off the shelf (the sort the Danish Flyvefisken-class OPVs use). If and when we decide we need them.



Eggzackly - The Danish Stanflex System - http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/STANFLEX-modules.htm







The squarish bucket below holds all the mechanical and electrical systems and drops into the hole.  The stuff on top sticks out on top of the deck and does the work.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And the Red River Rebellion of 1869/70 came about three years prior to the formation of the NWMP. As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you _not_ to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated. I concede that the NWMP subsequently did lots of customs enforcement, but that's not why they were given cannons.



WRT NWMP 9 Pdrs - This is why they took 2x 9 Pdrs and 2x Brass Mortars.










The Whisky Traders at Whoop Up were a bit more than a Customs and Excise problem.

No doubt Louis Riel, and the Fenians, and the Blackfoot, and Sitting Bull and the US Army played into the decisions in terms of arming the 300.  But even the "the non-state actors" of the day presented a significant problem.  (Actually, come to think of it the only State Actors in the picture were the US Army and they were likely the least of the problems).

Here's how the locals rationalize the raising of the NWMP.

http://nwmp.wikispaces.com/1870+-+Danger+in+the+West

And THIS one


----------



## Old Sweat

Mods, we might e creating another thread here.

Actually the NWMP took 2 7-pdrs that had been used by the artillery detachment in the Red River garrison established after the Red River expedition. Strange as it seems, the Liberals, who had replaced the Conservatives because of the Pacific Scandal, did not want to form the force because of the costs. Instead, according to a report by the Governor General to the Colonial Office (which I have read,) Prime Minister Mackenzie wanted to ask the US Army to pacify the Canadian West. The GG was not impressed. 

What this has to do with AOPS beats me, but somebody might be able to connect the dots.


----------



## Goose15

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Thank you for making me feel old.



Don't feel old! I'm "just a young'un" and I almost cried when I read that  first post ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Mods, we might e creating another thread here.
> 
> Actually the NWMP took 2 7-pdrs that had been used by the artillery detachment in the Red River garrison established after the Red River expedition. Strange as it seems, the Liberals, who had replaced the Conservatives because of the Pacific Scandal, did not want to form the force because of the costs. Instead, according to a report by the Governor General to the Colonial Office (which I have read,) Prime Minister Mackenzie wanted to ask the US Army to pacify the Canadian West. The GG was not impressed.
> 
> What this has to do with AOPS beats me, but somebody might be able to connect the dots.



Gilbert and Sullivan to the Rescue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpVbBH9Ip8I

Constabulary work donchano?  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Gilbert and Sullivan to the Rescue
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpVbBH9Ip8I
> 
> Constabulary work donchano?  ;D



Maybe that will make Goose15 happier.


----------



## jollyjacktar

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As it's off the topic of this thread, I'm going to invite you _not_ to try to convince me the two were completely unrelated.



No worries, I won't try to convince you as you have your own opinions and theories.  

Kirkhill does have some nice photos of Ft Whoop-Up posted which was at present day Lethbridge, AB, 50 km east of where I grew up and where the NWMP started to really operate from.  When they arrived in force at the fort they found it to be very recently abandoned by the Whiskey Traders who had fled in advance of first contact.  And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and the Cougars would never deploy.....

These ships need to be built with enough hardpoints to be able to mount enough armaments and counter measures to be effective. Any gun is better than no gun, but chances are that this type of ships may very well be involved in some heavy diplomacy by itself, far from support and it will be a close in shoving match and the meanest looking ship is going to win, even if not a shot is fired. The problem with a missile is it does not lend itself well to warning shots. Frankly a 57mm and some missiles along with counter measures is the way to go. Possibly in their life time they will also mount small defensive lasers. Walking softly while carrying a big enough stick often solve problems before they get out of hand.

Plus the people who don't like you, consider any of your naval vessels a warship and will treat it as such. Regardless of what you think or say you are doing.

I also think every CCG large vessel need integrated hardpoints in the design with supporting comms, electrical services fitted. I would like to see a war stock of naval weapons stored that can be fitted on short notice to the above mentioned hardpoints and ships and crews cycled throuhg


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.
    


> Strengthening Canada's Capability In The Arctic; Lockheed Martin Canada Awarded Implementation Subcontract For Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships
> 
> Published: Apr 8, 2015 9:00 a.m. ET
> 
> OTTAWA, April 8, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin Canada [LMT: NYSE] announced today that it has been awarded the implementation subcontract by Irving Shipbuilding Inc. as command and surveillance system integrator for the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) new class of Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS).
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada is one of AOPS Prime Contractor Irving Shipbuilding's Tier 1 suppliers for delivering the AOPS vessels as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS). With a contract valued at more than C$170M, Lockheed Martin Canada is responsible for key integration of data and information sources to increase the ships' situational awareness and provide command, control and decision support at all levels of command for the new vessels.
> 
> Rosemary Chapdelaine, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada's Ottawa-based Mission Systems and Training (MST) business, said "Our team facilitates tight collaboration with the shipyard, subcontractors and the Navy, and we are pleased to be moving to the next stage of the AOPS program on schedule. Our ability to coordinate among these stakeholders on complex programs is our blueprint for success."
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada was able to leverage its innovative combat management system from the Halifax Class Modernization (HCM) program for surveillance purposes on AOPS, offering a highly capable, low-risk solution for the project.
> 
> Chapdelaine continues, "This award, along with our continued milestone achievements to extend the life of the Halifax-class patrol frigates, strengthens our team's capability to deliver enduring value for the RCN and for Canada."
> 
> The naval capability built in Canada also provides an entry into the world market. The recent contract award for the New Zealand Frigate System Upgrade is directly attributable to the expertise and record of success Lockheed Martin Canada has established with HCM and now AOPS.
> 
> Success on these Canadian naval programs is in large part attributed to Lockheed Martin Canada's strong Canadian supply chain. LM Canada manages four Canada-based subcontractors as part of the AOPS contract. These subcontractors were selected from a competition during the design phase. Across all programs, the company has managed over 700 contracts with Canadian companies across nine provinces in the country. This work offers Canadian companies an opportunity to broaden their portfolios to sustain and grow their businesses.
> 
> "Lockheed Martin Canada is a key partner in achieving best quality and value for Canada in the production of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships," said Kevin McCoy, President of Irving Shipbuilding Inc.  "We have worked with them over the last 3 years to find the right command and surveillance solution to best serve the Navy in these important ships and to achieve the best overall benefit to Canada. I am pleased to have them on the AOPS team."
> 
> AOPS is a Government of Canada procurement project for the RCN. The project is expected to equip the Canadian Forces with six naval ice-capable offshore patrol ships able to assert and enforce sovereignty in Canada's waters where and when necessary, including the Arctic. The ships will conduct missions for northern surveillance, search and rescue, and interoperation with the Canadian Forces and other government organizations. The first Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship is scheduled to be delivered in 2018.
> 
> About Lockheed Martin CanadaLockheed Martin Canada has more than 850 employees at major facilities in Ottawa, Montreal, Dartmouth, Calgary, and Victoria, as well as Department of National Defence sites across the country, and is a leader in the delivery and integration of naval combat systems, radar platforms, avionics, electronic warfare, data fusion, commercial engine repair and overhaul, and performance-based logistics.
> 
> About NSPS Combatant Fleet Contract:In 2011, with the goal of building Canadian ships in Canada, the federal government established a strategic relationship with two Canadian shipyards, selected through an open and fair national competition, for large ship construction and designated them as sources of supply, one for combat vessels and the other for non-combat vessels.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding was selected as Canada's Combatant Shipbuilder under the merit-based National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) and is in the early stages of a 30-year military shipbuilding program. The company is currently working on the Definition Contract for the first set of vessels, the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), working toward the September 2015 cut steel date for the AOPS ships.  The combatant portion of the NSPS program is comprised of 6 ice-capable AOPS, as well as up to 15 Canadian Surface Combatants, to replace the Canadian Navy's current frigates and destroyers. The NSPS program is designed to generate opportunities for shipbuilding trades, technology and systems suppliers, marine professionals and knowledge building partners across Canada, returning economic benefits to Canadians.
> 
> For additional information, visit our website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com
> 
> Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20141118/159313LOGO
> 
> To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/strengthening-canadas-capability-in-the-arctic-lockheed-martin-canada-awarded-implementation-subcontract-for-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-300062607.html
> 
> SOURCE Lockheed Martin Canada
> 
> Copyright (C) 2015 PR Newswire. All rights reserved



 Article Link


----------



## Stoker

Ship named after 100-year-old Sask war hero

Saskatchewan nurse Margaret Brooke was aboard the SS Caribou when it was torpedoed off the coast of Newfoundland on Oct. 13, 1942.

Brooke’s heroic actions in the aftermath of the ship’s sinking earned her the Order of the British Empire, making her the only Canadian nurse to receive such an honour during the Second World War.

Now Brooke, who turned 100 years old Saturday, is being honoured again. The federal government announced a Canadian Arctic patrol ship will bear her name. Construction of the HMCS Margaret Brooke is set to begin in the fall.

The Royal Canadian Navy will employ the patrol ship to conduct sovereignty and surveillance operations in Canadian waters on all three coasts, including in the Arctic, according to a federal government news release.

Brooke said in a statement Saturday she was “amazed” and “honoured” to hear about the ship being named after her. She was told personally in a phone call Friday by Minister of National Defence Jason Kenney.

On Saturday — her 100th birthday — Brooke received a visit and birthday wishes from Commodore Bob Auchterlonie, Commander Canadian Fleet Pacific,

“I was and remain very proud of my years serving in the Royal Canadian Navy and thank all who were involved in making my 100th birthday an even more memorable occasion,” Brooke said.

Kenney said in a statement the arctic/offshore patrol ships are being named after Canadian naval heroes “who displayed outstanding leadership and heroism” while serving during wartime.

“It is in fact a privilege for our country that Margaret Brooke will lend her name to one of our naval ships, as her courage and self-sacrifice have inspired, and will continue to inspire, generations of Canadian Naval personnel for years to come.”

Brooke was born in Ardath, a village located approximately 70 kilometres southwest of Saskatoon.

She enlisted in the Second World War on March 9, 1942, as a “nursing sister/dietician.” She was eventually promoted to the rank of lieutenant-commander. She was a passenger on the SS Caribou Oct. 13, 1942, as it attempted to cross the Cabot Strait off the coast of Newfoundland.

The ship was hunted and torpedoed by the German submarine U-69, according to government records. It took only five minutes for the Caribou to sink.

Submerged in the icy water, Brooke clung to a rope on a capsized life boat. She spotted friend and fellow nurse, Sub-Lt. Agnes Wilkie similarly clinging to a rope on the life boat. Wilkie, however, was weakening.

Brooke took one hand off the rope and held Wilkie. For more than two hours, Brooke kept Wilkie from drowning.

Eventually, the frigid water proved too much. Wilkie died.

Brooke was rescued, and was named a Member of the Order of the British Empire for her heroism the following year.

Brooke returned to her studies at the University of Saskatchewan. She earned a doctorate in paleontology and went on to author several major research studies in her field.

She retired to Victoria, B.C., where she still lives.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Far from me to want to diminish the recognition of Lcdr Brooke's heroism in any way, but am I the only one here who feels the ships naming process has been hijacked by the Government for pure political reasons lately?

First, it was the supply vessels that got names from land battles in a war that pre-dates Confederation and the creation of the Navy, and was for all practical purpose between the USA and England - not "Canada" per se. Now we are naming ships after people - people that did something out of the ordinary to be sure - but still, people, which is an American tradition, not a Canadian one.

What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country, which was reactivated starting with the CPF's? Naming ships after people, like De Wolf and Brooke does not create any connection with Canadian communities and, IMO will not cause too many people to want to go and check who they were, to learn more on their personal histories.

Mods, perhaps this post and the replies to it should go in anew tread, perhaps called "Political interference in ship's naming" or "Ship's naming gone bonkers!"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On the bright side, they aren't naming them after flowers  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

We never did !


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Far from me to want to diminish the recognition of Lcdr Brooke's heroism in any way, but am I the only one here who feels the ships naming process has been hijacked by the Government for pure political reasons lately?
> 
> First, it was the supply vessels that got names from land battles in a war that pre-dates Confederation and the creation of the Navy, and was for all practical purpose between the USA and England - not "Canada" per se. Now we are naming ships after people - people that did something out of the ordinary to be sure - but still, people, which is an American tradition, not a Canadian one.
> 
> What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country, which was reactivated starting with the CPF's? Naming ships after people, like De Wolf and Brooke does not create any connection with Canadian communities and, IMO will not cause too many people to want to go and check who they were, to learn more on their personal histories.
> 
> Mods, perhaps this post and the replies to it should go in anew tread, perhaps called "Political interference in ship's naming" or "Ship's naming gone bonkers!"



Perhaps it is in the tradition of naming our "Icebreakers" after people.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's the Coastguard, not the Navy. The Navy's icebreaker was HMCS LABRADOR.

Besides, other than the Louis St-Laurent, the Coastguard ones (Arctic capable) are named after explorers of the Arctic.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We never did !


Actually, we did...sort of. The first 10 Canadian built corvettes were actully built for the Royal Navy and were commissioned as such. When their Canadian crews delivered them to England, they were handed right back as the RN was short on man power to crew them. Hence HMC Ships _Windflower, Trillium, Hepatica, Arrowhead, Snowberry, Eyebright, Mayflower, Spikenard, Fennel _ and _Bittersweet. _ 

And you thought you wouldn't learn anything today!!

Pat


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

True enough, but Canada did not name them - the Brits did, and then we inherited them and did not bother renaming them.


----------



## Spencer100

The naming of ships has always had a political and/or historical spin.  I like the War of 1812 spin with it there would be no Canada.  But I am of U.E.L. stock.  City class were names of Liberal voting cities for the most part.  (I know this is going to start something >) 

As long as they don't start naming ships after living pols.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The decision to name the CPF's and MCDV's after cities, and then towns was made by the Navy (and by the way, were in most instances made under Mulroney - so much for Liberal cities). The choice of cities was simple: One per Province - two for the larger ones (ON and QC) - with cities with a Naval Reserve Unit as first choice.

If you think the cities and towns chosen were so because they were Liberal, then it's an unfortunate side effect of the fact that the Conservatives all live in the back woods of the countryside


----------



## Stoker

I would have perferrred the first of class be named after HMCS Labrador, and subsequent naming of Northern communities. That being said I think its very fitting that we name them after Canadian Military hero's and perhaps the start of a new tradition.


----------



## FSTO

I really, really hope that when we get the first batch of CSC's (I think that certain number will be AAW/Command and Control) that they will be the Tribals once again. The remainder (Frigate replacements) should be named after our rivers.


----------



## Spencer100

Love that idea.  I think we should reuse the Tribal names.  But in this "new" age of PC can the navy use them?  Example Sports team names.

I would say no current or future government would even think of going there.

Question:  Can you name a RCN ship the HMCS Haida with the original still around as a museum?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually the tribes would likely go for that if asked beforehand, the big issue is which ones get it. How about HMCS Halfway River, HMCS Dog River, HMCS Slaves to name a few


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:
			
		

> I really, really hope that when we get the first batch of CSC's (I think that certain number will be AAW/Command and Control) that they will be the Tribals once again. The remainder (Frigate replacements) should be named after our rivers.



[tangent]  

...and JSS 1 and JSS 2 to be MAG and BON, respectively?

[/tangent]


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> 
> ...and JSS 1 and JSS 2 to be MAG and BON, respectively?
> 
> [/tangent]



Save those for when we get those Mistrals!  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> Save those for when we get those Mistrals!  ;D



And a third one named Warrior right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually the tribes would likely go for that if asked beforehand, the big issue is which ones get it. How about HMCS Halfway River, HMCS Dog River, HMCS Slaves to name a few



Aren't you supposed to spit when you say Dog River ?  … Whoops, my bad  .. it's when you say Wullerton /SPIT ON/SPIT OFF//


----------



## Furniture

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What happened to the tradition of naming our ships after places in Canada to create a link with the community and the country,...



Honestly, how connected is the average resident of Brandon, Regina, or even Summerside with the RCN? Just because we name a boat after a town doesn't meant that town cares about the RCN. Maybe  starting a new Canadian Tradition is a good thing.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Personally I feel more of a connection to a city, town or province of this country than I do to a particular individual.  I would prefer that they continue to name the ships after places rather than individuals.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Personally I feel more of a connection to a city, town or province of this country than I do to a particular individual.  I would prefer that they continue to name the ships after places rather than individuals.



I suppose you could be correct.  It could become controversial in some cases naming ships after individuals.   We have seen some instances of that in the US.  What would happen if someone tried to name one of our ships after Louis Riel?


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose you could be correct.  It could become controversial in some cases naming ships after individuals.   We have seen some instances of that in the US.  What would happen if someone tried to name one of our ships after Louis Riel?



I would imagine the ships naming committee will be vetting the names very carefully.


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would imagine the ships naming committee will be vetting the names very carefully.



I would hope so, but we have seen it in the US where some of the naming protocols in naming their ships have raised the ire of some.  Here at home, we now have schools named after Louis Riel.  I could use that as an example to counter your statement; as I am sure they also had committees set up to choose the name of the schools.


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would hope so, but we have seen it in the US where some of the naming protocols in naming their ships have raised the ire of some.  Here at home, we now have schools named after Louis Riel.  I could use that as an example to counter your statement; as I am sure they also had committees set up to choose the name of the schools.



Well the names are supposed to be Canadian Naval hero's, so I doubt if you'll see something like that. I suppose if they used Cornwallis or something similar, it may cause some protest. Lets hope there's no skeletons in the individuals closets.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Honestly, how connected is the average resident of Brandon, Regina, or even Summerside with the RCN? Just because we name a boat after a town doesn't meant that town cares about the RCN. Maybe  starting a new Canadian Tradition is a good thing.



In answer: Surprisingly connected, if you ask me. All the ships make a concerted effort to stay connected with their namesake communities, even the inland ones, and the civic communities return the favour. Those units connected to cities and towns connected by water make efforts to frequently visit their namesake, and open ships tours onboard a ship that bears the name of your town are always more attended than otherwise ordinary open ships tour. At the office here, co-workers that know I used to be in the Navy always mention it to me when they heard something or other in the news about an action of HMCS MONTREAL. The very name gets their attention and grabs them - something that would not happen if it wasn't their cities namesake. They don't know much about the Navy, but they know somebody out there proudly bears their towns name. I know for sure that Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have strong ties to their Namesake ship and their Captains are invited regularly to civic events and are feted every time possible.

Before the "Cities and Towns" revival, the only ships I can think of with such connections were HMCS YUKON and HMCS MACKENZIE, which (even though River class in reality) had strong connections with their namesake Territories (NWT for MACKENZIE).

There is no way you'll get that with People's name.

Moreover, there is danger in using peoples name, as pointed above. Consider that, when I was in elementary school here in Quebec, just as the "Quiet Revolution" started and the curriculum was still heavily influenced by the religious orders, we were taught that Dollard-des-Ormeaux was a great French-Canadian hero, having saved the colony from the Iroquois by battling them to the death at Long-Sault. By the time I got into university and more enlightened historical research had been conducted, it appeared that (1) it was unclear wether the Iroquois coming down the Outaouais river really wanted to attack Ville-Marie (Montreal) or were simply returning to their wintering grounds along the St-Lawrence river, and (2) while protection of Ville-Marie may have been in the governor's plan, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and his cohort were more interested in intercepting the Iroquois at Long-Sault as they came down in small groups in order to steal their pelts (and thus get rich by not having to buy them). The Iroquois got wind of the plan and stalled their arrival upstream in order to come down "en masse". Need I tell you that Dollard-des-Ormeaux is not exactly considered a hero anymore in Quebec.

This re-discovery of history all occurred in the span of 15 years - well less than the usual lifetime of  a ship. So there is always some danger in using people's name.


----------



## George Wallace

In reference to the city names, such as Regina and Brandon; historically (if I am correct) the Prairies have contributed large numbers of men to the Navy.  That would justify such naming of ships and establish the connections.


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In reference to the city names, such as Regina and Brandon; historically (if I am correct) the Prairies have contributed large numbers of men to the Navy.  That would justify such naming of ships and establish the connections.



Yes, I am a salt water cowboy.  I know many who are.


----------



## Occam

Just by way of an example, Cdr Francoeur is a native of Moose Jaw:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=698669
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lfwapao/sets/72157627047244369/detail/

Many of the other ships have similar relationships with their namesake cities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 500 class (Gordon Reid and John Jacobson) where the MCDV of the CCG although not quite as versatile. I think the new Hero class is actually a bit a step back to the R class days with a vessel very similar to the Island Class which the US went to. I have heard the internal design of the Hero class has it's flaws (hatches that can't open fully, etc). I have not heard good or bad about their sea keeping ability. but generally speed comes at a price.   







Funny that an ex CCG official would whine about the military getting ice breaking vessels when likely he and his fellows have worked hard to keep the CCG from being armed in the first place. But he is right that we do need a couple of very large Ice breakers for the Guard. For much of the rest of the buoy tending/ice breaking fleet a slightly modern version of the 1100 class would be perfect, a good all round ship.


----------



## Furniture

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In answer: Surprisingly connected, if you ask me. All the ships make a concerted effort to stay connected with their namesake communities, even the inland ones, and the civic communities return the favour. Those units connected to cities and towns connected by water make efforts to frequently visit their namesake, and open ships tours onboard a ship that bears the name of your town are always more attended than otherwise ordinary open ships tour. At the office here, co-workers that know I used to be in the Navy always mention it to me when they heard something or other in the news about an action of HMCS MONTREAL. The very name gets their attention and grabs them - something that would not happen if it wasn't their cities namesake. They don't know much about the Navy, but they know somebody out there proudly bears their towns name. I know for sure that Regina, Edmonton and Calgary have strong ties to their Namesake ship and their Captains are invited regularly to civic events and are feted every time possible.
> 
> Before the "Cities and Towns" revival, the only ships I can think of with such connections were HMCS YUKON and HMCS MACKENZIE, which (even though River class in reality) had strong connections with their namesake Territories (NWT for MACKENZIE).
> 
> There is no way you'll get that with People's name.
> 
> Moreover, there is danger in using peoples name, as pointed above. Consider that, when I was in elementary school here in Quebec, just as the "Quiet Revolution" started and the curriculum was still heavily influenced by the religious orders, we were taught that Dollard-des-Ormeaux was a great French-Canadian hero, having saved the colony from the Iroquois by battling them to the death at Long-Sault. By the time I got into university and more enlightened historical research had been conducted, it appeared that (1) it was unclear wether the Iroquois coming down the Outaouais river really wanted to attack Ville-Marie (Montreal) or were simply returning to their wintering grounds along the St-Lawrence river, and (2) while protection of Ville-Marie may have been in the governor's plan, Dollard-des-Ormeaux and his cohort were more interested in intercepting the Iroquois at Long-Sault as they came down in small groups in order to steal their pelts (and thus get rich by not having to buy them). The Iroquois got wind of the plan and stalled their arrival upstream in order to come down "en masse". Need I tell you that Dollard-des-Ormeaux is not exactly considered a hero anymore in Quebec.
> 
> This re-discovery of history all occurred in the span of 15 years - well less than the usual lifetime of  a ship. So there is always some danger in using people's name.



I guess our definition of what constitutes public interest is very different based on the circles we run in. I for one know that the average resident of Winnipeg I spoke with had no idea that there wasdidn't know there was even a ship named for the city let alone what it was doing. I'm relatively certain that if I went home to PEI the average resident of Charlottetown or Summerside would maybe know a ship was named for the town, but would know nothing more and care not at all. 

I have no doubt the chamber of commerce and those of the upper echelons of society are better informed and perhaps interested in what the namesake ship is doing, but that doesn't equate to interest in the average citizen. Maybe forcing people to ask why a ship is named what it is will generate interest in our history.


----------



## Underway

Whats in a name?

http://www.navalreview.ca/2015/03/naming-ships/

Copied here:




> 8 March 2015
> by Colin Darlington, Royal United Services Institute - Nova Scotia
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Steel will be cut in a few months for the first of the Harry DeWolf-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). The official date of the cutting will be an opportunity for senior politicians, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and industry to mark the occasion with media announcements, interviews and photo-ops. The real date of first cutting will probably be sometime earlier than the official date if for no other reason than the actual shipbuilding program schedule is driven by other than times convenient to various agendas. Before all this, though, there is one date under government control, that of the announcement of names of other ships of the class. Considering the national political environment, that is likely to be soon.
> 
> Naming government ships, particularly warships, is a government prerogative, and that is the way it should be. Warships are a piece of Canada,(1) and with other department ships are signs of national presence and action. Past vessels of the RCN have been named according to various conventions including geographical features, first nations and animals. Of late, with the Halifax-class frigates, the Kingston-class mine warfare vessels and the Victoria-class submarines (and, to be built, the Queenston-class replenishment oiler replacements), there has been an explicit effort through naming to connect with the Canadian public. Despite some misgivings that in cases this results in warships lacking antecedents (and therefore not inheriting history and battle honours, elements important to esprit de corps in ships’ companies), naming warships after cities and towns has worked. It remains to be seen whether naming the AOPSs after people, whilst long a practice in other navies and other Canadian government departments, will work.
> 
> With the announcement of the name of the first AOPS to be HMCS Harry DeWolf (HAR (2)), the policy for naming the remaining ships was made public: “Subsequent ships in the class will be named to honour other prominent Canadians who served with the highest distinction and conspicuous gallantry in the service of their country.(3)” The opportunity to name the AOPSs after northern locations or animals has been passed over and the government decision has been made. Lately, Canadian Coast Guard mid-shore patrol vessels and Halifax municipal ferries have been named after Canadians whom people take to be heroes, and there has been a certain resonance with the public in the names. As long as the warships names decided upon continue to receive general support, and not be divisive, especially for the companies onboard, because of disagreement over achievements, politics, etc., then naming warships after people will continue to serve good purpose.
> 
> One can play a game guessing at names of subsequent HAR-class class (AOPS is a shipbuilding program name), looking at lists of recipients of the Victoria Cross and other high honours. More useful in the names announcement will be the indications of government thoughts and intentions. There may be those who would draw conclusions about class numbers from whether four or five names are announced. It may be more useful to the government, therefore, to continue to highlight the shipbuilding program but also avoid untimely controversy by announcing only two or three names at this time. The remainder can be announced at a later, more convenient, time. As an aside, when considering the number of HAR-class ships to be built, there appears not to be much public discussion as to what the ships are to do, that is, their concept of employment. They are sizable and can be fitted with a variety of capabilities. “How many are needed for Arctic operations?” and “How many are desired to be available for offshore operations elsewhere?” (balanced against shipbuilding funding), are interesting but generally unanswered questions.
> 
> In addition to names and numbers of ships, there are some other indications yet to come out in announcements. Canada is a signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It has an agreement that sets a standard for designating types of ships (e.g., the Kingston-class vessels are designated MM – mine warfare vessel, general). Alliances such as NATO can be useful for the development of common terminology for use by planners and operators in writing messages and plans, developing marine surveillance databases, and displaying ship locations on plots. By that NATO agreement, the HAR-class could be type designated as PSO (patrol ship, offshore) or PGB (patrol ship, icebreaker). With our national focus on the Arctic, it is believed that PGB is the more likely designation to be selected, indicative of the primary intent in the use of these ships.
> 
> Finally, another indication of government intent is the ‘pendant number’, sometimes known in other navies and colloquially as the ‘hull number’ because it is painted on a ship’s hull. In the RCN, the number indicates the type of ship, e.g., 300-series numbers are assigned to frigates. The 400-series is the number block for patrol ships. It is understood that HMCS Harry DeWolf and her sisters will be assigned numbers starting with 430, emphasizing their patrol role.
> 
> The next months will be interesting, especially for the RCN as a time of needed revival after many years of a declining fleet, but also for Canada as a whole. The building and commissioning into service of the HAR-class will provide the country a significant capability to operate ships at a wide variety of defence, security, research, national development, humanitarian and other missions, up north and deployed overseas. One can be confident that Canadians can look forward to being proud of HMCS Harry DeWolf and her sisters, whatever their names and designations.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> (1) Not quite legally; see RUSI(NS) paper “Warships: Sovereign Immunity versus Sovereign Territory” at http://rusi.ca/security-affairs-committee.
> (2) The RCN assigns two and three letter initialisms to ships (e.g., HAL for HMCS Halifax) to facilitate correspondence and plotting. The three letters are usually the first three letters of the ship’s name. The two letters are usually the first and last letters of the name. Though HAR for HMCS Harry DeWolf has not been announced, it is the likely initialism.
> (3) http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/09/18/pm-announces-name-first-royal-canadian-navys-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships, accessed 1 March 2015
> 
> Colin Darlington is a retired naval officer of the Canadian Armed Forces. He has served in ships named after bays, rivers, mountains, cities and characteristics. He may be contacted by e-mail at: RUSINovaScotia@gmail.com.



Cue the "How are you today HAL" jokes...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Your a little late with the HAL jokes. Halifax has been in commission more than 27 years now !

The real one to ask is if three AOPS travel together, will they be considered a joke: HAR,HAR,HAR !

Just one small point: I have no idea where he got that "in the RCN, the number indicate the type" and that  400 series is for patrol. It may NOW be so, but it is NOT the continuation of a tradition. 

In fact, other than corvettes and frigates of WWII, the only Canadian warship to wear a "400" number has been HMCS BRAS-D'OR, which I would not call a patrol ship. You could call the MCDV's "Patrol vessels", but they have a "700" series pendant number, which has never been used for ANY warship in Canada before - what does it say about the "type" of ship then? And it is only after 1949 and the conversion of wartime destroyers to destroyer escort that the idea that destroyers should have numbers in the "200" and frigates in the "300" was adopted.

Besides, I suspect people outside of the RCN have no clue as to what the pendant number says about the type of vessels. If you don't believe me, you may still find people that will tell you how disappointed the citizens of Portland, ORE, were the day they were visited by HMCS PORTE QUEBEC (gate vessel - 125 feet - no weapons - crew 45), when they had looked up the name in their books and only found (and were thus expecting) HMCS QUEBEC (cruiser - 550 feet - 9x6 inch guns and 600 crew).


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD:

Haven't you also gone through redesignation of the same hulls with the same gear doing the same jobs?

I have the sense that the progression from DE through DDE, DDH, FFH, CPF has been somewhat muddied over the years.  And even though your ships have had missiles on board have there ever been any officially designated FFGs or DDGs in Canadian service?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not really Kirkhill.

Until shortly after WWII, we used the British system and made sure our pendant numbers did not conflict with theirs. 

This lettering system did not indicate necessarily the type of ship: HAIDA, a destroyer, was p G63, and all "tribals" were using the same style, but the River class frigate JONQUIERE, for instance, had p K318, while the Flower class corvette ASBESTOS wore p K358. There was no apparent rime or reason. [Little history lesson here: nowadays, under the agreed NATO system, we fly our international call-sign when coming in or out of harbour. While using the British system and rules, however, a ship flew his "letter" then "number" as appeared on its hull in those circumstances. The numbers were flown using the number pennants - thus the name  "pennant number", bastardized as "pendant number".] 

Starting with the refit of the tribals that saw them become destroyers escort by removal of two gun turrets and installation of the squid AS weapon, they became redesignated as such and we started using the American system of designation (not NATO, which adopted a sub-set of same later). A destroyer was thus DD and the letter E specified it was an ASW escort one. Thus Haida became DDE 215. It was also the point where we started using "200" for Destroyers and "300" for frigates. This also explains why  BONAVENTURE was CVL22 as opposed to RO22, had we used the British system.

We never went through redesignation without a modifying refit, however.

Similarly, we did not "progress" through DE, to DDE, to DDH, FFH and CPF. We never had "DE's". The DDE that underwent transformations to carry helicopters became DDH after their refits only. As for the frigates, CPF was the name of the building program (Canadian Patrol Frigate), but it was never a pendant number: They were always FFH from the start.

Finally: No, we have never had FFG's or DDG's in our service. We have always adopted the supplementary designation "H", perhaps as much as a mater of pride for the size of helicopters and the sea condition we use them in compared to other nations as for the fact that in Canada, we have always considered the shipborne helicopter to be primary weapon system on the destroyers and frigates.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks OGBD.


----------



## Occam

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Finally: No, we have never had FFG's or DDG's in our service.



The IROQUOIS class was redesignated to DDG from DDH after the TRUMP refit.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/fleet-units/iroquois-history.page


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I stand corrected. Forgot about that one.

Occam, I shall drop and give you fifty.


----------



## Underway

I thought the TERRA NOVA was the first DDG, as she was equipped with harpoons on the way to the first gulf war.  The tribals weren't ready yet.  For some reason that sticks in my head from Milners book, Canada's Navy the first century...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Actually, all three ships (Terra Nova, Athabaskan and PROTECTEUR) in gulf war one were missile armed.

Terra Nova had Harpoon and Javelin; Athabaskan had Sparrow and Javelin; PROTECTEUR had Javelin.  Did that make PROTECTEUR an AOR(G)?


----------



## Occam

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. Forgot about that one.
> 
> Occam, I shall drop and give you fifty.



No need, it's not like they started out that way.   ;D

IIRC, changing the designation was almost an afterthought.  I believe they continued to use DDH for a few years before the official change was made.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> I thought the TERRA NOVA was the first DDG, as she was equipped with harpoons on the way to the first gulf war.  The tribals weren't ready yet.  For some reason that sticks in my head from Milners book, Canada's Navy the first century...



I think the distinction that was made lies in that TERRA NOVA's Harpoon fit was a "bolt on and go" mission fit, rather than a full up integration during a refit.  I don't think her designation was ever officially changed.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... HAIDA, a destroyer, was p G63, and all "tribals" were using the same style, but the River class frigate JONQUIERE, for instance, had p K318, while the Flower class corvette ASBESTOS wore p K358.....



Just a point on the corvettes, I believe my father-in-law, who served in corvettes ultimately as Chief Stoker, used to describe the Rivers like Jonquiere, as Twin Screw Corvettes.  Might that not explain the K series pennant numbers?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Never thought of that but it is possible. When the corvette Charlottetown (K244) was sunk in Sep 42, a River class frigate (twin screwed corvette?)commissioned in 1944 not only bore the old name but the original pennant as well (K244).

BTW, Colin is VERY WELL versed on this stuff and is part of that group at Dalhousie. You may have noticed too he hints that the role has changed slightly and the type name has been informally changed from Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship to Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship. The "/" makes a huge difference in it's employability.


Pat


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, the blocks of letter were just assigned to Canada by the Admiralty in England.

Our WWII warships used the blocks G to K. G, H and I were used for the destroyers and J and K for everything else: minesweepers, corvettes frigates, loop layers, armed yachts, etc. Later on R and T were added at the government request. But what is important is that their pendant numbers did not denote type of ship in any way. Shhhh! Security.


----------



## Underway

Some scuttlebut from the water cooler...

They are working on a Tele-Hospital/Doc system.  The goal is for the A/OPS to have the a fairly robust med capability apparently.  When asked why the response was "Cause they're in the friggin arctic!" (yes I asked that obvious questions... and I got the correct you're a "moron" response).

A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion  if I understood him correctly).  The electrical power avail will be orders of magnitude greater than anything else the navy has worked with and they are currently working on the training systems to ensure the Engineers are prepared to deal with thousands of Amps.  It leads me to wonder if IEP is the frontrunner of CSC. 

The training development and procurement side is working hard to get simulators, equipment and procedures in place for all the anticipated A/OPS needs so the first crews will at least have some dry land training before getting out on the real thing.

Essentially what we are building is a 6000 ton, ice capable, mobile base by the sounds of things (lillypads +?).  Which is a little different than many in public were expecting or anticipating, and certainly different than what was expected in many quarters.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion  if I understood him correctly).  The electrical power avail will be orders of magnitude greater than anything else the navy has worked with and they are currently working on the training systems to ensure the Engineers are prepared to deal with thousands of Amps.  It leads me to wonder if IEP is the frontrunner of CSC.
> ...



According to the 2012 STX Marine design the power plant called for 4x 3300 kW Gensets (13.2 MWe Output) driving 2x 4500 kW Propulsion Motors (9 MWe Consumption).  The other 4.2 MWe is presumably for sensors and hotel load.

Somebody was asking about deicing these things.  I don't think that is likely to be a problem.  Svalbard has a deck deicing system installed.

As I understand Gensets that 13.2 MWe Output will result in an additional production of some 25 to 30 MW of heat that has to be dissipated somewhere.  Hot showers for everybody.

The bigger question will be, in an electric CSC operating off the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf or Haiti, how will you get rid of that heat?  And what type of thermal plume might you leave in the wake?


PS. Just to put 25 to 30 MW in context - that is equivalent to the output of 60 Wind Turbines operating at 25% efficiency and power for 30,000 homes.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> .........
> As I understand Gensets that 13.2 MWe Output will result in an additional production of some 25 to 30 MW of heat that has to be dissipated somewhere.  Hot showers for everybody.
> 
> The bigger question will be, in an electric CSC operating off the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf or Haiti, how will you get rid of that heat?  And what type of thermal plume might you leave in the wake?
> .........



The Type 45 runs an IEP system so call the UK up and ask their lessons learned?  There's an engineering solution to it, perhaps internal fresh water chilling systems, which then transfer heat to circulated ocean water.  Thermal signatures in water disspate very quickly and can only be seen relatively close to the ship.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ask the British about lessons learned on electrical systems? Are you mad? Have you never heard of Lucas?


----------



## Kirkhill

Prince of Darkness aside  >

According to Wiki this is the 45 setup



> 2 shafts integrated electric propulsion (IEP):
> 2 × Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines, 21.5 MW (28,800 shp) each
> 2 × Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators, 2 MW (2,700 shp) each[4]
> 2 × Converteam electric motors, 20 MW (27,000 shp) each



What I take from that is that it is a Gas Turbine Ship with Electric Drive (2x 21.5 MW  (43 MW) driving 2x 20 MW (40 MW) motors) with 4 MW of Gensets that could be used to feed the motors but likely are just going to drive sensors, weapons and ship and hotel loads.  

Your power options would be:

1 Motor at 10% of capacity with one Diesel Genset
1 Motor at 20% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 10% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 50% of capacity with one Turbine
2 Motors at 100% of capacity with two Turbines

I don't know anything about the gas turbines and their cooling requirements but I would imagine a lot of the heat would go up the stack with the flue gases.

A different strategy than the AOPS seems to have adopted with the all diesel solution.


----------



## Stoker

Third AOPS named today in Esquimalt, named after Chief Petty Officer Max Bernays. I do believe there is a Accommodations block named after him out there as well. 

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/archives/articles/local-heroes/chief-petty-officer-max-bernays


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ask the British about lessons learned on electrical systems? Are you mad? Have you never heard of Lucas?



Prince of Darkness
Lucas refrigerators the reason Brits drink warm beer
Lucas switches have 3 settings: Dim, Flicker and smoke
Lucas made a vacuum, it was their only product that didn't suck
I could go on and on, but my memory bank uses a Lucas switch  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Ahh,  Aaahh,  Aaaahh, Chicoutimi...... Excuse me for sneezing.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Third AOPS named today in Esquimalt, named after Chief Petty Officer Max Bernays. I do believe there is a Accommodations block named after him out there as well.
> 
> http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/archives/articles/local-heroes/chief-petty-officer-max-bernays



You are quite correct.  There is a block named after him there.  He's perhaps the best choice of name yet.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Prince of Darkness aside  >
> 
> According to Wiki this is the 45 setup
> 
> What I take from that is that it is a Gas Turbine Ship with Electric Drive (2x 21.5 MW  (43 MW) driving 2x 20 MW (40 MW) motors) with 4 MW of Gensets that could be used to feed the motors but likely are just going to drive sensors, weapons and ship and hotel loads.
> 
> Your power options would be:
> 
> 1 Motor at 10% of capacity with one Diesel Genset
> 1 Motor at 20% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
> 2 Motors at 10% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
> 2 Motors at 50% of capacity with one Turbine
> 2 Motors at 100% of capacity with two Turbines
> 
> I don't know anything about the gas turbines and their cooling requirements but I would imagine a lot of the heat would go up the stack with the flue gases.
> 
> A different strategy than the AOPS seems to have adopted with the all diesel solution.



There's quite a good video on the making of the type 45 out there and it shows the GTs in action.  It's basically as you say.  The GTs kick in when you really need the power.


----------



## Infanteer

Underway said:
			
		

> You are quite correct.  There is a block named after him there.  He's perhaps the best choice of name yet.



Wow, what a bio.  Never read about him before.  Great name.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Some scuttlebut from the water cooler...
> 
> They are working on a Tele-Hospital/Doc system.  The goal is for the A/OPS to have the a fairly robust med capability apparently.  When asked why the response was "Cause they're in the friggin arctic!" (yes I asked that obvious questions... and I got the correct you're a "moron" response).
> 
> A/OPS will have an electric propulsion system with electric motors supplied by a number of DA's (Integrated Electric Propulsion  if I understood him correctly).  The electrical power avail will be orders of magnitude greater than anything else the navy has worked with and they are currently working on the training systems to ensure the Engineers are prepared to deal with thousands of Amps.  It leads me to wonder if IEP is the frontrunner of CSC.
> 
> The training development and procurement side is working hard to get simulators, equipment and procedures in place for all the anticipated A/OPS needs so the first crews will at least have some dry land training before getting out on the real thing.
> 
> Essentially what we are building is a 6000 ton, ice capable, mobile base by the sounds of things (lillypads +?).  Which is a little different than many in public were expecting or anticipating, and certainly different than what was expected in many quarters.




AOPS will have 4 x 3600 kW DGs, 2 x 4.5 MW GE Propulsion Motors 1 x 1360 kW DG (Harbour/Emerg). Range will be in excess of 6800NM @14 Kts. As more DG's are brought online the faster the ship will go, much the same as KINGSTON Class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quote from: Kirkhill on May 25, 2015, 16:22:55
Prince of Darkness aside  >

According to Wiki this is the 45 setup

What I take from that is that it is a Gas Turbine Ship with Electric Drive (2x 21.5 MW  (43 MW) driving 2x 20 MW (40 MW) motors) with 4 MW of Gensets that could be used to feed the motors but likely are just going to drive sensors, weapons and ship and hotel loads.  

Your power options would be:

1 Motor at 10% of capacity with one Diesel Genset
1 Motor at 20% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 10% of capacity with two Diesel Gensets
2 Motors at 50% of capacity with one Turbine
2 Motors at 100% of capacity with two Turbines

I don't know anything about the gas turbines and their cooling requirements but I would imagine a lot of the heat would go up the stack with the flue gases.

A different strategy than the AOPS seems to have adopted with the all diesel solution.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> There's quite a good video on the making of the type 45 out there and it shows the GTs in action.  It's basically as you say.  The GTs kick in when you really need the power.



That is not the way the T45's work.

The GT's are for propulsion, the DG's for shipboard service.

Because it is an integrated electrical system, all power from any source is "dumped" on a "bus" from which everyone draws power. So, in theory, any one of the power sources can provide power to any drawing "client" for that power.

In practice, however, the DG's, even both together, would only let you drag your arse at about 4 knots once the systems and hotel load are taken out. They are an ultimate backup to the GT's, but the are there primarily to provide the ship's service load in harbour or at anchor.

Standard at sea operations is one GT, providing enough power to get up to about 18-19 knots, and one DG providing for the shipboard load (so as to not take GT power away from propulsion) with the second GT kicking in for higher speeds. The second DG is there as the emergency back up for the first DG and to provide for alternating between the two of them.

Having four DG in the AOPS, instead of two DG and two GT, is not a different strategy. Using diesels vs gas turbines is not a "strategy", it's a matter of power. The strategy is having an integrated electrical propulsion system, and it is the same in both cases. 

BTW using electric motors on the AOPS for propulsion is in no way indicative of what will be in the CSC's. Using electrical motors on ice capable ships, and particularly ice breakers, is a job requirement: Think about your little 1.5 volt hand held plastic fan. If you stick your hand in it, you'll stop the rotation - remove your finger and it works as if nothing happened. If it was an internal combustion engine spinning it, you would lose your finger. It's the same for operating in ice: If you go over a large ice chunk with the screws of an electric motor ship, the screws will "give" and the electric motors will suddenly draw with greater resistance (causing shipboard brown outs), but it will not break anything and once the ice clears, all will be back to normal. With standard propulsion, something has to give and it won't be the ice. So you will either break/twist a screw or strip gears in the gearbox or worse blow you engine's gasket.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Type 45s are electric drive with generator power coming from an assortment of engines including gas turbines. Gas turbines provide immediate high power which a diesel can't maintain when the ship increases speed rapidly above intermediate power levels or at high speed. As for slippage-could be wrong but I don't think so.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... via the RCN Info-machine:


> Building of a test module for the first Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) is underway. The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, pressed the button that began construction for the Harry DeWolf Class test module at the newest Irving Shipbuilding Inc. facility in Dartmouth on June 18, 2015.
> 
> Building this test module will enable the shipyard to test its new processes, get personnel familiar with the new equipment, and streamline construction for when full production begins in the fall of 2015.
> 
> Army veteran Peter Douglas, spry at 95 years old, was a guest at the ceremony. Prior to serving as a mechanical engineer with the Queen’s Own Rifles during the Second World War, Mr. Douglas worked in Halifax at the shipyard as a foundry pattern maker. After the ceremony, Rear-Admiral Ron Lloyd, Deputy Commander Royal Canadian Navy, enjoyed a conversation with the veteran.


Also attached if link doesn't work for you - sounds like more tomorrow.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Type 45s are electric drive with generator power coming from an assortment of engines including gas turbines. Gas turbines provide immediate high power which a diesel can't maintain when the ship increases speed rapidly above intermediate power levels or at high speed. As for slippage-could be wrong but I don't think so.



Aside from the acceleration/decceleration, GTs also have a much higher power to weight ratio, even if you include all the trunking.

With something like the AOPS, extra weight and quick speed changes don't matter, so diesels are great, and use much less fuel, so you get better range.  It also gives you a lot more redundancy in prime movers, which is nice when you could be stranded in the middle of an iceflow, and you can divert a lot of it for other things with step down transformers if required.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> With something like the AOPS, extra weight and quick speed changes don't matter, so diesels are great, and use much less fuel, so you get better range.  It also gives you a lot more redundancy in prime movers, which is nice when you could be stranded in the middle of an iceflow, and you can divert a lot of it for other things with step down transformers if required.



So long as you don't short out your marinized flux capacitor.   ;D


----------



## cupper

*New naval ship to be named for Hall*

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1295674-new-naval-ship-to-be-named-for-hall



> As a young boy, Phillip Safire heard many stories about the heroics of William Hall.
> 
> “Growing up, we heard lots and lots of stories, my brother and I, and my cousins. This was just our aunts and uncles and grandparents talking, but I never learned about it in school,” said Safire, a sergeant in the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Safire was among about a dozen of Hall’s descendants, who attended at an event in Halifax Friday announcing that a new Royal Canadian naval ship will be named after Hall, the first black man and first Nova Scotian to be awarded the Victoria Cross.
> 
> One of Canada’s six new Arctic offshore patrol ships will bear Hall’s name, Julian Fantino, associate minister of National Defence told a crowd at Africville Park.
> 
> Safire said he hopes the move will inspire more Canadians to learn of Hall’s story, as well as stories of other Canadian heroes who were not in school textbooks.
> 
> “I hope this is a start of more people learning about other members of other groups and their contributions so they can be proud,” Safire said in an interview.
> 
> “Canadian history is made up of a lot of different groups. …Recognizing a part of that history that is not well known is a great day.”
> 
> Hall was born in Horton Bluff, near Hantsport, in April 1827. An able seaman in the Royal Navy, Hall fought in some of “history’s most intense naval battles,” Fantino told the crowd.
> 
> He is honoured for his actions at Lucknow, India, in 1857. Hall was serving on the frigate HMS Shannon, and was part of a relief force sent to Calcutta, British India, to relieve a garrison under attack.
> 
> Hall volunteered for a position on one of two gun crews ordered to break through the walls of the Shah Najaf mosque where the rebel army was positioned.
> 
> “Guns from his ship were brought inland almost 1,000 kilometres from Calcutta, where the Shannon was docked in an attempt to breach the rebel fort. Their barrage was met with an intense onslaught of grenades, which killed almost everyone but Hall and his fellow sailor, Lieutenant Thomas James Young,” Fantino said.
> 
> “Together, they fired the last cannon shot— shot within 20 yards— a shot that ultimately penetrated the fortress,” he said.
> 
> Rear Admiral John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, told the crowd that even as naval officer he had never heard about Hall or his heroic deeds.
> 
> “In time, I learned of William Hall, encouraged by a slowly changing attitude of society and the hard, hard, work of the black Nova Scotian community,” he said.
> 
> Sharon Rivest said the naming of the ship after her great great-uncle is both “healing and overwhelming.”
> 
> “I’m just thankful that he will not just go and disappear in history,” said Rivest, who travelled from her home in Quebec for the announcement.
> 
> “Every time someone steps on the ship, they are going to ask what the story is. That’s all we want,” she said.
> 
> Dorothy Brown, another family member, lives in Lockhartville, not far from where William Hall lived.
> 
> “The old house (where he lived) is still standing, but it has been remodelled, of course,” she said.
> 
> The ships, to be built by Irving Shipyard, are being named in honour of Canadian heroes who served in the Royal Canadian Navy. The lead ship has been named HMCS Harry DeWolf, and the class is known at the Harry DeWolf class.
> 
> DeWolf was the captain of HMCS Haida, and was decorated for service throughout his naval career. The second ship was named for Margaret Brooke, an RCN nursing sister, lauded for her actions during the Second World War. The third was named for Max Bernays, another naval hero, who served as a coxswain on HMCS Assiniboine during the Battle of the Atlantic, a federal release said.


----------



## Underway

I knew it.  My Admin O owes me a beer in the mess.  Here's to Hall,  provider of beer and THE inspiration for the Naval Gun run in Canada!  An excellent pick and the first Canadian sailor to win the VC.  They are really doing a solid job with the ship names for the class.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> They are really doing a solid job with the ship names for the class.



Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.



Yes it is, and yes it's true.  But, they're not naming them after asshats but truly inspirational people.  And at least they've got Naval connections unlike the new JSS names...


----------



## RedcapCrusader

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except that it's a complete break with Canadian tradition to name RCN vessels after people.



Is it really tradition though? Vessels in the RCN fleet vary in name from cities, to bodies of water and landmarks, to animals and First Nations tribes. I think we have not broken tradition, but rather our tradition is evolving by honouring important Canadian icons, regardless of whether they're a person or not.


----------



## Underway

:goodpost:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

While there may have been some traditional ways of naming ships int he RCN, some adopted or taken straight out of the British Admiralty books, there are no such things as Rules to be Followed for Ship's Naming. 

Normally, the Naval Board has a sub-committee which proposes the naming rule for a given class, and then comes up with recommendations for names. What galls me though, is that the more recent names chosen, including their grand standing political presentation by politicians, are exactly that: Politically interfered with or even handed down from the politicians for the purpose of scoring political points.

This by no way diminishes the value of the heroics of the individuals so honoured.

Take Mr. Hall for instance. Clearly the government has selected him for the purpose of appearing to be inclusive of minorities. Don't get me wrong: He has fully deserved his VC and his conduct is worth proclaiming. But can he be said to be a Canadian hero in any sense of the word? 

At the time of his birth, he was a British subject born in the Nova Scotia colony of England, not a self ruling or  "Canadian" land at all. If Canada existed at the time, it was either Lower Canada (now Quebec) and Upper canada (now Ontario), who where in the trows of their rebellion to get responsible government. They sort of got it a few years latter in 1841, through Union, which created "Canada" for the first time, but made up of the old Lower and Upper Canada only. Nova Scotia did not become "Canada" before 1867, which is well after the time Mr. Hall earned his VC. I submit he cannot be considered a Canadian in any sense of the term.

Moreover, He never served in Canada's Navy, which would not come into being before 1910 - or even in the "fisheries" department ships of the Dominion that preceded that, but with the Royal Navy. He is a British sailor, not Canadian.

Finally, his deed that obtained him the VC has nothing to do with Canada, not even indirectly by protecting Canada as a colony from external danger directed at it, but rather purely in a internal colonial matter of the British empire in putting down an internal revolt in one of its overseas territory. He may have been a hero of the British empire, but not of Canada, and I have no doubt that this is how it was presented and celebrated at the time in Nova Scotia.

Again, don't get me wrong, His own personal deeds were heroic and deserving of  recognition in and of themselves, but it is stretching it to call him a Canadian hero IMHO.

This said, if in 2015 creating the appearance of society inclusive of visible minorities is important to the Canadian government, then Mr. Hall is deserving of this honour. I am sure, however, that his descendants will agree that "Canadian" and British society of the mid 1800's was anything but inclusive and one might wonder at how inclusive we have been in the mean time since, apparently, a visible minority true Canadian naval hero could not be found between then and now.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While there may have been some traditional ways of naming ships int he RCN, some adopted or taken straight out of the British Admiralty books, there are no such things as Rules to be Followed for Ship's Naming.
> 
> Normally, the Naval Board has a sub-committee which proposes the naming rule for a given class, and then comes up with recommendations for names. What galls me though, is that the more recent names chosen, including their grand standing political presentation by politicians, are exactly that: Politically interfered with or even handed down from the politicians for the purpose of scoring political points.
> 
> This by no way diminishes the value of the heroics of the individuals so honoured.
> 
> Take Mr. Hall for instance. Clearly the government has selected him for the purpose of appearing to be inclusive of minorities. Don't get me wrong: He has fully deserved his VC and his conduct is worth proclaiming. But can he be said to be a Canadian hero in any sense of the word?
> 
> At the time of his birth, he was a British subject born in the Nova Scotia colony of England, not a self ruling or  "Canadian" land at all. If Canada existed at the time, it was either Lower Canada (now Quebec) and Upper canada (now Ontario), who where in the trows of their rebellion to get responsible government. They sort of got it a few years latter in 1841, through Union, which created "Canada" for the first time, but made up of the old Lower and Upper Canada only. Nova Scotia did not become "Canada" before 1867, which is well after the time Mr. Hall earned his VC. I submit he cannot be considered a Canadian in any sense of the term.
> 
> Moreover, He never served in Canada's Navy, which would not come into being before 1910 - or even in the "fisheries" department ships of the Dominion that preceded that, but with the Royal Navy. He is a British sailor, not Canadian.
> 
> Finally, his deed that obtained him the VC has nothing to do with Canada, not even indirectly by protecting Canada as a colony from external danger directed at it, but rather purely in a internal colonial matter of the British empire in putting down an internal revolt in one of its overseas territory. He may have been a hero of the British empire, but not of Canada, and I have no doubt that this is how it was presented and celebrated at the time in Nova Scotia.
> 
> Again, don't get me wrong, His own personal deeds were heroic and deserving of  recognition in and of themselves, but it is stretching it to call him a Canadian hero IMHO.
> 
> This said, if in 2015 creating the appearance of society inclusive of visible minorities is important to the Canadian government, then Mr. Hall is deserving of this honour. I am sure, however, that his descendants will agree that "Canadian" and British society of the mid 1800's was anything but inclusive and one might wonder at how inclusive we have been in the mean time since, apparently, a visible minority true Canadian naval hero could not be found between then and now.



He was a Canadian when he died and that's good enough for me. A interesting note that he also served in the US Navy for 2 years on the USS Ohio.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:

He arrived and departed this mortal coil a Nova Scotian.  We all were until the 1970's, British Subjects, for that matter.  So what of it?


----------



## Underway

We have so few national myths, Hall is one of them.  We've adopted him long before this naming.  The gun run used him as an example and told his legend while the sailors set up for their demonstration.  Next you're gonna try and tell us that Canadians didn't burn down the Whitehouse, and then go into a dissertation on the militia myth.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> He arrived and departed this mortal coil a Nova Scotian.  We all were until the 1970's, British Subjects, for that matter.  So what of it?



He was also a fellow C&PO. good enough for me.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:nod:  Agreed.


----------



## cupper

Underway said:
			
		

> Next you're gonna try and tell us that Canadians didn't burn down the Whitehouse



Even though I can smell the dripping sarcasm, in clarification, We didn't. British regular troops led by Gen. Robert Ross shipped from Spain after the victory in the Peninsular Campaign took an essentially deserted Washington after routing American troops at the Battle of Bladensburg.

However it still pisses the local off when you remind them of that fact. >


----------



## Underway

cupper said:
			
		

> We didn't. British regular troops led by Gen. Robert Ross shipped from Spain after the victory in the Peninsular Campaign took an essentially deserted Washington after routing American troops at the Battle of Bladensburg.



Lalalalalala can't hear you.  Ignore evidence...national myth.  Nothing to see here folks, move along....  ;D


----------



## cavalryman

cupper said:
			
		

> However it still pisses the local off when you remind them of that fact. >



Good enough for me  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> Lalalalalala can't hear you.  Ignore evidence...national myth.  Nothing to see here folks, move along....  ;D



At the risk of a tangent, another great Canadian victory with a strong role played by a British chap: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Byng,_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy  ;D :highjack:


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> At the risk of a tangent, another great Canadian victory with a strong role played by a British chap:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Byng,_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy  ;D :highjack:



Talking about his little _contretemps_ with the Prime Minister?


----------



## Kirkhill

Found a neat little graphic on the deWolfs created by the infomachine at this link:

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/aops-factsheet.pdf

Perhaps somebody can paste the actual image to the site.  It is beyond my ken.  Figured it out.


----------



## Underway

I have that printed out and on the office bulletin board.  6440 tonnes is heavier than other publications, but I suppose we won't fully know until the first ship is completed.

Its role is nicely summarized in the fact sheet.  Armed sea-borne surveillance, support to OGD's.  She's a mobile base not a proper warship.

It's said that the Inuit see no difference between the ice and the land.  It seems like the A/OPS is taking its cue from them with all that shore deployable gear.  Now we just need to get that 25mm on the MCDV's to replace the Bofors.....  I also heard that the other side of the ship will have a davit for a covered landing craft.  I also don't understand why the crew compliment is so large.  It shouldn't need more than 40 pers, same as an MCDV to operate.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> I have that printed out and on the office bulletin board.  6440 tonnes is heavier than other publications, but I suppose we won't fully know until the first ship is completed.
> 
> Its role is nicely summarized in the fact sheet.  Armed sea-borne surveillance, support to OGD's.  She's a mobile base not a proper warship.
> 
> It's said that the Inuit see no difference between the ice and the land.  It seems like the A/OPS is taking its cue from them with all that shore deployable gear.  Now we just need to get that 25mm on the MCDV's to replace the Bofors.....  I also heard that the other side of the ship will have a davit for a covered landing craft.  I also don't understand why the crew compliment is so large.  It shouldn't need more than 40 pers, same as an MCDV to operate.



The crewing mimics most larger warships with a EO, baby EO, log O and so forth. I believe 12 officers alone. The Engineering section is 22 pers, so quite a bit different than a MCDV.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker has it right. The extra personnel is mostly in the engineering side as the type of deployment expected from the AOPS means they have to be more self reliant when fixing problems is required than for an MCDV, which is supported by civilian contractors out of Halifax or Esquimalt dockyards for second and third tier engineering support.

For instance, considering their size and the environment they are getting into, I expect the AOPS to carry a certain number of hull techs, The MCDV's don't. Similarily, they have to provide their own logistical support at greater distances for a more complex vessel, so it is logical to carry a Log O and a few supply techs. Finally, in view of the longer duration of deployments than the ones you see in MCDV's and the "individual" deployment of the AOPS vice the MCDV's, I expect a few extra seaman and so forth in order to keep a reasonable harbour/at anchor watch keeping schedule, since you cannot spread them between a number of ships operating together.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The crewing mimics most larger warships with a EO, baby EO, log O and so forth. I believe 12 officers alone. The Engineering section is 22 pers, so quite a bit different than a MCDV.



Yes, as I understand the initial thought was for a P2 and LS HT.  This has now been revised to be more or less what is carried on a CPF if I have heard correctly.  While there is going to provisions for Irving to do the maintenance alongside as part of the package they will still need people to fix things while they're away from home port.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, as I understand the initial thought was for a P2 and LS HT.  This has now been revised to be more or less what is carried on a CPF if I have heard correctly.  While there is going to provisions for Irving to do the maintenance alongside as part of the package they will still need people to fix things while they're away from home port.



Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them. I would imagine though that the manning will be adjusted over time as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> _Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic_, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them.




And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N, not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N, not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...



True it was as I was the Chief Engineer. I was more concerned when the CO went into the ocean at 80 for the ice bucket challenge though :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I always thought they sent the wrong MCDV for that one. The honour obviously should have been kept for HMCS GLACE BAY  ;D.

Also, they were up in Kane Basin at the top of Baffin Bay, an area that now clears of ice at the end of the summer/beginning of fall up to somewhere between 81 and 82 degrees North. Still lots of dangerous things floating in the area, but not "in" ice. The AOPS will actually be going into the ice and staying up there longer than the MCDV's or FFH.

Nevertheless, SHAWINIGAN


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect the first few trips into the ice will be in the company of a CCG Ice Breaker


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect the first few trips into the ice will be in the company of a CCG Ice Breaker



Probably not wrong on that, also there might be a need for them in the Gulf of St. Laurence during sealing season.  Actually the Gulf up to Quebec city could be a good shakeout ice testing ground.  It's first year ice, and you're close to home with lots of help in case something goes wrong.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Considering what could go wrong in the Arctic, there is great need for the 6 hull techs that the AOPS has listed for their manning. I would imagine along with well equipped workshops on the the AOPS, there will be contractors possibly flying into Nanisivik eventually to work on the ship. I also want to point out the provision on the manning for a MET TECH, a senior steward, Chief Clerk and 3 cooks. From the manning some trades are going to be working bodies again, not supervisors much like a MCDV. The manning also doesn't take into account training bunks eiher or how many reserves that will be employed on them. I would imagine though that the manning will be adjusted over time as well.



Whats the CSE complement?  Same as MCDV with one WEng Tech or more robust?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, yet, it was an lightly (dare I say "inadequately?") crewed MCDV that made it to 80o28' N, not a larger warship. (In fairness, I believe the FFHs are even less "ice capable" than the MMs.) I can imagine that the Captain and the Chief Engineer had pretty tight sphincter muscles the whole way, imagining what could go wrong, but ...


Interestingly enough FFH's have an _Arctic Class_  that is type E vs MCDV's which are type D.  Arctic Class is a classification system that is primarily based on Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations and include Ice Strengthening requirements, special bunkering, upper deck fittings, fire mains, exhaust, propulsion, etc....  Type A would be thick first year ice and Type E would be no ice at all.
I've seen photos of MCDV's breaking through 2"-3" estuary ice on the West Coast in late fall.

Polar Class is based almost entirely on an ability to negotiate ice, and the classification system goes much higher than thick first year ice...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Long time since I read up on it, but ice classification is different for river and ocean as well. River icebreakers were traditionally built with longitudinal strength in mind and ocean for lateral strength to resist being crushed by ice movement.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Where on god's green earth was that??? I have never seen ice on the West Coast of Canada, not even on the coldest winter day. 

In any event  two to three inches of just formed ice is nothing and I would expect any ship to go through that, FFH included.

Now six to 8 inches in Bedford basin in Halifax, that used to prevent any of the DDH's or DDE's from being able to go to the ammo jetty, and if absolutely necessary, then they would call on the Gate Vessels to open the way (The GV's were rated for up to two feet of ice - the last armoured hulls in the Navy). 

I remember one week in February, circa 1988-89, we took the two GV out for a week and, on the last Friday evening, pulled into Shelburne for a one day visit. Temperature turned very cold, wind came in from the sea and on Saturday afternoon the whole bay was in six inches of ice and all the local fisherman, with their wooden boats, were trapped. In mid afternoon, we started our engines, and I guess the word spread around quickly because all the fishing crew came running down to their boats, and as we left, they all followed tucked in our wake, where we had basically cleared the ice. The buffer asked me if he should acquire some bright red paint for the hull.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Camsull got sliced in the Western Arctic. We do get the occasional ice on the Fraser and in small harbours where a layer of fresh water is on top of the salt. That thin layer of ice can be deadly to wooden recreational craft as it can saw through the hull in a night. We had a bright spark in a Avon Sea Rider attempt to break that type of ice....... : He spent a good chunk of the patrol repairing the tubes.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Where on god's green earth was that??? I have never seen ice on the West Coast of Canada, not even on the coldest winter day.



It was a trip up to Anchorage Alaska.  I'm not sure if it was Queen Charlottes or they were in Alaska by then as it was years ago, so perhaps not in Canada at all!  Essentially the fresh water from the river froze over top of the salt oceanic water.  Fresh water ice is also more brittle than sea ice so aside from a bit of a crunching noise it was no issue, even for ice getting into intakes.  It made for some beautiful pictures in a unique circumstance.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Probably not wrong on that, also there might be a need for them in the Gulf of St. Laurence during sealing season.  Actually the Gulf up to Quebec city could be a good shakeout ice testing ground.  It's first year ice, and you're close to home with lots of help in case something goes wrong.
> 
> Whats the CSE complement?  Same as MCDV with one WEng Tech or more robust?
> Interestingly enough FFH's have an _Arctic Class_  that is type E vs MCDV's which are type D.  Arctic Class is a classification system that is primarily based on Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations and include Ice Strengthening requirements, special bunkering, upper deck fittings, fire mains, exhaust, propulsion, etc....  Type A would be thick first year ice and Type E would be no ice at all.
> I've seen photos of MCDV's breaking through 2"-3" estuary ice on the West Coast in late fall.
> 
> Polar Class is based almost entirely on an ability to negotiate ice, and the classification system goes much higher than thick first year ice...




Five WENGS for AOPS.  I have broken some ice in a MCDV, however very unnerving knowing the ships capabilities. I would imagine the first deployment for AOPS will try and do a transit of the Passage much like HMCS Labrador did.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In the Western Arctic, fine. I don't consider that the West Coast of Canada even if Canadian ships deploying there come from the West Coast.

Similarly, icing in bays/estuaries in Alaska, starting about 60-70 NM North of Ketchikan, is frequent in winter. But I don't consider that the West Coast of Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Are they serious Chief? Five WEng for a single 25 mm main gun and two .50 cal's? Or are they expecting to carry torps at all times or add a CWIS on top of the hangar?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are they serious Chief? Five WEng for a single 25 mm main gun and two .50 cal's? Or are they expecting to carry torps at all times or add a CWIS on top of the hangar?



That's straight from the AOPS presentation I have. There are a lot of electronics on the ship and I would imagine quite a bit of first line maintenance will need to be done.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Is there that much more electronics than on the MCDV's? 

They have the same number and general class of radars as MCDV's, I suspect there may be some redundancies on the radios side, but still not that much more than what is found on the MCDV's. Probably about the same amount of navigation electronics. Perhaps a few more "ops" consoles and an electro-optical system of sorts, but that is about it. I could be wrong, but I get a feeling they will end up doing a lot more seamanship than practicing their trade.  :nod:


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Is there that much more electronics than on the MCDV's?
> 
> They have the same number and general class of radars as MCDV's, I suspect there may be some redundancies on the radios side, but still not that much more than what is found on the MCDV's. Probably about the same amount of navigation electronics. Perhaps a few more "ops" consoles and an electro-optical system of sorts, but that is about it. I could be wrong, but I get a feeling they will end up doing a lot more seamanship than practicing their trade.  :nod:



There is a lot and like you mentioned redundancies for the radios and so forth. There is lots more ops consoles in a proper ops room and also all the bridge equipment as well. I would imagine several of WENGS to look after the gun and most likely one of them will be the Mag Yeoman as well. You also must keep in mind that these numbers may change as time goes on.


----------



## Cronicbny

Taken in April 2009 in Tracy Arm, AK. The Sawyer Glacier is pictured, which, for the sake of interest originates in Canada. 

It was all first year ice - varying from slush at the start to 4-6" elsewhere.


----------



## Kirkhill

Any chance they could make like the Norwegians and split that crew of 65 into 3 divisions?  Only two divisions are on board at any one time.  The divisions rotate in and out for long patrols.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> Taken in April 2009 in Tracy Arm, AK. The Sawyer Glacier is pictured, which, for the sake of interest originates in Canada.
> 
> It was all first year ice - varying from slush at the start to 4-6" elsewhere.



And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch


----------



## Cronicbny

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.



Yes, I posted to agree with you, not to bring your statement into disrepute.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch



Great to see we have the CCG approval ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Should we start painting the hulls red?  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D

The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D
> 
> The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's



It does and we also have arctic cooling as well when operating in slush.


----------



## Spencer100

Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette.  

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero


----------



## FSTO

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette.
> 
> http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero



Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:
			
		

> Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.



I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.



Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?


----------



## Kirkhill

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JvchsfnmQ


----------



## dimsum

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?



Yes.   >


----------



## Spencer100

Sorry, I will never do that again.


----------



## Underway

So any guesses on whether they will bother naming a 6th ship only to cancel after the election, or wait until they figure there's enough money in the kitty to pay up for the 6th one.


----------



## ringo

IMHO 5 AOPS types will be enough leave money in the kitty for more important programs.


----------



## YZT580

With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.


----------



## Harrigan

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.



Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps wintering in Halifax but it is a long voyage from there to even Hudson's Bay.  You are going to need a northern port (perhaps Churchill?) to use as a summer base otherwise a third of your deployment will be taken up with transit.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I have actually said Churchill before many times in various circles. In the past, it has been utilized as a FLS for northern deployments. The infrastructure is there (though privately owned apparently by an American company) and I would suggest that in 10-15 years, Churchill itself may become an ice free port meaning a possible third major Naval Base. Actually for the time being, basing AOPS out of St John's vice Halifax makes far more sense (for the northern deployments). I suppose one must keep in mind that these vessels are also mandated as Offshore Patrol as well.

Pat


----------



## YZT580

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.
> 
> Harrigan



The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west


----------



## Harrigan

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west



I know it may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually not the easier quickest passage to the Beaufort Sea.  While it is marginally shorter than going from Halifax (Alaska is big), there are no places to get fuel north of Dutch Harbour in the Aleutians.  Using Nuuk, Thule (in Greenland) and Nanisivik when (if) it becomes active make operating across the Arctic far more feasible from the East than the West.

As for the commercial activity, they have been waiting decades for the Mackenzie Delta to be economically viable for extraction purposes and to justify building the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, but they are still waiting.....  Meanwhile, there are plenty of mines in Nunavut that are either operating now or opening up, and that is increasing commercial shipping traffic.  For the foreseeable future, the Eastern High Arctic is where the action is.

Harrigan


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.
> 
> Harrigan



CCG also bases a 1100 class in the Pacific as the Pacific region is responsible for the Western Arctic.


----------



## Stoker

YZT580 said:
			
		

> With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO



I would say AOPS will be extremely busy in the Arctic, there's lots of work for them to do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCG also bases a 1100 class in the Pacific as the Pacific region is responsible for the Western Arctic.



You mean the slush-breakers like the Martha L. Black? Same ice rating as the AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oh we broke more than slush on the Pearkes.  ;D

We used to have the Pearkes and the Black on the west Coast, till we got screwed with the worn out stuff they sent us.


----------



## ringo

5 AOPS will be enough, base them all on East coast, likely all that can be built with current budget anyway. 

Would prefer 6 C-17's and 5 AOPS rather than 6 AOPS and 5 C-17's.  

Would love to see Coast guard get three heavy icebreakers, build oilers overseas to save money.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dream Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! on:



> The Great Canadian National Shipbuilding Procurement Screw-Up (aka NSPS), Icebreaker Section, Part 2
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-national-shipbuilding-procurement-screw-up-aka-nsps-icebreaker-section-part-2/



From DFO on the CCGS Diefenbreaker, supposed now to be delivered 2021-22 (hah!), 
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2015-16/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html#s1.4

construction only to start after JSS are finished,
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/mark-collins-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-sticker-shock-and-never-never-land-media-scrutiny/

and named in 2008 and _ then supposed to be in service in 2017_! Swiftboating, eh?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/new-arctic-icebreaker-to-be-named-after-diefenbaker-1.772716

By the way the cost has already almost doubled from $720 million to $1.3 billion:
http://o.canada.com/news/coast-guards-new-icebreaker-to-cost-twice-as-much-as-originally-estimated

Bets on that new number?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace

Construction has started at Halifax Shipyard on first Arctic patrol ship

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Construction starts at Halifax Shipyard on first Arctic patrol ship
> 
> The Canadian Press
> Published Tuesday, September 1, 2015 6:27PM EDT
> Last Updated Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:55PM EDT
> 
> HALIFAX -- Irving Shipbuilding has started building Canada's first Arctic offshore patrol ship at the company's massive shipyard in Halifax.
> 
> Hundreds of employees gathered Tuesday in the new assembly hall as a huge sheet of cut steel was hoisted into place and a special ceremony was held to mark the occasion.
> 
> Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding, says welders, pipefitters, marine fabricators and ironworkers are involved in the project, which is on schedule.
> 
> "Today is a milestone we have all been anticipating," McCoy said in a statement. "It is a great day to be a shipbuilder in Nova Scotia as we mark the beginning of this generational opportunity."
> 
> The company says the ship will the first of up to 21 vessels that will renew Canada's fleet of warships over the next 30 years.
> 
> About 900 Irving employees are working on the project at two locations in the Halifax area, but that number is expected to jump to 1,600 over the next two years.
> 
> The federal government's $35-billion national shipbuilding strategy saw shipyards chosen to do the work in 2011.
> Last September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the first patrol vessel would be named after Vice-Admiral Harry DeWolf, a Nova Scotia native who was one of Canada's most distinguished sailors during the Second World War. DeWolf's lengthy naval career included command of HMCS St. Laurent and HMCS Haida from 1939 until 1944.
> 
> In January, federal officials formally announced that Irving Shipbuilding had been awarded a $2.3-billion build contract for a total six Arctic patrol vessels.
> 
> The first patrol ship is expected to be completed in 2018. McCoy has said the final patrol ship will be delivered in 2022.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding says employment at the company is expected to grow to 2,500 when peak production is reached with construction of the larger surface combatant vessels, which will replace Canada's current fleet of Halifax-class frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding, under the name Saint John Shipbuilding, was the lead contractor on the construction of the existing frigates in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.



Video and more on LINK.


----------



## Kirkhill

Neat simulations - and very good to see steel being cut. 

Further to George's post, here is the production schedule for the AOPS as presented in the Halifax Shipping News in January.






Link

Given that this is Sept 2015 and steel is being cut, as the plan projects - perhaps we can believe timeline.


----------



## Underway

Congrats, they are on time at the start of the schedule.  Now to see if it slips!

The unwritten part of that schedule is that the CSC is supposed to start in 2020, so if the 6th ship doesn't get built then they are going to have layoffs for a good portion of the workforce.  Not a big surprise, but something to consider.

Looking forward to 2018 when we can see these ships in the water!


----------



## MarkOttawa

It is curious that the timeline for the construction of the A/OPs shows very little reduction in the time to build each additional ship--learning curve?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well if they keep the timeframe looking the same and then finish early, they look good. Always overestimate the job by a bit and look good.


----------



## Lumber

How do we know that graphic wasn't produced and quietly released the day before steel was cut so it _looks_ like they are on schedule?


----------



## PuckChaser

Your tinfoil hat might be too tight there...


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> How do we know that graphic wasn't produced and quietly released the day before steel was cut so it _looks_ like they are on schedule?



 :facepalm:

Schedules are project management tools.  They are regularly reset to reflect reality, otherwise they become irrelevant and ineffective as planning aids.  They are future oriented documents.

Accountants, Politicians and Historians get hung up on them, like all other documents, when they go seeking ammunition.  By the time that they are paying attention: "it just doesn't matter".


----------



## Blake Castelein

I've been following this thread for quite some time and please forgive my ignorance, the closest thing to any sort of naval experience I have is being in the royal canadian sea cadets, but there's one 'issue' that perplexes about this ship. 

If the heaviest armament on this ship is a 25mm gun, how can it be expected to hold up for a ship it's size in a defence role and/or on multinational exercises? I'm sure against an armed drug trafficking vessel or pirate ship it could get the job done, but my concern is when it is paired up against a first world naval ship. 

I am aware that the CH-146 can and will provide extra firepower, but it will not be in the sky ready to respond to sudden threats 100% of the time as a standing missile defence system on the ship would. 

Once again I'm just some ignorant 17 year old and the only ships I have ever been around are the Orcas, so I'm sorry if I just wasted anybody's time.


----------



## Lumber

Blake Castelein said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread for quite some time and please forgive my ignorance, the closest thing to any sort of naval experience I have is being in the royal canadian sea cadets, but there's one 'issue' that perplexes about this ship.
> 
> If the heaviest armament on this ship is a 25mm gun, how can it be expected to hold up for a ship it's size in a defence role and/or on multinational exercises? I'm sure against an armed drug trafficking vessel or pirate ship it could get the job done, but my concern is when it is paired up against a first world naval ship.
> 
> I am aware that the CH-146 can and will provide extra firepower, but it will not be in the sky ready to respond to sudden threats 100% of the time as a standing missile defence system on the ship would.
> 
> Once again I'm just some ignorant 17 year old and the only ships I have ever been around are the Orcas, so I'm sorry if I just wasted anybody's time.



Short answer: it won't; it wasn't meant to.


----------



## Blake Castelein

Lumber said:
			
		

> Short answer: it won't; it wasn't meant to.



So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?


----------



## Kirkhill

Blake Castelein said:
			
		

> So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?



Short answer: Yep.

Blake, I was overly flippant.  The AOPS is intended to be a mobile outpost of the federal government in the Arctic.  It will be a service base, an observation post and an command and control centre, that will control access during the navigation season and stay on station longer than most of the civilian vessels in the area.  It has enough firepower to convince most vessels in the area to comply the wishes of the nice officers of the RCN and the RCMP that are also likely to be on board.  As Lumber says, it wasn't meant to be a major combat vessel going toe-to-toe with submarines and frigates.  It can also respond to disaster relief events and Search and Rescue events.

Hope that helps and it is good that you are taking an interest in this stuff.

Cheers.


----------



## Blake Castelein

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Short answer: Yep.
> 
> Blake, I was overly flippant.  The AOPS is intended to be a mobile outpost of the federal government in the Arctic.  It will be a service base, an observation post and an command and control centre, that will control access during the navigation season and stay on station longer than most of the civilian vessels in the area.  It has enough firepower to convince most vessels in the area to comply the wishes of the nice officers of the RCN and the RCMP that are also likely to be on board.  As Lumber says, it wasn't meant to be a major combat vessel going toe-to-toe with submarines and frigates.  It can also respond to disaster relief events and Search and Rescue events.
> 
> Hope that helps and it is good that you are taking an interest in this stuff.
> 
> Cheers.





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Short answer: Yep.



Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D  (no sarcasm intended) 

Edited to add additional response: (I typed my reply before it was added)

Okay, thank you, that does make much more sense to me. I feel more reassured about the relevance of the AOPS now for sure, that's what I was mainly worried about. I'll be sending in my application in a couple years so maybe I'll get to crew one of these ships and see my question answered first hand  ;D 

Cheers, Blake


----------



## Kirkhill

Blake Castelein said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D  (no sarcasm intended)



See above for the edit Blake.  And nice handling on the short answers.


----------



## Blake Castelein

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> See above for the edit Blake.  And nice handling on the short answers.



Fixed my reply above, and thanks ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Blake Castelein said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the short answers!  ;D  (no sarcasm intended)
> 
> Edited to add additional response: (I typed my reply before it was added)
> 
> Okay, thank you, that does make much more sense to me. I feel more reassured about the relevance of the AOPS now for sure, that's what I was mainly worried about. I'll be sending in my application in a couple years so maybe I'll get to crew one of these ships and see my question answered first hand  ;D
> 
> Cheers, Blake



Well, Blake, it will be a couple of years until they start to come into service.  You never know, your timing might just be right to get in as a plank owner (a member of the commissioning crew) of one of them.  Good luck.


----------



## Underway

Blake Castelein said:
			
		

> So is all the class can do is just break light ice and be a body up in the arctic to remind everyone we own it? And then if need be pick off little boats with the 25mm?



When you think of it the AOPS is a security guard.  Security guards check the fences, have a presence, get to know their area so they know when things are "off".  They check out noises and work with the "company" to ensure that the  business runs properly and no unauthorized people get in without having the papers checked.

If something bad actually happens then security might be able to escort compliant violators off the property, and can probably handle the odd upset employee or protester with little or no capability to fight back.

However if someone shows up with a gun or as an organized criminal enterprise security guards call the cops.  Because the cops are trained to deal with all sorts of stuff and have the capability, training, equipment and firepower to deal with everything.  

AOPS is the security guard.  The CF-18, subs and major surface combatants are the police.

Now you can add a bunch of capabilities to the AOPS to help forces ashore, do SAR, provide C&C, attached Air Dets the whole works but they are essentially a security guard at the end of the day.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.

Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.
> 
> Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.



Respectfully disagree.  Painting them Red and/or putting a Red Cross on them is an alternate strategy.  Lighting them up brightly with bands playing has also been used. None of them are a sure cure against being sunk.

It is all about managed risk.  The risk of running into an undetected enemy in our near shore waters is rated very low.  Low enough that unarmed civilians can operate there freely.  Before the ship's radar detects incoming air elements NORAD, and even NAVCan will likely have been tracking the target.

Far better to save the defensive bucks for vessels that are going into high threat areas.

Having said that: if somebody decides to send a brightly lit vessel, with bands playing and no defences into a high threat area - now that would be criminal.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.
> 
> Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.



So then what armament and defenses should they have against an _Akula III_?

[asked only half tongue in cheek]

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except it will be the security guard caught against real nasties with the Subs a week away, and CF-18 that might be able to get their within 5 hrs, likely carrying the wrong armament load (air to air missiles) and no bombs and only guns to engage with. that is if weather cooperates.
> 
> Building that size of ship and not adequately arming them is criminal.



I just spent a number of weeks at Gascoyne Inlet laying acoustic sensors across part of the Northwest passage for Northern watch. Once the system is in place, we'll have lots of warning to call in the big guys.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So then what armament and defenses should they have against an _Akula III_?
> 
> [asked only half tongue in cheek]
> 
> Cheers
> G2G



If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.



Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.



True.

Even the Halifax class would be hard pressed to find and deal with an Akula III by itself any way.  That's why you have SOSUS, MPA's and MH's etc...  Teamwork is key.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.



CPFs and CSCs can still operate in the high arctic. No one really has armed icebreakers, and certainly nothing that's going to be any more menacing than the DeWolfe-class. 

So, if anyone does send a surface ship that is well armed to challenge our sovereignty, then it will have to be in conditions that will allow us to send CPFs/CSCs in response. Ergo, you don't need to arm the Harries to the teeth.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)



Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.

Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:

"New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"

"New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"

"HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.



Actually Colin, I am sorry to say on this one you are wrong.

I wish people talking about Arctic sovereignty would take the time, first to look at the situation on a globe, not on flattened and distorted maps.

ABOVE  (considering the North Pole to be "Up") the northernmost Canadian piece of land, on one side, and the European/Asian northernmost piece of land is a huge expanse of water called the Arctic ocean. It is three times the size of the Mediterranean sea. That Arctic ocean is international water, like any other ocean, as of now. 

In practice, with very few exceptions, no one goes there other than Canadian, American and Russian ice breakers doing mostly research and show the flag because it is iced over permanently, except near the edges. As a result, the various Nations surrounding the Arctic ocean (and there is a very limited number of them) are proposing that each one of them exercise sovereignty over activities going on on the ice in their "sector", the boundaries of which are being negotiated between them, but which would all meet at the North pole. This is a huge departure from the Law of the Sea ("LOS") and it is far from clear that the other seafaring nations of the world would recognize such claim on the exercise of sovereign powers (I know for sure the Chinese will never agree to this). There is also a process in place and currently being followed by all interested parties for the determination of the extent of each bordering nation's contiguous continental shelf as such shelf's sea based resources belong to the nation whose shelf is contiguous.

As for Canadian sovereignty on our land territory up there, Colin, with the exception of the little fracas with Denmark over Hans Island, NOBODY is contesting our sovereignty or our land borders. This means that they also recognize our twelve nautical miles territorial sea and our 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone. The exact angle and shape of these territorial waters and economic zone, at their ends where we meet with American claims and Danish ones are not set but subject of ongoing discussions. 

Now, the closest point between Russia's and Canada's land masses are 1200 Km apart, and permanently ice covered. So the Russian hordes are not about to come across the Arctic, at five Km/h on ten to fifteen big, hard to maneuver icebreakers each carrying a single platoon of soldiers. Our CF-18 would dispose of the lot in a few minutes, with days if not weeks to prepare the assault and deploy to execute it.

As for "heavily armed" vessels getting on our Canadian side of the ocean, as Lumber pointed out, there are no icebreakers so armed in the world so it would have to be regular surface warships coming in either from the Bering straight in the West or the Labrador sea in the East. If they can go (because there is no ice) then so can we with our own heavily armed warships. Moreover, we, and nobody else, have military capable airfields up there so we can mount attacks on other nation's "heavies".

You may have noticed that I did not talk about sovereignty of waters between the Islands of the Canadian archipelago yet. That is the real crux of the matter, actually, and is subject to a dispute between us and the "major" ally you did not name: the Americans. 

A quick lesson in LOS for all here: there are four "type" of waters defined under international LOS:

1- International waters: everything not otherwise internal or territorial. Basically, all seas and oceans when more than 12 nautical miles from land. In these waters, there are no national claims to the application of one's laws to someone else (we'll see the EEZ exception later), and ships are free to use these waters as they see fit and of putting themselves under the protection of whichever country they want that will accept them.

2- Territorial waters: waters contiguous to a country, extending from the limits of the nation's internal waters (usually the low tide mark) to twelve miles out. In these waters, the contiguous state can impose its laws on all ships found within these waters, with the exception that, in peace time, it cannot deny the right to innocent passage to  merchant ship's of another nation but may make it conditional on requesting permission to transit through, and can only close these waters to them under special circumstances, However, warships of another nation cannot enter these waters at all without the permission of the nation whose waters these are.

3- Internal waters: Thes are the waters found between the low and high water mark of the shore, the harbours, ports, bays and other similar enclosed waters of a country. The country whose waters these are can do as it pleases with them, even denying access to them to anyone on whim. Obviously that states laws apply in these waters without any restrictions. Where bays are concerned, there is a formula whereby basically, a bay that is "deeper" than it is "wide" at its entrance can be enclosed by drawing a straight line at the mouth and all waters inside it  are internal, and the 12 Nm territorial sea extends from those straight lines.

4- Of course, without changing the designation of Territorial or international waters, a nation can claim in the seas contiguous to its coasts an Exclusive economic zone up to 200 Nautical miles out from its internal waters. This only gives them the power to regulate economic activities in that zone.

There is also an animal called "international straight" which is a narrow passage which may be bordered on each side by different countries or by the same country and may be comprised of international or territorial sea, and which links two bodies of international waters or of different nation's territorial seas (think Juan de Fuca straight for instance). The difference between an International Straight and ordinary territorial waters of a country is that even though these are "territorial" by definition, there are no circumstances under which the right of innocent passage can be denied and this right of innocent passage includes innocent passage (all weapons in "harbour" position and unloaded/submarines surfaced only) by any nation's warships and this right entails that no permission to transit can be required.

And this is where we (and the Russians as regards their own "North-East" passage BTW) are at odds with the Americans.

The USA recognizes our claim to the lands we claim as our own up in the Arctic; they recognize our claim to our "12 NM" territorial sea up there and the attendant 200 NM EEZ, but not from where we calculate it. What they don't recognize is the fact that we have elected, unilaterally and without supporting LOS or international recognition of such method, to draw "straight lines" (like the ones used in LOS for bays and fiords, as described above) not at the entrance of bays but at the entrance of every straight or passage found between the islands and calling all enclosed waters therein "internal" under LOS, in effect making like the whole archipelago is a single land mass belonging to Canada, and calculating our 12 and 200 NM zones accordingly.

The USA is quite willing to recognize 12 nm territorial seas around every island we have up here and 200 nm around these same islands for EEZ (which in effect is just about the same as under our claim since there are no points where the islands are more than 400 nm away from one another), but not our straight lines making larger internal waters than anywhere else in the world. Moreover, because they see the North-West passage (and the "Russian" North-East passage too) as International Straight as it links two international bodies of water: the Beaufort sea and the Labrador sea). Thus they claim aright to innocent passage without permission, even for their warships.

Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS? Or are we going to resolve it between us, knowing that nobody else is really interested in the security of these waters. After all, even for their own security, the American don't want to see everybody and their dog's warships up there, so will certainly be amenable to finding a solution that accommodate everyone.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.



Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.


----------



## Stoker

Lumber said:
			
		

> Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.
> 
> Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:
> 
> "New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"
> 
> "New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"
> 
> "HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"



The drawings that I saw of the gun has an enclosed cupola.


----------



## chrisf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.



Almost all the bouy tenders are/were ice breakers, the Camsell was part of an evolution of designs that lead to the 1100 boats built in the 80s.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS?



This is not entirely true.  Many countries go by the straight baseline theory.  North Korea, Lybia, Russia, Japan etc...  Basically if you have a large bay type area then you usually cleave to the straight baselines (like Hudson Bay).  The main claim to Canada's Arctic is based upon the archipelago concept that in the LotS if you are an archipelagic nation (Phillipines) you can draw straight baselines around your outer islands and call the inside territorial waters.  Canada though a continental country is claiming this same rule applies to us.

There are plenty of things in the baseline rules that are arguable and not clear, hence the interpretation of straight baselines.  The only reason that the US doesn't respect straight baselines is that they don't have any reason where that would be an advantage to them and their waters.

Canada has plenty of evidence and support from many other countries that our interpretation is correct.  It's hardly unilateral or illegal.  It hasn't been tested in any type of court either.  There's a reason that RCN ships who were in the Med during the Regan years didn't go into the Gulf of Sirte claimed by Lybia, while the US just sailed right up to the 12 mile limit.  It's all about straight baselines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.



The Pearkes is considered Arctic class 2, it not bad considering what others ships are, the Russians I think are the only ones with a Arctic class 6 or higher.

 https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13670-tables-2154.htm

Do you think the Chinese will return? _Xuě Lóng unexpectedly arrived in 1999 at the small Canadian coastal village of Tuktoyaktuk, on the Arctic Ocean.[16][17][18]

The inability of the Canadian authorities to track the vessel stirred enough controversy that the incident is still being cited as evidence of Canadian unpreparedness to defend its northern sovereignty_ (wiki)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> This is not entirely true.  Many countries go by the straight baseline theory.  North Korea, Lybia, Russia, Japan etc...  Basically if you have a large bay type area then you usually cleave to the straight baselines (like Hudson Bay).  The main claim to Canada's Arctic is based upon the archipelago concept that in the LotS if you are an archipelagic nation (Phillipines) you can draw straight baselines around your outer islands and call the inside territorial waters.  Canada though a continental country is claiming this same rule applies to us.
> 
> There are plenty of things in the baseline rules that are arguable and not clear, hence the interpretation of straight baselines.  The only reason that the US doesn't respect straight baselines is that they don't have any reason where that would be an advantage to them and their waters.
> 
> Canada has plenty of evidence and support from many other countries that our interpretation is correct.  It's hardly unilateral or illegal.  It hasn't been tested in any type of court either.  There's a reason that RCN ships who were in the Med during the Regan years didn't go into the Gulf of Sirte claimed by Lybia, while the US just sailed right up to the 12 mile limit.  It's all about straight baselines.



Underway:

Re-read my post carefully.

You will see that I do talk about baselines as a method, and I am not claiming that Canada is the only one using the method as it exists (we have many bays where we do).

You may note that under the current system, the use of baseline at the entrances of bays and fiords (not archipelagoes - not included in international LOS) creates areas of internal waters for a nation, not territorial sea, which is then calculated from the baseline out to sea.

Now, I did not want to go into this detail in my post because that was not Canada's claim for the Arctic archipelago (though it is for the Philippines), but there is in the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) a further defined "type" of waters area: The Archipelagic waters.

The Archipelagic waters apply to (and only to) states that are entirely composed of one or more archipelago (hence the Philippines). Those countries are allowed, after using the straight baselines to define their internal waters (bays, harbours, etc. like everybody else), to create a second set of baselines joining their main islands (there is a whole set of definitions) enclosing their archipelago. Those "Archipelagic Waters" then become territorial waters with exceptions to the rules pertaining thereto (i.e the country cannot deny the right to peaceful passage if they constitute an international straight otherwise), from which the "actual;" territorial waters can then be measured out to sea for 12NM and 200 NM EEZ).

So Canada is not covered by this rule (we are not "entirely" comprised of an Archipelago - we only happen to have one on one side of the country). On top of that, Canada's claim in the Arctic is that we can use these straight lines like the ones for harbours and bays and create internal waters - not territorial (the basic argument being that, since they are ice covered most of the year, and at that point used like land by the natives, they are "land" territory of Canada and thus, when melted, internal waters of Canada). In that regard, we are the only ones making such claim in the world.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Pearkes is considered Arctic class 2, it not bad considering what others ships are, the Russians I think are the only ones with a Arctic class 6 or higher.
> 
> https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13670-tables-2154.htm
> 
> Do you think the Chinese will return? _Xuě Lóng unexpectedly arrived in 1999 at the small Canadian coastal village of Tuktoyaktuk, on the Arctic Ocean.[16][17][18]
> 
> The inability of the Canadian authorities to track the vessel stirred enough controversy that the incident is still being cited as evidence of Canadian unpreparedness to defend its northern sovereignty_ (wiki)



Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.

On the other hand, I am pretty confident that the Chinese will be back in the Arctic. They are building icebreakers for research right now. And BTW, the nature of oceanic surveillance is such that a ship could arrive unexpectedly in San Fransisco, or Halifax, even Quebec City today or the day after. These things are not  perfect. That Chinese ship in Tuk had to go through the Bering straight and through the Beaufort sea under the nose of the Americans too.

In view of the potential natural resources up in the Arctic ocean and under it, the Chinese cannot afford to admit other nations' claims of sovereignty over the actual Arctic ocean and deprive themselves of potential exploitation (particularly fishing) if these waters become navigable. So I have no doubt they will be back up there again. 

That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.



AFAIK - the AOPS is being built to IMO Polar Class 5 standards with a Polar Class 4 bow resulting in a PC5+ standard with the concept of operations being that she will operate in "navigable" waters as opposed to creating navigable waters.

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/Events/Soule_AOPS_CFPS_Sep11.pdf
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Sangster%20-%20AOPS.pdf

I don't get the sense that she will be creating channels through the ice.  Rather she is to follow the edge of the ice, staying in navigable waters but pushing into the slob as far as her hull will let her.  The idea seems to be that she will stay on station longer and closer than civilian (or even naval) vessels and control access to the ice.

Cutting channels and rescuing stuck ships, including stuck AOPS vessels seems to be reserved for the Coast Guard.  Every packet needs a wrecker.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.
> 
> On the other hand, I am pretty confident that the Chinese will be back in the Arctic. They are building icebreakers for research right now. And BTW, the nature of oceanic surveillance is such that a ship could arrive unexpectedly in San Fransisco, or Halifax, even Quebec City today or the day after. These things are not  perfect. That Chinese ship in Tuk had to go through the Bering straight and through the Beaufort sea under the nose of the Americans too.
> 
> In view of the potential natural resources up in the Arctic ocean and under it, the Chinese cannot afford to admit other nations' claims of sovereignty over the actual Arctic ocean and deprive themselves of potential exploitation (particularly fishing) if these waters become navigable. So I have no doubt they will be back up there again.
> 
> That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).



According to the presentation I saw in the formation about AOPS, its Polar Class 5, able to operate in first year ice up 1 meter at 3kts. We just got back working with DRDC on the Northern watch program. We were laying acoustic arrays across the Northwest Passage, this will eventually be part of a entire network of surveillance equipment in the North.


----------



## Good2Golf

So AOPS PC5/4/5+/etc..., Dief PC2, CPF PC(nil), MCDV PC7(6?) -- will CSC have any rating, or can it be opened up like a tuna can like the CPFs?

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

According to the above - the CSC is supposed to have the same Arctic capabilities as the current FF/DDs (5kts in brash ice + accretion limits).

Slide 29 (Platform)


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

According to page 4 of the above the Absalon and Huitfeldts are built to DNV (Det Norske Veritas) Ice Class C

https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/rulesship/2005-07/ts501.pdf

See Section 2

Basically a strengthened bow with plates up to 25 mm thick to permit service in waters with light ice concentrations.

The other ships of the Danish navy are the Thetis class frigates and the Rasmussen class OPVs.

Thetis are good to 80 cm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/thetis/

Rasmussens are good to 40 cm with 70 cm inclusions

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/knud-rasmussen-class/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Icebreakers are also classed by ocean vs river, a ocean version needs a allround strong hull to avoid being crushed in the ice when trapped, a river class has most of it's strength in a longitudinal plane.

the US also does not agree with our baseline definition on the west coast between Cape St James and Cape Scott.

Detection is good and important, but very typical will be a Canadian approach that we can detect, but not do much about it. "Canada, fitted for, but not with sovereignty"  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Icebreakers are also classed by ocean vs river, a ocean version needs a allround strong hull to avoid being crushed in the ice when trapped, a river class has most of it's strength in a longitudinal plane.
> 
> the US also does not agree with our baseline definition on the west coast between Cape St James and Cape Scott.
> 
> Detection is good and important, but very typical will be a Canadian approach that we can detect, but not do much about it. "Canada, fitted for, but not with sovereignty"  8)



As I keep reminding you, Colin, enforcement up there is (or ought to be) with CF-18s with white ones under the wings. I mean, other than debarked infantry, why would you want to fight with things that go only 5 Km/h? If someone wants to send "turtles" up there, why should I fight them with my own turtle when I have access to a Chimpanzee (no offence meant Supersonicmax and Co.  ;D) carrying a hammer?


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).



There is also the fact that NORAD is integrated into continental maritime defence now as well (since 9/11).  All ships are supposed to report their approach to NA waters at least 24 hrs in advance if not longer (I can't recall, long time since I was at Trinity).  "Honest" sailors and those who want to appear to be honest will report.  Naval Intel is supposed to give good info on who's who in the zoo and most ships are equipped with tech that ID's them to our tracking system by international maritime law (like aircraft).

This doesn't stop a foreign power who wants to stay off the grid, but it does do a lot for tracking of civilian traffic.  This helps sort through the clutter and narrow down on those not reporting so we can take a look at them.  If someone just shows up in the Arctic without telling us they better have a good explanation as the US will be looking over our shoulder at them as well.  Combined with acoustic sensors, and radar stations at critical points of the NWP I'm pretty confident that we will know for the most part who's on the water.  What they are doing will be up to AOPS taking a look see along with the RCAF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

because I don't believe the 'chimpanzee" (sorry max) will be allowed to drop anything (well maybe a strongly worded letter). At the end of the day we are going to need more presence up there and my belief is to make that presence very robust, because I suspect it will be a whole bunch of bluffing and gunboat diplomacy. When you opponent knows you can back up the tough talk with action, very likely they will back off in such a confrontation. A robust ship backed up by our RCAF is the best option.


----------



## Good2Golf

So we mod AOPS with VLS?  Paint Dief grey and arm Her?

If you're not going to let Max and Co. use weapons, why would, as OGBD queried, slow grey turtles be sent in harm's way? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar

I don't have all the or for that matter any of the answers, but, personally I would feel better if the AOPS had more than a pop gun for main armament.


----------



## Good2Golf

Marinized GAU-8! :nod:

If it works for the Dutch, Chileans and Peruvians...


----------



## dapaterson

Sharks. With frickin laser beams.


----------



## Kirkhill

All this talk of 5 km/h naval engagements - 

Three thoughts

Canadian Police Chase

On the Ice

Corvette disabled by Carl Gustav


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So we mod AOPS with VLS?  Paint Dief grey and arm Her?
> 
> If you're not going to let Max and Co. use weapons, why would, as OGBD queried, slow grey turtles be sent in harm's way? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I suspect that a ship patrolling in our waters confronting another ship will be more palatable than sending a fighter to threaten bombing one to our politicians. Plus if your opponent does not leave immediately and it becomes a "battle of will", what is the loiter time of a CF-18 up there, can we establish a continuous coverage with CF-18 over a particular area for 48hrs or more? 

It could be a variation of this (Codwar)


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect that a ship patrolling in our waters confronting another ship will be more palatable than sending a fighter to threaten bombing one to our politicians. Plus if your opponent does not leave immediately and it becomes a "battle of will", what is the loiter time of a CF-18 up there, can we establish a continuous coverage with CF-18 over a particular area for 48hrs or more?
> 
> It could be a variation of this (Codwar)



I'm quite sure if it comes to ramming AOPS will be better than most other ships out there.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> *Ship named after 100-year-old Sask war hero*
> 
> Saskatchewan nurse Margaret Brooke was aboard the SS Caribou when it was torpedoed off the coast of Newfoundland on Oct. 13, 1942.
> 
> Brooke’s heroic actions in the aftermath of the ship’s sinking earned her the Order of the British Empire, making her the only Canadian nurse to receive such an honour during the Second World War.
> 
> Now Brooke, who turned 100 years old Saturday, is being honoured again. The federal government announced a Canadian Arctic patrol ship will bear her name. Construction of the HMCS Margaret Brooke is set to begin in the fall.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy will employ the patrol ship to conduct sovereignty and surveillance operations in Canadian waters on all three coasts, including in the Arctic, according to a federal government news release ...


R.I.P. Lt-Cdr (ret'd) Brooke -  


> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, issued the following statement on the passing of naval hero Lieutenant Commander (ret’d) Margaret Brooke, MBE, PhD:
> 
> “On behalf of the entire Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Armed Forces, my deepest condolences are extended to the family and friends of Lieutenant-Commander (ret’d) Margaret Brooke, who passed away peacefully on January 9, 2016, at the age of 100, surrounded by loved ones in Victoria, British Columbia.
> 
> “LCdr Brooke was a true Canadian naval hero. A Royal Canadian Navy Nursing Sister during the Second World War, then-Sub-Lieutenant Brooke was named a Member (Military Division) of the Order of the British Empire for her valiant actions following the torpedoing and subsequent sinking of the ferry SS Caribou on October 14, 1942, in the Cabot Strait off Newfoundland. Fighting for her own survival, she attempted to save the life of her colleague and friend, Nursing Sister Sub-Lieutenant Agnes Wilkie, by holding on to her with one arm, while clinging to ropes on a capsized lifeboat. Despite LCdr Brooke’s heroic efforts, her friend succumbed to the frigid water. LCdr Brooke continued to serve in the RCN until her retirement in 1962, at which point she went on to a successful civilian career in academia, achieving her PhD in paleontology.
> 
> “The Royal Canadian Navy was extremely pleased to acknowledge Margaret Brooke’s great legacy with the announcement in April 2015 that one of the upcoming Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships would be named Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Margaret Brooke in her honour. Members of the RCN had the great fortune to visit LCdr Brooke and her family at the time of the announcement, which was also on the occasion of her 100th birthday. It was a wonderful opportunity to thank LCdr Brooke for her 20 years of military service to Canada, and for her heroism so many years ago.”


More from the Minister of Defence:


> The Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, issued the following statement on the passing of naval hero Lieutenant Commander (ret’d) Margaret Brooke, MBE, PhD:
> 
> “The Government of Canada wishes to extend its sincere condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant-Commander (ret’d) Margaret Brooke, a true Canadian hero who passed away peacefully on January 9, 2016, at the age of 100, surrounded by loved ones in Victoria, British Columbia.
> 
> “The story of Margaret Brooke is one of courage and self-sacrifice. As a young Nursing Sister in the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) during the Second World War, then-Sub-Lieutenant Brooke was on the ferry SS Caribou on October 14, 1942 when it was attacked by German submarine U-69. The ferry sank in just five minutes. LCdr Brooke fought valiantly to save her friend and colleague, Nursing Sister Sub-Lieutenant Agnes Wilkie, by holding on to her while clinging to ropes on a capsized lifeboat. Tragically, Agnes Wilkie succumbed to the frigid water. LCdr Brooke was named a Member (Military Divison) of the Order of the British Empire for her heroism and remained an officer in the RCN for 20 years, retiring in 1962 and going on to a successful civilian career in academia.
> 
> “In April of 2015, the Government of Canada announced that the courage of Margaret Brooke was to be marked in a very significant way – one of Canada’s upcoming Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships would be named Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Margaret Brooke in her honour. This was a unique opportunity to name a naval vessel after a living Canadian woman for the first time ever, and members of the RCN had the privilege of visiting her on the occasion of her 100th birthday to commemorate the news, and to thank LCdr Brooke in person for her inspirational service to Canada.”


----------



## Underway




----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOP's might be busy http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/china-reveals-plans-to-ship-cargo-across-canada%E2%80%99s-northwest-passage/ar-BBs1JqU?li=AAggv0m&ocid=U206DHP


----------



## Kirkhill

Time to resurrect the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline - FROM Hardisty TO Inuvik.  Have the Chinese pick it up FOB Inuvik.


----------



## Underway

CDAI take on AOPS.  The first actual defence of the project I've seen.

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/on_track/On_Track_-_Summer_2015_-_Choi.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting article, personally would like to see a more robust weapons and self defense suite. However given the success that we have had with the MCDV fleet, I see this as an evolutionary step forward of that concept. What we do need is the willingness to modify and update the capabilities of the AOPS as they serve and not wait till things become dire. Another option not mentioned in the article is that semi-submersible AUV’s for ASW work may be an option where the AUV can hunt for the sub and transmit the data back to the ship, which can remain silent with minimal electronic broadcasts.


----------



## Underway

What's the decision making process for arming a ship in Canada.  Pretty much what the article says.  What is the threat environment the ship is supposed to work in?  What's the ships role?  What are the likely combat scenarios?  In this case the AOPs a 25mm is sufficient for what it needs to do.  And is cost effective.  It's not like the ship is being deployed in first echelon combat scenarios. Its also extremely unlikely that one would occur where it is supposed to deploy.  Should that happen it would withdraw and/or call for backup like the MCDV's would.  It's the security guard/bouncer, not the police or SWAT.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem is that the world rarely plays to your guesstimates. The old adage is "walk softy and carry a big stick" This is more "bang a drum and wave your little stick"


----------



## Stoker

AOPS is not a purpose built warship but built more along the lines the Kingston Class was. The 25MM in my opinion is plenty for what its purpose is and that is in a constabulary role. If a robust design with a big gun and missiles is required then call in a warship that is designed to go into harms way, the AOPS is not that. Perhaps a possible solution was a design that could be fitted quickly with a modular gun and defense/offensive systems buts that's not what the government wanted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because we have never taken existing equipment and employed it in ways never intended.  :nod:

In fact the above is about the only thing you can count on. I am glad it's armed, even lightly and was the same about MCDV's getting the 40mm, it was a change of mindset for the small naval vessels that was long overdue. In fact I am of the opinion that all naval vessel including the Orcas should have some armament and carry small arms. Yes it can be a pain, but it is a naval vessel and you will never know when you might be called on to conduct some form of action. Plus it's a bit of "train how you will fight". If things go down the tube, it's very likely going to be an AOP's that you will be bringing.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> AOPS is not a purpose built warship but built more along the lines the Kingston Class was. The 25MM in my opinion is plenty for what its purpose is and that is in a constabulary role. If a robust design with a big gun and missiles is required then call in a warship that is designed to go into harms way, the AOPS is not that. Perhaps a possible solution was a design that could be fitted quickly with a modular gun and defense/offensive systems buts that's not what the government wanted.



I accept this, although originally I did not think the ship would provide much value due to a lack of extensive and sophisticated surveillance equipment (both active and passive, surface and subsurface and air search). However, since the EW/ELINT and Surveillance equipment fit will remain marginal at best, this is not a high value asset requiring much in the way of defence and so low expectations are just that. (expendable....).

I suppose, with enough forewarning or in a period of escalated tensions, there may be some lightweight, compact LOS add-on missile/missile defence/gun systems that can be used for one engagement since reload would likely not be possible (for several reasons). Some of the Elbit/Israeli self defence systems for example might be adaptable to the ship ...

On the other hand, this will be a fun ship to sail on and for a young OD, a great way to start off a career in the RCN. The crew will be privileged to witness and experience the arctic in a manner that the rest of the world can only imagine. It would be great experience for NAV officers, hull techs and engineers, bosun's and basically any trade except combat systems.


----------



## NavyShooter

I've seen the manning 'ideas' for it, Combat Systems are very limited, as is the CSE Manning.  I think 4-5 W Eng.  (Still up in the air though.)

A couple of points on 'bolt-on' gear.

1.  Looking at the physical space, if you landed one of the shipping containers from the Stbd Aft corner, you could possibly fit in a 4 cell Harpoon launcher down there, between the crane and the ladder leading up to the flight deck.  Possibly a second one on the Port side, or heck, you could setup an ISO pad with a quad pack of Harpoons for each side, might have to  raise them up a bit, but you'd end up with a serious ASM capability.

Ruskies have something similar already, but I'm thinking Harpoon since it's already in the system.  We might even have the old Harpoon systems hanging around from pre-HCM, so sitting on a half-dozen of them would give you an ability to give an ASM capability to the AOPS. 







2.  AA Capability

SeaRam or CIWS are the first ideas that comes to mind, but that's a big pile of weight going up high, on a structure not designed to carry an extra 6200 Kg.  So I think they're out.

I think a more realistic idea would be to get an Avenger turret installed, combined .50 Browning MG with 4 Stinger AA Missiles.  Weight looks like about 3000 pounds (1.5 tons) when pulled off the Humvee chassis.  It is gyro stabilized, and according to open-source data, has a range of up to 8 km.

This would be able to fit on top of the rear deckhouse (Flyco?) That said, it's a manned system, so you'd have to look at the RADHAZ implications of sending someone up there, not to mention the weatherizing of it for Arctic conditions.


Possibilities exist to 'up-gun' the AOPS.  

Are they ever likely to be needed, or exercised?  Nope.  Then again, we did this to an IRE:


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I accept this, although originally I did not think the ship would provide much value due to a lack of extensive and sophisticated surveillance equipment (both active and passive, surface and subsurface and air search). However, since the EW/ELINT and Surveillance equipment fit will remain marginal at best, this is not a high value asset requiring much in the way of defence and so low expectations are just that. (expendable....).
> 
> I suppose, with enough forewarning or in a period of escalated tensions, there may be some lightweight, compact LOS add-on missile/missile defence/gun systems that can be used for one engagement since reload would likely not be possible (for several reasons). Some of the Elbit/Israeli self defence systems for example might be adaptable to the ship ...
> 
> On the other hand, this will be a fun ship to sail on and for a young OD, a great way to start off a career in the RCN. The crew will be privileged to witness and experience the arctic in a manner that the rest of the world can only imagine. It would be great experience for NAV officers, hull techs and engineers, bosun's and basically any trade except combat systems.



It doesn't have the capability to have active sonar however it will have the capability to see what other assets are seeing.  Most likely will be able to see the data that Northern watch will eventually be collecting.. I agree it will be fun ship to sail on, I've been to the Arctic six times now and experience new things every time I go.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> AOPS is not a purpose built warship but built more along the lines the Kingston Class was. The 25MM in my opinion is plenty for what its purpose is and that is in a constabulary role. If a robust design with a big gun and missiles is required then call in a warship that is designed to go into harms way, the AOPS is not that. Perhaps a possible solution was a design that could be fitted quickly with a modular gun and defense/offensive systems buts that's not what the government wanted.




If it is a ship for a, primarily, constabulary role and not at all well suited for a "warship that is designed to go into harms way," then should it not be manned by constabulary people?









I know the RCMP Marine Division of old ... 

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... equipped with "hand me down" warships, was sold off and its duties reassigned, but maybe, if the Arctic waters will become navigable, we want it back.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, ERC, the AOPS are set so they can (and on most missions probably will) carry some personnel from other departments. So they could easily embark a couple of RCMP officers, just as is done with the mid-shore patrol vessels of the Coast Guard during the summer.

This constabulary work of the Navy is what is new for us here in Canada. But it is done by many countries around the world, including the UK (the River class patrol vessels) where they do fisheries patrol, and France, where all government ships of various department involved in coast defence are specially identified. The French call this coordinated approach "action de l'état en mer" (state action at sea). The advantage of using the Navy to operate such ships is that it provides, with the smaller ships so employed, junior commands/postings to develop and train more military personnel should there be a call for rapid expansion of the naval fleet. (a PO1 can garner good experience as CERA of a simpler vessel before moving into a similar position upon promotion onboard a frigate/destroyer - a young Lcdr can assume command and learn a great deal form her actual commanding, in preparation for going into an XO, then CO position on board a frigate, etc. for all trades and jobs)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is one of the sort of AUV I see being used off of the AOPs to investigate submerged targets  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/06/boatymcboatface-to-live-on-as-yellow-submarine-science-minister/


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> CDAI take on AOPS.  The first actual defence of the project I've seen.
> 
> http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/on_track/On_Track_-_Summer_2015_-_Choi.pdf



Ok, I agree with a lot of what he is saying, except for this one line:



> "The difference between a ship with a 25mm gun and one with a 76mm at close ranges is not so great as to induce the former to have no choice but to surrender without a fight."



I'm sorry, but, no. Even at close range, I am not going up against 76mm HE rounds with only a 25mm Bushmaster, thank you very much. I'll try, if I have to, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes 76mm, and all, but it's not going to be pretty.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but, no. Even at close range, I am not going up against 76mm HE rounds with only a 25mm Bushmaster, thank you very much. I'll try, if I have to, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes 76mm, and all, but it's not going to be pretty.



I don't believe he is referring to a 76mm vs a 25mm gunfight.  He's referring to the 25mm or 76mm ship dealing with non-compliant vessels. I didn't have a lot of respect for a 25mm myself until I did 8 months in the sandbox.  Eye opening.  And navalized weapons _generally_ have better rates of fire than their army counterparts due to better ammo feeds, power supply and cooling systems.  A rapid fire 25mm will rip open pretty much anything you want at 2.5 nm or less.  And its very accurate allowing you to pick what you want to hit out further.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, ERC, the AOPS are set so they can (and on most missions probably will) carry some personnel from other departments. So they could easily embark a couple of RCMP officers, just as is done with the mid-shore patrol vessels of the Coast Guard during the summer.



Agreed.  The AOPS will carry (is designed for) a covered landing craft, bunks for extra 22 pers, new large boarding party RHIB, along with their helo space.  Snowmobile training is on the potential list of things the crew need. This is the escort carrier version of a LPD/H.   ;D

I heard somewhere that the Inuit traditionally didn't see a difference between the ocean and the shore the same way Europeans did.  They considered it all the same in many ways because of the ice covering that came and went.  I would like to think that the AOPS takes that philosophy to heart.  Sea and shore the same thing, find ways to operate in both.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Underway, I also read that part of the article as a reference to a 25mm / 76 mm gun fight. Otherwise, what is the meaning of the end of the sentence that reads "_not so great as to induce the former to have no choice but to surrender without a fight._" ?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Underway said:
			
		

> I heard somewhere that the Inuit traditionally didn't see a difference between the ocean and the shore the same way Europeans did.  They considered it all the same in many ways because of the ice covering that came and went.  I would like to think that the AOPS takes that philosophy to heart.  Sea and shore the same thing, find ways to operate in both.



Fantastic statement. Perhaps this is what Trudeau Snr. had in mind when he encouraged the Inuit stop the SS Manhattan back in the early 70's. 

I think one of the issues surrounding AOPS as a concept is that there is a difference between national defence/security and sovereignty in the arctic.  One is a right belonging to every state arctic state, the other is a claim to a right to exercise control over the objections or concerns of other arctic states. Here we have a vessel assigned to an organization with responsibilities related to national defence and security, but the design and capabilities do not fit well with the organization that has a primary mandate of war fighting. However, as has been noted in several posts, national defence may now more robustly include a constabulary/sovereignty mandate where the government is prepared to a draw a line. For example, in an operational context, defying the patrol and inspection functions of the CCG is one thing, defying and challenging a naval vessel tasked with asserting sovereignty is (or should be) quite another.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If it is a ship for a, primarily, constabulary role and not at all well suited for a "warship that is designed to go into harms way," then should it not be manned by constabulary people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the RCMP Marine Division of old ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... equipped with "hand me down" warships, was sold off and its duties reassigned, but maybe, if the Arctic waters will become navigable, we want it back.



I know it well. Many of the ships were used by the naval reserve.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A little bit about what the Russians are putting into the Arctic in terms of hybrid role ships (although they call them Corvette's, these vessels have more utility than that).

Article Link: http://www.janes.com/article/60063/russia-orders-new-project-23550-arctic-corvettes

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the_ Copyright Act, RSC 1985 _(as amended)

*Russia orders new Project 23550 Arctic corvettes*
Russia has ordered two Project 23550 ice-class armed patrol boats, the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has announced.

The class is described (in Russian) by the MoD as being "without analogues in the world", and combining "the qualities of tug, ice-breaker, and patrol boat".

The two vessels ordered will be built by Admiralty Shipyards in St Petersburg and are scheduled to be delivered to the Russian Navy by 2020.

The MoD specifies the Project 23550 class as being able to break ice up to 1.5 m thick. A concept image released by the MoD showed the vessel armed with a medium-calibre main gun on the foredeck (likely an A-190 100 mm naval gun), a helicopter deck and hangar, and two aft payload bays each fitted with a containerised missile launch system (akin to the Club-K system offered for export) armed with four erectable launch tubes - presumably for either Club anti-ship or Kalibr-NK land-attack missiles. Although billed as patrol boats, this level of armament makes them better armed than many corvettes"

You need a subscription of DWAN access to read the rest...

And from Navalrecognition.com:   http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3936 

*Project 23550 Ice-class Patrol Ships to Significantly Strengthen Arctic Capabilities of Russian Navy*
The two Project 23550 ice-class patrol boats ordered last week by Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) will significantly increase the Arctic capabilities of the national Navy, according to Russian defense analysts.
Project 23550 combines the qualities of patrol boat, ice-breaker and tug, being a multi-purpose ship. As the MoD`s official spokeperson pointed out, the Project 23550 vessels "have no analogues in the world". The boat can break ice 1.5 m thick. The MoD does not disclose the specifications of Project 23550 ship. 

 But based on the official illustration released by the Russian MoD, the class will be armed with medium-caliber naval gun on the foredeck (reportedly, 100mm A-190-01 or 57mm A-220M developed by Burevestnik scientific-research institute) and two containerized missile launch system (probably, Kalibr-NK (NATO reporting name: SS-N-27 Sizzler) anti-ship/land-attack subsonic cruise missiles) and one Ka-27PS anti-submarine or Ka-27PL search-and-rescue helicopter.

 "Don`t be confused by their designation and classification. Both Project 23550 so-called "patrol boats" are well armed. Their armament set does not come short of many corvettes," a source in Russian defense industry pointed out. 


It should be noted that Russia is making significant efforts to beef up its Arctic capabilities. In Autumn 2015, Russian defense industry laid down the first Project 03182 multirole patrol/support ship. Russian shipbuilding industry is also constructing Project 20180 logistics ships, Project 1900 diesel-electric ice-breakers, and Project 22600 and Project 22220 nuclear-powered ice-breakers. The aforementioned ships will bolster Russia`s activity in the Arctic Region, according to the analysts.


Project 03182 Multi Role Patrol/Support Ship

*Russia lays down first of two new Arctic support ships*

Article Link: http://www.janes.com/article/55630/russia-lays-down-first-of-two-new-arctic-support-ships

Russia's Vostochnaya Verf shipyard in Vladivostok laid down the first of two new arctic multi-purpose support vessels for the Russian Navy on 27 October.

The Project 03182 vessels are designed to act as small tankers, replenishment and support vessels for Russian warships working in the arctic region. They're also intended to be able to take on patrol functions, tow other vessels, conduct search and rescue (SAR) operations, fisheries monitoring and to support civilian shipping and oil and gas operations.

With arctic operations in mind, the vessels have been built to the Russian Arc 4 ice class standard, the second highest level and equivalent to the Finnish-Swedish IA class. The vessels are understood to be a derivative of the Project 23310 design from the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau (ZPKDB).

The first vessel will be called Mikhail Barskov , the Russian Ministry of Defence announced, and will have a displacement of 3,500 tonnes, a crew of 24, a length of 80 m and a range of 1,500 n miles. It will be powered by three diesel-electric engines, and equipped with two auxiliary power units and a bow thruster. A helicopter pad at the rear of the vessel can accommodate a helicopter such as the Kamov Ka-27 'Helix', and the vessel is fitted with a 20 tonne crane amidships. They are not believed to be armed.

Both of the two vessels will enter service with the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet, with Russian media reporting that Mikhail Barskov will be delivered in November 2017, with the second following at the end of 2019.


----------



## Lumber

And against an Ak-100, I definitely don't want just a 25mm...

But practice, if Russians are going to start putting f***ing Sizzlers on "patrol" ice-breakers, then there really is no need to go anything higher than a 25mm, because the 25mm will have one purpose, and one purpose only: to disable the engines on a merchant vessel that won't heave to.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> And against an Ak-100, I definitely don't want just a 25mm...
> 
> But practice, if Russians are going to start putting f***ing Sizzlers on "patrol" ice-breakers, then there really is no need to go anything higher than a 25mm, because the 25mm will have one purpose, and one purpose only: to disable the engines on a merchant vessel that won't heave to.



Yah, the Russian equivalent of the Harpoon.  That's quite the firepower on an arctic specific vessel.  What kind of threats are they expecting or is this a case of getting ahead and staying ahead?  Is this a case of defending Murmansk or Baltic ports in the winter?  Or is this a force projection strategy?  Perhaps they will assist in defending Russian boomers from the surface?

It's not like their neighbours would have anything remotely equivalent to this type of firepower for ice covered waters (on the surface).


----------



## Cloud Cover

I'm hoping that any of those ships could taken out by a CF18 if necessary. But, whatever the Russian plans are for the Arctic, they clearly feel the need to be defensive about it,  and when doing "badass" things, those ships will likely operate under significant top cover. Certainly would not want to antagonize them.


----------



## jmt18325

Yeah, we're not going to win an arms race.

We might win the economic race, as I still see a lot of evidence that Russia is on the path to bankruptcy...again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the Russians see each naval ship as a warship and will use it as such when required, again it's mindset.


----------



## winnipegoo7

HMS Endurance, an 'ice patrol vessel', armed with 2 × Oerlikon 20 mm cannons and 2 x Lynx helicopters was the only Royal Navy vessel in the South Atlantic when the Argentines invaded the Falklands. Perhaps things would have gone a little differently if she had been better armed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_(1967)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_Endurance's withdrawal from Antarctic patrol without replacement was perceived in Britain [3][4] as having encouraged the Argentinian invasion. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged it as a factor (Main entry Events leading to the Falklands War)._

It was the withdrawal that sent the message that triggered the events


----------



## NavyShooter

The first level of the force continuum....a visible armed presence.

Doesn't have to be WELL armed (that's a benefit though!) but the knowledge that there's someone official around with a gun in case things go bump in the night tends to be a deterrent.

Is a 25mm enough?  Is a police officer's 9mm enough?  

The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough.  

Would it be nice to have something with a bit more horsepower under the hood?  Yeah, but is an extra 51mm going to make that much difference?  

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover

MASS and perhaps a little bit of Elbit ESM/ECCM might be a worthy addition to the class. At least a few more tools in the box. Might not be able to out gun an opponent, but at least screw around the opfor fire control systems, and fling some chaff in the air.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Colin P said:
			
		

> _Endurance's withdrawal from Antarctic patrol without replacement was perceived in Britain [3][4] as having encouraged the Argentinian invasion. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged it as a factor (Main entry Events leading to the Falklands War)._
> 
> It was the withdrawal that sent the message that triggered the events



The Endurance was not withdrawn before the war, it was only planned to be withdrawn due to a RN fleet reduction. She was very active during the war. Perhaps had the Endurance been better armed it could have done more during the war, maybe preventing the invasion (probably not) or at the very least been capable of defending herself.

My point is that a WARship might end up in a war, so perhaps it should be armed accordingly.


----------



## Lumber

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The first level of the force continuum....a visible armed presence.
> 
> Doesn't have to be WELL armed (that's a benefit though!) but the knowledge that there's someone official around with a gun in case things go bump in the night tends to be a deterrent.
> 
> Is a 25mm enough?  Is a police officer's 9mm enough?
> 
> The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough.
> 
> Would it be nice to have something with a bit more horsepower under the hood?  Yeah, but is an extra 51mm going to make that much difference?
> 
> NS



IMO, the extra 51mm _does_ make a significant difference, and the extra 75mm (for the AK-100)  or even 102mm (for a 5") would make an even bigger difference! Why? Because these naval guns provide a much wider array of capabilities that the 25mm does not possess. 

The 25mm is going to be very good at defending against small, fast movers, and it is more than sufficient as a deterrent against unarmed vessels, such as illegal fisherman or merchies who refuse to heave-to. In order for it to be effective in naval combat, you need to be in fist-shaking range of the other vessel! 

With a 76mm (or greater) you have extended range and an NGS capability. Planning on landing some troops on an active island? Think again, because I'm about to bombard them with 5" HE rounds. In arctic ice, will your ship even be able to manoeuvre in order to close into 25mm range? Have no fear! My Ak-100 will hit them from outside the ice sheet! (maybe...)

This is why sticking Sizzlers on their patrol ships is even more menacing: it provides even greater range and lethality. Even though their patrol boats lack any AA or Anti-ASM capability (chaff, jammers, or point defence missiles), they're mere presence can be huge deterrence, because you don't know when an SS-N-27 is going to pop-up over the horizon and ruin your AOPs day.

Do I think we need (or can) get in an arms race with the Russians and start putting ASMs on our AOPs? Absolutely not; but I do think we should posses a minimum level of capability across of wider spectrum of warfare areas.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If it is a ship for a, primarily, constabulary role and not at all well suited for a "warship that is designed to go into harms way," then should it not be manned by constabulary people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the RCMP Marine Division of old ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... equipped with "hand me down" warships, was sold off and its duties reassigned, but maybe, if the Arctic waters will become navigable, we want it back.



Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough.
> 
> ...



Or an F18 with Harpoons and AIM-120s?  Or even a CP-140 with Harpoons?

Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.


----------



## MMSS

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything



According to this site it's the Patrol Vessel _Wood_.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything



Wouldn't be more accurate to say, the "old" RCMP Marine Div.   ;D


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or an F18 with Harpoons and AIM-120s?  Or even a CP-140 with Harpoons?
> 
> Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.



Neither.  I'm not sure what the cost would be to give them that capability or if there are specific Harpoons that are air launched that would have to be bought.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MMSS said:
			
		

> According to this site it's the Patrol Vessel _Wood_.



Yikes! http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/Historical_Data.pdf 

"The vast majority of the large vessels over 100 feet were sold to the Department of Transport by 1970. The 180 ft
RCMP “Wood” had its name changed to the CCG “Daring” and served for many more years. She was later sold
privately and in September 1987 was seized and the crew arrested in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala for smuggling 2375
kilograms of cocaine destined for Columbia having been flown out from Columbia. This was a sad end to a prized
Canadian vessel. "


----------



## Old Sweat

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yikes! http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/Historical_Data.pdf
> 
> "The vast majority of the large vessels over 100 feet were sold to the Department of Transport by 1970. The 180 ft
> RCMP “Wood” had its name changed to the CCG “Daring” and served for many more years. She was later sold
> privately and in September 1987 was seized and the crew arrested in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala for smuggling 2375
> kilograms of cocaine destined for Columbia having been flown out from Columbia. This was a sad end to a prized
> Canadian vessel. "



Flashback to _The Ship That Died of Shame_.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Love Boat?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.


The aircraft airframes and hard points/weapons bays are capable but not cleared for AGM-84, if there are spcial fittings we probably do not stock them, and to the extent there are any additional required acquisition, guidance and related combat systems, they were not procured. The APG/73 radar theoretically could guide the missile for some distance, but the range of the missile is beyond the doppler range of the radar. Although the AGM84  is multi mode, it can receive terminal guidance to the target. Always better than firing blind... 

I have not seen a Harpoon dropped from the bay of a P3, but I have seen one fired off a wing hardpoint on a P3. 
The F18/F can load out with 4 AGM 84 and one underbelly fuel tank, and 2 AIM9X (wingtips).      

There is also no current RCAF doctrine for using a long range ALCM like this one.


----------



## Furniture

Lumber said:
			
		

> IMO, the extra 51mm _does_ make a significant difference, and the extra 75mm (for the AK-100)  or even 102mm (for a 5") would make an even bigger difference! Why? Because these naval guns provide a much wider array of capabilities that the 25mm does not possess.
> 
> The 25mm is going to be very good at defending against small, fast movers, and it is more than sufficient as a deterrent against unarmed vessels, such as illegal fisherman or merchies who refuse to heave-to. In order for it to be effective in naval combat, you need to be in fist-shaking range of the other vessel!
> 
> With a 76mm (or greater) you have extended range and an NGS capability. Planning on landing some troops on an active island? Think again, because I'm about to bombard them with 5" HE rounds. In arctic ice, will your ship even be able to manoeuvre in order to close into 25mm range? Have no fear! My Ak-100 will hit them from outside the ice sheet! (maybe...)
> 
> Do I think we need (or can) get in an arms race with the Russians and start putting ASMs on our AOPs? Absolutely not; but I do think we should posses a minimum level of capability across of wider spectrum of warfare areas.



Interesting point, but we lack a significant capability to conduct NGS on our major warships now. Why would we waste time and money on a capability so low on our priority list that we don't equip our frontline warships to do it properly? Why would we equip an arctic patrol boat for naval engagements like Jutland or the hunt for Bismarck when again our frontline warships aren't equipped with a gun suited to that type of engagement?

Sure a big gun would be cool, and look awesome when we shoot a hammerhead or two on WUPS but it really doesn't add useful and efficient capability to a patrol boat.

As to landing troops opposed on an island in the arctic, it isn’t happening via the water if it ever happens at all. Airborne/airmobile forces would be faster, better supported and less likely to have to deal with pesky Russian patrol boats and their big guns.


----------



## Lumber

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The APG/73 radar theoretically could guide the missile for some distance, but the range of the missile is beyond the doppler range of the radar. Although the AGM84  is multi mode, it can receive terminal guidance to the target. Always better than firing blind...



We wouldn't need the APG/73 to "guide" a Harpoon. Harpoon have on-board active radars, inertial guidance and GPS. All you need to do is program into them the location of where the target ship should be, and off the missile goes. It will look for the target when it gets there; until then it is going to skim along the water, hidden below the radar horizon until a few second before it's radar to turn it's seeker head on.

In order to acquire the location of the target, we don't even need our CF-18s to have positive contact with the target on their organic sensors; as long as someone in the Link has them on like an Aurora, or maybe even an American AWACS, then the target data can be transmitted to the CF-18s.

Essentially, we just need the F-18s to be a delivery platforms for ASMs that can get to a given location fast.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The Aurora can do it all. The actual airframe is the P-3 Orion's and any hard point available for the Orion can be quickly and easily acquired and installed on our Aurora's. Similarly, the Harpoon missile set for air launch is easy to acquire. And as indicated by Lumber, the Harpoon is a "aim-in-general-direction-fire-and-forget" missile. 

Anyone who is willing to go back in these forums will see that I have been saying for years (if not decades) that the best anti-ship defence in the Arctic is Auroras with white ones under their wings.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The Aurora can do it all. The actual airframe is the P-3 Orion's and any hard point available for the Orion can be quickly and easily acquired and installed on our Aurora's. Similarly, the Harpoon missile set for air launch is easy to acquire. And as indicated by Lumber, the Harpoon is a "aim-in-general-direction-fire-and-forget" missile.
> 
> Anyone who is willing to go back in these forums will see that I have been saying for years (if not decades) that the best anti-ship defence in the Arctic is Auroras with white ones under their wings.



And if they run out then the CF-18s can hustle replacement rounds up north in a few hours.  The target won't have moved far making 3 knots through the ice.

I seem to remember back in the 90's the government making a big thing about treating Comox and Goose Bay or Gander as FOLs for the CF-18s to take on the anti-shipping role.  It surprised me then, and still surprises me, that the extent of the effort seemed to be to overflying ships and trying to toss dumb bombs on the deck when Harpoons were already in the inventory.  

And wouldn't another Harpoon variant be compatible with the subs?  And seeing as how this is the AOPS thread - there has to be deck space somewhere on a ship that size to bolt on a couple of boxes of Harpoons if the situation warranted.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Other than the four little flats on the bridge deck level, you can pretty well strap a couple of quad-packs anywhere else on deck! Quick: Just like they did with TERRA NOVA and RESTIGOUCHE for Gulf War I.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Yes, I know the Harpoon is a fire and forget missile (more better described as Automatic Target Acquisition): 

From http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html (open source)
_"The latest (2002) upgrade of the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER is the SLAM-ER ATA (Automatic Target Acquisition). This missile can be launched in the general direction of the target and will automatically select a target by comparing the stored reference image with the IIR seeker image without the need for operator intervention. However, the operator can take over control of the missile at any time in the mission, thereby retaining the capabilities of the basic SLAM-ER.  (Note: this implies the operator has real time tracking information of the missile). The ATA system was released to the Fleet in 2002, and existing AGM-84H/K missiles will eventually be upgraded.
In January 2008, the U.S. Navy awarded Boeing an SDD (System Design and Development) contract for the AGM-84M Harpoon Block III. The Block III upgrade includes the major Block II features like the GPS/INS guidance and a new seeker, and adds a two-way datalink. The datalink makes it possible to update the targeting information after launch and actively control the missile at all points of the mission. The Navy plans to acquire Block III upgrade kits for 850 Harpoon missiles, with IOC planned for 2011. The RGM-84M is the ship-launched variant of the Block III missile."
_
The point I was making was that the missile itself out -ranges the CF-18's radar, but initial target information from the APG/73 could provide inputs from the operator if targets of opportunity are to be engaged rather than pre-planned/pre-programmed launches/strikes.  After the missile is launched, it can of course find its way with precision however with newer versions the operator can take control of the missile if necessary. I'm not sure a single seat CF-18 pilot would want to do that (with all the other simultaneous tasks ongoing) but certainly an Aurora or other similar aircraft would, especially if a volley is fired by multiple aircraft and there are moving targets or an abort is required.       

From Janes:
_"A modification of the existing AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C missile, the Block II+ weapon is being developed as a rapid-capability enhancement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for introduction in late fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017). Block II+ introduces a GPS guidance kit, a new datalink interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option, and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures to confer the Harpoon weapon with the ability to receive in-flight updates that improve the targeting and engagement of moving maritime targets."_

(It's my understanding that the in-flight updates and changes to acquire new targets or re-attack (missed, obscured or moved targets?) need not be sent to the missile in flight by the original launch platform but can be sent or directed from another platform.)


----------



## ringo

New Zealand is looking for an ice strengthened vessel to patrol the Southern ocean seems a perfect fit for a De Wolfe class vessel.
Canada should make an attractive offer, even if it means allowing NZ the first built hull, these are the kinds of things that need to be done or at least attempted if national shipbuilding program is to succeed.


----------



## Kirkhill

Generally agree ringo - but if I was a kiwi I wouldn't be overly appreciative of getting the "prototype" unit.  They have already been down that road with the "Canterbury".

I'd be wanting Hull 3.


----------



## jmt18325

http://shipsforcanada.ca/

Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.


----------



## Cronicbny

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> http://shipsforcanada.ca/
> 
> Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.



It's all a good news story for the future fleet! But, I dare ask, where will we find the future people to crew them? Bah - a piddling concern, I know.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New ships and depressed economy may help recruiting


----------



## Retired AF Guy

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> It's all a good news story for the future fleet! But, I dare ask, where will we find the future people to crew them? Bah - a piddling concern, I know.



"_Build it, and they will come_." 

                 "Field of Dreams."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> http://shipsforcanada.ca/
> 
> Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.




Seaspan progress http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190



I know this seems petty, but.............the grammar Nazi in me just had to respond.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190



Its too far away and no source of fuel available.


----------



## dapaterson

The rail line to the port can address resupply issues,  but not geography.


----------



## Journeyman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Its too far away and no source of fuel available.


Seems like a blithely dismissive response.

The question was stated regarding "naval/military operations in the North."  How is it that Churchill too far away from the north?  As for fuel, there's an all-season rail line.  The RCAF, Kenn Borek, _et al_  manage to get aviation fuel at Churchill.

If Canada is going to claim the arctic, perhaps some options beyond throwing up one's hands in defeat should be considered.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The rail line to the port can address resupply issues,  but not geography.



Moncton requested fuel from the port from 12 different suppliers no one would ship leaving the ship to receive fuel from the Shawinigan. St. John's requested 3 tankers of fuel a number of years ago, only one showed. So the fuel supply in Churchill is unreliable.


----------



## Stoker

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Seems like a blithely dismissive response.
> 
> The question was stated regarding "naval/military operations in the North."  How is it that Churchill too far away from the north?  As for fuel, there's an all-season rail line.  The RCAF, Kenn Borek, _et al_  manage to get aviation fuel at Churchill.
> 
> If Canada is going to claim the arctic, perhaps some options beyond throwing up one's hands in defeat should be considered.



Where we actually operate its closer to go to Nuuk or Thule to get fuel. It a moot point really when we will have a refueling depot in Nanisivik in 2 years.


----------



## YZT580

Is Nanisivik open 365 days or does it close in with ice for the winter?  Wondering if, regardless of facilities Churchill might make a good place to winter rather than transiting back to HZ at the end of the season.


----------



## Stoker

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Is Nanisivik open 365 days or does it close in with ice for the winter?  Wondering if, regardless of facilities Churchill might make a good place to winter rather than transiting back to HZ at the end of the season.



AOPS will ply the Arctic for 4 months of the year, with the lessening of ice most likely 6 month. Nanisivik is only seasonal. Churchill would not be a good place to winter as there is no repair facilities there and the ships will be be doing other things.


----------



## Journeyman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Moncton requested fuel from the port from 12 different suppliers no one would ship leaving the ship to receive fuel from the Shawinigan. St. John's requested 3 tankers of fuel a number of years ago, only one showed. So the fuel supply in Churchill is unreliable.





			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Where we actually operate its closer to go to Nuuk or Thule to get fuel. It a moot point really when we will have a refueling depot in Nanisivik in 2 years.


Now, collectively, that was a great response, reinforced by the answer to YZT580.

One of the highlights of this site is the information and opinions available from informed, experienced posters. 

Naval stuff isn't my strong suit, so I'm grateful for the insights; thanks.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Additionally, while Churchill is a good location for an "exit" port for Prairie grain, it is out of the way where patrolling the N.W. Passage is concerned.

Churchill is a little over 600 NM (1,000 km) from the entrance to the Fury and Hecta straight. But that doesn't get you into the passage. It only gets you into the Gulf of Boothia and you still have another 400 NM to go to the actual passage. All this is through the Foxe basin/Fury and Hecta straight/Gulf of Boothia area, which is one of the most ice congested area of the Arctic and one of the least likely to be ice free. You would be fighting all the way.

If you want to use Churchill and avoid that, then you have to exit Hudson Bay altogether, transit out of the Hudson Straight to go between the Northern tip of Labrador and the Southern end of Baffin Island, then North along the outside of said Baffin Island. Problem is, if you do that, you may as well go to St. John's, which would then be only about one hundred and fifty NM further than Churchill but will always provide you with full support where maritime services are concerned.

I wish more people would use a globe when looking at Arctic matters: It provides a much more realistic overview of the real navigation challenges.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you want to use Churchill and avoid that, then you have to exit Hudson Bay altogether, transit out of the Hudson Straight to go between the Northern tip of Labrador and the Southern end of Baffin Island, then North along the outside of said Baffin Island. Problem is, if you do that, you may as well go to St. John's, which would then be only about one hundred and fifty NM further than Churchill but will always provide you with full support where maritime services are concerned.



All I got out of that was "make CFS St. John's a full-fledged naval base because...awesome runs ashore...Arctic Sovereignty!"


----------



## daftandbarmy

It would make more sense to base out of Pituffik, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik

Oh, I guess that means the Danish will have to stop claiming our islands as theirs, first, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It would make more sense to base out of Pituffik, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik
> 
> Oh, I guess that means the Danish will have to stop claiming our islands as theirs, first, right?



Fortunately the Danes have adopted a more Germanic camouflage.  For a while there they were making life difficult and wearing CADPAT.  You would have had to resort to tossing coins to see who wore Safety Orange and who wore Neon Green.

Please pass the akvavit!


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fortunately the Danes have adopted a more Germanic camouflage.  For a while there they were making life difficult and *wearing CADPAT.*



Nope......we have never used digital camo......the pattern you saw was most likely this : 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M84_camouflage_pattern

A "flecktarn" based camouflage which from a distance could well be mistaken for CADPAT.

We have since completely transitioned to MultiCam (Arid version).


----------



## Kirkhill

I sit corrected MKP.  That is indeed the pattern I was thinking of.   As you say, from a distance, ie any distance further than 2 metres,  it looked indistinguishable from CADPAT.  

Skol.  :cheers:


----------



## jmt18325

http://shipsforcanada.ca/

There is a construction time lapse up.


----------



## Gorgo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> All I got out of that was "make CFS St. John's a full-fledged naval base because...awesome runs ashore...Arctic Sovereignty!"



That would actually be a good idea.  It saves the extra nearly thousand kilometre trip from Halifax to get to the area of operations and would be a extra boost to the local economy.  But given how narrow Saint John's Harbour would be, a wiser idea would be to reactivate the old Argentia base the Americans returned to us some years ago.  The bay there is a lot larger and could hold more ships in a pinch.


----------



## George Wallace

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> That would actually be a good idea.  It saves the extra nearly thousand kilometre trip from Halifax to get to the area of operations and would be a extra boost to the local economy.  But given how narrow Saint John's Harbour would be, a wiser idea would be to reactivate the old Argentia base the Americans returned to us some years ago.  The bay there is a lot larger and could hold more ships in a pinch.



Is not part of Argentia now considered CFS Saint John's ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

From what I gather, the USN did not exactly leave Argentia in the best of conditions. I wonder how much remedial would be necessary to re-purpose it.

In any event, all I was trying to say in my post about St. Johns is that the distance between the eastern entrance of the NW passage and St. Johns is just about the same as the distance from that same entrance to Churchill, Man., so what would be the point of using Churchill as a staging base or over-wintering base.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> From what I gather, the USN did not exactly leave Argentia in the best of conditions. I wonder how much remedial would be necessary to re-purpose it.
> 
> In any event, all I was trying to say in my post about St. Johns is that the distance between the eastern entrance of the NW passage and St. Johns is just about the same as the distance from that same entrance to Churchill, Man., so what would be the point of using Churchill as a staging base or over-wintering base.



Argentia is gone, all remediated. The problem with stationing AOPS there is money and there's not alot of money if anyone's noticed. St. John's is out due to having available contractors for PM, jetty space etc. We can get fuel there so that's an option and we often stop there to top up on the way North but staging ships there probably not.  You might as well send them from Halifax through the straits of Belle Isle. Keep in mind that's all moot when the new fueling station opens in the Arctic.


----------



## Stoker

If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop more infrastructure there, the people deserve it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What about increasing dockage and fuel at Rigolet or Mary's Harbour? More as a support than a home base?


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> What about increasing dockage and fuel at Rigolet or Mary's Harbour? More as a support than a home base?



Well the northern ranger with a draft of 4.25 meters can get into there, not sure with AOPS with a draft of 5.75 would support it without major dredging. Both fishing ports have pop of about 400 people a piece and not much if any infrastructure. Iqaluit with a population of about 7000 and the Capital would be better suited and have a major airport and some military infrastructure already in place.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop the more infrastructure there, the people there deserve it.



 :goodpost:

I can't see anything on The Rock being useful.  The distance from Halifax to the Beaufort is 3605 nm according to a study by Dalhousie on the AOPS.   Dead reckoning from Google Earth puts St John's about 500 nm out.  You would barely be leaving the jetty.

Nanisivik is 2705 nm out. 

The same study says it is 3446 nm from Esquimalt to the Beaufort.

The East Coast route is all national. The West Coast Route is international/U.S.

My guesstimate puts Iqaluit about 1800 nm from Halifax.

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Sangster%20-%20AOPS.pdf

Link to a newer study with slightly different numbers, but the conclusions are the same.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> I can't see anything on The Rock being useful.  The distance from Halifax to the Beaufort is 3605 nm according to a study by Dalhousie on the AOPS.   Dead reckoning from Google Earth puts St John's about 500 nm out.  You would barely be leaving the jetty.
> 
> Nanisivik is 2705 nm out.
> 
> The same study says it is 3446 nm from Esquimalt to the Beaufort.
> 
> The East Coast route is all national. The West Coast Route is international/U.S.
> 
> My guesstimate puts Iqaluit about 1800 nm from Halifax.
> 
> http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Sangster%20-%20AOPS.pdf
> 
> Link to a newer study with slightly different numbers, but the conclusions are the same.




Halifax to Nanisivik 2805 NM
Halifax to St.John's 700 NM
St.Johns to Nanisivik 2005 NM
Nanisivik to Beaufort Sea 900 NM
Esquimalt to Nanisivik 4846 NM
Halifax to London 2741 NM


----------



## Kirkhill

A couple more to add to the list.

Thunder Bay to Inuvik - ~ 4600 nm. The coastal route managed out of Halifax (national waters)


Prince Rupert to Esquimalt - ~ 600 nm. The coastal route managed out of Esquimalt (national waters)


----------



## Good2Golf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop more infrastructure there, the people deserve it.



Chief Stoker, funny that (if it weren't so true...and sad) - every time I drop into Iqaluit, I'd look at the big-ass runway, then out to the bay then back to the runway just in time to see a huge yellow DC-10 landing, and then I realized that DHL and others (air operators) might have pictures of a compromising nature of various politicians who might otherwise raise the topic of an all-season port at Iqaluit....but don't...  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325

A few months ago it was speculated and rumored in various media that Irving had the inside track for the maintenance contract for the AOPS (and JSS).  The thing about rumours is...apparently Thales won the contract back in December (pursuant to further negotiations).


----------



## jmt18325

More AOPS for the CCG?  I think I like that idea:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-ships-icebreakers-aops-coast-guard-1.4044679


----------



## MilEME09

Alternatively maybe they should get the CSC back on track?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Alternatively maybe they should get the CSC back on track?
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



That would be great.  That said, the CCG does need icebreakers, and there are not many forthcoming (so far, anyway).


----------



## Kirkhill

Or they can reapportion all of the AOPS and their budget to the Coast Guard (amalgamated in the NATO 2% budget) and replace the AOPS money with CSC and JSS money.  Making sure that all the new craft have "soft power" capable flex decks.


----------



## chrisf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That would be great.  That said, the CCG does need icebreakers, and there are not many forthcoming (so far, anyway).



Probably wouldn't be a good design to replace any existing coast guard ice breakers.

Depending how they handle as sea boats, may be a good design to replace some of the old fisheries boats, and a good excuse to scrap the Grenfell.


----------



## Lumber

Depending on whose coast guard you are comparing us to, our AOPS are already no better than coast guard vessels.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This might be of interest to this subject http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/compass-points/2017/03/20/type-of-ice-affects-shipping-in-canadas-northwest-passage


----------



## jmt18325

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Probably wouldn't be a good design to replace any existing coast guard ice breakers.
> 
> Depending how they handle as sea boats, may be a good design to replace some of the old fisheries boats, and a good excuse to scrap the Grenfell.



They certainly couldn't replace them in all functions...would they be good tow ships, I wonder?  That's already funded, after all.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Unfortunately, jmt, the AOPS are not a good match for the coast guard. They are a bit like a swiss army knife: they have many tools but none of them is even close to the real one in capacity.

They are hybrid vessels at best. Capable of operating in ice, but not really ice breakers - river or arctic ; capable of patrol, but nowhere close to the level of a proper OPV that would be preferred by the coast guard for fisheries protection; not really capable of towing, at least not any better than your standard warship is; reasonable SAR platform, but again, not as good as a dedicated platform for such duties; and finally, and that is the last nail in the coffin as far as coast guard is concerned, they are not work boats that can carry out navigation aids servicing.

Personally, I think Irving's idea is:

(1) Bad;
(2) a feeble attempt by Irving at stealing work that belongs to Seaspan;
(3) a gross misunderstanding by Irving of the Shipbuilding Strategy, which is aimed at helping the industry to rebuild and modernize - which Irving allegedly has done - so it can then compete and obtain its own work in the regular market, not so the Government of Canada can be the only actual constant provider of work.

So as far as I am concerned, Irving can go fly a kite: If it has a bit of slack between two different GoC orders, that is exactly when it is supposed to get off its fat a## and get itself some real work. Otherwise, there is no point in the God damn strategy, and we may as well start getting bids again on every piece of kit Canada wants to buy to benefit from the competition.


----------



## chrisf

The AOPS ice class isroughly the same as what the coast guard calls a "light ice breaker".

Most of the coast guard light ice breakers are bouy tenders, they're typically tasked with ice breaking over the winter, but their primary job is bouy tending.

To be effective as a bouy tender, you need a lot of cargo space, a crane, and be manourverable. Being able to survive grounding is important as well.

The aops probably wouldn't be effective as a bouy tender.

Most of the coast guard boats have specific primary roles, not many of which the aops would be suitable for.

If it's a half decent sea boat, it might make a be ok as a replacement for the either (or both) the cape roger and the Cygnus, but it's really not ideal.

Might be an effective replacement for the Grenfell as well, which has no useful role, but when they tried to dispose of it, there was a big public outcry about "search and rescue" and "cuts to the coast guard" (it's an unreliable old piece of junk, it's a pig in fuel, and hasn't had a useful role since they stopped using diesel fuel at the lighthouses)

Given that (or so the legend goes) the Grenfell was bought to bail out the yard that built it, buying an aops and shoehorning it into a role that doesn't exist might be an ideal successor.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stop me if you've heard this one:









> Russia has ordered two of the 6,800 ton displacement, 374 foot-long Project 23550 Ice class patrol ships, which are more like polar Corvettes than anything else. Russia's Ministry of Defense claims the ships will have the fighting capabilities of a Navy surface combatant, as well as those of an ice breaker and tug, and that there are "no analogues in the world" for the unique concept.



http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8680/this-is-russias-warship-being-built-specifically-for-fighting-in-the-arctic











While we are at it, I thought this was kind of cute too:

https://youtu.be/IIwz9wdZ2_s

Just the thing for the back end, eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LOl Canada should buy those just so people will go "WTF is Canada losing it?"


----------



## jmt18325

If the option existed to get 2 AOPS for the CCG, and the alternative was 0 new ships for the CCG right now (pre 2022 - that's the other option as far as I'm aware), would the 2 AOPS be better?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe, the CCG senior management is highly opposed to "militarizing" the Guard. The question will can they still do CCG stuff. Basically a ship for them is a travelling construction site, lowbed and crane. Even SAR is a dirty word for many of them and they dislike anything that pulls a ship away from a scheduled task. These 2 video's shows you what most of a buoy tender bread and butter is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIgjcbOkoag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_APi4k3HuA


----------



## Kirkhill

How do they feel about fisheries patrol and environmental response?  Tugs?  Firefighting?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The crews and some of the Captains love new and exciting challenges, they not be big on anything guns and lot's of repetitive training (like boarding parties). Most of the fisheries patrols on the West Coast are in the small vessels and inside waters, I can't speak for the east coast guys. The smaller vessels are tasked mainly with things like SAR, Emergency Response (ER) or Fish patrols and and they will primarily do that one thing. The primary ER guys are either based in Victoria, Sea Island or Prince Rupert and then gather and travel to the site from one of those bases, plans are for another base as well. Again not sure how the East coast does it, Pacific looks after Western Arctic and East Coast looks after the other half. Both coasts do thing very differently, ice on the west coast outside of the arctic is almost non-existent, whereas the east coast, it's a big part of their job as well.


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> The crews and some of the Captains love new and exciting challenges, they not be big on anything guns and lot's of repetitive training (like boarding parties). Most of the fisheries patrols on the West Coast are in the small vessels and inside waters.



Cygnus, Cape Roger, and Leonard J Cowley, are the intended patrol vessels for the Grand Banks, though any one of the larger vessels may also find themselves filling in.

Cygnus and Cape Roger are both in need of replacement, the Cowley is in good shape, but it's still 33 years old.


----------



## Kirkhill

So, would there be a problem if the number of vessels dedicated to "patrol" - generically speaking - were increased and/or modernized and/or enhanced? If the Coast Guard already has three deep water patrol vessels, all long in the tooth, could the AOPS replace them and extend their patrol range and capabilities?

Kind of related - I have started to think of Canada as a two-coast country - just the way it used to be.  The West Coast is obvious - Esquimalt to Rupert.  But my version of the East Coast starts at the Lakehead and ends at Yellowknife (or Hays River).  That stretch of water is uninterrupted by external political realities and navigation is entirely dependent on the designs of the vessels the Government chooses to employ in the area.  (The Mackenzie requires a craft with a draught of no more than 1.4 m - like Eckaloo, Dumit and the tugs that used to operated by NTC - or that CB90s could navigate).

It seems to me that one "navy" for the entire East Coast makes sense but that that "navy" needs a large variety of craft to operate in all the varied waters on that coast.

The West Coast "navy" would be a much smaller and uniform fleet.


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, would there be a problem if the number of vessels dedicated to "patrol" - generically speaking - were increased and/or modernized and/or enhanced? If the Coast Guard already has three deep water patrol vessels, all long in the tooth, could the AOPS replace them and extend their patrol range and capabilities?



To what end? The role of those particular is to conduct fisheries patrol on the grand bank. They're effective now, and there's more than enough ships (for that role) two of them are just in need of replacement (One came close to sinking in St. John's harbour a few years ago due to rust out... coincidentally, she was in the harbour at the time due to having found damage to the life boat... it was a combination of having portable pumps on board for SAR, and being tied up a few hundred feet from a dry dock that saved her)


----------



## Kirkhill

Surveillance, presence, coordination and response over a wider territory?


----------



## chrisf

Over what wider territory???

Their role is to monitor fisheries on the Grand Banks. That is the territory they need to cover.

They do that effectively now, those three ships are literally more than enough for the job.

They just sink a little bit sometimes.

As far as "numbers" goes, the coast guard has enough, or close to enough ships to fill all the roles they're required to do now.

The issue is that the ships are old, in need of regular repairs, and unreliable.

The AOPS boats are being built the the navy, for a specific role.

Building one for the coast guard would only mean they'd have to make up a role for it that doesn't exist now, as it wouldn't be useful for any of the tasks they need.


----------



## jmt18325

With all respect - I just don't see that.  It could be used for patrol, light ice breaking, SAR, as a base for helicopter ops, possibly towing.  Those are all jobs that the CCG does now.  It would also have room for environmental response equipment.


----------



## Spencer100

Buoy tendering should be contracted out.  The highways are now maintained by private companies under contract. The CG should be refocused on Security, Safety at sea, SAR and fisheries.  

The Irving situation sounds like the same problem that the UK is having with the timing of GCS and the yards having a break.  But the point for the Coast Guard is two new ships or no new ships, I would think they should take the new ships.  I see to many times that the 80% solution is better than zero 100% solution.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Over what wider territory???
> 
> Their role is to monitor fisheries on the Grand Banks. That is the territory they need to cover.
> 
> They do that effectively now, those three ships are literally more than enough for the job.
> 
> They just sink a little bit sometimes.
> 
> As far as "numbers" goes, the coast guard has enough, or close to enough ships to fill all the roles they're required to do now.
> 
> The issue is that the ships are old, in need of regular repairs, and unreliable.
> 
> The AOPS boats are being built the the navy, for a specific role.
> 
> Building one for the coast guard would only mean they'd have to make up a role for it that doesn't exist now, as it wouldn't be useful for any of the tasks they need.



I think what I am suggesting is that the Coast Guard take over the role for which the AOPS is designed.  The Armed component is such a modest addition to the vessels as to be able to be ignored in most operations.  A floating operating base for the Government of Canada is sufficient justification.

And as for the armed bit - well, if push comes to shove weapons could be mounted and naval personnel (regs or res) added to the crew, or potentially, replace the crew.


----------



## chrisf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> With all respect - I just don't see that.  It could be used for patrol, light ice breaking, SAR, as a base for helicopter ops, possibly towing.  Those are all jobs that the CCG does now.  It would also have room for environmental response equipment.



What do you think "Patrol", "Ice Breaking", "Helicopter Ops" and "Towing" entail?



			
				Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Buoy tendering should be contracted out.  The highways are now maintained by private companies under contract. The CG should be refocused on Security, Safety at sea, SAR and fisheries.
> 
> The Irving situation sounds like the same problem that the UK is having with the timing of GCS and the yards having a break.  But the point for the Coast Guard is two new ships or no new ships, I would think they should take the new ships.  I see to many times that the 80% solution is better than zero 100% solution.



A large amount of bouy tending is contracted out now. 

In a world of smart spending, the rest of it would be contracted out, but the coast guard fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.

Security is not part of the coast guards tasks or mandate now, it would be an entirely new task.

In the mean time, buying AOPS for the coast guard would not be an 80% solution, it would be two very expensive ships that can't effectively fill any role required, that they'd be stuck with for the next 40-60 years.

There are plenty of other options available, as either off the shelf designs, or even literally available for sale, right now, that would be better suited.

The ideal "new" vessel would be an a diesel electric, ice classed, AHTS (Anchor Handling Tug Supply), with ORO (Basically "oil vaccum") capability. Remove the bulk tanks, turn that space into a cargo hold. Slap on a miranda davit for the FRC, and a life boat davit, and you've got an ideal coast guard ship, pretty much off the shelf, for a reasonable price.

Going with Davie's suggestion of buying or leasing the Aiviq would be fantastic plan.

Buying another AOPS just to line Irvings pocket is not an good idea. Period.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> What do you think "Patrol", "Ice Breaking", "Helicopter Ops" and "Towing" entail?
> 
> A large amount of bouy tending is contracted out now.
> 
> In a world of smart spending, the rest of it would be contracted out, but the coast guard fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.
> 
> Security is not part of the coast guards tasks or mandate now, it would be an entirely new task.
> 
> In the mean time, buying AOPS for the coast guard would not be an 80% solution, it would be two very expensive ships that can't effectively fill any role required, that they'd be stuck with for the next 40-60 years.
> 
> There are plenty of other options available, as either off the shelf designs, or even literally available for sale, right now, that would be better suited.
> 
> The ideal "new" vessel would be an a diesel electric, ice classed, AHTS (Anchor Handling Tug Supply), with ORO (Basically "oil vaccum") capability. Remove the bulk tanks, turn that space into a cargo hold. Slap on a miranda davit for the FRC, and a life boat davit, and you've got an ideal coast guard ship, pretty much off the shelf, for a reasonable price.
> 
> Going with Davie's suggestion of buying or leasing the Aiviq would be fantastic plan.
> 
> Buying another AOPS just to line Irvings pocket is not an good idea. Period.




In _my opinion_, as an old retired Army officer with only limited contact with the Navy, the AOPS is a constabulary vessel, rather than being a first rate warship ... the Coast Guard is not a constabulary service, but we have one, in Canada, that has a Marine Division and a long, proud history of maritime operations in the Arctic.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If you won't name that service, Mr. C., I will for the benefit of enlightening the young pups: It's the R.C.M.P.

We also had a para-military maritime service that was constabulary in nature even before the RCMP: The Fisheries service of Canada. It was an armed service that pre-dates even the R.C.N., and in fact was the incubator for the RCN's first class of officers. It was an armed service of Canada, even if not under the Minister of Defence or of the Naval Service, until it became absorbed, first into the Fisheries and Ocean Canada, an then (the real disaster most Fisheries officer still weep over) with absorption into the Coast Guard, a move that deprived them of their heavy weapons (light deck guns and .50 cals MG's) and their own ship's companies modelled on a military org.

Todays fisheries officers are still constable with police power where fisheries rules and regulations are concerned, but only equipped with personal weapons, such as side arms and shot guns.


----------



## NavyShooter

*Apparently, the old brass Gatling gun up at the Halifax Citadel museum was formerly on a Fisheries vessel.


----------



## Kirkhill

So, security would not be a new task - rather it would be a neglected original task?  Should somebody be fired?  >


----------



## Kirkhill

And another thought - who is following the shrimpers and other trawlers up into Baffin Bay?


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, security would not be a new task - rather it would be a neglected original task?  Should somebody be fired?  >



If only we had another department tasked with maritime defence...

 Perhaps they could be given some sort of "coastal defence" vessel to operate.

Maybe even give them a few that could operate in ice?

  :


----------



## Monsoon

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If only we had another department tasked with maritime defence...
> 
> Perhaps they could be given some sort of "coastal defence" vessel to operate.
> 
> Maybe even give them a few that could operate in ice?
> 
> :


And then provide them with an operational C2 structure, use of force doctrine and work-ups, weapons handling training, a supply system for ammunition management, etc, etc, etc... The CCG ain't the USCG, and with the resources available to Canada I'm not sure it makes sense to duplicate the use of force capability across two separate maritime agencies.


----------



## serger989

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, jmt, the AOPS are not a good match for the coast guard. They are a bit like a swiss army knife: they have many tools but none of them is even close to the real one in capacity.
> 
> They are hybrid vessels at best. Capable of operating in ice, but not really ice breakers - river or arctic ; capable of patrol, but nowhere close to the level of a proper OPV that would be preferred by the coast guard for fisheries protection; not really capable of towing, at least not any better than your standard warship is; reasonable SAR platform, but again, not as good as a dedicated platform for such duties; and finally, and that is the last nail in the coffin as far as coast guard is concerned, they are not work boats that can carry out navigation aids servicing.
> 
> Personally, I think Irving's idea is:
> 
> (1) Bad;
> (2) a feeble attempt by Irving at stealing work that belongs to Seaspan;
> (3) a gross misunderstanding by Irving of the Shipbuilding Strategy, which is aimed at helping the industry to rebuild and modernize - which Irving allegedly has done - so it can then compete and obtain its own work in the regular market, not so the Government of Canada can be the only actual constant provider of work.
> 
> So as far as I am concerned, Irving can go fly a kite: If it has a bit of slack between two different GoC orders, that is exactly when it is supposed to get off its fat a## and get itself some real work. Otherwise, there is no point in the God damn strategy, and we may as well start getting bids again on every piece of kit Canada wants to buy to benefit from the competition.



I ended up listening to/reading this, and it kind of pertains to what you say about not relying off the government for work.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/national-defence/42-1/34/john-schmidt-1/

I am glad the government is actually looking into the issues and long term solutions to this.


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## Kirkhill

I put this here because of the reference to the design:



> 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



> 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.


----------



## Stoker

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.


----------



## Kirkhill

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?


----------



## jmt18325

Yeah - I don't understand why we didn't just buy the design and build it.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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'


----------



## Kirkhill

Your point, Sir!  [

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






> 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.  



> 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.


----------



## suffolkowner

I thought the Svalbard carried the NH90 :dunno:


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I thought the Svalbard carried the NH90 :dunno:



Yes they operated the NH90 from 2009 onward.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pretty sure the Svalbard is capable of operating a NH-90, I was just jesting with Chris' point that details matter  [.

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.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes they operated the NH90 from 2009 onward.



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


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## MarkOttawa

New Russian AOPS laid down--lots more firepower than ours (note RCN near end):



> 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


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## jmt18325

It's kind of amazing how much they look alike actually....


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

wind tunnel testing of Interim AOR and Cyclone helicopter  https://www.skiesmag.com/news/testing-turbulence-landing-cyclone/


----------



## jollyjacktar

Wrong thread, but interesting reading.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OOPS!!  [:-[


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Irving is not great at posting progress, here is what I can find on twitter

Mega Block 2 almost complete






Mega block 1 underway


----------



## Stoker

If anyone wants to check out my page on HMCS Harry DeWolf I have a collection of build photos under albums.

https://www.facebook.com/HMCSLABRADORHARRYDEWOLF/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

thanks just liked your page


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> thanks just liked your page



Thanks Irving is very stingy with photos. I am touring very soon and no pictures allowed unfortunately.


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

Chief Stoker: Your photo library is fabulous. Thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Getting a bit heated between Irving and Bourque http://bourque.org/irvingletter.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting.

He's not doing himself any favours by lumping the "Irish" and the "Danish" vessels into the comparison.   I don't see any "near competitors" in those navies.


----------



## CBH99

I think he is more concerned about asking questions that Irving should be answering, even if some of the technical details are incomplete.  I think one of the natures of the letter is that he left the questions open, and if there is a reasonable response to the questions at hand, it is now on Irving to explain things in it's response.

The bigger picture and, in my opinion, more important point of the letter is to open up some transparency from Irving & hold it accountable?  I think the Canadian public by and large - for those who care - actually DO have some questions about why so much money is being awarded to Irving.  

Is it reasonable and being used responsibly?  Great, please show us!  
Is it unreasonable, and being squandered somehow?  Great, again please show us!


Here on the forums we have some very knowledgeable people (For example, Chief Stoker & Underway, just to name 2 off the top of my head) - who absolutely know what they are talking about.  We have an opportunity to ask questions to people who have a lot more working knowledge of this entire thing than most other people.  

The general public isn't quite so lucky, and there hasn't been a lot of clear answers from any of the involved parties that clearly explains to the public why/where/how some of these funds are being used.


Good on the media to attempt to hold Irving accountable, even if some of the technical details are off.   :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

Good post CBH99.

The thing about this project is that, since it is entirely publicly commissioned and publicly funded then the suppliers should have no reasonable expectation of commercial confidence.

It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to expect a line-item by line-item detailing of costs in the public domain.  The vendors to Irving are hardly likely to complain as they publish MSRPs  on equipment, hourly rates and contractual arrangements on finalized contracts as a matter of form.


----------



## Stoker

Irving is in it to make profit nothing more so is all the other shipyards such as Seaspan and Davie. The government is the one who pays the money for the expected product, if Irving can deliver for the specified funds then the public has no business where the money is going as Irving is a private company. If they can't deliver or need more money then yes some transparency is in order. There's also the business of competitiveness between companies as well. Irving will never give that information up, nor would I expect them to. Don't chastise Irving, go after the government who accepted the bid.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually I would disagree there Chief.

If the contract is a Cost Plus contract then the public has a right to see the cost, the detailed cost.


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

Chief Stoker: Well said. From what I understand of the progress of the AOPS construction, the Canadian taxpayer is getting what the Government contracted for on their behalf. This was not a cost plus arrangement at its inception.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Irving is in it to make profit nothing more so is all the other shipyards such as Seaspan and Davie. The government is the one who pays the money for the expected product, if Irving can deliver for the specified funds then the public has no business where the money is going as Irving is a private company. If they can't deliver or need more money then yes some transparency is in order. There's also the business of competitiveness between companies as well. Irving will never give that information up, nor would I expect them to. Don't chastise Irving, go after the government who accepted the bid.



Except we would all know how Irving would have reacted if they didn't get that bid, you want to suck on the public Teat, get used to the light.


----------



## Stoker

sunrayRnfldR said:
			
		

> Chief Stoker: Well said. From what I understand of the progress of the AOPS construction, the Canadian taxpayer is getting what the Government contracted for on their behalf. This was not a cost plus arrangement at its inception.



People seem to think Irving is going to do the work for free, Irving is in it to make a profit. The moneys been allotted, lets get some ships built.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Except we would all know how Irving would have reacted if they didn't get that bid, you want to suck on the public Teat, get used to the light.



Probably, but they didn't and I don't see the government asking for public disclosure.


----------



## Kirkhill

I have nothing against profits being earned.  I like profits myself.

And, to an extent that Irving, like the scorpion, is only acting according to its nature.

Having said that, and I guess I am agreeing with you to an extent, the biggest issue was the lack of "an informed client".  While Irving may, or may not have cause to believe that they are providing value for money, the government bureaucrats who evaluated and negotiated this contract had, in my belief, insufficient background to adequately evaluate the costs of transferring production to a Canadian firm.  This is equally true of the Seaspan decision.

I say this secure in the knowledge that many seasoned industry observers have expressed surprise at the costs being considered.

Having said that I would agree that the contract is in place and the ships must be delivered.  My only thought is that Irving should not be deciding if it gets to supply 5 or 6  hulls.  The expectation should be that they are supplying 6 hulls and will have to justify in detail why they can't afford to build the 6th.  Likewise Seaspan should be held to supplying 3 JSS hulls and, again, have to justify in detail why they can't afford to supply the 3rd.

Both of those grey areas can not be solely discretionary for the vendors.  If the vendors discover they only have funds to build 5.1 or 2.1 hulls, or 5.9 or 2.9 hulls - who gets the overage in funds and who decides what the overage is?

Those matters need to be a matter of public record.  And, I would suggest, can only be answered by detailed costing.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have nothing against profits being earned.  I like profits myself.
> 
> And, to an extent that Irving, like the scorpion, is only acting according to its nature.
> 
> Having said that, and I guess I am agreeing with you to an extent, the biggest issue was the lack of "an informed client".  While Irving may, or may not have cause to believe that they are providing value for money, the government bureaucrats who evaluated and negotiated this contract had, in my belief, insufficient background to adequately evaluate the costs of transferring production to a Canadian firm.  This is equally true of the Seaspan decision.
> 
> I say this secure in the knowledge that many seasoned industry observers have expressed surprise at the costs being considered.
> 
> Having said that I would agree that the contract is in place and the ships must be delivered.  My only thought is that Irving should not be deciding if it gets to supply 5 or 6  hulls.  The expectation should be that they are supplying 6 hulls and will have to justify in detail why they can't afford to build the 6th.  Likewise Seaspan should be held to supplying 3 JSS hulls and, again, have to justify in detail why they can't afford to supply the 3rd.
> 
> Both of those grey areas can not be solely discretionary for the vendors.  If the vendors discover they only have funds to build 5.1 or 2.1 hulls, or 5.9 or 2.9 hulls - who gets the overage in funds and who decides what the overage is?
> 
> Those matters need to be a matter of public record.  And, I would suggest, can only be answered by detailed costing.



Perhaps the government doesn't want the costs to come out. Its hard to say about how many ships will be built, right now five with the option for a 6th if there is enough money. We are planning for six and they haven't at this stage of the project saying its not a go. The government probably didn't have sufficient background to negotiate the contract, but its not like they could of built offshore either and so you are left with just a few yards. If there isn't a 6th hull well I would expect the government to examine the books in that case.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Perhaps[ the government doesn't want the costs to come out.



Not an insupportable proposition...


----------



## Bearpaw

What I have found astounding about the AOPS program is that the RCN
could have had a new flight(6) of Halifax II(10m longer, 32-cell VLS,....) for
the same price!

Bearpaw


----------



## Stoker

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> What I have found astounding about the AOPS program is that the RCN
> could have had a new flight(6) of Halifax II(10m longer, 32-cell VLS,....) for
> the same price!
> 
> Bearpaw



Sure and we could had a Minstrel or two but not being able to do the things we want them to do in the Arctic.


----------



## Grizzly

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sure and we could had a Minstrel or two but not being able to do the things we want them to do in the Arctic.



Nah. We'd only end up eating them anyway. But there'd be much rejoicing...


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:


----------



## Stoker

Grizzly said:
			
		

> Nah. We'd only end up eating them anyway. But there'd be much rejoicing...



Well done [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, Chief. I always eat my minstrels well done too!  [

Damn autocorrect!

But on your actual point: Remember that the two MISTRAL's that were available to Canada were specifically modified for Arctic operation, where the Russians intended to employ them. So they would have been useful for our Arctic plans.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we had gotten them, we would have likely this summer be doing assault landing training at the various communities, complete with some LAV's for support.

As for the numbers, if things go sideways, they won't look at the numbers or if they do, it will be a report to Cabinet and will never see the light of day.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we had gotten them, we would have likely this summer be doing assault landing training at the various communities, complete with some LAV's for support.
> 
> As for the numbers, if things go sideways, they won't look at the numbers or if they do, it will be a report to Cabinet and will never see the light of day.



They would still be getting Canadianized.  I doubt they would have been ready for this as yet as there would need to be EC's designed and approved, planned and funded, then shoehorned into DWPs that are already full etc, etc, etc.  And all on a shrinking budget.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they would have given the contract to Davie, in which case it likely would be complete, now if it went to Irving, it might take to 2019 and cost at least 50% of the initial purchase price....  8)


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They would still be getting Canadianized.  I doubt they would have been ready for this as yet as there would need to be EC's designed and approved, planned and funded, then shoehorned into DWPs that are already full etc, etc, etc.  And all on a shrinking budget.



Absolutely people outside the military thinks its as simple as putting a big red maple leaf on the side and "lets sail", its not as simple as that.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes, Chief. I always eat my minstrels well done too!  [
> 
> Damn autocorrect!
> 
> But on your actual point: Remember that the two MISTRAL's that were available to Canada were specifically modified for Arctic operation, where the Russians intended to employ them. So they would have been useful for our Arctic plans.



I don't doubt they would have been nice to have and put the rest the notion we are serious about the Arctic. Not in this lifetime.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Absolutely people outside the military thinks its as simple as putting a big red maple leaf on the side and "lets sail", its not as simple as that.



I am well aware the military can make anything complicated, likely the biggest issue beyond fitting our own Comms and EW suite would be adapting the hotel services from the Russian 220v 50 Hertz to North American standard.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There are also the DC systems and equipment to consider.  Everything has an impact in one way or another.  IPMS, another consideration as well perhaps.


----------



## Underway

Almost ready to come out and play....

Taken about 30 min ago.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Doesn't look like it will float.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems to be missing the pointy bit  [

It's not that important is it? Fitted for, but not with a bow  [


----------



## Stoker

[size=18pt]Nanisivik naval refuelling facility in Nunavut on track and on budget for fall 2018 opening[/size]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nanisivik-arctic-bay-naval-refueling-2018-1.4195662


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems they found the bow sections http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-progress


----------



## Underway

A better pic from during the day.  That's the middle "mega-block" for the AOPS.  The bow attaches to the point you can see (as you can see the bridge windows).  There are also some good pics of the side view of the mega block here.

I've gotten myself a tour of the facility this weekend.  If anyone is in the area and want to go check out this website and see if you can reserve a spot.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> A better pic from during the day.  That's the middle "mega-block" for the AOPS.  The bow attaches to the point you can see (as you can see the bridge windows).  There are also some good pics of the side view of the mega block here.
> 
> I've gotten myself a tour of the facility this weekend.  If anyone is in the area and want to go check out this website and see if you can reserve a spot.



I heard about that. I'm heading there on Thurs for a tour. My section will be doing WUP's for the class.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I heard about that. I'm heading there on Thurs for a tour. My section will be doing WUP's for the class.



Harry or Margie (is it to early to be giving ships nicknames)??  I'm assuming you are going to be doing the Harry's WUPs, quite the opportunity, I'm sure plenty of sailors a jealous (I know I am).  It should be an interesting summer watching all those megablocks come together.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Harry or Margie (is it to early to be giving ships nicknames)??  I'm assuming you are going to be doing the Harry's WUPs, quite the opportunity, I'm sure plenty of sailors a jealous (I know I am).  It should be an interesting summer watching all those megablocks come together.



When I say doing WUP's I will giving them not the subject of them. The bow should be on in a few weeks when the first 2 sections come out. Interesting fact, when completed the ship will be moved to a heavy lift ship and put in the water in the basin.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Is that because the basin is so deep....just in case of Irving build quality?  >

Wouldn't want Harry to become a navigation hazard.


----------



## FSTO

I refuse to call her HMCS Harry DeWolf, it will always be just HMCS DeWolf to me. Full names are a CCG or USN thing, not a RCN thing.

I really hope that our new AAW ships will be Tribals. With total consultation and buy in from the first nations community of course.


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> I refuse to call her HMCS Harry DeWolf, it will always be just HMCS DeWolf to me. Full names are a CCG or USN thing, not a RCN thing.
> 
> I really hope that our new AAW ships will be Tribals. With total consultation and buy in from the first nations community of course.



HMCS PRINCE



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Prince


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> HMCS PRINCE



Rather apropos for the man. IMHO of course!


----------



## jollyjacktar

HMCS PEGAHMAGOBOW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Pegahmagabow


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> HMCS PEGAHMAGOBOW
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Pegahmagabow



AND HE WAS A SNIPER OMG THIS IS PERFECT FOR AN AA DESTROYER!


----------



## jollyjacktar

:nod:   :bowing:


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> AND HE WAS A SNIPER OMG THIS IS PERFECT FOR AN AA DESTROYER!



I object to naming navy ships after army heros.  Its bad enough that the JSS is named after land battles.  Just not proper....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well seeing as it's not proper to use Tribal names anymore and if they still want to have FN connections and this is the only way... I am OK within as they're both decent men who deserve the honour and recognition.


----------



## serger989

Underway said:
			
		

> I object to naming navy ships after army heros.  Its bad enough that the JSS is named after land battles.  Just not proper....



The third ship name made me chuckle despite me knowing of the battle. So weird to call a ship "Crysler's Farm". In my mind I just picture a floating wooden barn filled with farm animals... :-X What would you have liked the ships to be named after however?


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well seeing as it's not proper to use Tribal names anymore and if they still want to have FN connections and this is the only way... I am OK within as they're both decent men who deserve the honour and recognition.


Is that really the policy now? 
I'm sure if the Navy approached the specific tribe and consulted with them respectfully we could do it again.

I just don't like the full names being used for HMC Ships


----------



## Navy_Pete

Also there was direct involvement with the ship and the actual tribe on the old Tribal class.  The CO and delegates on Athabaskan used to go out every few years to visit.

I think it'd be a pretty cool way to mend some fences and there are already existing ship names that could be used again like the Haida.  It's a good opportunity to educate people as well as you tend to get naturally interested to find out more about something when you are living on a steel box named after it.

If the tribes were asked ahead of time, and involved with designing (or redesigning) the ship's crests and the mottos, it would also be an awesome way to permanently showcase some of the amazing FN art and culture.  Plus we're more likely to get something that actually is badass enough to be a warship name and motto doing that than letting boring bureaucrats come up with something as asinine as war of 1812 battle locations for ship names.


----------



## Loachman

Underway said:
			
		

> Almost ready to come out and play....



It doesn't look like it will fit through the door.

A friend of my father's built a boat in his basement like that many years ago. It looked very nice while it was in one piece.



			
				serger989 said:
			
		

> So weird to call a ship "Crysler's Farm". In my mind I just picture a floating wooden barn filled with farm animals...



Like an Ark?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think a few aspects to remember are appropriate here.

First of all, no one has taken the various FN tribal names out of contention. The simple reason for that is that, while we convene naming committees (to the extent that the government of the day gives them any say in the matter, which is the opposite of what has been done with the last two classes - namely the JSS/AOR named after War of 1812 battles and the AOPS named after alleged* Canadian naval heroes, both of which were determined by the Harper government to be the area of selection), there are no books, regulations, directives or guidance provided these committee.

Second, HMCS Haida is not available anymore. While not in commission, the last HMCS Haida is a National historic site, designated as such as it is the last existing Tribal class ship preserved as such on behalf of all the Commonwealth nations that operated destroyers of this class.

Third, I don't think that the name of the third AOR had ever been selected. I, in these forum, made a joke of the fact that if there was third one they could select Chrysler farm as the name, but it would be weird to have a ship named after a form of land occupation.

I tend to agree with FSTO: Single names for warships, though it can include compound ones, such as all the various Saints we have had in the past  . I mean, anyone ever calls HMCS VILLE DE QUEBEC by her full name? No. We all say either "the Quebec" or call her "the VDQ".

* I say "alleged" because, in at least one case, William Hall, we have a Nova Scotian born British Citizen who served only with the Royal Navy, mostly in and around India and got a VC for service to the Empire as a result, but well before Nova Scotia was ever considered part of Canada - but they had to find a way to include some visible minority in the mix, even though few if any such minority had ever served in the RCN at times of wars fought by Canada. Similarly, Frederik Rolette, from Quebec city, who served with distinction throughout the War of 1812 but onboard British warships on the Great lakes - who at least came from a Canada - Lower Canada to be precise - was selected to have a token French Canadian in there somewhere, again even though few (but some did, especially in WWII) serve in the RCN's wars.


----------



## Underway

Here she is.

Some notes from the open house today.  

Irving is very very proud of their work and the employee's that I dealt with were delightful.  Even those who were not part of the "tour staff" were happily explaining their jobs to their families and those of us who asked questions (I probably know more about ship painting now that I need too, but next paint ship evolution I'll be able to Van Gogh it properly.)

Even with the understanding of the scale of the ship from plans and pictures, standing beside the mega blocks, the HDW (unofficial acronym) is quite large.

Bow thrusters up close are way cooler than I thought.

The bow steel is about 1 1/4" to 1 1/2" thick (no they did not let me measure with calipers).  The hull gets thinner as it goes up above the waterline.  Makes sense for an icebreaker.   There is also a double hull on the bow, that I could see.  One of the staff was explaining how to get in those small spaces to finish a few welds and also painting.

She has a real flat bottom.  Once again ice breaker.  The stabilization fins were smaller than I thought but are installed already on the middle megablock.

First ship was said to be 60% complete.

Any questions I'll try and answer but those were basically the highlights.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Is that really the policy now?
> I'm sure if the Navy approached the specific tribe and consulted with them respectfully we could do it again.
> 
> I just don't like the full names being used for HMC Ships



I can't say if this "might" be future policy but I have seen some screaming from the 1% crowd, bitching about appropriation of FN tribes and images on the 280s etc, etc etc...  But, seeing how those in charge nowadays seem timid and run scared at the meer sniff of controversy or God forbid, offending just about everything and everyone.  I wonder if they might not be looking at a PC solution.


----------



## Stoker

I was recently fortunate enough to receive a "behind the scene" tour of Harry DeWolf and she is about 60% percent complete and is now out of the assembly area and will be mated with the bow mega block #3 and stern.
 First impressions is that Harry DeWolf is a very large ship and everything seems over-sized, lots of storage, large flats, a large gym area among others. The bridge is quite large with plenty of viewing area and what would be expected of a Arctic Patrol Ship. Going through the ship in the various spaces I was impressed with the quality of construction and functionality. Machinery wise the four Man diesels are immense and all filter banks, centrifuges etc are piped away from the DA which makes running maintenance quite a bit simpler, All the machinery spaces are separated by automatic doors which makes rounds of the spaces a breeze.
The Caterpillar Emergency DA is impressive as well as the main motors which are quite large and impressive. A running theme to the entire ship I have found is that it well engineered for redundancy and to be self sufficient which is a must for operating in remote areas. 
Accommodations are first rate with most having its own shower and wash place. The crew dines in an all ranks cafeteria and each has there own lounge with windows! For training and riders, there is a 20 man mess. 
The world class environmental systems and waste disposal systems are impressive especially when operating in environmentally sensitive areas in the Arctic or the Caribbean and her exhaust has a scrubbing system to reduce its environmental footprint. From what I have seen with areas that allow ISO containers, there could be an argument made for a humanitarian capability. 
For what I have seen first hand, I have come to the conclusion that comparing Harry DeWolf with the Danish or Norwegian equivalents is like comparing apples and oranges. Harry DeWolf is better acquitted and fitted out than the other patrol ships that I been on and operated with.


----------



## Good2Golf

CS, out of interest, what models are the main and emerge DAs?  Cat-Cat or Cat-MaK?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

More relevant to the Diefenbaker and the Coast Guard but posted here for Arctic and sovereignty relevance.



> U.S., Canada Team on Project for Icebreaker
> 8/15/2017
> By Yasmin Tadjdeh
> The National Research Council of Canada simulates sea ice for testing.
> Photo: National Research Council of Canada
> 
> With the United States facing the imminent retirement of its sole operational heavy-duty polar icebreaker, the U.S. Coast Guard is teaming with Canadian researchers to help conduct tests that will inform requirements for a new vessel.
> 
> The service is responsible for maintaining the nation’s fleet of polar icebreakers, but currently only has two operational ships in its inventory — the Polar Star, a heavy-duty vessel, and the Healy, a medium-duty icebreaker. With the Polar Star approaching the end of its service life in the next several years, the Coast Guard is working in earnest to field a new vessel.
> 
> This summer the service and the National Research Council of Canada teamed up to conduct ice testing for a potential new vessel. The experiments occurred at the NRC’s St. Johns, Newfoundland, facility, which has a large tank that can simulate sea ice.
> 
> “The way we build that ice sheet … is not just the way you would freeze ice cubes,” said Jim Millan, director of research at the facility. “We go through special processes to develop that ice so that it actually has the correct properties for us to test it. So it mimics basically sea ice at a model scale.”
> 
> At 300 feet in length, the tank is as long as the Statue of Liberty, he said. It is also 50 feet wide.
> 
> During the tests — which started in May and continued through August — the NRC conducted experiments with a heavy-duty polar icebreaker model that was 1/30 the scale of a normal vessel, he said. The model traversed the ice tank and simulated ice thicknesses up to eight feet.
> 
> Most of the testing focused on the powering and maneuvering of the vessel while breaking through ice, he said.
> 
> Naturally occurring sea ice is not flat, Millan said. “In nature it gets pressurized, and when two sheets of ice come together it’s almost like continental drift — you get pieces of ice flowing together with great force and you get these pressurized ridges that form and the ice gets pushed underwater and above the water into almost … a great big wall,” he said. Icebreakers can sometimes go around these obstacles, but occasionally have to batter through them, he added.
> 
> The ice tank is able to recreate some of these ridges, he said.
> 
> The St. John’s facility has been in operation since 1984. The NRC has in the past worked with the U.S. Coast Guard on research work for vessels such as the Healy, Millan said.
> 
> Canada’s coast guard is also working to procure new icebreakers. That makes the partnership between the two countries mutually beneficial, he said.
> 
> “It just makes sense for us to share in the development,” he said. “We are learning a lot from working with the U.S. Coast Guard. … Every ship model that we test is unique.”
> 
> The partnership will allow for commonality among the vessels, he added.
> 
> 
> Topics: Maritime Security



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/8/15/us-canada-team-on-project-for-icebreaker


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I was recently fortunate enough to receive a "behind the scene" tour of Harry DeWolf and she is about 60% percent complete and is now out of the assembly area and will be mated with the bow mega block #3 and stern.
> First impressions is that Harry DeWolf is a very large ship and everything seems over-sized, lots of storage, large flats, a large gym area among others. The bridge is quite large with plenty of viewing area and what would be expected of a Arctic Patrol Ship. Going through the ship in the various spaces I was impressed with the quality of construction and functionality. Machinery wise the four Man diesels are immense and all filter banks, centrifuges etc are piped away from the DA which makes running maintenance quite a bit simpler, All the machinery spaces are separated by automatic doors which makes rounds of the spaces a breeze.
> The Caterpillar Emergency DA is impressive as well as the main motors which are quite large and impressive. A running theme to the entire ship I have found is that it well engineered for redundancy and to be self sufficient which is a must for operating in remote areas.
> Accommodations are first rate with most having its own shower and wash place. The crew dines in an all ranks cafeteria and each has there own lounge with windows! For training and riders, there is a 20 man mess.
> The world class environmental systems and waste disposal systems are impressive especially when operating in environmentally sensitive areas in the Arctic or the Caribbean and her exhaust has a scrubbing system to reduce its environmental footprint. From what I have seen with areas that allow ISO containers, there could be an argument made for a humanitarian capability.
> For what I have seen first hand, I have come to the conclusion that comparing Harry DeWolf with the Danish or Norwegian equivalents is like comparing apples and oranges. Harry DeWolf is better acquitted and fitted out than the other patrol ships that I been on and operated with.



Any idea on what type of boats it can handle?


----------



## Underway

Two 8.5m multirole rescue boats each (one on each side).  It also looks like in the plans you can launch a large boarding party RHIB on the starboard side, a TEMPSC covered orange survival craft on the port side and one of a covered LCV or similar from the stern by crane to carry forces ashore.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks, glad to see they can operate a proper landing craft, now if it can take a Viking or BV206 that be great.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stern components of AOPS # 2 coming together

http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-progress/stern-piece-of-the-future-hcms-margaret-brooke-lowered-onto-skegs

Final Bow Module in place Nov 7th for the AOPS #1 Harry Dewolfe also coming together

http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-progress/installing-the-final-bow-unit-of-the-future-hmcs-harry-dewolf


----------



## Underway

If that was Nov 6th then we should be seeing the bow outside to be married to the rest of her shortly.  Seems they are still relatively on track for a Jan launch.


----------



## jollyjacktar

So my son tells me too.  He's on the DeWolfe build.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> If that was Nov 6th then we should be seeing the bow outside to be married to the rest of her shortly.  Seems they are still relatively on track for a Jan launch.



Hopefully by April we have the first OFSV and AOP's in the water with 4 more vessels under construction. Apparently there will be a delay starting the Science Vessel at Seaspan, but I don't know why or for how long. Once the SV is started, then they are supposed to start the JSS.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully by April we have the first OFSV and AOP's in the water with 4 more vessels under construction. Apparently there will be a delay starting the Science Vessel at Seaspan, but I don't know why or for how long. Once the SV is started, then they are supposed to start the JSS.



Fingers crossed.  I wonder what the expected time for the DeWolfe to be delivered to the Navy is.  I suppose once she's in the water they are going to add the mast and the Nav/Coms/combat suite which are going to be pretty straight forward.  Then there are builder's trials to do, which could take a while.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone have a sense how long it will take HDW to go from the west coast all the way up to the western arctic? How many times will it have to refuel in the US? Could those AOPS from the west coast be based in Churchill instead, would that save any time and possibly extend their patrol time actually in the arctic?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone have a sense how long it will take HDW to go from the west coast all the way up to the western arctic? How many times will it have to refuel in the US? Could those AOPS from the west coast be based in Churchill instead, would that save any time and possibly extend their patrol time actually in the arctic?



It should take 3 weeks to transit as far as Tuk. It shouldn't have to refuel at all in the US. AOPS could be based in Churchill but it won't be. The fueling depot at Nanisivik will be used to fuel all AOPS.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> It should take 3 weeks to transit as far as Tuk. It shouldn't have to refuel at all in the US. AOPS could be based in Churchill but it won't be. The fueling depot at Nanisivik will be used to fuel all AOPS.



Thanks for the reply and the info.
I was able to find an article from 2015 which talked about a pair of Kingston class ships doing a patrol up to Tuk where it talked about the trip being 6,500km - not sure if that was one way or round trip. If that’s the distance for one way, that would mean a min of say 16,000km for the entire patrol - is that considered a normal distance for a single patrol? Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity, will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub? Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity,
> 
> _Nope, the Russian sub thing in those waters is a bit overdone.  Subs are in those waters probably with less frequency than the bomber overflights that require NORAD intervention._
> 
> will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub?
> 
> _Nope.  They are big noisy icebreakers.  Their job is constabulary and to move military people and equipment around the arctic._
> 
> Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.



To the last question probably not.  The helo deck can land a Cyclone but the ship can't do sustained operations with one.  It's just too big.  The helo space is generally for ice navigation helos.  What possibly within Canadian arctic waters are you going to need something larger than a 25mm cannon for?  All the ships that are a potential threat in those waters are either a) underwater b) icebreakers themselves c) got there when there was no ice.

If there is no ice and a threat then we have these fancy things called frigates to deal with the problem.  If there is ice there are these people in the airforce who can help out.  AOPS are a security guard.  They aren't the police.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Thanks for the info, it just seems such an incredibly long way to go for an icebreaker before it actually sees any meaningful ice....it will be basically going entirely around Alaska twice during each patrol.  Probably better than 80% of the total distance traveled will be eaten up just getting to and from its patrol area.  It just doesn't make much sense, there's got to be a better location for those ships to be stationed on the west coast and charged with the responsibility of looking after the western arctic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's roughly 3200nm trip, we did it from Coppermine to Victoria in a 4 week trip on a 1100 class icebreaker, it all depends on the ice though. Had we been 6 hrs later getting to Point Barrows, we would have had to turn around and go through the Panama to get home as the ice sheet from Siberia had closed the passage.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply and the info.
> I was able to find an article from 2015 which talked about a pair of Kingston class ships doing a patrol up to Tuk where it talked about the trip being 6,500km - not sure if that was one way or round trip. If that’s the distance for one way, that would mean a min of say 16,000km for the entire patrol - is that considered a normal distance for a single patrol? Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity, will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub? Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.



Yes going from Esquimalt is a long journey, its 4846NM from Esquimalt to Nanisivik and 2800NM from Halifax to Nanisivik so Halifax is certainly closer but well within AOPS range. Once on station in the western Arctic they will probably shuttle back and forth Nanisivik to get food, fuel and parts. The Russians is not a concern really as the ship was never built as a war fighter. The helo will probably be a griffon or more likely a CCG helo for ice detection and other utility work.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, it just seems such an incredibly long way to go for an icebreaker before it actually sees any meaningful ice....it will be basically going entirely around Alaska twice during each patrol.  Probably better than 80% of the total distance traveled will be eaten up just getting to and from its patrol area.  It just doesn't make much sense, there's got to be a better location for those ships to be stationed on the west coast and charged with the responsibility of looking after the western arctic.



Once they get up there they will stay there for the season and only transit back to Esquimalt at the end of the summer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yes, CCG Pacific works a 28day cycle. Some of the East Coast ships worked a 6 month cycle, not sure if they still do. So we would fly up and relieve the crew and vis versa. The vessel normally stayed up the whole season, to put the navigation buoys in and then take them out, once the resupply trips where done.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity, will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub? Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.



Let's not get carried away here.  The only way a ship really knows if it is being tracked by a submarine is when they pick up sounds from the Torpedo.   

I highly doubt any foreign (unfriendly) submarine would bother shadowing one of our AOPS.

Warships give off ridiculous ranges..

Besides we have friends up there with boats that patrol for us, that's more than enough to keep the commies away.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes going from Esquimalt is a long journey, its 4846NM from Esquimalt to Nanisivik and 2800NM from Halifax to Nanisivik so Halifax is certainly closer but well within AOPS range. Once on station in the western Arctic they will probably shuttle back and forth Nanisivik to get food, fuel and parts. The Russians is not a concern really as the ship was never built as a war fighter. The helo will probably be a griffon or more likely a CCG helo for ice detection and other utility work.



Ok, I have to ask this question, if its 2,000NM closer to Nanisivik approaching from the east - all the while going through our own waterways, then why not base all of the AOPS out of Halifax and then just have them run up to Nanisivik and then push further west to the end of our area of responsibility and then turn back again towards Nanisivik.  They will be travelling a lesser distance. Why bother travelling over 3,500NM through US and International waters before even beginning to police our own backyard? What value is in it for us?


----------



## NavyShooter

Unlike the Monty Python sketch about the Art of not Being Seen, there is, sometimes, great value in having our national flag shown in certain areas.

Waving the flag is not just something for Canada Day, or for IIHF games.  Every day in the RCN is Flag Day.  

Our warships are a means of demonstrating our national sovereignty wherever they go.  Or rather, wherever they are SEEN to go.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to ask this question, if its 2,000NM closer to Nanisivik approaching from the east - all the while going through our own waterways, then why not base all of the AOPS out of Halifax and then just have them run up to Nanisivik and then push further west to the end of our area of responsibility and then turn back again towards Nanisivik.  They will be travelling a lesser distance. Why bother travelling over 3,500NM through US and International waters before even beginning to police our own backyard? What value is in it for us?



CCG finds value in having ice breakers based in BC to cover the Western Arctic, it also means the ship can conduct other tasks when not on arctic duty.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCG finds value in having ice breakers based in BC to cover the Western Arctic, it also means the ship can conduct other tasks when not on arctic duty.



Why not just station 3 of the 6 Kingston class ships from the East Coast over to the West Coast (having 9 in total stationed there on the West Coast) and put all 5/6 AOPS on the East Coast?  The AOPS can then cover all of the arctic in a shorter time period.  If the CCG still stations true ice breakers on the West Coast for operations on the Western Arctic, fine, no harm done. They can fly the flag in that area as much as they want and they'll have a longer season to do so since they are most likely better than a Polar Class 6 that the AOPS may/will have.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to ask this question, if its 2,000NM closer to Nanisivik approaching from the east - all the while going through our own waterways, then why not base all of the AOPS out of Halifax and then just have them run up to Nanisivik and then push further west to the end of our area of responsibility and then turn back again towards Nanisivik.  They will be travelling a lesser distance. Why bother travelling over 3,500NM through US and International waters before even beginning to police our own backyard? What value is in it for us?



Because we don't like keeping all our assets in one place, keep in mind AOPS will be deploying lots of other places other than the Arctic.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Why not just station 3 of the 6 Kingston class ships from the East Coast over to the West Coast (having 9 in total stationed there on the West Coast) and put all 5/6 AOPS on the East Coast?  The AOPS can then cover all of the arctic in a shorter time period.  If the CCG still stations true ice breakers on the West Coast for operations on the Western Arctic, fine, no harm done. They can fly the flag in that area as much as they want and they'll have a longer season to do so since they are most likely better than a Polar Class 6 that the AOPS may/will have.



Kingston class are perfect for around the islands and inshore area's in and around Alaska and BC.  They have a shallow draft, are super maneuverable and can go just about anywhere.

Western Arctic is an ingress point in the northwest passage.  Need to cover both sides.  Also AOPS does other jobs than just arctic stuff.  Though I expect there will more of them out East then on the West coast.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Interesting re: AOPS being deployed elsewhere.  Great Lakes tours would be a good show, but is there something of operational value that this ship brings to say, a relief operation in the Caribbean, or anti-drug operations, that the 330's and/or the Asterix do not?  Just asking. 
I could, for example, see the ship being useful in the event of search and rescue / debris and body recovery operation at sea. Are there diving support facilities that are unique to the ship? Etc.  

I've come around to the position that it is a good thing these ships are being built for the navy, they will give many young sailors a chance to experience the arctic and other places that the navy seldom goes. But,   I also believe that a sovereignty vessel they should have a very advanced surveillance sensor capability that is built in (not just modular), and it seems the current equipment fit does not bring a whole lot that is new to the table.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Interesting re: AOPS being deployed elsewhere.  Great Lakes tours would be a good show, but is there something of operational value that this ship brings to say, a relief operation in the Caribbean, or anti-drug operations, that the 330's and/or the Asterix do not?  Just asking.
> I could, for example, see the ship being useful in the event of search and rescue / debris and body recovery operation at sea. Are there diving support facilities that are unique to the ship? Etc.
> 
> I've come around to the position that it is a good thing these ships are being built for the navy, they will give many young sailors a chance to experience the arctic and other places that the navy seldom goes. But,   I also believe that a sovereignty vessel they should have a very advanced surveillance sensor capability that is built in (not just modular), and it seems the current equipment fit does not bring a whole lot that is new to the table.



The ships will be eventually equipped with a UAV. You are correct the ships will be used for the Arctic, Anti Drug, Fisheries, Search and Rescue, Support to other government departments, disaster relief and whatever else the RCN wants them to do.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Is it true that the 5/6 AOPS is intended to replace all 12 of the Kingston class? How is this even feasible?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Is it true that the 5/6 AOPS is intended to replace all 12 of the Kingston class? How is this even feasible?



That's not correct, the Kingston Class will continue to be used for at least another decade.


----------



## Czech_pivo

If that’s the case, then who’s going to build them? Neither of the two ordained shipyards will have any ability at all to build any new ships in at least 13-15yrs in the case of Seapan and for Irving into the 2040s if they are going to be building 1frigate per year until then. How will this be achieved? The more I read and research and understand about this entire rebuild of the coast guard and the navy the more I’m convinced it’s totally screwed and virtually nothing will correct it. It’s FUBAR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply and the info.
> I was able to find an article from 2015 which talked about a pair of Kingston class ships doing a patrol up to Tuk where it talked about the trip being 6,500km - not sure if that was one way or round trip. If that’s the distance for one way, that would mean a min of say 16,000km for the entire patrol - is that considered a normal distance for a single patrol? Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity, will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub? Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.



Mk48 is an awfully big fish for a helo.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mk48 is an awfully big fish for a helo.



Yep! Try and load a couple of them on a helo and ... I am not sure it will ever take off  ;D.

Now, I don't believe Czech_Pivo is a seaman, so we should cut him some slack.

I also think that many people see the A, for Arctic, but forget the O, for Offshore.

The concept behind the acquisition of the AOPS was combining the RCN's wish for larger offshore patrol vessels to substitute in for the combat vessels (destroyers and frigates) for the support of other departments duties in winter on the Grand Banks or off Haida Gwai (the Old Queen Charlottes islands for those of you who don't update your maps of Canada from time to time  ;D) and the Government of the day's fixation of the day of foisting on the RCN Arctic duties in ice. These winter duties off the shores of Canada were too much for a small vessel like the MCDV's which are not meant to work effectively in such harsh weather. Not that there is anything wrong with the MCDV's themselves: They are great little ships for their purpose - which is primarily mine warfare and support for other similar underwater duties - not patrolling offshore in high sea states.

So the idea is: in summer, the AOPS carry out their Arctic duties. Once the ice hardens in, they move South to do Other Departments Support duties in the Canadian EEZ. And that is why you have some on the West coast as well as on the East coast - not because we like to split our assets from one coast to the other (which wasn't so with the aircraft carriers, the cruisers, the DDH's, the O-boats, the diving support ship Cormorant, or the training vessels, to name a few instances of not splitting assets)

The MCDV's will be retained because: (1) they are great little ships for their duty as mine warfare support crafts; (2) they are economical, even as compared to AOPS, for inshore general duties; (3) they have a lot of life left in them; and, (4) they are much more readily available vessels for reserve officers and seamen training.

Finally, regardless of how busy ISL and Seaspan get, there are more than enough small and medium size shipyards in Canada (and very large ones if you include Davie) to compete for and build the next generation of mine warfare crafts when the need arises in 10-15 years.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> If that’s the case, then who’s going to build them? Neither of the two ordained shipyards will have any ability at all to build any new ships in at least 13-15yrs in the case of Seapan and for Irving into the 2040s if they are going to be building 1frigate per year until then. How will this be achieved? The more I read and research and understand about this entire rebuild of the coast guard and the navy the more I’m convinced it’s totally screwed and virtually nothing will correct it. It’s FUBAR.



Any shipyard can build a build an MCDV.  They are literally the simplest ships.  Less than 1000 tonnes and 50m long.  There are a number of yards in Canada that could build them easy.  Hell, Davie could build 3 at a time they have a tonne of capacity.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep! Try and load a couple of them on a helo and ... I am not sure it will ever take off  ;D.
> 
> Now, I don't believe Czech_Pivo is a seaman, so we should cut him some slack.



True.

Czech_Pivo, a maritime helicopter is going to use something much smaller, like the Mk 46.








> I also think that many people see the A, for Arctic, but forget the O, for Offshore.



Or they see it _Arctic Offshore_, vice _Arctic / Offshore_.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or they see it _Arctic Offshore_, vice _Arctic / Offshore_.



There’s a difference?

Like Safe & Stowed or Safe/Stowed?   One of my biggest pet peeves.

Are there plans to embark a CH-148?   I would think for fisheries/sov & offshore patrols the CH-148 would come in quite handy.


----------



## jmt18325

The bow is being joined to the rest of the ship:

https://twitter.com/IrvingShipbuild/status/939116965075005441


----------



## Half Full

if you can't access twitter...here is an article from NavalToday:

https://navaltoday.com/2017/12/08/canadian-navys-first-aops-hmcs-harry-dewolf-takes-shape/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> There’s a difference?
> 
> Like Safe & Stowed or Safe/Stowed?   One of my biggest pet peeves.
> 
> Are there plans to embark a CH-148?   I would think for fisheries/sov & offshore patrols the CH-148 would come in quite handy.



Well, ya like people think it means "offshore in the arctic" vice "arctic or offshore"....

My pet peeve is the "offline continuity check complete" being called before hearing "AOIU power is off".   ;D

Time to make the donuts...feliz navidad!


----------



## Underway

Some photos I took today.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair do's - she looks good.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes going from Esquimalt is a long journey, its 4846NM from Esquimalt to Nanisivik and 2800NM from Halifax to Nanisivik so Halifax is certainly closer but well within AOPS range. Once on station in the western Arctic they will probably shuttle back and forth Nanisivik to get food, fuel and parts. The Russians is not a concern really as the ship was never built as a war fighter. The helo will probably be a griffon or more likely a CCG helo for ice detection and other utility work.



Is there a possibility to resupply from Tuktoyaktuk now that there is a road there?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> Some photos I took today.


How do they come up with the number for the ship?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The side number on the hull? 

The RCN tells them what to paint.


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Is there a possibility to resupply from Tuktoyaktuk now that there is a road there?



There is however Harry DeWolf Class ship can carry and was designed to carry a significant amount of food and other consumables. Generally fuel and fresh produce is the only consumables they will need to replenish from time to time. Tuk is a nice place but is surrounded by a very shallow area and the ship must anchor many miles off and must travel by small boat to get in and not an ideal stop. In the past fuel and food was transported by barge to meet ships up the Mackenzie river however incredibility expensive and the fresh produce was starting to get old.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> How do they come up with the number for the ship?




The 400 series is what is designated for patrol craft by the RCN.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And as she is lead in Class, she's 400.


----------



## Good2Golf

As opposed to first in class FHE, pennant 400, HMCS Bras D'Or?


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And as she is lead in Class, she's 400.









 :tsktsk: ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Whew!  Bras D'Or is still 400!


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As opposed to first in class FHE, pennant 400, HMCS Bras D'Or?



The classification system post unification is quite different from what it is now. It was an experimental craft only one was ever to be built.


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As opposed to first in class FHE, pennant 400, HMCS Bras D'Or?



From what I can gather there could be different classifications for patrol craft, they probably started at 430 because of it. Much like the DDE/DDH and DDG 280's all have gaps in the numbering and all are designated destroyers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> :tsktsk: ;D



 :rofl:  you're right l should have said the lead number of the class.


----------



## suffolkowner

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There is however Harry DeWolf Class ship can carry and was designed to carry a significant amount of food and other consumables. Generally fuel and fresh produce is the only consumables they will need to replenish from time to time. Tuk is a nice place but is surrounded by a very shallow area and the ship must anchor many miles off and must travel by small boat to get in and not an ideal stop. In the past fuel and food was transported by barge to meet ships up the Mackenzie river however incredibility expensive and the fresh produce was starting to get old.



Thanks good info


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I can gather there could be different classifications for patrol craft, they probably started at 430 because of it. Much like the DDE/DDH and DDG 280's all have gaps in the numbering and all are designated destroyers.



The department usually (not always) likes to start a new class of ship by rounding up to the next "tens".

BTW, there are few gaps in the Destroyers. You have to consider the renumbering of the tribals and V class destroyers as they were refitted into ASW destroyer escorts between the various batches of St-Laurent.

205-207: St-Laurents
213-219: Refitted Tribals
225-228: Refitted V class
229-236: Next group of St-Laurents
256-266: final group of St-Laurents
280-283: Iroquois

Similarly, the Halifax's got their numbering start at 330 because 301 to 324 had been used for the River class frigates after they were refitted into the Prestonian class of escorts.

Finally, sometimes, some numbers become unavailable because they were pre-assigned to a type and for some reason not used. That's the case with the 400 series. 400 to 425 were set aside for the Bras D'or class of 26 FHE's. Bras D'or, BTW was not an experimental vessel. The class was planned and Bras D'or herself was very close to the fitting of her combat suite and final last six months of testing to prove the class before moving into production. The facilities for construction were all lined up in Sorel when the government of the day cut the defence budget heavily in 1971 and we went into the heavy restructuring of unification/integration, at which time they were shelved. 

The choice of number for the HDeW is a bit bizarre, however.

First of all, historically, our patrol vessels have been in the 100 series - though admittedly we were running out, with the Ex-RCMP boats running to 196, in the 400 series (MTB's from 459 to  491) or in the 700 series (MTB's and Fairmile from 726 to 748 plus 797).

I would have thought, however, that they would continue from the first Arctic Patrol Vessel of the Navy, the Labrador, which bore hull number 50.

So I would have expected 51 to 55 or 56, as the case may be, but of course that would have interfered with the numbering of the Orca training vessels (55 to 62). The real question is why the Orca got those numbers to start with. Considering where they fit, they could have numbered the PCT's from 143 to 150 - picking up after Rally.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The department usually (not always) likes to start a new class of ship by rounding up to the next "tens".
> 
> BTW, there are few gaps in the Destroyers. You have to consider the renumbering of the tribals and V class destroyers as they were refitted into ASW destroyer escorts between the various batches of St-Laurent.
> 
> 205-207: St-Laurents
> 213-219: Refitted Tribals
> 225-228: Refitted V class
> 229-236: Next group of St-Laurents
> 256-266: final group of St-Laurents
> 280-283: Iroquois
> 
> Similarly, the Halifax's got their numbering start at 330 because 301 to 324 had been used for the River class frigates after they were refitted into the Prestonian class of escorts.
> 
> Finally, sometimes, some numbers become unavailable because they were pre-assigned to a type and for some reason not used. That's the case with the 400 series. 400 to 425 were set aside for the Bras D'or class of 26 FHE's. Bras D'or, BTW was not an experimental vessel. The class was planned and Bras D'or herself was very close to the fitting of her combat suite and final last six months of testing to prove the class before moving into production. The facilities for construction were all lined up in Sorel when the government of the day cut the defence budget heavily in 1971 and we went into the heavy restructuring of unification/integration, at which time they were shelved.
> 
> The choice of number for the HDeW is a bit bizarre, however.
> 
> First of all, historically, our patrol vessels have been in the 100 series - though admittedly we were running out, with the Ex-RCMP boats running to 196, in the 400 series (MTB's from 459 to  491) or in the 700 series (MTB's and Fairmile from 726 to 748 plus 797).
> 
> I would have thought, however, that they would continue from the first Arctic Patrol Vessel of the Navy, the Labrador, which bore hull number 50.
> 
> So I would have expected 51 to 55 or 56, as the case may be, but of course that would have interfered with the numbering of the Orca training vessels (55 to 62). The real question is why the Orca got those numbers to start with. Considering where they fit, they could have numbered the PCT's from 143 to 150 - picking up after Rally.



There's a book I have by David Freeman which talks about all the complexities of the naming Canadian Warships. Much of the conventional procedures was thrown out during integration and post integration.


----------



## Loachman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The helo will probably be a griffon



We don't have enough - or enough crews - to come close to meeting current demand.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think Chief may be referring to these 412s....






https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/government-canada-accepts-new-helicopters-canadian-coast-guard/

My understanding was that the A/OPS would operate a CCG 412 type helo in the Arctic, a CH-148 in the Atlantic and Pacific with limited support and provide emergency landing facilities for the CH-149.



> 3 CONCEPT OF AOPS HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
> 3.1 General
> Within the limits and restrictions described below, the AOPS shall be capable of:
> a. controlling an approaching helicopter,
> b. recovering a helicopter to the flight deck,
> c. launching a helicopter from the flight deck,
> d. controlling a departing helicopter,
> e. securing a helicopter on the flight deck, and
> f. fuelling a helicopter on the flight deck....
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of HIFR in accordance with CFTO C-12-124-A00/MB-002
> Shipborne Helicopter Operating Procedures (SHOPS) (dated 14 May 2008), Section 3 –
> Helicopter Fuelling Procedures.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of VERTREP in accordance with SHOPS, Section 4 –
> Vertical Replenishment, Hoist Transfers and Administrative Flights.
> 
> 3.2 *Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter*
> The AOPS will operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter during deployments to the
> Canadian Arctic.
> The AOPS may operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on occasion during
> deployments in other Canadian waters, including: the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
> Ocean, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
> The AOPS will employ the Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for:
> a. ice reconnaissance,
> b. personnel and light cargo transfer between ship and shore,
> c. medical evacuation, and
> d. Search and Rescue.....
> 
> 3.3* CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter*
> The AOPS will support limited operations of a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter on occasion
> and for short periods of time during deployments in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
> Ocean and in international waters.....
> 
> 3.4* CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter*
> The AOPS will provide an emergency flight deck and refuelling service for CH-149
> Cormorant Helicopters in support of Search and Rescue missions in Canadian waters.





> 1 *The Canadian Coast Guard is in the early stages of a project to replace its fleet of helicopters. The
> intent is to acquire 6 medium twin engined helicopters* and 16 light twin engined helicopters. *The likely
> candidates to fill the requirement for medium helicopters are the Bell 412,* the Eurocopter EC 155 and the
> AgustaWestland AW139. The likely candidates to fill the requirement for light helicopters are the Bell
> 429, the Eurocopter EC 135, the Eurocopter EC 145 and the AgustaWestland AW109. For the purposes
> of this specification and because it has the largest (an thus most demanding) folded dimensions, *the
> future Canadian Coast Guard medium helicopter is assumed to be the Bell 412* with optional blade folding
> kit. Note that Canadian Coast Guard helicopters are operated by Transport Canada on behalf of the
> Coast Guard.



Per Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (sic) Helicopter/Ship Interface Requirements Rev 3 - Draft  ca 2010


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think Chief may be referring to these 412s....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/government-canada-accepts-new-helicopters-canadian-coast-guard/
> 
> My understanding was that the A/OPS would operate a CCG 412 type helo in the Arctic, a CH-148 in the Atlantic and Pacific with limited support and provide emergency landing facilities for the CH-149.
> 
> Per Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (sic) Helicopter/Ship Interface Requirements Rev 3 - Draft  ca 2010



The civilian version however I can envision landing Griffons during joint exercises in the Arctic.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Chief...

But from Loachman's standpoint that would just be another place to land during another exercise - not a permanent commitment to the ship.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Chief...
> 
> But from Loachman's standpoint that would just be another place to land during another exercise - not a permanent commitment to the ship.



Yes absolutely, from what I can gather a Cyclone won't be operating very often from the platform either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Chief...
> 
> But from Loachman's standpoint that would just be another place to land during another exercise - not a permanent commitment to the ship.



Even the CCG helicopters are merely attached for the trip, home ported at a base.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Even the CCG helicopters are merely attached for the trip, home ported at a base.



We need to dust off the HUP 3's and use them on AOPS.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Even the CCG helicopters are merely attached for the trip, home ported at a base.



Still, different than an actual Griffon. The Griffon would not be onboard for the whole trip, but only incidentally land on an AOPS in the course of a North deployment/Exercise it would have reached either by itself or in the back of a C-17, probably for no more than either embarking some troops (ranger, likely) or dropping off a casualty or refuelling, etc. but no more.

Besides, unless they have been upgraded, I don't think the Griffon, as a rule, are fitted with the safety equipment for long transits over bodies of water.


----------



## Privateer

I thought that one of the roles of a helicopter accompanying an icebreaker is to scout ahead for the best route though the ice.  Wouldn't you therefore want a helo accompanying the ship for the entire deployment?


----------



## MarkOttawa

From 2015 on new CCG medium-lift helos--unlike CAF procurements acquired with little media attention and no political controversy (guess why? made in Quebec).  Coast Guard sure does fly under the radar most of the time:



> Canadian Coast Guard’s New Medium-Lift Helos Sole-Sourced to Bell Helicopter Canada
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guards-new-medium-lift-helos-sole-sourced-to-bell-canada/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Privateer: The Coast Guard helicopter will deploy North with the AOPS for the whole duration, and the Coast Guard is most likely going to provide the Ice Observer (known in vernacular as the Ice Pick) because that is a highly technical trade and they are very good at it.

Mark: unless you can point me to any other manufacturer of helicopters in Canada, your comment on the fact that it's because it's in Quebec is out of place, especially when you consider that Bell Textron builds and sells the 420's built in Quebec all over the planet to users that are perfectly satisfied with the product.

BTW, even as militarized version, in the Griffon, there is nothing wrong with the helicopter. It is superior to the old Iroquois, Twin Hueys and Kiowas it replaced. The negative comments you hear in the RCAF about it usually have to do with the fact that it is not as capable as the US Blackhawk, not that they have flaws in and of themselves. Well guess what? Dozens and dozens of other countries, including most other G-8/G-20 nations, don't operate Blackhawks but rather less capable helicopters because they happen to built them in own country or can't afford Blackhawks. Too bad, deal with it.

This blasting of anything as soon as it is associated with the word "Quebec" in these fora gets tiring.

/Rant off


----------



## PuckChaser

Bell 412 is a great public safety helicopter, probably do real well for the Coast Guard. It's junk to support any sort of Army operations or as a real military helicopter. Max cargo weight is something like 1200lbs in Canada, which gets a lot lower at altitude and/or heat. 1200lbs is likely about 4.5 infantry soldiers with just patrol weight in Afghanistan. Look at the pictures of the Griffons in Iraq right now. I've never seen more than 2 pax in them with the door guns mounted.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Isn't the issue with the Griffon is armour weight?  Which wouldn't be applicable to Coast Guard 412 applications?


----------



## PuckChaser

Unless the armor is permanently bolted on in Canada, the flights I've been on have been around that 1200lbs pax/cargo weight.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver: In fact the competition was effectively rigged to favour Bell, something apparently quite acceptable because of industrial benefits.  Were the helos made in, say, Ontario the same result no doubt would have occurred; I suspect only more so in case of Quebec, Canadian politics being what they are:



> Canadian coast guard medium lift helicopters
> Fairness Monitor final report
> ...
> PPI Consulting Limited [ http://www.ppiconsultinglimited.com/ ]...PPI is an independent third party with respect to this activity. We reviewed all of the information provided and observed all relevant activities.
> We hereby submit our Final Report, covering the activities of the FM commencing with the Request for Information (RFI) and vendor consultation process, RFP and subsequent proposal evaluation including operational testing...
> 
> During the consultation process, potential bidders had been made aware that a “Value Proposition” may be added to the RFP during the solicitation period as part of the assessment of the proposal’s industrial benefit to Canada. Although a placeholder had been included in the RFP for this requirement, the details were not finalized by Industry Canada until a few days prior to the RFP submission date. Amendment #8 was issued on May 28, 2014 to incorporate the change from Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) to Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITBs) and to incorporate the new Value Proposition (VP) requirements. Subsequent Amendments (#s 9, 10, 11 & 12) were issued extending the closing date until July 7, 2014 and responding to specific ITB and VP clarification questions.
> 
> *3.2 Proposal submission stage – Activities monitored*
> 
> PWGSC received a proposal from one bidder by the closing date and time on July 7, 2014...
> 
> It is our professional opinion that the RFI and RFP processes, including the evaluation of the proposal received in response to the Canadian Coast Guard RFP for Medium Lift Helicopters, that we observed, was carried out in a fair, open and transparent manner.
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/se-fm/2015/nov24-2014-eng.html



Make of that what one will.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

So, if a CCG bird was embarked that would come with an CG Air Det too, yes?


----------



## MarkOttawa

jollyjacktar:



> ...
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> The helicopters are owned by the Canadian Coast Guard.  Transport Canada pilots and engineers fly and service the aircraft for Coast Guard operations...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2016/12/government-canada-accepts-new-helicopters-canadian-coast-guard.html?wbdisable=true



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thanks, Mark.


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, if a CCG bird was embarked that would come with an CG Air Det too, yes?



For reference purposes, a coast guard "air det" consists of a pilot and a mechanic.

They've got some very good pilots.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Do more with less too it seems to be.


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Do more with less too it seems to be.



How much do you need?

It's all we ever carried for the BO-105 helicopters.

Bare in mind, it's just a helicopter... no weapons systems, no surveillance systems, etc. Unless it's some sort of emergency, they usually only operate during day light hours

If they've got a bigger helicopter now, it might come with a co-pilot.

I'm sure they could stick any size of crew needed on the boat with the helicopters, but that's all we carried on the ice breakers or for a fisheries patrol.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver: In fact the competition was effectively rigged to favour Bell, something apparently quite acceptable because of industrial benefits.  Were the helos made in, say, Ontario the same result no doubt would have occurred; I suspect only more so in case of Quebec, Canadian politics being what they are:
> 
> Make of that what one will.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



This back and forth reminds me of my Master’s thesis - “How Nationalism Effects Government Policy Implementation in Belgium and Canada” - when I attended KU Leuven in the early 90s.   :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> How much do you need?
> 
> It's all we ever carried for the BO-105 helicopters.
> 
> Bare in mind, it's just a helicopter... no weapons systems, no surveillance systems, etc. Unless it's some sort of emergency, they usually only operate during day light hours
> 
> If they've got a bigger helicopter now, it might come with a co-pilot.
> 
> I'm sure they could stick any size of crew needed on the boat with the helicopters, but that's all we carried on the ice breakers or for a fisheries patrol.



Don't forget, I'm used to a whack of Zoomies coming with the bird.  As that's not my area of expertise, l can't say if they pack heavy or not (so to speak). Just one guy, seems amazing, that's all.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If they have no weapons, limited avionics and sensors (no RADAR, SONAR, etc) then the 1 tech would, in theory, have far less to support/maintain.  1 pilot for them, there's what...8? aircrew on a MH Det?


----------



## chrisf

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Don't forget, I'm used to a whack of Zoomies coming with the bird.  As that's not my area of expertise, l can't say if they pack heavy or not (so to speak). Just one guy, seems amazing, that's all.



That's why I figured it was worth mentioning, big difference between what it takes to operate a navy helicopter and a coast guard helictoper.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they have no weapons, limited avionics and sensors (no RADAR, SONAR, etc) then the 1 tech would, in theory, have far less to support/maintain.  1 pilot for them, there's what...8? aircrew on a MH Det?



Two crews of 4, yes.

Don't  forget, somebody has to sit thru the 4-6 hrs of "mandatory" briefings each ship seems to conduct each day for routine ship evolutions....that takes bodies...


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Two crews of 4, yes.
> 
> Don't  forget, somebody has to sit thru the 4-6 hrs of "mandatory" briefings each ship seems to conduct each day for routine ship evolutions....that takes bodies...



We must all genuflect to the god of Power Point and that briefing beast must be fed with the souls of subbies daily.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG helicopters appear to have navigation radar and have more powerful engines (PT6T-9 TwinPac) than the Griffon, so I expect they be able to lift more.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don't  forget, somebody has to sit thru the 4-6 hrs of "mandatory" briefings each ship seems to conduct each day for routine ship evolutions....that takes bodies...





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> We must all genuflect to the god of Power Point and that briefing beast must be fed with the souls of subbies daily.



Too bad for the tediousness, SKT or your mortal soul, FSTO.

This is the Navy: We don't take a crap without a briefing.  ;D

(and the Army thinks O-Groups can get overdone. ... Pfft! Amateurs!)


----------



## Furniture

Each AOPS will have a weather forecaster onboard to support flight ops as well. I wonder if the CCG air crews are accustomed to that level of support at sea.

My favourite part of briefing in the navy is the WUPS shuffle, where the same 20 people move about the ship to various spaces to brief the same information off the same slides every 30 minutes. Then being told not to skip over the slides, because I need to practice briefing the weather... And no the sea survival time off the west coast hasn't changed in the last 2000 years...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Two crews of 4, yes.



With the Cyclone, will there be a few more techs to support the sensor/AVS "stuff" and to perform ESS functions when embarked?  



> Don't  forget, somebody has to sit thru the 4-6 hrs of "mandatory" briefings each ship seems to conduct each day for routine ship evolutions....that takes bodies...



More info to confirm LRP is side of the fence with the greener grass... :nod:


----------



## chrisf

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Each AOPS will have a weather forecaster onboard to support flight ops as well. I wonder if the CCG air crews are accustomed to that level of support at sea.



Their method quite effective. 

They look out the window, if it's not nice out, they usually don't fly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting article in the NP today about China and the Arctic.....
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-is-building-a-massive-telecom-cable-in-arctic-balancing-that-with-climate-change-is-now-in-its-hands

Will make our life potentially interesting....


----------



## Cloud Cover

Maybe they will buy some AOPS from Irving to patrol the line. According to the journalist who must never be mentioned, Irving is looking to “shake (down) a few trees” to make the cost competitive to foreign buyers. This will help them, apparently, to fill the production gap using a “hot run” of ongoing production.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Interesting article in the NP today about China and the Arctic.....
> http://nationalpost.com/news/world/china-is-building-a-massive-telecom-cable-in-arctic-balancing-that-with-climate-change-is-now-in-its-hands
> 
> Will make our life potentially interesting....



North East Passage.  The article has nothing to do with us.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here's a link to an article talking about the starting of the 3rd AOPS - 

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/irving-shipbuilding-and-the-government-of-canada-celebrate-start-of-construction-of-the-third-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship-665225273.html


Another news source is saying that there is a chance that more than the original 6 could be built in order to close the gap between the last of the 6 being built and the CSC starting up.  Have to wonder if they build 7 of these how many of the Kingston class they will decommission. It would be nice if they kept all 12 of the Kingston operating, had 7 of these is use and then the 15 CSC's.


----------



## Lumber

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Here's a link to an article talking about the starting of the 3rd AOPS -
> 
> http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/irving-shipbuilding-and-the-government-of-canada-celebrate-start-of-construction-of-the-third-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship-665225273.html
> 
> 
> Another news source is saying that there is a chance that more than the original 6 could be built in order to close the gap between the last of the 6 being built and the CSC starting up.  Have to wonder if they build 7 of these how many of the Kingston class they will decommission. It would be nice if they kept all 12 of the Kingston operating, had 7 of these is use and then the 15 CSC's.



HA! *15* CSCs?

lol


----------



## Czech_pivo

Lumber said:
			
		

> HA! *15* CSCs?
> 
> lol



I'd like to think/hope that the US and/or NATO would say to us quite loudly, openly and plainly, that anything less than 15 CSC is failure to meet our global and national obligations.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Here's a link to an article talking about the starting of the 3rd AOPS -
> 
> http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/irving-shipbuilding-and-the-government-of-canada-celebrate-start-of-construction-of-the-third-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship-665225273.html
> 
> 
> Another news source is saying that there is a chance that more than the original 6 could be built in order to close the gap between the last of the 6 being built and the CSC starting up.  Have to wonder if they build 7 of these how many of the Kingston class they will decommission. It would be nice if they kept all 12 of the Kingston operating, had 7 of these is use and then the 15 CSC's.



The only way six will be built if there is money left over to do so, I doubt the government will authorize the funds to build a 7th. The Kingston Class are about half done for their major refits and right now there is no plans to decommission any hulls. In fact we are currently conducting trials to significantly pair down the crew size.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The only way six will be built if there is money left over to do so, I doubt the government will authorize the funds to build a 7th. The Kingston Class are about half done for their major refits and right now there is no plans to decommission any hulls. In fact we are currently conducting trials to significantly pair down the crew size.



I'm glad to hear that news about the Kingston's, keeping all 12 running, in addition to the 6 new AOPS. Are they keeping the 40mm's on them or upgrading to something newer after the refits?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Build one and give it to Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania (pick one) as foreign aid, for NATO use in the Baltic.....


----------



## CBH99

I've tried to Google some info on the Kingston class modernization, couldn't find anything...just articles about the Halifax class modernization, and related.

Not looking for tons of detail, but what are we doing in terms of modernization for the Kingston class?  These have proven to be good little ships.  Hopefully their eventual replacement will give them a higher speed capability, but they seem to be a great ship for all those missions where you don't need the heavy muscle a frigate brings.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> HA! *15* CSCs?
> 
> lol


'oh yeah of little faith Lumber! 

I believe it will happen.  The entire point of the NSS is to build continuously.  Might take 22 years but 15 will be built.  Or 12 built and then then start a new class.  For the first time in Canadian history the military industrial complex might work in our favour.  You can see the knock on effects of shipbuilding money in Halifax already.  It's the start of a new corporate welfare giant to rival Bombardier being built here.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear that news about the Kingston's, keeping all 12 running, in addition to the 6 new AOPS. Are they keeping the 40mm's on them or upgrading to something newer after the refits?



The 40mm have been divested some years ago.


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I've tried to Google some info on the Kingston class modernization, couldn't find anything...just articles about the Halifax class modernization, and related.
> 
> Not looking for tons of detail, but what are we doing in terms of modernization for the Kingston class?  These have proven to be good little ships.  Hopefully their eventual replacement will give them a higher speed capability, but they seem to be a great ship for all those missions where you don't need the heavy muscle a frigate brings.



The radars have been replaced some years ago, with the OPS room being modernized, new gyro's and the the addition of servers for comms. New degausing gear have been added, and recently all the alternators were pulled and refurbished along with structural work around involving the funnels. Its not a midlife refit per se, however much of the ship has been modernized.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The 40mm have been divested some years ago.


Really? Then what armament do they now have? I can’t find anything on the net talking about new armament, everything still refers to the 40+yrs Bofors on them.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Really? Then what armament do they now have? I can’t find anything on the net talking about new armament, everything still refers to the 40+yrs Bofors on them.



Two .50 Cal port and stbd


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Two .50 Cal port and stbd


So they now have less armament than before? Not being a naval guy, why does one remove arms altogether instead of replacing/improving them?


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So they now have less armament than before? Not being a naval guy, why does one remove arms altogether instead of replacing/improving them?



Because it's Canada 

There was a trial a decade or so ago for putting a remotely-operated .50 in place of the 40mm.  Guess that didn't end up panning out?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So they now have less armament than before? Not being a naval guy, why does one remove arms altogether instead of replacing/improving them?



What do they need more than a 50 cal for.  They go 8 knots regularly, and the most combat type thing they have ever done is embark US coast guard to stop drug runners.  Which they do rather well.  Really the 40mm bofors was a museum piece with no gyro stabilization or anything.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Because it's Canada
> 
> There was a trial a decade or so ago for putting a remotely-operated .50 in place of the 40mm.  Guess that didn't end up panning out?



What happened to the 50 cal RWS that was mounted on the bow of (I want to say) Glace Bay.  It was there two months ago.  Are the rest not being mounted?


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> What do they need more than a 50 cal for.  They go 8 knots regularly, and the most combat type thing they have ever done is embark US coast guard to stop drug runners.  Which they do rather well.  Really the 40mm bofors was a museum piece with no gyro stabilization or anything.
> 
> What happened to the 50 cal RWS that was mounted on the bow of (I want to say) Glace Bay.  It was there two months ago.  Are the rest not being mounted?



Truth be told they go more than 8 knots on a regular basis. The Goosebay doesn't have the RWS mounted anymore.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Raytheon is supposedly supplying 58 Modified Typhoon RWS complete systems to the RCN. I would imagine the Halifax class will eat up at least 48, the rest I am assuming for the mythical JSS. Perhaps a few Kingston could be sporting these for a few years if the RCN saw a value in that. On the other other hand, removing the H2 from the Halifax might be an opportunity to add a few more H2 to a few of the MCDV.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-03-18-Raytheon-Canada-Limited-chosen-to-enhance-Royal-Canadian-Navy-crew-safety 

deck space is  a little short, but would it have been nice to see the Mk38 Mod 2 similar to the HdW class fitted to at least some of the MCDV.  Are there enough weapons techs to support this:
2 x NRWS and 1 Mk38 Mod 2 on a Kingston class (+ 2x H2 .50 cal)
This would give reserve crews experience with these weps and system prior to serving on AOPS and potentially generating more bodies trained to maintain and use the systems.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just to close the conversation on the weapons suite of the MCDV: They are (back to being) primarily mine warfare vessels. And the primary use of weapons on mine warfare vessels is to dispose of mines floated to the surface by either sinking them or blowing them up from a distance. The only time in the RCN's history this wasn't so was when the Algerines were up-weaponized haphazardly during WWII so they could act as ASW escorts in Local Escort Forces. So a couple of .50 cals is sufficient for that task and any secondary constabulary duties that may befall the MCDVs. 

Now, back to AOPS: Did anybody notice that, when attending the laying ceremony for the third HDW, the Minister of *Procurement* (not, of Defence) indicated that Ottawa could be open to acquiring a seventh AOPS to help cover the gap between AOPS and CSC.

Now we have to remember that ISL supposedly has a fixed $$ envelope contract to build five, or if they can manage it six, AOPS. They have until 7 months after the first AOPS is delivered to indicate if they will be able to build 5 or 6 for that fixed price. Obviously, if they can only manage 5, the gap between the AOPS and CSC will be greater. Would that mean (based on the minister's comment) that we would then spend a further huge amount of money for up to two AOPS that the RCN never asked for and (in all truth were imposed on the RCN at the whim of a PM [Harper] without any strategic thought behind the move) has no strategic or tactical use for?

Meanwhile, that same government refuses to procure the leasing of a second iAOR that the RCN needs and wants NOW! to cover a clearly existing HUGE (to quote the President) gap in the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. They do so on the very dubious excuse that the RCN allegedly indicated it has no need for four AORs*. This is the weakest of excuses as the iAOR are leased and whenever the new Protecteur class vessels are both completed, you can return one or both iAOR to their rightful owners, so that at no time are there more than three AOR in the Navy's hands.


*: The excuse that the Navy does not want or need four AOR's is actually historically incorrect: In 1965, after the Navy had completed it's analysis of the operations of the PROVIDER, the RCN indicated to the government of the day that it needed and would need permanently to have four such vessels to cover it's strategic/tactical afloat logistics needs. The next two were budgeted for - and then unification happened and the RCN managed - barely - to salvage those two (which became the original PROTECTEUR class). But the RCN has always indicated that the proper and ultimate number should be four, even though it made do with three only as a matter of necessity in view of the low defence priority of the governments. This hasn't changed and four AOR is still the strategically/tactically appropriate number for Canada, so that one can be made available at sea and at all times on each coast.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I love how we have been conditioned to accepting downgrades. Replacing the 40mm with a RWS .50cal, is a downgrade no matter how much icing we put on it. The fact that we are to effing cheap to properly arm our ships is deplorable. Were the Kingstons mine hunting off the coast of Africa? Considering what we ask of these ships and the people, the minimum would have been a RWS mounted 35mm, 2 .50cals and some sort of defense system. Our opponents are not going to play fair or nice. Basically they are a nice target for a multiple small vessel attack.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin: This is Canada's Navy. The last thing we want is icing on our weapons.  ;D


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> I love how we have been conditioned to accepting downgrades. Replacing the 40mm with a RWS .50cal, is a downgrade no matter how much icing we put on it. The fact that we are to effing cheap to properly arm our ships is deplorable. Were the Kingstons mine hunting off the coast of Africa? Considering what we ask of these ships and the people, the minimum would have been a RWS mounted 35mm, 2 .50cals and some sort of defense system. Our opponents are not going to play fair or nice. Basically they are a nice target for a multiple small vessel attack.



Who'd win off the coast of Africa - a couple of fast boats filled with determined thugs (looking to ransom the crew) armed with AK47s, PKs and some RPG's vs a 15kn Kingston with a pair of 50's? 

The Russians are arming their new Arctic patrol ships substantially better than we are and you can bet that they won't be tasked with patrolling the Caribbean on anti-narco missions or off the coast of Africa.  Their job is to patrol the arctic and they will have the armament to do it.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Who'd win off the coast of Africa - a couple of fast boats filled with determined thugs (looking to ransom the crew) armed with AK47s, PKs and some RPG's vs a 15kn Kingston with a pair of 50's?



I'll take the Kingston every time every day of the week against that threat.  "Thugs" are never determined against an armed foe.  That's why they are thugs.  If you are going to count AK47's then I guess the MCDV should count the multiple C7 and C9's that are onboard.  And of course the most important things the mass and maneuver of the ship and the professionalism of the crew.  This is why we have Intelligence, if there was a true threat we would send a CPF.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I love how we have been conditioned to accepting downgrades. Replacing the 40mm with a RWS .50cal, is a downgrade no matter how much icing we put on it. The fact that we are to effing cheap to properly arm our ships is deplorable. Were the Kingstons mine hunting off the coast of Africa? Considering what we ask of these ships and the people, the minimum would have been a RWS mounted 35mm, 2 .50cals and some sort of defense system. Our opponents are not going to play fair or nice. Basically they are a nice target for a multiple small vessel attack.



Not those 40mm.  Take it from someone who holds the Weapons Directing Officer qual on the Bofors and the .50 cal.  That 40mm was the McBeth gun.  Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  The only thing it was good for was hitting our own deck (which happened), killing a nasty floating tomato or a helicopter in hover.  All jobs the .50 cal can do really well.  I can't even think of a time where the 40mm was even used for true warning shots (perhaps it has...).  The .50 cal is far more flexible of a weapons system and just better all round for everything the MCDV does.

Also what do we ask of the people onboard an MCDV to do?  It has never needed a 40mm or a 35mm of any sort.

The AOPS is going to take over a lot of the MCDV roles in the future.  So perhaps the MCDV will go back to more domestic, route survey and minehunting operations.

That said given the option of a 25mm similar to the AOPS I would take it in a heartbeat but who's going to do arming, repair and maint on the thing?  The MCDV's only carry a single WEng Tech for Nav and Comms systems.  They aren't going to  include an Armament Tech as well.  The navy is experimenting with reducing crew on MCDV's not increasing crew.  Tough decisions here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> I'll take the Kingston every time every day of the week against that threat.  "Thugs" are never determined against an armed foe.  That's why they are thugs.  If you are going to count AK47's then I guess the MCDV should count the multiple C7 and C9's that are onboard.  And of course the most important things the mass and maneuver of the ship and the professionalism of the crew.  This is why we have Intelligence, if there was a true threat we would send a CPF.



And, most likely the MCDV or CPF could call in friends to help on the surface and/or in the air and those friends would include people with nice scopes and good aim.   8)


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, back to AOPS: Did anybody notice that, when attending the laying ceremony for the third HDW, the Minister of *Procurement* (not, of Defence) indicated that Ottawa could be open to acquiring a seventh AOPS to help cover the gap between AOPS and CSC.
> 
> Now we have to remember that ISL supposedly has a fixed $$ envelope contract to build five, or if they can manage it six, AOPS. They have until 7 months after the first AOPS is delivered to indicate if they will be able to build 5 or 6 for that fixed price. Obviously, if they can only manage 5, the gap between the AOPS and CSC will be greater. Would that mean (based on the minister's comment) that we would then spend a further huge amount of money for up to two AOPS that the RCN never asked for and (in all truth were imposed on the RCN at the whim of a PM [Harper] without any strategic thought behind the move) has no strategic or tactical use for?
> 
> Meanwhile, that same government refuses to procure the leasing of a second iAOR that the RCN needs and wants NOW! to cover a clearly existing HUGE (to quote the President) gap in the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. They do so on the very dubious excuse that the RCN allegedly indicated it has no need for four AORs*. This is the weakest of excuses as the iAOR are leased and whenever the new Protecteur class vessels are both completed, you can return one or both iAOR to their rightful owners, so that at no time are there more than three AOR in the Navy's hands.



Yah a mess all round and I completely agree with the 4 AOR requirement, though not with the iAOR rush to procure.  If you want 4 AOR then expand the build for a 3rd proper one or wait until the experiment with the Asterix shows positive results.  

The original Conservative plane was for 6-8 AOPS so I suppose we are back to the future.  I'm pretty sure that Irving will find a way to make a 6th AOPS with the current contract structure.  The way I_ understand the contract_ is that Irving gets a _guaranteed_ profit per ship.  Any money left over from the contract that isn't used doesn't get paid out to the shipbuilder.  It's not like Irving was handed $3.5 billion and told to make 5 or 6 ships with that amount and keep the change.  It's more like we have a budget of $3.5 billion.  Build 5 or 6 ships within that budget.  For every ship built we cut you $50 million.  You build 5 you get $250 million,  you build 6 you get $300 million.  No idea if its a flat amount or an escalator of profit.  If an escalator there is even more incentive to get that 6th ship built.  (note: not experienced with contracts so I may be mistaken).

If they can only get the 5th ship built then the 6th should suffice for the gap years.  Certain bids for the CSC (the Alion one in particular) are easy to implement (ie pre-existing 3D CAD plans etc...) with minimal changes or delay.  Therefore they can be implemented right away and eliminate that gap.  Only thing is long lead item orders from suppliers such as engines which can cause delays and of course government (in)decision time.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I love how we have been conditioned to accepting downgrades. Replacing the 40mm with a RWS .50cal, is a downgrade no matter how much icing we put on it. The fact that we are to effing cheap to properly arm our ships is deplorable. Were the Kingstons mine hunting off the coast of Africa? Considering what we ask of these ships and the people, the minimum would have been a RWS mounted 35mm, 2 .50cals and some sort of defense system. Our opponents are not going to play fair or nice. Basically they are a nice target for a multiple small vessel attack.



Actually the Kingstons have deployed to West Africa in Pirate waters without any problems....


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> The navy is experimenting with reducing crew on MCDV's not increasing crew.  Tough decisions here.



Reducing crew?  How so?  

Granted it's been over a decade since I sailed on one, but I don't remember the ship's company being too big.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Reducing crew?  How so?
> 
> Granted it's been over a decade since I sailed on one, but I don't remember the ship's company being too big.



Well they got rid of the 40mm, so that’s got to count for 2 persons right there.


----------



## Old Sweat

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Well they got rid of the 40mm, so that’s got to count for 2 persons right there.



You need more than two people to operate the 40mm. It basically is a Second World War system hauled out of storage and used by the army starting in the eaarly-seventies to defend the airfields at Lahr and Baden, and then mounted on the ships. BTW, I fired it.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Reducing crew?  How so?
> 
> Granted it's been over a decade since I sailed on one, but I don't remember the ship's company being too big.



Current core crew is being looked at to be paired down to 16 for 8 hrs steaming, for hot moves, trials, day sails and the like. Regular SR2 steaming is 26 from current 36 core.


----------



## Cloud Cover

SR2 being the 2 watch system? 7/5/5/7?


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> SR2 being the 2 watch system? 7/5/5/7?



MCDV's are not under the 2 watch system. We did trial straight 8's a while ago. SR2 is the readiness level.


----------



## Cronicbny

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Current core crew is being looked at to be paired down to 16 for 8 hrs steaming, for hot moves, trials, day sails and the like. Regular SR2 steaming is 26 from current 36 core.



I think there is much more work to do IOT justify a significant reduction in crewing without an equal measure of automation. NR2 should be 31-33, based on 20+ years of experience running the ships. We would be well advised not to reduce our manning and increase the risk assumed by our folks at sea without a proper analysis in advance. My two cents.


----------



## Cronicbny

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> MCDV's are not under the 2 watch system. We did trial straight 8's a while ago. SR2 is the readiness level.



They certainly can be run in the 2 watch system (MSE 1:3) - I would expect CO's to modify rotations as needed to meet the mission. I sailed on CARIBBE in a 1:2 (MSE 1:3) and everyone 1:3 except the Ops Room in a 1:2 - lots of different configurations available including "Super sixes" etc. I still haven't heard much feedback about the S8's trial, which is odd...


----------



## Stoker

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> They certainly can be run in the 2 watch system (MSE 1:3) - I would expect CO's to modify rotations as needed to meet the mission. I sailed on CARIBBE in a 1:2 (MSE 1:3) and everyone 1:3 except the Ops Room in a 1:2 - lots of different configurations available including "Super sixes" etc. I still haven't heard much feedback about the S8's trial, which is odd given my day job.



They can but we really haven't seen much of it. I was on the S8's trial and incidentally during a Sea Training program, very interesting in the fatigue level.


----------



## Cronicbny

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> They can but we really haven't seen much of it. I was on the S8's trial and incidentally during a Sea Training program, very interesting in the fatigue level.



I can imagine - we were going to do a similar trial out west for an ISSRT, but that got the heave-ho unexpectedly. I look forward to seeing the S8 results.


----------



## Stoker

IN ARDUA NITOR said:
			
		

> I think there is much more work to do IOT justify a significant reduction in crewing without an equal measure of automation. NR2 should be 31-33, based on 20+ years of experience running the ships. We would be well advised not to reduce our manning and increase the risk assumed by our folks at sea without a proper analysis in advance. My two cents.



Yes as it stands lots of plans for automation but nothing done so far in that regard. I have over 20 years with the class as well and the trial is to see if this is even possible.


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Well they got rid of the 40mm, so that’s got to count for 2 persons right there.



As Old Sweat says, it's more than 2 people.  Also, the 40mm isn't a full-time job (as in they had other things when not closed up at the guns).  Same with the 50 cal and the small arms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I'll take the Kingston every time every day of the week against that threat.  "Thugs" are never determined against an armed foe.  That's why they are thugs.  If you are going to count AK47's then I guess the MCDV should count the multiple C7 and C9's that are onboard.  And of course the most important things the mass and maneuver of the ship and the professionalism of the crew.  This is why we have Intelligence, if there was a true threat we would send a CPF.
> 
> Not those 40mm.  Take it from someone who holds the Weapons Directing Officer qual on the Bofors and the .50 cal.  That 40mm was the McBeth gun.  Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  The only thing it was good for was hitting our own deck (which happened), killing a nasty floating tomato or a helicopter in hover.  All jobs the .50 cal can do really well.  I can't even think of a time where the 40mm was even used for true warning shots (perhaps it has...).  The .50 cal is far more flexible of a weapons system and just better all round for everything the MCDV does.
> 
> Also what do we ask of the people onboard an MCDV to do?  It has never needed a 40mm or a 35mm of any sort.
> 
> The AOPS is going to take over a lot of the MCDV roles in the future.  So perhaps the MCDV will go back to more domestic, route survey and minehunting operations.
> 
> That said given the option of a 25mm similar to the AOPS I would take it in a heartbeat but who's going to do arming, repair and maint on the thing?  The MCDV's only carry a single WEng Tech for Nav and Comms systems.  They aren't going to  include an Armament Tech as well.  The navy is experimenting with reducing crew on MCDV's not increasing crew.  Tough decisions here.



Lots of vessels smaller than a Kingston have had kills with their 40mm and 57mm long before stabilized mounts came along. The RWS part is good, but the reason it is a .50cal is because that's all they had and all they pay for. A 25-35mm RWS is appropriate for the size of vessel and if we are sending vessel that far and to that part of the globe, I rather our sailors have enough firepower to protect themselves and deter people from thinking they can get away with an attack.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I had a quick peek at Harry from Barrington St today as l passed by.  Damn they're funny looking.  For the size of the nose end, they look pretty squashed.  Kind of reminded me of a pig.  Squat and solid but not attractive.  I realize they need that size and shape to go where they're intended, but they just don't appeal to my eyes.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes as it stands lots of plans for automation but nothing done so far in that regard. I have over 20 years with the class as well and the trial is to see if this is even possible.



The USN Strategic Review was just released. I haven't had a chance to read the whole document but my favorite website has done a pretty good synopsis.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2017/12/the-navys-strategic-readiness-review.html

I suggest our Naval Leadership have a close read of this document. In light of the problems at 7th Fleet, this document destroys all the arguments that the Transforamtionalists used to further their agenda of the last 20 years. It's a very sobering read.


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> ... but my favorite website has done a pretty good synopsis.


Wait.....THIS isn't your favourite website?!    rly:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Wow. You could pretty much word replace "USN" with "CAF" in this document and you would still be bang on.


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wow. You could pretty much word replace "USN" with "CAF" in this document and you would still be bang on.



Maybe we could save some money/time and just do that and hand it in as our own work/analysis to the powers that be and see if they'd notice.... :rofl:


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wait.....THIS isn't your favourite website?!    rly:



For a purely Maritime perspective.... ;D


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wow. You could pretty much word replace "USN" with "CAF" in this document and you would still be bang on.



You could also replace it with other words (just from my experience or "research"):
- "RCN"
- "NATO"
- "RN"
- "14 Wing"
- or the final one, which you and I take personally, "12 Wing"
- and I'm sure there are more.

Some of us are quite worried that the arrival of the Cyclone will be seen as end to the MH problems in Canada, and it's time to get them to sea and use their capabilities, and the underlying problems (not all of which are a result of the procurement issues) will not be solved until it is too late...


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I had a quick peek at Harry from Barrington St today as l passed by.  Damn they're funny looking.  For the size of the nose end, they look pretty squashed.  Kind of reminded me of a pig.  Squat and solid but not attractive.  I realize they need that size and shape to go where they're intended, but they just don't appeal to my eyes.



For a second there I thought you were talking about the MCDVs


----------



## Underway

Old Powerpoint AOPS project.  It's a good brief for the main thrust of the AOPS including background information on its importance.

Most interesting to many here will be the pers and positions towards the end of the ppt.  Take with appropriate knowledge that this has probably changed a bit and will change once the ships start being used.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting article on the new US proposed Coast Guard icebreakers and their intent to 'heavily' arm them.  Looks like we'll be the ones bringing the knife to the gunfight -  :nod:

http://www.wearethemighty.com/news/the-coast-guard-wants-heavy-firepower-on-their-new-icebreakers

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/17/coast-guard-wants-cruise-missiles-arctic-icebreake/


----------



## Cloud Cover

Typical arms race-escalation argument going on here...
"Sure, there’s no combat to be done in the Arctic today, but as always, having weapons ready is often the best way to prevent a fight.With so many armed adversaries , we think putting more guns on new icebreakers is a great move."


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Interesting article on the new US proposed Coast Guard icebreakers and their intent to 'heavily' arm them.  Looks like we'll be the ones bringing the knife to the gunfight -  :nod:
> 
> http://www.wearethemighty.com/news/the-coast-guard-wants-heavy-firepower-on-their-new-icebreakers
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/17/coast-guard-wants-cruise-missiles-arctic-icebreake/



We could very well could add modular add ons to Harry DeWolf if the situation called for it. The Danish Knud Rasmussen-class icebreakers only has a 76MM in one of the articles, they can add those weapon systems if needed.


----------



## Patski

It does'nt really concern de AOPS, but as far as what icebreakers will be for the canadian coast guards, apparently, They will go with Project Resolute from Davie!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-icebreakers-davie-shipyard-canadian-coast-guard-negotiations-1.4492819

http://www.davie.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/icebreaker-briefing-RESOLUTE-1.pdf


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We could very well could add modular add ons to Harry DeWolf if the situation called for it. The Danish Knud Rasmussen-class icebreakers only has a 76MM in one of the articles, they can add those weapon systems if needed.



And then get the MCDVs back to doing what we really need a military ship for... clearing minefields so we can access failed states to bring them parkas


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And then get the MCDVs back to doing what we really need a military ship for... clearing minefields so we can access failed states to bring them parkas



Unfortunately if we do that then we'll be attempting to use 5 (or 6?) ships to do what 12 are being expected to do today.  I know that there's the belief our Military should be doing more with less but this is a bit much. 

I would think that the amount of maintenance time to keep these new AOPS's up and running in the non-accessible months to the Arctic will be much more than just sending a ship down to the Carb. or south of California - the distances that they'll have to travel from Vancouver to Nanisvik and back or Halifax to Nanisvik  and back is much farther than trips down south.  Wonder if any of this has been thought through.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Unfortunately if we do that then we'll be attempting to use 5 (or 6?) ships to do what 12 are being expected to do today.  I know that there's the belief our Military should be doing more with less but this is a bit much.
> 
> I would think that the amount of maintenance time to keep these new AOPS's up and running in the non-accessible months to the Arctic will be much more than just sending a ship down to the Carb. or south of California - the distances that they'll have to travel from Vancouver to Nanisvik and back or Halifax to Nanisvik  and back is much farther than trips down south.  Wonder if any of this has been thought through.



To be honest we are back to mine warfare and have been doing it for the last 3 years in regards to the Kingston Class. All ships including the Harry DeWolf Class have build in maintenance periods and the ships are designed to operate long periods without major work. These periods are also scheduled to allow the Harry DeWolf Class to deploy wherever the government wants them to go. This has been looked at.


----------



## NavyShooter

Have you ever read the Concept of Operations documents for the AOPS?

A lot of thought seems to have gone into it.

I think.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NS, as I've indicated before, while an enthusiast about naval matters, Czech_pivo is not a member of the RCN, so I don't think he has access to any of the RCN's ConOps documents.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> NS, as I've indicated before, while an enthusiast about naval matters, Czech_pivo is not a member of the RCN, so I don't think he has access to any of the RCN's ConOps documents.



You are correct Sir - I'm just someone who loves this Country and wants best for it. 
Sorry if I make comments that are blatantly obvious to you guys but I'm just trying to put the bigger picture together in my head and understand what the real issues are.

If the intent is to use the 5 or 6 AOPS to perform the 'old' roles of the 12 Kingston's, plus the extra duties in the Arctic and the 12 Kingston's are going back to their originally designed role of mine warfare, then is there not a 'gap' or shortfall in what the Kingston's were doing in terms of drug interdiction down in the Carrib. and south of California?  They is no way that 5 or 6 can do what 12 was doing previously.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The AOPS are not replacing the MCDVs. The MCDVs are being retained.


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The AOPS are not replacing the MCDVs. The MCDVs are being retained.



Yes, I do realise that they are being retained.  I was under the belief that the AOPS will be taking over the role/responsibilities of the Kingston's as they, as pointed out earlier today, are going back to their original role of mine warfare role and won't be heading back to the Arctic or the south for drug interdiction as they were previously assigned. Maybe I've misunderstood.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Yes, I do realise that they are being retained.  I was under the belief that the AOPS will be taking over the role/responsibilities of the Kingston's as they, as pointed out earlier today, are going back to their original role of mine warfare role and won't be heading back to the Arctic or the south for drug interdiction as they were previously assigned. Maybe I've misunderstood.



No they will still deploy to the Arctic and Caribbean according to the concept of operations for the Kingston Class.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Yes, I do realise that they are being retained.  I was under the belief that the AOPS will be taking over the role/responsibilities of the Kingston's as they, as pointed out earlier today, are going back to their original role of mine warfare role and won't be heading back to the Arctic or the south for drug interdiction as they were previously assigned. Maybe I've misunderstood.



MCDV's will still do Recognized Maritime Picture in the arctic.  This last summer they intercepted that Chinese "fishing boat" everyone was freaking out about.  So despite their non-ice capability and slow speed they still do good work.

AOP's can just go more places and carry more people for arctic ops.  They will do similar jobs differently with different capabilities and new jobs as well.  Screwdriver and hammer, not just hammer for the tools in the toolbox.  Also add points on the map where a ship can be.  Just more ships doing the business will improve arctic sovereignty and Carib ops.


----------



## JackD

Perhaps we'll see a RCN ship visit CFS Alert once more. The last (if I got my history right) was HMCS/CGS Labrador which reached Cape Sheridan - that is if the map in the history annex of  CFS Alert was correct - and my memory as well (1976 was a long time ago).


----------



## Stoker

JackD said:
			
		

> Perhaps we'll see a RCN ship visit CFS Alert once more. The last (if I got my history right) was HMCS/CGS Labrador which reached Cape Sheridan - that is if the map in the history annex of  CFS Alert was correct - and my memory as well (1976 was a long time ago).



I'm pretty sure HMCS Labrador never reached Cape Sheridan when the RCN had her, if fact the farthest North a RCN ship ever reached was 80 degrees. Now CGS Labrador may of reached Cape Sheridan.


----------



## dapaterson

HMCS Shawinigan holds the RCN record for getting the farthest north: 80 degrees 28 minutes, during OP NANOOK 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Shawinigan_(MM_704)


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> HMCS Shawinigan holds the RCN record for getting the farthest north: 80 degrees 28 minutes, during OP NANOOK 2014.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Shawinigan_(MM_704)



Yes we about 20 NM away from Hans Island before we decided to turn back, not before we decided to do a polar bear dip. ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AOPs #2 coming together (I like that paint booth)

http://shipsforcanada.ca/images/progress-images/IMG_4313.JPG


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is there a reliable open source available for the surveillance and search fit for the HdW class? LMC has little information, but I see that both TermaRadar and Thales have sources stating they are supplying the SCANTER 6002 and the TRS-3D/16-ES, respectively. Most mast drawings I have viewed do not depict the TRS radar set, and the government specs reportedly call out both AESA and MESA radars (according to most sources).  I don't think this correct. 

The mast space for sensors appear to support something like the SCANTER, and some sort of new(ish) Sperry radar is also depicted.

Also, I would like to think that there is power, rack space, conduit, cabling, deck space and mast space available for an eventual decent ELINT fit (ie and not just whatever the Cyclone might have).  One would think that a patrol ship with surveillance duties and no real combat role might have a decent suite fitted or plans for fitting or does that seem out of place for this particular ship.


----------



## Stoker

Had the opportunity to tour Ejnar Mikkelsen today, a Knud Rasmussen class of offshore patrol vessels operating in the Royal Danish Navy.
Here is a link to the tour photos. A nice little ship.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1808235645901824


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice pics, Chief!

Nice to see also that the USS Little Rock finally managed to escape the St Lawrence.  ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can you imagine the outcry if someone put a poster up in the gym on a Canadian ship like they have? LoL!


----------



## Stoker

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the outcry if someone put a poster up in the gym on a Canadian ship like they have? LoL!



Nice eye, I wondered when that would be picked up. That had others as well, no Operation Honour on that ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would it make sense to eventually replace the MCDV's with a vessel like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel or our they to big to do the minehunting role?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The problem would not be size here, Colin, it would be the lack of good deck space, layout and  handling equipment for the mine warfare deployable gear. And if you put that on board, then you lose the flight deck and the storage below for the large boat and ramp that the Rasmussen class carries.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would it make sense to eventually replace the MCDV's with a vessel like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel or our they to big to do the minehunting role?



For the patrol role yes and it could certainly do mine warfare. It has a crane that could launch the AUV's that we're currently using. There is some limitations such as one ROD plant that would need to be rectified and would need degausing gear installed in the build. As well it carries muti beam sonar that the Danes use for chart making, and is exactly what the Kingston Class has done in the past.


----------



## dimsum

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Had the opportunity to tour Ejnar Mikkelsen today, a Knud Rasmussen class of offshore patrol vessels operating in the Royal Danish Navy.
> Here is a link to the tour photos. A nice little ship.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/GOCANADANAVY/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1808235645901824



The shock and horror that their crewmembers are dressed in Multicam!    :


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The shock and horror that their crewmembers are dressed in Multicam!    :



and yet the world did not stop.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The shock and horror that their crewmembers are dressed in Multicam!    :



Wait a minute.  They were camouflaged! You weren't suppose to see them.  That's cheating.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> For the patrol role yes and it could certainly do mine warfare. It has a crane that could launch the AUV's that we're currently using. There is some limitations such as one ROD plant that would need to be rectified and would need degausing gear installed in the build. As well it carries muti beam sonar that the Danes use for chart making, and is exactly what the Kingston Class has done in the past.



For that sort of work, this specialized ship makes an interesting case for some ideas_ if_ a new ship was/is ever under consideration for MCDV and chart work: https://navaltoday.com/2018/01/31/stx-france-edr-socarenam-team-for-belgian-mine-countermeasure-project/

and:
https://navaltoday.com/2018/01/29/belgium-oks-acquisition-of-six-new-mine-countermeasure-vessels/ 

It is not, however, a "patrol ship",  would not have a helo deck and so if sent anywhere inhospitable it may require the protection of another platform. But then again, neither do the Kingston's. 

edit to add second link.


----------



## Swampbuggy

As far as the Arctic operations for AOPS goes, does anyone know yet if the plan is to send all 5-6 up North as soon as conditions permit? Or will maybe 1 each coast remain for Southern patrol duties?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> As far as the Arctic operations for AOPS goes, does anyone know yet if the plan is to send all 5-6 up North as soon as conditions permit? Or will maybe 1 each coast remain for Southern patrol duties?




All DeWolf Class won't be operating in the Arctic at the same time. I relive the intent is to have several stationed on the West Coast for patrols in the Western Arctic, the others on the East Coast and one or more may be refit at the time.


----------



## Swampbuggy

That’s what made me wonder, given that the West Coast is planned to have only 2, I believe. Made me wonder how they were going to juggle both missions AND maintenance. I’m glad that kind of coordination isn’t my job!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> All DeWolf Class won't be operating in the Arctic at the same time. I relive the intent is to have several stationed on the West Coast for patrols in the Western Arctic, the others on the East Coast and one or more may be refit at the time.



What!!!  Now you tell me.  I've been buying spare gear with the distribution of all AOPS in Halifax.... Damn it


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What!!!  Now you tell me.  I've been buying spare gear with the distribution of all AOPS in Halifax.... Damn it




Hey that's what I think, they may very well be all on the EC but its makes sense to send several to the WC at some point.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Absolutely. I was hoping for an even split if they built 6, mostly so that they could fulfill the “O” in AOPS.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What!!!  Now you tell me.  I've been buying spare gear with the distribution of all AOPS in Halifax.... Damn it



Well they all will start out in the East.  Maybe they can just take the gear you've been buying when they leave for the West Coast...  probably won't even send you a thank you email.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The ungrateful bastards.


----------



## Patski

Do will still need the Aops?  Uk government just gave us the HMS Erebus and Terror!  That should cover it no?  (sorry... friday afternoon joke!)


----------



## dapaterson

Patski said:
			
		

> Do will still need the Aops?  Uk government just gave us the HMS Erebus and Terror!  That should cover it no?  (sorry... friday afternoon joke!)


They are in better shape than the last Royal Navy vessels we acquired...


----------



## Czech_pivo

I've been able to answer my question, steel was cut on Max Bernays on 19 Dec, 2017. So if they are cutting steel at about 20 months apart (and this holds true going forward) from the 2nd to the 3rd ship, then they'll cut steel on the 4th ship basically in Aug of 2019 and then the fifth ship Dec of 2020 and the final ship Aug of 2022 (assuming that there is a 6th ship). That means that the 6th ship would be ready to drop in the water sometime late winter/early spring of 2024.  Somehow I doubt that we'll be in a position to be cutting steel on the first CSC sometime in the late fall/early winter of 2022, so maybe they will be a 7th AOPS.

Does anyone know if they've started cutting steel on the 3rd AOPS yet?  From Irving's website they state that they cut first steel on #2 back on August 2016 and then didn't have the keel laying ceremony until May 2017. There is nothing posted about them starting on the 3rd ship yet.  Any news on this?  Seems like timelines are growing longer and longer on when they start work on the next ship instead of shorter as one would expect.  I guess maybe they've been told to slow the work down and produce at a slower pace in order to deal with the fact that the CSC is crawling along.  Its one way of addressing the 'gap' in work that was being bantered about so much back in the fall/winter.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I've been able to answer my question, steel was cut on Max Bernays on 19 Dec, 2017. So if they are cutting steel at about 20 months apart (and this holds true going forward) from the 2nd to the 3rd ship, then they'll cut steel on the 4th ship basically in Aug of 2019 and then the fifth ship Dec of 2020 and the final ship Aug of 2022 (assuming that there is a 6th ship). That means that the 6th ship would be ready to drop in the water sometime late winter/early spring of 2024.  Somehow I doubt that we'll be in a position to be cutting steel on the first CSC sometime in the late fall/early winter of 2022, so maybe they will be a 7th AOPS.
> 
> Does anyone know if they've started cutting steel on the 3rd AOPS yet?  From Irving's website they state that they cut first steel on #2 back on August 2016 and then didn't have the keel laying ceremony until May 2017. There is nothing posted about them starting on the 3rd ship yet.  Any news on this?  Seems like timelines are growing longer and longer on when they start work on the next ship instead of shorter as one would expect.  I guess maybe they've been told to slow the work down and produce at a slower pace in order to deal with the fact that the CSC is crawling along.  Its one way of addressing the 'gap' in work that was being bantered about so much back in the fall/winter.



Yes steel was being cut on future Max Bernays as of last Dec, that is the third AOPS.


----------



## Underway

Max Bernay's is the third ship and yes they have (as stated by Chief Stoker).  They are actually going at a faster pace than the Harry DeWolfe because of found efficiencies in the build.  Cutting between 2 and 4 months off the build time.  This is of course to be expected.  Looks like HDW will be launched soon.  I expect turned over to the navy July timeframe.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Max Bernay's is the third ship and yes they have (as stated by Chief Stoker).  They are actually going at a faster pace than the Harry DeWolfe because of found efficiencies in the build.  Cutting between 2 and 4 months off the build time.  This is of course to be expected.  Looks like HDW will be launched soon.  I expect turned over to the navy July timeframe.



Yes the barge that will launch her, BOABARGE 37 in the Bedford basin is in Halifax.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db85xsSU8AAroM9.jpg:large


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes the barge that will launch her, BOABARGE 37 in the Bedford basin is in Halifax.



It is and leased for the next four years.  Harry, however, won't be launched until Sept.  My youngest is on that build.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Four years most likely won’t be long enough to get all of the AOPS in the water.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Four years most likely won’t be long enough to get all of the AOPS in the water.



For a guy who couldn't do a simple goggle search to find out they were cutting steel last Dec on the third AOPS you're all of a sudden an expert?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Actually Chief, I did the ‘quick google search’ to find out when they were cutting steel on Max Bernays, as I added that info back into my first question well before anyone answered my original question. I’m simply looking at the fact that if HDW is still not in the water now, how do we expect them to build another 4/5 ships in 4 years to meet the 4 year timeline of the lease?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Actually Chief, I did the ‘quick google search’ to find out when they were cutting steel on Max Bernays, as I added that info back into my first question well before anyone answered my original question. I’m simply looking at the fact that if HDW is still not in the water now, how do we expect them to build another 4/5 ships in 4 years to meet the 4 year timeline of the lease?



I guess you missed the statement on the fact ISL is actually finding faster ways to build the ship and as subsequent ships are built, build time will be reduced.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I truly do hope that this is the case as the sooner we add to the present day capability of the the RCN the better.  I guess we'll have to wait 4yrs to see which timeline turns out to be correct.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.
> 
> As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.



Or three Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Or* three *Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...



Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.

And, BTW, Chris: I don't think the 18 months gap you mention is the result of greater time efficiencies at Irving, but rather the results of delays in the pre-construction phase of the CSC's. And if, after all the investments they have made in modernizing the yard and in training their people, Irving is currently incapable of filling that 18 months gap, 3 1/2 years from now, with something to do from the private sector, my personal opinion is that the bloody shipbuilding strategy has failed. 

During that gap, they should be at the apex of their tradecraft and efficiency. If they can't get contracts then, they never will. If that's the case: nationalize the damn yard so it is government property. After all, it would mean that government vessels is all they will ever be able to build so why should we pay profits on top of actual costs.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:
			
		

> Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.



Based on the current bids for CSC we might be procuring 15 of these types of ships.  AAD might depend entirely on missile loadout not sensor or combat suite as they will be common through all of the variants.  If a single system meets the requirements the navy has set out and the cost is right then there might be 
no difference in the radars, FCS etc... between an AAD and GP variant.  It might entirely be based on missile loadout, crew embarked (ie Commodores staff) and comms. But I digress from the thrust of this thread.




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.



Middle East, Africa, Baltics currently are the historical and recent problem areas, and currently they are still closer to Halifax then Esquimalt.  Halifax is just closer to where stuff goes bad generally.  Halifax can respond faster to the majority of problems in the world.  Also Halifax is closer to allies and friendly supply.  Until Asia starts being twits like the other world problem spots  I don't see an issue in the current fleet deployment.


----------



## AirDet

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?
> 
> Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.



Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.


----------



## YZT580

Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.


----------



## YZT580

I remember it as if it were yesterday. That I remember it at all says something about my seniority I guess. First time I ever witnessed a liberal government take a principled stand on anything.  I actually cheered.


----------



## Swampbuggy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it.



If I’m not mistaken, the same sort of thing took place recently in South American. I believe it was in the last year or so, or at least that’s when the video was posted. A Chinese fishing vessel was illegally operating in ( I want to say Chilean?? ) waters and they didn’t heave to when ordered. The government vessel opened fire and the Chinese boat went under.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AirDet said:
			
		

> Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.



If you're talking about 'up north', sure an MPA can get there. So can CF-18s;  maritime approaches are part of the NORAD mission too.  Depending on who/what is doing the shooting, MPAs might not be the best asset.

http://www.norad.mil/About-NORAD/NORAD-History/

_The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways. _


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.



I think YZT might be referring to the British - Icelandic Cod Wars.  There were three of them running from the 1950's through to the late 70's.  Got rather nasty at points with Iceland finally threatening to leave NATO...


----------



## YZT580

I was referring to both actually.  I didn't realise that so much time had gone by but it doesn't change the significance of the shot across the bows in defence of our sovereignty.  So there is a good reason to have a weapons station and the same reason can be applied to having the presence of the AOPS itself instead of an enhanced coast guard presence. We need the navy.


----------



## NavyShooter

Having been aboard one of the ships that featured centrally in the Turbot War as it was going on, it was, in my opinion, a good thing that we had more than a constabulary level of armament.


----------



## Stoker

So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?



If only...Or at least the Phalanxes?


----------



## Kirkhill

Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.

The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.

None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.


----------



## YZT580

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?
> 
> The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.


Was it the Navy or the budget that caused the design to be changed?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?
> 
> The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.
> 
> The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.
> 
> There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.
> 
> The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.
> 
> None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.



The original concept also called for a armed ice breaker. Not even the CCG operates in the Arctic all year round. They will be used in many other places than the Arctic and Caribbean as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round"  

But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.
> 
> As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.



For general interest - see the attached


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round"
> 
> But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters.



To be honest I don't know if the government thought that crunching ice all year round was even possible. I don't see the point of having a 365 day presence patrolling up there with all the AOPS as we have no ice free ports in the Arctic and really nothing moves up there of significance. A continuous presence during the navigation season certainly so the RCN doesn't like to see any ships underemployed so they will be deployed to other areas. AOPS and the Caribbean seems a good fit.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?



I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.

That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.
> 
> That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.



I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge. The crew was only 18 and included a weapon tech. If the Danes can do it why not us? As for the AOPS its not like they don't have the bunks.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Danish 76s were originally installed in the Flyvefisken Patrol Boats (320 tonnes light, 450 tonnes deep, 54 m long with a crew of 19 to 29).

The Stanflex Containers, which mounted the 76s amongst other things, were 3.5 by 3 by 2.5 metres (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft × 8.2 ft). 

Here's my favourite picture.  ;D






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Stoker

The bottom part of the 76mm on EJNAR MIKKELSEN. They were very accommodating in regards to me taking photos




This station can operate the 76mm


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think I would’ve preferred to see the 76’s on the CPF’s that were upgraded with enhanced command and control capabilities. Then, the 57’s could have been divested to the AOPS and then 25’s to the MCDVS etc...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Stanflex Containers, which mounted the 76s amongst other things, were 3.5 by 3 by 2.5 metres (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft × 8.2 ft).
> 
> Here's my favourite picture.  ;D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel



Who's that?  Theodore Tugboat doing his National Service?


----------



## blacktriangle

That looks like a Liberal Canadian Surface Combatant. 1 Billion CAD a pop and useless as tits on a bull.


----------



## Stoker

Spectrum said:
			
		

> That looks like a Liberal Canadian Surface Combatant. 1 Billion CAD a pop and useless as tits on a bull.


Really :facepalm:


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge. The crew was only 18 and included a weapon tech. If the Danes can do it why not us? As for the AOPS its not like they don't have the bunks.



A manually sighted 76mm??  Whaaaa?  That just seems like such a waste for a beautiful dual purpose gun.  Your photos were very revealing.  Those 76's seem to only hold their ready use ammo, as it didn't seem like there was a magazine elevator.  Short and sharp engagements only, with limited reload ability, like the MCDV 40's were.  

As for crewing Chief Stoker you know better then most here that the RCN won't do anything with such a small crew given the missions and required watches.  That would force the CO to stand a bridge watch like those dirty Coast Guard Captains, the Watch Officers to stand 1 in 3 for eight hour watches and everything on the ship to be super automated.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> A manually sighted 76mm??  Whaaaa?  That just seems like such a waste for a beautiful dual purpose gun.  Your photos were very revealing.  Those 76's seem to only hold their ready use ammo, as it didn't seem like there was a magazine elevator.  Short and sharp engagements only, with limited reload ability, like the MCDV 40's were.
> 
> As for crewing Chief Stoker you know better then most here that the RCN won't do anything with such a small crew given the missions and required watches.  That would force the CO to stand a bridge watch like those dirty Coast Guard Captains, the Watch Officers to stand 1 in 3 for eight hour watches and everything on the ship to be super automated.



Yes there was a ammo loading hatch in the deck and was told there was a ammo lifting cruet. Its not a quick evolution. It was interesting to note that while the ships were fitted for a containerized weapon system, that space was used for racks of spare parts. As for crewing, sadly I would think you're correct. Interesting to note AOPS will be highly automated.


----------



## Kirkhill

I just think Theodore is so cute and cuddly.... he has to be a Major Combatant.  Unicorn mascot.  Rainbow ensign.   What more could you ask for?   :rofl:

Back to reality for a minute -



> The vessels (Edit: - Rasmussens)have two flex container positions, one in the front and one in the aft, enabling them to carry a number of flexible systems, must of all one 76 mm Gun Mk M/85 LvSa on the foredeck.


 http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm

I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that the Danish 76s are designed to be dropped into a Stanflex enclosure - and the lack of connection to an external magazine would seem to be in line with that.

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/STANFLEX-modules.htm



> Stanflex modules are constructed by Monberg & Thorsen. Each module is housed in a stainless steel container measuring 3 metres (9.8 ft) in length, 3.5 metres (11 ft) in width, and 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) in height. Precision-machined flanges ensure that the module accurately mates up with connections for power, ventilation, communications, water, and data. The weapon or system is mounted on the roof of the module, while the machinery, electronics, and supporting equipment are housed within.
> 
> Modules are usually installed and replaced by a 15-ton capacity mobile crane. A module can be swapped out and replaced within half an hour, and after system testing completed, the ship is ready to deploy within a few hours. However, refresher training for the ship's crew will take significantly longer. Standardised consoles are fitted in the combat information centre: the console's role is defined by the software installed, which can be quickly replaced.
> 
> source: wikipedia
> 
> 
> Variants:
> 
> GUN = 1 x Oto-Melara/OtoBreda 76mm/62 caliber Super Rapid gun
> 
> SSM = 2 x Mk-141 quad launchers for RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
> 
> SAM = 1 x 6-cell Mk-48 (Mod.3) / Mk-56 Vertical Launching System (VLS) for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles or RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles (ESSM)
> 
> ASW = launcher for MU90 Impact torpedoes
> 
> VDS = TSM 2640 Salmon variable-depth active/passive sonar
> 
> MCM = Command & Control equipment to operate mine warfare drones
> 
> CRANE = hydraulic crane to operate a Rigid-Hulled-Inflatable-Boat (RHIB)


----------



## winnipegoo7

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge.




I'm wondering if the Scanter 4100 radar can control the 76mm in a track-while-scan / splash spotting mode (like the Sea Giraffe with the 57mm)?

Also, I've seen photos of the Knud Rasmussen class fitted with a Saab CEROS fire control radar, so it can have a fire control radar.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite correct winnipegoo7.  The RASMUSSEN class is normally (perhaps the MIKKELSEN was an anomaly when last seen by Chief Stoker) fitted with a CEROS 200 radar/optronic track and illuminate system.

Also, while everybody seems in awe and keeps quoting the crew of only 18, that is the crewing when the ships are operating in their "coast guard" type tastings. For actual military ops, the crew goes up to 43.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite correct winnipegoo7.  The RASMUSSEN class is normally (perhaps the MIKKELSEN was an anomaly when last seen by Chief Stoker) fitted with a CEROS 200 radar/optronic track and illuminate system.
> 
> Also, while everybody seems in awe and keeps quoting the crew of only 18, that is the crewing when the ships are operating in their "coast guard" type tastings. For actual military ops, the crew goes up to 43.



I guess the whole point is it is entirely feasible at the build stage of the Harry DeWolf Class to fit the existing 76mm in lieu of the 25mm. With high price of the build even purchasing a fire control radar wouldn't break the bank. In fact its interesting to note a number of systems onboard the Danish Ship will also be used on Harry DeWolf. 

As for the small crew yes I think for what they do and its a wide range of taskings similar to what the Harry Dewolf will be doing and some that we don't, they can do it with 18. Its logical to assume that the addition of any other payloads the crew number would be flexible and increase and decrease dependent on mission. In fact thats exactly what we're doing in the RCN right now.

The Danes run their ships and their navy quite different from what we're used to and was very refreshing to see these things in practice.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite correct winnipegoo7.  The RASMUSSEN class is normally (perhaps the MIKKELSEN was an anomaly when last seen by Chief Stoker) fitted with a CEROS 200 radar/optronic track and illuminate system.
> 
> Also, while everybody seems in awe and keeps quoting the crew of only 18, that is the crewing when the ships are operating in their "coast guard" type tastings. For actual military ops, the crew goes up to 43.



I sailed in the EJNAR MIKKELSEN for about 12 hours back in summer 2011 (I think). It didn't have a fire control radar then either for some reason. Also, reference the 18 person crew, they were all very, very tired and they told me that 18 sailors was just enough to keep doing what they do. 

They gave me a Zippo lighter as a souvenir and a tshirt that had a photo of the 76mm shooting out the ships bridge windows during trials (or that's what they said the photo was of). I don't have the tshirt anymore, but here's a photo of the zippo and of the accident:

http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2009/0202_76mmblasttest.htm


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't know if its the camera angle that's playing tricks, but it sure looks in that picture like someone screwed up the safety angle blocks and the ship is actually shooting herself in the bridge.   ;D

And yes, with the 18 persons manning, it gives them minimal operational capabilities, which is fine when they operate in home waters as I understand they usually operate a bit like our coast guard: Sail only as required for a specific task (or training evolution), otherwise stay in port or at anchor. So they do a lot of day sails. That type of ops is not really possible for us for the operations of the Harry DeWolfe in view of the distances at issue.

Oh! And BTW: The CCG does stay in the Arctic all winter from time to time: The Amundsen does a lot of research over winter in those waters.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Maybe that’s their way of chipping paint. Even if not hitting bridge, the frigging heat from that would suck. Now I’m dating myself here, but think the safety dentents on the 5/54 pre TRUMP would not allow that traverse and the 76 mm post TRUMP for sure.  The problem pre trump was to not shoot the sea sparrow off the extended rail launcher (remember those motherless contraptions) and post TRUMP to not shoot within 3 metres of the compartment just aft of the mount or the vibration through the bulkhead caused unantipatrd problems.


----------



## winnipegoo7

They called it a 'blast test'. Apparently it was to see if the pressure from the gun would damage the ship. I read somewhere that it damaged the bridge windows, but I can't find the article any more.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm hoping that that orange dot on the recessed platform below the bridge wasn't a hard hat.  

Although, having worked with Danish engineers, I wouldn't doubt it...... ;D


----------



## Underway

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> They called it a 'blast test'. Apparently it was to see if the pressure from the gun would damage the ship. I read somewhere that it damaged the bridge windows, but I can't find the article any more.



It makes sense for such a small ship with such little distance from the gun to the superstructure.  If the pressure wave did do a lot of damage you could refine the guns cutouts to better protect the superstructure.  If the pressure isn't an issue then you can really refine the cutouts to shoot just past the superstructure (say 140 degrees off of the bow).  If the pressure is an issue maybe the gun doesn't turn further then 100 degrees either side of the bow.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'm hoping that that orange dot on the recessed platform below the bridge wasn't a hard hat.
> 
> Although, having worked with Danish engineers, I wouldn't doubt it...... ;D



Port running light.


----------



## jollyjacktar

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> They called it a 'blast test'. Apparently it was to see if the pressure from the gun would damage the ship. I read somewhere that it damaged the bridge windows, but I can't find the article any more.



I have no doubt they were changing the windows after that test.  Must have been interesting to see from inside the bridge during the shot.  If they were allowed to remain inside.


----------



## Stoker

Article on the Blast test.

http://navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2009/0202_76mmblasttest.htm


----------



## Underway

I think this classifies nicely for the *Arctic Patrol* portion of the ships mission on this thread.

Arctic Experience & Operations - Episode 1: Into the White


----------



## Underway

Was party to a briefing today regarding AOPS project design and implementation.  Some real interesting stuff from a design and procurement perspective.  A few things we haven't discussed here.

-HMCS Harry DeWolf's goal is to be launched in September (jollyjacktar mentioned this earlier but this is to backup that statement)

-HMCS Margarete Brook's two megablocks will be brought out right after, hence the hard push for HDW to get finished by Sept

-most of the work on HDW left right now is pulling cable, which for anyone who has done that is a gigantic job

-the AOPS have power to spare.  They intentionally over engineered her power generation for a few reasons.  First, spare power for icebreaking is a good thing.  Second getting her to her hull design speed (17kts) with a 19m beam requires a pile of power.  Third design margins for future proofing.

-some sections of her hull are designed for Polar Class 4, which is a higher grade than her requirements (PC5).  This is again, a safety margin as they fully expect the NWO community to smack her into ice too thick a few times.

-her ability to take on multiple boats, multifunction Ops room, carry 20 extra pers, 6 ISO containers etc... is a real strength.  OGD, CANSOFCOM and the Army were stakeholders in the initial design.  She's more capable than the frigates for many tasks because of her ability to carry extra supplies, and equipment.

-New Zealand is very interested in AOPS.  They visited ISI a while ago.  She matches quite a bit of what they are looking for, including that she will have a Lloyds Certification.  Now my own opinion is the NZ military procurement is even more politically sensitive then Canada's so this might be a pipe dream, but there are fingers crossed.

**edit- had a quick look a the RNZN PLAN out to 2025 and in it they identify an ice capable/strengthened OPV requirement, as well as a Littoral Operations Support Capability.  AOPS may fit both of those depending on what LOSC requirements are.  Two birds with one stone?**


----------



## Cloud Cover

Thanks for that RNZN link. Can you imagine a Canadian defence document mandating enhanced war fighting capability to protect our country and our citizens out of country?????


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Was party to a briefing today regarding AOPS project design and implementation.  Some real interesting stuff from a design and procurement perspective.  A few things we haven't discussed here.
> 
> -HMCS Harry DeWolf's goal is to be launched in September (jollyjacktar mentioned this earlier but this is to backup that statement)
> 
> -HMCS Margarete Brook's two megablocks will be brought out right after, hence the hard push for HDW to get finished by Sept
> 
> -most of the work on HDW left right now is pulling cable, which for anyone who has done that is a gigantic job
> 
> -the AOPS have power to spare.  They intentionally over engineered her power generation for a few reasons.  First, spare power for icebreaking is a good thing.  Second getting her to her hull design speed (17kts) with a 19m beam requires a pile of power.  Third design margins for future proofing.
> 
> -some sections of her hull are designed for Polar Class 4, which is a higher grade than her requirements (PC5).  This is again, a safety margin as they fully expect the NWO community to smack her into ice too thick a few times



I would imagine there’s still quite a bit of work yet to do even after launching. Is there any timeframe for sea trials to start, at this point? It’s been awhile since I’ve seen an updated picture, so I don’t think I’ve seen any of the radar or comms units installed yet.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I would imagine there’s still quite a bit of work yet to do even after launching. Is there any timeframe for sea trials to start, at this point? It’s been awhile since I’ve seen an updated picture, so I don’t think I’ve seen any of the radar or comms units installed yet.



That question was asked.  The presenters were not going to commit to a timeframe but said they expect builders trials to take up to a year.  Lots of integration needs to happen from IPMS to Nav and Comms systems.  Systems integration can take quite a while.


----------



## Czech_pivo

So if it takes a full year, Sept. 2019, the then earliest that HDW will be up in the arctic will be the summer of 2020.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> That question was asked.  The presenters were not going to commit to a timeframe but said they expect builders trials to take up to a year.  Lots of integration needs to happen from IPMS to Nav and Comms systems.  Systems integration can take quite a while.



With her being the 1st in to hit the water, I’d guess these trials will be the most time consuming for the clsss. I’m sure lessons will be learned that will make things more streamlined for the others. Thanks for the info, Underway.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Somehow I don't find the arguments here in favour of the A/OPS all that convincing--seems to me that new, desperately needed, CCG icebreakers, with RCMP or Fisheries Officers on board (indeed even RCN personnel) armed as necessary, could do the useful stuff the CGAI piece suggests. In any event Harper gov't foisted the concept on the RCN when they realized that the Navy did not operate icebreakers,while their 2005-6 election platform said they would buy three armed ones for the service ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-buying-up-to-8-arctic-patrol-ships-1.651892 ):



> Unarmed Warships: What are the AOPS for?
> ...
> Despite their flying the naval ensign, the AOPS are not intended to be warships. That is not a mistake, it was a careful decision stemming from several years of government and CAF assessment of threats and requirements. The security threat to the Canadian Arctic is unconventional, and will likely remain so, centred on monitoring, policing, and assisting civilian and commercial activity. These are the low-risk, high-probability security threats projected to emerge as a result of the increased use and development of the Arctic...
> https://www.cgai.ca/unarmed_warships_what_are_the_aops_for



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

'Sfunny

"not intended to be warships"

So why "warship" standards and "warship" costs?


----------



## Underway

The're built to civilian standards.  Hence the Lloyds Certification.  They are classified as Non-Combatant ships for the navy same as the MCDV's.  They aren't supposed to go anywhere something can kill a ship by shooting it.  That's what the Frigates are for.  They are the SUV, LUVW or whatever equivalent you wish to draw for the CAF on the water.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Somehow I don't find the arguments here in favour of the A/OPS all that convincing--seems to me that new, desperately needed, CCG icebreakers, with RCMP or Fisheries Officers on board (indeed even RCN personnel) armed as necessary, could do the useful stuff the CGAI piece suggests. In any event Harper gov't foisted the concept on the RCN when they realized that the Navy did not operate icebreakers,while their 2005-6 election platform said they would buy three armed ones for the service ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-buying-up-to-8-arctic-patrol-ships-1.651892 ):



If you believe that we need to re-role the CCG into a constabulary force (a la USCG) then that's an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One hopes that any potential enemy abides by the rules we have laid down for these ships. The next serious naval conflict is going to be a "come as you are" event and like the Falklands ships that are there will be used and some will be lost.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway:



> ...
> If you believe that we need to re-role the CCG into a constabulary force (a la USCG) then that's an entirely different discussion.



Such a CCG change not necessary. As I noted they can provide platforms (vessels) for the other armed agencies to use in fulfilling their mandates--which they do now for armed Fisheries Officers and RCMP on Great Lakes/St. Lawrence:



> 1) ...Through the acquisition of new Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels, the department [DFO/CCG] is increasing its on-water capability for providing platform support to security and law enforcement organizations...
> https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/corporate-services/planning-dpr-2013-14-1188.html





> 2) Marine Security Enforcement Teams (MSET)
> ...
> The Marine Security Enforcement Team (MSET) program is a joint Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)-Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) project that was established in 2005 to enhance marine security in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway (GL-SLS) area. The program combines the law enforcement powers of the RCMP with CCG vessels and expertise in order to provide an armed, on-water law enforcement capacity in one of Canada’s busiest marine regions.
> 
> ...RCMP officers working in uniform aboard patrol vessels that are operated and maintained by CCG personnel. The role of these units is to patrol the GL-SLS area, provide on-water law enforcement, and be able to deliver a fast, armed response to potential threats...
> http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Maritime-Security/Fact-Sheet/MSET



No reason RCN personnel could not also be carried if necessary/appropriate, with weapons mounts pre-fitted on CCG ships.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Training CCG crews to fire and care for mounted .50cals would be easy, the training could be done during the regular duty cycles with little or no OT for the CCG crews, nor would practice be an issue, both West and East coast have accessible ranges the ships could use. You would have a small navy team going from ship to ship to do the training. 
The big issue is teaching the Ships Officers and ashore management, Command and Control of the deployment and use of the guns. The fire orders and comms would be easy, but getting people and management past the ROE's and into the mindset of engaging living targets is the big issue and may take time. Those CCG crews would provide protection to other services boarding parties Navy or RCMP which is a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good grief--look at the three ships Norwegian Coast Guard is getting for $860 million total whereas we are paying Irving some $500 million each for what look like quite similar A/OPS ( http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1728 ).  And compare our length of construction with how fast Norway will get them:



> Norway's new Coast Guard vessels for Arctic waters
> _With a length of 136 meters, the three will be the largest Coast Guard vessels sailing the European Arctic._
> 
> Norway’s Ministry of Defense on Monday signed contract with VARD Langsten yard for construction of the three ice-classed Coast Guard vessels. The contract has a value of 5,2 billion kroner (€552 million).
> 
> The vessels will be specially designed to withstand operations in demanding Arctic areas, but will as well be capable of sailing in worldwide operations in all weather and sea conditions. Keywords are strong ocean-going capacities, long-distance transits, search-and-rescue operations, surveillance and oil-recovery.
> 
> For Norway, these capabilities are important in a time when the Coast Guard gets more waters to patrol as the sea-ice in the Arctic melts away in the northern Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Svalbard.
> 
> _Deliveries are set to beginning of 2022, 2023 and 2024_ [emphasis added] and the three vessels are to replace the current Nordkapp-class Coast Guard vessels,  «KV Nordkapp», «KV Senja» and «KV Andenes»...
> 
> VARD Langsten yard is the same yard that built Norway’s current largest Coast Guard vessel «KV Svalbard».
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/06/norways-news-coast-guard-vessels-arctic-waters



Note that A/OPS design is based on the Svalbard mentioned above--presumably the new Norwegian ships will be more advanced than that predecessor.

From 2013:



> CBC Does Good Digging on RCN’s Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships’ Bizarre Design Cost
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/mark-collins-cbc-does-good-digging-on-rcns-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-bizarre-design-cost/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Does the 500 million each include non-ship costs like docks, jetties, life time personal costs?


----------



## Czech_pivo

The hulls are being built by Vards yards (say that quickly 5 times), in Romania, definitely a factor on a portion of the cost.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on VARD (Fincantieri subsidiary) sensibly building hulls of new Norwegian Coast Guard A/OPS-similar ships in Romania.  Boy are we stupid to build-in-Canada for pure political motives supported by all parties. Defence--or CCG needs--pale here before Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/vard-inks-nok-5bn-deal-for-3-norwegian-coast-guard-vessels/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Boy are we stupid to build-in-Canada for pure political motives supported by all parties. Defence--or CCG needs--pale here before Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!


Not pure political motives, there are good reasons why it is supported by all the parties, and not just jobs, jobs, jobs.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1517415.html#msg1517415





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good grief--look at the three ships Norwegian Coast Guard is getting for $860 million total whereas we are paying Irving some $500 million each for what look like quite similar A/OPS


Your comparison might be unfair.  If the price for the Harry DeWolfs includes things like costs resulting from production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities but the Norwegian ships do not, then the comparison is unfair.  The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates if Canada bought fifteen surface combatants from another country without any changes, there would be a saving of about 25 per cent on the total program cost.  So I doubt very much three Harry DeWolfs can be built overseas for about $860 million.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention that the yard will need some new builds to recapitalize their equipment, without that type of improvement, they will be unable to do ship repair and maintenance, in which case your taking your ships out of the country. What you are suggesting is political suicide. By all means force some pencil sharpening and take down Irvings Empire, but ship building is a strategic resource.


----------



## Czech_pivo

The reality is that there is so much to replace over the next 15yrs - Subs, Coast Guard, Kingston Class - that Irving's Halifax operations and Seaspans's operations are too small and over-booked to handle all of the upcoming replacements.  Our choices will be 3 fold - do nothing (always a leading option here in Canada), use Davie or go overseas.  Regarding the Subs being replaced in 15yrs, we'll never build them here since we don't have any desire to add that expertise internally, so we'll end up buying Brit or French subs, whether used or new.  Regarding the Coast Guard ships and the Kingston replacements, Davie is the only yard with the size/volume/expertise left in which to build them.  I highly doubt we'll go overseas for any of it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to mention that the yard will need some new builds to recapitalize their equipment, without that type of improvement, they will be unable to do ship repair and maintenance, in which case your taking your ships out of the country. What you are suggesting is political suicide. By all means force some pencil sharpening and take down Irvings Empire, but ship building is a strategic resource.



It actually most certainly is for a nation, such as Canada, that is an island nation. It may be difficult to fathom for a country so vast in landmass but we, Canada, as the United States are and the UK before, and especially as we share the continental defence with the US, are basically ocean-bound in our defence needs and our collective economic interests. Even our second closest neighbour - France - could only invade from the sea.

So, yes, for us, the capacity to control our own shipbuilding is an essential strategic capacity, unlike Norway, which even though it has extensive coast lines, is not reliant on the access to the sea for its national defence or livelihood, at least not outside the more local aspects of seaward defence.


----------



## Kirkhill

First off - From Mark's last post - second to last paragraph.



> Commenting on the recently signed contract, Mette Sørfonden, Director General of NDMA, said: “*Due to national security interests, the Norwegian government decided that the competition should be restricted to Norwegian yards only*. Vard Group with its Vard Langsten yard was the provider that overall satisfied the defined requirements for solution and the navy and the coast guard’s needs in the best manner.”



The Norwegians decided that the ship should be built by Norwegians for Norwegians on National Security* grounds. They determined they need to keep the design capability in house.  

The yard decided that they could contract out the metal banging to the Romanians.  The Norwegians apparently agreed that that was not a strategic imperative.  Apparently, in my view of their opinion, metal banging is not a primary skill set.   And the Romanians will do it faster and cheaper, in warmer waters, than the Norwegians.

On the other hand - the matter of cost of the vessel and the cost of the project.

We cost the project.  They cost the vessel.  

Apples to oranges right enough.  The thing is, we never get around to actually costing the vessel.  Direct comparisons are difficult if not impossible.  They don't have to be.  They are quite simple if line item cost estimates on the project are prepared.

One might be inclined to suspect the reluctance to disclose the actual separate cost of the vessel provides benefit to some parties involved in the trade.  One might even be convinced that the obfuscation was intentional.

It might be suspected that some parties might wish to hide the actual costs so as to further agendas.  

With a high price fewer hulls can be afforded.  Fewer capabilities are available. Fewer commitments can be made.  Fewer expectations exist.  Fewer demands are made.
With a high price more profits might be available.
With a high price more money might be injected into the economy through paying Canadians to buy from Canadians buying from international suppliers.

But I suspect that only a cynic would suspect such things.

* Interesting point about what constitutes a National Security issue - retained capabilities apparently qualify.


----------



## Dale Denton

Why don't we start costing vessels differently then? If it makes things sound more expensive than they are then just change the way we count then...

I don't understand the thinking behind saving money by building offshore (unless its highly-specialized). Isn't there a better return/optics by spending the billions on shipyards and other Canadian companies within Canada? The money going through the local/national economy for these projects partly justifies the added expense.

Any new pics of HDW?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

looking good


----------



## Gorgo

Does anyone have a date for the planned launching?


----------



## Stoker

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Does anyone have a date for the planned launching?



Mid Sept in the basin off the barge


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The reality is that there is so much to replace over the next 15yrs - Subs, Coast Guard, Kingston Class - that Irving's Halifax operations and Seaspans's operations are too small and over-booked to handle all of the upcoming replacements.  Our choices will be 3 fold - do nothing (always a leading option here in Canada), use Davie or go overseas.  Regarding the Subs being replaced in 15yrs, we'll never build them here since we don't have any desire to add that expertise internally, so we'll end up buying Brit or French subs, whether used or new.  Regarding the Coast Guard ships and the Kingston replacements, Davie is the only yard with the size/volume/expertise left in which to build them.  I highly doubt we'll go overseas for any of it.



MCDVs can actually be built at a lot of shipyards as they are pretty small, and they would be pretty competitive as ships in that tonnage are their bread and butter, so if it was an open competition there are a lot of yards that could win it aside from Davie, and the GoC may want to spread the love anyway.

Subs are pretty specialized, and if you look to Australia, there are some great comparisons with the Collins class sub on why it's a terrible idea for Canada to try and build them here.  Aside from the Brits or French, there is also other good options for import, like some of the German subs.  Don't know if the US would ever export them, but their crewing model is nuts anyway, so probably a non starter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BC Ferries just released an expression in interest for 5 ferries to replace the C class (139m , 6969 DWT) likely go overseas though as little capacity here on the West Coast.


----------



## Dale Denton

So with the gap between AOPS and CSC, is it almost guaranteed that they'll be another 1 or 2 AOPS to built? What else could be shoehorned into that gap that needs work? Half-fleet quick MCDV refit?



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The reality is that there is so much to replace over the next 15yrs - Subs, Coast Guard, Kingston Class - that Irving's Halifax operations and Seaspans's operations are too small and over-booked to handle all of the upcoming replacements.  Our choices will be 3 fold - do nothing (always a leading option here in Canada), use Davie or go overseas.  Regarding the Subs being replaced in 15yrs, we'll never build them here since we don't have any desire to add that expertise internally, so we'll end up buying Brit or French subs, whether used or new.  Regarding the Coast Guard ships and the Kingston replacements, Davie is the only yard with the size/volume/expertise left in which to build them.  I highly doubt we'll go overseas for any of it.



I agree, but this is also a positive in a way too.

What is our capacity to have new classes/ships every year? How long does it take to retrain?

I think its much better for the industry, and a perfect time too. Knowing that there's almost guaranteed govt work for the next 25 years as most of the RCN and CCG fleets need big refits or complete replacement already. Even if the MCDV replacement/refit project was complete, theres nothing industry could do for years anyways.


----------



## Swampbuggy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> So with the gap between AOPS and CSC, is it almost guaranteed that they'll be another 1 or 2 AOPS to built? What else could be shoehorned into that gap that needs work? Half-fleet quick MCDV refit?
> 
> Are we absolutely past the point of no return WRT the “gap”?
> 
> Or is there still a chance we could pick a ship early next year and then start cutting steel by end of 2022?
> 
> I’m not opposed to a couple more AOPS, 7-8 may even be enough to retire a few MCDV’s sooner rather than later.


----------



## AirDet

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I’m not opposed to a couple more AOPS, 7-8 may even be enough to retire a few MCDV’s sooner rather than later.



Was the intent to use the AOPS to replace the MCDV's. I hadn't heard that before. Those 2 ships may have similar abilities but they also have significant differences.

What is the plan to replace the MCDV's?


----------



## Swampbuggy

AirDet said:
			
		

> Was the intent to use the AOPS to replace the MCDV's. I hadn't heard that before. Those 2 ships may have similar abilities but they also have significant differences.
> 
> What is the plan to replace the MCDV's?



I was under the impression that was the original plan. The AOPS would eventually replace the MCDV, if I’m sufficient numbers. But, it was scaled back from 8 to 5 or 6 vessels. So there was the recent study to determine if the lifespan of the MCDV could be extended for 5-15 years. As it stands now, the MCDV is to be used in conjunction with the AOPS for an indeterminate period of time, according to VADM Lloyd. But, I think if ISI got green lit to build a couple more, the RCN might revisit that plan and maybe divest some of the KINGSTON fleet.


----------



## CBH99

That seems like a bad idea, replacing MCDV with AOPS?  KINGSTON class are pretty versatile little ships - surely they are far easier to man & cheaper to operate than the big AOPS will be?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Beef up the armament and defense suite for the AOPS, use the MCDV fitted with the current main gun destined for the AOPS for domestic, US and Caribbean ops. The AOP's do the oversea stuff, like Africa, piracy patrols, RimPac, Asia, along with the Arctic.


----------



## Swampbuggy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> That seems like a bad idea, replacing MCDV with AOPS?  KINGSTON class are pretty versatile little ships - surely they are far easier to man & cheaper to operate than the big AOPS will be?



Definitely the MCDV is cheaper. But, why no mention of it or it’s replacement looking ahead into the next 2 decades? It’s one area that SSE has been conspicuously short on info about. 

At any rate, I wouldn’t want to see them all retired, even were we to receive another 2 AOPS for an total of 8. I think there’s sense in refitting 6 of them as MCM vessels with new mine warfare kit and posting a squadron on both Southern coasts. 

The remainder could be either divested or repurposed as Diving Support vessels or Ocean tugs ( just spitballing here) or sent to the CCG as a combo FishPat/Hydrographic survey ship. With less taskings and a good refit, maybe there’s a lot of life for MCDV’s in lower tempo operations?

 This line of thinking 🤔 is only really due to no suitable replacement on the horizon for a vessel of this nature.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Replacing the MCDV is so easy, there is likely a dozen yards in the country that could build them. Take the lessons learned from them, keeping in mind the AOP's coming on line, pick a size and series of missions for them, including minimum crew and maximum crew/passenger. Find a existing design that comes close, tweak it a bit and start building replacements 2-3 ships a year, by 2023.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Replacing the MCDV is so easy, there is likely a dozen yards in the country that could build them. Take the lessons learned from them, keeping in mind the AOP's coming on line, pick a size and series of missions for them, including minimum crew and maximum crew/passenger. Find a existing design that comes close, tweak it a bit and start building replacements 2-3 ships a year, by 2023.



Yes. But, is the political will there to do it? You could have 6-8 quick, simple and amply armed ships (something like an Armidale for ex) to supplement the other classes and stay at home, for a relatively low amount of money. But somebody up top has to want it. Were I Davie, I think that would be my tack, since building them wouldn’t be cutting anybody else’s grass, under the NSS. Jobs, votes, not undermining ISI or VSS... seems like a no brainer, but it hasn’t been on anybody’s radar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's easy so they ignore it till it becomes a crisis, because that is how we do things in Canada.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's easy so they ignore it till it becomes a crisis, because that is how we do things in Canada.



I guess the worry then, is if anybody will actually see the end of the MCDV’s as a crisis. By that, I mean, nobody outside of the RCN or chat groups like this one, know what that type of vessel brings to the table. So, if ultimately John Q Public and the government see a half dozen AOPS and 15 CSC, will anybody “important” even realize anything is missing once the KINGSTONs go?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I fear you have correctly assessed the likely scenario. The MCDV are an excellent stepping stone for young Captains and Officers, not to mention P.O.'s


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:
			
		

> Was the intent to use the AOPS to replace the MCDV's. I hadn't heard that before. Those 2 ships may have similar abilities but they also have significant differences.



Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean.  



			
				AirDet said:
			
		

> What is the plan to replace the MCDV's?



There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's.  



			
				Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I guess the worry then, is if anybody will actually see the end of the MCDV’s as a crisis. By that, I mean, nobody outside of the RCN or chat groups like this one, know what that type of vessel brings to the table. So, if ultimately John Q Public and the government see a half dozen AOPS and 15 CSC, will anybody “important” even realize anything is missing once the KINGSTONs go?



Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?

Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.

The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A mine counter measures capability is a key capability for a serious Navy. It would be folly to discard this asset and a serious miscalculation to think AOPS can perform that task.  And, the cost is not prohibitve to refresh that capability and the ships sometime in the future. The MCDV can cede the patrol and seamanship training function to AOPS, and revert to a specialized role, even if the number of ships are less than 12.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean.
> 
> There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's.
> 
> Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?
> 
> Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.
> 
> The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.



This whole post is excellent. I agree with everything you are saying, with just one reservation. Certainly if there are vessels that can perform the same tasks the MCDV has been doing, then of course it isn’t really a crisis. But, by the time all the CSC arrive, the MCDVS will likely be gone. With the re-focus on task groups, and up to 4 CSC in said groups, that stretches what can be covered by a fleet of 21 vessels. That’s assuming the RCN keeps up with OP CARIBBE etc...whilst upping their patrol time in the Arctic. In the early to mid 2030’s is when the cupboard starts to look bare. I know there’s time to address it, but maybe by banging out AOPS 7 and 8 they put off that potential “crisis” and allow the MCDV to fulfill its original mandate, while extending its life.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean.
> 
> There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's.
> 
> Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?
> 
> Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.
> 
> The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.



This whole post is excellent. I agree with everything you are saying, with just one reservation. Certainly if there are vessels that can perform the same tasks the MCDV has been doing, then of course it isn’t really a crisis. But, by the time all the CSC arrive, the MCDVS will likely be gone. With the re-focus on task groups, and up to 4 CSC in said groups, that stretches what can be covered by a fleet of 21 vessels. That’s assuming the RCN keeps up with OP CARIBBE etc...whilst upping their patrol time in the Arctic. In the early to mid 2030’s is when the cupboard starts to look bare. I know there’s time to address it, but maybe by banging out AOPS 7 and 8 they put off that potential “crisis” and allow the MCDV to fulfill its original mandate, while extending its life.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Maybe, just maybe, this article might lead to us selling the Kiwi's  a pair of AOPS?

Navy vessel came close to capsize in Southern Ocean, Defence Minister Ron Mark says

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12084397


----------



## Dale Denton

Wasn't there a post from someone here about Kiwi interest in it? They have plans on procuring one I remember reading in a NZDF White Paper or Policy. 

Here's a thought, maybe we could fill the supposed gap between the AOPS and CSC with actual international orders. At least this order wouldn't be to somewhere controversial...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Might have to sweeten the pot with some sort of trade stuff to reduce the costs for them.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Might have to sweeten the pot with some sort of trade stuff to reduce the costs for them.



Lamb for Ships?


----------



## Dale Denton

I think having just one international order would be a huge win for the whole strategy and would be seen as a justification for it all. Would be rich if they ordered it with a larger offensive/defensive suite too...

Long term, might make AOPS attractive to some South American countries too, build a reputation as a competitive shipbuilder again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Lamb for Ships?



Sounds good for me. Although most of their lamb goes to China now, so NZ might want some tech transfers or similar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plan for launching the first ship is October, with a hopefully in service date of summer 2019


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Plan for launching the first ship is October, with a hopefully in service date of summer 2019



So they pushed the launch date back a month then?  Or just a few weeks (as late September was last I heard).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

First in class, stuff happens, not that far off though. It will be nice to see a new navy ship, even if basically unarmed.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> First in class, stuff happens, not that far off though. It will be nice to see a new navy ship, even if basically unarmed.



From what I have been told the original date in Sept still stands. Just seen multiple posts on other social media from crew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yes their Twitter still says Sept and it seems AOP #2 is coming along  https://youtu.be/xWFVbh0xJio


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> First in class, stuff happens, not that far off though. It will be nice to see a new navy ship, even if basically unarmed.



How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?

What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?
> 
> What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?



Not cost and we currently have the 76mm mounts in stock from the 280s and a pile of shells for them I would imagine. A risk assessment was done and the statement of requirements for a non combatant doesn't call for that large of a gun. There's plenty of room to up arm them with the associated engineering.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?
> 
> What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?



Costs most likely, then they use reasons to justify it. I would place a 76/57mm on the bow, 35mm either side, build a hardpoint for a small missile system with electrical, heatshields, etc so they can be easily fitted. Power conduits and mounting point for a future laser system. Some self defense systems, radars, chaff dispensers, decoys. This would make them tough enough to forestall to many engagements and some ability to exert presence. These ships are going to be around for the next 30 years and I predict a lot of instability and conflicts, which we will get dragged into and god knows where.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Costs most likely, then they use reasons to justify it. I would place a 76/57mm on the bow, 35mm either side, build a hardpoint for a small missile system with electrical, heatshields, etc so they can be easily fitted. Power conduits and mounting point for a future laser system. Some self defense systems, radars, chaff dispensers, decoys. This would make them tough enough to forestall to many engagements and some ability to exert presence. These ships are going to be around for the next 30 years and I predict a lot of instability and conflicts, which we will get dragged into and god knows where.



Sounds impressive. As a compromise, what about SEARAM in place of a gun, and additional small arms?


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think the 57 bofors from the CPF is a nice fit. Once they start being replaced by CSC, it’d be nice to see the 57 and maybe even the PHALANX drop down to the DEWOLF class. At least then there would be a better air defence suite and more range to reach out and touch somebody.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I think the 57 bofors from the CPF is a nice fit. Once they start being replaced by CSC, it’d be nice to see the 57 and maybe even the PHALANX drop down to the DEWOLF class. At least then there would be a better air defence suite and more range to reach out and touch somebody.



We already have the 76mm in storage to outfit everyone of the Class and ammunition. Buying new 57mm means more money. The Danish Knud Rasmussen has similar 76mm fitted recycled from another class.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For all we know these ship might end up off the coast of Yemen supporting a UN peacekeeping mission, or helping to hunt pirates off of west/east Africa, Indonesia. Part of a fleet pushing into the South China sea. Dealing with a escorted Chinese drillship in the Arctic, patrolling the coast of Venezuela to keep arms out of a civil war, did I miss any?


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?
> 
> What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?



Role.  It's a Patrol Ship, not a combatant.  The thing is defined by the navy as a "Noncombatant" same as the MCDV's.  It's no more heavily armed then the River class patrol boats the Royal Navy is using for fisheries and domestic operations, though it size is significant (given its range and icebreaking capability).  

Money.  A 57mm is a multi-purpose gun but mainly for air defence.  The AOPS would need a change in sensors and combat management systems in order to properly use it to its potential (air search radar, fire control radar, IFF, chillers to cool the systems, more personnel to operate it/maintain it).  76mm has a larger footprint but the other systems are similarly sized.  Having a spare 76mm is only a small part of the cost at this point for a ship redesign.

Doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.  I expect once the ships are on the water and their capabilities are looked at there will be a number of interesting additions to them that we might not be able to forsee.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.   

LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.


----------



## Ashkan08

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.



I agree.  I was honestly quite confused when I saw how lightly armed the upcoming AOPS are. Based on the weapons it has, it would be vulnerable in anti-piracy missions let alone conventional warfare.


----------



## Kirkhill

A Canadian Hammer


----------



## Ashkan08

Don't know about you but I personally prefer this.


----------



## Stoker

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> I agree.  I was honestly quite confused when I saw how lightly armed the upcoming AOPS are. Based on the weapons it has, it would be vulnerable in anti-piracy missions let alone conventional warfare.



Except it is a non combatant and the weapons, including a helo will be fine for anti piracy or missions such as OP Caribbe.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We already have the 76mm in storage to outfit everyone of the Class and ammunition. Buying new 57mm means more money. The Danish Knud Rasmussen has similar 76mm fitted recycled from another class.


That’s why I was suggesting the 57 when the RCN is divesting the CPF. We would have ultimately 12 available, I believe, whereas I don’t think we have more than 3 76mm currently. Which means you’d have to purchase another 3 76mm for the class. Besides, the Bofors have just recently been redone as part of the FELEX, so they ought to be on great shape.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> That’s why I was suggesting the 57 when the RCN is divesting the CPF. We would have ultimately 12 available, I believe, whereas I don’t think we have more than 3 76mm currently. Which means you’d have to purchase another 3 76mm for the class. Besides, the Bofors have just recently been redone as part of the FELEX, so they ought to be on great shape.



I checked on the 76mm and we have more than 5. It will be many years before they start to pay off the CPFs


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I checked on the 76mm and we have more than 5. It will be many years before they start to pay off the CPFs



Really? I had no idea we had more 76mm. I guess there must have been some for training purposes as well as the 3 on the 280’s. I was under the impression that the one off HURON was sent to ALGONQUIN (not 100% sure it was ALGONQUIN), so I didn’t know if we lost one or not. That’s good to know. 

As for the 57mm being on the CPF’s  for a long time, I was thinking they may start coming available when the AOPS start into the midlife refit bracket. I’d prefer to see more punch sooner than later, but I guess the analysis has been done. Not too sure I like the preparing for the best and hoping for even better scenario in a warship though. Who knows what will crop up in the future?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Really? I had no idea we had more 76mm. I guess there must have been some for training purposes as well as the 3 on the 280’s. I was under the impression that the one off HURON was sent to ALGONQUIN (not 100% sure it was ALGONQUIN), so I didn’t know if we lost one or not. That’s good to know.
> 
> As for the 57mm being on the CPF’s  for a long time, I was thinking they may start coming available when the AOPS start into the midlife refit bracket. I’d prefer to see more punch sooner than later, but I guess the analysis has been done. Not too sure I like the preparing for the best and hoping for even better scenario in a warship though. Who knows what will crop up in the future?



That's the number I was quoted, figure 4 guns with at least one or two for spares. There's at at least some. As for something cropping up, its being built too Loyd's standards like the Kingston Class, I doubt they will every sent willingly into combat. If it ever needs to be armed then it will be armed.


----------



## Ostrozac

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> As for something cropping up, its being built too Loyd's standards like the Kingston Class, I doubt they will every sent willingly into combat. If it ever needs to be armed then it will be armed.



Didn't the UK employ actual civilian vessels in the Falklands War, all the way to the landings at San Carlos? I seem to remember that one of the UK civilian vessels was even struck and sunk by an Exocet hit. If that's what happens to civilian ships in time of war, there's no reason to expect that an actual warship labelled as an HMCS won't ever get shot at. Better to be prepared and equipped for war than having it be a surprise when someone starts taking pot shots at your ship.


----------



## Stoker

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Didn't the UK employ actual civilian vessels in the Falklands War, all the way to the landings at San Carlos? I seem to remember that one of the UK civilian vessels was even struck and sunk by an Exocet hit. If that's what happens to civilian ships in time of war, there's no reason to expect that an actual warship labelled as an HMCS won't ever get shot at. Better to be prepared and equipped for war than having it be a surprise when someone starts taking pot shots at your ship.



The government will disagree with you, not mention we have had lots of lightly armed ships in the RCN.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.
> 
> LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.




I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.



The deployment to Africa a risk assessment was conducted to determine the risk of sending the Kingston Class to the gulf of guinea with the armament the ship is equipped with. It was deemed acceptable. I also was part of the team training the ship for the mission, they were fine and had an acceptable level of training. You as a civilian looking in and frankly not in possession of all the facts. Do you really think we would put a crew in harms way, give your head a shake.


----------



## CBH99

Agreed with the Chief here guys.

If your actually picturing an AOPS sailing the South China Sea, participating as part of the Task Force - it ain't happening, and nobody plans on it happening.  That's what the fleet of CSC & JSS is for, along with any sub support they may have.

These vessels are large because they are expected to operate in ice, but also contribute to deployments in places such as off the coast of Africa or down in the Caribbean.  The Kingstons already do these operations just fine, and are a far better solution than the USN sending a bloody Burke to do the same job.

If the Kingstons can do these jobs, so can the AOPS.  


All this talk of "If we aren't going to arm them with SeaRAM and a 57mm, and all the fire control radars, etc etc" -- it's not a warship.  It's not designed to be a warship.  It's not fast enough to be a warship even if you slapped a bunch of advanced radars & weapons on it.  IT IS NOT A WARSHIP.  IT WILL NEVER DO WHAT WE EXPECT A HALIFAX OR CSC TO DO.  That's why we aren't building 22 AOPS.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.



https://youtu.be/_FZ7gNFYsL8

Maybe this video will change your mind that small arms and .50cals with trained operators are more than enough to deal with pirates?

Btw, the skiff bouncing off the ship was due to the pirate piloting the skiff being shot in the head.  

They made a very big mistake trying to attack and fire upon a ship with armed PMCs on board.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The 280 76mm fit went from the upperdecks to the keel for basically a whole watertight section(when you include the loading mechanisms and magazines).  That's a big whack of engineering and likely AOPs already has a bunch of stuff there.

AOPS is built to civilian standards, so let's not pretend it would be an effective combatant.


----------



## Swampbuggy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Agreed with the Chief here guys.
> 
> If your actually picturing an AOPS sailing the South China Sea, participating as part of the Task Force - it ain't happening, and nobody plans on it happening.  That's what the fleet of CSC & JSS is for, along with any sub support they may have.
> 
> These vessels are large because they are expected to operate in ice, but also contribute to deployments in places such as off the coast of Africa or down in the Caribbean.  The Kingstons already do these operations just fine, and are a far better solution than the USN sending a bloody Burke to do the same job.
> 
> If the Kingstons can do these jobs, so can the AOPS.
> 
> 
> All this talk of "If we aren't going to arm them with SeaRAM and a 57mm, and all the fire control radars, etc etc" -- it's not a warship.  It's not designed to be a warship.  It's not fast enough to be a warship even if you slapped a bunch of advanced radars & weapons on it.  IT IS NOT A WARSHIP.  IT WILL NEVER DO WHAT WE EXPECT A HALIFAX OR CSC TO DO.  That's why we aren't building 22 AOPS.



Speaking for myself, I’m not suggesting that it would or should in any way supplant a frigate in role or task. I understand that it is never intended to be a front line combattant in a war zone. That being said, I’m not advocating for a VLS, rail gun etc...But, I do think there’s something to be said for some measure of air defence, at least. The characteristics of the Mk38, particularly its max elevation, make it unsuitable as a true air defence weapon. It’s range is also limited at 2.5 km. That’s why I would have liked the 57. With the right sensor package, it gives you anti-air, anti-missile and anti-surface capability. I know that’s also the case with the 76mm the Chief was talking about, which I’m encouraged to hear is still in stock. I’m not sure if the Scanter package is able to accommodate that task, but I do know it has an air search feature. Realistically, I believe it’s mainly for use in helo operations, though. 

It seems as though the weapon suite is essentially focused on being able to force civilian/merchant vessels to heave to when requested. I’m sure it’s quite capable of doing that. It’s just the unexpected that makes me wish for a little more bite.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's gray and it navy, sooner or later it will be sent somewhere where the risk is much higher. The world is also going to be a much different place and different crisis. One of those crisis might be on our doorstep. You also assume your political master will listen to reason, they may not. Canadian governments have a long history of sending troops and sailors unprepared/under equipped into harms way. Much better to walk softly with a big stick, then to wandering around with a popgun on a frigate sized vessel.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The 280 76mm fit went from the upperdecks to the keel for basically a whole watertight section(when you include the loading mechanisms and magazines).  That's a big whack of engineering and likely AOPs already has a bunch of stuff there.
> 
> AOPS is built to civilian standards, so let's not pretend it would be an effective combatant.



The 76mm on the Danish EJNAR MIKKELSEN which is the same model takes up a smaller footprint, its loaded manually. On Harry DeWolf there is a greater amount of space below the 25mm.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The 76mm on the Danish EJNAR MIKKELSEN which is the same model takes up a smaller footprint, its loaded manually. On Harry DeWolf there is a greater amount of space below the 25mm.



With regards to interior space, Chief, I was wondering if there was a CBRN citadel in this ship? Being mainly a civilian built vessel, I wouldn’t think so, but I haven’t seen anything about it in all the literature.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> With regards to interior space, Chief, I was wondering if there was a CBRN citadel in this ship? Being mainly a civilian built vessel, I wouldn’t think so, but I haven’t seen anything about it in all the literature.



I believe there is.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I believe there is.



Interesting. Is there also one on the MCDVS?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Interesting. Is there also one on the MCDVS?



No.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?



When I say the ship has a CBRN citadel I though you meant the Danish. The AOPS do not.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> When I say the ship has a CBRN citadel I though you meant the Danish. The AOPS do not.



Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's gray and it navy, sooner or later it will be sent somewhere where the risk is much higher. The world is also going to be a much different place and different crisis. One of those crisis might be on our doorstep. You also assume your political master will listen to reason, they may not. Canadian governments have a long history of sending troops and sailors unprepared/under equipped into harms way. Much better to walk softly with a big stick, then to wandering around with a popgun on a frigate sized vessel.



You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them.  

It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?



Aside from the ship itself, you also need a certain number of bodies to keep fighting through battle damage.  Combatants with minimal crews were deliberate decisions knowing that the ship would have very little ability to recover or stay in the fight, so they focused on a cheap build with a good sensor package for offense.  Kind of like a power puncher with a glass jaw.

Still have enough crew to fight a single incident to stay safe at sea, and lots of fitted systems etc, but it's a big slow target, so even if you bolted a bunch of stuff on it wouldn't be effective against actual warships.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Aside from the ship itself, you also need a certain number of bodies to keep fighting through battle damage.  Combatants with minimal crews were deliberate decisions knowing that the ship would have very little ability to recover or stay in the fight, so they focused on a cheap build with a good sensor package for offense.  Kind of like a power puncher with a glass jaw.
> 
> Still have enough crew to fight a single incident to stay safe at sea, and lots of fitted systems etc, but it's a big slow target, so even if you bolted a bunch of stuff on it wouldn't be effective against actual warships.



That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations. And I guess that a CBRN citadel (it’s a moot point anyway, since the Chief clarified it doesn’t have one) doesn’t really tell the whole tale about the ship’s capability to survive, as you say. Though, I wasn’t really thinking ship on ship confrontation, so much. It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise. 

Its not everything I hoped for in a new patrol ship, but I’m excited all the same. It will be a new and appreciated tool in the RCN box. I just have to drill through to myself that it isn’t anything more than it was designed to be.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations. And I guess that a CBRN citadel (it’s a moot point anyway, since the Chief clarified it doesn’t have one) doesn’t really tell the whole tale about the ship’s capability to survive, as you say. Though, I wasn’t really thinking ship on ship confrontation, so much. It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise.
> 
> Its not everything I hoped for in a new patrol ship, but I’m excited all the same. It will be a new and appreciated tool in the RCN box. I just have to drill through to myself that it isn’t anything more than it was designed to be.



At work we are looking at the DC component right now and tailoring a program for them most likely along the lines of how a Kingston Class operates for DC.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations.



More crew is a lot more than just adding a few bunks; you need a lot more storage for food, water, garbage, etc. Bigger wastewater treatment, bigger galleys, more lifeboats and all kinds of other equipment concerns. Plus you need the trained sailors to fill those rolls, and they are already in short supply.

It's not impossible, but it's a big change, and a completely different role than what they are being built for.  We should let them do what they are designed to do well, and let the frigates keep doing the combatant work.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> More crew is a lot more than just adding a few bunks; you need a lot more storage for food, water, garbage, etc. Bigger wastewater treatment, bigger galleys, more lifeboats and all kinds of other equipment concerns. Plus you need the trained sailors to fill those rolls, and they are already in short supply.
> 
> It's not impossible, but it's a big change, and a completely different role than what they are being built for.  We should let them do what they are designed to do well, and let the frigates keep doing the combatant work.



I’m sure that’s true. More people means more resources to manage/obtain/cost etc. As to the manpower being in short supply, does it all start with a lack of people flowing through the recruitment centres or is it training for specific trades? Or both, maybe? I remember when I looked into enlisting in the early 90’s, I believe they asked for your top three choices of where you wanted to serve. In those days, it was unlikely to get a place in the RCN, as I recall. Everything seemed geared towards the Army, as far as funneling recruitment. I think I’d be more inclined, were I in charge, to beef up
numbers in the Navy these days. Canada seems to make a much better impression on the world when it comes to contributing at sea than on land. I’m not trying to diminish what the Army or Air Force has done in Afghanistan or the training roles elsewhere, but they certainly have had their moments of controversy as to their effectiveness. But the Navy takes Canada with them to foreign shores and is far better at making instant impact in times of disaster response and international coalitions for security, IMHO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them.
> 
> It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.



We will be using what we have, the RN used merchant ships and cruise ships to conduct the Falklands operation. Also the AOP's will be operating alone in the arctic, they may be the point vessel in a confrontation there.


----------



## Dale Denton

Underway said:
			
		

> You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them.
> 
> It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.



You are right, but the enemy may not give us that option. A lightly armed vessel alone in the arctic is not much use.

Biggest point is the presumption that the gov't will only use these ships for what they were built for. They will, over time, be used for  tasks that were not envisioned to be doing at launch. I.E adding Phalanx to the Iroquois before sailing to the Gulf.

The RCN (if not already) should push for the most capability on each platform, as how often will they be built new ships? Might as well ask for the most capability as they may not get any replacements in sight 20 years after we launch them.


----------



## dapaterson

As long as the enemy is in MCDVs, the AOPS have a fighting chance.


----------



## STONEY

As a point of interest saw Harry today completely covered by tarps probably for a fresh coat of paint getting ready for launching.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yes, bottom paint has to be applied within a certain timeframe before launching, otherwise loses effectiveness. I am assuming the RCN mainly uses ablative type anti-foulings?


----------



## Gorgo

Sweet!  Hopefully, they'll be ahead of schedule this time!


----------



## Underway

Seems HMCS Harry De Wolfe will be launched Saturday.  At least according to this blogger.  I would love to go watch.  Perhaps from the Dartmouth side might get a better view.

https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2018/09/harry-dewolf-almost.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise.



I wouldn't myself consider MANPADs on their own a true air defence system;  their range is not very significant, especially considering the range of most modern anti-ship weapons such as the air-launch version of the KH-35.


----------



## Kirkhill

Which is more effect in AD mode?

MANPADS or the SR76/62?



> 76/62 SUPER RAPID
> Share
> 76/62 SUPER RAPID
> The 76/62 Super Rapid (SR) Gun Mount is a light weight, rapid-fire naval gun providing unrivalled performance and flexibility in any air defence and anti surface role, particularly in anti-missile role.
> 
> Capability for very effective engagement of shore based targets is also provided for unique multi-role performance.
> 
> The 76/62 SR is suitable for installation on ships of any type and class, including small naval units.
> Interface to a large variety of ship's Combat Management System and/or FCS/EOS is provided, according to digital as well as analogical standard, including open architecture.
> The Firing rate can be selected from single shot to firing 120 rds/min.
> 
> In operational condition the tactical time is less than 3 seconds and the standard deviation at firing is less than 0.3 mrad, thus providing excellent accuracy.
> 
> The 76/62 SR (together with the 76/62 Compact) is the only medium caliber naval gun available in the capable of sustained fire, which is a fundamental requirement in any scenario involving the simultaneous engagement of multiple maneuvering target, as requested by the emerging asymmetric warfare scenarios.
> 
> Automatic loading is provided through a revolving magazine and rapid reloading is easily undertaken even during firing action by two ammunition handlers.
> 
> Standard supply includes the new Digital Control Console (DCC) capitalizing the digital technology to increase the functions available to the operator and to the maintainers.
> The 76/62 SR is ready for operating the 3AP Multifunction Programmable Fuse.
> The in service and new 76/62 SR,  have the necessary flexibility for being fitted with optional:
> 
> Integral Stealth Shield to reduce the total RCS of the ship
> Muzzle Velocity Radar to update the FCS of eventual deviations from range table values
> Multi Feeding Device for the automatic handling, selection and feeding of any type of ammunition loaded
> STRALES system – a guidance system for the  DART guided projectile.



http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/67176536/body_OTO_76_62_SR_LQ_mm08727_.pdf
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66959012/body_STRALES_2013_1.pdf
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66959907/body_vulcano_76_2016.pdf

8 km Anti Air with the guided DART projectile at up to 120 rounds per minute 
OR
40 km Surface to Surface with the guided Volcano projectile at up to 120 rounds per minute

With 89 ready rounds that can be a selectable mix of up to 20 types of projectiles.

I'm pretty sure that our old 76s are not the same as the new 76s but the old ammunition is compatible.


----------



## Swampbuggy

see Below


----------



## Swampbuggy

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that our old 76s are not the same as the new 76s but the old ammunition is compatible.



Sorry, Chris, I’ve had a quote setback. What I was going to post was a question regarding feasibility of sending  our old 76’s back to OTO MELARA to be rebuilt, and possibly updated to the newer mod? I think that was done with our 57 BOFORS at Kongsberg during the FELEX project, IIRC.


----------



## Gorgo

Underway said:
			
		

> Seems HMCS Harry De Wolfe will be launched Saturday.  At least according to this blogger.  I would love to go watch.  Perhaps from the Dartmouth side might get a better view.
> 
> https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2018/09/harry-dewolf-almost.html



Sweet!  Do they have her ship's crest designed as of yet?


----------



## Underway

The crest has been designed.  It looks cool.  People will love it.


----------



## FSTO

Love the crest.

Should only have the last name though. Full names should be reserved for the coast guard.


----------



## Uzlu

The future HMCS Harry DeWolf may launch tomorrow.   

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3938323


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Should only have the last name though. Full names should be reserved for the coast guard.



Don't know what you base that on, FSTO, since this is the first damn time in our history we have had Canadian Navy ships named after someone. 

I agree with the second part, though: people's names should be reserved for the Coast Guard. The proper thing to do, after the "We're-the-Conservatives-and-we'll-tell-you-Navy-how-to-name-your-ships" era was over, would have been for the RCN to approach the Libs and ask them to rename the ships with proper, RCN like, Arctic ship's name, like LABRADOR, INUVIK, MACKENZIE, YUKON, etc.

After all, they did do it of the future PRO class in stead of the "Named-after-land-battles-pre-dating-Confederation" class.  ;D


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The future HMCS Harry DeWolf may launch tomorrow.
> 
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3938323



I heard from the RCN facebook group that she will begin the process at 5am and be lowered 1 foot per hour, with checks for leaks etc... being done.  The whole process will take up to 12 hours to complete.  Very different from the slip concept that is for sure.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

You know, with the first AOPS being put in the water, steel being cut on the JSS, the Submarine Service being fully operational, Halifax Class going through refit with CSC on the horizon; I can't help but feel pretty good about my decision to, after 13 years wearing green, make a switch from the Army to the Navy.

I arrived in Esquimalt a few days ago to begin my training as a newly minted Aspiring NWO and the base is bustling with activity.  There is a brand spanking new FMF that looks just about built, a Frigate was being worked on at Seaspan and the yard looks significantly different from when I came out here nearly a decade ago to visit a buddy for a vacation.

I walked the whole base yesterday just to get a feel for the place and also to do my inclearance, very impressed.


----------



## Rifleman62

My Grandson will soon be there for a deployment. He wears a green uniform, like his great grandfather, grandfather, father and mother. The other side of the house, grandfather/mother, Uncle wore blue.


----------



## Gorgo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Love the crest.
> 
> Should only have the last name though. Full names should be reserved for the coast guard.



Yeah, it would be clumsy.

Does anyone have any pics of the crest?  I can't find them anywhere.


----------



## Underway

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Yeah, it would be clumsy.
> 
> Does anyone have any pics of the crest?  I can't find them anywhere.



It hasn't been officially released.  Anything you do see online may not be official or an initial draft.  Or not supposed to be there.   :facepalm:


----------



## Gorgo

Ah, gotcha!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yea!!!!


----------



## Underway

She's alongside pier 8 now.  The fire tug was out in full peacock celebrating her return from Bedford basin.  Very nice to see.  It's taken too long but the light is definitely at the end of the tunnel now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BZ


----------



## dimsum

Are those speed holes so she can go faster?   ;D

BZ!


----------



## Pelorus

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those speed holes so she can go faster?   ;D
> 
> BZ!



Now I'm not a Naval Architect, but I'd say it's more that someone made the decision that side garage doors like the Iver Huitfeldt class were too expensive to winterize:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those speed holes so she can go faster?   ;D
> 
> BZ!



No to catch radar waves and make her look as big as a battleship on the enemies radar


----------



## Gorgo

Okay, according to the _Record_, she still hasn't been christened yet.  Any news concerning that ceremony?

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8903517-future-hmcs-harry-dewolf-meets-water/


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those speed holes so she can go faster?   ;D
> 
> BZ!



Common to ships that operate in the Arctic, the hawsers are paid out and hauled in not exposing the part ships hands to the elements.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those speed holes so she can go faster?   ;D
> 
> BZ!



No. They're for the oars


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Common to ships that operate in the Arctic, the hawsers are paid out and hauled in not exposing the part ships hands to the elements.



Any chance you can explain that in words I can understand?   8)


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any chance you can explain that in words I can understand?   8)



Normally the ships lines and ships personnel are on the top part of the ship tying up the ship out in the elements. On this ship they are inside out of the weather and pull and let the ropes in and out through those holes.


----------



## Uzlu

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Okay, according to the _Record_, she still hasn't been christened yet.  Any news concerning that ceremony?





> Though Irving has not announced a date for the naming ceremony, Darlington said word on the ground is it will be sometime in early October.


http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/business/first-irving-built-arctic-patrol-vessel-set-to-launch-241930/


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> No to catch radar waves and make her look as big as a battleship on the enemies radar



It's called "Iceberg Imitation" electronic warfare.  Wait till you see the blue and white camo they have picked out for after commissioning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Normally the ships lines and ships personnel are on the top part of the ship tying up the ship out in the elements. On this ship they are inside out of the weather and pull and let the ropes in and out through those holes.



Copy, tks..


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> It's called "Iceberg Imitation" electronic warfare.  Wait till you see the blue and white camo they have picked out for after commissioning.



Does the camo come with bonuses like 4% less detectable, 5% crew xp  8)


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Does the camo come with bonuses like 4% less detectable, 5% crew xp  8)



 :rofl:  Don't forget the -4% enemy hit chance.  But it will cost you 300 coal to get it.  Otherwise shipside gray for you!


----------



## kratz

At the rate of this discussion, the topic should be merged with World of Warships Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Clan Thread  ff topic:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sheesh a Tier I ship in WOWS would blow this out of the water, a 35mm won't cut it  8)


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sheesh a Tier I ship in WOWS would blow this out of the water, a 35mm 25mm won't cut it  8)



All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.

Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.
> 
> Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.



The discussion I have heard is 2 section bases, forward and aft with one only manned at anytime dependent where the scene is, like the MCDV construct. I'm doing another famil tour next month and probably will know more details.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.
> 
> Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.



Wouldn't those discussions have happened long ago, and just need to be fine-tuned at this point?  Maybe I misunderstood, and it is the fine-tuning part that is happening now?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships". * I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew,* given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.
> 
> Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.



In 2009 the SOR  3371-300001216 Vol 1 (DMRS 10-2)/RDIMS # 168216 Ver 131200 May 2009 Clause 3.2.3 "Notionally the AOPS core crew will be between 35-45 personnel and will be supported, as required, by mission-specific personnel or non-core crew.  It is foreseen that the core crew will conduct day-to-day ship operations and will be supported by non-core crew when conducting specific operations such as embarked helicopter or interdiction operations"

(NB - I find it interesting that this seems to be the exact opposite of the Asterix configuration - Asterix has civvy drivers and blue-suit attachments.  The AOPS has blue-suit drivers and any manner of attachments).

In 2010 the AOPS specification (AOPS SRD - Draft, Sep 15, 2010, SRD-49 3.4 Accommodations) "The AOPS will provide accommodations for: a. the core crew of no more than 45 personnel" with accommodation for an additional 20 pax housed similarly to the crew and austere accommodation for a further 20 pax.  

In 2008 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Core Crew and 40 Supernumeraries  (AOPS Industry Day Nov 13, 2008 by Dan McGreer).
In 2010 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Core Crew and 40 Supernumeraries  (Arctic Passion Seminar, Mar 4, 2010 by Dan McGreer).
In 2011 the AOPS Project Director RCN stipulated Crew 45 with additional accommodation for 40 (Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Oct, 2011 by Cdr C.D. Soule)
In 2012 the STX presentation stipulated 45 Crew and 40 Supernumeraries (Joint SNAME CIMarE Technical Meeting, Feb 18, 2012 by Dan McGreer).

In 2015 the RCN Harry DeWolf-Class AOPS poster stipulated a complement of 65
In 2015 the ISY presentation stipulated accommodation for 85 with a complement of 65

At the risk of belabouring the point - the original design parameter was a core crew of 35 (Max 45) with 45 stipulated all the way up until the design got into the hands of the East Coast.  And I believe it was always intended to be a civilian design.

Just as an aside here was the "Current Situation" as of the May 2009 SOR

Capability Development Board 29 Sep 2006
Joint Capability Requirements Board 06 Nov 2006

Senior Review Board Preliminary Project Approval 15 May 2007
Programme Management Board Preliminary Project Approval 16 May 2007
Treasury Board Preliminary Project Approval 31 May 2007 

Definition Engineering Logistic Maintenance and Support (DELMS) RFP released for Project Definition Phase 13 Dec 2007
Joint Capability Requirements Board provided with SOR info brief 14 Dec 2007

Project Definition DELMS contract awarded to BMT Fleet Technology 07 May 2008

Integrated Capability Analysis Team (ICAT) endorsed SOR 01 May 2009
Capability Development Board endorsed SOR 13 May 2009.

12 years from Capability Development to Salt Water.....


----------



## Cloud Cover

"12 years from Capability Development to Salt Water....."

not too shabby.... Lo does anyone remember the fable of the ALSC under David Collenette which begat the ASLV project in the 1990's days of darkness continued by Art Eggleton which begat the BHS of McCallum, Pratt and Graham which begat the JSS of O'Connor/Mackay/Nicholson/LetterKenny and his Honour Mr. Saijan, which hath still not been built.  And the First Sea Lord (FSTO) smiled and sayeth unto the faithful: "Not a fooking chance this decade, now go forth and run ashore Jack".


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wouldn't those discussions have happened long ago, and just need to be fine-tuned at this point?  Maybe I misunderstood, and it is the fine-tuning part that is happening now?



The DC Organization for the HDW is pretty much set in stone, I can't go into specifics but somewhat like how a Kingston Class does business. I would imagine the tweaks will be done when we start harbour readiness trials and IMSRT.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> All seriousness, there is a significant discussion with the internal battle people on how to do damage control with this class.  She's got a civilian setup, with high voltage.  Poses some interesting challenges, and different ways to think about damage control compared to the "true warships".  I'm not even sure crew numbers are nailed down yet.  I expect they will be lower than the currently advertised 60 core crew, given other nations experiences with similar classes and our own with the MCDV's.  But DC is part of that discussion.
> 
> Duty watch is another issue.  Do we do it like MCDV's or more like the frigates, or perhaps something in between.  The decisions on all these things inform crew numbers and positions.  An interesting time for sure.



Fitted systems, fitted systems, and more fitted systems?  Fine water mist systems and some of the halon replacements are really effective and won't cause any damage really to the space.  So if your first response to anything bigger than a smoldering waste paper basket is to fire off a fitted system you really only need one person.  Most floods are from pipes springing a leak, so the quickest thing is to shut down the cooling/sea water system, isolate the leak and carry on, which is a lot easier to manage on a non-combatant (in terms of equipment affected).

Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.



I don't care what anyone says, that's the kind of Navy we should be fighting for


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fitted systems, fitted systems, and more fitted systems?  Fine water mist systems and some of the halon replacements are really effective and won't cause any damage really to the space.  So if your first response to anything bigger than a smoldering waste paper basket is to fire off a fitted system you really only need one person.  Most floods are from pipes springing a leak, so the quickest thing is to shut down the cooling/sea water system, isolate the leak and carry on, which is a lot easier to manage on a non-combatant (in terms of equipment affected).
> 
> Also, if you are doing a 'safe at sea' standard you isolate, contain and recover, so that needs way less crew.  If we treat it like a warship, and want to do things like fight fires in an NBCD environment while prepping for a cocktail party in the next port, we'll be in a bit of trouble.



I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.

Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.
> 
> Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!



Yes but you still need command approval for certain systems in certain situations.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have seen, first hand (unfortunately) the RCN's aversion to to actually using the fitted systems they have now.
> 
> Hopefully, SeaTrg and DC school are now forcefully driving home the point that your first reaction to a major zone fire is not attack teams, but the bloody fitted system!



But think of the medals!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes but you still need command approval for certain systems in certain situations.



I grant you that.

Command needs to be trained to actually make that decision.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I grant you that.
> 
> Command needs to be trained to actually make that decision.



Culture change is hard.  There are plenty in the engineering branches that pushback against this stuff as well.


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes but you still need command approval for certain systems in certain situations.



Even in the civilian shipping world, most fixed systems are usually only used on direction from either the master or the chief engineer... water mist is usually an exception though...

Do AOPS have a water mist system?
 Those things are an amazing tool to have in the tool box.

They're usually automatic activation, but even if they're manually activated, policy should absolutely be activation by anyone even suspecting a fire...

Unlike gas systems, you don't need to seal the space, there's no risk of suffocation, and they're not "one shot".

Unlike sprinkler or deluge systems, there's almost no risk of flooding, they're effective on class b fires, and there's no damage to equipment.


----------



## Kirkhill

Not a Sig Op:

Should I assume that the water mist systems are supplied with fresh water and not sea water?


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not a Sig Op:
> 
> Should I assume that the water mist systems are supplied with fresh water and not sea water?



You are correct.  Fresh water.  Key here is the volume isn't what you expect because the mist systems are very water efficient.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mega block of AOP's # 2 rolls out https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2018/09/aops-2-center-mega-block-rolls-out.html#comment-12217


----------



## chrisf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not a Sig Op:
> 
> Should I assume that the water mist systems are supplied with fresh water and not sea water?



Fresh water, yes.

There's a stainless steel freshwater "stand by" tank, usually one or two m3, with one or more high pressure pumps to feed the suppression system.

There's a standby/feed pump that draws from the domestic fresh water tanks to feed the standby tank, and there should also be a sea water standby pump in the unlikely event you run out of fresh water.

Sea water really isn't suitable for the system though, as if there's any small particles it'll clog the sprayer heads.

Volume of water discharged by the system is very small... I've been caught in a few discharges, it's usually enough that I've got to hang my coveralls up to dry but I don't need to change my clothes underneath.

The systems are usually automatic, activated by a combination of a smoke and a flame detector.

I don't know if anyone else makes them, but every one I've seen is Sem-Safe by Danfoss.

They're very effective, you can catch the fire in its incipient stage.

If the navy hasn't bought into them for the AOPS and future warships, they're missing an opportunity.


----------



## Stoker

Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Even in the civilian shipping world, most fixed systems are usually only used on direction from either the master or the chief engineer... water mist is usually an exception though...
> 
> Do AOPS have a water mist system?
> Those things are an amazing tool to have in the tool box.
> 
> They're usually automatic activation, but even if they're manually activated, policy should absolutely be activation by anyone even suspecting a fire...
> 
> Unlike gas systems, you don't need to seal the space, there's no risk of suffocation, and they're not "one shot".
> 
> Unlike sprinkler or deluge systems, there's almost no risk of flooding, they're effective on class b fires, and there's no damage to equipment.



Yes to fine water mist and they have a AFFF bilge system. Switchboards have NOVEC.


----------



## blacktriangle

Enjoy your gloried MCDV, guys!


----------



## Stoker

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Enjoy your gloried MCDV, guys!




You clearly don't know what your talking about.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Enjoy your gloried MCDV, guys!



No, no, no, they are the RCNYC  :stirpot:


----------



## FSTO

The RCN never wanted these ships. They should be given to the Coast Guard.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> The RCN never wanted these ships. They should be given to the Coast Guard.



That maybe so but talking to many of the young sailors going to them they are excited.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That maybe so but talking to many of the young sailors going to them they are excited.



Because they are new! 
I will say it again, these should be Coast Guard ships.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> Because they are new!
> I will say it again, these should be Coast Guard ships.



Sure they are new and comfortable much more than CPF's or anything else we have with the exception of Asterix. I guess you would be ok with sending a Kingston Class to the Arctic or a CPF with no ice rating.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sure they are new and comfortable much more than CPF's or anything else we have with the exception of Asterix. *I guess you would be ok with sending a Kingston Class to the Arctic or a CPF with no ice rating.*



As a WARSHIP what is the AOPS good for? It is much much better suited for the Coast Guard and its responsibilities. Heck its even named like a Coast Guard ship.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> As a WARSHIP what is the AOPS good for? It is much much better suited for the Coast Guard and its responsibilities. Heck its even named like a Coast Guard ship.



Its not a warship, its a non combatant. The Coast Guard is not an armed force even if they operated these ships. Regardless of what you think we have these and they will be used globally by the RCN.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The A/OPS were the RCN's reluctant response to the first Harper government's 2005 campaign pledge to give the Navy armed arctic icebreakers, the Conservatives not realizing that icebreaking was the CCG's job. All part of their "Arctic sovereignty" hoo-hah that almost everyone fell for, hook like and sinker. So we ended up with vessels that are neither fish nor cetacean: From 2007:



> Harper plans Arctic patrol fleet
> 
> Abandoning an election promise to put powerful armed icebreakers in the Arctic, Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday said his government will spend $3.1-billion for six to eight Canadian-made patrol ships capable of operating in ice up to a metre thick, and that a deep-water port will be built to service them [_tee flipping hee_].
> 
> ...Mr. Harper called the $7-billion cost a worthwhile expense. He said it is well known that other countries have aims on Arctic resources and also dispute elements of Canada's claims of sovereignty - not just foes, but in some cases friends as well.
> 
> "Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic," Mr. Harper said. "We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this government intends to use it."
> 
> Mr. Harper's announcement fell somewhat short of a commitment made during the last election campaign to build three armed icebreakers capable of crashing through six-metre-thick ice for a northern sovereignty mission he called a "Canada First" strategy.
> 
> Pressed on the issue, he said the new plan made sense for current circumstances.
> 
> "In the campaign, we talked about three heavy icebreakers. Upon reflection and having the Department of National Defence and our office take the past year to look at various options, we concluded that we wanted a more versatile fleet, so went with more of the medium icebreakers that frankly allow us to patrol the Arctic waters and the Northwest Passage when it matters," he said...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-plans-arctic-patrol-fleet/article689306/



As for that sovereignty hoo-hah do read this excellent CGAI piece:



> Arctic Sovereignty: Preoccupation vs. Homeland Governance and Defence
> https://www.cgai.ca/arctic_sovereignty_preoccupation_vs_homeland_governance_and_defence



Also (written over five years ago! Canadian shipbuilding and defence procurement, eh?):



> RCN’s Arctic/Offshore Patrol Vessels: Neither Fish nor Cetacean
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/mark-collins-rcns-arcticoffshore-patrol-vessels-neither-fish-nor-cetacean/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That maybe so but talking to many of the young sailors going to them they are excited.



Some of the old sailors are excited as well, and would love to give them a go.  



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Because they are new!
> I will say it again, _these should be Coast Guard ships._



There is quite an attraction because of the different engineering systems, the small crew, and the types of missions that the ships will be doing, the accomodations and the ice navigation.  And yes, there is certainly an aspect of "newness".

As for whether or not these should be Coast Guard ships, well... no.  Everything that is armed on the water in Canada that has a higher rate of fire than a C7, or a calibre greater then .50 belongs to the RCN.  The Canadian Coast Guard suffers from the USCG overshadowing it, similar to so many other things in Canada.  We do things our own way not the US way.  SAR, Aids to Navigation, Buoy Tendering, Icebreaking to keep shipping routes open, these are the day to day bread and butter of the Coast Guard.  None of that is armed.  And none of that is "guarding" in the security sense (unlike the USCG).

Anything armed to the point where you can sink something on the water or burn it to the waterline belongs to the Navy and the Navy alone.  Not to mention the missions the AOPV have been designed for which are way out of the Coast Guards area of expertise.

Now if you want to make some unarmed AOPV and give them to the Coast Guard well that's the wrong ship for the job.  The've been designed with military missions in mind.  Right tool for the job.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I am willing to bet they end up with the Coast Guard, weapons removed, in less than ten years.

And, FSTO is correct (as Mark pointed out long ago in his blog): The Navy never asked for these ships. They simply fulfill no required function whatsoever for the Navy.

This said, they have been foisted into the Navy by Harper - out of the blue (pun intended) - and are here now, so obviously the Navy developed a CONOP for them. That doesn't mean they are useful in a military sense.

Their lack of military usefulness is in no way related to enthusiasm for serving in them, however, because as we have to man them and they are doing something different, they will attract people. Heck! If I was still in, I would apply to go: A chance to sail the pristine and beautiful Canadian Arctic in ships that have a zero chance of finding themselves in combat and where even the pace of operation will be slow and let people enjoy the scenery. Who wouldn't go?

Finally, a small technical point. Whether armed or not, and whether the Navy, for  employment purposes considers them "non-combatant" is irrelevant in their designation. They will be commissioned ships, they will bear the designation "HMCS", and that makes them warships. If they want to board someone in the Arctic, you can rest assured that the call on channel 16 will be "Vessel X, this is Canadian warship  Harry De Wolfe", not the "this Canadian naval vessel Orca" type of thing used for non-commissioned ships.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> Some of the old sailors are excited as well, and would love to give them a go.
> 
> There is quite an attraction because of the different engineering systems, the small crew, and the types of missions that the ships will be doing, the accomodations and the ice navigation.  And yes, there is certainly an aspect of "newness".
> 
> As for whether or not these should be Coast Guard ships, well... no.  Everything that is armed on the water in Canada that has a higher rate of fire than a C7, or a calibre greater then .50 belongs to the RCN.  The Canadian Coast Guard suffers from the USCG overshadowing it, similar to so many other things in Canada.  We do things our own way not the US way.  SAR, Aids to Navigation, Buoy Tendering, Icebreaking to keep shipping routes open, these are the day to day bread and butter of the Coast Guard.  None of that is armed.  And none of that is "guarding" in the security sense (unlike the USCG).
> 
> Anything armed to the point where you can sink something on the water or burn it to the waterline belongs to the Navy and the Navy alone.  Not to mention the missions the AOPV have been designed for which are way out of the Coast Guards area of expertise.
> 
> Now if you want to make some unarmed AOPV and give them to the Coast Guard well that's the wrong ship for the job.  The've been designed with military missions in mind.  Right tool for the job.



The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule. 

And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.

Cheers!


----------



## Cloud Cover

They could be very useful if they were equipped with a full ELINT surveillance suite.


----------



## YZT580

The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule. 

And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.
t day identified a political deficiency that they wanted rectified and chose to do so via the AOPS.  Almost all of our forces are concentrated within 100 miles of the CDN/US border with the exception of Cold Lake and Bagotville.  Politically it implies that the north and the people of the north are not a significant part of Canada.  The ships and indeed the northern exercises that the government has emphasised over the last decade serve to rectify that deficiency.  I don't believe that Harper intended that the ships would only be lightly armed but I also don't believe that they require heavy artillery.  The armament and the ancillary equipment being installed have been significantly watered down as a result of politics.  You are right, we don't need the ships but then again we don't need subs, F35's, F18's or tanks: that is, until we need them and then it is too late.  The AOPS will allow reliable military operations during the season when the north is accessible.  Our current fleet is not suitable for north of 60 ops: they are too fragile to deal with ice.  The fact that the AOPS are not good for 2 meter or more ice is simply because the opposition in parliament made too big a stink about the cost and the right ship became a liability.  Maybe the next generation of vessel will finally do the job that was intended.


----------



## FSTO

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule.
> 
> And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.
> t day identified a political deficiency that they wanted rectified and chose to do so via the AOPS.  Almost all of our forces are concentrated within 100 miles of the CDN/US border with the exception of Cold Lake and Bagotville.  Politically it implies that the north and the people of the north are not a significant part of Canada.  The ships and indeed the northern exercises that the government has emphasised over the last decade serve to rectify that deficiency.  I don't believe that Harper intended that the ships would only be lightly armed but I also don't believe that they require heavy artillery.  The armament and the ancillary equipment being installed have been significantly watered down as a result of politics.  You are right, we don't need the ships but then again we don't need subs, F35's, F18's or tanks: that is, until we need them and then it is too late.  The AOPS will allow reliable military operations during the season when the north is accessible.  Our current fleet is not suitable for north of 60 ops: they are too fragile to deal with ice.  The fact that the AOPS are not good for 2 meter or more ice is simply because the opposition in parliament made too big a stink about the cost and the right ship became a liability.  *Maybe the next generation of vessel will finally do the job that was intended.
> *



And what job is that? Being an ice breaker? That's what the coast guard does and it is a very specialized skill set. Currently the RCN has a tough enough job to get properly qualified and competent OOW's, directors and ORO's in a non-arctic environment and now you expect us to lump ice-breaking as well on top of that?

And in what world would you want a valuable asset like a warship stuck in the ice (because that is what ice-breaking is all about, being stuck in the ice) for? Nothing like having a juicy fat target that can't move (remember the adage "Float, MOVE, Fight?") for a missile to home in on.


----------



## Dale Denton

In the arctic, this is higher mobility. Albeit, not the fastest thing, but leaps and bounds more than what we ever had.

Yet you paint them into a corner. 

We get a new capability, and people complain that its something we don't need or that there are other, higher priorities. The fact that this class is being built before X project has nothing to do with the fact that we need these.

People say we don't need it, yet no other gov't entity could operate it to its fullest potential or use it for what it was built for like the RCN would.

We don't have enough access to our own territory, now we have better mobility. I'd call that an improvement.

Side note, could a Victoria class follow the path of one of these? AOPS punches breathing holes for a sub alittle further North? 

Could we use a containerized ASW drone capability and use it up North? Planting some listening devices up north under the ice?


----------



## YZT580

And what role does the guard at the gate serve?  His presence is intended to deter but in the event of an assault his life expectancy is zilch.  He is a deterrent, a barrier to law-abiding folks and an alarm to give those within a chance to react.  He also is a symbol of an organisation's ownership and demonstrates by his very presence that the gate is a far as you go without facing repercussion.  That is probably the main function of the AOPS.  It is not intended as an ice breaker but rather as a ship that can operate in ice. There is a difference. It is a posted guard at the northern gate to Canada that tells others that this is as far as you go without conflict.  And it is probably one of the cheaper ways to convey that message.  If you think that getting crews is hard, try keeping troops on strength when they are confronted with a six month posting to Resolute or Churchill.  It isn't hard to imagine the disappointment in getting these ships first rather than the very badly needed replacements for our defunct destroyer fleet, and sadly over-worked frigates but the folks who sign your paycheck decided that, after decades of neglect, some form of guard was needed in the north.  You may disagree with their choice and there certainly are a lot of limitations built into their selection as a result of trying to appease the naysayers but they did make a decision and they are following through.  And it will add another tool to work with.  My attitude is 'let's wait and see what we can do with it' rather than judge it as useless before we even accept it into the fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

And here we have the problem in a  nutshell:

The Government of Canada wanted a job done and nobody wanted to do it.  So the Government assigned it.  As was, and is its right.

The Coast Guard Union didn't want the job.  Neither did the Slackers Cartel, inheritors of the Fleet that didn't want the Corvettes either.

And before people think I am picking on the Coast Guard and the Navy (I am) the problem is not restricted to them.  It is also a problem with the Army and the Air Force and any institution that has been around long enough.  They are built to solve a problem but don't disappear when the problem disappears.  Worse.  They insist on not changing just in case the problem reappears.


----------



## FSTO

My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)

Pros 
- They're new
- Command experience
- OOW experience
- Seamanship experience
- Arctic Presence
- SWOAD Experience

Cons
- Slow
- Lightly armed
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)

As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them. 

Cheers!


----------



## YZT580

FSTO said:
			
		

> My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)
> 
> Pros
> - They're new
> - Command experience
> - OOW experience
> - Seamanship experience
> - Arctic Presence
> - SWOAD Experience
> 
> Cons
> - Slow
> - Lightly armed
> - Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
> - Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)
> 
> As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.
> 
> Cheers!



Slow is a function of design.  Speed is not a requirement when manoeuvring in ice.  Lightly armed can easily be rectified but it would be contrary to our current government's attitude towards the military in general.  Perhaps if there is a regime change next year hulls 2 through 6 (optimism) will be fitted with a more powerful weapon.  I hope so because, although I don't believe we need anything larger in the north we could certainly use it elsewhere if the ships are deployed beyond America.  And maybe having a newer more flexible presence will encourage young people to sign and encourage recruitment in the arctic.  Let us wait and see.


----------



## Bearpaw

Does anyone know the draught of the de Wolf class?  I did a small search for this information but found nothing.

Bearpaw


----------



## Swampbuggy

FSTO said:
			
		

> My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)
> 
> Pros
> - They're new
> - Command experience
> - OOW experience
> - Seamanship experience
> - Arctic Presence
> - SWOAD Experience
> 
> Cons
> - Slow
> - Lightly armed
> - Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
> - Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)
> 
> As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.
> 
> Cheers!



I think under the “pro” category, you could list “an extra platform” period. At the very least they provide a presence with the capability to house an air detachment. That maybe frees up a very in demand frigate to deploy elsewhere. I’d say there is some value in that. And also, with embarked landing craft, large multi-use RHIBS, ability to carry vehicles/cargo containers, they will presumably be a better platform to send than a CPF or MCDV to aid in disaster relief, especially if working in conjunction with ASTERIX, for example. They’re not exactly what I would’ve asked for, but I’ve no doubt the RCN will put them to good use.


----------



## Stoker

FSTO said:
			
		

> My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)
> 
> Pros
> - They're new
> - Command experience
> - OOW experience
> - Seamanship experience
> - Arctic Presence
> - SWOAD Experience
> 
> Cons
> - Slow
> - Lightly armed
> - Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
> - Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)
> 
> As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.
> 
> Cheers!



You should add in the pro's

Ability to embark 8 20ft containers
Ability to embark vehicles, snowmobiles, ATV's in support to the rangers.
Medical facility onboard
Ability to operate independent for up to 4 months.

Lets see your Con's

Cons
- Slow (17 knots), really is this slow for a ship this size with a tonnage greater than a CPF? Just as fast as existing ice breakers
- Lightly armed True, it does have the ability to up arm but sufficient for anti drug, anti piracy and other constabulary duties it is designed to do.
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow) I have and the firefighting and DC considerations are sufficient for a ship going to the Arctic and elsewhere. Can it survive a missile hit?, probably not.
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments) Con ops actually states it is not meant to be, that is the CCG responsibility./color]


----------



## MarkOttawa

Are the 17 knots sufficient for constabulary patrols off east and west coasts (I note Kingston-class does 15)?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Are the 17 knots sufficient for constabulary patrols off east and west coasts (I note Kingston-class does 15)?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Marked with the possibility of embarking a helo, drones and a RIB yes I do.


----------



## NavyShooter

The Sea Containers are definitely amongst the 'PRO' category.  I will note that over the past year I've successfully had some influence on getting the RCN's HADR (Humanitarian Aid/Disaster Relief) kits shifted into 20 foot TEUs.  I did not, however, get them painted ships side grey...nor did I get one of the ROWPUs assigned to AST.  Not for lack of trying though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are a lot of models of what a Coast Guard can be. There is little to stop the government from making them an armed branch and give them the Constabulary role. It actually makes sense. It will be fought tooth and nail by the RCN and CCG, the former because they fear funding and importance being cut. The latter because they will be taking on a new role that is not terribly compatible with their current missions and corporate culture.

However if the government tells the RCN that they will be patrolling/operting in the arctic as a naval force, then that is the navy task whether they like it or not.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The Sea Containers are definitely amongst the 'PRO' category.  I will note that over the past year I've successfully had some influence on getting the RCN's HADR (Humanitarian Aid/Disaster Relief) kits shifted into 20 foot TEUs.  I did not, however, get them painted ships side grey...nor did I get one of the ROWPUs assigned to AST.  Not for lack of trying though.



and optional containerized weapon payload.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> However if the government tells the RCN that they will be patrolling/operting in the arctic as a naval force, then that is the navy task whether they like it or not.



True, but as a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, I get to express my opinion and (one) vote whether or not this is what I want our (it belings to the Canadian public) navy to do.

To be honest, from very much the start, I was of the opinion this was a distraction for an already stretched navy, and a bone tossed to Irving and the Maritimes; however, seeing as it's unkikely we will have the navy appropriate for our GDP, maritime commerce, G7, NATO, and 5 eyes position, for which I believe our stature in the world has suffered, I'm starting to shift to the position that they do bring flexibility to the force for low intensity ops that otherwise wouldn't be there.

I will point out that the "big honkin' ship," otherwise known as a "peace support vessel" that has been talked about so often in these forums (ie something akin to a Canberra or Mistral) wouldn't be much more capable of defending itself, and it's a much juicier target..


----------



## Stoker

Baz said:
			
		

> True, but as a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, I get to express my opinion and (one) vote whether or not this is what I want our (it belings to the Canadian public) navy to do.
> 
> To be honest, from very much the start, I was of the opinion this was a distraction for an already stretched navy, and a bone tossed to Irving and the Maritimes; however, seeing as it's unkikely we will have the navy appropriate for our GDP, maritime commerce, G7, NATO, and 5 eyes position, for which I believe our stature in the world has suffered, I'm starting to shift to the position that they do bring flexibility to the force for low intensity ops that otherwise wouldn't be there.
> 
> I will point out that the "big honkin' ship," otherwise known as a "peace support vessel" that has been talked about so often in these forums (ie something akin to a Canberra or Mistral) wouldn't be much more capable of defending itself, and it's a much juicier target..



Personally I think a more capable Naval presence regardless of what people think of it is a good thing in our often marginalized Arctic.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chinese made equipment on the AOPS....

Hmmm, 17% of the steel used in the Harry DeWolf (and the other two under construction I assume) is from China....  I'll just let that sink in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-patrol-ships-chinese-content-1.4849562

"It noted that 17 per cent of the steel being used to construct the warship — as well as the lifeboats, mooring and towing system components and various pipes and fittings — came from Chinese companies."

"Complicating matters is an almost-forgotten case of alleged espionage that is still grinding its way through the legal system.

Chinese-born Qing Quentin Huang, who worked for Lloyd's Registry, was charged in 2013 with "attempting to communicate with a foreign entity."

He was accused of trying to pass design information about Canada's Arctic ships to the Chinese."


----------



## Stoker

Anchors, chains, deck equipment made in China has been used on HMC ships for years. They have the industry to produce these products. I dont see the problem.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Chinese made equipment on the AOPS....
> 
> Hmmm, 17% of the steel used in the Harry DeWolf (and the other two under construction I assume) is from China....  I'll just let that sink in.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-patrol-ships-chinese-content-1.4849562
> 
> "It noted that 17 per cent of the steel being used to construct the warship — as well as the lifeboats, mooring and towing system components and various pipes and fittings — came from Chinese companies."
> 
> "Complicating matters is an almost-forgotten case of alleged espionage that is still grinding its way through the legal system.
> 
> Chinese-born Qing Quentin Huang, who worked for Lloyd's Registry, was charged in 2013 with "attempting to communicate with a foreign entity."
> 
> He was accused of trying to pass design information about Canada's Arctic ships to the Chinese."



Not an original problem Czech-pivo.

Before the Berlin Wall fell - way back in the 80s - the RCN ships ran on Vacuum Tubes (they showed up just after the Pterodactyl and predated transistors).  The Canadian Government used to buy them for the RCN from Czechoslovakia - one of our erstwhile targets.  The problem was that all of our domestic suppliers and allies had moved on from vacuum tubes to transistors and were heading for  integrated circuits and other systems susceptible to EMP effects.

Lenin proposed that the west would sell him the rope with which he could hang us.  He wasn't wrong.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not an original problem Czech-pivo.
> 
> Before the Berlin Wall fell - way back in the 80s - the RCN ships ran on Vacuum Tubes (they showed up just after the Pterodactyl and predated transistors).  _The Canadian Government used to buy them for the RCN from Czechoslovakia - one of our erstwhile targets.  The problem was that all of our domestic suppliers and allies had moved on from vacuum tubes to transistors_ and were heading for  integrated circuits and other systems susceptible to EMP effects.
> 
> Lenin proposed that the west would sell him the rope with which he could hang us.  He wasn't wrong.




And you'll be pleased to know that NAMSA the NATO NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency, worked with those Czech (and East German too, I believe) firms to ensure proper quality control and they gave them NATO Stock Numbers and all that ... we were not the only country using vacuum tubes (and in more than just ships) until well into the 1990s. 

This gorgeous beast   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   was used by all three services until at least 1989 and, I suspect, a lot longer ... I personally, used it and variants of it in Africa in the 1960s, the Middle East in the 1970s, and in Canada and Europe in the 1980s. I believe it entered service in the US just after the end of the Koran War.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here’s a recent example of why we need to be on guard -  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Here’s a recent example of why we need to be on guard -  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies



Your original post specifically quoted steel and other deck fittings and piping. It is common to source these materials through the global supply chain which includes China. China also supplies many electronic components we use, some probably by the military. While yes a Trojan horse is possible I assume and yes I am only guessing we watch out for that kind of stuff in military procurement.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not an original problem Czech-pivo.
> 
> Before the Berlin Wall fell - way back in the 80s - the RCN ships ran on Vacuum Tubes (they showed up just after the Pterodactyl and predated transistors).  The Canadian Government used to buy them for the RCN from Czechoslovakia - one of our erstwhile targets.  The problem was that all of our domestic suppliers and allies had moved on from vacuum tubes to transistors and were heading for  integrated circuits and other systems susceptible to EMP effects.
> 
> Lenin proposed that the west would sell him the rope with which he could hang us.  He wasn't wrong.



Just out of curiosity, was any of this public knowledge?  Did the newspapers report on this or was it all buried away and John Q Public was not aware of any of this?   After Nov of '89 it wouldn't have matter.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, was any of this public knowledge?  Did the newspapers report on this or was it all buried away and John Q Public was not aware of any of this?   After Nov of '89 it wouldn't have matter.



It was public knowledge.


----------



## YZT580

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It was public knowledge.


  There wasn't any choice.  NA had moved entirely to solid state and there were no factories capable of manufacturing tubes.  It was either that or replace every bit of electronic gear we had.  But it wasn't just radios, RADAR relied upon HV Vacuum tubes to even function.  Oh, the US got their tubes from the same sources as far as I know.


----------



## Czech_pivo

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There wasn't any choice.  NA had moved entirely to solid state and there were no factories capable of manufacturing tubes.  It was either that or replace every bit of electronic gear we had.  But it wasn't just radios, RADAR relied upon HV Vacuum tubes to even function.  Oh, the US got their tubes from the same sources as far as I know.



Now that's funny. Just a couple of 'wild and crazy guys' (the Czechs) supplying us and the Americans with vacuum tubes to keep our ships running. Nice.


----------



## Baz

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There wasn't any choice.  NA had moved entirely to solid state and there were no factories capable of manufacturing tubes.  It was either that or replace every bit of electronic gear we had.  But it wasn't just radios, RADAR relied upon HV Vacuum tubes to even function.  Oh, the US got their tubes from the same sources as far as I know.



North America hadn't, and hasn't moved entirely to solid state; they had moved to solid state for most things.

High power RF transmission is still done with tubes, and probably will continue to be for the foreseeable future.  Solid state just doesn't handle the power well.  It took less than a minute to find a US manufacturer (https://www.cpii.com/division.cfm/9).

But yes, sources of the common tubes had dried up; although I wouldn't be surprised if the audiophile niche hasn't caused a resurgence.  Or maybe they are depending on warehouses full of old unopened stock???


----------



## Pelorus

Baz said:
			
		

> North America hadn't, and hasn't moved entirely to solid state; they had moved to solid state for most things.
> 
> High power RF transmission is still done with tubes, and probably will continue to be for the foreseeable future.  Solid state just doesn't handle the power well.  It took less than a minute to find a US manufacturer (https://www.cpii.com/division.cfm/9).
> 
> But yes, sources of the common tubes had dried up; although I wouldn't be surprised if the audiophile niche hasn't caused a resurgence.  Or maybe they are depending on warehouses full of old unopened stock???



With respect to another related field, it's only been the last few years where digital technology has gotten to the point of being a serious contender for the high-end guitar amplifier market, which was a another area which sustained vacuum tube factories. I would say that tube amps were king until as late as the mid 2010's, and are still a pretty significant chunk of the market share.

I'm trying to think back to when I was a lot more current on the topic, but there was definitely a lengthy period (80s-early 2000s) where all consumer vacuum tubes came from a small handful of Russian/Eastern European factories like Sovtek, Svetlana, and JJ Electronic. As the market opened up and a demand for vacuum tubes increased, some additional factories (Chinese mostly) were stood up to make cheaper versions. "New Old Stock" tubes from the heyday of the vacuum tube era are still sold too, however get more and more expensive as time goes on.


----------



## Stoker

The wolf, sword & shield and white background - representing the icy waters of Canada’s Arctic and Vice-Admirals DeWolf's rank.

Its a nice ships badge.


----------



## Underway

As ships badges go it's amazing.  Wolf with a sword?  Yes please!  Any word on the motto?


----------



## Gorgo

The badge is definitely an eye-catcher.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I’m surprised that the Trudeau Libs are allowing the Red Cross on a White Shield as that is not an ‘inclusive’ symbol in today’s Canada and that wolf! It’s so fearsome looking, it should be more Canadian, like, happy and more domesticated. A wolf that is safe to be around. And lose that sword as we’re not out to intimidate or scare anyone.


----------



## kratz

I like the ship's crest. It follows Canadian Heraldry policy, based out of the GGG's office.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I’m surprised that the Trudeau Libs are allowing the Red Cross on a White Shield as that is not an ‘inclusive’ symbol in today’s Canada and that wolf! It’s so fearsome looking, it should be more Canadian, like, happy and more domesticated. A wolf that is safe to be around. And lose that sword as we’re not out to intimidate or scare anyone.



The red cross on white with a single red ball is the distinguishing flag of a vice-admiral in both British and Canadian navy, Czech_Pivo. It has nothing to do with the "Red-Cross" organization, or the Christian faith - and everything to do with Harry De Wolf's rank.

I like the badge very much. And hope the ship's motto captures a "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" attitude of Admiral De Wolf's style.  :nod:


----------



## Sub_Guy

It’s a cool badge for sure.

Sadly, I think it’s better suited for a warship and not a beefed up Coast Guard Vessel.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The red cross on white with a single red ball is the distinguishing flag of a vice-admiral in both British and Canadian navy, Czech_Pivo. It has nothing to do with the "Red-Cross" organization, or the Christian faith - and everything to do with Harry De Wolf's rank.
> 
> I like the badge very much. And hope the ship's motto captures a "Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" attitude of Admiral De Wolf's style.  :nod:


----------



## Underway

Some terms for those not familiar with how a ship goes from the builder to the navy.  Reproduced below .  Some edits were done to remove the references and preamble.

*Launch.* A ship can be launched stern first, bow first or sideways (beamwise) down a slipway directly into the water. Or, as is the case with AOPV, she can be ‘transitioned,’ carried from the wharf where she was built onto a barge. The barge is moved away from the wharf and semi-submerged, allowing the ship to float up. A launch usually occurs after a naming but as the launch process for the first AOPV will take some time, understood to be days, and as it is intended that the naming be a major ceremony, the launch will be prior to the naming.

*Naming.* Though traditionally naming ceremonies were filled with religious aspects, increasingly they have become secularized. In the RCN the ceremony was called a christening but in modern times that has been changed to naming. At the ceremony, after speeches and prayers, the sponsor breaks a bottle of wine or other liquid on the ship’s bow as a form of toast and then declares the ship’s name. It is at this point that the ship is officially named. Prior announcements are declarations of the intended name, and ships have on occasion had their name changed before their naming ceremony. During building an AOPV is really ‘Irving Hull ###’ though she can also be known as ‘future HMCS Name’ or ‘future Name.’ The future HMCS Harry DeWolf(1) is Irving Hull 103, and her sisters of the Harry DeWolf-class will be numbered sequentially after that.

*Acceptance.* The occasion of signing a certificate by AOPS and other government staff and by shipbuilder representatives indicating that the builder has achieved contract requirements to date and that the government will now assume responsibility for the ship. The occasion is marked by a small ceremony, usually in the ship’s captain’s cabin. For Harry DeWolf, acceptance will occur some time after the launch and after builder’s and acceptance trials are completed, and before naval trials and the commissioning ceremony. Acceptance can be considered as ‘delivery’ of the ship by the builder, though that may be affected by contractual stipulations. After the acceptance a naval officer assumes command of the ship (having been ordered or commissioned to do so), relieving the shipbuilder’s civilian master. The ship is legally in commissioned service as of this time, and the identifier HMCS (Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship) is put as part of the ship’s name.

*Builder’s Trials*. Evaluation trials and inspection conducted by the builder for the purpose of assuring the builder and the Navy that the ship is, or will be, ready for acceptance trials. These trials are a comprehensive test of all ship’s equipment and approximate the scope of the acceptance trials.

*Commissioning. *The ceremony marking the taking into active naval service of a ship. The event may be some months after the date when a naval officer took command and the ship entered commissioned service. Commission refers to the orders to take command; it is not the ship per se that is commissioned.

*Sponsor.* A person, traditionally a woman, selected for her or his relationship to the ship’s namesake or role and who represents the crown/state at the naming ceremony. It is said that the sponsor’s spirit and presence guides the ship throughout the service life of the ship.

*Transition*. The movement, often sideways although in Harry DeWolf’s case longitudinally, of a ship from wharf to launch barge.

*Wharf*. Marine infrastructure laid out parallel to the shore. The particular wharf where Irving Shipbuilding joins together the mega-blocks of an AOPV is called the Ship Erection Platform (SEP).

*Self-Propelled Modular Transporters (SPMT)*. Large configurable (measured by ‘axle lines’) vehicles used by Irving Shipbuilding to carry AOPV from wharf to barge. To move an AOPV, Irving will use 48 axle lines of SPMT and three Power Pack Units (PPU).

*Launch Barge*. A vessel onto which each AOPV will be moved and then taken out into Bedford Basin, where the barge will semi-submerge to float up the AOPV. Irving has chartered BoaBarge 37 for this.

As for the naming ceremony details and video here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/arctic-offshore-patrol-ship-irving-hmcs-harry-dewolf-1.4853242

https://globalnews.ca/video/4521392/hmcs-harry-dewolf-christening

Video gives me chills.  It all seems official now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Info graphic on the ship via Irving twitter


----------



## Lumber

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It’s a cool badge for sure.
> 
> Sadly, I think it’s better suited for a warship and not a beefed up Coast Guard Vessel.



Ditto. As the first CO of Canada's "fightingest ship", I think a major surface combatant would have been more apt.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> As ships badges go it's amazing.  Wolf with a sword?  Yes please!  Any word on the motto?



"Hard Over"?


----------



## Stoker

I noticed that in the latest from the RCN it lists the icebreaking capability at 120cm vice 100 . That makes the ship a PC5 plus or closer to a PC4.


----------



## MilEME09

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I noticed that in the latest from the RCN it lists the icebreaking capability at 120cm vice 100 . That makes the ship a PC5 plus or closer to a PC4.



How high north would a PC5 be able to go in winter? These are arctic patrol ships but how far into the arctic can they actually go?


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How high north would a PC5 be able to go in winter? These are arctic patrol ships but how far into the arctic can they actually go?



Good question. The ships will be operating in the Western and Eastern Arctic during the summer shipping season so figure about four months, probably July until Oct. There obviously are areas they won't go as the ice will be over the 1.2 M limit of the ship and ice moves. That being said I personally been in a Kingston Class with min ice rating and we were able to reach 80N and about 20 Miles away from Hans Island. So they should be able to reach dependent on ice conditions everywhere they want to go.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was on the Pearkes (1100, Polar Class 2) with the Radison helping us, traveling west we manged to punch through the ice at Point Barrow, before the main ice sheet arrived, 4 more hours and we would have to go all the way around to the east to get through Panama. That's how fast things can change up there. Handling a icebreaker through mixed ice, mainly 1 year old is the most fun a Quartermaster can have. You have to stay clear of growlers and ice ridges. We had the Camsel sliced up by a Growler.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://www.vermilionstandard.com/news/national/smol-naval-ships-all-sight-no-fight/wcm/996fa5b7-99cc-4ee0-96dd-f807dee2feb3


Snip- Though slightly smaller than Canada’s Arctic patrol ships, the Royal Danish Navy’s vessels are armed with an Otobreda 76-mm main gun as well as two 12.7-mm Browning machine guns.  The Danish patrol ships are also fitted to fire Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) and have torpedoes.  These Danish ships are equipped to protect themselves if necessary.

And while Canada’s Arctic ships are still a long way to being fully operational, two of Denmark’s three Arctic patrol ships have been active  off the of Greenland  over the last two months.  These three Danish patrol ships are only a small part of the country’s recently completed fleet modernization.
Elsewhere tiny, social democratic Norway’s answer to its coastal defence challenges is represented, in part, by its fleet of six  ultra-fast  Skjold Stealth Missile Corvettes each one wielding a 76-mm cannon, eight Kongsberg surface to surface missiles, plus additional Mistral Surface to Air Missile system.  The ship also has the Kongsberg M151 Protector Remote Weapon Station, and two 12.7mm machine guns.  Certainly not the Canadian way of coastal defence, eh! - snip


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.vermilionstandard.com/news/national/smol-naval-ships-all-sight-no-fight/wcm/996fa5b7-99cc-4ee0-96dd-f807dee2feb3
> Certainly not the Canadian way of coastal defence, eh! - snip



I agree I'd rather see more teeth on our OPVs, but... we have less pesky ruskies to deal with than the Scandinavians...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What there is more than one Russia? Them congealed fermented fish slurpers don't have to deal with the Chinese either.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How high north would a PC5 be able to go in winter? These are arctic patrol ships but how far into the arctic can they actually go?



Further, and further, as time goes on... according to the climate doomsayers anyways


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.vermilionstandard.com/news/national/smol-naval-ships-all-sight-no-fight/wcm/996fa5b7-99cc-4ee0-96dd-f807dee2feb3
> 
> 
> Snip- Though slightly smaller than Canada’s Arctic patrol ships, the Royal Danish Navy’s vessels are armed with an Otobreda 76-mm main gun as well as two 12.7-mm Browning machine guns.  The Danish patrol ships are also fitted to fire Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM) and have torpedoes.  These Danish ships are equipped to protect themselves if necessary.
> 
> And while Canada’s Arctic ships are still a long way to being fully operational, two of Denmark’s three Arctic patrol ships have been active  off the of Greenland  over the last two months.  These three Danish patrol ships are only a small part of the country’s recently completed fleet modernization.
> Elsewhere tiny, social democratic Norway’s answer to its coastal defence challenges is represented, in part, by its fleet of six  ultra-fast  Skjold Stealth Missile Corvettes each one wielding a 76-mm cannon, eight Kongsberg surface to surface missiles, plus additional Mistral Surface to Air Missile system.  The ship also has the Kongsberg M151 Protector Remote Weapon Station, and two 12.7mm machine guns.  Certainly not the Canadian way of coastal defence, eh! - snip



And none of this matters one bit for us.  None of those ships can sail anywhere our current fleet of ships can't sail and it really doesn't matter anyways as they don't really have any real capabilities other than self-defence, those ships wouldn't last a second against a modern nuclear submarine and would make for some nice target practice.  The AOPV is perfect for constabulary missions in our territorial waters and if we wanted complete coverage of our Arctic Waters, the only real option is Nuclear Submarines.  Actual military defence of our Arctic Waters is fairly straight forward and a simple FLOCARK (I don't know what the Navy uses for terrain analysis but I am certain they have a similar procedure for Charts) shows that it is fairly defensible terrain from a Naval standpoint:






There are really two ways to get in to our Arctic:

#1:  Sail past Alert in to Baffin Bay; and
#2:  Through the Northwest Passage, either Straight in to Baffin Bay or head around the South side of Baffin Island (Improbable due to how canalizing the waterway is and I am certain it isn't very deep there).  

The great thing about our Arctic Archipelago is that all roads lead to the Davis Strait, a lot of which doesn't freeze over and is in fact open water.  You could set up a picket line from Greenland to Northern Quebec and have a pretty good idea of what is happening in our Arctic as what goes in must come out and it all leads to one spot.  Setting up Passive and Active Sensors in those two areas would give you early warning capability as well so you could surge out of Halifax if required.

The real danger if we are talking conventional warfare and not full scale nuclear warfare (we are fubared anyways if this is the case) is an adversary getting submarines in to Hudson Bay and and using that entire body of water as a gigantic staging area to launch a massive cruise missile strike.  A conventional submarine armed with Kalibr Missiles could strike Washington from Hudson Bay with gas in the rocket to spare.  Heck you could even insert SOF clandestinely there and go run roughshod over our entire Hydro Generating Capacity along James Bay and take down the entire Power Grid along the Eastern Seaboard, it would be impossible to find them and there is nobody up there to stop them causing havoc anyways.

The only real option to defend our Arctic if we actually wanted to and didn't cede that duty to the Americans would be to procure a fleet of nuclear submarines though so this is really an exercise in futility.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hadn’t thought of Hudson’s Bay as a kill zone before.  Kind of like a Falaise Gap/Battle of the Bulge...we could lure the Russians in with Polar Bear tours? ;D


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> And none of this matters one bit for us.  None of those ships can sail anywhere our current fleet of ships can't sail and it really doesn't matter anyways as they don't really have any real capabilities other than self-defence, those ships wouldn't last a second against a modern nuclear submarine and would make for some nice target practice.  The AOPV is perfect for constabulary missions in our territorial waters and if we wanted complete coverage of our Arctic Waters, the only real option is Nuclear Submarines.  Actual military defence of our Arctic Waters is fairly straight forward and a simple FLOCARK (I don't know what the Navy uses for terrain analysis but I am certain they have a similar procedure for Charts) shows that it is fairly defensible terrain from a Naval standpoint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are really two ways to get in to our Arctic:
> 
> #1:  Sail past Alert in to Baffin Bay; and
> #2:  Through the Northwest Passage, either Straight in to Baffin Bay or head around the South side of Baffin Island (Improbable due to how canalizing the waterway is and I am certain it isn't very deep there).
> 
> The great thing about our Arctic Archipelago is that all roads lead to the Davis Strait, a lot of which doesn't freeze over and is in fact open water.  You could set up a picket line from Greenland to Northern Quebec and have a pretty good idea of what is happening in our Arctic as what goes in must come out and it all leads to one spot.  Setting up Passive and Active Sensors in those two areas would give you early warning capability as well so you could surge out of Halifax if required.
> 
> The real danger if we are talking conventional warfare and not full scale nuclear warfare (we are fubared anyways if this is the case) is an adversary getting submarines in to Hudson Bay and and using that entire body of water as a gigantic staging area to launch a massive cruise missile strike.  A conventional submarine armed with Kalibr Missiles could strike Washington from Hudson Bay with gas in the rocket to spare.  Heck you could even insert SOF clandestinely there and go run roughshod over our entire Hydro Generating Capacity along James Bay and take down the entire Power Grid along the Eastern Seaboard, it would be impossible to find them and there is nobody up there to stop them causing havoc anyways.
> 
> The only real option to defend our Arctic if we actually wanted to and didn't cede that duty to the Americans would be to procure a fleet of nuclear submarines though so this is really an exercise in futility.



Look at you! 2 weeks into you're navy training and you're already schooling the rest of us with your sound naval tactics (and to answer your question, we do NOT have anything wrt charts at the tactical level, and if there is anything at the operational or strategic, I don't know about it).

Naval tactics is a lot more of a "fly by the seat of your pants, and hope the TRU doesn't get shot down" kind if thing.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Been that way for a long time.  I think the ships discussed above were part of the discussion on a small ship replacement for the MCDV. My bad if not.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think you find the terrain and weather friction far more of a factor than anywhere else. Arctic warfare is likely 7/10th survival, 2/10th finding the enemy and 1/10th fighting. Attempts to place shallow water sensor nets for whales have failed, any sensor net needs to be deep to avoid ice damage, but then it needs to be able to reach the surface to get power/transmit. You need a shore station either remote or manned to operate them, if remote, be prepared not to be able to fix problems for weeks, even a whole season. We also have limited supply depots as well. I suspect the most likely scenario is we discover a manned "research station" with armed guards and well armed ship protecting it or "polite armed men in whilte camo". How do we react if they ignore diplomatic efforts?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect the most likely scenario is we discover a manned "research station" with armed guards and well armed ship protecting it or "polite armed men in whilte camo". How do we react if they ignore diplomatic efforts?



Send in the Rangers.....right?


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... I suspect the most likely scenario is we discover a manned "research station" with armed guards and well armed ship protecting it or "polite armed men in whilte camo". How do we react if they ignore diplomatic efforts?



Drop barrels of vodka and show up in three days.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don’t mean to dis-respect people, but I really see a “beaten wife syndrome” in the forces, the fight to maintain any capability in the face of either wilful disdain or outright hostility from successive governments has so conditioned people into an acceptance of inadequate resources and defense of that inadequacy that is not entirely rational. I can’t fathom any rational argument to build a naval ship the size of the AOPs without the means to project power or defend itself, while other allied navies using similar ships do. Going by our history, these ships will be called upon to do far more than we ever envisioned and we are not setting up the future crews for success.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think you find the terrain and weather friction far more of a factor than anywhere else. Arctic warfare is likely 7/10th survival, 2/10th finding the enemy and 1/10th fighting. Attempts to place shallow water sensor nets for whales have failed, any sensor net needs to be deep to avoid ice damage, but then it needs to be able to reach the surface to get power/transmit. You need a shore station either remote or manned to operate them, if remote, be prepared not to be able to fix problems for weeks, even a whole season. We also have limited supply depots as well. I suspect the most likely scenario is we discover a manned "research station" with armed guards and well armed ship protecting it or "polite armed men in whilte camo". How do we react if they ignore diplomatic efforts?



Well luckily, we have this base up there called CFS Alert which just so happens to sit at the mouth of Cape Sheridan.  I've been to the North a number of times so have some familiarity of the challenges of operating up there on land (not in the Maritime Environment though).

Threats in the Arctic by Submarine have been recognized since right after WWII, which is why the Americans created and built the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) to cover the the GIUK Gap (Picture Below).






However, it is a badly kept secret that SOSUS (later complimented with SURTASS) has been expanded to cover other areas near Greenland, the Atlantic Ocean and I have read elsewhere, Hudson Bay.  The Americans used to run the program out of Argentia when they had a Station there but when they closed it, handed the responsibility over to HMCS Trinity in Halifax, which was only stood up as a unit in 1994.  Which is why the Jeff Delisle spy case was such a big deal because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he probably gave info to the Russians concerning locations, frequency bands, etc. with respect to SOSUS, SURTASS and the Integrated Underwater Surveillance System (IUSS).  

Any operation in the Arctic cannot be looked at through a purely Canadian lens and must take in to consideration NATO and most importantly, American concerns.  The Americans don't want us meddling in the Arctic militarily and Canadian warships and submarines operating up there would undermine their own programs.  We have already proven that we probably can't be trusted with the intelligence.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I don’t mean to dis-respect people, but I really see a “beaten wife syndrome” in the forces, the fight to maintain any capability in the face of either wilful disdain or outright hostility from successive governments has so conditioned people into an acceptance of inadequate resources and defense of that inadequacy that is not entirely rational. I can’t fathom any rational argument to build a naval ship the size of the AOPs without the means to project power or defend itself, while other allied navies using similar ships do. Going by our history, these ships will be called upon to do far more than we ever envisioned and we are not setting up the future crews for success.



The big thing in the RCN since the 1990s has been Maritime Interdiction Operations or MIO against smugglers, narco-traffickers and terrorist organizations.  The AOPS is perfectly suited for this sort of operation or can fill a SAR or Constabulary Role in home waters.  It is also probably a political move to not arm them more heavily because then the narrative becomes "Why do we need frigates or major warships when we have these other ships with similar (albeit nowhere near as effective) systems?"

Having switched from the Army to the Navy the one thing I've immediately noticed is the Navy is very small, it is probably way too small for a country of our size and stature and if there is one service that needs to be expanded, it is the Navy.  I've been saying this for years though and it is just being confirmed further now.

A ship operating in the Arctic in the ice is no use as a warship, it can't manoeuvre and can't really fight.  All it would make is a nice inviting piece of target practice for a submarine in those conditions.  The only option to provide an effective military solution to kinetic operations in the ice flow are Nuclear Submarines or Aircraft that can target surfaced subs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I fully agree that a well armed AOPs would be a political threat to the CSC program because for politicians a big gray ship is the same as the other big gray ship. If Canada wants to maintain it's sovereignty over the Arctic, it has to step up it's game, the AOP's are a baby step in that direction, I fully agree with nuclear subs being the only true way to control the northern seas, however, politically unlikely for now. Plus subs do best while not being seen but just that they might be there. However ships often do much of their work by being seen and being threatening in their form. Plus these ships will end up far away perhaps supporting a UN mission on a failed West African State or patrolling the shore of Somali, Indonesia or elsewhere.

As for spies, well we haven't been the only ones who have failed in that area. Our opponents seem to do HUMINT better than we do.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ....
> Having switched from the Army to the Navy the one thing I've immediately noticed is the Navy is very small, it is probably way too small for a country of our size and stature and if there is one service that needs to be expanded, it is the Navy.  I've been saying this for years though and it is just being confirmed further now.



Humphrey, I'll go you one step further and declare that the Army's budget should be halved and the money shifted to the RCN and the RCAF.  As I have noted before - they are actually operational.  They are useful even when they are not being shot at.

Based on the way we actually employ our army ..... Afghanistan, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, NW Rebellion..... we call for volunteers and build to suit.  Beyond that we never really seem to get beyond a School of Infantry, a School of Cavalry and a couple of batteries of artillery in garrison.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Americans used to run the program out of Argentia when they had a Station there but when they closed it, handed the responsibility over to HMCS Trinity in Halifax, which was only stood up as a unit in 1994.  Which is why the Jeff Delisle spy case was such a big deal because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he probably gave info to the Russians concerning locations, frequency bands, etc. with respect to SOSUS, SURTASS and the Integrated Underwater Surveillance System (IUSS).



I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count).  

Do we monitor the network in Halifax?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don’t mean to dis-respect people, but I really see a “beaten wife syndrome” in the forces, the fight to maintain any capability in the face of either wilful disdain or outright hostility from successive governments has so conditioned people into an acceptance of inadequate resources and defense of that inadequacy that is not entirely rational. I can’t fathom any rational argument to build a naval ship the size of the AOPs without the means to project power or defend itself, while other allied navies using similar ships do. Going by our history, these ships will be called upon to do far more than we ever envisioned and we are not setting up the future crews for success.



Hopefully “the forces” don’t go all Lavalee on their abusers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count).
> 
> Do we monitor the network in Halifax?



I wouldn't know but I was reading about SOSUS and IUSS the other day (I am nerdy like that) and I read on the IUSS Alumni Association webpage that IUSS monitoring was transferred to Trinity. It says so at the following link:

http://www.iusscaa.org/idn.htm

See 1994 in timeline



> 1994
> 
> Commander Undersea Surveillance Atlantic and Pacific consolidate into one command located in Norfolk, VA: Commander Undersea Surveillance and staff relocate to Dam Neck VA. Unfortunately, the downsizing of undersea surveillance is in full swing.
> 
> 
> HMCS Trinity established at Halifax Nova Scotia; CFS Shelburne, Nova Scotia disestablished.
> Readiness Training Facility, Dam Neck disestablished
> [*]NAVFAC Argentia, Nfld disestablished; operations turned over to Canadian Forces IUSS Centre (CFIC), Halifax, Nova Scotia.
> [*]NAVOCEANPROFAC Ford Island, HI disestablished.
> [*]NAVFAC Bermuda acoustic data secured at NOPF Dam Neck




There was also a spy case involving a Hungarian-Canadian named Stephen Joseph Ratkai who tried to obtain information on SOSUS from NAS Argentina.  He was arrested in Newfoundland.  

Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/06/us/spy-case-is-called-threat-to-finding-soviet-submarines.html

Again, this is all open source information.  What exactly goes on in Trinity, who knows?  It is supposedly a big secret!  Although apparently it was important enough that some said Mr. Delisle did "irreparable damage" to our national interests and the Five Eyes intelligence community writ large. 





> Delisle’s unauthorized disclosure to the Russians since 2007 has caused severe and irreparable damage to Canadian interests.


 https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/naval-officer-did-irreparable-damage-to-canadian-interests-for-mere-3kmonth

The point in all of this is that if we want to become a Military player in the Arctic, we need Nuclear Submarines.  Otherwise, we basically cede sovereignty of our Arctic Waterways to the Americans which, considering they and not the Russians might I add, disagree with our stance that our Arctic Waters are an internal waterway, who should we be siding with in this case?



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Humphrey, I'll go you one step further and declare that the Army's budget should be halved and the money shifted to the RCN and the RCAF.  As I have noted before - they are actually operational.  They are useful even when they are not being shot at.
> 
> Based on the way we actually employ our army ..... Afghanistan, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, NW Rebellion..... we call for volunteers and build to suit.  Beyond that we never really seem to get beyond a School of Infantry, a School of Cavalry and a couple of batteries of artillery in garrison.



Yep, the Fleet Commander supposedly threw out the number that the Reg Force Navy is sitting at like 7500 all ranks.  12 Major Combatants, 12 Minor Combatants (MCDVs), 4 Submarines and one rented AOR with an understaffed RCN to patrol territorial waters in excess of 7.1 million sq km.  oh did I mention that we can't patrol a large piece of it because we have no Vessels that can actually operate in one of our oceans year round?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count).
> 
> Do we monitor the network in Halifax?



 we have (had) pers at Dam Neck. (Unclassified)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quick question;  is the AOPS Link capable?


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick question;  is the AOPS Link capable?



Don't know the answer, but it may not be strictly required with the SATCOM backhaul of link you're getting in Block IV.  You connect to Halifax directly, they do the same, Bob's your uncle...


----------



## Sub_Guy

IIRC they are Link-16 capable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

check, tks.


----------



## Privateer

Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)


----------



## Stoker

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)



It's a Patrol Ship and for technical matters a non combatant.


----------



## kratz

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)



By definition1, A/SOP would be a minor warship, but more accurately referred to as a non combatant warship2.




1NPTORD 4500-57: defined as “surface warships which do not carry over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, and which do not operate
aircraft.

2NATO Allied Procedure Publication 20 (APP-20) Standard Ship Designator System, Paragraph 0102.1: 2.Non-Combatants. Auxiliary, Service Support or Merchant/Recreational Vessel types, which tend to be role specific.  They may possess an armed or combat capability intended primarily for self-defence purposes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> It's a Patrol Ship and for technical matters a non combatant.



Gee I hope whatever opponent we have uses the same criteria. It's navy and it's a legit target in any conflict.


----------



## Privateer

I ask because I had a "minor warship" bridge watch keeping certificate, which was good for an MCDV but not a CPF, so I am curious as to whether an MCDV BWK would be able to stand watch on the A/OPS (after appropriate qualification and CO's confidence etc).


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Gee I hope whatever opponent we have uses the same criteria. It's navy and it's a legit target in any conflict.



I say this because I'm currently posted into sea training Atlantic Patrol which will be looking after AOPS and Kingston Class. I will be posted soon into SO Non Combatants which will look after technical matters for AOPS and Kingston Class.


----------



## Stoker

Privateer said:
			
		

> I ask because I had a "minor warship" bridge watch keeping certificate, which was good for an MCDV but not a CPF, so I am curious as to whether an MCDV BWK would be able to stand watch on the A/OPS (after appropriate qualification and CO's confidence etc).



Probably some more training working in ice and like you said when the CO is satisfied. You won't have to start out over.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

By the current definition (the reg force, IMHO changes the damn definition whenever it fits their mood as to what constitutes a "minor" or "surface" warship for ticket's qualification) the AOPS are "surface" ship tickets vessels. There is no such thing as a "major" warship - only  a definition of what is a "minor" one - everything else requires a "surface/subsurface" watch keeping or command certificate -and since the AOPS are meant to operate aircraft, they are NOT minor warships.

Sad, but that's the way it is.

Personally, since the MCDV's are no longer strictly reserve vessels, I would like to see the reserve NW Officers being run through the frigates instead of the MCDV's after they complete their phase training - even if it requires two summers instead of one - and get their full BWK, even if after that they only are assigned to "minor" warships for short periods to keep up their knowledge base. This way, if any national emergency occurs, you have that many more people holding a somewhat up to date ticket to quickly re-qualify and hold a valuable position on a actual fighting ship.


But hey! That's just me! What do I know.  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I say this because I'm currently posted into sea training Atlantic Patrol which will be looking after AOPS and Kingston Class. I will be posted soon into SO Non Combatants which will look after technical matters for AOPS and Kingston Class.



You find the ice navigation bit quite interesting and challenging


----------



## Czech_pivo

Not sure if this has been discussed on this thread in the past.

"Chile Builds Its First Icebreaker Ship"

https://www.janes.com/article/84022/euronaval-2018-asmar-ramps-up-production-of-new-chilean-navy-icebreaker
https://dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/chile-builds-its-first-icebreaker-ship

The article is a bit old, but they just started cutting steel on it yesterday.  We could have slotted our 3rd AOPS as being their's and moved our production out by 1 ship as Irving is asking for. So there goes one of the few potential places that we could possibly sell (gift?) an AOPS.  Would have thought that since we are doing the re-vitalization on their existing Frigates that we'd have a shot at building them an AOPS.  Interesting to see in the article that Vard Canada is doing work for them on the engineering.  The size of the ship looks quite similar to our AOPS.  Oh well.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Probably some more training working in ice and like you said when the CO is satisfied. You won't have to start out over.



Isn't that the standard approach for BWK tickets in general from going between classes?  There is always a delta with how the ship handles, emergency procedures etc, so I've always seen a retraining period for BWKs going between the heavies.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Isn't that the standard approach for BWK tickets in general from going between classes?  There is always a delta with how the ship handles, emergency procedures etc, so I've always seen a retraining period for BWKs going between the heavies.



Speaking to my bosses , what may eventually happen that all NWO's will get their tickets on a CPF, then will go to Kingston Class or Harry Dewolf and after receiving the confidence of the CO be endorsed to that class. As for NWO's in the OP situation probably will be grandfathered and have to go to a CPF to get that endorsement and then move on to the Harry DeWolf. Although the CO of Margret Brooks a former reservist I believe never received her BWK on a CPF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link - CBC

Ottawa buys another Arctic and offshore patrol ship to be built in Halifax

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government will buy a 6th ship when the plan was to build 5


The federal government is purchasing another ship to be built in Halifax, the defence minister says a day after Ottawa awarded $7 billion in contracts to three shipyards for work on Royal Canadian Navy frigates — leaving concerns over an 18-month gap in work for Irving Shipyard employees.

The government will buy a sixth Arctic and offshore patrol ship for the navy, Harjit Sajjan said to a crowd at the Irving Shipyard in Halifax on Friday.


"The women and men of the Irving Shipyard build incredible ships and are essential for enabling the success of the Royal Canadian Navy," said Sajjan.

The government originally planned to purchase five Arctic and offshore patrol ships.

Public Services and Procurement Canada announced Thursday in a news release that it intends to sign contracts worth $7 billion with Davie in Lévis, Que., Irving Shipbuilding Inc. in Halifax and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in Victoria for maintenance on 12 Canadian navy ships.

With the maintenance program split between three yards, workers in Halifax feared they would be laid off in between the end of the patrol ships program and the start of the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

Last month, Irving employees held a march in Halifax to protest against the Liberal government's intention to split the contracts with other yards, saying it would result in job losses.

Friday's announcement appears to be aimed at allaying those fears.

In a news release, the Department of National Defence said the sixth ship will help sustain hundreds of jobs at Irving shipyards.

"Today's announcement is good news for the Royal Canadian Navy, but it is also good news for Canadians, our economy and the city of Halifax. This is a region with deep ties to our navy," said Sajjan.

"By adding a sixth Arctic and offshore patrol ship, we are ensuring that our Royal Canadian Navy remains an agile and responsive force for years to come, so that Canada can continue to assert and enforce our Arctic sovereignty," he said.

Irving will begin construction on the fourth Arctic and offshore patrol vessel later this year.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?

I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....


----------



## PuckChaser

The sole concern isnt capability or fiscal responsibility, its pork barrelling jobs (especially at Iriving).


----------



## NavyShooter

Well, 6 AOPS to replace 12 Frigates sounds about right...


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?
> 
> I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....


In an alternate universe, there is no sixth _Harry DeWolf_, there are massive layoffs at Irving after completion of the fifth ship, the expense of re-hiring shipbuilders for the start of the first surface combatant is too expensive to build fifteen surface combatants, and the Royal Canadian Navy would have liked to have seen a sixth _Harry DeWolf_ to prevent the loss of the fifteenth surface combatant.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> In an alternate universe, there is no sixth _Harry DeWolf_, there are massive layoffs at Irving after completion of the fifth ship, the expense of re-hiring shipbuilders for the start of the first surface combatant is too expensive to build fifteen surface combatants, and the Royal Canadian Navy would have liked to have seen a sixth _Harry DeWolf_ to prevent the loss of the fifteenth surface combatant.




Or, Irving gets all 7 Halifax's to work on under the 7 billion maintenance programme and there are no layoffs.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?
> 
> I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....




Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ottawa buys another Arctic and offshore patrol ship to be built in Halifax
> 
> In a news release, the Department of National Defence said the sixth ship will help sustain hundreds of jobs at Irving shipyards.



Condensed version of the entire article...


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.



I believe the original plan was for 8.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Or, Irving gets all 7 Halifax's to work on under the 7 billion maintenance programme and there are no layoffs.


Is it in Canada’s best interest to have three shipbuilding companies capable of building or at the very least refitting large ships?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I believe the original plan was for 8.



The original ask for for 6 to 8 and that takes into account ships being into maintenance cycles, readiness training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.



Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?


----------



## YZT580

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?



If they make the Armed Forces a desirable career, absolutely.  Kind words such as those by Ford can go a long way towards that goal


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?



I think so, crewing requirements are expected to be lower than needed with the level of automation onboard and 13 billets will be res.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I think so, crewing requirements are expected to be lower than needed with the level of automation onboard and 13 billets will be res.



I seem to remember reading an article out of the UK that talked about their new carriers in which it was said that the crewing needs were to be about 700 personal needed per ship.  I also remember reading a more recent article again out of the UK that said that they revised upwards the number of crew needed after running the ship through her sea trails. The current number now stands at just over 800 crew per ship.  Note that these numbers do not include any of the air crews or Royal Marines needed.

As a result, I think that it would be safe/prudent to say that crewing needs may in fact be 7-8% higher than stated, both for the AOPS and the yet to be built CSC's - which as the number of 125 per ship being bantered about.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I seem to remember reading an article out of the UK that talked about their new carriers in which it was said that the crewing needs were to be about 700 personal needed per ship.  I also remember reading a more recent article again out of the UK that said that they revised upwards the number of crew needed after running the ship through her sea trails. The current number now stands at just over 800 crew per ship.  Note that these numbers do not include any of the air crews or Royal Marines needed.
> 
> As a result, I think that it would be safe/prudent to say that crewing needs may in fact be 7-8% higher than stated, both for the AOPS and the yet to be built CSC's - which as the number of 125 per ship being bantered about.



The CPF's will be replaced one for one as the CSE's come online and a still a few years away. The 125 crew for ship probably won't change. Don't lose any sleep over this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quite possible that one AOP is leased to the CCG to fill in for a dead science research ship.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> Quite possible that one AOP is leased to the CCG to fill in for a dead science research ship.




Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.


----------



## jmt18325

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The CPF's will be replaced one for one as the CSE's come online and a still a few years away. The 125 crew for ship probably won't change. Don't lose any sleep over this.



Are they being replaced 1 for 1, or will all 12 CPF be kept until the 4th CSC to bring us back to 15 ships?


----------



## Swampbuggy

I’m wondering about the fleet split between coasts. Is it still likely to be 2 AOPS on the west and 4 on the East?


----------



## Stoker

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Are they being replaced 1 for 1, or will all 12 CPF be kept until the 4th CSC to bring us back to 15 ships?



That's a good point, i'm really not sure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.



If they can't resource the ship, they might try that. To be realistic it's not a lot of bang for the buck that you get with an AOPS. If the budget gets slashed, leasing a ship that's tied to the dock makes good business sense, particularly if there is a 2-3 year gap that the CCG needs filled. The order may come from above in that case.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m wondering about the fleet split between coasts. Is it still likely to be 2 AOPS on the west and 4 on the East?



That's the plan I believe however like any plan subject to change.


----------



## MilEME09

http://canmnews.ca/2018/11/the-royal-canadian-navy-to-receive-a-sixth-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship/

Wasnt the plan already 6? Or did they cut back just to reannounce?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ordered 5 with an option of 6, now they are agreeing to the option. "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.



Let's clear that up again: The AOPS are not and have never been "what the Navy wanted". The RCN never asked in any way form or shape to be saddled with the AOPS. The AOPS were foisted on the RCN by the Harper government as a way out (sort of) of their original promise for three armed icebreakers for Arctic security (armed icebreakers that the RCN never asked for either, BTW).

What the Navy did ask for - but is not getting - is proper OPV's with sufficient speed and seakeeping capabilities to play catch up with your average merchant ship - which the AOPS are unable to do.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Ordered 5 with an option of 6, now they are agreeing to the option. "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough"



Actually, IIRC, the original contract was intended to provide 6 AOPS. Irving couldn't guarantee they could do it within the planned monetary envelope, so the contract was re-drafted to provide for five AOPS, with Irving undertaking to do it's best to actually deliver six within that envelope.

What we have now is Irving basically admitting that they knew all along they were not going to try and build a sixth one within the allocated money, but use the gap later to extort (in the political - not criminal - sense) more money from the government for a sixth one. Or maybe I am just getting too cynical - but, yes, "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough". :not-again:


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Let's clear that up again: The AOPS are not and have never been "what the Navy wanted". The RCN never asked in any way form or shape to be saddled with the AOPS. The AOPS were foisted on the RCN by the Harper government as a way out (sort of) of their original promise for three armed icebreakers for Arctic security (armed icebreakers that the RCN never asked for either, BTW).
> 
> What the Navy did ask for - but is not getting - is proper OPV's with sufficient speed and seakeeping capabilities to play catch up with your average merchant ship - which the AOPS are unable to do.
> 
> Actually, IIRC, the original contract was intended to provide 6 AOPS. Irving couldn't guarantee they could do it within the planned monetary envelope, so the contract was re-drafted to provide for five AOPS, with Irving undertaking to do it's best to actually deliver six within that envelope.
> 
> What we have now is Irving basically admitting that they knew all along they were not going to try and build a sixth one within the allocated money, but use the gap later to extort (in the political - not criminal - sense) more money from the government for a sixth one. Or maybe I am just getting too cynical - but, yes, "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough". :not-again:



Regardless of what the Navy wanted, didn't want or what the government gave us, the ships are being built and we in the RCN are moving on and embracing this new capability. We needed something with more endurance up there, it may not be what people who say we need up there but its something and I speak from experience. Unfortunately they will be double hatted to fill the OPV capability. They do however have a Helo, sea keeping similar to a Halifax Class and they can do 17 knots which should make up for the lack of speed so all is not dire. 

Irving getting a sixth ship, certainly will add to the availability of these hulls in their maintenance cycle and ultimately will provide more high readiness platforms. I often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Davie was getting all the contracts would be seeing the same comments.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Regardless of what the Navy wanted, didn't want or what the government gave us, the ships are being built and we in the RCN are moving on and embracing this new capability.



Of course it is. What else is the Navy supposed to do? That doesn't mean that the government can ignore the professional advice of the senior leadership of the Navy on what is needed and not suffer the consequences. For not listening to it's professional advice,it (government) reaped the reward of naval unpreparedness in two world wars and nearly did so again for Gulf War I. And acquiring the AOPS was done against the advice of the Navy senior leadership. Period. There are no military reasons to be up there, but there are political ones. These last ones are not Naval concerns.



			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> We needed something with more endurance up there, it may not be what people who say we need up there but its something and I speak from experience.



With all due respect, Chief, your experience of actually going up North is irrelevant to the strategic/tactical needs of the Canadian Navy. We did not need something with more endurance "up there", we simply don't need anything naval up there. There is neither a strategic not a tactical requirement for the Navy in the Arctic until such time as it is actually accessible to merchant ships and  other regular/non-icebreaker vessels- at which point any surface warship can also go, as has been pointed out in these forum by multiple (if not every) NWO's.



			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Irving getting a sixth ship, certainly will add to the availability of these hulls in their maintenance cycle and ultimately will provide more high readiness platforms.



Concur, as with any other class of ship.



			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Davie was getting all the contracts would be seeing the same comments.



You would. I never confuse my appreciation for Davie where shipbuilding is concerned as an activity with the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. The AOPS would be just as much of a distraction from providing the proper ships for Canada's Navy if they were built at Davie and I would oppose the requirement for a sixth one just as much.

I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

China has already cast it's eye on the Arctic, so Canada has to step up it's game there and since we don't have nuke subs, these will be our main naval presence up there for the time being.


----------



## suffolkowner

So what is the cost of the sixth ship? 
$2.3 billion for 5 or 6 originally?
 Or does Irving get another $460 million for the sixth ship with no cost savings passed on to the taxpayer?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Of course it is. What else is the Navy supposed to do? That doesn't mean that the government can ignore the professional advice of the senior leadership of the Navy on what is needed and not suffer the consequences. For not listening to it's professional advice,it (government) reaped the reward of naval unpreparedness in two world wars and nearly did so again for Gulf War I. And acquiring the AOPS was done against the advice of the Navy senior leadership. Period. There are no military reasons to be up there, but there are political ones. These last ones are not Naval concerns.
> 
> With all due respect, Chief, your experience of actually going up North is irrelevant to the strategic/tactical needs of the Canadian Navy. We did not need something with more endurance "up there", we simply don't need anything naval up there. There is neither a strategic not a tactical requirement for the Navy in the Arctic until such time as it is actually accessible to merchant ships and  other regular/non-icebreaker vessels- at which point any surface warship can also go, as has been pointed out in these forum by multiple (if not every) NWO's.
> 
> I have no doubt it was done against the advice of the RCN's senior leadership but all I'm pointing out is that's not much to be done about that now and the RCN is embracing these ships. We have being going to the Arctic periodically throughout the years since 1949 with HMCS Cedarwood, periodically with other warships and pretty much continuously since 2002 with HMCS Summerside and HMCS Goose Bay. I certainly disagree with you with not needing something naval up there, if that was so obviously Norway and Denmark are wrong with their continued deployments. Like "Commodore O.C.S. Robertson the Commanding Officer of HMCS Labrador has stated This Arctic, this Canadian Arctic is our business – ours to exploit, ours to defend" Of course its political, but many in the RCN is seeing the value of an ongoing presence up there if you don't.
> 
> As for my experience up there I certainly know the capabilities that are needed to safely operate in that area and endurance is one of them due to the lack and difficulty of logistical support. I leave the tactical situation to the higher ups with experience in that area. The Arctic with its navigational season, there certainly is much commercial traffic and quite a bit that has no ice capability at all. If anything we are providing extra help to the CCG, I suspect you don't like that but that's one of the tasks these ships will preform.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt.



Exactly.

Prime Minister Harper was, in 2005/06, playing a very safe, very traditional anti-American political card, when he made rash icebreaker promises.

Remember, in his initial enthusiasm, he also promised a full blown Arctic base at Nanisivik, but reality intruded and it is now a less ambitious refuelling facility.

But, it is the right and duty of the government of the day to decide strategic priorities, no matter what the most senior officials, diplomats, scholars and the naval and military leaders might recommend.


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, it is the right and duty of the government of the day to decide strategic priorities, no matter what the most senior officials, diplomats, scholars and the naval and military leaders might recommend.



But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.

Remember, "Yes, Minister" is not merely a documentary, but also an instructional film, lacking only obese bearded uniformed personnel  (smelling of 8 hour old cannabis smoke) to accurately represent NDHQ.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.


To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity... or inertia.

Just look at the rapid changes since _Strong, Secure, Engaged:  Canada's Defence Policy_  was released to great fanfare and governmental self-congratulations.

                :crickets:  (OK, not including beards or pot)


----------



## dapaterson

I don't think Hanlon posits an either/or; sometimes it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.


----------



## Kirkhill

Patrol vessels sailing under the White Ensign.

HMS Protector (Chartered DNV ICE-05 Ice Patrol Ship) - Displacing 5000 T, LOA 89m, 15 kts, Crew of 88, helideck, 2x Miniguns, 4x GPMG, 12 Pax

HMS Tyne, Severn and Mersey (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 1700 T, LOA 79.5m, 20 kts, Crew of 30, no helideck, 1x 20mm, 2x GPMG, 20 Troops

HMS Clyde (OPV-H (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 81.5m, 21 kts, Crew of 36, helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 5x GPMG, 110 Troops

HMS Forth, Medway, Trent (+2) (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 90.5m, 25 kts, Crew of 58 (39 at sea, 19 on shore - rotating), helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 2x GPMG, 50 Troops

RN also sails 17x 20m Archer patrol boats of 54 T - two of which are fitted for not with 1x 20mm and 3x GPMG

As well it mans 2x 16m Scimitar patrol boats of 24 T - fitted with 2x GPMG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-prepares-for-future-uk-fishery-patrols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar-class_patrol_vessel

The AOPS appears to be conforming to the traditions of the White Ensign.
It will be performing a task the RN undertakes in home waters.
It does not appear to be particularly under-manned, under-armed, under-equipped, particularly slow or un-prepared for activity in the ice.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The River Class is more comparable to the MCDV. The OPV have triggered the same debate here and this blog argues that a redesign of the next batch closer to naval standards is worthwhile https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/thoughts-batch-2-river-class/#


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile, on the cost front.

HMS Protector - Ice Patrol Ship



> From April 2011, she was *chartered to the Royal Navy[8] for three years* as a temporary replacement for the ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, and was renamed HMS Protector.[13][14] *The annual cost of the charter was £8.7m*. In *September 2013* the British Ministry of Defence *purchased the ship outright* from GC Rieber Shipping, *for £51 million*.[15]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)

HMS Tyne Severn and Mersey - Fisheries OPV



> initially chartered (or leased) the ships under a five-year, £60 million contract from the builder VT.[2] As part of the contract, VT would be responsible for all maintenance and support during the charter period. This contract was renewed in January 2007 for another five years at £52 million.[2] However, in September 2012, instead of renewing the contract again, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels for £39 million.





> "The average running cost... of [the] River class is £20 million... These figures, based on the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence in 2009–10, include maintenance, safety certification, military upgrades, manpower, inventory, satellite communication, fuel costs and depreciation."[11]



HMS Clyde - Fisheries OPV(H) 

Cost Unknown

HMS Forth Medway Trent - Fisheries OPV Batch 2



> On 6 November 2013 it was announced that the Royal Navy had signed an Agreement in Principle to build three new offshore patrol vessels, based on the River-class design, at a fixed price of £348 million including spares and support.[17



HMS Tamar Spey - Fisheries OPV Batch 2.1



> A £287m order, for two new ships and support for all five Batch 2 ships, was announced on 8 December 2016.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

The points to be made are that:

Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere.

Yes, the OPVs are closer in execution to the MCDVs - but are apparently sufficient for both North and South Atlantic patrols despite being cheap and requiring minimal manpower.

And the Protector is close in execution to the NoCGV Svalbard - neither of which cost anything like the Harry de Wolf to acquire.

It makes no sense to build nothing but battleships on the grounds that only battleships are unsinkable.


----------



## Cloud Cover

6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> 6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.



Agreed.  Across the board.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?

And what are the chances it will be employed like Moma's, etc...personally I think we are too much of a "risk adverse" military lead by a risk adverse government to do things like that...


----------



## blacktriangle

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?



Probably about as likely as the RCAF getting something like an RJ or EP-3.  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My thoughts exactly.  We'll rely on 'others' for those services...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris, I must take partial exception with some of your recent positions:



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The AOPS appears to be conforming to the traditions of the White Ensign.
> It will be performing a task the RN undertakes in home waters.



I suggest the above is incorrect.

If there is a "small" or "patrol" boat tradition under the White Ensign, it is that of the MGB's and MTB's of WWII, culminating in the post war Gay class of MTB's.

The UK vessels you mention don't carry out "constabulary" duties - save one specific aspect for political reasons.

Starting with the small ones: 

The Scimitar's are the Gibraltar defence force, not water police force.

The Archer's are dedicated to the University Officers training scheme for the RNR - they are training vessels, just like our old YAG's and PB's were. For those who don't know, we use to have a gaggle of PB's comprising the six old West coast minesweepers and about nine old RCMP patrol vessels operated by the naval reserve. While designated as Patrol Boats, they did nothing other than training.

As for the "River" class, many issues arise: First, they are the only ones, generally with one specific "constabulary" duty: Fisheries Act enforcement. The Act specifically enables the RN and assigns the enforcement function to it. This is not the case in Canada and RCN officers have no powers whatsoever to enforce the fisheries law in Canadian waters. In the RN, of course, this power was inherited for historical reasons: The Cod wars of the late 50's and early 60's. Seeing fully armed RN frigates being used to push around little Icelandic fisheries protection vessels did not look good for the UK and created a lot of flak, so it was decided to acquire more "reasonable" looking vessels for enforcement but with keeping the role within the military as clear sign that the UK considered this a defence matter. The Fisheries squadron was born - originally with the Island class vessels, followed by the Castle class and then the Rivers.

HMS Clyde, however, is a different animal. She was commissioned to become the Falkland protection vessel until a larger one could be acquired. In that role, she took over from the then reassigned Castle class vessels. These, however, and I include the current "patrol" vessel HMS Protector, are not constabulary. They are "trip-wire" ships out to make a political statement related directly to the defence of the realm. While neither party ever declared war over the Falklands during the Falkland war, neither party renounced its claim either when they renewed diplomatic relations. In fact, Argentina has even ensconced its claim in its Constitution. So the Falkland Patrol vessels have the sole duty of being in the way of any Argentinian military action so as to require any attempt to automatically become a declaration of war under international law. Argentina wants to avoid that as was demonstrated when their submarine that went missing a few years ago clearly changed course to avoid entering UK waters. The presence of the RN in the Falkland works.

And BTW, Tamar and Spey were purchased principally to keep BAE's shipyard busy while waiting for the Type 26 construction to begin. Sounds familiar?  

Thus, The RN does not carry out constabulary duties with its "patrol" vessels, save and except fisheries enforcement, assigned to the RN by an Act of Parliament.

What is the situation in Canada?

Simple: As a naval officer, I have absolutely no constabulary powers whatsoever. I can no more arrest someone in Canadian waters or act to enforce the law than a PPCLI officer can police the streets of Edmonton. There are no Act of parliament that give the RCN any powers to act in a constabulary fashion. There are MOU's that exist with various department whereby they can ask for support under various circumstances, but we are then acting under those departments power and only to the limited extent provided by the MOU. This support is usually limited to transportation: We "drive" fisheries officers and RCMP officers in some places to carry out their duties for given number of hours every year (though, as for the RCMP, this number has gone down since the Coast Guard acquired the mid-shore vessel in part for that purpose).

Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.

So your little ditty, is incorrect - we do not have :

_Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere._

You may wonder, then, why the RCN was interested in acquiring OPV's at all. It would be, in order:

1) To provide visible military presence along the Coast;
2) assist in the compilation of the maritime picture;
3) provide junior command positions to develop leader, such as CO, XO, CERA, COXN's;
4) training platforms;
5) and, platforms for cheaper provision of support to other departments as required.

The whole humbly submitted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One reason why I would arm the CCG big ships, to support law enforcement (DFO,EC & RCMP) in their duties. Two .50cals per ship. Arming them, teaching them how to use it, ongoing training and developing ROE's for the Ships officers to command their use would not be very expensive. The one place the AOP's would excel over the CCG in these roles is in boarding parties. Training and maintaining those skills sets is expensive and require a mindset that you will not find on the CCG vessels.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and when the AOP's take part in D-day 2.0, this will be what our guys going into Sword and Juno in


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect OGBD

The RN's origins go back to Fisheries Protection and EEZs.  Back to the days when real wealth was measured in salt, herring and cod.



> *The Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest squadron of the Royal Navy and can be traced back to 1481,[3] although some sources, including the Royal Navy, date it to 1379.*[4][5] Even before an organised navy was established, the herring fishermen in Great Yarmouth fought skirmishes with foreign fishermen, who would be hanged as pirates from the gallows at Cross Sands if caught.[6]
> 
> Early history
> 
> During the reign of Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses, English fishermen were beginning to fish in the waters around Iceland, and the King ordered that minimal protection be provided by and paid for by levies from the fishing industry.[6] Richard III and Henry VII continued this, but occasionally this protection was not enough: 1,200 English herring fishermen were killed in a single action by Flemish warships, and likewise the Scots often had difficulties with Dutch fishermen.[6] Because of these and other incidents, by the 16th century it was clear that an organised force was required. A petition was put forward to the Lord High Admiral for a small bark or two.[6] As a result, the first Fishery Protection ship was commissioned for an annual fee to the Admiralty of £100, paid for by the fishermen of Yarmouth. It took the form of a wafting ship (wafting meaning 'to convey safely' or 'to convoy'), which patrolled the North Sea fishing grounds during the herring season.[6]
> 
> This ship was eventually replaced in 1659 by a dedicated fishery protection ship for Yarmouth, with a crew of 25 and an armament of "swords, half-pikes, muskets and an ample supply of large stones".[6] In the 18th century a similar arrangement was brokered by Scottish fishermen from George III, also for an annual payment of £100. This amount is still paid today, although as a token gesture.[6] Samuel Pepys was connected with Fishery Protection: he received an annual honorarium for efforts to gain similar protection on behalf of English fishermen.[6]
> 
> Lord Nelson, before he became famous, captained HMS Albemarle in 1781 as part of the Fishery Protection Squadron in North America, capturing the U.S. fishing schooner Harmony off the coast of Cape Cod. He took it in tow, with the master of the schooner acting as pilot for both ships for the unfamiliar shores around Boston Harbor.[7] Once the ships were safe, he allowed the schooner to continue unimpeded, saying to the master, "You have rendered us a very essential service, and it is not the custom of English seamen to be ungrateful. In the name, therefore, and with the approbation of the officers of this ship, I return your schooner and with it this certificate of your good conduct. Farewell, and may God bless you."[7] The certificate of good conduct protected the schooner from capture by a British ship. In return, the master gave a present to Nelson of "four sheep, some poultry, and a quantity of vegetables",[7] which Nelson ordered to be shared amongst the sick.[7] Even today, on Trafalgar Day, the flag officer shaves with the same cut-throat razor used by Nelson while he commanded Albermarle.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishery_Protection_Squadron#History

Of course, back in those days merchant ships, including fishing boats, and merchants, went about their business armed.  Not like today at all.


Another constabulary duty the RN found itself doing was confronting slavery - initially in home waters



> ... the corsairs plundered British shipping pretty much at will, taking no fewer than 466 vessels between 1609 and 1616, and 27 more vessels from near Plymouth in 1625.[31] Also, printed lists from London in 1682 states of 160 British ships captured by Algerians between 1677 and 1680. Considering what the number of sailors who were taken with each ship was likely to have been, these examples translate into a probable 7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women taken into slavery in those years.
> 
> On 20 June 1631, in an event known as the Sack of Baltimore, the village of Baltimore in County Cork, Ireland was attacked by Algerian pirates from the North African Barbary Coast. The pirates killed two villagers and captured almost the whole population of over 100 people, who were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.
> 
> Villagers along the south coast of England petitioned the king to protect them from abduction by Barbary pirates. Item 20 of The Grand Remonstrance,[32] a list of grievances against Charles I and presented to him in 1641, contains the following complaint about Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Empire abducting English people into slavery:
> 
> And although all this was taken upon pretense of guarding the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised, and upon the same pretense, by both which there was charged upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do still remain in miserable slavery.



In fact the whole of the English civil wars were predicated on the need to raise money to provide for an adequate fleet to ensure that Britons "never shall be slaves".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the USCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the ASCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...



“Canada has been a longstanding partner in our international task force, which has the mission of detecting and monitoring illicit activities in what we call the transit zone, which is the area north of the South American continent, both in the Caribbean and in the eastern Pacific,” said RAdm Tomney.

He added, “The mission of this international task force is not actual law enforcement, but it is to support law enforcement. That support comes in the form of detecting and monitoring illicit activity, using all source information. Once we have awareness of an illegal event, we monitor that event until a law enforcement group can get on-scene.”

He stated that similar to several other nations, Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) ships cannot directly be engaged in law enforcement. Through the partnership with the USCG, which is a multi-agency organization that is a law enforcement agency in addition to being one of the five armed services of the United States, the USCG puts the LEDETs on board various ships. “When they get on-scene with a suspect vessel, the LEDET is the one that goes on board to carry out the law enforcement mission.”


----------



## blacktriangle

If we sent an AOPS to Op CARIBBE, would we likely send a Cyclone with it?


----------



## Stoker

standingdown said:
			
		

> If we sent an AOPS to Op CARIBBE, would we likely send a Cyclone with it?



I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.


----------



## Kirkhill

How the Royal Navy manages its Fisheries Patrols

https://www.forces.net/news/navy/meet-royal-navys-fishery-protection-squadron

Boarding, checking licences, catches and net mesh size are all part of the job - under contract to the civilian Marine Management Organization


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.



I think "useful" is understating it   ;D   

I'd like to see a 2 tail LRP Det go with ships and Cyclones...JIATF would likely be significantly impressed with the capability.


----------



## blacktriangle

Thanks for the insight Chief. 

Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup, I've done CARIBBE and would really enjoy working there in a Canadian Joint TF;  LRP/MH Co-op with a surface force?  Nice.

Same could be said about operating up north.


----------



## Stoker

standingdown said:
			
		

> Thanks for the insight Chief.
> 
> Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.



They do have a cryptographic capability right to JIATF-South, all our ships do.


----------



## blacktriangle

Sorry - I'm talking about the ship having its own embarked capabilities.


----------



## Stoker

standingdown said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the ship having its own embarked capabilities.



We do, that's how we talk to other ships and back to Halifax.


----------



## blacktriangle

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> We do, that's how we talk to other ships and back to Halifax.



We are talking about two different things. My apologies for lacking clarity as I was being vague. 

I'm talking about an embarked SIGINT capability (CDSE)


----------



## Stoker

standingdown said:
			
		

> We are talking about two different things. My apologies for lacking clarity as I was being vague.
> 
> I'm talking about an embarked SIGINT capability (CDSE)



Understood, no I don't think so but really we regularly get Kingston Class to go on these ops and they been very successful and haven't that capability either.


----------



## Dale Denton

Would everyones arguments that this class has little to no benefit be stayed if a class of 6 Corvettes were built? Retire the MCDVs as the corvettes come along, have 6 spare MCDVs to stretch out their life? 

Jobs that would require speed, armament and defensive capability would be handed off to this corvette class. The North would be the domain of the AOPS, but the AOPS would have some small overlap between the job of the Corvette (ex. Caribbe). A balance that would allow a light presence up north, while having better capability offshore. Make these two classes replace the MCDVs, so you end up with a mixed class of arctic-capable, well armed and useful ships. The manning wouldn't be too much if the corvette had a small crew, if you chose an existing class like the Visby that's less than 1000t, you could have them built concurrent to the last few AOPS classes, but built at Davie.

Does this make any sense?


----------



## Czech_pivo

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Would everyones arguments that this class has little to no benefit be stayed if a class of 6 Corvettes were built? Retire the MCDVs as the corvettes come along, have 6 spare MCDVs to stretch out their life?
> 
> Jobs that would require speed, armament and defensive capability would be handed off to this corvette class. The North would be the domain of the AOPS, but the AOPS would have some small overlap between the job of the Corvette (ex. Caribbe). A balance that would allow a light presence up north, while having better capability offshore. Make these two classes replace the MCDVs, so you end up with a mixed class of arctic-capable, well armed and useful ships. The manning wouldn't be too much if the corvette had a small crew, if you chose an existing class like the Visby that's less than 1000t, you could have them built concurrent to the last few AOPS classes, but built at Davie.
> 
> Does this make any sense?



Using 6 of anything to replace 12 Kingston's doesn't make much sense.  Remember the mantra of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 - patrolling, preparing to patrol and in maintenance. Having 6 'corvette-like' ships means, most likely, 4 on the East Coast and 2 on the West - how will the 1/3 rule work then? 
Getting 6 corvette-like ships in addition to the 6 AOPS is not a good replacement for the 12 Kingston's.  The very nature of the 'A' in the AOPS has added a huge area of, in essence, 'net new' responsibility for the Navy. Yes, the Kingston's due 'go up north', but its close to a PR stunt then anything else.  The fact that the AOPS are being built to spec for a specific Polar Class designation means that they should/will be going places, at times of the year, that the Kingston's could/should never go.  

The time is coming, rather sooner than later, to put out the formal call to replace the Kingston's.  With the new, stretched out timelines to start/finish the AOPS's to 2024 (at a cost of 800$ million for that single extra ship) - that's 5yrs from now to build 3 ships with a 'hot' production line - the 15 CSC's will take ALL of Irving's capacity to the end of the project in the early 2040's (God, is it really that long until the last CSC is turned over to the Navy!). The JSS's won't be in the water, completed, together for how many more years?  And that CCG science ship is to begin when?  The Dief?  Notice how there is ZERO talk about then it will even begin, let only finish.  All of this means that the Kingston's will go to Davie - full stop - now, some will say that there are some smaller yards that could build their replacements, but that will not happen, as they will not be modernized in anyway to take on this task (let alone be located in Quebec).  It will go to Davie because there is NO other capacity to build minor warships left in Canada, given all of the above work.  

And the Vic's?  Don't forget that they will need to be modernized, as per the current plans, in the next 6-8yrs, who's going to do that work?

The time is here and now that our Naval assets, whatever they may be, need to be allocated proportional to both coasts going forward, the West coast cannot be the '2nd coast' anyone.  This means, more assets, not less.


----------



## Swampbuggy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Would everyones arguments that this class has little to no benefit be stayed if a class of 6 Corvettes were built? Retire the MCDVs as the corvettes come along, have 6 spare MCDVs to stretch out their life?
> 
> Jobs that would require speed, armament and defensive capability would be handed off to this corvette class. The North would be the domain of the AOPS, but the AOPS would have some small overlap between the job of the Corvette (ex. Caribbe). A balance that would allow a light presence up north, while having better capability offshore. Make these two classes replace the MCDVs, so you end up with a mixed class of arctic-capable, well armed and useful ships. The manning wouldn't be too much if the corvette had a small crew, if you chose an existing class like the Visby that's less than 1000t, you could have them built concurrent to the last few AOPS classes, but built at Davie.
> 
> Does this make any sense?



IMHO, I believe it does make sense.l, but not right now. I think your scenario is much more likely in the late 20’s - early 30’s. Everything I’ve seen written in these threads point to the MCDV’s being in great shape and effectively maintained to such a degree that there’s lots of useful life left in the platform. I can’t imagine the RCN replacing the class at this point, when so much other $ is being spent on AOPS/JSS/CSC etc. That being said, if they were to take the long view and acknowledge that a 6-8 unit class of lighter OPV’s should succeed the KINGSTON’s in the next decade or so, then the conversation should start sometime soon. Everything seems to take 12 years or more to go from word # 1 and cutting steel, so we’re almost there.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> IMHO, I believe it does make sense.l, but not right now. I think your scenario is much more likely in the late 20’s - early 30’s. Everything I’ve seen written in these threads point to the MCDV’s being in great shape and effectively maintained to such a degree that there’s lots of useful life left in the platform. I can’t imagine the RCN replacing the class at this point, when so much other $ is being spent on AOPS/JSS/CSC etc. That being said, if they were to take the long view and acknowledge that a 6-8 unit class of lighter OPV’s should succeed the KINGSTON’s in the next decade or so, then the conversation should start sometime soon. Everything seems to take 12 years or more to go from word # 1 and cutting steel, so we’re almost there.



As a person involved with the class they are indeed in good shape and as it stands no decision has been made to replace them. They do require periodic upgrades as has been ongoing. I would say they will be around for at least 10 more years.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Using 6 of anything to replace 12 Kingston's doesn't make much sense.  Remember the mantra of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 - patrolling, preparing to patrol and in maintenance. Having 6 'corvette-like' ships means, most likely, 4 on the East Coast and 2 on the West - how will the 1/3 rule work then?
> Getting 6 corvette-like ships in addition to the 6 AOPS is not a good replacement for the 12 Kingston's.  The very nature of the 'A' in the AOPS has added a huge area of, in essence, 'net new' responsibility for the Navy. Yes, the Kingston's due 'go up north', but its close to a PR stunt then anything else.  The fact that the AOPS are being built to spec for a specific Polar Class designation means that they should/will be going places, at times of the year, that the Kingston's could/should never go.
> 
> The time is coming, rather sooner than later, to put out the formal call to replace the Kingston's.  With the new, stretched out timelines to start/finish the AOPS's to 2024 (at a cost of 800$ million for that single extra ship) - that's 5yrs from now to build 3 ships with a 'hot' production line - the 15 CSC's will take ALL of Irving's capacity to the end of the project in the early 2040's (God, is it really that long until the last CSC is turned over to the Navy!). The JSS's won't be in the water, completed, together for how many more years?  And that CCG science ship is to begin when?  The Dief?  Notice how there is ZERO talk about then it will even begin, let only finish.  All of this means that the Kingston's will go to Davie - full stop - now, some will say that there are some smaller yards that could build their replacements, but that will not happen, as they will not be modernized in anyway to take on this task (let alone be located in Quebec).  It will go to Davie because there is NO other capacity to build minor warships left in Canada, given all of the above work.
> 
> And the Vic's?  Don't forget that they will need to be modernized, as per the current plans, in the next 6-8yrs, who's going to do that work?
> 
> The time is here and now that our Naval assets, whatever they may be, need to be allocated proportional to both coasts going forward, the West coast cannot be the '2nd coast' anyone.  This means, more assets, not less.



The AOPV will replace some of tasks the Kingston's were doing and allow the Kingston's to carry out new tasks and some old ones (mine warfare) An inshore/offshore corvette class is a good idea and way more than 6 should be built as we have a large coastline. As previously stated the Kingston's are not going anywhere yet and most likely will be around for another 10 years or longer, some may be paid off or placed in extended readiness however that's yet to be seen, they are extremely economical and versatile platforms. 
As for your comments that the Kingston's were sent to the Arctic as a "PR stunt" well you as a person who has never been the Arctic except reading online articles you need to stay in your own lanes and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Total acquisition budget for first five RCN Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships Cdn $3.5B (scroll down "Project costs") http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page)--apparently cost for shipbuilding alone $2.3B ($460M each). Now see cost of sixth ship just awarded to Irving:



> ...
> Earlier this week a DND spokesperson said buying a sixth AOPS will increase the cost of the $2.3 billion project by about $810 million. Of that, $250 million is set aside for “adjustments” — things like labour rates, inflation, and exchange rates...
> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/steel-costs-for-sixth-patrol-vessel-could-be-steeper-257534/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> As a person involved with the class they are indeed in good shape and as it stands no decision has been made to replace them. They do require periodic upgrades as has been ongoing. I would say they will be around for at least 10 more years.



I’m sure that’s true, Chief. I’d imagine that the RCN looks on the MCDV as the one platform they can truly trust at the moment to do whatever they need it to do. And as such, they offer stability for the Navy in a time where every other piece is in a state of flux, particularly with regards to cost of operation.


----------



## Dale Denton

Agree with ^.

I have personally been on an MCDV (for a day), and with what i've read about them, I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I impressed at what that ship and crew were capable of. I had written them off as a large un-fun useless yacht beforehand, but they have been of so much use when you think about. Even with Caribbe alone, they've proven themselves as quite the asset. 

My suggestion had the assumption that picking and constant bickering and re-issuing of the RFP would allow for a Corvette replacement to start 10 yrs from now, at which, the MCDVs would be in need of refit. The 6 AOPS and 6 new 'Flower' Class Corvettes would both be replacements. You could have more OPVs/Corvettes - number of 6 was trying to be reasonable.

Plus, I think if the Corvettes/OPVs were well-armed (Visby or Skjold), the Flower-Class name would be fun fit.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m sure that’s true, Chief. I’d imagine that the RCN looks on the MCDV as the one platform they can truly trust at the moment to do whatever they need it to do. And as such, they offer stability for the Navy in a time where every other piece is in a state of flux, particularly with regards to cost of operation.



Also I should mention they are being used as a feeder for the AOPS, as the ship has diesel electric propulsion system. many of the Harry DeWolf crew are currently on the Kingston Class.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> the 15 CSC's will take ALL of Irving's capacity to the end of the project in the early 2040's (God, is it really that long until the last CSC is turned over to the Navy!)


This is to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.  It might take most of Irving’s capacity to the late 2040s.





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now see cost of sixth ship just awarded to Irving


The rate of construction is going to be slowed down so that Irving will have their shipbuilders ready for construction of the first surface combatant.  Whenever a yard deliberately slows down the construction rate of vessels, the price per vessel almost always goes up.


----------



## Rifleman62

Doubled for the 6th ship so I heard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the "Irving factor"  :


----------



## Kirkhill

So, initially there was a plan for 6 to 8 ships.

Then the supplier decreed that they could build 5 ships for the money available.  And if they managed to improve their processes then they would be able to build no. 6 within the same budget.

But they couldn't.

In the meantime the supplier and the government have run the clock on the follow on contract and now have a gap that the supplier demands be filled or face having to lay everyone off and higher new workers in two years time to be retrained.

To prevent this the supplier and its union demands that the government turn over money enough to build two ships to keep the yard open.

The government compromises.

It decides to pay for two new ships but only get one built.

Marvelous things happen when budgets balance themselves.


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Agree with ^.
> 
> I have personally been on an MCDV (for a day), and with what i've read about them, I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I impressed at what that ship and crew were capable of. I had written them off as a large un-fun useless yacht beforehand, but they have been of so much use when you think about. Even with Caribbe alone, they've proven themselves as quite the asset.
> 
> My suggestion had the assumption that picking and constant bickering and re-issuing of the RFP would allow for a Corvette replacement to start 10 yrs from now, at which, the MCDVs would be in need of refit. The 6 AOPS and 6 new 'Flower' Class Corvettes would both be replacements. You could have more OPVs/Corvettes - number of 6 was trying to be reasonable.
> 
> Plus, I think if the Corvettes/OPVs were well-armed (Visby or Skjold), the Flower-Class name would be fun fit.



If one want's to solve the MCDV "problem" (not sure if there is a problem but here's my thesis on it) then the RCN needs to have a good long look in the doctrinal mirror and figure out what we want to do regarding mine warfare.  MCDV's are supposed to be the minehunting/route survey platform.  Now is that something we want to take seriously or not?  We are bit bi-polar on the subject and some clarity and focus are needed in the program as far as I can see.

On one hand we have excellent clearance divers who are experts in mine/explosive disposal (above and below the water).  They have good equipment and a few UUVs to do the job.  They generally work from shore facilities or dive tenders, sometimes the MCDV's.  There is quite a bit of corporate knowledge in the fleet regarding mine warfare and a mine warfare cell in the warfare centre.  Fleet school Quebec used to teach mine warfare course and it was the focus of the Reserve for many years.

On the other hand the MCDV's are not the best platforms for mine warfare.  The original concept was sound.  Using bow thrusters to control the ships head, and azipods to control the rest of the ship, they were to use "dynamic station keeping" and automatically stay in one spot in the ocean outside of a minefield.  Then send in the divers/UUV's to clear mines.  Add to that the route survey mission to pre-check all important routes we have a pretty clear concept of ops.
Well there are no bow thrusters installed, I haven't heard of a route survey mission in ages and the divers are asking for new dive tenders because they don't actually operate off of the MCDV's that much.

So what's the goal here?

_I feel _ like the return of the frigates from MLR and the introduction of the AOPV might allow the MCDV to shift focus back to that mine warfare platform it was supposed to be.  But there is no doubt to the advantages they bring to their current role.  Innocuous, cheap, can fit just about anywhere (a real advantage on the west coast), good development platforms for leadership positions.  Quite a few junior sailors prefer sailing on them because they are given much more and varied responsibilities then on the frigates.  The "not treated like a moron like on the frigates" has been heard more then once.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> If one want's to solve the MCDV "problem" (not sure if there is a problem but here's my thesis on it) then the RCN needs to have a good long look in the doctrinal mirror and figure out what we want to do regarding mine warfare.  MCDV's are supposed to be the minehunting/route survey platform.  Now is that something we want to take seriously or not?  We are bit bi-polar on the subject and some clarity and focus are needed in the program as far as I can see.
> 
> On one hand we have excellent clearance divers who are experts in mine/explosive disposal (above and below the water).  They have good equipment and a few UUVs to do the job.  They generally work from shore facilities or dive tenders, sometimes the MCDV's.  There is quite a bit of corporate knowledge in the fleet regarding mine warfare and a mine warfare cell in the warfare centre.  Fleet school Quebec used to teach mine warfare course and it was the focus of the Reserve for many years.
> 
> On the other hand the MCDV's are not the best platforms for mine warfare.  The original concept was sound.  Using bow thrusters to control the ships head, and azipods to control the rest of the ship, they were to use "dynamic station keeping" and automatically stay in one spot in the ocean outside of a minefield.  Then send in the divers/UUV's to clear mines.  Add to that the route survey mission to pre-check all important routes we have a pretty clear concept of ops.
> Well there are no bow thrusters installed, I haven't heard of a route survey mission in ages and the divers are asking for new dive tenders because they don't actually operate off of the MCDV's that much.
> 
> So what's the goal here?
> 
> _I feel _ like the return of the frigates from MLR and the introduction of the AOPV might allow the MCDV to shift focus back to that mine warfare platform it was supposed to be.  But there is no doubt to the advantages they bring to their current role.  Innocuous, cheap, can fit just about anywhere (a real advantage on the west coast), good development platforms for leadership positions.  Quite a few junior sailors prefer sailing on them because they are given much more and varied responsibilities then on the frigates.  The "not treated like a moron like on the frigates" has been heard more then once.



Actually we have two MCDV's in Europe right now with route survey, REMUS UAV's, new degausing systems and divers.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Actually we have two MCDV's in Europe right now with route survey, REMUS AUV's, new degausing systems and divers.



That's very good to know.  I had heard there were new degaussing systems but was unsure if it was a trial or not.  That's a long way from using the degaussing room as the small arms locker or extra bunk space with a cot.  Hopefully those sorts of exercises/training become more common than the once a year European one (used to be BLUE GAME, now TRIDENT JUNCTURE).  Mine warfare is a niche job that Canada can bring to the fight that would be highly valued. 

If the focus shifts like I hope we could have a well rounded fleet in a few years.  Only major issue from a platform perspective would be the age of the frigates at that point.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> That's very good to know.  I had heard there were new degaussing systems but was unsure if it was a trial or not.  That's a long way from using the degaussing room as the small arms locker or extra bunk space with a cot.  Hopefully those sorts of exercises/training become more common than the once a year European one (used to be BLUE GAME, now TRIDENT JUNCTURE).  Mine warfare is a niche job that Canada can bring to the fight that would be highly valued.
> 
> If the focus shifts like I hope we could have a well rounded fleet in a few years.  Only major issue from a platform perspective would be the age of the frigates at that point.



They still like to store lots of stuff in there, each set of WUP's I write lots of Jazzograms. Expect more MCM exercises as AOPS comes online, but still expect to see them up North and on OP Caribbe. Still the cheapest game in town by far.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Also, to the above points, in the latest defence blueprint, there is supposed to be an ongoing project to install now thrusters on the KINGSTON class. If I can find the link, I’ll throw it up here.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I suck at links, so here’s a screenshot.


----------



## Swampbuggy

And the follow up


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> And the follow up



I did hear about that, so far a number of years away.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I did hear about that, so far a number of years away.



It is encouraging, though, to know that there’s still an appetite to fulfill the original TSOR for the class. I’d hope that it means that the future is still very bright for the MCDV as s mine warfare vessel.


----------



## Underway

According to this site: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/harry-dewolf-class-offshore-patrol-vessel-canada/ the _Harry DeWolf_ class will have a TRS-3D/16ES radar in conjunction with the S and X band navigation radars.

US _Legend_ class coast guard cutters use it among others (interestingly the _Svalbard_ uses one as well).  It does air and surface search and can support naval gunfire, carry an IFF etc...

It's a fairly robust and reliable system by all accounts.

Proven wrong... see below!


----------



## Swampbuggy

That’s interesting. I thought it was supposed to be a Terma Scanter 6002. I was under the impression that it was going to be part of the scaled down CMS package?


----------



## calculus

It is the Terma Scanter 6002

https://www.terma.com/press/news-2017/nanowave/

http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-stories/toronto-based-tech-company-seizing-opportunities-as-a-result-of-canadas-aops-program


----------



## Czech_pivo

Russia flexing some muscle in the Arctic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warships/comments/a2ijmf/russia_will_restrict_foreign_warships_in_arctic/?st=JP7PR2IU&sh=8d967436


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not being a naval expert, but a 25mm gun can take these on right?


----------



## Underway

Nope but these should be able too...






And these are pretty good...


----------



## dimsum

Other nations would use these too, but not us  :


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Also I should mention they are being used as a feeder for the AOPS, as the ship has diesel electric propulsion system. many of the Harry DeWolf crew are currently on the Kingston Class.



It’s also likely that the CSC will have a diesel electric plant, as well, so I’d imagine that training will be applicable with them too, to a certain degree.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Nope but these should be able too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And these are pretty good...



I am sure our AF guys practice with our stock of AS missiles all the time.......

I would think it be a gusty move for a Halifax to take on a Russian Missile cruiser.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am sure our AF guys practice with our stock of AS missiles all the time.......
> 
> I would think it be a gusty move for a Halifax to take on a Russian Missile cruiser.



Well... I mean the one in front is retired, so I'm sure we'd have no problems with her.

As for the Slava behind her... yea I wouldn't want to face down a salvo of SS-N-12's. Although given their age, maybe they wouldn't be that reliable...


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Well... I mean the one in front is retired, so I'm sure we'd have no problems with her.
> 
> As for the Slava behind her... yea I wouldn't want to face down a salvo of SS-N-12's. Although given their age, maybe they wouldn't be that reliable...



Hell, they didn't seem that reliable when I saw one close up in Halifax in 1992!


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> It’s also likely that the CSC will have a diesel electric plant, as well, so I’d imagine that training will be applicable with them too, to a certain degree.



Certainly if it goes that way. The machinery control system as well.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not being a naval expert, but a 25mm gun can take these on right?



I didn't know they were ice capable?


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am sure our AF guys practice with our stock of AS missiles all the time.......
> 
> I would think it be a gusty move for a Halifax to take on a Russian Missile cruiser.



Russians wouldn't even know the frigate was there until the Harpoons were detected.  At least those ships pictured wouldn't.  I'm far more concerned with Russian air and submarine assets.  Their surface fleet leaves much to be desired.


----------



## Dale Denton

For those who may know more than I - Would an AOPS be capable of holding a DSRV or submarine rescue vehicle? 

Trying to think of scenarios where AOPS could be used in conjunction with submarines in the arctic. 

Is it possible?:
- Punch holes to allow for a Victora to breathe so their range would be extended through seasonal ice, or have one follow course behind?
- Or in a sub rescue role? From guessing, it would be using the crane, but that crane would have to be quite capable to lift something submersible. 
- Having a AUV/RUV sit on the flight deck for ASW? Plow a hole in the ice, drop one in for sub hunting/detection?


----------



## w0ngt0ng

Does anyone has info about the inside of this class of ship ? I was wondering how the messes look like (is it built like fregates where you have racks or it is like our new suppliers with individual rooms with beds ?).

How about a gym space ? 

Thanks


----------



## Loch Sloy!

Could we add something like the Spike ER to add a bit of punch? Seems like the cost and footprint are fairly modest compared to the increase in leathality...

https://www.janes.com/article/84817/philippines-navy-demos-new-spike-er-capability


----------



## Stoker

Jokerniemi said:
			
		

> Does anyone has info about the inside of this class of ship ? I was wondering how the messes look like (is it built like fregates where you have racks or it is like our new suppliers with individual rooms with beds ?).
> 
> How about a gym space ?
> 
> Thanks



The cafeteria is a combined Jr's and C & PO's. Wardroom like a CPF is one deck up. Some cabins are two man and four man. There is a 20 man mess for scientists, ERT team, Sea training etc. Yes there is a nice gym space. Its not like the Asterix.


----------



## JMCanada

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> It’s also likely that the CSC will have a diesel electric plant, as well, (...)



I have just realized this recently.
The diesel-electric plant on the CSC is designed to provide a low noise  print. If AOPS is not really intended for ASW ... which are the other benefits expected from the use of such plant ?


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:
			
		

> I have just realized this recently.
> The diesel-electric plant on the CSC is designed to provide a low noise  print. If AOPS is not really intended for ASW ... which are the other benefits expected from the use of such plant ?



They are more versatile than conventional propulsion systems. You bring on more or less diesel alternators as needed that provides power to the propulsion motors. Its also more efficient as you come down in speed you can take off diesels as needed. They are also less susceptible to damage and requires far less maintenance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Electric motors are used for most icebreakers these days (and in the sense I use "icebreakers", the AOPS are such vessels) because if you get a large chunk of ice going under the hull and jamming momentarily in the propellers, you don't break the props, gears or diesel engines. An electrical motor, just like the one in the hand held fans you played with as a kid, will simply get stopped or slowed down momentarily, then pick its speed right back up without any damage. Sure, it instantaneously increases electrical resistance and causes a brown out in the electrical system - but no damage.

The same thing happening in a mechanical ship's propulsion plant would see the diesel engine trying to put out power on one side of the gearbox, with the propeller shaft being stopped by the ice on the other side: It would grind the gears.

Also, what the Chief said.

BTW, the CSC, if it follows the Type 26 pattern (and it should since Canada has specified an even higher speed) is not a "diesel-electric" propulsion system. It's will be either a CODLOG or CODLAG system, meaning electric propulsion through a normal shaft (as opposed to MCDV's for instance, which have "Z" drives) for low speed ASW and Gaz turbine for high speed. The difference between the "LOG" and "LAG" is in the first instance, it is either electric or the GT that propels the ship - but not both together, while the LAG is a combination of both working together to effect propulsion.

CODLAG has worked quite successfully on the British Type 23 frigates (DUKE class).


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> They are more versatile than conventional propulsion systems. You bring on more or less diesel alternators as needed that provides power to the propulsion motors. Its also more efficient as you come down in speed you can take off diesels as needed. They are also less susceptible to damage and requires far less maintenance.



Chief, you'll be able to answer this I am sure.

Does the CSC/Type 26 design use podded propulsors?  Not in the sense of Z-Pods but more like "compartmentalized" pods.  Just thinking about that Norwegian frigate and the comments made in the reports about her shaft and the stuffing boxes possibly contributing to the speed with which she went down.   With pods you just need to punch cables through the bulkheads - not a mechanical shaft.

Gensets and separate pods eliminate the need for those long, vulnerable shafts.

Edit:  Never mind.  OGBD to the rescue.  Thanks.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...will simply get stopped or slowed down momentarily, then pick its speed right back up without any damage. Sure, it instantaneously increases electrical resistance and causes a brown out in the electrical system..



Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?

Pedantic, I know...


----------



## Kirkhill

Baz said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?
> 
> Pedantic, I know...



I think that would depend on the quality of the soft-starter/inverter to be able to manage the variable load.  I believe that the worst case scenario would see a draw equivalent to that of the locked-rotor seen at initiation of start up.  Not an electrician but have worked with and specced more than my fair share of heavy motor / inverter combinations.


----------



## JMCanada

Regarding propulsion systems, the F-110 frigate (similar to type 26) is the spanish next ASW frigate and is expected to use a CODLOG plant, but a CODLADOG plant was alternatively proposed (see picture with both options): combined diesel-electric and diesel Or Gas   :nod:

The design has been maturing for about 10 years... but the lack of funding has kept it on hold. The design AFAIK was not offered for the CSC because RCN was suppossedly asking for an off-the shelf design.

Latest rumours say they (5 units) will get funding by Dec. 28th. Considering that date is Spain's Fool's day... probably they will have to wait to 2019 to actually get the funds.  ;D

EDITED: this been said, I would bet we will see first F-110 commissioned before first CSC. 
[first line also edited].


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting graphic 

https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48406357_10157013346644533_5452765319359627264_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=c6c2cd137783e68833b4c1ebd69ee428&oe=5C99D284


----------



## chrisf

Baz said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the back-EMF drop to zero and resistance drop to only the actually value across the coils, therefore causing the current to spike up, possibly limiting the ability of the generator to maintain the voltage, causing a brown out?
> 
> Pedantic, I know...



No, an ice chunk jamming in the props is taken into account when designing the system.

Worst case, your protection trips and shuts off the motor.

As an example, one vessel I worked on had a "boost" module for her generator exciter for exactly the scenario you described.

If the exciters couldn't handle the load, the boost module kicked in for a up to a preset time.

The timing on the motor protection would be set a bit shorter, so either the ice chunk came out and the motor began to spin normally, or the motor tripped off before the boost module shut off.

That was an older vessel, other vessels will probably handle it differently, probably just current limitation in the propulsion drives/trip off the drives, but ice jamming will be considered in the design if it's classed as an ice breaker.

Conventional propulsion vessels classed as ice breakers will have some sort of design consideration to deal with it as well, probably either a clutch designed to slip at high torque or sacrificial "shear pins" like a snow blower.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting graphic
> 
> https://scontent.fyvr3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/48406357_10157013346644533_5452765319359627264_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ht=scontent.fyvr3-1.fna&oh=c6c2cd137783e68833b4c1ebd69ee428&oe=5C99D284



I find it interesting to see that #6 is still being referred to as ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY. Has there ever been anything official from the RCN confirming that name?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I find it interesting to see that #6 is still being referred to as ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY. Has there ever been anything official from the RCN confirming that name?



Yes its official.


----------



## Uzlu

> “The gap is not fully solved, we still have about an 18-month gap to address, but (there’s) a good commitment from the government to continue to work with us on that in the new year, ”McCoy said.
> 
> To eliminate the gap and avoid layoffs entirely, McCoy said, the shipyard would need a contract for eight AOPS and continuous Halifax-class work.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/the-year-in-shipbuilding-271085/


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/the-year-in-shipbuilding-271085/



So we'll put our crack team to the task and get two more for the price of 5?


----------



## Rifleman62

> On the labour side of things, over the summer Irving and the shipyard union reached a new, four-year collective agreement, following months of challenging negotiations, narrowly avoiding a strike.



Interesting, with all the projects, years of work, and Irving attempting to close the "gap" there is the Union flexing. Bet 4 years from now there will be a slow down, threats of a strike.


----------



## MilEME09

And why is it the schedule for tge CSC cant be pushed up?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> And why is it the schedule for tge CSC cant be pushed up?


It takes a lot of time to prepare the design.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> And why is it the schedule for tge CSC cant be pushed up?



No rushing the CSC.  Need to do a really good job on the prep work before you even cut the steel.  Time spent on the front end will save millions of dollars, time and headaches down the road.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From Irving Twitter The bow section of @RCN_MRC AOPS 2, the future HMCS Margaret Brooke, is now structurally assembled. Our shipbuilders will continue interior outfitting prior to its move to join with the ship’s centre and stern sections in a few months


----------



## NavyShooter

I wonder if this one will actually fit...or if it'll be off-size by 6+cm like the last one...


----------



## Kirkhill

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I wonder if this one will actually fit...or if it'll be off-size by 6+cm like the last one...



Which dimension?


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Which dimension?


If it's Irving, all of them.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I think that this is a new posting by Irving.

http://shipsforcanada.ca/our-progress

https://youtu.be/L8wvafMNglc


Lighting off the diesel generators.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nothing like a ship that is running, gives it a whole different feel, warmth and smell, like it is alive.


----------



## Swampbuggy

https://twitter.com/vanguardmag/status/1105571225059897345?s=21

An interview with the CO of HMCS HARRY DEWOLF


----------



## Czech_pivo

Three separate times it was mentioned  having the CH-148 stationed aboard the new AOPV class will be the norm.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Three separate times it was mentioned  having the CH-148 stationed aboard the new AOPV class will be the norm.



As required and generally not in the Arctic. CCG helos will be used for ice spotting.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> As required and generally not in the Arctic. CCG helos will be used for ice spotting.



May I ask this question, without having any Naval experience.

How difficult or how much effort will need to be expended in terms of having 2 completely different types of Helicopters stationed aboard an AOPV at different times for different missions?

Observations:
CH-148
1) Ship needs to be 'certified' to be able to accept/receive/discharge a CH-148 
2) A specific air detachment needs to be on-board, everything from the flight crew, to the 'deck crew' (truly sorry for using the incorrect terms, mea culpa), to the aircraft maintenance crew
3) An adequate stock of extra parts and such to maintain a CH-148 
4) Special layout/configuration of the helicopter bay?

CCG Helicopter
Ship needs to be 'certified' to be able to accept/receive/discharge a CCG helicopter
2) A specific CCG air detachment needs to be on-board, everything from the flight crew, to the 'deck crew' (truly sorry for using the incorrect terms, mea culpa), to the CCG aircraft maintenance crew
3) An adequate stock of extra parts and such to maintain a CCG helicopter
4) Special layout/configuration of the helicopter bay?
5) Enhanced training for the CCG air detachment in order to seamlessly integrate into a RCN ship?? 

Given the fact that we have such limited resources (money/bodies/hard assets), having 2 sets of air detachments for each of the upcoming 6 APOV's seems at face value to be a tremendously inefficient way to use our limited resources. Am I correct in thinking this?  Does this make operational sense?    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the primary uses for the new CH-148 was for anti-submarine purposes? By stationing a CH-148 on a AOPV, is this the best usage of its capabilities?   Why not buy some more CH-149's and use them exclusively on the AOPV for SAR and Recon purposes? Does that even make any sense?  

When I look at the types of helicopters used by the CCG, the majority seems to be a number of varieties of Bell's - mostly 212's, 412's and 429's.  Of these, we don't have 3 of any one kind available on both coasts.  Does this mean that we'll have to have 2 different types of CCG helicopters certified to serve aboard the AOPV's?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> May I ask this question, without having any Naval experience.
> 
> How difficult or how much effort will need to be expended in terms of having 2 completely different types of Helicopters stationed aboard an AOPV at different times for different missions?
> 
> Observations:
> CH-148
> 1) Ship needs to be 'certified' to be able to accept/receive/discharge a CH-148
> 2) A specific air detachment needs to be on-board, everything from the flight crew, to the 'deck crew' (truly sorry for using the incorrect terms, mea culpa), to the aircraft maintenance crew
> 3) An adequate stock of extra parts and such to maintain a CH-148
> 4) Special layout/configuration of the helicopter bay?
> 
> CCG Helicopter
> Ship needs to be 'certified' to be able to accept/receive/discharge a CCG helicopter
> 2) A specific CCG air detachment needs to be on-board, everything from the flight crew, to the 'deck crew' (truly sorry for using the incorrect terms, mea culpa), to the CCG aircraft maintenance crew
> 3) An adequate stock of extra parts and such to maintain a CCG helicopter
> 4) Special layout/configuration of the helicopter bay?
> 5) Enhanced training for the CCG air detachment in order to seamlessly integrate into a RCN ship??
> 
> Given the fact that we have such limited resources (money/bodies/hard assets), having 2 sets of air detachments for each of the upcoming 6 APOV's seems at face value to be a tremendously inefficient way to use our limited resources. Am I correct in thinking this?  Does this make operational sense?    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the primary uses for the new CH-148 was for anti-submarine purposes? By stationing a CH-148 on a AOPV, is this the best usage of its capabilities?   Why not buy some more CH-149's and use them exclusively on the AOPV for SAR and Recon purposes? Does that even make any sense?
> 
> When I look at the types of helicopters used by the CCG, the majority seems to be a number of varieties of Bell's - mostly 212's, 412's and 429's.  Of these, we don't have 3 of any one kind available on both coasts.  Does this mean that we'll have to have 2 different types of CCG helicopters certified to serve aboard the AOPV's?



1. Cyclones probably won't be operating at the same time with the CCG helo detachment.
2. Cyclones won't be stationed on a AOPV all the time but are mission dependent.
3. There are only so many cyclones. priority will be CSC, AORs and training.
4. 6 AOPV's won't be operating at the same time in the Arctic thus negate needing different types of CCG helo's. In fact one helo may be shared between ships if the mission at the time doesn't call for the ship to be in ice.
5. Primary use is anti sub however can do other missions, SAR, transport etc.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> 1. Cyclones probably won't be operating at the same time with the CCG helo detachment.
> 2. Cyclones won't be stationed on a AOPV all the time but are mission dependent.
> 3. There are only so many cyclones. priority will be CSC, AORs and training.
> 4. 6 AOPV's won't be operating at the same time in the Arctic thus negate needing different types of CCG helo's. In fact one helo may be shared between ships if the mission at the time doesn't call for the ship to be in ice.
> 5. Primary use is anti sub however can do other missions, SAR, transport etc.



Thanks for the answers but this still means that we'll have to certify two sets of helicopters and air detachments per ship.  I understand that the CH-148's not be operating at the same time with the CCG helo detachment but we'll still have to train 2 completely different sets of helo groups to both work on an APOV.  

There are even less CCG helo's than Ch-148's so these will be in even more demand than the CH-148 will be.  According to the information that I can source, there are only 22 operational helo's across the entire CCG and I'm willing to bet that a fair number of them have never landed/operated on a ship before.  I know that we currently don't have all 28 CH-148's yet.

If the primary reason to use a CCG helo on board the APOV is when its operating in ice in the Arctic, why not look at using robust drones for this purpose?  Cheaper and less demand on our limited resources.  It seems at the face value that using a CH-148 on an APOV is overkill.  

Which type of CCG helo do you predict to be operating off the APOV's?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers but this still means that we'll have to certify two sets of helicopters and air detachments per ship.  I understand that the CH-148's not be operating at the same time with the CCG helo detachment but we'll still have to train 2 completely different sets of helo groups to both work on an APOV.
> 
> There are even less CCG helo's than Ch-148's so these will be in even more demand than the CH-148 will be.  According to the information that I can source, there are only 22 operational helo's across the entire CCG and I'm willing to bet that a fair number of them have never landed/operated on a ship before.  I know that we currently don't have all 28 CH-148's yet.
> 
> If the primary reason to use a CCG helo on board the APOV is when its operating in ice in the Arctic, why not look at using robust drones for this purpose?  Cheaper and less demand on our limited resources.  It seems at the face value that using a CH-148 on an APOV is overkill.
> 
> Which type of CCG helo do you predict to be operating off the APOV's?



The AOPV will be eventually embarking a done while in the Arctic and on other operations. The whole idea of a helo is to read ice, mark 1 eyeball is way better than on a TV screen. As well the helo's act as a utility aircraft ferrying personnel and material ashore dependent on the task at hand. You may want to ask yourself why we using the CCG helo at all as we have our own helo and that's simply we don't have enough cyclones to go around. Best guess based on other ships, is the 429 would be used.

Its perfectly normal to have multiple aircraft certified for use on ships, Asterix can operate the Cyclone bout eventually will be certified to operate other aircraft same as AOPV. Its certainly not a perfect solution and I doubt additional aircraft will be purchased but other than the Arctic dependent on demand Cyclones will be embarked as required. Its going to be a number of years before all the AOPV's are built and CSC, there should be ample aircraft available.


----------



## MarkOttawa

New CCG helos in operation:



> Canadian Coast Guard Praises Modern Helos for Icebreaking Mission
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has high marks for its fleet of 22 modern helicopters dedicated to icebreaking missions--15 Bell 429s and seven Bell 412 EPIs.
> 
> About 65 percent of the total Canadian Coast Guard helicopter flight hours support the safety of marine traffic, while the next largest block of time--icebreaking--is responsible for 15 percent of helicopter flight hours, according to the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The Bell 412 EPIs began replacing Bell 212s in 2016 under the Canadian Coast Guard Fleet Renewal Plan, while the Canadian Coast Guard fielded the 15 Bell 429s between 2014 and 2016 to replace Eurocopter MBB BO-105s.
> 
> Canadian Coast Guard officials said that the modern helos provide "timely and accurate information to Coast Guard icebreaking planners and the shipping industry to update ice charts and assist in ice routing for commercial ships."
> 
> The latter can face hazardous ice floes on the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River waterway.
> 
> The Chamber of Marine Commerce has said that shipping on that waterway generated nearly $45 billion in economic activity in 2017 and more than 328,000 jobs. One of the chamber's legislative priorities this year is "supporting creative solutions for additional ice-breaking capacity, e-navigation and ports’ needs."
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard has had two icebreakers for the Great Lakes region this winter: the CCGS Samuel Risley, commissioned in 1985 and refitted in 2016, and the CCGS Griffon, which entered service in 1970 and which was refitted in 1995. Such icebreakers are important for ensuring the flow of supplies and energy during winter months, as well as for aiding localities with flood control by breaking apart ice jams. The helos help by escorting commercial shipping during the winter, according to the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The CCGS Samuel Risley made its maiden voyage to the Arctic Ocean in July 2018.
> 
> The Canadian Coast Guard helicopters also support the rotation of ice service specialists, nurses and pilots who work on the icebreakers, as well as providing Medevacs as needed for Coast Guard personnel and people who become ill in remote northern communities, transporting technical crews to navigational aids in the Arctic, and conducting search and rescue in the Arctic and other remote regions.
> 
> "Helicopters are the only platform that can effectively support tactical ice reconnaissance for icebreakers that are actively conducting icebreaking operations," according to the Canadian Coast Guard. _"Taking off from the icebreaker's deck, they provide the vessel's master with the up-to-date information needed on ice conditions in the immediate vicinity, and for up to 100 miles ahead, of both the ship and the commercial vessel or convoy that she may be escorting_ [emphasis added]. Neither satellite data, nor data from fixed winged aircraft can do this. For safe and effective ice operations, the icebreaker's master needs a helicopter survey that provides accurate ice information. Without such information, the ability to make sound decisions concerning how to deploy the multi-million dollar resource at the master's command is compromised, putting the icebreaker, its crew and, in particular, the ships it is escorting at risk."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rotorandwing.com/2019/03/12/canadian-coast-guard-praises-modern-helos-for-icebreaking-mission/



CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent has hangar for helos:





http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/folios/00019/docs/Louis-StLaurent-eng.pdf

Looks like the three Davie conversions will also have hangars added, don't know about other vessels in the fleet:



> ... Some of the modifications the Coast Guard plans for the vessel [CCGS Molly Kool], and her sister ships, were deferred, so that she could be employed ice-breaking in the St Lawrence estuary during the winter of 2019.[21] In particular, one highly visible deferred item will be the addition of a landing pad and hangar for a light utility helicopter...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Captain_Molly_Kool



Lots more on CCG helos at large webpage (much of article at start of post taken from this):



> ...
> The Canadian Coast Guard supports its aviation service requirements by utilizing its own fleet of 20 rotary wing aircraft across Canada. These aircraft are strategically located at eleven bases across Canada...
> 
> During the winter icebreaking program, helicopters, operating from shore-based facilities or the decks of the ships themselves help ensure that most Canadian ports are open for business year-round...
> 
> Helicopters are the only platform that can effectively support tactical ice reconnaissance for icebreakers that are actively conducting icebreaking operations. Taking off from the icebreaker's deck, they provide the vessel's master with the up-to-date information needed on ice conditions in the immediate vicinity, and for up to 100 miles ahead, of both the ship and the commercial vessel or convoy that she may be escorting...
> http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Fleet/Helicopters



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Thanks for all the good info and insight Gentleman - much appreciated. 

Could either of you ever envision a CH-148 embarking on an APOV with this full Mark 48 torpedo compliment and performing ASW work?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the good info and insight Gentleman - much appreciated.
> 
> Could either of you ever envision a CH-148 embarking on an APOV with this full Mark 48 torpedo compliment and performing ASW work?



Probably not as you would most likely need a torpedo magazine and other equipment and there's no requirement given its mission.


----------



## blacktriangle

I'd be pretty impressed if a Mk-48 could be dropped from a Cyclone.  ;D


----------



## Stoker

standingdown said:
			
		

> I'd be pretty impressed if a Mk-48 could be dropped from a Cyclone.  ;D



We need a bigger helicopter. ;D


----------



## blacktriangle

I wouldn't put it past us to try...I mean weren't we the first to land these giant helicopters on little ships?  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Bigger Chopper?  Nema problema!






BAe Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate at DSEi 2013 – helicopter deck with Chinook

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/09/dsei-2013-highlights-type-26-global-combat-ship/bae-royal-navy-type-26-frigate-at-dsei-2013-helicopter-deck-with-chinook/


----------



## Uzlu

standingdown said:
			
		

> weren't we the first to land these giant helicopters on little ships?


Yes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Buckingham_(K685)#Postwar_service


----------



## Good2Golf

No way can a CH-148 carry a Mk48 (on a weapon station - slung, maybe)...you mean 46?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You can probably load a 48 on a 148 ... as long as you are not planning on taking off.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Twice the weight of a WWII Type 91 aerial torpedo.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No way can a CH-148 carry a Mk48 (on a weapon station - slung, maybe)...you mean 46?



Yes.....my passion once again comes to the forefront of my knowledge and understanding.....

So the answer is basically 'no', the CH-148's will not ever be used for ASW work and be fully armed with MK-46's, on an AOPV. 

Can I ask this question?  Why not buy another 8 or 9 CH-149's and arm them with some door guns and station them on the AOPV?  Use them exclusively on the AOPV, for ice berg nav, SAR, transport, etc, instead of rotating CCG helo's and Ch-148's on and off the AOPV's.  We already are equipped with the CH-149's and I think that we are actually ordering a few more now.  Add to that order another 8 or 9.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Yes.....my passion once again comes to the forefront of my knowledge and understanding.....
> 
> So the answer is basically 'no', the CH-148's will not ever be used for ASW work and be fully armed with MK-46's, on an AOPV.
> 
> Can I ask this question?  Why not buy another 8 or 9 CH-149's and arm them with some door guns and station them on the AOPV?  Use them exclusively on the AOPV, for ice berg nav, SAR, transport, etc, instead of rotating CCG helo's and Ch-148's on and off the AOPV's.  We already are equipped with the CH-149's and I think that we are actually ordering a few more now.  Add to that order another 8 or 9.




Costs is the biggest factor, we can do anything we want with enough money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the number of lesser naval vessels we will have that our helicopter capable. It makes sense to purchase a number of Cyclone helicopters without the ASW suite for all the other tasks. Even if it means reducing the number of Griffons flying. We are going to need more Maritime helicopters in the future, just not for ASW work.


----------



## Cloud Cover

That would be the H92 SuperHawk airframe, but I have a feeling that the Cyclone has completely different electronics and machinery, even without the ASW and surveillance kit installed.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In a perfect world we would have them setup to accept the ASW suite with as little modification as possible, what it would do is reduce flight hours on ASW airframes and give us spare airframe that could be fitted out with ASW to replace a crashed or damaged airframe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Feb 21 the "keel" is laid for AOPs #3


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the number of lesser naval vessels we will have that our helicopter capable. It makes sense to purchase a number of Cyclone helicopters without the ASW suite for all the other tasks. Even if it means reducing the number of Griffons flying. We are going to need more Maritime helicopters in the future, just not for ASW work.



I like the thought. Sikorsky has introduced new variants of the H-92 (I know its not the same) as well. Perhaps a medium-lift tactical utility version? 

What would the adv/dis of hypothetically moving the Griffon to almost exclusive SAR/medevac work and move over to a utility CH-148 for everything else? Same as others use the Superpuma for?


----------



## Dale Denton

Another thought (brain cells must be working this yr), has there been any thought to have AOPS variants? 

Perhaps an elongated version that you could land a Chinook on or make into a mini LHD or to fit 2 Cyclones/Griffons? Make a niche capability (icebreaker) into more of a niche - icebreaker LHD?


----------



## Cloud Cover

An enhanced Elint/SIGINT ship could be useful. I don't think I would trust Irving to make an LHD ship that is designed to flood, it might lower itself right to the bottom.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Engines installed on AOPs #3


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More bits join the centre block of AOPs #3


----------



## Swampbuggy

Along with the bow of BROOKE.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Seeing the accuracy control folks at work with the modules is pretty cool.  There is very little tolerance for misalignment on all those pipes and other bits and pieces, so pretty impressive when it all fits together.


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Even if it means reducing the number of Griffons flying. We are going to need more Maritime helicopters in the future, just not for ASW work.



Current demand already outstrips availability. What do you want us to stop doing? We could use more Tac Hel right _now_ as well as in the future.



			
				LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What would the adv/dis of hypothetically moving the Griffon to almost exclusive SAR/medevac work and move over to a utility CH-148 for everything else?



Disadvantages:

Limited cabin space for medevac, especially if self-defence weaponry is mounted. USAF CSAR uses two HH60, both with two GAU-21 .50 cals and preferred to take no more than one patient each, in Afghanistan. They provide their own integral escort capability. US Army uses a single unarmed UH60 with AH64 escort for medevac.

Griffon has limited range and carrying capacity (weight and room) for SAR.

CH148 would be a little large for the escort role. I am also not a fan of the European concept with larger utility machines. To me, the US Army doctrine has always made more sense, and was proven long ago. For agility and survivability, I'd rather have more UH1Y/UH60-sized machines carrying fewer troops each than fewer larger machines carrying more troops each.

Advantages:

None come to mind.



			
				LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Perhaps an elongated version that you could land a Chinook on or make into a mini LHD or to fit 2 Cyclones/Griffons?



For what purpose? And neither Griffon's nor Chinook's blades fold (practically, at least - which is why "we" elected to blow a lot of money to build large hangar additions to fit Griffons, after considering various nutty proposals). This "elongated" AOPS version would need a pretty big hangar for a Chinook, or two Griffons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One option would be to have one leased helicopter and crew on the Astreix to provide logistical support to the fleet and to ahore.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> One option would be to have one leased helicopter and crew on the Astreix to provide logistical support to the fleet and to ahore.



Come on, Colin, that’s the mark of an immature, small Navy...certInly no 1st world blue-water Navy would consider such a crazy idea...




...oh, wait...


----------



## JMCanada

AFAIK Griffon is not navalized, as it lacks: 
- landing gear ready for maritime ops.
- relevant corrosion protection coatings
- floating system in the rear sponsons 
- foldable rotor

Instead, for a similar range and MTOW, i would suggest AW159 wildcat, which is already developed and can perform SAR (although within a limited space), ASW (including SENSO & Tactical officer), ASuW ... and can be an excellent escort. With additional fuel tanks may have an endurance over 4hrs. Just thinking on fuel cost  should be much cheaper to operate than cyclones . I do not mean to substitute cyclones, but would like  to have both options ... if possible.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would think the Huey Venom would suffice.


----------



## Czech_pivo

JMCanada said:
			
		

> AFAIK Griffon is not navalized, as it lacks:
> - landing gear ready for maritime ops.
> - relevant corrosion protection coatings
> - floating system in the rear sponsons
> - foldable rotor
> 
> Instead, for a similar range and MTOW, i would suggest AW159 wildcat, which is already developed and can perform SAR (although within a limited space), ASW (including SENSO & Tactical officer), ASuW ... and can be an excellent escort. With additional fuel tanks may have an endurance over 4hrs. Just thinking on fuel cost  should be much cheaper to operate than cyclones . I do not mean to substitute cyclones, but would like  to have both options ... if possible.



Why not buy another 5-7 Ch-149's and using them on the AOPS?  An extra cost for training or maintenance and can provide all the necessary requirements that the AOPS will need plus add in the SAR capabilities that are limited/strained in the Far North .


----------



## Spencer100

Or how about a few CH-148's?  They are in the system.  And being rebuilt to modern standards, plus the ex-president ones are still there. 

Can the Ch-148 use the bear trap?  Is there a Bear trap on the Dewolf's?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Or how about a few CH-148's?  They are in the system.  And being rebuilt to modern standards, plus the ex-president ones are still there.
> 
> Can the Ch-148 use the bear trap?  Is there a Bear trap on the Dewolf's?




For clarity:

CH148 = Cyclone. Our current and only Maritime Helicopter.

CH149 = Cormorant. One of two SAR helicopter types used by Canada.


----------



## Spencer100

opps sorry CH-149 does it use the bear trap etc?


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> For clarity:
> 
> CH148 = Cyclone. Our current and only Maritime Helicopter.
> 
> CH149 = Cormorant. One of two SAR helicopter types used by Canada.



My question was regarding the Cormorants, as I would assume that they would be salt-water capable already.  I know that we are expanding the fleet already, just wondering if some of them could be used inter-changeable on the AOPS, (or even buy another 4-6)?  
I understand that we are going to be hard pressed to have enough CH-148's to go around once the 15 CSC's and the 2/3 JSS/AOR are in place.  I can't imagine the fleet spread across 6 AOPS, 15 CSC's and 2/3 JSS/AOR's.....

I know that the belief is that CCG helo's will be used on the AOPS for ice spotting and such, but do any of them have solid SAR capabilities? If we are going to stick the APOS's all the way up north, I would think that having them capable of solid SAR would be a plus once they are all the way up there.  I mean, let's be honest, taking into consideration the amount of time/money it will take an AOPS  to get from Esquimalt to Tuk, that once on station having a helo with excellent SAR would be beneficial?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG had only one helo fitted with a winch, a Skiskorsy out of Prince rupert. None of the Bo105 had winches, one pilot resorted to using his skid to pluck a survivor from the water. Not sure of the capabilities of the new helo's. Part of the issue, is even if a winch is fitted, you need an trained crew to operate it and maintain that proficiency. The CCG was to cheap to go with IV training for it's Rescue Specialist, instead we used MAST pants much to the delight of the receiving ER rooms.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> My question was regarding the Cormorants, as I would assume that they would be salt-water capable already.  I know that we are expanding the fleet already, just wondering if some of them could be used inter-changeable on the AOPS, (or even buy another 4-6)?
> I understand that we are going to be hard pressed to have enough CH-148's to go around once the 15 CSC's and the 2/3 JSS/AOR are in place.  I can't imagine the fleet spread across 6 AOPS, 15 CSC's and 2/3 JSS/AOR's.....
> 
> I know that the belief is that CCG helo's will be used on the AOPS for ice spotting and such, but do any of them have solid SAR capabilities? If we are going to stick the APOS's all the way up north, I would think that having them capable of solid SAR would be a plus once they are all the way up there.  I mean, let's be honest, taking into consideration the amount of time/money it will take an AOPS  to get from Esquimalt to Tuk, that once on station having a helo with excellent SAR would be beneficial?



No the CH-149 will not fit in the hanger of the AOPV as its longer at 74 ft, to the Cyclones 68ft. The Cyclone has to fold its tail to fit in the hanger while the CH-149 cannot. It is possible that the CH 149 may be able to land on the AOPS flight deck. The concept of ops for the class and the concept of ops with the CCG mentions AOPS could operate with the CH-146 Griffon and the Bell 429 and 412. It appears the type of helo embarked will depend on the type of mission, and CCG could ask for helo support and vice versa. The large carrying capability of the Cyclone could be very attractive to the CCG for supply runs.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCG had only one helo fitted with a winch, a Skiskorsy out of Prince rupert. None of the Bo105 had winches, one pilot resorted to using his skid to pluck a survivor from the water. Not sure of the capabilities of the new helo's. Part of the issue, is even if a winch is fitted, you need an trained crew to operate it and maintain that proficiency. The CCG was to cheap to go with IV training for it's Rescue Specialist, instead we used MAST pants much to the delight of the receiving ER rooms.



Are things really that bad?  
Is the idea that we'll use a CCG helo on an APOS only for ice spotting in the Arctic and have zero SAR ability while up there (other than a pair of eyes scanning the horizon).  If these ships are being built to operate in the Arctic for 3/4+ months of the year that they should have SAR ability with an onboard helo?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> No the CH-149 will not fit in the hanger of the AOPV as its longer at 74 ft, to the Cyclones 68ft. The Cyclone has to fold its tail to fit in the hanger while the CH-149 cannot. It is possible that the CH 149 may be able to land on the AOPS flight deck. The concept of ops for the class and the concept of ops with the CCG mentions AOPS could operate with the CH-146 Griffon and the Bell 429 and 412. It appears the type of helo embarked will depend on the type of mission, and CCG could ask for helo support and vice versa. The large carrying capability of the Cyclone could be very attractive to the CCG for supply runs.



Please don't take this the wrong way, but couldn't we have built the APOS 2.0 - 2.3 meters longer to accommodate the CH-149 if need be?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Please don't take this the wrong way, but couldn't we have built the APOS 2.0 - 2.3 meters longer to accommodate the CH-149 if need be?



I suppose they could have, causing millions of extra costs for something beyond its original concept of operations.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I suppose they could have, causing millions of extra costs for something beyond its original concept of operations.



I hear you. But it still begs the questions, if the CH-148's will never do any ASW work from the AOPS, then why even rotate them on/off the AOPS in the first place?  The CH-148's primary role when deployed on a Frigate is to be its 'eyes/ears' further out from the ship and to be a hunter/killer in times of war against subs.  If the AOPS will have nothing more than baby teeth in terms of weaponry, why bother putting a CH-148 on an AOPS at all.

Do any of the Griffon's have a winch on them to land on an APOS?  

If the role of the AOPS is to assert CDN sovereignty in the Arctic, then I'd argue that should include SAR abilities for its citizens in that patrol realm.  Thus, making it 2 meters longer to allow for a CH-149 to be accommodated would have been worth while.

But hey, I'm only a civilian with zero insight here and acknowledge this.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I hear you. But it still begs the questions, if the CH-148's will never do any ASW work from the AOPS, then why even rotate them on/off the AOPS in the first place?  The CH-148's primary role when deployed on a Frigate is to be its 'eyes/ears' further out from the ship and to be a hunter/killer in times of war against subs.  If the AOPS will have nothing more than baby teeth in terms of weaponry, why bother putting a CH-148 on an AOPS at all.
> 
> Do any of the Griffon's have a winch on them to land on an APOS?
> 
> If the role of the AOPS is to assert CDN sovereignty in the Arctic, then I'd argue that should include SAR abilities for its citizens in that patrol realm.  Thus, making it 2 meters longer to allow for a CH-149 to be accommodated would have been worth while.
> 
> But hey, I'm only a civilian with zero insight here and acknowledge this.



Probably because its the only shipboard helo that we operate, with a large cargo capacity and surveillance capability. Who knows down the road it may do anti sub.  When I say operate Griffon it may very well operate them while anchored and not all situations dictate using a haul down device. All RCN assets do SAR but not as its primary mission and you do realize we only have 14 CF 149's spread all across Canada, not many for AOPS eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOP's could be equipped with winch equipped Bell 429's which are the same helo's as the CCG recently received and are built in Canada. Run them with a civy crew of pilots and maintainers.

https://www.verticalmag.com/features/thegiftofsar/

https://www.verticalmag.com/features/better-faster-stronger-canadian-coast-guards-new-helicopter-fleet/


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> The AOP's could be equipped with winch equipped Bell 429's which are the same helo's as the CCG recently received and are built in Canada. Run them with a civy crew of pilots and maintainers.
> 
> https://www.verticalmag.com/features/thegiftofsar/
> 
> https://www.verticalmag.com/features/better-faster-stronger-canadian-coast-guards-new-helicopter-fleet/



Yes as previously stated the Bell 429 may be a helo to be used on the AOPS, in fact lots of helo's could be used. The RCN has decided to utilize CCG and RCAF aircraft only. The last thing we need is civilians operating helos off AOPS, we might as well buy them and crew them ourselves.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> My question was regarding the Cormorants, as I would assume that they would be salt-water capable already.  I know that we are expanding the fleet already, just wondering if some of them could be used inter-changeable on the AOPS, (or even buy another 4-6)?



Wouldn't any additional Cormorants be better used in the SAR fleet vice operating up north off an AOPS??  



> I understand that we are going to be hard pressed to have enough CH-148's to go around once the 15 CSC's and the 2/3 JSS/AOR are in place.  I can't imagine the fleet spread across 6 AOPS, 15 CSC's and 2/3 JSS/AOR's.....



While not every Cyclone will be at a line sqn 100% of the time, the west and east coast fleets also will not be sailing 100% of their hulls 100% of the time either.



> I know that the belief is that CCG helo's will be used on the AOPS for ice spotting and such, but do any of them have solid SAR capabilities? If we are going to stick the APOS's all the way up north, I would think that having them capable of solid SAR would be a plus once they are all the way up there.  I mean, let's be honest, taking into consideration the amount of time/money it will take an AOPS  to get from Esquimalt to Tuk, that once on station having a helo with excellent SAR would be beneficial?



What are 'solid SAR capabilities'?  I've done maritime and overland SAR; never heard of 'solid SAR' before.  Some assets are very good at the SEARCH part but not good at the RESCUE and vice versa.  Sometimes it's the 'combo' that does the job, sometimes a single asset.  Very situation dependent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I hear you. But it still begs the questions, if the CH-148's will never do any ASW work from the AOPS, then why even rotate them on/off the AOPS in the first place?  The CH-148's primary role when deployed on a Frigate is to be its 'eyes/ears' further out from the ship and to be a hunter/killer in times of war against subs.  If the AOPS will have nothing more than baby teeth in terms of weaponry, why bother putting a CH-148 on an AOPS at all.
> 
> Do any of the Griffon's have a winch on them to land on an APOS?
> 
> If the role of the AOPS is to assert CDN sovereignty in the Arctic, then I'd argue that should include SAR abilities for its citizens in that patrol realm.  Thus, making it 2 meters longer to allow for a CH-149 to be accommodated would have been worth while.
> 
> But hey, I'm only a civilian with zero insight here and acknowledge this.



Simple answers  - (1) you do not need kill stores to complete an ASW mission.  You can complete the entire ASW mission set except the "drop torp" part.  When was the last time a sub had a warshot dropped on it??  I don't know the answer to that, but I _can_ tell you that operational (real) ASW missions are and have been happening for decades....just not with warshots.   (2)  Maritime Helicopters do more than just ASW.  

"_The Cyclone is to perform a variety of missions, including surveillance, utility, search-and-rescue, and tactical transport for national and international security efforts."

_I can't get into ASW/ASuW tactics, etc here in any details, and I'm not a MH or Navy guy, but my opinion (coming from a fleet that does ASW/ASuW;  we work with and sometimes for the naval assets and MH folks)...there is/can be value in having a Cyclone on an AOPS without kill stores.   :2c:

Re: SAR.  What asset do you think takes over the rotary wing SAR tasking if the Cormorants are unserviceable, and therefore their crews do some SAR task training (stokes litters, hoisting, rescue swimmer, etc)?


----------



## blacktriangle

Simply having the airborne RADAR, ESM, and EO/IR capabilities that an Air Det would bring to the table should be a huge asset to an AOPS for the kind of missions it will undertake.


----------



## suffolkowner

No Cadillac helicopters for us! 25 years later and still dealing with that poor decision

As far as the CH-146's did the not fly off ships in Haiti? Do the US Marines not fly their UH-1's off ships?

I think that Sikorsky stated that they could replace the CH-149 fleet with s-92 for costs savings versus the Leonardo CH-149 upgrade which I believe is intended to bring some of the US Presidential helicopters on line. Leonardo dropped its lawsuit over FWSAR soon after(?)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes as previously stated the Bell 429 may be a helo to be used on the AOPS, in fact lots of helo's could be used. The RCN has decided to utilize CCG and RCAF aircraft only. The last thing we need is civilians operating helos off AOPS, we might as well buy them and crew them ourselves.



The USN already contracts civilian helicopters to work off some of their vessels. The CCG helicopters and crews actually belong to Transport Canada, that fleet could be expanded and they provide similar services to the RCN.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Probably because its the only shipboard helo that we operate, with a large cargo capacity and surveillance capability. Who knows down the road it may do anti sub.  When I say operate Griffon it may very well operate them while anchored and not all situations dictate using a haul down device. All RCN assets do SAR but not as its primary mission and you do realize we only have 14 CF 149's spread all across Canada, not many for AOPS eh?



I thought I read something last May that we are expanding the fleet of 14 by another 7 as part of the mid-life extension of the Ch-149’s and that Trenton was going to have them back there doing SAR, replacing the Griffons.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Wow, I’m grateful for all the feedback and great information.
One point that was touched on but not really discussed was decision not to extend the AOPS by 2 meters to provide the opportunity to ever accommodate a CH-149 on board. With both the 148’s and 149’s having roughly double to endurance in terms of travel distance when compared to the 146’s or a Bell 429, wouldn’t it have made sense to do this? 
I mean a Griffon can travel only 650km while a Cormorant can travel 1,390km....with distance between population centres in the Arctic being mind boggling, I would think having a helo on board that has double the endurance would be a massive plus.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I thought I read something last May that we are expanding the fleet of 14 by another 7 as part of the mid-life extension of the Ch-149’s and that Trenton was going to have them back there doing SAR, replacing the Griffons.



You are correct, the extra helos will be used to reestablish the SAR base at Trenton and enhance existing capability. No mention of ear marking them for the Arctic, we would need hell of a lot for helos to do that than aquired seven used air frames that were originally bought for spare parts.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Wow, I’m grateful for all the feedback and great information.
> One point that was touched on but not really discussed was decision not to extend the AOPS by 2 meters to provide the opportunity to ever accommodate a CH-149 on board. With both the 148’s and 149’s having roughly double to endurance in terms of travel distance when compared to the 146’s or a Bell 429, wouldn’t it have made sense to do this?
> I mean a Griffon can travel only 650km while a Cormorant can travel 1,390km....with distance between population centres in the Arctic being mind boggling, I would think having a helo on board that has double the endurance would be a massive plus.



It wasn't a decision, it was never considered in the first place probably for good reason. You know there may be many other reasons why this helo wasn't considered or even possible to put on this ship. You make it sound so simple just to extend the ship by 2M. AOPS at times needs a smaller helo to do simple utilitarian  jobs such as flying crews ashore often in tight quarters, this helo is quite large, probably the reason why the RCN wants the a CG helo onboard at times in the Arctic other than the Cyclone. The simple fact the concept of operations calls of mixed usage on AOPS of helos leaves no room for a dedicated SAR Helo.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> The USN already contracts civilian helicopters to work off some of their vessels. The CCG helicopters and crews actually belong to Transport Canada, that fleet could be expanded and they provide similar services to the RCN.



Yes civilian helicopters on AOR's and such. Anythings possible but if we're not doing the same on Asterix, I doubt that will ever happen. It is expected the CCG will be flying off the AOPV while in the Arctic under the MOU.


----------



## Underway

The most important aspect that the Cyclones bring to the table is Recognized Maritime Picture.  If a Cyclone embarked on a AOPS found a submarine then they did their job.  Once you detect a submarine it loses the vast majority of its strategic advantages.  Only nuke boats can recover from that by sprinting away and that provides its own disadvantages.  As AOPS are patrol boats whos job is to build RMP then this would be excellent.

Other assets as required could be moved to deal with this newly found submarine, like the Aurora's.  Ships are part of the combat team.  I find quite a bit of the discussion here is regarding a ship operating alone in isolation. Ships work in teams, and you generally need more than one asset to track and kill a sub.  One needs to track/isolate the other needs to deliver the weapons.  Task groups generally use more than one helicopter to do this in the first place.  A single ship even with a helo against a submarine is fighting a technical overmatch most of the time.   It's like a single section against a sniper. You might be able to root one out but the full platoon will do it much more effectively with less casualties.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The Cyclone with it’s passive capability should be able to handle a one on one submarine engagement with ease (should the need arise).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If there's some ice coverage around, I would say good luck to that Cyclone.

Also, DH, if loaded with a couple of 46's, the Cyclone carries a lot smaller load out of "passive systems" than you, as an MLRPA can. The sub has a fair chance if the Cyclone is not supported by a second asset of some sorts.

MHO only here, as I have not had the chance of acquiring knowledge of the Cyclones capabilities (for obvious reasons - called retirement  ;D).


----------



## Good2Golf

AOPS was never intended to support an extension of the NSAR airborne primary response capability.  Nice to have, with any embarked aircraft as a secondary SAR capability? Sure.  But not something that was part of the primary requirements. Secondary/tertiary capabilities always seem simple enough after primary system are delivered, but the “why didn’t they think of X/Y/Z?” question(s) often were asked, and excluded as not feasible for any number of reasons including: policy, cost, schedule or technical.  Heck, even primary capability elements don’t always make the cut!  Ex. what kind of sensor would be really useful in a helicopter which had “find lost people” as a primary mission, but that wasn’t added due to Government-imposes budget restrictions? Hint: starts with “F” and rhymes with ‘orward-looking infrared.’  (For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability).  AOPS is another system that has as much capability as it could given all factors. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> AOPS was never intended to support an extension of the NSAR airborne primary response capability.  Nice to have, with any embarked aircraft as a secondary SAR capability? Sure.  But not something that was part of the primary requirements. Secondary/tertiary capabilities always seem simple enough after primary system are delivered, but the “why didn’t they think of X/Y/Z?” question(s) often were asked, and excluded as not feasible for any number of reasons including: policy, cost, schedule or technical.  Heck, even primary capability elements don’t always make the cut!  Ex. what kind of sensor would be really useful in a helicopter which had “find lost people” as a primary mission, but that wasn’t added due to Government-imposes budget restrictions? Hint: starts with “F” and rhymes with ‘orward-looking infrared.’  (For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability).  AOPS is another system that has as much capability as it could given all factors.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



(For 23 years, CH-149 Cormorant has not had an IR/thermal search capability)

Non-Sequitur - 23 years of service - suggests that the Cormorant is due for replacing - perhaps with the CH-148 Cyclone Block 2.1?   Then we could have a common fleet of 44 Medium Helicopters and be right back where we intended in 1993.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Had the RCN adopted the 149, the AOPs probably would have corresponding flight deck and hangar.  I’ve often wondered what a Hal would look like with a 149 ( like a Merlin) on the deck with 80 foot hangar.


----------



## Good2Golf

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Had the RCN adopted the 149, the AOPs probably would have corresponding flight deck and hangar.  I’ve often wondered what a Hal would look like with a 149 ( like a Merlin) on the deck with 80 foot hangar.



Since the HALs were originally designed for the EH-101/AW-101, and the hangars had only relatively minor mods, I figure the answer is “HALs would pretty much look like they do today.”  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Since the HALs were originally designed for the EH-101/AW-101, and the hangars had only relatively minor mods, I figure the answer is “HALs would pretty much look like they do today.”  :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



 :nod:

This is something people not associated with the Maritime Helicopter world forget, all the time:

Whether you are talking Sea King, Cyclone or Merlin, they all (more or less) foldup into the same sized volumetric box to fit into the hangar.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> The most important aspect that the Cyclones bring to the table is Recognized Maritime Picture.  If a Cyclone embarked on a AOPS found a submarine then they did their job.  Once you detect a submarine it loses the vast majority of its strategic advantages.  Only nuke boats can recover from that by sprinting away and that provides its own disadvantages.  As AOPS are patrol boats whos job is to build RMP then this would be excellent.
> 
> Other assets as required could be moved to deal with this newly found submarine, like the Aurora's.  Ships are part of the combat team.  I find quite a bit of the discussion here is regarding a ship operating alone in isolation. Ships work in teams, and you generally need more than one asset to track and kill a sub.  One needs to track/isolate the other needs to deliver the weapons.  Task groups generally use more than one helicopter to do this in the first place.  A single ship even with a helo against a submarine is fighting a technical overmatch most of the time.   It's like a single section against a sniper. You might be able to root one out but the full platoon will do it much more effectively with less casualties.



Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.



Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).



Isn't this something we practiced previously on one of the OP Nanooks, or Qimmiq's. Deployments of assets from the south including Cormorants and Auroras based out of Iqaluit. Isn't that something easily achievable during the ice free season in conjunction with the AOPV deployments?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Other than Goose Bay, how many are manned and equipped throughout the navigation season? From Goose Bay, it's a 1,000NM to the NW edge of Hudson Bay. 948NM to Cambridge Bay from Cold lake. None of the FOL's have muntion storage and don't appear to be manned fulltime according to the web. The RCAF can provide support, but it's not easy and would quickly suck up resources from every other task those airframes and crews do to maintain a 24/7 support. Plus there is weather at the site of the incident and enroute. For ships, I don't think the RCN has pushed into the Central Arctic for fear of ice entrapment and I don't think they have done the Western Arctic at all, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on those points.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Other than Goose Bay, how many are manned and equipped throughout the navigation season? From Goose Bay, it's a 1,000NM to the NW edge of Hudson Bay. 948NM to Cambridge Bay from Cold lake. None of the FOL's have muntion storage and don't appear to be manned fulltime according to the web. The RCAF can provide support, but it's not easy and would quickly suck up resources from every other task those airframes and crews do to maintain a 24/7 support. Plus there is weather at the site of the incident and enroute. For ships, I don't think the RCN has pushed into the Central Arctic for fear of ice entrapment and I don't think they have done the Western Arctic at all, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on those points.



The RCN has already operated up to 80N just shy of Hans Island and have operated in the Western Arctic up to Tuktoyaktuk, I would imagine AOPV will be operating further than that. With the RCN being set to enter the North in greater numbers it is only logical that air assets will operating there as well eventually in greater numbers based out of the above mentioned fields.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.



How long?  Depends, but it flies 20-50x faster than a CCGS, so a CCGS would have to be 20-50x closer to the AOPS to get there first....then do what?  Are CCGS constabulary-capable?  I thought this has been discussed before. AOPS is not another icebreaker to keep shoulder-season maritime traffic moving or tending buoys.  Pretty much aside from the Venn intersection of SAR, and some modest, shared oceanographic interest, where is the case for consolidated joint military and civilian operations?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The RCN has already operated up to 80N just shy of Hans Island and have operated in the Western Arctic up to Tuktoyaktuk, I would imagine AOPV will be operating further than that. With the RCN being set to enter the North in greater numbers it is only logical that air assets will operating there as well eventually in greater numbers based out of the above mentioned fields.



I was on the Pearkes, with the Radisson to help us making a dash for Pt Barrows heading home to Victoria, the ice sheet was moving east from Siberia, we had to punch through a bunch of one year ice and growlers to get through, another 4 hours and we would not have been able to get through the ice and would have had to run for the East Coast and come back through Panama. That same season the Nahidik got stuck near Tuk having to move forwards and back behind an island to keep the ice from binding her for a couple of weeks. The AOPs will be a great asset up North, but very often they will be on their own and the only government resource in the area. Very likley they will be involved in SAR calls that were handled by the locals and be the primary resource.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A little humour


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> Up in the Arctic the only support that an AOP's is going to be able to call upon for much of the time is a CCG ship. Yes an aircraft can be despatched from down south, but how long to get there and how long can you provide support for it? if you have an incident like a cruise ship in trouble or an incursion by "Chinese Tourists" that goes for days or a couple of weeks, supporting that incident with full time aircraft coverage is going to suck up a lot of resources.





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Even if supported from one of the RCAF's FOLs? (Yellowknife, Inuvit, Iqaluit, Kuujuaq, Rankin Inlet and/or Resolute).





			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Isn't this something we practiced previously on one of the OP Nanooks, or Qimmiq's. Deployments of assets from the south including Cormorants and Auroras based out of Iqaluit. Isn't that something easily achievable during the ice free season in conjunction with the AOPV deployments?



Late comment to this...

- 140's can launch out of either Comox or Greenwood, reach up north, and recover in Yellowknife or Iqaluit (I've done this type of trip a few times).  Unlike Hercs, 140's don't like unpaved runways (wings mounted low on fuselage, flap damage from gravel/rocks, etc).  

- If you launched from Yellowknife or Iqaluit, you'd be able to reach further and/or have a longer on station time (I've also done this type of trip).   Consider a 140 can take off out of Sicily and make it to eastern Canada (usually with a headwind) without stopping for gas; we've got pretty good legs.

- getting a single plane with aircrew and maintainers out the door can happen really quickly (we always go with maintainers if not recovering at Homeplate).  As Colin P suggested, if it becomes a sustained op (more so if there is a 24hr coverage requirement) it is going to increase the support / resources footprint quickly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Article saying that all 6 AOPS will be 'operational' by 2025.  

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-s-patrol-ships-to-be-operational-by-2025

Thought's if they'll make that time frame?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Article saying that all 6 AOPS will be 'operational' by 2025.
> 
> https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-s-patrol-ships-to-be-operational-by-2025
> 
> Thought's if they'll make that time frame?



Yes that was reported on another news source last week. I looked at the schedule and it should be no problem .


----------



## Swampbuggy

Irving tweeted out a pic of the Scanter Radar being installed on HMCS HARRY DEWOLF, yesterday. 

It had me wondering if it can/will be used as a fire control director for the Mk.38 in addition to its other duties? Or is the main gun to be autonomous from the radar set?


----------



## NavyShooter

My understanding is that the gun is manually directed.  

Think joystick.

Not slaved to any FCS.

NS


----------



## Swampbuggy

Interesting. I’m wondering how effective that would be against, say, drones without the accuracy of the radar set. I believe the gun itself has a track/lock feature but don’t know if it’s as efficient?


----------



## Stoker

I was down aboard HDW a little while ago and I must say what a nice ship, lots of room, they really thought out the layout. Sailors will be really pleased with the accommodations., while not Asterix worthy they are way better than the CPF's.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I was down aboard HDW a little while ago and I must say what a nice ship, lots of room, they really thought out the layout. Sailors will be really pleased with the accommodations., while not Asterix worthy they are way better than the CPF's.



Can you get any sense of how much (or little) roll the AOPS will have being just being down in the ship?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Can you get any sense of how much (or little) roll the AOPS will have being just being down in the ship?



That's almost impossible to predict. I was told  the characteristics of the ship is similar to a CPF.They do have hydraulic stabilization so the period of roll should be decent.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> That's almost impossible to predict. I was told  the characteristics of the ship is similar to a CPF.They do have hydraulic stabilization so the period of roll should be decent.



Glad to hear this, just don't want the same issue to occur as on the Hero class.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> That's almost impossible to predict. I was told  the characteristics of the ship is similar to a CPF.They do have hydraulic stabilization so the period of roll should be decent.



is this an accurate description of how it all works?  https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/ship-stabilizer/ship-fin-stabilizer/

How much of an impact does this have on fuel efficiency, range, etc if used extensively?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Any vessel built for ice is likely to roll more than one that is not, as mentioned there are ways to limit that effect.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Glad to hear this, just don't want the same issue to occur as on the Hero class.



Totally different situation, and AOPS is based on a proven design.


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> is this an accurate description of how it all works?  https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/ship-stabilizer/ship-fin-stabilizer/
> 
> How much of an impact does this have on fuel efficiency, range, etc if used extensively?



If used in heavy seas there should be better fuel/speed performance.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Totally different situation, and AOPS is based on a proven design.



So was the base design for the Hero Class and many other government ships that have been "Canadianized" and suffered stability issues.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> So was the base design for the Hero Class and many other government ships that have been "Canadianized" and suffered stability issues.



The stability characteristics for a 6600 GT vessel is a little different than a 253 GT vessel. Besides the RCN are sailors and do the job seasick or not. If we didn't we be called the Coast Guard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

op:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The stability characteristics for a 6600 GT vessel is a little different than a 253 GT vessel. Besides the RCN are sailors and do the job seasick or not. If we didn't we be called the Coast Guard.



Tell that to the Weather ships that had to have some of their fuel tanks filled with concrete to correct the ship stability. Icebreakers hulls generally don't have hard shines and bilge keeps making them more likely to roll. Now they may have improved that somewhat, but everything ship design comes at a cost.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Weather ships that had to have some of their fuel tanks filled with concrete to correct the ship stability. Icebreakers hulls generally don't have hard shines and bilge keeps making them more likely to roll. Now they may have improved that somewhat, but everything ship design comes at a cost.



Sure whatever man, you are certainly a glass half empty type of person. The ship has been thoroughly tested for stability problems and has the fin stabilizers as previously mentioned. I highly doubt we'll be filling anything with concrete anytime soon. I'll let you know when I go out for sea trials.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I seen and been on to many government ships that have stability issues not to be cynical. I really do hope they done it right this time.


----------



## OceanBonfire

Colin P said:
			
		

> yea!!!!



Slightly more video footage of the launch:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=658672677886502

https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1123651829152276482


----------



## Stoker

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> Slightly more video footage of the launch:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=658672677886502
> 
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1123651829152276482



I'm surprised it didn't capsize.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With enough correctly placed ballasts, miracles can happen 

Then again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TYQZd0HPs


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> With enough correctly placed ballasts, miracles can happen
> 
> Then again
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TYQZd0HPs



Thought that only happened to CCG ships


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stability issues and bad contracts that I am aware about:

Weather Ships
Torpedo recovery vessels
Class 500 cutters
Hero Class
Orca Class training vessels

Poor build quality
41' cutter- Cancelled after first vessel rejected, contract awarded to another shipyard
70' cutter- Contract for 7 vessels cancelled after the first two required significant rewelding
47' Lifeboat- Cancelled after first vessel rejected, contract awarded to another shipyard
Hero Class
35' landing barge, terrible design, terrible build quality.


----------



## Baz

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Thought that only happened to CCG ships



Which 280 was it that the top wanted to be farther from the jetty than the bottom?  Huron?


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Stability issues and bad contracts that I am aware about:
> 
> Weather Ships
> Torpedo recovery vessels
> Class 500 cutters
> Hero Class
> Orca Class training vessels
> 
> Poor build quality
> 41' cutter- Cancelled after first vessel rejected, contract awarded to another shipyard
> 70' cutter- Contract for 7 vessels cancelled after the first two required significant rewelding
> 47' Lifeboat- Cancelled after first vessel rejected, contract awarded to another shipyard
> Hero Class
> 35' landing barge, terrible design, terrible build quality.



Been on the ORCA and torpedo recovery boats, seem stable to me. I just find its amusing that you contend and compare the Hero Class and others to the Harry DeWolf Class when the HDW class has been extensively computer modeled and based on a proven design that haven't even been sea trialed yet. Will there be problems with this class? probably, just like any class that is built. Will the class be inherently unstable that sailors will be too sea sick to do their jobs or dangerous in any way?. I doubt it in my opinion.


----------



## Stoker

Baz said:
			
		

> Which 280 was it that the top wanted to be farther from the jetty than the bottom?  Huron?



That was HMCS Algonquin not a design issue but a poor execution of a inclining experiment. Built by MIL-Davie shipyards.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> That was HMCS Algonquin not a design issue but a poor execution of a inclining experiment. Built by MIL-Davie shipyards.



The 280s were great ships but had a lot of quirks after forty years of RCN mods and TRUMP. Too bad they limped out the way they did, but they lasted a full 20 years long than the design life.  The beauty of overdesigning philosophy from pre finite element analysis days, plus almost 20 years of baseline refits.

Can't see the frigates lasting that long unless we start treating them like 20+ year old hulls and giving them more love on pipe and steelwork outside of just the refits.  That can't happen unless they cut back on the ops tempo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Been on the ORCA and torpedo recovery boats, seem stable to me. I just find its amusing that you contend and compare the Hero Class and others to the Harry DeWolf Class when the HDW class has been extensively computer modeled and based on a proven design that haven't even been sea trialed yet. Will there be problems with this class? probably, just like any class that is built. Will the class be inherently unstable that sailors will be too sea sick to do their jobs or dangerous in any way?. I doubt it in my opinion.



The Orcas have a lot more top hamper on them than the hull was designed for, I been advised by people here that they have restrictions placed on them for that reason. The torpedo vessels had to have a bunch of work and stuff removed to correct the problem. The 500's had to have their upper monitors and serious diet program to make it liveable, not to mention Flume tanks, active rudders and bilge keels. The problem with any ship design is that the calculations that come out, are only as good as the quality of the inputs going in. Plus they have to ensure that the shipyard uses the specified material as per the design that the calculations were made with (part of the issue with the 500 class). I will drink a beer in your honour if everything goes right, but my faith in government designs is badly shaken. Oh yea forgot to mention the latest OPSV had to have mods made to it to correct potentiel stability issues and I suspect (thanks to some interesting rumours) the reason thinks went dark on the SV is because they found some critical stability issues in the design.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The ORCA class does have stability issues that limit the kind of wind and seas they can be out in.

That said, given that they are only driven around the Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia, it rarely becomes an issue.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The ORCA class does have stability issues that limit the kind of wind and seas they can be out in.
> 
> That said, given that they are only driven around the Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia, it rarely becomes an issue.



In fairness, is there a ship/boat that can't be swamped?


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The ORCA class does have stability issues that limit the kind of wind and seas they can be out in.
> 
> That said, given that they are only driven around the Gulf Islands and the Strait of Georgia, it rarely becomes an issue.



The intent of the ORCAS were for training not open ocean patrolling, they were modified for the training role. Any stability issues were known as they added weights and changed the superstructure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The intent of the ORCAS were for training not open ocean patrolling, they were modified for the training role. Any stability issues were known as they added weights and changed the superstructure.



Agreed. I was not implying that it was any kind of surprise when they were delivered. Just don't try and take them out to the West Coast Firing Area in November....


----------



## Lumber

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Agreed. I was not implying that it was any kind of surprise when they were delivered. Just don't try and take them out to the West Coast Firing Area in November....



There was a paper written on that... terrifying read.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Agreed. I was not implying that it was any kind of surprise when they were delivered. Just don't try and take them out to the West Coast Firing Area in November....



Any sailor looking at that boat could conclude that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Lumber said:
			
		

> There was a paper written on that... terrifying read.



No kinding- somebody actually tried that?

They are lucky they lived.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Minister Sajjan marks the start of construction for the fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 3, 2019 – Halifax (N.S.) – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> Another important milestone of the National Shipbuilding Strategy was reached today as the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, participated in a ceremony at Irving Shipbuilding highlighting the start of construction for the fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS), the future HMCS William Hall. This is the fourth of six such ships to be built at the Halifax Shipyard for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) as articulated in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged.
> 
> Security in the Arctic is complicated by the region’s geography and harsh climate. This new class of vessel was specifically designed to patrol Canada’s waters and northernmost regions. It will have the versatility to navigate abroad and contribute to international operations. The Harry DeWolf-class will significantly enhance the CAF’s capabilities and presence in the Arctic, better enabling the RCN to assert Arctic sovereignty for years to come.
> 
> Since the start of construction for the first AOPS in 2015, the project has progressed well. The first vessel is expected to join the RCN’s fleet this summer.
> 
> 
> *Quick facts*
> 
> - The AOPS project is part of Canada’s renewed focus on surveillance of Canadian territory, particularly our Arctic regions. As the security dynamics in the Arctic evolve due to such factors as climate change, we will continue to work to secure our northern air and maritime approaches, in coordination with our allies and partners.
> 
> - William Hall received the Victoria Cross in 1859 for heroism and support of the British Army during the relief of Lucknow (1857). Son of freed African-American slaves living in Nova Scotia, he is the first black person, first Nova Scotian, and third Canadian to have been awarded this honour.
> 
> - Four AOPS are now in production, with the construction of the fifth ship expected to begin later in 2019. AOPS 4 is expected to join the RCN fleet in 2022.
> 
> - The AOPS are highly versatile platforms that can be used on a variety of missions at home and abroad, such as coastal surveillance, search and rescue, drug interdiction, support to international partners, humanitarian aid, and disaster relief.
> 
> - Work is ongoing to complete the Nanisivik Naval Facility, which will support operations of the new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and other government maritime vessels. This new facility is expected to be complete later this year.



https://www.facebook.com/NationalDefenceGC/posts/368187373806417

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/05/minister-sajjan-marks-the-start-of-construction-for-the-fourth-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship.html


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stripping away the deck gun and the combat management system on an AOPS, how does one of these stack up against some of the CG’s ships in terms of ice breaking capability and such?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Yes, I’d be interested to know what role these ships would actually have in the Arctic as a CCG asset. How would they stack up against, say, a PIERRE RADISSON class icebreaker in terms of ice capabilities? I imagine they’d be useful as a response vessel should any civilian ship be in distress, but could they provide towing capability too? Just curious, not skeptical.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

From an icebreaking capability point of view, the Radisson and the AOPS are pretty well evenly matched.

BTW, neither can usefully tow a large merchant ship. Not all CCG vessels (in fact very few of them, actually) are fitted for rescue towing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Are you sure about the icebreaking capability? The Radisson Was about double the ice class of the 1100's as I recall? I think the AOPs are closer to the 1100's for ice class?


----------



## MarkOttawa

From gov't:



> ...
> The Harry DeWolf-class patrol ships will operate in the Arctic between June and October, providing a greater, and longer, CAF presence in the north. They will be capable of operating in first-year ice of 120-centimetre thickness. This will allow the Royal Canadian Navy to have unescorted access to areas of the Arctic that were previously inaccessible...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Stripping away the deck gun and the combat management system on an AOPS, how does one of these stack up against some of the CG’s ships in terms of ice breaking capability and such?



Why bother?  Why not just build the vessel exactly as is but without the weapons fit?  Then, in time of need, the vessel can be converted into an RCNR vessel and outfitted appropriately.

In the meantime I am sure the Bosn would find a use for any empty spaces on board that result from not carrying weapons and ammunition.  And given the small amount of both I can't see their lack having a material impact on stability.

As to employment - I could see them doing the same job as the Leonard J Cowley but operating further north and for more of the year.










> Name:	Leonard J. Cowley
> Namesake:	Len Cowley
> Operator:	Canadian Coast Guard
> Builder:	West Coast Manly Shipyards Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia
> Yard number:	590
> Launched:	November 1984
> Completed:	June 1985
> Commissioned:	1984
> Refit:	1996
> Homeport:	CCG Base St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
> Identification:	IMO number: 8320494
> Status:	Ship in active service
> 
> *General characteristics*
> 
> Type:	Fisheries patrol vessel
> Tonnage:
> 2,188 GT
> 655 NT
> Displacement:	2,080 long tons (2,110 t) full load
> Length:	72 m (236 ft 3 in)
> Beam:	14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
> Draught:	4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
> Installed power:
> 2 × Polar Nohab F312V geared diesels
> 3,160 kW (4,240 hp)
> Propulsion:	1 × controllable-pitch propeller
> *Speed:	15 knots (28 km/h)*
> Range:	10,000 nmi (19,000 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
> Endurance:	35 days
> *Complement:	19*
> Aircraft carried:	1 × light helicopter
> Aviation facilities:	Hangar and flight deck


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From gov't:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions

Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions

Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions

Sources = Wiki and 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From gov't:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



AOPS has a PC4 ice breaking bow and PC5 hull from what I have been told. It probably explains the extra cm in ice breaking.


----------



## Privateer

VT Halter Reveals New [U.S.] Coast Guard Icebreaker Details
May 8, 2019 by Mike Schuler 

Link: https://gcaptain.com/vt-halter-coast-guard-icebreaker-details/?fbclid=IwAR1Ul2_4cpvBMPbtJNamNF_OjfxOHnl78RJpIp_H_OqXrU4q6uTp3pbaGhw






Summary of ship:


> The vessels will be 460 feet in length with a beam of 88 feet overall, a food load displacement of approximately 33,000 long tons at delivery. Propulsion will be diesel electric with over 45,200 horse power for breaking ice between six to eight feet thick. The vessel will accomodate 186 personnel with an extended endurance of 90 days.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> AOPS has a PC4 ice breaking bow and PC5 hull from what I have been told. It probably explains the extra cm in ice breaking.



Discerning ice class and making comparisons to other ships in other classes appears to be a black art. Not to mention the differences from river to ocean icebreakers. 

Privateer
That is closer to our Polar 8 or the Louie St Laurent.


----------



## Swampbuggy

If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?



I can't see why, the whole reason for the extra two AOPV's is for the CCG which is desperately needing ships.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?



I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class. 

15 CSC
12 River-like 
6 AOPS
2 JSS
1/2 Asterix
4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully we can make some more AOPs for New Zealand or perhaps Chile?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I can't see why, the whole reason for the extra two AOPV's is for the CCG which is desperately needing ships.



I thought the whole reason was to keep Irving in the black? 

Point taken about the pressing needs of the CCG, though. I suppose they’ll outfit them with some sort of laboratory space etc...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class.
> 
> 15 CSC
> 12 River-like
> 6 AOPS
> 2 JSS
> 1/2 Asterix
> 4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats



I like the GOWIND 1000 as a replacement for the MCDV. It’s got helo ability, room for a VLS, reasonably quick and also weighs in around 1000t so could be built by any shipyard (Davie) without being in contravention of the NSS parameters.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully we can make some more AOPs for New Zealand or perhaps Chile?



We’ve recently been working closely with/on the Navies and their vessels from both countries, so that would make a nice fit.


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I thought the whole reason was to keep Irving in the black?
> 
> Point taken about the pressing needs of the CCG, though. I suppose they’ll outfit them with some sort of laboratory space etc...



Thats what I have been hearing, most of the ship will be the same but some spaces reconfigured for CG needs.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class.
> 
> 15 CSC
> 12 River-like
> 6 AOPS
> 2 JSS
> 1/2 Asterix
> 4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats



So you want to replace the MCDV's with a ship that has no mine warfare capability, no capability to embark containerized payloads and the capability to embark helos that we don't have in our inventory. Aren't you the one who posts about worries of not  having enough helos for the AOPV?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> So you want to replace the MCDV's with a ship that has no mine warfare capability, no capability to embark containerized payloads and the capability to embark helos that we don't have in our inventory. Aren't you the one who posts about worries of not  having enough helos for the AOPV?



LOL- you got me Chief!

From an RCAF perspective, I'd add another 15 helo's.  There is no doubt that we can use them. 

Regarding the mine warfare capabilities, how much of this do the Kingston's actually do right now? I haven't read a single article within the last 12 months of them doing an exercise on wine warfare.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that me being the 'joe public' isn't aware of a large percentage of what the RCN is actually doing on a daily basis, but at the same time, the RCN does a decent job of getting out the good news stories when they happen.

So, reduce the 12 River class down to 8/9 and add another 8/9 mine warfare ships (why not combine this role with the role that the Orca's now perform?).  The River class also, I believe, require less crew than a Kingston does.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm just hopeful that the following ships after the HDW have straight shaftline installations....I heard the other day that the prop shaft couldn't be installed on the first go until they did some extra cutting and welding...it's a good thing paint can cover any mistakes.

Standard high quality work from the yard that produces excellent, on time, on budget ships for the RCN...


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> LOL- you got me Chief!
> 
> From an RCAF perspective, I'd add another 15 helo's.  There is no doubt that we can use them.
> 
> Regarding the mine warfare capabilities, how much of this do the Kingston's actually do right now? I haven't read a single article within the last 12 months of them doing an exercise on wine warfare.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that me being the 'joe public' isn't aware of a large percentage of what the RCN is actually doing on a daily basis, but at the same time, the RCN does a decent job of getting out the good news stories when they happen.
> 
> So, reduce the 12 River class down to 8/9 and add another 8/9 mine warfare ships (why not combine this role with the role that the Orca's now perform?).  The River class also, I believe, require less crew than a Kingston does.



Currently I am posted to a high readiness mine warfare unit so yes we conduct mine warfare, in fact just before Christmas two units were deployed to Europe doing exactly that. The ORCAS are not suited for anything but training officers. The crewing for a Kingston Class can be reduced significantly due to specific mission.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> So you want to replace the MCDV's with a ship that has no mine warfare capability, no capability to embark containerized payloads and the capability to embark helos that we don't have in our inventory. Aren't you the one who posts about worries of not  having enough helos for the AOPV?



According to this article, some of the River class do have containerized payload capability.

The working deck of HMS Tyne is sufficiently large to transport a number of smaller craft, wheeled or tracked light vehicles, or an LCVP landing craft.

The working deck can accommodate up to seven containers, enabling the ship to carry additional stores, workshops, mine countermeasure support containers, a diving recompression container or medical facilities. A heavy crane of 25t capacity is fitted to handle standard containers.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> According to this article, some of the River class do have containerized payload capability.
> 
> The working deck of HMS Tyne is sufficiently large to transport a number of smaller craft, wheeled or tracked light vehicles, or an LCVP landing craft.
> 
> The working deck can accommodate up to seven containers, enabling the ship to carry additional stores, workshops, mine countermeasure support containers, a diving recompression container or medical facilities. A heavy crane of 25t capacity is fitted to handle standard containers.



You can place containers on any flight deck and call it a capability, its not the same as embarking a containerized payload that require specific voltage, connections, freeboard etc. MCM support containers is not the same as embarking actual launchable mine warfare gear, not to mention route survey, ROV and so forth. Do the River Class have degausing gear? Does it have a ice rating? Does it have a maneuverable Z drive system?

I know you are a civilian with very simplistic ideas about replacing one class with another and expect that class to do everything, it doesn't really work like that in real life. As far as I know no immediate plans to procure ships like the river class and no immediate plans to replace the Kingston Class. I fully expect some Kingston Class to be placed in reserve within the next five years however I don't see the class being replaced entirely for at least 10 years or more. Cheap ships when they were bought, cheap ships to operate and incredibly useful.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> LOL- you got me Chief!
> 
> From an RCAF perspective, I'd add another 15 helo's.  There is no doubt that we can use them.
> 
> Regarding the mine warfare capabilities, how much of this do the Kingston's actually do right now? I haven't read a single article within the last 12 months of them doing an exercise on wine warfare.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that me being the 'joe public' isn't aware of a large percentage of what the RCN is actually doing on a daily basis, but at the same time, the RCN does a decent job of getting out the good news stories when they happen.
> 
> So, reduce the 12 River class down to 8/9 and add another 8/9 mine warfare ships (why not combine this role with the role that the Orca's now perform?).  The River class also, I believe, require less crew than a Kingston does.



I have heard recently that the West coast has some mine hunting kits for them and some sweeps for the East Coast.

It wouldn't be that hard to convert ships to run specific voltage and connections. Civilian ships get converted to different configs all the time, mind you they don't have to go through PWGC to let the contract and won't go back to a contractor that messes it up.

by the way I see that Irving is asking the government to buy more AOP's , but for the CCG to fill a work void.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have heard recently that the West coast has some mine hunting kits for them and some sweeps for the East Coast.
> 
> It wouldn't be that hard to convert ships to run specific voltage and connections. Civilian ships get converted to different configs all the time, mind you they don't have to go through PWGC to let the contract and won't go back to a contractor that messes it up.
> 
> by the way I see that Irving is asking the government to buy more AOP's , but for the CCG to fill a work void.



Mine-sweeping gear is long gone, what the ships are using now is a AUV for mine hunting and side scan sonar.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I have heard recently that the West coast has some mine hunting kits for them and some sweeps for the East Coast.
> 
> It wouldn't be that hard to convert ships to run specific voltage and connections. Civilian ships get converted to different configs all the time, mind you they don't have to go through PWGC to let the contract and won't go back to a contractor that messes it up.
> 
> by the way I see that Irving is asking the government to buy more AOP's , but for the CCG to fill a work void.



On the plus side,  if this is any predictor of future behaviour, Irving getting the CSC contract may be the best indicator yet that the RCN will get all 15 hulls (and maybe a couple more).


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this post on idea of two extra Irving A/OPS for CCG, https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1571024.html#msg1571024 , as far as I can see this is far more ship than CCG needs for its patrol role, and how much use might A/OPS be as icebreaker off east coast and in St. Lawrence (where there are serious needs for commercial shipping)? 



> Ice-capable Canadian Coast Guard ships could be both ‘a blessing and a curse’: expert
> 
> If reports that federal officials are considering equipping the Canadian Coast Guard with two ice-capable patrol ships are true, it could be both a blessing and a curse, says a Canadian expert on maritime strategy.
> 
> On the one hand, these new patrol ships would allow the coast guard to operate in greater areas along Canada’s coastline throughout longer periods of the year, said Timothy Choi, a maritime strategy expert at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies.
> 
> On the other hand, it might make it harder for coast guard officials to press the cash-strapped federal government for real icebreakers, he added.
> 
> Earlier this week, Postmedia reported that federal officials are setting the stage to award Irving Shipbuilding contracts to build two more Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)...
> 
> The two additional ships for the coast guard would help Irving’s Halifax shipyard avoid layoffs during a production gap while it retools to begin construction of the next generation of Canadian warships and allow the Liberal government to head into the federal election in October claiming it was delivering on its promise to rebuild the coast guard, the report said...
> 
> Whether the AOPS are a good match for the coast guard, however, depends on what they are expected to do, he added.
> 
> 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.
> 
> While much of the coverage of the Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet tends to focus on its icebreakers, a significant portion of its major vessels are used for offshore patrol duties, he said.
> 
> However, work on replacements for the coast guard’s 1970s-vintage offshore patrol ships such as the CCGS Cape Roger, which played a key role in the “Turbot Wars” off Newfoundland in 1995, hasn’t even started.
> 
> Vancouver-based shipyard Seaspan has won the contract to build large non-combat vessels for the coast guard and non-combat support ships for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN).
> 
> Under the current production schedule, Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards have to first complete the two Joint Support Ships for the navy, as well as the Diefenbaker polar icebreaker, the two of the three remaining Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (the first of three, CCGS Sir John Franklin, was launched in 2017 and is undergoing sea trials) and the Offshore Oceanographic Research Vessel for the coast guard before they move on to building new offshore patrol vessels.
> 
> _“As a result, the first of the new CCG offshore patrol vessels would not likely enter service until the late 2020s if they are contracted at all [I'd bet on 2030s] – 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.”_
> 
> However, one of the biggest disadvantages of getting the AOPS is that having two ice-capable patrol ships might make it harder for the Canadian Coast Guard to justify getting new, dedicated icebreakers, Choi said.
> 
> “Being ice-capable is not the same thing as being an icebreaker, as they come with very different hull and machinery requirements: whereas the former suffices to get the ship itself through ice, the latter requires the ship to be able to break ice to the extent necessary to allow other, less well-protected, ships to transit,” Choi said.
> 
> This distinction may be lost on lawmakers and politicians, he added...
> https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=64037.1800;last_msg=1571313



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kratz

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Mine-sweeping gear is long gone, what the ships are using now is a AUV for mine hunting and side scan sonar.



Interesting shift for the role of MCDVs. 
Mine-sweeping and route-survey capabilities are retained, with a modern update.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Currently I am posted to a high readiness mine warfare unit so yes we conduct mine warfare, in fact just before Christmas two units were deployed to Europe doing exactly that.



Operational missions, not training/exercise ones?


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Operational missions, not training/exercise ones?



I just got posted in, I know Summerside was part of standing NATO mine sweeping fleet when they were over there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Copy, thanks.  Like most people, I know very little about the Kingston class deployments (outside of the CARIBBE piece).


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Copy, thanks.  Like most people, I know very little about the Kingston class deployments (outside of the CARIBBE piece).



They're definitely doing a lot more with deploying to Europe and annual African deployments. Last year saw them operate off Iceland which is a first.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> They're definitely doing a lot more with deploying to Europe and annual African deployments. Last year saw them operate off Iceland which is a first.



Did they make a port visit in Iceland? That would be an awesome place for a young person to visit.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Did they make a port visit in Iceland? That would be an awesome place for a young person to visit.



Yes the ship did, I was part of Sea Training at the time and a wonderful 5 nights there in a nice hotel. Got to see to whole island. After that we operated with the Danish navy and traveled inland through Greenland's fjords. Unbelievable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Mine-sweeping gear is long gone, what the ships are using now is a AUV for mine hunting and side scan sonar.



Interesting the person who told me is a CPO 2 out here and he was specific to mine hunting on the West Coast and Sweeping on the East? Perhaps "sweeping " is how they refer to side scan sonar usage?


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting the person who told me is a CPO 2 out here and he was specific to mine hunting on the West Coast and Sweeping on the East? Perhaps "sweeping " is how they refer to side scan sonar usage?



Both coasts are using side scan and have been using it for many years and both coasts are using AUVs. As far as I know sweeping means using sweep gear. The CPO2 is probably mistaken in his terminology.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes the ship did, I was part of Sea Training at the time and a wonderful 5 nights there in a nice hotel. Got to see to whole island. After that we operated with the Danish navy and traveled inland through Greenland's fjords. Unbelievable.



Thats great, Im happy to hear that. ! I keep telling any of my students if they want to join the CAF, join RCN. One of the young guys deployed to Africa last year on an MCDV, now he wants to go reg force. Cheers!


----------



## dapaterson

Canadian Coast Guard to get two AOPS to keep Irving from firing their workforce in gap between AOPS and CSC builds.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/05/21/federal-government-to-buy-two-more-arctic-ships-from-irving-to-prevent-layoffs-2/#.XOS4ichKi73


----------



## YZT580

Question for those who know ships.  Are the AOPS of sufficient strength to manage the ice on the great lakes and St. Lawrence down through to the gulf?


----------



## dapaterson

So a few off the cuff thoughts:

* How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.

*  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?

* Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Which of those thoughts will secure the most seats in the October election? As everyone knows, ships have nothing to do with the coast guard or the navy.


----------



## Kirkhill

And then there is this:



> Even then, federal bureaucrats and Irving both warned more would need to be done as even with those measures, *there was still the threat of an 18- to 24-month gap* between construction of the two fleets.



There is another billion or two opportunity.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I’m not against building the ships, originally it was planned for a build of  6-8, and I’m pretty sure the RCN would have preferred less AOPs trading off for more of pretty much anything else. For example, building 8 ships and transferring 2-4 to the CCG, and maybe taking some shipyard time to get the JSS built. 
It’s the sneakiness of it all.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So a few off the cuff thoughts:
> 
> * How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.
> 
> *  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?
> 
> * Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?



Can't answer those questions. 
But is there any question now on the power of Irvings over the Liberal cabinet?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And then there is this:
> 
> There is another billion or two opportunity.



How is that even possible?
The latest article on the 6 AOPS states that the fleet with all be operational by 2025 - 6 yrs out to get 6 ships built and turned over to the RCN. Add another 2 AOPS (minus some work related to weaponry and C&C) and those ships will come online when? 2028? How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?  Are they saying that the CSC programme won't cut steel until 2029 at the earliest - 10yrs out from now?  If that's the case its going to be near impossible to build 15 CSC's with the 60$ billion all-in money already allocated.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So a few off the cuff thoughts:
> 
> * How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.
> 
> *  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?
> 
> * Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?



Since his Serene Highness is in BC at a RCN facility today to make the announcement, I'm going to go out on a limb and make the suggestion that His Highness announces a 3rd JSS for Seaspan.  There will still be no word on the Dief and its timelines as His Highness won't want to announce any funding of a ship named after a Conservative PM with the election being less than 6 months away.  Ultimately I see Davie getting the Dief to be built and it comes in bigger in size (and cost) than originally thought.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> How is that even possible?
> The latest article on the 6 AOPS states that the fleet with all be operational by 2025 - 6 yrs out to get 6 ships built and turned over to the RCN. Add another 2 AOPS (minus some work related to weaponry and C&C) and those ships will come online when? 2028? How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?  Are they saying that the CSC programme won't cut steel until 2029 at the earliest - 10yrs out from now?  If that's the case its going to be near impossible to build 15 CSC's with the 60$ billion all-in money already allocated.



Built, turned over and operational are different stages of getting a ship accepted.  HDW is currently _built_.  After builders trials she will be _turned over_ to the RCN this summer (those two steps overlap a bit, as they can do engine trials while outfitting comms for example).  She'll be _operational_ when all of her sea trials are done for all the things she's been designed for.  Despite this fact she might actually be _on operations_ before then.  There needs to a shoot of the gun, helo ops sorted out (which could take months itself with all the wind tests, land and take off, finding different sea states, weather...), turning circles recorded, full shakedown of the crew to figure out how the ship works, replenishment as sea (assuming this is a thing) done, use all the boats for various tasks, sail in different sea states, test the stabilizers, test the bow thrusters, use all the cranes for various tasks, etc...  The builders may have turned her over but the RCN doesn't consider a ship operational until we figure out how she works first!

When the RCN got HMCS Halifax she was known as the Jetty Queen.  It wasn't until the 4-5th CPF was in the water that her issues as first of class were sorted out and she was finally operational.  First of class takes a long time because there is only one ship to do all of the things listed above.  When the Margaret Brooke comes out her acceptance trials will be faster...   I would also expect that the first two ships may be alongside to fix issues at some point.  A fire main problem or a pump replacement, or new wiring for some such equipment, fixed plumbing for the heads in #3 mess etc...  This extends their acceptance to "fully operational" status.

So don't be too distracted by the timeline.  The ships will probably be doing operations before they are fully operational, as you can do SAR zone work without having all of your equipment trialed or tested, as long as you meet Safe At Sea requirements for example.

As an aside JT really needs to call his new BFF Jacinda down in NZ with a sales pitch.  They have an ice capable OPV on their defence policy for a while.  Sell one to them cheap to offset costs for keeping our shipyard running.  I expect however they will just go to Korea and get an COTS OPV that costs nickels to our dollar.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?



There's a wording issue with that article.  The 18-24 month gap is referring to the problem after the 6th ship was bought.  I read a separate article from Global and that was made clear.  That matches timelines much better, as it takes about  9-12 months to build an AOPV.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> There's a wording issue with that article.  The 18-24 month gap is referring to the problem after the 6th ship was bought.  I read a separate article from Global and that was made clear.  That matches timelines much better, as it takes about  9-12 months to build an AOPV.



I certainly hope you're right.


----------



## Lumber

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I certainly hope you're right.



I'm still hearing rumors of 1st steel cut for CSC in 2030... so... yea...


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I’m not against building the ships, originally it was planned for a build of  6-8, and I’m pretty sure the RCN would have preferred less AOPs trading off for more of pretty much anything else. For example, building 8 ships and transferring 2-4 to the CCG, and maybe taking some shipyard time to get the JSS built.
> It’s the sneakiness of it all.



100% agreement.  Especially on the sneakiness of it all.  

Wouldn't it be nice if something approximating a plan, any plan, could be delivered?


----------



## JMCanada

Someone proposed in this forum to use that gap (or future ones) to build new generation MCDVs, myself proposed two oceanic tug & rescue vessels (in line with under-production USN Navajo class). What worries me most is that within 3-4 years sight, by the time the 7th AOPS would start to be built, the shipbuilding industry the NSS is attaining is not capable to produce new (different) vessels. Not even a mk.2 AOPS? 

Not even flexible enough as to share some work load from the west coast, at a reasonable trade off, like giving Seaspan to do some parts of the future CSC. 

In an ever changing world, NSS is missing (IMHO) the flexibility to deal with key production issues as timeline gaps and changing the "production line" from one platform into another.

With this in mind I wonder if Irving would be capable to produce any variant out of the CSC, meaning an AAW or a C&C variants ... if required, and what would be the delay cost if doing so.


----------



## dapaterson

https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

"To support future shipbuilding needs and attract more talent and good jobs to our communities, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS. The Government of Canada will move forward with a competitive process to select the third shipyard in the coming months."


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet
> 
> "To support future shipbuilding needs and attract more talent and good jobs to our communities, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS. The Government of Canada will move forward with a competitive process to select the third shipyard in the coming months."



Gee, wonder who that would be?


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> Gee, wonder who that would be?



http://langfordcanoe.com/canoes/classic-wood/


----------



## Dale Denton

Looking at a CCG AOPS, seems logical they should have some. I don't know much about the current CCG ships, but wouldn't these be a big step-up in capability for the CCG?


----------



## JMCanada

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html#s18

Official NSS web already updated. ☺

Seems to have moved from 
5 future Offshore Patrol Vessels (for the CCG), and
5 future Medium-Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels (for the CCG).

to... 
2 AOPs (built at Irving), plus
"up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels" (Seaspan).
  
 "These vessels will:
form the backbone of the Coast Guard large fleet throughout Canada and enable multiple mission deliveries such as:
 * being capable of icebreaking in moderate ice conditions and assist shipping and spring time flood control in the St. Lawrence waterway and Great Lakes region
 * providing offshore support for search and rescue, emergency response, and security and protection missions
 * maintaining Canada’s marine navigation system composed of approximately 17,000 aids to navigation".

Edited: 
Seems like 3rd player will be given the maintenance/retrofit part and/or the "new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities", (from the PM's note) which is not (yet?) updated on the NSS web.


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Gee, wonder who that would be?



Finally - acknowledgment that the shear number of ships that are either clapped out, about to be clapped out or have already clapped out far exceeds the ability of the 2 existing NSS shipyards ability to ever replace them has occurred.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I was pondering this the other day:

If the ability to build our own ships is considered a strategic requirement and the ships being built are all government vessels, why has the government not simply bought ISS, Seaspan and Davie and created a private corporation equivalent to Naval Group in France where the Government of Canada maintains a controlling interest.

It certainly seems stupid to me to have three different companies in Canada fighting over our shipbuilding contracts which are pretty insignificant in comparison to other countries.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good story at Global News, whole thing seems to have been terribly rushed for election purposes and not thought out--with new Seaspan vessels to be delivered in some 2030s never never land:



> Trudeau pledges billions for new coast guard fleet but mum on how he plans to circumvent delays
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pledging billions of dollars towards revamping the fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> But when it comes to how that plan will actually work, the proposal may raise more questions than answers about whether it can overcome the consistent delays that have plagued the National Shipbuilding Strategy since its start, and some shipyard sources are already raising concerns about how long the plan will take.
> 
> In a press conference on Wednesday, Trudeau announced the government will spend $15.7 billion to order 18 new ships for the coast guard: two of those will be additional Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships from Irving Shipyard in Halifax while the other 16 will be multi-purpose vessels from Seaspan in Vancouver.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Strategy was launched by the former Conservative government as a means to stabilize the boom-bust cycle of shipbuilding in Canada.
> 
> The work allocated under the program has seen repeated delays from both Irving and Seaspan, though, prompting reporters to ask Trudeau how the government expects the shipyards to get the additional work done and what kind of time frame they will be facing.
> 
> Trudeau refused to answer, saying only that he is confident in the skills of the people who work in the shipyards.
> 
> “I have tremendous confidence in the men and women who work in our shipyards across the country and their capacity to deliver the excellent ships that our coast guard needs and, quite frankly, that Canadians need,” he said.
> 
> Federal officials also provided conflicting answers on how the timeline will work: for example, will the newly ordered ships go to the back of the line of commissioned work, or will they jump the queue?
> 
> One government official said it will be up to the shipyards themselves to determine how they can best tackle the workloads.
> 
> Another said time frames will be sorted out later.
> 
> READ MORE: Quebec’s Davie shipyard in line for contract to build 2 ferries
> 
> “Delivery dates for the new vessels will be identified as the project gets underway,” said Ashley Michnowski, press secretary to Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough.
> 
> She also declined to provide specific details about how long it will take to allow a third shipyard to qualify for work under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Trudeau had also announced that a third firm will be allowed to go through a competitive process to qualify.
> 
> But there is only one other Canadian shipyard: Chantier Davie in Levis, Que.
> 
> That raises questions about why the firm would need to go through a competition if there is no one else for it to be competing against.
> 
> “The government of Canada is committed to ensuring a fair and transparent process to add a third Canadian shipyard as a strategic source of supply to the National Shipbuilding Strategy,” Michnowski wrote in an email. “Details about this process will be released in the coming weeks.”
> 
> _One source in the shipbuilding industry told Global News it’s not only officials who appear to still be trying to figure out the details.
> 
> Chantier Davie, who Trudeau acknowledged in his press conference could find “opportunity” in the proposal, apparently had no advance knowledge it would be allowed to move through a new competitive process to try to get more shipbuilding work_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The individual noted that while the renewal is welcome news, “there’s still gaping holes” in the plan around the timeline for the competitive process and when Irving and Seaspan will be expected to get the additional work done on top of the existing work they have on their plates.
> 
> Fred Boisvert, vice president of communications for Chantier Davie, also said the news is welcome but acknowledged while the firm has few details, it is confident.
> 
> “The third shipyard that they keep alluding to — there’s no one else but Davie,” he said.
> 
> “We just need to make sure this novel intention is being followed up by concrete action and that is having Davie helping the two other shipyards get their commitments delivered on time and on budget because for the last seven years, unfortunately, that hasn’t happened.”
> 
> Boisvert said he wants to see the competitive process wrapped up quickly given there is no other firm in a position to compete.
> 
> Under the terms of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, Irving is expected to do the bulk of the work building combat ships.
> 
> Seaspan, on the other hand, is expected to focus on smaller research vessels and the permanent replacement for the navy’s supply ships.
> 
> Talks between the government and Davie are slated to start tomorrow.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5302516/justin-trudea-canadian-coast-guard-renewal/



The FUBAR and hideously expensive lunacy of insisting on building in Canada.

Remember in 2013 the Conservatives promised Seaspan to build up to 5 Offshore Patrol Vessels and up to 5 Medium-Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels--will the former become part of the up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels for Seaspan now, with the latter going the Davie as the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ships?

Posts from 2013:



> Canadian Coast Guard Shocker – Ten (maybe) New Serious Vessels
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/mark-collins-canadian-coast-guard-shocker-ten-maybe-new-serious-vessels/
> 
> Just Announced New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Overpriced by Factor of Five
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/mark-collin-just-announced-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-overpriced-by-factor-of-five/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66

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.


----------



## Sub_Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "To support future shipbuilding needs and attract more talent and good jobs to our communities, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS. The Government of Canada will move forward with a competitive process to select the third shipyard in the coming months."



Just in time for the election.  

Billions for new coast guard ships no one bats an eye.  Billions for a new fighter jet and everyone loses their mind.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dolphin_Hunter:



> Billions for new coast guard ships no one bats an eye.  Billions for a new fighter jet and everyone loses their mind.



Basically because all parties support shipbuilding in Canada, regardless of ridiculous costs and endless delays, and because CCG is not politically controversial--unlike frequently CAF--so media pay little attention and know very little.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm still hearing rumors of 1st steel cut for CSC in 2030... so... yea...



So an in service date of apx 2035??? That would be almost 20 years without an AAW component in the Navy. That cannot be allowed to happen. There had better be a plan B for that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> So an in service date of apx 2035??? That would be almost 20 years without an AAW component in the Navy. That cannot be allowed to happen. There had better be a plan B for that.



Haha welcome to the new CAF, where a LAV Company in Latvia is now called a "Battlegroup" and a frigate with ESSM is an AAW capable warship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note: CSC had initial project approval in 2012 (gov still saying first delivery mid-2020s, impossible https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/departmental-plans/departmental-plan-2019-20-index/supplementary-information-index/report-crown-projects.html#CSC ) and Type 26 selected in Oct. 2018 ( https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/canada-chooses-bae-type-26-for-next-generation-warships )--so, after extra two A/OPS for CCG, will be close to 18 years until first ship in water. FUBAR shipbuilding.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NavyShooter

This brings me back to a post I made in December.


https://army.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1555804.html#msg1555804



> CSC will be cancelled due to the delays, court-cases, and excessive costs (not including any space for overruns)
> GOC will contract with ISI to instead build an additional 15 modified AOPS
> AOPS design will be modified for last 15 ships to include the new SG-180 upgrade that we just bought for the Halifax class, a slightly upgraded OPS room with a better DLPS (Digital Link) system and an improved armament suite to include a 40mm or 57mm deck gun (preferably 57mm with no ammo hoist - you get the 120 rounds in the mount then have to manually reload) and a set of triple Torp Tubes on each side.  For ASW, they'd add the ability to mount a containerized ASW towed array system.
> 
> Presto.  We have a simplified fleet of 21 ships - all of the same type.  It lets them throw a bunch of money at LM as a 'sympathy' response for losing the CSC to enable the redesign of the OPS room and tie in the SG-180.
> 
> From the perspective of the RCN - horrible loss of capability.
> From the perspective of the GOC - we get the same number of ships, but a lot less cost
> From the perspective of the Public - they don't know what we do anyhow, so it's a win win.




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


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> So an in service date of apx 2035??? That would be almost 20 years without an AAW component in the Navy. That cannot be allowed to happen. There had better be a plan B for that.



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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They likley start on modules that won't change from the Type 26, such as bow, double bottom keel components, allowing them to say "started".


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this post,
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1572468.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!!!



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



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Swampbuggy

GR66 said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

All the OSFV are well underway and the first JSS is started.


----------



## Cloud Cover

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> This brings me back to a post I made in December.
> 
> 
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1555804.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.


----------



## MilEME09

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.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 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..


----------



## Czech_pivo

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.


----------



## FSTO

Can we give all the AOPS to the CCG?


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Can we give all the AOPS to the CCG?



Have the CCG run them and the RCMP the armament.


----------



## YZT580

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Journeyman

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ….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.


----------



## Czech_pivo

YZT580 said:
			
		

> 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'.


----------



## Underway

Journeyman said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> ... 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.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Underway

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:



> 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.



> 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.





> ...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.  



> 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.



> 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.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet from Finnish icebreaker-design firm:



> 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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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....


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## MarkOttawa

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


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to this post,
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1572544.html#msg1572544

other icebreakers that might go to Davie?



> 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


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

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



That is actually the thought that entered my mind: There as been no mention whatsoever of the replacement of the CCG icebreaker fleet. The Multi-Task vessels are considered light icebreakers - they can give an extra hand, especially in spring lighter ice that has already partially melted and is starting to break on its own, but they cannot do the heavy River and Arctic lifting required during the coldest part of the season. For that last part, the Coast Guard needs its six actual icebreakers  (Seven with Captain Molly Kool?).

The icebreakers - not mentioned - go from 32 years old for the Henry Larsen to 50 for the Louis-St-Laurent, with three of them (the Type 1200) basically at 40.

So the lack of mention is either indicative of the Liberal intending to go with the three interim icebreakers being updated at Davie as permanent replacement of the Type 1200, the Diefenbaker replacing the Louis and the Terry-Fox and Henry-Larsen going on for an odd 20 more years ...

Or, the real idea is to "select"* Davie as the third NSS yard, after a "rigorous" selection process and then announce that it will get the icebreakers.

P.S.: That would certainly be a smart move, IMHO, as building actual icebreakers is a more specialized form of shipbuilding and it makes sense to concentrate it at a single specialist yard.


*: Magically!


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 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.



That sounds about right though 3 yards at a ship a year each gives you 90 ships over 30 years, then start over. Might be some ongoing issues for the first 30 year cycle but if the government stays the course we should end up with a logical progression plan. History suggests that wont happen but I can hope.

The costing has never made any sense on this program partly due to funding yard modernization, but mostly since the government seems to have given away its negotiating leverage. Perhaps going forward it would be wiser for the yards to have to actually submit/compete among each other for the work. Probably the only comparable on ship construction would come from South Korea as it seems that every other national endeavor seems to have subsidies buried in there somewhere.

Lots of questions and concerns about the NSS but more about the execution than the premise.

Hopefully these next two AOPS don't cost more than the sixth one? Usually it is claimed that shipbuilding cost go down over longer production runs
Meanwhile Seaspan is building the AOR without a contract in place! 
Does a 2:6 ratio of AOPS for the CCG:RCN even make sense? 
To me they should almost be reversed. Correct me if I am wrong but does not the CCG only have 6 ships with a greater Ice Class than the AOPS?

Years ago I was told by Minister O'Connor that it would be impossible for the ship construction assignments to be switched between Irving and Seaspan due to the commitments already made and that the ship yard modernization completed prohibited the ability of Irving for example building the AOR's. I did not believe it then and I do not today, but most of what i know about ships I have learned from this site.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I had mentioned the pricing of the 2 AOPS CCG ships previously.  Here is the article that discusses prices.

https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/irving-to-build-two-more-arctic-patrol-ships-in-halifax-314621/

Irving to build two more Arctic patrol ships in Halifax
$1.5-billion purchase to offset production gap


----------



## suffolkowner

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I had mentioned the pricing of the 2 AOPS CCG ships previously.  Here is the article that discusses prices.
> 
> https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/irving-to-build-two-more-arctic-patrol-ships-in-halifax-314621/
> 
> Irving to build two more Arctic patrol ships in Halifax
> $1.5-billion purchase to offset production gap



I took that as more of a guestimate as it is a crazy number. We were told the sixth ship cost twice as much because the government was paying for the slowed down production. What is the excuse for the 7th and 8th ship?

Ships 1-5  $460 per
Ship 6       $810 or $518 per
Ships 7-8  $750 or $576 per

I have read in the past in regards to ship costing from USN that you basically flatten out at 9 platforms, nowhere have I seen an explanation for the cost to increase as production maturity is reached. If this is true then there is obviously no incentive for either Irving or Seaspan to even try to be competitive.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I took that as more of a guestimate as it is a crazy number.


Numbers seven and eight are not _Harry DeWolf_s.  They are modified _Harry DeWolf_s.  And, as such, they will cost extra for re-design work and government program management.  I suspect, however, that the vast majority of the extra cost is a—nudge nudge wink wink—subsidy for Irving to help them prepare for the surface combatants.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> That sounds about right though 3 yards at a ship a year each gives you 90 ships over 30 years, then start over. Might be some ongoing issues for the first 30 year cycle but if the government stays the course we should end up with a logical progression plan. History suggests that wont happen but I can hope.
> 
> The costing has never made any sense on this program partly due to funding yard modernization, but mostly since the government seems to have given away its negotiating leverage. Perhaps going forward it would be wiser for the yards to have to actually submit/compete among each other for the work. Probably the only comparable on ship construction would come from South Korea as it seems that every other national endeavor seems to have subsidies buried in there somewhere.
> 
> Lots of questions and concerns about the NSS but more about the execution than the premise.
> 
> Hopefully these next two AOPS don't cost more than the sixth one? Usually it is claimed that shipbuilding cost go down over longer production runs
> Meanwhile Seaspan is building the AOR without a contract in place!
> Does a 2:6 ratio of AOPS for the CCG:RCN even make sense?
> To me they should almost be reversed. Correct me if I am wrong but does not the CCG only have 6 ships with a greater Ice Class than the AOPS?
> 
> Years ago I was told by Minister O'Connor that it would be impossible for the ship construction assignments to be switched between Irving and Seaspan due to the commitments already made and that the ship yard modernization completed prohibited the ability of Irving for example building the AOR's. I did not believe it then and I do not today, but most of what i know about ships I have learned from this site.



Ice classes are confusing and in a previous post I did it appears the AOPS are rated less than the current 1100 class  (Black, Pearkes) which are the current multi-task ships. The Multi task ships have a dual hook 10 ton crane, fast rescue boat, deep hold with between decks for storing buoys, chains, anchors and other stores, plus a hanger for a helicopter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Suffolkowner: To repeat:



> 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.
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/64037/post-1572562.html#msg1572562



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Shocked I tell you, shocked that no groundwork has been done.......

He is trying to buy us with our money.


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ice classes are confusing and in a previous post I did it appears the AOPS are rated less than the current 1100 class  (Black, Pearkes) which are the current multi-task ships. The Multi task ships have a dual hook 10 ton crane, fast rescue boat, deep hold with between decks for storing buoys, chains, anchors and other stores, plus a hanger for a helicopter.



The Canadian government has a weird way of ice classing ships, based on zones of the Canadian arctic/periods of entry.

The AOPS are PC5, but they're billing it as "PC5+".

The short description of PC5 is first year ice, which arguably puts them at about the same as the 1100 class ice breakers, which only operate solo in first year ice.

It's got to be a purely political decision, the AOPS are a foolish buy for the coast guard.

They're not really suitable to replace any of the multi-role ice breakers, they'd be limited in what they can do in other roles the only ships I can see them being suitable to to replace are the Cygnus and the Cape Roger, but but neither are ice breakers or have any ice breaker tasking, so it's a lot of hull/power you don't need, plus ice breaker hulls typically make terrible sea boats, both the cygnus and the cape roger regularly find themselves in severe weather on a grand banks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions

Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions

Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions

Sources = Wiki and 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.


----------



## chrisf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions
> 
> Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions
> 
> Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions
> 
> Sources = Wiki and
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class
> 
> http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf
> 
> Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.



The 1100 class ships were designed as Arctic 2, however early in their life in was found they were/are not suitable for arctic operations after suffering damage in ice conditions they were classed for.

Presently they are only operated in seasonal/first year ice... one of the goals of the future life extension project is to bring the weaker portions of the hull *up* to a PC5 standard.

Assuming the AOPS meets their design specifications, they should be roughly equivilent to the 1100 class ships.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think the PC5+ is because the bow is PC4 and the hull is PC5

The numbers all around don't make a lot of sense. Mark I was just using the construction costs not the so called design cost etc.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think the PC5+ is because the bow is PC4 and the hull is PC5
> 
> The numbers all around don't make a lot of sense. Mark I was just using the construction costs not the so called design cost etc.



Something like that.  The engineers who were working on the project did a presentation for one of my courses.  Told us that they strengthened specific parts (mainly front end) of the ship beyond PC5 "just in case".  Helps with ice inclusions apparently and will also help the new CO's as they learn a bit more about how to recognize ice strength etc...  They made us (jokingly) promise to never tell the watchkeepers this information.

Wiki is off on this particular ship, but that's ok.  For all intents and purposes they are PC5.


----------



## Underway

Underway said:
			
		

> Something like that.  The engineers who were working on the project did a presentation for one of my courses.  Told us that they strengthened specific parts (mainly front end) of the ship beyond PC5 "just in case".  Helps with ice inclusions apparently and will also help the new CO's as they learn a bit more about how to recognize ice strength etc...  They made us (jokingly) promise to never tell the watchkeepers this information.
> 
> Wiki is off on this particular ship, but that's ok.  For all intents and purposes they are PC5.



Some info I learned today as the project moves forward:

-PC4 icebreaking bow and stern.  PC5 everywhere else.

-Ship is designed to break ice "for other ships" like a proper icebreaker, however the RCN will not be doing this except for _*our own assets in extremis*_.  The RCN is very aware of our lack of institutional knowledge in this aspect.  This ties into better Coast Guard usage for the last two built.

-Ship is designed to implement a rocking motion from side to side to about a 10 degree list in order to shake itself free of ice

-The Bull Sub onboard Harry DeWolf has been (un)officially christened "The Wolf Cub"  (love it when new traditions start) instead of the Bull Sub

-looks like the HDW will be turned over to the navy in Oct.  She's going into drydock shortly to fix those welds that were spoken about before, and repaint the bottom of the hull as she's losing antifouling paint

-Wardroom is the largest mess, which as a wardroom member is mildly embarrassing. I assume this is by design as the wardroom may be expected to host all the events that are normally held in the hangar/flight deck, as well as host all the civilians that are expected to ride with AOPV on its various OGD missions.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Some info I learned today as the project moves forward:
> 
> -PC4 icebreaking bow and stern.  PC5 everywhere else.
> 
> -Ship is designed to break ice "for other ships" like a proper icebreaker, however the RCN will not be doing this except for _*our own assets in extremis*_.  The RCN is very aware of our lack of institutional knowledge in this aspect.  This ties into better Coast Guard usage for the last two built.
> 
> -Ship is designed to implement a rocking motion from side to side to about a 10 degree list in order to shake itself free of ice
> 
> -The Bull Sub onboard Harry DeWolf has been (un)officially christened "The Wolf Cub"  (love it when new traditions start) instead of the Bull Sub
> 
> -looks like the HDW will be turned over to the navy in Oct.  She's going into drydock shortly to fix those welds that were spoken about before, and repaint the bottom of the hull as she's losing antifouling paint
> 
> -Wardroom is the largest mess, which as a wardroom member is mildly embarrassing. I assume this is by design as the wardroom may be expected to host all the events that are normally held in the hangar/flight deck, as well as host all the civilians that are expected to ride with AOPV on its various OGD missions.



Good to hear. The heeling motion is from heeling tanks that push large amounts of water from side to side quickly to create the rocking motion. HMCS Labrador had a similar system.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From May 15th 3rd AOPs now has all keel blocks laid


----------



## Cloud Cover

Those ships look like monsters  What are the final tonnages?


----------



## Uzlu

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> What are the final tonnages?





> Each vessel will have a length of 97m, beam of 19m, draught of 5.7m and a displacement of 5,800t.


https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harry-dewolf-class-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-aops/


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Those ships look like monsters  What are the final tonnages?



They look fat. Chipmunks with faces full of seeds or a pregnant guppy are images that come to mind when I look at them.  Function of those icebreaking lines.
Approx 6600 short tons full load last I heard. (which interestingly enough is close to 5800 long tons listed by Uzlu)


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good article talking about the Russians plans for the Arctic and about the size of the nuclear ships that they'll be using to assert their sovereignty.  Completely dwarfs our attempts.  

"At 183 meters long, the Ural is the largest icebreaker in the world — but even larger ones are already in the planning stages."......"the Ural is powered by two nuclear reactors that won't need to be refuelled for almost seven years, giving the ship almost unlimited endurance."

  https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/putin-arctic


----------



## Gorgo

Any pictures of _Margaret Brooke_ on the fitting out blocks yet?


----------



## MTShaw

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Good article talking about the Russians plans for the Arctic and about the size of the nuclear ships that they'll be using to assert their sovereignty.  Completely dwarfs our attempts.
> 
> "At 183 meters long, the Ural is the largest icebreaker in the world — but even larger ones are already in the planning stages."......"the Ural is powered by two nuclear reactors that won't need to be refuelled for almost seven years, giving the ship almost unlimited endurance."
> 
> https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/putin-arctic



Russia’s ability to build any ships at all is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Any pictures of _Margaret Brooke_ on the fitting out blocks yet?



I believe this is her


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Some info I learned today as the project moves forward:
> 
> -The Bull Sub onboard Harry DeWolf has been (un)officially christened "The Wolf Cub"  (love it when new traditions start) instead of the Bull Sub



What is a Bull Sub?



> -Wardroom is the largest mess, which as a wardroom member is mildly embarrassing. I assume this is by design as the wardroom may be expected to host all the events that are normally held in the hangar/flight deck, as well as host all the civilians that are expected to ride with AOPV on its various OGD missions.



What are the messes for Jnr/Snr rates like?  

HDW is the only one in the water right now correct?


----------



## Pelorus

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is a Bull Sub?



An unofficial position (although codified to varying extents in different Wardroom mess constitutions) held by a Sub-Lieutenant on board. Typically a senior NWO SLt, although some ships open up the position to engineering and log.

From a mess perspective, they help the SLt cadre speak as a unified group (with numbers that can sway many mess votes) and act as a liaison between the SLts and the other parties in the Wardroom. They typically also have control over a "Bull Sub Chit", which is a standing authority to spend a predetermined amount of mess funds per month for social events or the like (in reality often tightly controlled by the XO).

From a divisional perspective, if the Bull Sub is a senior NWO SLt they will often act as the Navigating Officer's 2IC/Adjutant/Enforcer/etc. to assign taskings, compile admin for the division, etc. In a FG ship with 10-15 NWO SLts it becomes an important role to allow the NavO to have time to complete their non-divisional duties.


----------



## Good2Golf

boot12 said:
			
		

> An unofficial position (although codified to varying extents in different Wardroom mess constitutions) held by a Sub-Lieutenant on board. Typically a senior NWO SLt, although some ships open up the position to engineering and log.
> 
> From a mess perspective, they help the SLt cadre speak as a unified group (with numbers that can sway many mess votes) and act as a liaison between the SLts and the other parties in the Wardroom. They typically also have control over a "Bull Sub Chit", which is a standing authority to spend a predetermined amount of mess funds per month for social events or the like (in reality often tightly controlled by the XO).
> 
> From a divisional perspective, if the Bull Sub is a senior NWO SLt they will often act as the Navigating Officer's 2IC/Adjutant/Enforcer/etc. to assign taskings, compile admin for the division, etc. In a FG ship with 10-15 NWO SLts it becomes an important role to allow the NavO to have time to complete their non-divisional duties.



I saw an SLt once with what looked like ‘antler’ over his 1-1/2 stripe on his NCD slip-ons, is that a visible identifier of the Bull Sub?


----------



## Pelorus

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I saw an SLt once with what looked like ‘antler’ over his 1-1/2 stripe on his NCD slip-ons, is that a visible identifier of the Bull Sub?



Likely yes. A number of Wardrooms in the past have voted in $10-20 of mess funds at some point or another to get stylized slip-ons with bull horns embroidered over the Executive Curl, which get handed down from one bull-sub to another.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

boot12 said:
			
		

> An unofficial position (although codified to varying extents in different Wardroom mess constitutions) held by a Sub-Lieutenant on board. Typically a senior NWO SLt, although some ships open up the position to engineering and log.
> 
> From a mess perspective, they help the SLt cadre speak as a unified group (with numbers that can sway many mess votes) and act as a liaison between the SLts and the other parties in the Wardroom. They typically also have control over a "Bull Sub Chit", which is a standing authority to spend a predetermined amount of mess funds per month for social events or the like (in reality often tightly controlled by the XO).
> 
> From a divisional perspective, if the Bull Sub is a senior NWO SLt they will often act as the Navigating Officer's 2IC/Adjutant/Enforcer/etc. to assign taskings, compile admin for the division, etc. In a FG ship with 10-15 NWO SLts it becomes an important role to allow the NavO to have time to complete their non-divisional duties.



So, my WAG that it was some kind of...loud air horn...was way off mark.   8)  Thanks for the info!


----------



## Good2Golf

boot12 said:
			
		

> Likely yes. A number of Wardrooms in the past have voted in $10-20 of mess funds at some point or another to get stylized slip-ons with bull horns embroidered over the Executive Curl, which get handed down from one bull-sub to another.



Thanks.

It definitely looked more like a caribou antler, but it was STJ, so maybe the ‘bull’ is a bull caribou in remembrance of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment’s battle and terrible losses at Beaumont Hamel?


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> It definitely looked more like a caribou antler, but it was STJ, so maybe the ‘bull’ is a bull caribou in remembrance of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment’s battle and terrible losses at Beaumont Hamel?



Longhorn steer horns are common.  Full bull heads like the red bull logo has been sighted as well.  I suspect the STJ might have been antlers in honour of "Lucky" the moose, who's head presides over all wardroom events from his perch on the bulkhead.


----------



## Underway

Underway said:
			
		

> Longhorn steer horns are common.  Full bull heads like the red bull logo has been sighted as well.  I suspect the STJ might have been antlers in honour of "Lucky" the moose, who's head presides over all wardroom events from his perch on the bulkhead.


So in the interests of accuracy "Lucky" is not a moose, as I was having a wet on STJ yesterday and realized that he was an elk/caribou, my mammal IDing skills apparently are weak (or perhaps its my memory).  So yes GtG was correct!


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> So in the interests of accuracy "Lucky" is not a moose, as I was having a wet on STJ yesterday and realized that he was an elk/caribou, my mammal IDing skills apparently are weak (or perhaps its my memory).  So yes GtG was correct!



Whew!  I figured I had watched enough ‘Rocky and Bullwinkle’ as a kid that the antlers we’re less Bullwinkle, and more tails of a Canadian quarter. ;D

Thanks for the update, UW!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually the AOPs are getting the 35mm, might as well make them common to the fleet. MCDV, AOPS, CSC and JSS could all have them. Buy some training ones on wheeled trailer, you could have some light AA and training guns that could be taken to all the naval Reserve units and even strapped to the back of a CCG ship if needed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually the AOPs are getting the 35mm, might as well make them common to the fleet. MCDV, AOPS, CSC and JSS could all have them. Buy some training ones on wheeled trailer, you could have some light AA and training guns that could be taken to all the naval Reserve units and even strapped to the back of a CCG ship if needed.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster



The M242 is 25mm, not 35mm.  Wiki for AOPS says it'll be outfitted with the Mk38 Mod 2 (M242 on a naval mounting).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeWolf-class_offshore_patrol_vessel#Armament


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The M242 is 25mm, not 35mm.  Wiki for AOPS says it'll be outfitted with the Mk38 Mod 2 (M242 on a naval mounting).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeWolf-class_offshore_patrol_vessel#Armament



Sorry you are right, although it's depressing that we are basically going back to a fancy 20mm Oerlikon for a frigate displacement vessel.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sorry you are right, although it's depressing that we are basically going back to a fancy 20mm Oerlikon for a frigate displacement vessel.



I see what you did there referencing displacement vice role. :nod:

By ‘displacement math’, JSS should have 4 to 5 x 5”...

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> By ‘displacement math’, JSS should have 4 to 5 x 5”...



I see no problem with this.    :nod:

But considering that our Canadian Patrol Frigates are double the displacement of a typical WWII-era destroyer, and that even small modern-day warships can pack a punch (e.g. Russian corvettes carrying Kalibr cruise missiles), displacement isn't the best factor to judge amount of needed armament anymore.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Armament selection for the AOPS/MCDV has everything to do about the budget and not about the potentiel need.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Armament selection for the AOPS/MCDV has everything to do about the budget and not about the potentiel need.



I disagree.


----------



## Spencer100

Russians think different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23550_patrol_ship

Very similar to the AOPS, Look and size. But with weapons.  Even SS missiles. 

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan-papanin-project-23550-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/

I can you tell the real reason the AOPS are "under" armed is so that the politicians and PPSC did not say look navy "you got new ships with pointy guns and missiles.  Why do you need very expensive frigates thingys?"  So I think that is the real reason.  Navy to Ottawa says "Looky here no pointy things" Not a warship!  We need a real warship."  

and

Also the AOPS were forced on the Navy by Harper who wanted "Armed Icebreakers."  So we end up with AOPS a light ice breaker with a little gun.  After the price tag was given on large armed icebreakers. So they can break some ice and are "armed" Good Job all round.  And wait there's more Irving you build them. Jobs for east coast.  

So in the end it was all about the budget.

Now I don't want to be negative. Navy and Gov will use these ships well for a long time.  I believe they will serve Canada well.  I also believe they in the end some or all six of the navy's AOPS will be transferred the CCG after sometime.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Russians think different.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23550_patrol_ship
> 
> Very similar to the AOPS, Look and size. But with weapons.  Even SS missiles.
> 
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan-papanin-project-23550-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/
> 
> I can you tell the real reason the AOPS are "under" armed is so that the politicians and PPSC did not say look navy "you got new ships with pointy guns and missiles.  Why do you need very expensive frigates thingys?"  So I think that is the real reason.  Navy to Ottawa says "Looky here no pointy things" Not a warship!  We need a real warship."
> 
> and
> 
> Also the AOPS were forced on the Navy by Harper who wanted "Armed Icebreakers."  So we end up with AOPS a light ice breaker with a little gun.  After the price tag was given on large armed icebreakers. So they can break some ice and are "armed" Good Job all round.  And wait there's more Irving you build them. Jobs for east coast.
> 
> So in the end it was all about the budget.
> 
> Now I don't want to be negative. Navy and Gov will use these ships well for a long time.  I believe they will serve Canada well.  I also believe they in the end some or all six of the navy's AOPS will be transferred the CCG after sometime.



The Russians load weapons on anything that moves.  Look at their warships vice NATO ones.


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Russians think different.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23550_patrol_ship
> 
> Very similar to the AOPS, Look and size. But with weapons.  Even SS missiles.
> 
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan-papanin-project-23550-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/
> 
> I can you tell the real reason the AOPS are "under" armed is so that the politicians and PPSC did not say look navy "you got new ships with pointy guns and missiles.  Why do you need very expensive frigates thingys?"  So I think that is the real reason.  Navy to Ottawa says "Looky here no pointy things" Not a warship!  We need a real warship."
> 
> and
> 
> Also the AOPS were forced on the Navy by Harper who wanted "Armed Icebreakers."  So we end up with AOPS a light ice breaker with a little gun.  After the price tag was given on large armed icebreakers. So they can break some ice and are "armed" Good Job all round.  And wait there's more Irving you build them. Jobs for east coast.
> 
> So in the end it was all about the budget.
> 
> Now I don't want to be negative. Navy and Gov will use these ships well for a long time.  I believe they will serve Canada well.  I also believe they in the end some or all six of the navy's AOPS will be transferred the CCG after sometime.



The Russians can't afford to build those ships just yet.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/03/russian-navys-arctic-patrol-vessels-suffer-delays-3-4-years


We could of easily armed these ships using the 76mm from the 280's, lots of shells and expertise but simply there was no need. The versatility of these ships will keep these platforms RCN for a long, long time.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> The need will likely come far faster than we can rearm the ships. The one thing Canada does very well is to fail at correctly predicting the military needs and likely conflicts. Hell even the Brits with their experience and resources failed to prepare for the Falklands, Had the Arges waited a bit long the RN would have had even less resources.



Seeing the Chinese and Russians under your bed again Colin?


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> At the risk of misremembering history, the French knew for a fact that Germany was going to invade again and there are only so many ways to do it by land - hence the Maginot Line.
> 
> We all know how that turned out.



Some people are so fixated on what the APOV has or not have for armament, that they forget its not a CPF and totally discount what it can actually do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't discount what it can do, I just think it's incredibly stupid and short sighted not to give it some minimally competent armament and protection systems. I hope you are right and I am wrong, but judging by history, we will be sending these vessels into harms way, because we have nothing else at the time, place, moment.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't discount what it can do, I just think it's incredibly stupid and short sighted not to give it some minimally competent armament and protection systems. I hope you are right and I am wrong, but judging by history, we will be sending these vessels into harms way, because we have nothing else at the time, place, moment.



That's great and you are entitled to think that way, other people with experience with these type of things think otherwise. I know to you a remotely operated 25mm, .50 Cals, small arms and potentially an armed helo doesn't cut it with you but talking to the sailors that actually are going to sail in this class don't seem to mind.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I’d rather a far more capable ELINT/ESM suite than more/bigger/better weapons. The ship is not fast enough to scrap with another warship or aircraft, but it’s got the makings of a good surveillance platform with some good endurance stats. Some fleet wide thickness in passive self defence systems might be in the near future, and that would be a good + useful thing as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> That's great and you are entitled to think that way, other people with experience with these type of things think otherwise. I know to you a remotely operated 25mm, .50 Cals, small arms and potentially an armed helo doesn't cut it with you but talking to the sailors that actually are going to sail in this class don't seem to mind.



You mean like the Senior Officer that said publicly that we only need 1 AOR? I swear the CF suffers from abused spouse syndrome and will go to great lengths to justify inadequate measures put forward by their abusers.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> You mean like the Senior Officer that said publicly that we only need 1 AOR? I swear the CF suffers from abused spouse syndrome and will go to great lengths to justify inadequate measures put forward by their abusers.



I believe that senior officer said we need one interim AOR temporary and not a second interim as we currently have an interim AOR covering things off until the two JSS is built. I also believe the MND said the something to that effect.

On a separate note using something like abused spouse syndrome even as a joke to try and make your argument is pretty questionable : Yes everyone in the RCN is not as smart or as informed as you, you know best.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The AOPS doesn't really excite me all that much either Colin.  

Why?

"It's just not a warship" 

I'm sure it will be used but it's not a warship.  I'll sail on one if told to but do we really need six-eight of these vessels?

CSC excites me, new AORs excite me, Submarines excite me, new capabilities like a land attack/strike capability excite me, Cyclones excite me.  

AOPS and MCDV are kind of like the TAPVs of the sea.  Sad when the Armoured Corps primary vehicle has less punching power than the Infantry.


----------



## MARS

The constabulary nature of what the AOPS are designed for has long been a discussion point in the RCN and on these boards.  E.R Campbell has often opined eloquently about whether these could and should be tasks of the RCMP, CCG, etc and the policy issues that complicate those proposals along with the strain that they currently impose on the small RCN fleets.  

The lack of excitement is particular acute in the RegF who are less accustomed (not unaccustomed, just less so than (former) NAVRES MCDV sailors like myself for whom these unexciting tasks have been our bread and butter for a generation or more.

SOVPATS, FISHPATS, SARPATS (less the execution an actual SAR response) are pretty unexciting, mundane stuff...that still needs to be done...by someone....today. The RCN is currently as well suited as any OGD to do them, by and large.  Nothing is as sexy as actual warfighting, but that doesn't make the other stuff unimportant. It simply makes it an often boring necessity. Is a requirement to conduct these types tasks eroding our ability to conduct warfighting at sea?  I guess that would be the important question and one that I do not personally have an answer to.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The AOPS doesn't really excite me all that much either Colin.
> 
> Why?
> 
> "It's just not a warship"
> 
> I'm sure it will be used but it's not a warship.  I'll sail on one if told to but do we really need six-eight of these vessels?
> 
> CSC excites me, new AORs excite me, Submarines excite me, new capabilities like a land attack/strike capability excite me, Cyclones excite me.
> 
> AOPS and MCDV are kind of like the TAPVs of the sea.  Sad when the Armoured Corps primary vehicle has less punching power than the Infantry.



If you’re the only ship that can access remote areas for the purpose of defending Canadian sovereignty, and have at least a couple of pistols on board, then you’re probably a war ship


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MARS said:
			
		

> The constabulary nature of what the AOPS are designed for has long been a discussion point in the RCN and on these boards.  E.R Campbell has often opined eloquently about whether these could and should be tasks of the RCMP, CCG, etc and the policy issues that complicate those proposals along with the strain that they currently impose on the small RCN fleets.
> 
> The lack of excitement is particular acute in the RegF who are less accustomed (not unaccustomed, just less so than (former) NAVRES MCDV sailors like myself for whom these unexciting tasks have been our bread and butter for a generation or more.
> 
> SOVPATS, FISHPATS, SARPATS (less the execution an actual SAR response) are pretty unexciting, mundane stuff...that still needs to be done...by someone....today. The RCN is currently as well suited as any OGD to do them, by and large.  Nothing is as sexy as actual warfighting, but that doesn't make the other stuff unimportant. It simply makes it an often boring necessity. Is a requirement to conduct these types tasks eroding our ability to conduct warfighting at sea?  I guess that would be the important question and one that I do not personally have an answer to.



It's a good point and I am not trying to denigrate the work sailors on MCDVs or anyone else does, I guess I'm echoing E.R. Campbell's point on why exactly the Navy is doing this?

My worry is this becomes the new norm and we see further erosion of the actual fighting fleet.  We are a warfighting organization, not a constabulary.  Who knows how many CSCs we will actually get, whether we will have submarines at all in ten years or whether we will even have AORs.  The government hasn't cut a contract yet on anything have they?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't discount what it can do, I just think it's incredibly stupid and short sighted not to give it some minimally competent armament and protection systems. I hope you are right and I am wrong, but judging by history, we will be sending these vessels into harms way, because we have nothing else at the time, place, moment.



Lets be honest; if there was an actual shooting match in the Artic, it's probably subs doing it, and can't see how you could reconcile any competent sub hunting capabilities with basic icebreaking.  It's built with commercial rules and has no real weapons, so won't be seen as a target, and should be capable for the types of artic ops we need it to do.  Building them as warships and arming them would have massively increased the cost, and probably would have resulted in getting only two or three of a ship that isn't actually good at anything.

You need all kinds of tools in the tool box, and as long as people keep in mind that this is a non-combatant and employ it as such, not a big deal. It frees up the warships to stick to warship things, and if there is a specific threat, there are probably far more effective ways to deal with them than turn the AOPs into the equivalent of those 70+ piece multitools that are generally useless for anything other than a bottle opener.


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's a good point and I am not trying to denigrate the work sailors on MCDVs or anyone else does, I guess I'm echoing E.R. Campbell's point on why exactly the Navy is doing this?
> 
> My worry is this becomes the new norm and we see further erosion of the actual fighting fleet.  We are a warfighting organization, not a constabulary.  Who knows how many CSCs we will actually get, whether we will have submarines at all in ten years or whether we will even have AORs.  The government hasn't cut a contract yet on anything have they?



We are what the government of Canada and the RCN tells us we are. We can certainly be a war fighting organization and we can be a constabulary force as well. It seems to work for other countries, why not us. Your statement on how many CSC's, JSS and submarines we may or may not have in the future is not based on any facts whatsoever. I firmly believe we will have 15 CSC and 2 JSS.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> We are what the government of Canada and the RCN tells us we are. We can certainly be a war fighting organization and we can be a constabulary force as well. It seems to work for other countries, why not us. Your statement on how many CSC's, JSS and submarines we may or may not have in the future is not based on any facts whatsoever. I firmly believe we will have 15 CSC and 2 JSS.



Until the money is committed and the contract is signed, we won't know.  We were supposed to have a Nuclear Submarine Force in the 1980s, what happened to that?  We were supposed to receive a Big Honking Ship in the mid 2000s and the CAF even created the Standing Contingency Force (SCF) to generate a Rapid Reaction Maritime capability, there are stickers on lockers at FDU(P) for the SCF and a certain Officer I used to work for was the CO of the SCF, what happened to that?  I do not believe we will receive 15 CSC, I think we will be lucky to receive 10.  If we do build any more than that, they will most likely be for other Navies i.e. Chile/NZ.  Like you though, I believe the AORs will be built.   

I agree with the rest of what you say, particularly that we are whatever the GoC tells us we are.  

Edit:  I'll add that the JSS originally started as more than a simple AOR and was supposed to be modelled similarly to the Dutch Rotterdam Class, It's come back to reality and is merely a simple AOR now.


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Until the money is committed and the contract is signed, we won't know.  We were supposed to have a Nuclear Submarine Force in the 1980s, what happened to that?  We were supposed to receive a Big Honking Ship in the mid 2000s and the CAF even created the Standing Contingency Force (SCF) to generate a Rapid Reaction Maritime capability, there are stickers on lockers at FDU(P) for the SCF and a certain Officer I used to work for was the CO of the SCF, what happened to that?  I do not believe we will receive 15 CSC, I think we will be lucky to receive 10.  If we do build any more than that, they will most likely be for other Navies i.e. Chile/NZ.  Like you though, I believe the AORs will be built.
> 
> I agree with the rest of what you say, particularly that we are whatever the GoC tells us we are.
> 
> Edit:  I'll add that the JSS originally started as more than a simple AOR and was supposed to be modelled similarly to the Dutch Rotterdam Class, It's come back to reality and is merely a simple AOR now.



The AOR's will be built from the simple fact all the big ticket purchases, engines, combat systems, RAS gear etc are ordered and the fact they are currently building them. If I had a dime for everyone who said AOPS would never be built or we will only be getting 5. I am confident we will be getting 15 CSC.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The AOR's will be built from the simple fact all the big ticket purchases, engines, combat systems, RAS gear etc are ordered and the fact they are currently building them. If I had a dime for everyone who said AOPS would never be built or we will only be getting 5. I am confident we will be getting 15 CSC.



Where did you read that the big ticket purchases have been ordered?  Seaspan has started cutting steel on the first one but nothing else has been done.  My understanding is it will just be certain steel pieces of the ship and no systems, etc itself.

This jives with the project page and the timeline, see here:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html

Project timeline:



> 4. Implementation
> •Steel cut for first full ship: 2019
> •Project approval implementation: spring 2020
> •Contract award: spring 2020
> •Steel cut for second ship: 2022 (under review)
> •Launch of the first ship: 2022
> •First delivery: 2023
> •Initial operational capability: 2024
> •Final delivery: 2024 (under review)
> •Full operational capability: 2024 (under review)



So contract only to be awarded next year.  How are we purchasing combat systems, engines, etc without a contract?  Secondly the worrying thing for me with the AOR.  I note that anything to do with the second ship is "under review".  Here is an alternative COA:

1st JSS gets built, second one gets scrapped due to skyrocketing costs/pressures on OGD shipbuilding requirements i.e. OFSV & Icebreakers for Coast Guard.  Government of Canada chooses instead to buy Asterix from FFS which will serve as our second AOR because after all, we don't need any more than two AORs according to the GoC.


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Where did you read that the big ticket purchases have been ordered?  Seaspan has started cutting steel on the first one but nothing else has been done.  My understanding is it will just be certain steel pieces of the ship and no systems, etc itself.
> 
> This jives with the project page and the timeline, see here:
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html
> 
> Project timeline:
> 
> So contract only to be awarded next year.  How are we purchasing combat systems, engines, etc without a contract?  Secondly the worrying thing for me with the AOR.  I note that anything to do with the second ship is "under review".  Here is an alternative COA:
> 
> 1st JSS gets built, second one gets scrapped due to skyrocketing costs/pressures on OGD shipbuilding requirements i.e. OFSV & Icebreakers for Coast Guard.  Government of Canada chooses instead to buy Asterix from FFS which will serve as our second AOR because after all, we don't need any more than two AORs according to the GoC.




http://www.professionalmariner.com/Web-Bulletin-2019/MAN-to-provide-engines-for-Canadas-new-joint-support-ships-JSS/

https://www.seaspan.com/major-contract-awarded-work-joint-support-ships

https://www.seaspan.com/ontario-company-provide-steel-joint-support-ships

https://www.seaspan.com/major-contract-joint-support-ships-announced


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> http://www.professionalmariner.com/Web-Bulletin-2019/MAN-to-provide-engines-for-Canadas-new-joint-support-ships-JSS/
> 
> https://www.seaspan.com/major-contract-awarded-work-joint-support-ships
> 
> https://www.seaspan.com/ontario-company-provide-steel-joint-support-ships
> 
> https://www.seaspan.com/major-contract-joint-support-ships-announced



Thanks for the links, it could potentially support my COA I highlighted above though, particularly this bit:



> Under this contract MAN will provide propulsion and power generation components for the JSS. This will include two MAN 12V32/44CR (common rail) propulsion engines equipped with environmental protection SCR technology, reduction gears, propulsion shafts, propellers, ship service diesel generator sets, and an emergency diesel generator set. Work on these components will take place in Europe at MAN’s established manufacturing facilities. Work taking place in Canada will include MAN providing the integration for these systems, training, testing, and support during the harbor acceptance trials and the sea acceptance trials.



The Berlin Class has two engines, we have ordered two engines.  That's enough parts for one ship, not two.  I fully believe we will receive the first AOR but I see no guarantee that we will receive a second ship.


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links, it could potentially support my COA I highlighted above though, particularly this bit:
> 
> The Berlin Class has two engines, we have ordered two engines.  That's enough parts for one ship, not two.  I fully believe we will receive the first AOR but I see no guarantee that we will receive a second ship.



We're not going to build a orphan class of ships. Its going to take several years to build one, at some point the other equipment will be ordered. It makes no sense of deliver four engines and have 2 sit around for 4 years, that's how things are done.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Where did you read that the big ticket purchases have been ordered?  Seaspan has started cutting steel on the first one but nothing else has been done.  My understanding is it will just be certain steel pieces of the ship and no systems, etc itself.
> 
> This jives with the project page and the timeline, see here:
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/joint-support-ship.html
> 
> Project timeline:
> 
> So contract only to be awarded next year.  How are we purchasing combat systems, engines, etc without a contract?  Secondly the worrying thing for me with the AOR.  I note that anything to do with the second ship is "under review".  Here is an alternative COA:
> 
> 1st JSS gets built, second one gets scrapped due to skyrocketing costs/pressures on OGD shipbuilding requirements i.e. OFSV & Icebreakers for Coast Guard.  Government of Canada chooses instead to buy Asterix from FFS which will serve as our second AOR because after all, we don't need any more than two AORs according to the GoC.



Chief Eng is referring to the long lead items that are ordered even before steel is cut because they rely on other companies to build before they are placed in the ship.  Engine insertion is hardly the last thing one does on a shipbuild.  I wouldn't trust the gov't of canada project website entirely.  It has all the pro/cons of big hand/small map and is often behind in timings.  I can also almost guarantee that the Asterix will not be kept in lieu of the 2nd JSS (or as those who work on the project call it the "War Tanker").  When one looks under the hood of the Asterix project there are plenty of issues that so far are glossed over by a favourable media/ public relations campaign.

I find it interesting that by and large the navy types are defending the AOPS as a valuable asset.  Perhaps it's because our experience is the many missions that have nothing and will never have anything to do with combat.  The AOPS is classified as a Non-Combatant (along with the MCDV's and JSS). We have Combatants (Frigates, Subs) to fight.  It doesn't need more weapons, because then it would need more crew to operate and maintain them, and then more cooks and food storage to feed them and then more crowded messdecks and before you know it we have the Bradley IFV   ;D.  

The RCN as a whole is pretty excited to get a crack at the new ships.  Partially because they are new, partially because they are like nothing we've ever had before, and partially because there are some very creative minds working on payloads to make them much more multifunctional.  Like the various towed arrays being developed as payloads (as constabulary/patrol includes under the sea as well as on it).  The creative juices are flowing on the OPS side as well, thinking about ways to employ them, as we've never had anything as flexible before.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our main opponents have proved to be very adaptable at using a variety of methods and force. The AOPs may be the only platform in the area that can exert our will onto a intrusion within our declared lands and waters. It's good that we finally have a naval platform that can regularly operate in the Arctic, but it may be the only thing we have in that area when the time comes. The AOPs looks to be a very interesting platform, I want it to get more than enough equipment to succeed, rather than the typical barely enough.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's a good point and I am not trying to denigrate the work sailors on MCDVs or anyone else does, I guess I'm echoing E.R. Campbell's point on why exactly the Navy is doing this?
> 
> My worry is this becomes the new norm and we see further erosion of the actual fighting fleet. * We are a warfighting organization, not a constabulary.*  Who knows how many CSCs we will actually get, whether we will have submarines at all in ten years or whether we will even have AORs.  The government hasn't cut a contract yet on anything have they?



This, in my opinion, is a false dichotomy.  The Forces exist to serve the government and the country.  As MARS said above - FISHPATs, SOVPATs etc all have to be done.  No doubt they are equally boring for the RCAF and for the RN.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations/united-kingdom/fishery-protection-squadron



> FISHERY PROTECTION SQUADRON
> UNITED KINGDOM
> The mission of the Fishery Protection Squadron is to patrol the fishery limits of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, protecting the British fishing industry and safeguarding the nation’s maritime economy.





> Why are we there?
> It may not be the Royal Navy’s most glamorous job, but fishery protection is vitally important to our nation’s economy and international reputation.
> 
> The UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the fifth largest in the world. Extending 200 miles from the coast, the EEZ is the internationally agreed area in which the UK can use resources from the sea and sea bed – including fish. It’s the job of the Royal Navy’s Fishery Protection Squadron (FPS) to patrol the EEZ, preventing overfishing and plundering by foreign vessels, and enforcing fishing quotas.
> 
> Fishing rights have always been an emotive and politically sensitive issue – and in the wake of Brexit, fishery protection will be more important than ever.





> What are we doing?
> The Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest front-line squadron in the Royal Navy. With a small headquarters staff based at Portsmouth Naval Base, the FPS is made up of four River-class offshore patrol vessels and one helicopter.
> 
> This small but dedicated team patrols 80,000 square miles of sea, upholding international law, treaties and agreements and protecting the UK’s precious fishing rights.
> 
> The Fishery Protection Squadron also has a secondary role in conducting inspections of all fishing vessels in UK waters and acting as an arbitrator between rival vessels when disputes arise. Their versatile offshore patrol vessels can also be used in maritime counter-terrorism, counter-drug surveillance, and pollution control.



OPV HMS Forth

2000 tonnes
90.5 m

1x 30 mm
2x GPMG
2x Miniguns

Merlin Capable flight deck

60 crew (20 on board at a time)
Space for 50 Royal Marines.

Not a whole lot different than the AOPS once the additional displacement due to the ice-strengthened hull is accommodated.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet/patrol/river-class/hms-forth


Edit:  Apologies to Chief Engineer, Underway et al.   Posted before reading to the end of the thread.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our main opponents have proved to be very adaptable at using a variety of methods and force. The AOPs may be the only platform in the area that can exert our will onto a intrusion within our declared lands and waters. It's good that we finally have a naval platform that can regularly operate in the Arctic, but it may be the only thing we have in that area when the time comes. The AOPs looks to be a very interesting platform, I want it to get more than enough equipment to succeed, rather than the typical barely enough.



That's if you really think China or the Russians are going to come into our territory. If it ever did come to that, we would see the threat coming long before and dispatch appropriate assets. If its sub sea then unless we have our own ice capable submarines operating up there or a dedicated ASW asset either Aurora or ASW warship its not going to matter anyways. Even if the AOPS had a larger caliber gun or other armament, you would be complaining about something else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even our own allies don't agree with what we claim as our. So why wouldn't the Chinese and Russian push the envelope? 

Would you be happy if I just complained about a lack of air defence assets, small mortars, Howitzers, boots, uniforms, tents, mukluks, etc, etc? 
    

Anyways back to the ships and I see the 3rd hull is progressing nicely https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBTiQAuUwAAk_L_.jpg


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Even our own allies don't agree with what we claim as our. So why wouldn't the Chinese and Russian push the envelope?
> 
> Would you be happy if I just complained about a lack of air defence assets, small mortars, Howitzers, boots, uniforms, tents, mukluks, etc, etc?
> 
> 
> Anyways back to the ships and I see the 3rd hull is progressing nicely https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBTiQAuUwAAk_L_.jpg



Would it be a fair assumption that you see eventually either Russia or more likely China start to set up bases in Canadian territory as a weather or some sort of research station and not leave? Is this the so called envelope that you are thinking they are going to push?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> That's if you really think China or the Russians are going to come into our territory. If it ever did come to that, we would see the threat coming long before and dispatch appropriate assets.



I think the yellow part is the topic some of homing in on;  is the GoC procuring 'appropriate assets'?  Maybe not tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow...but there is likely going to come a day when the resources of the Arctic are hot commodities, perhaps one countries are willing to trade punches over.  I think Canada would be making a mistake to discount the Russian and Chinese (potential) threat.


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the yellow part is the topic some of homing in on;  is the GoC procuring 'appropriate assets'?  Maybe not tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow...but there is likely going to come a day when the resources of the Arctic are hot commodities, perhaps one countries are willing to trade punches over.  I think Canada would be making a mistake to discount the Russian and Chinese (potential) threat.



Like I always said the ships can be up gunned if needed however that seems to be not enough for some people. People are naive to think that Russia and China is not being looked at on a continuous basis by the RCN however at this time it is a remote possibility that they will become a problem in the near future. The much touted Russian armed ice breaker cruisers that everyone was talking about a few years ago are delayed for three or four years or possibility longer as the Russians don't have the money to build them. AOPS was never designed to directly counter any foreign power and are built to commercial standards. They will be incredibly useful to the RCN doing lots of the routine tasks we have to do but not made to counter a threat in the Arctic even with a large armament. They are simply not built for it.
A hypothetical scenario is that any surface incursion in ice free waters will be countered by actual warships based out of Halifax or possibly Iqaluit in the future and we will see these warships days before 
they before a problem. Some people say "we'll we may have to send them anyways as that's we have available", well I counter with regardless how they are armed it won't make a iota of difference as they are not purpose built warships and won't stand up to a stronger opponent and that is why I don't think they will ever be used for that.
At the end of the day AOPS are appropriate for what the current threat is, and the RCN is procuring assets for the future threat as well abet slowly.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ah, but CAN the ships be up-gunned?  Are they structurally fitted for a larger/heavier gun with more recoil?

You might be able to switch the 25mm for a 35mm, but putting on a 57mm or something larger would require re-structuring such as we had to do in order to accommodate the increased weight of the Cyclones vs Sea Kings.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ah, but CAN the ships be up-gunned?  Are they structurally fitted for a larger/heavier gun with more recoil?
> 
> You might be able to switch the 25mm for a 35mm, but putting on a 57mm or something larger would require re-structuring such as we had to do in order to accommodate the increased weight of the Cyclones vs Sea Kings.



They can with additional strengthening of the superstructure like you said, I posed this question already to people on the project. I would also imagine containerized weapon systems could also be embarked.


----------



## Kirkhill

High Arctic.

Non-Canadian nation intrudes on territory or seas claimed by the Government of Canada.

Courses of Action:

1.  Do nothing.
2.  Send Government envoy (Diplomat, Constable or Commissioned Officer) to site of incursion by sea, ice or air, and inform the perceived intruder that continued presence is not acceptable and will be construed as an act of war.
3.  Skip the frivolities and air mail a package of high explosives to remove the incursive parties.

If CoA 2 were chosen, the most likely Canadian response in my opinion, the incursive party could respond in one of three ways:

1. Acquiesce and leave
2. Do nothing and stay
3. Skip the frivolities and air mail a package of high explosive to remove the complaining parties.

CoA's 3 work best if the parties doing the mailing have bigger warehouses than the other guy, have deeper pockets to buy new stuff, and/or have more powerful friends.

In no instance does it matter if the Government Envoy's transport is an RCAF aircraft, an Army Bv206 or a ship manned by the RCMP, the CCG or the RCN.  In all instances the Government is conducting an Advance to Contact and should be ready to React to Effective Enemy Fire.

In no circumstances would it be reasonable to send an envoy into such a situation without appropriate fire support available.  That support would be necessary regardless if the AOPS were being sailed, or just commanded,  by the RCMP, the CCG or the RCN.   In all cases the most likely, and I suggest, the most effective, the most rapid and most flexible, method  of providing that support is through the RCAF which can respond in hours, hover for hours and react in minutes.  Meanwhile any vessel is going to take days, if not weeks to get to the site of the incursion (by which time many inter-governmental text messages will have been sent) and it will takes weeks if not months for a supporting vessel to arrive (by which time everyone is frozen in place until the sun comes over the horizon again).

Constabulary duties to be done, to be done.  A policeman's lot is not a happy one.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Thing is that, NW Passage aside, the rest of Canadian land and maritime territory (save Hans Island and Beaufort Sea) is not contested by anyone. So any Russian or Chinese incursion without advance permission by GoC is such areas would be an act of aggression that would bring into play NATO in principle and certainly the US in reality, as Americans do not want those countries actually expanding territorially in the North American Arctic. See several recent public statements warning those countries off generally, e.g.:
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/07/russia-china-offer-challenges-arctic/158303/

It's not as if poor little Canada is facing Big Bear and Mighty Dragon alone.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> High Arctic.
> 
> ...If CoA 2 were chosen, the most likely Canadian response in my opinion, the incursive party could respond in one of three ways:
> 
> 1. Acquiesce apologize and leave
> 2. Do nothing and stay
> 3. Skip the frivolities and air mail a package of high explosive to remove the complaining parties.
> ...



FTFY. :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chris Pook: Thing is that, NW Passage aside, the rest of Canadian land and maritime territory (save Hans Island and Beaufort Sea) is not contested by anyone. So any Russian or Chinese incursion without advance permission by GoC is such areas would be an act of aggression that would bring into play NATO in principle and certainly the US in reality, as Americans do not want those countries actually expanding territorially in the North American Arctic. See several recent public statements warning those countries off generally, e.g.:
> https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/07/russia-china-offer-challenges-arctic/158303/
> 
> It's not as if poor little Canada is facing Big Bear and Mighty Dragon alone.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Agree entirely.

And all the more reason why all that is really necessary is a lightly armed constabulary presence.  Now if the RCMP (or the CBP) had blue water sailors or the CCG union rules permitted the use of deadly force and entering high risk environments, then there would be no need for the RCN to be wandering the Arctic.  But there is a need and the RCN is the designated agency because it matches the greatest number of available competencies. (And it isn't subject to union rules and civil service regulations).

So the problem is not the usefulness and appropriateness of the platforms.  The problem is the usefulness and appropriateness of the agencies.

And G2G - thanks for the correction.  I apologize for forcing you to make the correction.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And G2G - thanks for the correction.  I apologize for forcing you to make the correction.



I apologize for putting you in a position to feel you had to apologize.  My apologies.

;D


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I apologize for putting you in a position to feel you had to apologize.  My apologies.
> 
> ;D



This "sorry circle" is the most Canadian thing I've seen in a long time.   :cdnsalute:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Would it be a fair assumption that you see eventually either Russia or more likely China start to set up bases in Canadian territory as a weather or some sort of research station and not leave? Is this the so called envelope that you are thinking they are going to push?



Yes, along with freedom of navigation passages. China is trying to build more capable icebreakers than we have or will have. Along with the AOPs and the CCG ships we are going to need to have more of a terrestrial foot print as well. Hence the reason I also support a major port building program up there along with other initiatives.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agree entirely.
> 
> And all the more reason why all that is really necessary is a lightly armed constabulary presence.  Now if the RCMP (or the CBP) had blue water sailors or the CCG union rules permitted the use of deadly force and entering high risk environments, then there would be no need for the RCN to be wandering the Arctic.  But there is a need and the RCN is the designated agency because it matches the greatest number of available competencies. (And it isn't subject to union rules and civil service regulations).
> 
> So the problem is not the usefulness and appropriateness of the platforms.  The problem is the usefulness and appropriateness of the agencies.
> 
> And G2G - thanks for the correction.  I apologize for forcing you to make the correction.



I wish more people would understand that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I apologize for putting you in a position to feel you had to apologize.  My apologies.
> 
> ;D



 ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: And I agree with you completely  :nod:.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ah, but CAN the ships be up-gunned?  Are they structurally fitted for a larger/heavier gun with more recoil?
> 
> You might be able to switch the 25mm for a 35mm, but putting on a 57mm or something larger would require re-structuring such as we had to do in order to accommodate the increased weight of the Cyclones vs Sea Kings.



57mm is a self defence weapon for mainly anti ship missiles and aircraft.  If you want to upgun for ASuW then a 76mm is better.  But that will also require a sensor change AFAIK or a CMS version upgrade at the very least.

The best bet is bolt on Anti ship missiles which can be programed to attack a target that is already been found by other assets.

Well actually the best bet for arctic defence is the airforce but since we're talking alarmist and against Chinese and Russian geopolitical realities/natural inclinations then lets just pretend like the AOPS are going to go into combat in our own arctic...


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> 57mm is a self defence weapon for mainly anti ship missiles and aircraft.  If you want to upgun for ASuW then a 76mm is better.  But that will also require a sensor change AFAIK or a CMS version upgrade at the very least.
> 
> The best bet is bolt on Anti ship missiles which can be programed to attack a target that is already been found by other assets.
> 
> Well actually the best bet for arctic defence is the airforce but since we're talking alarmist and against Chinese and Russian geopolitical realities/natural inclinations then lets just pretend like the AOPS are going to go into combat in our own arctic...



I agree the 76mm would have been the best bet and we could have used the ones from the 280's, probably still has lots of ammo and didn't have to reinvent the wheel on SOP's etc. Unfortunately they were divested.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which I believe that the Danes did


----------



## dimsum

I thought we based ours off the Norwegian Svalbard-class?  They have a 57mm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wiki says you are correct, plus they have some NBC capability and can be fitted with the Simbad missile system.


----------



## Stoker

The 76mm under the deck on the Danish Knud Rasmussen Class, took it when she was in Halifax.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The green Canadian Tire lawn chairs behind the mount are a nice touch.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The green Canadian Tire lawn chairs behind the mount are a nice touch.



The Danish navy are very atypical naval, the ship even has a sauna. Interesting to note are the containerized weapon payloads that are supposed to be fitted, there are storage racks for parts and other engineering stores in their location. From what I can gather from the crew there's only one set of these payloads and are almost never fitted for training.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I agree the 76mm would have been the best bet and we could have used the ones from the 280's, probably still has lots of ammo and didn't have to reinvent the wheel on SOP's etc. Unfortunately they were divested.



They are a good gun, but think recycling the old ones vs buying new is pound foolish. We wouldn't have had enough for the AOPS in any case, but 20+ years of fatigue is going to mean all kinds of random bits would start failing on you.  Sure a bunch of the ammo could have been kept and used, but there weren't that many crew left with 280 time, and you'd have to refresh the SOPs anyway to work with the quirks of the AOPS. Plus we wouldn't have enough for all the AOPs, so you'd have two different versions, with the associated design/in service support you have there.

Someone wanted to do the same with the VLS for the 280s, but cost more to remove them and store them for a decade or so, then upgrade all the electronics than to buy new.  Not sure who would have been happy with getting a used VLS in a brand new ship in any case, but the same fatigue issues there (especially on all the connection points).  Outside the electronics, its not really much more than some steel tubes and a bunch of vent fans, so was a really weird argument to have. No one wanted to pay for it or limit CSC in equipment selection, so died on the proposal floor, but took up a lot of time and effort to argue why it made no sense.

Big fan of common equipment and interfaces to minimize training and support, but refurbishing old equipment for new ships makes no sense, once you include all the costs. Removing big pieces of kit like that during the decommissioning phase if you need it intact costs a lot of money (otherwise they can be a bit ham handed with it and cut away as it needs demilitarized anyway, plus you offset your costs with scrap weight).  Storage costs can get really significant, and at the end of the day, even if you NDT everything (at great cost), you will start getting the kind of end of life failures of main components on the new ship that you wouldn't see in it's normal service life. And in both cases where we wouldn't have had enough for the new ships, you would have had to design/support different versions of a main piece of equipment, which is both a pain in the arse and expensive.

Sailors are pretty adaptable, so when you look at the big picture over the long term, very minimal benefits to recycling systems onto new ships.  Better solution is if you have something you like, just specify to use the same system and buy the newest version.

One nice thing with AOPs and JSS both being under the same ISSC is that they will look at maintenance and support costs when looking at replacing systems during their life cycle, so can see them getting more common equipment over their life.  Wasn't really possible with the NSS setup, but probably going to start happening at the 15-20 year mark (maybe sooner for the electronics).


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They are a good gun, but think recycling the old ones vs buying new is pound foolish. We wouldn't have had enough for the AOPS in any case, but 20+ years of fatigue is going to mean all kinds of random bits would start failing on you.  Sure a bunch of the ammo could have been kept and used, but there weren't that many crew left with 280 time, and you'd have to refresh the SOPs anyway to work with the quirks of the AOPS. Plus we wouldn't have enough for all the AOPs, so you'd have two different versions, with the associated design/in service support you have there.
> 
> Someone wanted to do the same with the VLS for the 280s, but cost more to remove them and store them for a decade or so, then upgrade all the electronics than to buy new.  Not sure who would have been happy with getting a used VLS in a brand new ship in any case, but the same fatigue issues there (especially on all the connection points).  Outside the electronics, its not really much more than some steel tubes and a bunch of vent fans, so was a really weird argument to have. No one wanted to pay for it or limit CSC in equipment selection, so died on the proposal floor, but took up a lot of time and effort to argue why it made no sense.
> 
> Big fan of common equipment and interfaces to minimize training and support, but refurbishing old equipment for new ships makes no sense, once you include all the costs. Removing big pieces of kit like that during the decommissioning phase if you need it intact costs a lot of money (otherwise they can be a bit ham handed with it and cut away as it needs demilitarized anyway, plus you offset your costs with scrap weight).  Storage costs can get really significant, and at the end of the day, even if you NDT everything (at great cost), you will start getting the kind of end of life failures of main components on the new ship that you wouldn't see in it's normal service life. And in both cases where we wouldn't have had enough for the new ships, you would have had to design/support different versions of a main piece of equipment, which is both a pain in the arse and expensive.
> 
> Sailors are pretty adaptable, so when you look at the big picture over the long term, very minimal benefits to recycling systems onto new ships.  Better solution is if you have something you like, just specify to use the same system and buy the newest version.
> 
> One nice thing with AOPs and JSS both being under the same ISSC is that they will look at maintenance and support costs when looking at replacing systems during their life cycle, so can see them getting more common equipment over their life.  Wasn't really possible with the NSS setup, but probably going to start happening at the 15-20 year mark (maybe sooner for the electronics).



The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?


Also, didn't the Dutch do the same with the 127mm's from the 280's? I thought they were actually still in use on the DZP class?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?



I think at the end we had cannabalized the spares to get three "working guns", but by the end they weren't doing repairs to a lot of the combat suite, so not sure how operable the guns were by the end. Probably had spare barrels and other parts from HUR in storage, but a lot of times those get put away without proper preservation and ongoing maintenance (due to the cost) and are eventually only expensive scrap that needs some environmental cleanup first.  Definitely didn't have enough for AOPs though.  We did specifically look at every single NSN during the decomissioning process for all the ships, but unless it was a common piece of equipment (like a valve, pump etc) it didn't make sense to keep them and refurb in case the projects may want to use them, nor did the projects show any interest in using refurb equipment.  

For context at the same time there was a big effort to clear out a whack of gear left over from the steamers; that was also warehoused in case of future need, but most of it was rusted solid or otherwise useless.  It cost a shocking amount of money every year for storage, so ended up getting scrapped/demilitarized at the same time. There were 1000s of sq feet of old crap kept around 'in case of' so got deeply suspicious of any proposal to do the same with parts from the 280s.

Even with a full refurb though there will still be original parts. It's like an engine; you can refurb it any number of times, but eventually the block will wear out. We seem to ride our ships harder and put them away wetter than the Danish from what I gather from conversations with them, so not sure if that's a great comparison point.  

The CAF has a good track record of using things well past their design life, but with the 280s and AORs got a good example of what happens when you push that too far without bumping up the maintenance support.  Both classes served us really well, but we pushed their lifespan right to the end, and cannabalized each ship as it was retired to keep the others going, so really pushed it to the end.  Glad we got rid of ATH when we did, as we had rolled the dice and not had a major incident long enough where it was getting inevitable.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think at the end we had cannabalized the spares to get three "working guns", but by the end they weren't doing repairs to a lot of the combat suite, so not sure how operable the guns were by the end. Probably had spare barrels and other parts from HUR in storage, but a lot of times those get put away without proper preservation and ongoing maintenance (due to the cost) and are eventually only expensive scrap that needs some environmental cleanup first.  Definitely didn't have enough for AOPs though.  We did specifically look at every single NSN during the decomissioning process for all the ships, but unless it was a common piece of equipment (like a valve, pump etc) it didn't make sense to keep them and refurb in case the projects may want to use them, nor did the projects show any interest in using refurb equipment.
> 
> For context at the same time there was a big effort to clear out a whack of gear left over from the steamers; that was also warehoused in case of future need, but most of it was rusted solid or otherwise useless.  It cost a shocking amount of money every year for storage, so ended up getting scrapped/demilitarized at the same time. There were 1000s of sq feet of old crap kept around 'in case of' so got deeply suspicious of any proposal to do the same with parts from the 280s.
> 
> Even with a full refurb though there will still be original parts. It's like an engine; you can refurb it any number of times, but eventually the block will wear out. We seem to ride our ships harder and put them away wetter than the Danish from what I gather from conversations with them, so not sure if that's a great comparison point.
> 
> The CAF has a good track record of using things well past their design life, but with the 280s and AORs got a good example of what happens when you push that too far without bumping up the maintenance support.  Both classes served us really well, but we pushed their lifespan right to the end, and cannabalized each ship as it was retired to keep the others going, so really pushed it to the end.  Glad we got rid of ATH when we did, as we had rolled the dice and not had a major incident long enough where it was getting inevitable.


That's an excellent cautionary note to keep in mind for the CPF'S and SSK'S. I imagine there's going to be a lot of that cannibalism going on by the time the last HALIFAX class is paid off.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sadly I expect that new gun and turret is not that expensive in the scheme of things. With the way a lot of weapons systems seem to be going to modules, what ever system you go for it would seem to be a good idea to have extras so a ship comes in a for a refit, that gun can be pulled as unit and replaced with fresh one and then the gun taken off goes through the refresh cycle. Not sure if the same can work for the various missile systems?

Software and electronic change so fast I suspect that you always be upgrading what ever stock you have.


If we plan to store stuff just in case, we should really hire the Russians to do the preservation as they seem to be really good at doing long term preservation of weapons.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Normally there are a few ships in the docking cycle, so really minimal amount of a full 'hot spare' is required. With the normal 60 month cycle, you want that offset anyway so you minimize the # of ships that are down at once, so it's pretty typical for things like the guns, cranes and other systems that need a 60M ashore to cycle onto a different ship when it's done.  Those are a lot faster then the 6-9 month + docking, so usually pretty seamless.  Not frequent to have something so damaged that a swap out if faster than a repair, as it also depends on what subsequent trials are required.  With condition based maintenance, no guarantee it will even need to come off if it's in working order and no major PM/CM needed.  The old baseline refits used to take them off and get refurbed by default, but that costs too much.  Probably results in better availability during the service time, but sometimes you just make a mess out of something that was working fine.

The killer for storage is the ongoing work; prep is pretty straightforward it's the rotating it etc that's the killer. That's why stuff stays on the ship if it's not getting repaired during the DWP and there is some ongoing PM for turning/oiling things regularly that needs to be planned for.  Additionally there are all the softbits etc that will break down, so even if something is just sitting there you need to do basic PM on it to keep it useable. Parts are spread all over the country, so not going to happen without very directed oversight, and we don't have folks to spare for the depots anyway.

Logistics and supply chain is pretty interesting when you get into the weeds, but was surprised how much more it was than just keeping bits on the shelf.  Costs a lot of money to do properly, and we can't afford to be the neighbourhood hoarder. The nice thing with using COTS and commercial design is that we are less likely to end up with one off systems where we are the only customer using a 3rd line repair center for that piece of kit. Would be great if we can license the AOPS and sell a few so there are even more customers for the big ticket items like the diesels.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.



They may be doing just that eventually.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.



If their defence budget survives and isn’t decimated by buying P-8s...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If their defence budget survives and isn’t decimated by buying P-8s...



It appears the related infrastructure costs and some relocation decisions made by the government (under advice) have added greatly to the financials. As for the defence budget itself, it is a reflection of the government to claim to spend more, or spend more effectively,  while actually doing less.  Familiar stuff.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sadly I expect that new gun and turret is not that expensive in the scheme of things.



I heard recently that cost was the killer of a larger gun, no proof of that however.  The gun itself, the crew costs, the shore support, ammunition issues etc...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am sure they see it that way, as I have seen so many government purchases that can only do half the job because they could save money on "extra's".


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think one of the biggest problems people have with the main gun on AOPS is it's sort of undefined nature. It's not big enough to be talked about as something to be used in case things really get out of hand, away from support. But it's also kind of overkill for almost all of its other likely mission profiles. Since it will be operating in essentially the same waters as MCDV'S and in very similar roles, you would assume that their weapons suites would be similar. But, threat assessments done for the MCDV missions show only a need for .50 cal machine guns. If there has ever been anything stated about what the expected role of this weapon is, I'd be interested to hear. The DS30M has a higher firing rate and better elevation and is essentially an upgrade to the MK38. Why was the 25mm chosen?


----------



## Kirkhill

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I think one of the biggest problems people have with the main gun on AOPS is it's sort of undefined nature. It's not big enough to be talked about as something to be used in case things really get out of hand, away from support. But it's also kind of overkill for almost all of its other likely mission profiles. Since it will be operating in essentially the same waters as MCDV'S and in very similar roles, you would assume that their weapons suites would be similar. But, threat assessments done for the MCDV missions show only a need for .50 cal machine guns. If there has ever been anything stated about what the expected role of this weapon is, I'd be interested to hear. The DS30M has a higher firing rate and better elevation and is essentially an upgrade to the MK38. Why was the 25mm chosen?



At a guess - it was chosen because the 25mm, its parts and ammunition are in service.  The .50 has been on life-support for 50 years, variously in and out of service.  Also the 25mm is/was in service with the RAN Armidale OPVs, the RNZN Protector OPVs and HMNZS Canterbury, and the USCG Island Patrol Boats, amongst others.   The RN River OPVs (Batch 1) were kitted with 20mm while Batch 2 is fitted with 30mm.  The British forces do not conventionally use any 25mm weapons having settled on 30mm years ago with the introduction of the Rarden in the Scimitar back in the '70s.


----------



## NavyShooter

I was told many years ago that there was a form of exemption for some transit fees in certain places - ie Panama Canal, for warships in particular, but for a warship to be exempt, it had to have a mounted weapons system.  IE a deck gun.  The fitting of guns dates back to the Preserver class - which had a 3"50 mounted on the foc'sle to provide this exemption for them.  

This may be wrong - but I think it's actually a part of the consideration.

As for why the 25mm?  Parts/ammunition commonality, and theoretically, training system commonality too.

NS


----------



## Swampbuggy

I get the economic aspects and economy of scale, but I'm still not sure what the defined role is for the gun. And if the threat assessments show it to be a valid asset to the ship, then should it not also be on the MCDV, given the similarities in roles?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I get the economic aspects and economy of scale, but I'm still not sure what the defined role is for the gun. And if the threat assessments show it to be a valid asset to the ship, then should it not also be on the MCDV, given the similarities in roles?



I think the answer should be pretty straight forward:

With a 25mm Stab Gun, Helicopter Bay, Ability to carry multiple SO RHIBs, True Ops & Planning Space, Cargo Carrying Capacity, Vehicle Bay, Link 16 Capability/Extensive Sensor Suite/etc

They expect this Ship to be able to do what an MCDV does, only a whole lot better and they also expect it to be able to do other tasks that the MCDV cannot do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could place the 57mm upfront with the 25mm aft and HMG on both sides. That would provide commonality with the Halifax's and the MCDV if they ever get around to it. Without putting to much of a strain on logistics, costs and training.

Seems to be a very well liked gun and in use all around the world on a variety of size and ship types.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/57mm-naval-gun-system


----------



## Cloud Cover

h/t to Sandy McClearn over on Twitter: HdW gun is installed, looks good!!. Brooke is on the lift behind her. 

https://twitter.com/sandymcclearn/status/1164500655668699137

 Maybe someone can walk us through the hull openings where the ship's boats are stored? Chief?


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> h/t to Sandy McClearn over on Twitter: HdW gun is installed, looks good!!. Brooke is on the lift behind her.
> 
> https://twitter.com/sandymcclearn/status/1164500655668699137
> 
> Maybe someone can walk us through the hull openings where the ship's boats are stored? Chief?



Gun has been on for a while now.  Forward port boat deck is for a Rescue Boat, aft port is for a Survival Boat.  Other side (which you can't see) fwd is for the starboard Rescue Boat and  aft for the boarding RHIB.

The HDW is doing HVAC trials either now or soon, which takes over a month to do.  Ensuring all the spaces are properly ventilated, cooled and heated. When those are complete there are builders sea trials etc...  The ships delivery date has been pushed back to October timeframe.  The other ships are still on schedule for their original delivery dates (due to lessons learned with the first build).

Fun facts: the ship will not have a traditional "brow" but will have a self deploying gangway, even in home port.  The shore cables for power will be unrolled from the ship with a powered handling drum.  The foc'sle part ship hands consists of 3 people controlling two self tensioning capstans.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not living in Halifax, I hadn't noticed until now -when HdW is nearly complete and we can see most of her electronics - how well equiped she will be in the detection/electronic intel gathering/communications fields. This is a lot higher than the publicly sourced information could lead one to believe and head and shoulders above what the MCDV's could provide (sorry, Chief!).

From what I can see, they will be very powerfull platforms up in the North to serve as communication nodes, elint gathering platforms and coordination center for activities by the RCN and also the Army/Rangers and RCAF over large swats of the Arctic where deployed. Makes me wonder if the two Coast Guard ones will have the same or will get dumbed-down "civilian" electronics usually found on the CCG icebreakers.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not living in Halifax, I hadn't noticed until now -when HdW is nearly complete and we can see most of her electronics - how well equiped she will be in the detection/electronic intel gathering/communications fields. This is a lot higher than the publicly sourced information could lead one to believe and head and shoulders above what the MCDV's could provide (sorry, Chief!).
> 
> From what I can see, they will be very powerfull platforms up in the North to serve as communication nodes, elint gathering platforms and coordination center for activities by the RCN and also the Army/Rangers and RCAF over large swats of the Arctic where deployed. Makes me wonder if the two Coast Guard ones will have the same or will get dumbed-down "civilian" electronics usually found on the CCG icebreakers.



No worries Oldgateboatdriver. You may be interested that there are all kinds of payloads in the works for the HDW, some of which has been and in the process of being trialed on the Kingston Class. One of the bigger omissions from the HDW Class is the multi-beam echo sounder for the Class, this what you need to conduct hydro graphic work and is the same as what the Kingston Class uses. The 20 man mess, briefing rooms, boarding party staging areas are all in support to transport other government department to various taskings which is one its missions.
It will be great to see the HDW Class ply the waters of the Arctic, Africa and the Caribbean and elsewhere taking some of the pressure off the Kingston Class although you will be seeing the Kingston Class still sailing to these areas. I'm a very large proponent for this Class of ship and what it can do and hope to be sailing in one in the future.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> No worries Oldgateboatdriver. You may be interested that there are all kinds of payloads in the works for the HDW, some of which has been and in the process of being trialed on the Kingston Class. One of the bigger omissions from the HDW Class is the multi-beam echo sounder for the Class, this what you need to conduct hydro graphic work and is the same as what the Kingston Class uses. The 20 man mess, briefing rooms, boarding party staging areas are all in support to transport other government department to various taskings which is one its missions.
> It will be great to see the HDW Class ply the waters of the Arctic, Africa and the Caribbean and elsewhere taking some of the pressure off the Kingston Class although you will be seeing the Kingston Class still sailing to these areas. I'm a very large proponent for this Class of ship and what it can do and hope to be sailing in one in the future.



I gotta say Chief, I wasn't that interested in the AOPS class as like I said before, "It's just not a warship" however, your posts have been very informative and they have def made me more interested.  I also think some of the Missions they do could be very rewarding and fun.

Consider my opinion changed!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am assuming the accommodations will be nicer than the Halifax's and MCDV, but not quite to Asterix standards? In which case they may come as a nice break for people who sail almost exclusively on the Halifax's?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I gotta say Chief, I wasn't that interested in the AOPS class as like I said before, "It's just not a warship" however, your posts have been very informative and they have def made me more interested.  I also think some of the Missions they do could be very rewarding and fun.
> 
> Consider my opinion changed!



I'm keeping an ear on the AOPS 'stuff' and have found the same thing....the more 'good gen' I hear, the more I hope to sail on one too (the RCAF is converting me to a rotor-head this fall).  That would be a pretty good Det IMO, flying around Canada's north in the warmer months and would probably look/feel very different than it did from the Aurora or on the ground in Resolute in Feb.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am assuming the accommodations will be nicer than the Halifax's and MCDV, but not quite to Asterix standards? In which case they may come as a nice break for people who sail almost exclusively on the Halifax's?



Yes the cabins are nice and no nothing to Asterix standards because that is a unique situation that has caused lots of issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Have they released any pictures of the completed accommodations? I suspect that the ships will also have more room for people to relax without being in each others way.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Have they released any pictures of the completed accommodations? I suspect that the ships will also have more room for people to relax without being in each others way.



So far no as Irving been pretty tight on the pictures and even though I've been there for tours twice no photos allowed. Once shes in the dockyard I'll be taking lots.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Will the AOPS have Air Dets attached?  I know it’s a silly question, but since these aren’t combat vessels, I didn’t know if they planned on embarking a det or not.  

Obviously having a some sort asset either a helo or RPA would be beneficial.   Do they have weapons storage for torpedos and sonobuoys?


----------



## Stoker

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Will the AOPS have Air Dets attached?  I know it’s a silly question, but since these aren’t combat vessels, I didn’t know if they planned on embarking a det or not.
> 
> Obviously having a some sort asset either a helo or RPA would be beneficial.   Do they have weapons storage for torpedos and sonobuoys?



I would imagine the ability to embark 8 20ft ISO containers could in the realm of possibility be used as portable magazines and store those items. MV Asterix does that now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To answer Dlphin_Hunter's question:

Based on the CONOPS I have last seen, the plan is that, whenever they are expected to travel through the ice pack, the AOPS will normally embark a Coast Guard helicopter crew, including Ice Pic.

Otherwise, they are capable of embarking a RCAF Helo det of Cormorant or Cyclone as need be, but it is to be only when specifically required - not as a rule as it would be for the frigates, for instance.

This said, storage and handling of sonobuoy is straightforward and easy. Torpedoes are another matter. it's not enough to have them in a 20 ft container, you also have to have proper handling route and equipment along the whole route to permit their use, including, along the way, a proper space where the weapons tech can work as required on the torp, in a safe environment and with proper safety gear and measures in place: a torpedoe fuel leak can really mess up your day!


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To answer Dlphin_Hunter's question:
> 
> Based on the CONOPS I have last seen, the plan is that, whenever they are expected to travel through the ice pack, the AOPS will normally embark a Coast Guard helicopter crew, including Ice Pic.
> 
> Otherwise, they are capable of embarking a RCAF Helo det of Cormorant or Cyclone as need be, but it is to be only when specifically required - not as a rule as it would be for the frigates, for instance.
> 
> This said, storage and handling of sonobuoy is straightforward and easy. Torpedoes are another matter. it's not enough to have them in a 20 ft container, you also have to have proper handling route and equipment along the whole route to permit their use, including, along the way, a proper space where the weapons tech can work as required on the torp, in a safe environment and with proper safety gear and measures in place: a torpedoe fuel leak can really mess up your day!



All can be achieved including ISO container weapon workshops. Works for the Danes on their Arctic Patrol Ships, it can work for us too. We need to start thinking outside the box. I can confirm there are all kinds of interesting 20ft ISO container payloads being looked at to give AOPS all sorts of interesting capabilities in the future.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chief Engineer:

"All can be achieved including ISO container weapon workshops...We need to start thinking outside the box."

Perhaps you mean thinking "inside" the box, er, container  .

Regards,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chief Engineer:
> 
> "All can be achieved including ISO container weapon workshops...We need to start thinking outside the box."
> 
> Perhaps you mean thinking "inside" the box, er, container  .
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Good one


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Chief Engineer:
> 
> "All can be achieved including ISO container weapon workshops...We need to start thinking outside the box."
> 
> Perhaps you mean thinking "inside" the box, er, container  .
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Damye Mark!  Too fast!  ;D


----------



## Czech_pivo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To answer Dlphin_Hunter's question:
> 
> Based on the CONOPS I have last seen, the plan is that, whenever they are expected to travel through the ice pack, the AOPS will normally embark a Coast Guard helicopter crew, including Ice Pic.
> 
> Otherwise, they are capable of embarking a RCAF Helo det of Cormorant or Cyclone as need be, but it is to be only when specifically required - not as a rule as it would be for the frigates, for instance.
> 
> This said, storage and handling of sonobuoy is straightforward and easy. Torpedoes are another matter. it's not enough to have them in a 20 ft container, you also have to have proper handling route and equipment along the whole route to permit their use, including, along the way, a proper space where the weapons tech can work as required on the torp, in a safe environment and with proper safety gear and measures in place: a torpedoe fuel leak can really mess up your day!




I had posted this back in April when asking about the Cormorants being posted on the APOS 

Quote from: Czech_pivo on April 12, 2019, 13:21:33
My question was regarding the Cormorants, as I would assume that they would be salt-water capable already.  I know that we are expanding the fleet already, just wondering if some of them could be used inter-changeable on the AOPS, (or even buy another 4-6)?  
I understand that we are going to be hard pressed to have enough CH-148's to go around once the 15 CSC's and the 2/3 JSS/AOR are in place.  I can't imagine the fleet spread across 6 AOPS, 15 CSC's and 2/3 JSS/AOR's.....

I know that the belief is that CCG helo's will be used on the AOPS for ice spotting and such, but do any of them have solid SAR capabilities? If we are going to stick the APOS's all the way up north, I would think that having them capable of solid SAR would be a plus once they are all the way up there.  I mean, let's be honest, taking into consideration the amount of time/money it will take an AOPS  to get from Esquimalt to Tuk, that once on station having a helo with excellent SAR would be beneficial?”

From Chief Engineer -

“No the CH-149 will not fit in the hanger of the AOPV as its longer at 74 ft, to the Cyclones 68ft. The Cyclone has to fold its tail to fit in the hanger while the CH-149 cannot. It is possible that the CH 149 may be able to land on the AOPS flight deck. The concept of ops for the class and the concept of ops with the CCG mentions AOPS could operate with the CH-146 Griffon and the Bell 429 and 412. It appears the type of helo embarked will depend on the type of mission, and CCG could ask for helo support and vice versa. The large carrying capability of the Cyclone could be very attractive to the CCG for supply runs.”

So, I ask, what has changed?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I had posted this back in April when asking about the Cormorants being posted on the APOS
> 
> Quote from: Czech_pivo on April 12, 2019, 13:21:33
> My question was regarding the Cormorants, as I would assume that they would be salt-water capable already.  I know that we are expanding the fleet already, just wondering if some of them could be used inter-changeable on the AOPS, (or even buy another 4-6)?
> I understand that we are going to be hard pressed to have enough CH-148's to go around once the 15 CSC's and the 2/3 JSS/AOR are in place.  I can't imagine the fleet spread across 6 AOPS, 15 CSC's and 2/3 JSS/AOR's.....
> 
> I know that the belief is that CCG helo's will be used on the AOPS for ice spotting and such, but do any of them have solid SAR capabilities? If we are going to stick the APOS's all the way up north, I would think that having them capable of solid SAR would be a plus once they are all the way up there.  I mean, let's be honest, taking into consideration the amount of time/money it will take an AOPS  to get from Esquimalt to Tuk, that once on station having a helo with excellent SAR would be beneficial?”
> 
> From Chief Engineer -
> 
> “No the CH-149 will not fit in the hanger of the AOPV as its longer at 74 ft, to the Cyclones 68ft. The Cyclone has to fold its tail to fit in the hanger while the CH-149 cannot. It is possible that the CH 149 may be able to land on the AOPS flight deck. The concept of ops for the class and the concept of ops with the CCG mentions AOPS could operate with the CH-146 Griffon and the Bell 429 and 412. It appears the type of helo embarked will depend on the type of mission, and CCG could ask for helo support and vice versa. The large carrying capability of the Cyclone could be very attractive to the CCG for supply runs.”
> 
> So, I ask, what has changed?



So welcome back Czech_pivo  its been a while, to answer your question nothing has changed only the Cyclone and smaller helos can be embarked. The hanger didn't grow in size to accommodate the Cormorant.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a few small points, Chief:

First, the Danes use MU-90 torpedoes. They are electric-waterjet propulsion. onboard batteries are the fuel. We use Mk46. Otto II fuel: very corrosive and very dangerous.

Second, the Danes use the full container as a storage and launching mechanism. The container is not meant to give their helicopters an ASW capability (helicopters which the Knudd-Rasmussen class does not carry as a matter of routine anyway, but can only land on a temporary basis on what is otherwise an open helo deck with no hangar capability).

I am all for thinking outside (or inside, as people wish) the box, but it cannot be done to the detriment of safety.

Please note I am not saying it can't be done, just that as of now, it hasn't been thought through as a possibility and therefore, has not been planned for. There is no doubt that there is enough room onboard the AOPS, you just have to adapt the surroundings for it.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a few small points, Chief:
> 
> First, the Danes use MU-90 torpedoes. They are electric-waterjet propulsion. onboard batteries are the fuel. We use Mk46. Otto II fuel: very corrosive and very dangerous.
> 
> Second, the Danes use the full container as a storage and launching mechanism. The container is not meant to give their helicopters an ASW capability (helicopters which the Knudd-Rasmussen class does not carry as a matter of routine anyway, but can only land on a temporary basis on what is otherwise an open helo deck with no hangar capability).
> 
> I am all for thinking outside (or inside, as people wish) the box, but it cannot be done to the detriment of safety.
> 
> Please note I am not saying it can't be done, just that as of now, it hasn't been thought through as a possibility and therefore, has not been planned for. There is no doubt that there is enough room onboard the AOPS, you just have to adapt the surroundings for it.



All I'm saying is its in the realm of possibility and obviously it won't be done in a unsafe manner.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite agree with you Chief, I am just saying it hasn't been thought through at this point - so it's not in the current plans.

As I said: lots of room for it on the AOPS if they want to do it.

As for the Cormorant, I am pretty sure the Merlin's tails can be folded to fit in Type 23 hangars and I have seen pictures of Italian 101's tail folded onboard the Cavour. Didn't the Cormorants keep that capability?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite agree with you Chief, I am just saying it hasn't been thought through at this point - so it's not in the current plans.
> 
> As I said: lots of room for it on the AOPS if they want to do it.
> 
> As for the Cormorant, I am pretty sure the Merlin's tails can be folded to fit in Type 23 hangars and I have seen pictures of Italian 101's tail folded onboard the Cavour. Didn't the Cormorants keep that capability?



I checked on that and its a fixed tail, every bit of literature I read on the AOPS does not mention the Cormorant. I'm looking a drawing right now and its very tight in that hanger for a Cyclone. It would be nice getting back to the Torpedoes that we get something a little more user friendly such as the Danish Torpedo to use on the ship if it came to that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We were intended to spend $500M on upgrade kits to bring our Mk 46 to a Mk 54.  Article Link

Canada approached the U.S. last month to buy 425 of the next-generation MK-54 torpedo conversion kits at an estimated cost of $514 million, according to the U.S. State Department.

At roughly $1.2 million apiece, the kits include enhanced guidance systems and improved counter-countermeasures that will convert Canada’s existing arsenal of Cold War-era MK-46 torpedoes into the modern MK-54 configuration.

The Canadian Navy intends to deploy the weapons aboard Halifax-class frigates stationed at CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax. 

The Air Force would deploy the torpedoes as air-drop weapons from CP-140 Aurora surveillance planes based in Comox, B.C. and Greenwood, N.S., as well as from the new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters based at Shearwater, N.S. and Victoria, B.C.

MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo 

_The MK 54 program leverages the most modern torpedo technologies from the MK 50 and MK 48 ADCAP (advanced capability) programs. It also utilizes the proven MK 46 warhead and propulsion subsystems.
_

Looks like otto fuel in the future for the RCN and RCAF.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for the Cormorant, I am pretty sure the Merlin's tails can be folded to fit in Type 23 hangars and I have seen pictures of Italian 101's tail folded onboard the Cavour. Didn't the Cormorants keep that capability?



The main blade fold is a much bigger deal.  It's complex, expensive, heavy, and maintenance intensive.  You'd need a pretty big hangar for a Cormorant or Cyclone rotor.

You don't want to invest the life cycle cost into blade fold "just in case."  I could be wrong, but the CH-149 doesn't, and the pictures I just looked at seem to confirm that.  For comparison, look at a picture of the head if the maritime version compared to a Cormorant.

As for tail fold, don't forget the Cormorant has a ramp and the Merlin doesn't.  I don't think any AW101's have both the ramp and tail fold.

We got lucky with the Cyclone ramp... it wasn't a requirement.  Between that and the utility config it gives some nice flexibility.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know if these requirements made the cuts but as I understand it the AOPS is/was expected to operate a Coast Guard Bell 412 in the ice, an RCAF CH-148 in open water for short durations with limited capabilities, and provide a roost on the open deck for the RCAF CH-149 in domestic waters in support of SAR ops.  The Coast Guard 412 is also expected to supply SAR and light logistics support.



> Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship Helicopter/Ship Interface Requirements Rev 3





> 1 INTRODUCTION
> 1.1 General
> This document describes the characteristics and capabilities of the helicopter/ship
> interface between the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) and:
> a. Canadian Coast Guard helicopter1,
> b. CH-148 Cyclone helicopter, and
> c. CH-149 Cormorant helicopter.





> 3 CONCEPT OF AOPS HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
> 3.1 General
> Within the limits and restrictions described below, the AOPS shall be capable of:
> a. controlling an approaching helicopter,
> b. recovering a helicopter to the flight deck,
> c. launching a helicopter from the flight deck,
> d. controlling a departing helicopter,
> e. securing a helicopter on the flight deck, and
> f. fuelling a helicopter on the flight deck.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of HIFR in accordance with CFTO C-12-124-A00/MB-002
> Shipborne Helicopter Operating Procedures (SHOPS) (dated 14 May 2008), Section 3 –
> Helicopter Fuelling Procedures.
> The AOPS shall be capable of VERTREP in accordance with SHOPS, Section 4 –
> Vertical Replenishment, Hoist Transfers and Administrative Flights.
> 
> 3.2 Canadian Coast Guard Helicopter
> 
> The AOPS will operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter during deployments to the
> Canadian Arctic.
> 
> The AOPS may operate a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on occasion during
> deployments in other Canadian waters, including: the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
> Ocean, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
> 
> The AOPS will employ the Canadian Coast Guard helicopter for:
> a. ice reconnaissance,
> b. personnel and light cargo transfer between ship and shore,
> c. medical evacuation, and
> d. Search and Rescue.
> 
> The AOPS shall operate Canadian Coast Guard helicopters2:
> a. day and night,
> b. under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)3,
> c. in seas up to and including the top of Sea State 34,
> d. at any ship’s speed,
> e. at any relative heading, and
> f. at any relative wind over the arc from 30 degrees port to 30 starboard at any speed
> up to 355 knots.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of:
> a. moving a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter from the stowed position in the hangar
> to the ready position on the flight deck,
> b. moving a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter from the landing position on the flight
> deck to the stowed position in the hangar,
> c. sheltering a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter in the hangar,
> d. securing a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter in the hangar,
> e. securing a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter on the flight deck, and
> f. providing logistical support to a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter.
> 
> The AOPS shall provide sufficient protection for one Canadian Coast Guard helicopter
> for it to survive the same high sea states experienced by the AOPS.
> 
> The AOPS shall provide the facilities and services required to maintain one Canadian
> Coast Guard helicopter for deployments of up to 120 days duration, during which the
> helicopter is assumed to fly for a total of approximately 150 hours6.
> 
> The AOPS shall carry sufficient aviation fuel to support the assumed operational tempo
> of one Canadian Coast Guard helicopter.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of supporting personnel and light cargo transfer by a
> Canadian Coast Guard helicopter.
> 
> 3.3 CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter
> 
> The AOPS will support limited operations of a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter on occasion
> and for short periods of time during deployments in the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific
> Ocean and in international waters.
> 
> Within the limitations described below, the AOPS will employ the CH-148 Cyclone
> Helicopter for:
> a. sovereignty patrol and enforcement,
> b. surveillance in the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone,
> c. delivery of a Naval Boarding Party,
> d. support to Other Government Departments,
> e. aircrew training for free deck recovery, VERTREP and HIFR,
> f. personnel and light cargo transfer,
> g. medical evacuation, and
> h. Search and Rescue.
> 
> The AOPS shall have a flight deck (of size, strength and configuration), flight deck
> markings and operational lighting, flight deck tie-downs, sensors, communications and
> control systems sufficient for a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter to land on, and take-off from
> an AOPS:
> a. day and night,
> b. under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR),
> c. in seas up to and including the top of Sea State 3,
> d. at any ship’s speed, ande. with the ship on any relative heading within the arc defined by ship’s best relative heading for launching and recovering the helicopter ± 30 degrees7.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of:
> a. moving a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter from the stowed position in the hangar to the
> ready position on the flight deck,
> b. moving a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter from the landing position on the flight deck to
> the stowed position in the hangar,
> c. sheltering a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter in the hangar,
> d. securing a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter in the hangar, and
> e. securing a CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter on the flight deck.
> 
> The AOPS shall provide sufficient protection for one CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter for it to
> survive the same high sea states experienced by the AOPS.
> 
> The AOPS will have a limited ability to support8 the CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter.
> In accordance with the AOPS Statement of Operational Requirements, AOPS will not
> be fitted with:
> a. Canadian Recovery Assist, Secure and Traverse (C-RAST) system9,
> b. Mission Preparation and Analysis System (MPAS) or interfaces for MPAS,
> c. interfaces with Integrated Vehicle Health, Monitoring System (IVHMS),
> d. Air Detachment Room (ADR),
> e. comprehensive aviation workshops, or
> f. magazines for helicopter launched munitions (except as stated below).
> 
> 3.4 CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter
> 
> The AOPS will provide an emergency flight deck and refuelling service for CH-149
> Cormorant Helicopters in support of Search and Rescue missions in Canadian waters.
> 
> The AOPS shall have a flight deck (of size, strength and configuration), flight deck
> markings and operational lighting, sensors, communications and control systems
> sufficient for a CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter to land on and take-off from an AOPS10:
> a. day and night,
> b. under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR),
> c. in seas up to and including the top of Sea State 3, and
> d. at ship’s speed and relative heading most conducive to launching and recovering the
> helicopter.
> 
> The AOPS shall be capable of securing a CH-149 Cormorant Helicopter on the flight
> deck.



I believe this draft was issued circa 2010 in conjunction with the original SOR and ConOps.

Edited to correct annotations on highlighted numbers.  No Excuses.


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We were intended to spend $500M on upgrade kits to bring our Mk 46 to a Mk 54.  Article Link
> 
> Canada approached the U.S. last month to buy 425 of the next-generation MK-54 torpedo conversion kits at an estimated cost of $514 million, according to the U.S. State Department.
> 
> At roughly $1.2 million apiece, the kits include enhanced guidance systems and improved counter-countermeasures that will convert Canada’s existing arsenal of Cold War-era MK-46 torpedoes into the modern MK-54 configuration.
> 
> The Canadian Navy intends to deploy the weapons aboard Halifax-class frigates stationed at CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax.
> 
> The Air Force would deploy the torpedoes as air-drop weapons from CP-140 Aurora surveillance planes based in Comox, B.C. and Greenwood, N.S., as well as from the new CH-148 Cyclone helicopters based at Shearwater, N.S. and Victoria, B.C.
> 
> MK 54 Lightweight Torpedo
> 
> _The MK 54 program leverages the most modern torpedo technologies from the MK 50 and MK 48 ADCAP (advanced capability) programs. It also utilizes the proven MK 46 warhead and propulsion subsystems.
> _
> 
> Looks like otto fuel in the future for the RCN and RCAF.



I would assume a lot of navies are retaining their supply of cold war torpedoes than oping for something a little more safer.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I don't know if these requirements made the cuts but as I understand it the AOPS is/was expected to operate a Coast Guard Bell 412 in the ice, an RCAF CH-148 in open water for short durations with limited capabilities, and provide a roost on the open deck for the RCAF CH-149 in domestic waters in support of SAR ops.  The Coast Guard 412 is also expected to supply SAR and light logistics support.
> 
> I believe this draft was issued circa 2010 in conjunction with the original SOR and ConOps.



Yep exactly what I said before that the Cormorant can fit on the deck, although all the documentation I see nowhere mentions the Cormorant even as a possibility. It does make sense that the deck is strengthened to accommodate a Cormorant to land in an emergency. Can't see them operating regularly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Torpedoes: I for one am damned glad we are finally upgrading to mk54 and avoided MU-90. The 54 is an awesome weapon with eyewatering capabilities.

HDW and helicopters: everything that I have seen makes the HDW a lillypad only for Cormorants. Even that would be sketchy- if you have never deck landed on a ship and do not hold a deck qual,  I cannot see how a SAR crew could get themselves onboard without balling it up. It is harder than it looks. I would personally love to be onboard an AOPS with a Cyclone Det, but I don't detect that is where the focus currently is in either the RCN or 12 Wing. Not saying that won't change in the future. As always- if it has a flight deck, there is good chance a Cyclone will eventually go there.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Torpedoes: I for one am damned glad we are finally upgrading to mk54 and avoided MU-90. The 54 is an awesome weapon with eyewatering capabilities.


I agree. It's much improved in the sensor and warhead dept but the engine remains the same Otto II fuel driven system (As OGBD pointed out).  Which is nasty HAZMAT if found leaking.  Hence any ISO system would have to have good ventilation, a way to isolate a spill, but also an appropriate handling system.  I would suspect that an ISO system would carry only a few Torps (maybe 8-10) if that.  Then you have to get them to the flight deck for the Air Det to band/load them onto the aircraft.  If the ISO's are stored below the flight deck (where they would be if a helo was embarked) then unless there is an elevator...




			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> HDW and helicopters: everything that I have seen makes the HDW a lillypad only for Cormorants. Even that would be sketchy- if you have never deck landed on a ship and do not hold a deck qual,  I cannot see how a SAR crew could get themselves onboard without balling it up. It is harder than it looks. I would personally love to be onboard an AOPS with a Cyclone Det, but I don't detect that is where the focus currently is in either the RCN or 12 Wing. Not saying that won't change in the future. As always- if it has a flight deck, there is good chance a Cyclone will eventually go there.


I haven't even heard of a Cormorant landing on a CPF.  It may have happened but it certainly isn't a common occurrence.

The airforces plans are to have 11 Cyclone Det's.  I don't know if that's achievable or not but that's the goal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The AOPS shall operate Canadian Coast Guard helicopters:
> 
> c. in seas up to and including the top of Sea State 34,
> 
> f. at any relative wind over the arc from 30 degrees port to 30 starboard at any speed up to 355 knots.



  

Uhh…what does the CCG use for these super-duper helicopters?   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Got me, EITS!

Failure to proof.  SS34
 and speed 355

The beer's on me! ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Congratulations you found where the budget went, super helicopters


----------



## Pelorus

Never fear, the Russians are here to make wild claims _completely revolutionize the rotary wing industry_:L



> TASS: Russian design bureau knows how to increase speed of combat helicopter to 600 km per hour
> 
> MOSCOW, August 29. /TASS/. The JSC Kamov (an affiliate of the holding company Helicopters of Russia) has devised a solution to increase the speed of its combat helicopter to 600 kilometers per hour, the company’s general designer, Sergei Mikheyev, said on the sidelines of the international aerospace show MAKS-2019 near Moscow.
> 
> "I can say that at the moment we obviously lag behind the already existing requirements. Let me recall the parameters that are about to materialize in the United States. Boeing and Sikorsky — two competitors — have pooled efforts in creating a new combat helicopter of the future. Its estimated speed will be 480-550 kilometers per hour. Currently we have no such parameters," Mikheyev said.
> 
> "I can say that I managed to identify a solution. I have obtained a patent for it. A combat helicopter can fly at a speed of 600 kilometers per hour (~324kts) and more," he added.[/url]



More at link.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Won’t the thing fall apart at that speed?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Just shy of 500km/h was doable 6ish years ago...


----------



## newfin

Does anyone know when HDW is going to start seatrials?  I t must be coming up very soon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looking at the state she is in, I would not be surprised they are already doing various tests of sub systems alongside in prep for actually going to sea.


----------



## Underway

So nothing here for a while so I'll update some interesting engineering I found out recently.

Two counter rotating propellers which rotate _outwards_ from the centerline (over the top).  I was wondering why this was as its opposite the frigate configuration so did a little research.

There are two rudders on the AOPS, and one on the frigate.  The inward turning props on the frigate force water against the rudder to help increase steerage and reduce wake.  The AOPS doesn't have this problem due to the double rudder.

Secondly, you want to increase wake on the AOPS to push ice away from the ship.  This is done with the paddle wheel effect wash from the props and by canting the rudders on an angle away from the centreline evenly to force more water away from the ship as it moves forward.

This is common in ice breakers I'm told but interesting for me nonetheless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway a closeup of those bits https://youtu.be/j3b3WE-Jepc


----------



## Swampbuggy

Curious where the HMCS HARRY DEWOLF is with regards to sea trials? Seems like awhile since there's been any news about it at all.


----------



## newfin

I asked the same question on September 27...all anyone can say is we are getting close.  I did find one reference to her sea trials on Halifax Shipping news:
https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2019/10/aops-2-launch-delayed.html

In the article he ties the launch of AOPS2 to the seatrials of HDW which makes sense if berthing space is limited.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I guess that means mid November for starting sea trials.


----------



## Underway

Margaret Brooke is going into the water next weekend from what I am hearing.  They need to make space for the Max Bernays on the blocks.  No idea when HDW starts sea trials.  

This shipbuilding plans seems to finally be coming due.  West and East Coasts are starting to get rolling.  Bout time!


----------



## Swampbuggy

Halifax Shipping News blog reported that it's rumoured HDW will commence sea trials this upcoming Friday.


----------



## dapaterson

Global News is reporting that Irving may cut jobs and offshore production of some components for the AOPS.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6125710/irving-cuts-possible-arctic-patrol-ships/


----------



## Rifleman62

Irving savings for the taxpayer or Irving profit?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Irving savings for the taxpayer or Irving profit?


It's a business - take a guess ...  ;D


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Global News is reporting that Irving may cut jobs and offshore production of some components for the AOPS.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6125710/irving-cuts-possible-arctic-patrol-ships/



Is it really cutting jobs or reducing hiring new people?  If we lose 40 jobs in Darmouth but those same people fill positions at the main yard which is hiring about 120 new people, then you hire 80 new people instead...


----------



## calculus

AOPS (AOPV) 2 has been launched, and is in the water: https://shipsforcanada.ca/our-stories/halifax-shipyard-launches-canadas-second-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship

Sea trial for HMCS Harry DeWolf is reputed to start 21 Nov.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For you FBians https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/videos/444586466093750/


----------



## Underway

calculus said:
			
		

> AOPS (AOPV) 2 has been launched, and is in the water: https://shipsforcanada.ca/our-stories/halifax-shipyard-launches-canadas-second-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship
> 
> Sea trial for HMCS Harry DeWolf is reputed to start 21 Nov.



Delivery in March apparently.

MB was launched because it's the last day of the year that she could be.  After this weekend she's would of had to stay till spring blocking up the jetty space.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is there a specific reason it was the 'last day'?


----------



## tomahawk6

Put some F35B's or cobra gunships on board.  8)


----------



## Uzlu

> According to DND, Irving is planning to conduct formal sea trials in January 2020.


https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/arctic-and-offshore-patrol-vessels-will-be-late-leaving-halifax-shipyard-375219/


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is there a specific reason it was the 'last day'?



With the winter coming up there were limitations for the semi-submersible launching vessel.  Don't know what they were but I'm inferring that she probably wouldn't take well to freezing conditions in the plumbing system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> With the winter coming up there were limitations for the semi-submersible launching vessel.  Don't know what they were but I'm inferring that she probably wouldn't take well to freezing conditions in the plumbing system.



Copy, thanks!


----------



## Underway

Take a look into Beadford Basin tomorrow.  HDW might be going for her first sail under her own power.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Great news, I hope all goes well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Take a look into Beadford Basin tomorrow.  HDW might be going for her first sail under her own power.



Nice!


----------



## NavyShooter

I observed a different looking grey hull in the basin with at least one tug on standby as I crossed the bridge this afternoon.  

Interesting!


----------



## tomahawk6

Nice lines.

https://www.marinelink.com/news/canadas-nd-arctic-offshore-patrol-ship-472727


----------



## Uzlu

> The future HMCS Harry DeWolf starts initial sea trials
> 
> *The lead AOPS departed Halifax Shipyard at 0945 and, using its diesel-electric engines, moved to the Bedford Basin*
> 
> *NEWS RELEASE
> IRVING SHIPBUILDING
> **************************
> Halifax Shipyard has commenced initial builder’s sea trials for Canada’s lead Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS), the future HMCS Harry DeWolf.
> 
> The lead AOPS departed Halifax Shipyard at 0945 and, using its diesel-electric engines, moved to the Bedford Basin to start initial builder’s sea trails associated with anchor handling, the integrated bridge and navigation system (IBNS), fin stabilizers, Multi-Role Rescue Boat (MRRB) launch and recovery, and communication systems.
> 
> Initial builder’s sea trials will continue over the next few weeks and will be followed by formal sea trials and acceptance by the Royal Canadian Navy. This will span into the first quarter of 2020.
> 
> At 103 metres and 6,615 tonnes, the future HMCS Harry DeWolf is the largest Royal Canadian Navy ship built in Canada in 50 years.
> 
> There are currently four AOPS under construction at Halifax Shipyard, including the future HMCS Harry DeWolf. The future HMCS Margaret Brooke was launched on November 10, 2019 and is currently pier side where work continues to prepare the ship for sea trials and handover to the Royal Canadian Navy late next year.
> 
> Inside Halifax Shipyard’s facilities, the Royal Canadian Navy’s third and fourth AOPS, the future HMCS Max Bernays and the future HMCS William Hall, are under construction. The first two major sections of the future HMCS Max Bernay are scheduled to be moved outside in spring 2020.


https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/police-beat/the-future-hmcs-harry-dewolf-starts-initial-sea-trials-1876125


----------



## newfin

Here is the video released by Irving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSb9z65VM8Q

She's looking good!


----------



## Gorgo

I have a question:  Why was _HDW_'s pennant number painted off her hull?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps because she was not yet accepted into service?


----------



## Stoker

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I have a question:  Why was _HDW_'s pennant number painted off her hull?



It is painted on one side. From what I have been told it was painted over for touch ups and they just didn't get around to repainting it yet. Rest assured it will be painted before handover to the RCN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

newfin said:
			
		

> Here is the video released by Irving:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSb9z65VM8Q
> 
> She's looking good!



Nice to see her steaming on her own power.

I've heard different RUMINT about deck trials for the 148 starting in the near future as well...focus has been elsewhere recently so never seem to nail down any good gen on that.  Although I personally think the RCN needed something with some more speed and firepower, I'd be lying if I said I'd turn down a chance to be on a Det that went on a northern sail on one of these in the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect they spend as much or more time in the Caribbean and coast of Africa as they do in the Arctic.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect they spend as much or more time in the Caribbean and coast of Africa as they do in the Arctic.



There is isn't anything suspect about it, the ships will be deployed else where after freeze up including the Caribbean. The ships have the extra AC capacity to operate in the tropics.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> There is isn't anything suspect about it, the ships will be deployed else where after freeze up including the Caribbean. The ships have the extra AC capacity to operate in the tropics.



Maybe in the future, there will be a small Canadian Task Force on CARIBBE, complete with Cyclone's and Aurora's doing co-op stuff.


----------



## Baz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe in the future, there will be a small Canadian Task Force on CARIBBE, complete with Cyclone's and Aurora's doing co-op stuff.



There has been that ineffective in the past, with a Frigate, Sea King, and Aurora.  Wasn't the most cost effective for the tasking...


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> There is isn't anything suspect about it, the ships will be deployed else where after freeze up including the Caribbean. The ships have the extra AC capacity to operate in the tropics.



Have the engine cooling systems been engineered to operate in warm tropical waters?  As well as cold arctic waters?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Baz said:
			
		

> There has been that ineffective in the past, with a Frigate, Sea King, and Aurora.  Wasn't the most cost effective for the tasking...



But that was 'the past' and, no offense to SeaKing folks but there wasn't much to offer in terms of sensor cap's back then...that game has changed.  

If that TF was also only a Blk 2 Aurora...well...the potential has increased significantly on both the LRP/MH assets.


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Have the engine cooling systems been engineered to operate in warm tropical waters?  As well as cold arctic waters?



Yes and they have extra AC capacity to compensate for the extra load during tropical missions.


----------



## Spencer100

Will it be a problem that they don't have a beartrap haul down system?


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Will it be a problem that they don't have a beartrap haul down system?



I wouldn't think so, a lot of ships don't have them. In fact the NoCGV Svalbard which the AOPV is based on and operates a similar sized helo doesn't have one either.


----------



## Baz

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Will it be a problem that they don't have a beartrap haul down system?



The pitch and roll limits will be lower, which will be established by air trials, usually by AETE, but the Cyclone Combined Test Force may be able to do them.


----------



## Uzlu

> Canada's new Arctic patrol ships could be tasked with hurricane relief
> 
> *Navy expects to take possession of two new ships in the new year*
> 
> The Canadian navy will take possession of two Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships in the new year — and it looks like they'll be spending as much time in the sunny south as they do in the Far North.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, the commander of the navy, told CBC News recently that military planners see the ships playing a role in delivering disaster relief in the Caribbean, where hurricanes have been increasing in size and destructive power.
> 
> "We can see a great opportunity to use this hurricane response as we go forward," McDonald said in a year-end interview. "Ironically, the Arctic offshore patrol vessel will find itself equally spending its time between our Far North and down south in support of our securing the continent."
> 
> The first of the long-awaited patrol ships, HMCS Harry DeWolf, conducted sea trials a few weeks ago under the supervision of its builder, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax. It's due to be handed over to the navy in the spring, McDonald said.
> 
> Some members of the ship's inaugural crew took part in the shakedown to familiarize themselves with the new vessels.
> 
> "We've completed our training and we're ready to take it," McDonald said.
> 
> A second ship, HMCS Margaret Brooke, will be delivered to the navy in the fall.
> 
> Irving's Halifax Shipyard originally was slated to deliver the Harry DeWolf in 2018, but the deadline was pushed ahead to the end of 2019 and then pushed again into 2020.
> 
> That new timeline puts the date of delivery nearly five years after construction started.
> 
> McDonald said there are always delays when the first ships in a new class of vessels are introduced and the navy is satisfied it will receive fully functional, capable ships.
> 
> "We know that the lessons learned from tackling those production challenges, they're being folded into the second ship and into the third ship," he said.
> 
> Major component blocks of the third ship are being assembled at the Halifax yard now, and company officials, speaking recently on background, said production has become exponentially more efficient since the completion of the second vessel.
> 
> Steel for the fourth ship is being cut and shaped.
> 
> The brainchild of the former Conservative government, the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships originally were pitched 15 years ago as three armed heavy icebreakers for the Far North. That morphed into a plan — originally pegged at $3.1 billion —  to build eight light icebreakers. The number was cut to five (with the possible addition of a sixth) by the time the program got underway.
> 
> A little more than a year ago, the Liberal government confirmed it would build a sixth ship for the navy and construct two others for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> Irving is the prime contractor for the navy's new frigate program; some expressed concerns that the company would be stuck with a gap in production between the frigates and the patrol ships. The addition of the three new ships promised by the Liberals all but closes that construction gap, company officials acknowledged. It also added $800 million to the program's revised $3.5 billion budget.
> 
> CBC News recently was given access to the Harry DeWolf as contractors completed last-minute work. Compared with previous Canadian warships, its cabins and work areas are spacious and high-tech.
> 
> McDonald said he believes the versatile design will make the ship useful, not only for sovereignty and security patrols, but also for research projects.
> 
> "We can bring on scientists," he said. "We can bring on teams focused around missions that are larger than the navy as we go forward."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-frigates-irving-canadian-navy-1.5404650


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-frigates-irving-canadian-navy-1.5404650



Not really news when all RCN ships can be tasked with disaster relief.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Not really news when all RCN ships can be tasked with disaster relief.



Except that the original ConOps saw 8 ships spending all their time in Canadian waters following the ice.  Not 6 ships spending half their time in the Caribbean.

On the other hand the new CSCs with their enhanced boat decks should do well enough carting sea-cans.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is all about justifying naval/military assets in warm and fuzzy terms, hoping to convince the pols and public that spending is worthwhile. By the way CCG did hurricane relief too with Katrina:



> ...
> A fourth ship loaded with supplies, the Canadian coast guard icebreaker Sir William Alexander, is lagging even further behind the Canadian navy task force and might not arrive until Wednesday...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-katrina-aid-to-arrive-monday/article20425643/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Except that the original ConOps saw 8 ships spending all their time in Canadian waters following the ice.  Not 6 ships spending half their time in the Caribbean.
> 
> On the other hand the new CSCs with their enhanced boat decks should do well enough carting sea-cans.



The ConOPs that I saw at least 3 or 4 years ago had AOPS deploying to the Arctic, Caribbean, Africa and wherever else the RCN and government wanted to send them. That in conjunction with the Kingston Class. Wouldn't make much sense to tie them in Halifax or Esquimalt would it? The design for the AOPS takes into account operations in tropical areas.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm glad I pushed to have the HADR kits put into Sea Cans last year...and that the folks in charge of that listened to me.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Except that the original ConOps saw 8 ships spending all their time in Canadian waters following the ice.  Not 6 ships spending half their time in the Caribbean.
> 
> On the other hand, the new CSCs with their enhanced boat decks should do well enough carting sea-cans.



Ships are flexible.  These ones in particular.  The Gov't will be happy with the new options the RCN can now provide them in more situations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm glad I pushed to have the HADR kits put into Sea Cans last year...and that the folks in charge of that listened to me.



For us laymen, HADR kits?


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> For us laymen, HADR kits?



I'm guessing Humanitarian and Disaster Relief


----------



## NavyShooter

Almost got it - Humanitarian Aid/Disaster Relief

I was the Tech Services Chief at Base Logistics until March - last year when things were getting put together for AST, I was consulted about the contents of the kits - I reached out to sailors on the STJ who had done the HADR stuff in the Caribbean just a couple of months prior, and made some adjustments to the kits.


For example - there's now IMP's included in the 25 person kit (Annex A) so that the troops going ashore on the first day have food to bring with them, instead of having to worry about the ship pushing meals out to them ashore.  Talking to the PO2 who worked FP on that stint - he was ashore for 8 hours with his team and no food showed up...so...IMP's it is.  


I also got the "Brief Relief" portable potty bag kits included too.  Much easier than the 'blue rocket' that a junior LOGO in HQ though we'd be able to bring with the ships when we went out...
NS


----------



## dapaterson

See, I just assumed that with anything from the RCN, the letters "DR" had to be referring to "Dark Rum".


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> See, I just assumed that with anything from the RCN, the letters "DR" had to be referring to "Dark Rum".



I believe the RCN labeling system has that down as XXXX actually, (as opposed to XXX which is something totally different).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While working on a report, I have been using this document on ice navigation in Canadian waters, some of you may find it interesting https://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/publications/icebreaking-deglacage/ice-navigation-glaces/docs/ice-navigation-dans-les-galces-eng.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> While working on a report, I have been using this document on ice navigation in Canadian waters, some of you may find it interesting https://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/publications/icebreaking-deglacage/ice-navigation-glaces/docs/ice-navigation-dans-les-galces-eng.pdf



Very interesting, Colin. Thanks for this. Page 81 makes you realize that I’ve can be a real threat.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We almost lost the Camsell to ice ripping her hull open. http://www.nauticapedia.ca/dbase/Query/Shiplist4.php?&name=Camsell%20%28C.C.G.S.%29&id=2412&Page=1&input=camsell


_In the wee hours of September 10, 1978, while breaking ice near Jenny Lind Island (again those dangerous waters off King William Island) the CCG vessel Camsell slid off the frozen pack she was breaking, scraping her port side along an immovable shelf of multi-year ice. In the process, she sustained a mid-ship gash of approximately four metres long and a half metre wide allowing immediate flooding of her engine room. By mid-morning the water was up to her main deck. She was beached, patched and towed back by tug to Victoria where it took a year for officials to deliberate her fate and another year to repair her._

from: https://www.disegnojewellery.ca/pages/un-cut-version


----------



## Gorgo

BTW, when is the official christening ceremony for the _Margaret Brooke_?


----------



## OceanBonfire

> Last weekend, we took our first new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship out for a test drive in Halifax! 🌊
> 
> Over the past few days, the future #HMCSHarryDeWolf underwent sea trials to assess major ship systems and performance. These trials are critical for ensuring that she is sea-ready and ship-shape to support Royal Canadian Navy operations once delivered.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pg/CanadianForces/posts/?ref=page_internal
> 
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1224686555308138496


----------



## Underway

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> BTW, when is the official christening ceremony for the _Margaret Brooke_?



We don't christen them anymore.  Ceremonial naming is what happens.  As for the answer to your question I believe it will be this spring/summer when the weather gets better and HDW is out of the way (no data on that, just speculation).


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone have thoughts if they'll switch out the 25mm auto-cannons on the AOPS's as the 57's begin coming offline from the Halifax's?  Would certainly give the AOPS's a better ability to 'reach out and touch someone' if the need ever came about. 

I don't see them reusing the 57's on whatever we build to replace the Kingston's, though I'd be happy if they did.


----------



## Dale Denton

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone have thoughts if they'll switch out the 25mm auto-cannons on the AOPS's as the 57's begin coming offline from the Halifax's?  Would certainly give the AOPS's a better ability to 'reach out and touch someone' if the need ever came about.
> 
> I don't see them reusing the 57's on whatever we build to replace the Kingston's, though I'd be happy if they did.



I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".

I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison). 
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns. 

40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".
> 
> I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison).
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/
> 
> This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns.
> 
> 40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.



But what about missiles and torpedoes and stuff like that? I assume that they're pretty easy to bolt on as required, assuming we have them somewhere (says the Infantry guy who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about  ).


----------



## YZT580

Certainly light deck armament is more than adequate for the north although some form of ground to air would perhaps be handy but the missions to Africa require or could require a much more robust response.  Provided the design permits a swap-out and provided the alternative systems are available in-house for installation as needed no problem but having the installation capability is useless if there are no systems in the warehouse and I haven't seen any procurement contracts that would suggest that this is being addressed.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Something like this (bolt on, highly functional gun/ missile combination). There’s not a surface combat ship in the RCN that wouldn’t benefit from having this type of system. And while the cost is pretty low, am sure DND and the procurement folks can make arrangements to transform it into the most expensive, unreliable, down levelled system in its class: https://youtu.be/iDjvc2r02V4


----------



## daftandbarmy

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Something like this (bolt on, highly functional gun/ missile combination). There’s not a surface combat ship in the RCN that wouldn’t benefit from having this type of system. And while the cost is pretty low, am sure DND and the procurement folks can make arrangements to transform it into the most expensive, unreliable, down levelled system in its class: https://youtu.be/iDjvc2r02V4



You mean like the CTS program, but more important to national survival, right?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I think AOPS armament has been talked-to-death on here. They're pretty useless in terms of a fightin' anything up there. Anything that's in the arctic that wants a fight would likely be either a Sukhoi or a SSN - so you're buggered with a 25MM. IMHO 25MM seems to be there just to avoid the news article "new navy ship has no gunz" and for the "silent authority of a deck-mounted gun".
> 
> I can imagine in mid-life or emergency refit that you could turn an AOPS into a light-corvette without too much work (see below RN River Class Batch 2 article for comparison).
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/
> 
> This also theoretically work in an emergency on a Kingston Class - throw on a non-deck penetrating 40MM (2.3T), some fire-control radar, and replace the .50s with Miniguns.
> 
> 40MM on the type 31s look impressive: 2.3 Tonnes, non-deck penetrating, 12KM range, acts as CIWS.



Nice looking ships, now that the AOP's have the North, split the replacement of the Kingstons half for mine hunters and the half something like this.


----------



## Underway

You don't bolt on a 57mm.  

How are you going to target it?  57mm is a dual-use air and surface defensive weapon.  It requires an appropriate sensor suite to detect a target with enough accuracy to provide a fire control solution to a Combat Management System.  Its radar most likely would need to be upgraded.  The ship would need to upgrade its Combat Management System.  Despite perhaps some rumours out there to the contrary, the RCN isn't in the habit of putting weapon systems that never hit their targets onto ships.  Quite a bit of work has gone into the 57mm upgrade to allow it hit all the targets it needs to hit.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Delivery of first Arctic and offshore patrol ship delayed again*
> 
> 
> The delivery of the first Canadian Arctic and offshore patrol ship (AOPS) has been delayed once again, the Department of National Defence confirmed to Global News on Monday.
> 
> A spokesperson for the Department of National Defence said building "a new class of ships is very complex" and that the additional time is necessary "to ensure that all remaining work and tasks... are completed optimally."
> 
> "Although we had predicted the first delivery for Winter 2020, the schedule has slightly shifted to Spring 2020," Daniel Lebouthillier said in a statement.
> 
> The first vessel, HMCS Harry DeWolfe, was scheduled to be delivered by the end of March and this is only the latest in a series of delays for the vessel.
> 
> The original plan was to have Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax deliver the ship in 2018, before the date was pushed to the end of 2019 and then the first three months of 2020.
> 
> Labouthillier said that it is the department's objective to have the vessel delivered before summer. That gives Irving roughly three more months, although DND admitted that there is still a chance for the delivery date to change.
> 
> The delay will also put the timeline for the delivery of the next vessel in flux, although DND says lessons are being learned from the construction of the first vessel that will benefit the seven additional vessels to come.
> 
> Lebouthillier said the timeline for delivery on the remaining vessels is still being assessed, and updates will be shared once available.
> 
> Construction of the third and fourth vessel is already underway.
> 
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6649765/delivery-first-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship-delayed/


----------



## YZT580

Is anyone knowledgeable on the reason for the delays?  Structural, design flaws, construction errors or only a re-arranging of the deck chairs as a result of the trial runs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> You don't bolt on a 57mm.
> 
> How are you going to target it?  57mm is a dual-use air and surface defensive weapon.  It requires an appropriate sensor suite to detect a target with enough accuracy to provide a fire control solution to a Combat Management System.  Its radar most likely would need to be upgraded.  The ship would need to upgrade its Combat Management System.  Despite perhaps some rumours out there to the contrary, the RCN isn't in the habit of putting weapon systems that never hit their targets onto ships.  Quite a bit of work has gone into the 57mm upgrade to allow it hit all the targets it needs to hit.



Funny how other navies build this type of ship with those systems installed. How do they plan to control the 25mm?


----------



## Underway

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Is anyone knowledgeable on the reason for the delays?  Structural, design flaws, construction errors or only a re-arranging of the deck chairs as a result of the trial runs?



Oddly enough during trials, they are finding things that aren't working as they should!  I also _think_  Irving isn't that experienced with builders trials so assume they are screwing up and learning as they go.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny how other navies build this type of ship with those systems installed. How do they plan to control the 25mm?



Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.



I was actually referring to the Fire Control systems other navies have fitted to their ships and why we didn't?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> Oddly enough during trials, they are finding things that aren't working as they should!  I also _think_  Irving isn't that experienced with builders trials so assume they are screwing up and learning as they go.
> 
> Sure installed.  What are they going to hit without proper fire control? Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.  25mm is EO targeted using a control station on the bridge IIRC.



Kind of like putting 40mm WWII era Bofors on the Kingston's? Where was their proper fire control?  Guess that's why they were stripped on them a few years back, only after 20yrs of them being bolted on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AOP's #3


----------



## MilEME09

Meanwhile the UK is taking delivery of their off shore patrol vessels, interesting note about the new filter and reduced emissions, I imagine a similar system will be on the CSC.

https://www.forces.net/news/royal-navys-newest-and-greenest-warship-arrives-portsmouth-first-time


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the UK is taking delivery of their off shore patrol vessels, interesting note about the new filter and reduced emissions, I imagine a similar system will be on the CSC.
> 
> https://www.forces.net/news/royal-navys-newest-and-greenest-warship-arrives-portsmouth-first-time



AOPS is spectacularly environmentally friendly.  It's designed to meet the Arctic waters standards.  As for CSC, who knows.  I doubt it though.  Doesn't seem like we would write that into the requirements.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pasted the relevant IMO diesel exhaust emissions below; tier 2 has been met by on-engine improvements, tier 3 usually requires some kind of bolt on system and is generally a challenge. For a system like the urea SCR, you normally can't carry enough to run it all the time, so it's an option to turn on when in an environmentally sensitive area (i.e. off when you are on open ocean, on when you get close to land).  There isn't really a reliable and stable solution that has been proven to work on warships.  I guess the RN can be the guinea pig; hopefully works out better then the recuperator/intercooler on the WR21 gas turbine that is on the Type 45.  That would have been a massive fuel saving/emissions reduction if it actually worked.

As an aside, the upgraded diesels on the CPFs had to meet IMO tier 2 (tier 3 wasn't feasible because it would have meant a lot more then swapping the existing DG in a box).  That's part of the public spec that was on the RFP, but there was a lot of work to see if we could make tier 3 happen. Generally speaking, the RCN rules are we meet or exceed all environmental standards unless it isn't operationally feasible, and that's also baked into the NATO ship design standards (ANEP 77), as well as the various class rules for warships. There is a process to deviate from that, but it's a total nightmare, so would generally expect all warships we get to meet whatever IMO standards exist at the time for everything environmental (or exceed it, so we meet future restrictions as we run them past their shelf life).

It's hard to adapt some of the civilian regulations based around tonnage because the ship configuration on a commercial vessel is totally different then a warship (in terms of dimensions, centre of gravity, equipment density etc) but it's definitely always a question every time we do something, even though we are specifically exempted from the IMO treaties, Canada Shipping Act, etc. I know engineers get a bad rap for being gearheads sometimes, but a lot of us are also green thumbs, and when all your training boils down to system interrelations, it's pretty hard to ignore things like emission impact on the great outdoors. For a lot of people it's a passion project to do things as greenly as practicable, but outside the project all you normally see is a simple risk/impact table, and not the weeks of work and research behind it.


https://dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy Pete, how close do you think FELEX Pielstik’s got toward Tier 3?


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Pasted the relevant IMO diesel exhaust emissions below; tier 2 has been met by on-engine improvements, tier 3 usually requires some kind of bolt on system and is generally a challenge._* For a system like the urea SCR, you normally can't carry enough to run it all the time,*_ so it's an option to turn on when in an environmentally sensitive area (i.e. off when you are on open ocean, on when you get close to land).  There isn't really a reliable and stable solution that has been proven to work on warships.  I guess the RN can be the guinea pig; hopefully works out better then the recuperator/intercooler on the WR21 gas turbine that is on the Type 45.  That would have been a massive fuel saving/emissions reduction if it actually worked.
> 
> As an aside, the upgraded diesels on the CPFs had to meet IMO tier 2 (tier 3 wasn't feasible because it would have meant a lot more then swapping the existing DG in a box).  That's part of the public spec that was on the RFP, but there was a lot of work to see if we could make tier 3 happen. Generally speaking, the RCN rules are we meet or exceed all environmental standards unless it isn't operationally feasible, and that's also baked into the NATO ship design standards (ANEP 77), as well as the various class rules for warships. There is a process to deviate from that, but it's a total nightmare, so would generally expect all warships we get to meet whatever IMO standards exist at the time for everything environmental (or exceed it, so we meet future restrictions as we run them past their shelf life).
> 
> It's hard to adapt some of the civilian regulations based around tonnage because the ship configuration on a commercial vessel is totally different then a warship (in terms of dimensions, centre of gravity, equipment density etc) but it's definitely always a question every time we do something, even though we are specifically exempted from the IMO treaties, Canada Shipping Act, etc. I know engineers get a bad rap for being gearheads sometimes, but a lot of us are also green thumbs, and when all your training boils down to system interrelations, it's pretty hard to ignore things like emission impact on the great outdoors. For a lot of people it's a passion project to do things as greenly as practicable, but outside the project all you normally see is a simple risk/impact table, and not the weeks of work and research behind it.
> 
> 
> https://dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php



Can't you just route the urinals into it!  Run forever!  :rofl:


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nice looking ships, now that the AOP's have the North, split the replacement of the Kingstons half for mine hunters and the half something like this.



Nope the Kingstons will continue in the North doing hydro-graphic work.


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Nope the Kingstons will continue in the North doing hydro-graphic work.



Super important.  It's probably the biggest contribution to SAR that the RCN can do.  Prevent the SAR incident before it happens.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Agreed it's important work, but one that can also be done by CCG and PW/CHS. It was neat to do a old school hydrographic survey of a cove west of Coppermine and then a year later to see the Chart insert for that work.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Agreed it's important work, but one that can also be done by CCG and PW/CHS. It was neat to do a old school hydrographic survey of a cove west of Coppermine and then a year later to see the Chart insert for that work.



It can be done but it won't be at least not on a large scale, at least not until the CCG gets its act together and revitalizes its fleet. Even so its such a large task there's room for CCG and RCN participation. Now if we really cared we would build several purpose built hydrographic ships just for the Arctic and get the job done faster.


----------



## YZT580

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Now if we really cared we would build several purpose built hydrographic ships just for the Arctic and get the job done faster.


   Faster?  Not likely!  How many years do you think it would take to get the contract proposal out, bid on, selected, appealed, re-bid etd.  Seaspan would insist it was a civilian requirement hence theirs, Davies would say it needs an ice-strengthened hull so theirs, Irving would profer the AOP as being suitable  already designed and their purview and finally Heddle would claim it belonged in the new category and therefore open-bid.  Same old


----------



## lenaitch

Is not arctic hydrographic surveying needed to support our UN claim for high arctic territory?  This, as well as the need to develop extensive charting which is sorely lacking in many areas.


----------



## Stoker

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Faster?  Not likely!  How many years do you think it would take to get the contract proposal out, bid on, selected, appealed, re-bid etd.  Seaspan would insist it was a civilian requirement hence theirs, Davies would say it needs an ice-strengthened hull so theirs, Irving would profer the AOP as being suitable  already designed and their purview and finally Heddle would claim it belonged in the new category and therefore open-bid.  Same old



Just get it built offshore lol


----------



## Stoker

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Is not arctic hydrographic surveying needed to support our UN claim for high arctic territory?  This, as well as the need to develop extensive charting which is sorely lacking in many areas.



Obviously yes, worse case scenario is a cruise ship with a couple thousand passengers and crew hitting a shoal in the NW passage. A smaller pocket cruise ship did the same a few years ago, fortunately it didn't sink. A few years ago I was part of an exercise not too far from Iqaluit where we practiced something similar, lots of challenges.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:
			
		

> Is not arctic hydrographic surveying needed to support our UN claim for high arctic territory?  This, as well as the need to develop extensive charting which is sorely lacking in many areas.



Years ago, when a Canadian and US icebreaker trying to reach the pole, the US icebreaker lost a prop blade. A Russian icebreaker filming a TV special at the pole assisted them in getting out of the ice. The Canadian Captain went aboard the Russian ship to discuss how the escort should work. He noticed that the Russian charts of the Canadian Arctic were far more detailed than the Canadian ones. I wonder how they got that information.....

It was interesting to work up there and see the chart mostly blank of depths, with the occasional line of soundings, one line ending at a Pingo called the "Admirals finger" apparently he broke one when they hit it. In the Pearkes with just the Mate and myself on the bridge at around 2am steaming along, we saw the depth changing fast, by the time we stopped the ship, we had 2m under the keel from a previous 60m on a likley uncharted Pingo.


----------



## Gorgo

When it comes to building special or vital requirements, wouldn't it be just easier for the government to own its own construction slip?  Say Port Weller, Port Maitland, Port Colborne or Saint John?  Crew it with military and civilian engineers that wouldn't have to worry about losing jobs or being laid off due to lost contract bids because they were shifted from the construction yards to the FMFs whenever required?


----------



## Dale Denton

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> When it comes to building special or vital requirements, wouldn't it be just easier for the government to own its own construction slip?  Say Port Weller, Port Maitland, Port Colborne or Saint John?  Crew it with military and civilian engineers that wouldn't have to worry about losing jobs or being laid off due to lost contract bids because they were shifted from the construction yards to the FMFs whenever required?



This is what NSPS should've been. Own a portion of 1 or 2 yards (each with different specializations, or just generalize) by way the french and DCNS' partnership. Then contract out to any other Canadian yard for work the other two are too busy to take or for one-off classes. The purpose of the strategy is that long-term orders end the boom/bust cycle. At least if we owned 25% of Seaspan or whoever, we'd be partially paying ourselves, and show our commitment to the industry by 'buying (some of) the farm'.


----------



## Baz

At the risk of seeming flippant, how is a mix if civilian and military engineers working at ADM(Mat)?  I guess the answer to that is dependent on how you think ADN(Mat) is doing?


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> At the risk of seeming flippant, how is a mix if civilian and military engineers working at ADM(Mat)?  I guess the answer to that is dependent on how you think ADN(Mat) is doing?



It depends heavily on where the project is in its lifecycle.  AOPS vs JSS vs CSC.  Where I work we're the customer so our main job is to ensure that requirements 
(after contract being signed) are being met as best we can from an engineering perspective.  Internally it works great as the civilians rely upon the military folks to explain why things are done in certain ways and the civilians provide PM expertise and continuity. The issues come when the budget meets the contractor's abilities which then meets the requirements.  The main friction point is when you leave ADM(Mat) to the vendor, it's not internal for the most part IMHO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sounds promising for the type of stuff the AOP's may do:

In the sensor vanguard
Essentially a laser-based navigational aid, LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging) combines long-distance object detection with high-accuracy measurement, giving users a full 2D/3D/4D (3D plus time) perspective for optimal maritime awareness. The laser pulse scans a specific area or target with over 100 readings per second. Its water-penetrating capabilities enable very high-resolution detection of objects in the surface layer up to approximately one nautical mile distant and up to 10 meters deep in ideal conditions. “Objects” can be anything from a person, floating container, icebergs, whales, or small craft to environmental factors such as waves or pollution.

https://www.marinelink.com/news/ladar-laser-sensor-technology-maritime-478858?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2020-05-28&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews


----------



## Privateer

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sounds promising for the type of stuff the AOP's may do:
> 
> In the sensor vanguard
> Essentially a laser-based navigational aid, LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging) combines long-distance object detection with high-accuracy measurement, giving users a full 2D/3D/4D (3D plus time) perspective for optimal maritime awareness. The laser pulse scans a specific area or target with over 100 readings per second. Its water-penetrating capabilities enable very high-resolution detection of objects in the surface layer up to approximately one nautical mile distant and up to 10 meters deep in ideal conditions. “Objects” can be anything from a person, floating container, icebergs, whales, or small craft to environmental factors such as waves or pollution.
> 
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/ladar-laser-sensor-technology-maritime-478858?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2020-05-28&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews



I wonder whether a version of this does or could exist to allow a submarine to "see" its immediate surroundings if operating close to objects such as the ocean floor or ice, etc.


----------



## Uzlu

> Nice New Patrol Ship You’ve Got There, Canada—It’d Be A Shame If Somebody Sank It
> 
> The Canadian navy is about to get its first new large warship in two decades. But HMCS _Harry DeWolf_, the first of up to eight Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels, is all but unarmed. Her only organic weapon is a 25-millimeter cannon on her forward deck.
> 
> _Harry DeWolf_’s lack of heavy armament could be a problem in wartime. Imagine sailing into battle against, say, the Russian navy—with only a small-caliber cannon.
> 
> “During wartime, their capabilites are very limited,” naval historian Norman Polmar said of the Canadian OPVs. “I don’t know what more to say.”
> 
> The Canadian navy isn’t very big. It operates a dozen 1990s-vintage frigates, four quarter-century-old diesel-electric attack submarines that Ottawa bought second-hand from the United Kingdom, plus 12 small coastal patrol boats, also of ‘90s-vintage.
> 
> After a long break in major naval procurement, in the 2010s the Canadian government announced a maritime rearmament program. The 20-year, $70-billion National Shipbuilding Strategy includes 15 new frigates based on the U.K. Type 26 plus a pair of fleet oilers and several other auxiliary vessels.
> 
> The first new ships under NSS are the Arctic OPVs, six of which will sail for the navy and two for the coast guard. Lead vessel _Harry DeWolf_ could join the fleet as early as this summer.
> 
> At $400 million apiece, the Arctic patrol vessels are 339 feet long and displace more 6,600 tons of water, and have the closely spaced structural ribs and thick skin that you’d also find on an icebreaker. They have accommodations for 65 crew, space for small boats, a vehicle bay for trucks and snowmobiles and a flight deck big enough to handle the navy’s CH-148 helicopter.
> 
> But they don’t have large-caliber guns, missiles or major self-defense systems. After all, they’re patrol vessels. The navy plans for the OPVs to spend their time chasing smugglers and unlicensed fishing boats, rescuing people and responding to natural disasters in ice-choked waters. “They’re very useful,” Polmar said.
> 
> They’re _especially_ useful as the world warms, summer ice gets thinner in northern waters and sea passages open up across the Arctic region. To support the new OPVs, Canada is building a new naval base on Baffin Island in the country’s far north.
> 
> The OPVs aren’t designed to do battle with missile-armed warships and submarines or defend against air attack. Of course, they shouldn’t have to, normally. After all, no other country routinely deploys armed surface vessels in the Arctic. Submarines, however, have patrolled the region since the 1950s.
> 
> Russia in 2019 launched its first new missile-armed icebreaker and also is building a new class of ice-capable corvettes. The U.S. Coast Guard meanwhile has mulled adding weapons to its own new icebreakers.
> 
> But those ships mostly still are under construction. When _Harry DeWolf_ deploys, perhaps this year, she actually will be one of the only armed surface ships in Arctic waters, according to Jerry Hendrix, an analyst with the Telemus Group in Virginia.
> 
> A single 25-millimeter cannon isn’t exactly a war-winning weapon. In a pinch, however, the Canadian navy could bolt additional weapons onto the Arctic OPVs’ decks. The latest anti-ship missiles carry their own guidance radars and come in containers that workers can install on almost any reasonable-size warship.
> 
> Eric Wertheim, a naval expert and author of _Combat Fleets of the World_, highlighted the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile, a stealthy, subsonic anti-ship weapon with a 100-mile range. The U.S. Navy is adding NSMs to its Littoral Combat Ships in the hope of giving those lightly armed frigates a fighting chance during wartime.
> 
> Arctic weather can be rough on missiles. Ships and weapons need special seals and high-grade metals in order to function in extreme temperatures. Owing to its Nordic origin, the NSM probably is one of the better weapons for Arctic warfare, Hendrix said.
> 
> Coincidentally, Canada based its OPV design on a Norwegian vessel.
> 
> So yes, if the new cold war boils over and NATO and Russia go to war in the far north, the Canadian navy could, in theory, quickly add anti-ship missiles to its Arctic OPVs.
> 
> Adding surface-to-air missiles is a bit trickier, Wertheim explained, as they usually require integrated fire-control sensors that you can’t easily add to an existing ship without cutting open the vessel’s hull.
> 
> And bolting-on missiles won’t make the OPVs harder to sink. “They’re not necessarily built to take hits,” Wertheim said.
> 
> Still, Hendrix for one thinks Canada’s approach to patrolling the Arctic is the right one. Buy an inexpensive, lightly-armed, ice-capable patrol ship—and worry about arming it only in the event of a major conflict. “There is this escalating competition in the Arctic and it sound like the Canadians are taking the right step.”


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/25/nice-new-patrol-ship-youve-got-there-canada-itd-be-a-shame-if-somebody-sank-it/#1a47eb571ff0


----------



## Swampbuggy

I guess if they really wanted to, they could acquire and bolt on a SeaRAM unit to partially address that SAM issue, for at least short range threats. So, long as there's power and a structurally reinforced area where you'd want to put it, that is.


----------



## Dale Denton

I'm with all/most of you on the armament side, however I have an assumption there was more than a 10 min discussion over the armament, so i'm sure the following was considered:

- Cost, if we rolled in a partial re-design to accommodate a 57MM or any deck-penetrating deck gun, the cost and testing period would shoot up - which has been an issue for AOPS already. 

- AO, it'll be operating mostly (assumed) friendly waters, or at most the Caribbean/African coasts. Does its role and perceived threat require it to need something bigger from Day 1? No, have the Kingstons been in danger of attack recently...no.

- Use, its an OPV, which are generally lightly-armed anyways

- Ice, build-up would make something bigger or more complex a maintenance hog (assumed) and more spare-parts usage.

In short, i'm sure there were plenty of discussions as to what and how to arm this Class, and I don't think cost was the only obstacle. I can assume if you spend billions designing an building a ship for a Navy you have contingency or emergency re-arming plans drawn up like CIWS for the DDGs in the Gulf War. 

I'm sure someone's drawn up plans to quickly beef these up in wartime. Cool to see if RCN adopted the newer 40MM like on the RN Type 31s, some form of CIWS and a containerized ASW package aft.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> Tune in to the Canadian Armed Forces Facebook page on Friday, July 31 at 12:00 pm EDT, to watch the live stream of the delivery of the 1st Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel, Harry DeWolf to #HMCDockyard Halifax.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2946730305554152/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I'm with all/most of you on the armament side, however I have an assumption there was more than a 10 min discussion over the armament, so i'm sure the following was considered:
> 
> - Cost, if we rolled in a partial re-design to accommodate a 57MM or any deck-penetrating deck gun, the cost and testing period would shoot up - which has been an issue for AOPS already.
> 
> - AO, it'll be operating mostly (assumed) friendly waters, or at most the Caribbean/African coasts. Does its role and perceived threat require it to need something bigger from Day 1? No, have the Kingstons been in danger of attack recently...no.
> 
> - Use, its an OPV, which are generally lightly-armed anyways
> 
> - Ice, build-up would make something bigger or more complex a maintenance hog (assumed) and more spare-parts usage.
> 
> In short, i'm sure there were plenty of discussions as to what and how to arm this Class, and I don't think cost was the only obstacle. I can assume if you spend billions designing an building a ship for a Navy you have contingency or emergency re-arming plans drawn up like CIWS for the DDGs in the Gulf War.
> 
> I'm sure someone's drawn up plans to quickly beef these up in wartime. Cool to see if RCN adopted the newer 40MM like on the RN Type 31s, some form of CIWS and a containerized ASW package aft.



The discussion likely went; "While it add costs?"

"Yes"

"While it provide extra employment outside of Irving in X riding, that we can make multiple announcements on?"

"No"

"Then no you can't have that"


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> The discussion likely went; "While it add costs?"
> 
> "Yes"
> 
> "While it provide extra employment outside of Irving in X riding, that we can make multiple announcements on?"
> 
> "No"
> 
> "Then no you can't have that"



More likely this (all correspondence in letters):

Canada:  Irving can you look at adding a 57mm to this ship
Irving:  Yes, that is a Canada driven change.  As it is extra work for us not in the original contract it will cost $200,000 for engineering and research to investigate whether this is possible, potential impacts and what it would take to do this task.  This does not include the cost to design a solution or purchase the equipment.Risks include increased final cost to the ship and there will be expected delay in delivery.  
Canada:  *looks at budget, considers so many other things on the ship need fixing and cost money, decides to spend that extra cost on the wonky --insert random but critical problem here--* OK thanks Irving.  We'll pass.


----------



## Good2Golf

You forgot:

Irving:  Here’s the invoice for $23,635.54 for providing you with an initial feasibility and scoping assessment of the estimate costs of an AWR for fitment of a non-contracted capability. 

Net 30, please and thank you.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You forgot:
> 
> Irving:  Here’s the invoice for $23,635.54 for providing you with an initial feasibility and scoping assessment of the estimate costs of an AWR for fitment of a non-contracted capability.
> 
> Net 30, please and thank you.



More likely $21739.12, so that with tax it's just under $25K...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Baz said:
			
		

> At the risk of seeming flippant, how is a mix if civilian and military engineers working at ADM(Mat)?  I guess the answer to that is dependent on how you think ADN(Mat) is doing?



The EPMs is running with about half the people needed for the scope of work, handcuffed by procurement/logistic policies to getting stuff bought and available on shelves, and also supporting the projects. We're supplementing that with bringing in outside contractors, but if you can only do 'just in time' purchases for long lead items when a demand comes in, the min/maxes and other control items the LCMMs set are pretty much useless. At that point it doesn't matter how much/little expertise you have left as you are always reacting to whatever is the hottest fire of the day, and even critical stuff slides off when higher priority critical stuff comes in. It's not unusual for people to be covering two or three additional spots for years, and it's only run this long because there are a lot of people going above and beyond to try and keep up.

The ISSCs are a really expensive bandaid, but the current ADM(Mat) has been getting cut since the 80s. You don't get a high burnout rate from people that don't care about their job doing the bare minimum, and working in the Mat matrix was really eye opening at what a house of cards it is. Sure, there are probably people not pulling their own weight, but lots of people in the fleet are effectively mobile, top heavy ballast as well, and probably inevitable when you reach a certain size of a group.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> The ship will enter active naval service in summer 2021.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/IrvingShipbuild/status/1289164479377346560
> 
> https://twitter.com/battisctv/status/1289234364623200257
> 
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1289232432127004673
> 
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1289233896735875073
> 
> https://twitter.com/RoyalCanNavy/status/1289251929957076992
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/07/government-of-canada-receives-first-new-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Watching the ceremony right now, choking on the "thank you Irving bit" but politicians have to say all the "right things" at these events. I think the crew is lucky, a new ship of a new class and bringing new capabilities to the RCN, so they get to help "write the book" on how these ships will be used in the Arctic and elsewhere.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Watching the ceremony right now, choking on the "thank you Irving bit" but politicians have to say all the "right things" at these events. I think the crew is lucky, a new ship of a new class and bringing new capabilities to the RCN, so they get to help "write the book" on how these ships will be used in the Arctic and elsewhere.



The best ship is the one you have.  And the best shipyard is the one building ships.  I think thanks are in order.  Can they be better?  Yes.  This entire program can be better.  But that doesn't invalidate the fact they built a ship for the RCN.  We can argue the usefulness or the competence or the quality.  We have a new ship for the first time in 25 years.  

So I'm going to enjoy today, toast the crew, the builders and the navy with a half full glass and worry about the empty half Tuesday after the long weekend!
   :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> We have a new ship for the first time in 25 years.



_Summerside_ was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  _Harry DeWolf_ is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:
			
		

> _Summerside_ was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  _Harry DeWolf_ is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, _*and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).*_



And cork that bottle tightly, as delays might be the hallmark of this class.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> _Summerside_ was commissioned 21 years ago (not 25).  _Harry DeWolf_ is not yet commissioned, so maybe fill the glass with a toast to the crew, and leave half for the second part of the toast, once she is commissioned (next year, if all proceeds according to plan).



Meh whats 4 years between friends (who were drinking at the time).  Also, don't really care when the commissioning date is.  She's been accepted by the RCN.  She's our problem now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Meh whats 4 years between friends (who were drinking at the time).  Also, don't really care when the commissioning date is.  She's been accepted by the RCN.  She's our problem now.



Sounds...sounds like we're off to a good start...


----------



## Spencer100

The 6th AOPS will be called the HMCS Robert Hampton Gray.  He was a WWII RCN corsair pilot received the VC bombing a Japanese destroyer.  

Last Canadian to Receive a VC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hampton_Gray

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/arctic-patrol-vessel-named-after-robert-hampton-gray-second-world-war-navy-pilot/ar-BB17Nac4?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds


----------



## Gorgo

So it's confirmed!  Sweet!

Now, all we need are the names of the two CCG AOPS.


----------



## Weinie

Too bad Boaty McBoatface is already gone.


----------



## dapaterson

Shippy McShipHead?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Underway said:
			
		

> Yah a mess all round and I completely agree with the 4 AOR requirement, though not with the iAOR rush to procure.  If you want 4 AOR then expand the build for a 3rd proper one or wait until the experiment with the Asterix shows positive results.
> 
> The original Conservative plane was for 6-8 AOPS so I suppose we are back to the future.  I'm pretty sure that Irving will find a way to make a 6th AOPS with the current contract structure.  The way I_ understand the contract_ is that Irving gets a _guaranteed_ profit per ship.  Any money left over from the contract that isn't used doesn't get paid out to the shipbuilder.  It's not like Irving was handed $3.5 billion and told to make 5 or 6 ships with that amount and keep the change.  It's more like we have a budget of $3.5 billion.  Build 5 or 6 ships within that budget.  For every ship built we cut you $50 million.  You build 5 you get $250 million,  you build 6 you get $300 million.  No idea if its a flat amount or an escalator of profit.  If an escalator there is even more incentive to get that 6th ship built.  (note: not experienced with contracts so I may be mistaken).



Are you sure about that. I can see a slight premium paid for exceeding contract deliverables or bettering milestones, but guarantee profits are a disincentive to do a good job or even a mediocre job.


----------



## MilEME09

I would agree, Covid be damned Irving, seaspan or anyone else should incur penalties for late delivery. Not only that but should get a permanent red flag next time they bid saying they came in late and/or over budget, making it harder to get the contract and make the onus on them to prove they can do better.


----------



## FJAG

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that. I can see a slight premium paid for exceeding contract deliverables or bettering milestones, but guarantee profits are a disincentive to do a good job or even a mediocre job.



I have no idea as to whether or not Irving has such a contract, but "cost-plus" contracts are not unusual in situations where the parties agree to shift the risks of uncertainties from the builder to the owner. These are especially useful where the design specifications of the project are not yet complete or may very well be changed during the life of the project or where delivery time and quality of the work are of larger concern than cost.

In some cases a cost-plus contract can be cheaper than a fixed price one because the builder does not have to inflate or mark-up his material and labour costs in the bidding process in order to generate a profit margin.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover

I have a feeling Irving is doing all of the above, but I just can’t see any government signing a contract that guarantees a profit of $X per ship. 

Cost plus is more lucrative if a contractor or supplier knows how to game the system. That’s what happened in Sweden when TK tried to push costs too high. They were kicked off the A26 submarine project and the Swedish government had to resort to use force to repossess confidential material from TK. 

You’re right about cost plus being a viable way of doing some business but there must be checks, balances and accountability and a way to fire the bastards cleanly if they do not perform. Example: We once retained a software development entity to help with OS development compiling and all they did was milk the cost plus arrangement and never delivered anything useful. Achievement unlocked or total foul up, either way the most and the least we could do was fire them and they could not sue for breach. Try firing Irving lol!!


----------



## Ping Monkey

Article:  How GE Powers Royal Canadian Navy’s Harry DeWolf-Class Arctic Patrol Vessels


An interesting article (_that was definitely authored by GE's Business Development group_), giving some insight into AOPS power plants.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/how-ge-powers-royal-canadian-navys-harry-dewolf-class-arctic-patrol-vessels/


----------



## FJAG

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I have a feeling Irving is doing all of the above, but I just can’t see any government signing a contract that guarantees a profit of $X per ship.
> 
> Cost plus is more lucrative if a contractor or supplier knows how to game the system. That’s what happened in Sweden when TK tried to push costs too high. They were kicked off the A26 submarine project and the Swedish government had to resort to use force to repossess confidential material from TK.
> 
> You’re right about cost plus being a viable way of doing some business but there must be checks, balances and accountability and a way to fire the bastards cleanly if they do not perform. Example: We once retained a software development entity to help with OS development compiling and all they did was milk the cost plus arrangement and never delivered anything useful. Achievement unlocked or total foul up, either way the most and the least we could do was fire them and they could not sue for breach. Try firing Irving lol!!



You're bang on about controls. There needs to be rigorous auditing of both materiel costs as well as labour expenditures.

My biggest involvement in a cost-plus contract was the dismantling of an ammonia plant in Italy, refurbishing it in Texas and then installing it in Canada. There was a major time to completion requirement to the contract which the contractor was failing to meet and labour cost were skyrocketing as they struggled to complete. It got to the point that the independent plant start-up group came on site to do their prestart-up inspection and their punch list of deficiencies showed that the plant was still months away from completion.

For me the lesson was that you need more and much earlier inspections by independent third parties to review the contractor's progress to confirm that the contractor's progress reports are in fact accurate and that the billed materiel and services have in fact been incorporated as alleged. While owners generally have their own inspectors, they often loose the objectivity that an independent third party expert brings to the table.

Just as an aside, many cost plus contracts base the "plus" as a percentage of the "cost". That becomes frustrating when costs balloon above expectations as most owners tend to blame that on inefficiencies by the contractor and to make matters more galling, the ballooning costs also increase the percentage-based profit.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Re audits and objectivity 

A lesson I learned, was that the regulating authority can empower the contracted monitoring staff, by playing hardball with the proponent. In my case it was basically you can listen to the environmental monitors that you hired for advice or suffer a Stop Work order from the likes of me.


----------



## STONEY

It is obvious that many here have never worked at a shipyard, because it does not matter about contracts or penalties only. Everyone seems to forget UNIONS . If they say we will not work because of Covid or any other reason then it will not be done and neither the Gov. or God can alter that.      Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Irving family is in a union? I think we need to look past the welders and metalnworkers. The problem is in the white collar professions. Im willing to bet their labour costs far exceed blue collar trades, and we’ll never see an honest breakdown of that.


----------



## alexanderpeterson

I am interested in knowing how do the containers are loaded in the stern -I know there is a crane capable-...I have seen some images that shown with 2 sea containers (20 ft?) and 1 landing craft (ABCO type)...I have read that is capable of storing up to 6...I want to know how are they loaded using the crane without hitting the helicopter pad (specially the ones further down)...
There has been some discussions that eventually they will have the capability to carrying more offensive weapons such as the equivalent of a  Russian club-k  or the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile launched (there is a cool picture of one launched from USS Coronado in the wikipedia webpage)


----------



## OceanBonfire

A video tour inside:

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/videos/vb.388427768185631/346043706734105

https://twitter.com/RoyalCanNavy/status/1316121437913088000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWTCujhAn6w


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Working on the helicopter procedures 

https://twitter.com/HMCSHarryDeWolf/status/1317488176022364160


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Great to see!


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.capebretonpost.com/news/provincial/comms-problem-could-be-a-huge-fly-in-the-ointment-for-new-warship-retired-commander-511086/#.X44AhGA0fp8.twitter

Looks like she has some teething problems to work, good thing that is what the trials are for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.capebretonpost.com/news/provincial/comms-problem-could-be-a-huge-fly-in-the-ointment-for-new-warship-retired-commander-511086/#.X44AhGA0fp8.twitter
> 
> Looks like she has some teething problems to work, good thing that is what the trials are for.



None of it sounds all that bad. The Comms could be a just a faulty chip board or software that needs updating. Or someone forgot to connect the cables to the Antenna properly and they slipped off.


----------



## Weinie

Colin P said:
			
		

> None of it sounds all that bad. The Comms could be a just a faulty chip board or software that needs updating. Or someone forgot to connect the cables to the Antenna properly and they slipped off.



Or someone on Arcturus 4 just got a really confusing message.


----------



## chrisf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Looks like she has some teething problems to work, good thing that is what the trials are for.



Having taken several new ships out of yards, can promise, totally and 100% normal problems for a new ship.

The first six months to a year, all sorts of things will come up that got missed in the commissioning trials, yard or design defects, or were manufacturers defects.

Things not appropriately tightened or secured will literally shake loose, or heat up, or wear out, all stuff that might have passed the commissioning trials.

After the first month or so problems will slow down, and after the first year things usually get pretty reliable for the next few years.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> None of it sounds all that bad. The Comms could be a just a faulty chip board or software that needs updating. Or someone forgot to connect the cables to the Antenna properly and they slipped off.



Yeah there are issues, but they are being worked through from what I hear.  The change to Class standards is part of the problem as the RCN isn't used to this way of doing maintenance/testing/verification.  In many ways it's better in others it's not as rigorous as the traditional naval version.  The team are trying to find the way through that makes the most sense.  Add in new equipment types... it's all learning at this point.  Mistakes will be made, that's learning.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AOPS in CCG colours

https://twitter.com/IrvingShipbuild/status/1323351521287954433?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Yeah there are issues, but they are being worked through from what I hear.  The change to Class standards is part of the problem as the RCN isn't used to this way of doing maintenance/testing/verification.  In many ways it's better in others it's not as rigorous as the traditional naval version.  The team are trying to find the way through that makes the most sense.  Add in new equipment types... it's all learning at this point.  Mistakes will be made, that's learning.



If they're not making mistakes they aren't trying hard enough.


----------



## Cloud Cover

If they haven’t run it aground, set fire to it, spun the radar off its mount, flooded the store room, cratered the deck, lost the anchor or flushed the golden rivet yet, then it cannot be accepted. Tradition is everything in the Senior Service.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With the limited number of helicopters we have, I forsee these being part of the standard equipment of the AOP`s https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-trials-heavy-lift-drones-to-supply-ships-at-sea/


----------



## Gorgo

Wouldn't it be cheaper to get some non-ASW versions of the Cyclones for cargo purposes?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Gorgo said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to get some non-ASW versions of the Cyclones for cargo purposes?


No.


----------



## CBH99

Gorgo said:


> Wouldn't it be cheaper to get some non-ASW versions of the Cyclones for cargo purposes?


No, not even close.

While I don't have the exact numbers in-front of me, typically the purchase price of a drone (even a large, industrial sized drone as being discussed here) would be substantially cheaper than a new Cyclone.  Helicopters in general aren't cheap, especially a beast like the Cyclone.

Also, if we were to order a few more Cyclone airframes, they best be capable of ASW.  The government already purchased less than the minimum number the Navy stated they required (and took nearly a millennia to even do that) - and we've lost one airframe & crew already.  

Any additional Cyclones procured (not bloody likely) should be able to execute whatever missions are required of the ship, including ASW.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A HADR or littoral support ship likely needs helicopters larger than Griffon. I doubt the RCN is going to persuade the RCAF to lend a few Chinooks or other flying green things for those missions ( maybe Chinook in littoral support ship) Totally agree that any new Cyclone should be fully equipped ASW.  
Is there any commonality or could there be commonality between Cyclone and S92 or a beefed up S92 utility version? 
By littoral support ship I’m thinking along the lines of Prevail Partner design for the RN ( also such a ship might help with the needs addressed by FJAG- whose book on all of this arrived on my desk today )


----------



## Gorgo

Well, the H-92 Superhawk is a standard utility version of the S92 design that the CH-148 is deprived from.  Navalize it for use on ships and it could be used on _Asterix_, _Protecteur_ and _Preserver_.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

More Cyclones being bought will never happen. We own the entire world supply- 27. Sikorsky is not interested in making more: Canada is not interested in buying more. There is some commonality between Cyclone and an S92, but also significant differences.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:


> More Cyclones being bought will never happen. We own the entire world supply- 27. Sikorsky is not interested in making more: Canada is not interested in buying more. There is some commonality between Cyclone and an S92, but also significant differences.


Jean Chretien's gift just keeps giving and giving and giving.


----------



## Cloud Cover

SeaKingTacco said:


> More Cyclones being bought will never happen. We own the entire world supply- 27. Sikorsky is not interested in making more: Canada is not interested in buying more. There is some commonality between Cyclone and an S92, but also significant differences.


🤬. Brilliant move eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> More Cyclones being bought will never happen. We own the entire world supply- 27. Sikorsky is not interested in making more: Canada is not interested in buying more. There is some commonality between Cyclone and an S92, but also significant differences.


Has Sikorsky said that they won't open the line publicly?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Has Sikorsky said that they won't open the line publicly?


I imagine there are probably some bits sitting around that would be needed to retool to make more parts at an exorbitant cost, but we were really stupid to buy a one off to our specs and not just require something with an existing fleet of x amount. Especially at less than 30 in total, that's nuts.

I'm a big believer of having imperfect equipment that is widely supportable rather than bespoke solutions, because we don't spend enough (consistently) to make bespoke worthwhile for any manufacturer. Something 'good enough' with hundreds of others in service would have been a much better idea as we're small potatoes and an insignificant customer in the big scheme.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While I want to agree with you, I suspect that "training and micro fleet" argument will come up. We jumped onto the Cyclone bandwagon and likley it will make sense to stay on it if we play more airframes, not sure how much of the moving bits are common to the other Sikorsky products?  i wonder how much in common with the VH-92?


----------



## dapaterson

So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Subs yes, Type 26's no


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> Subs yes, Type 26's no


Wandering a bit off topic here. So there will be (hypothetically) 20-40 Type 26's built, give or take a few, amongst potentially five different countries. I have read that ours will likely be the most capable of the batch, based on the weapons systems that we put on them. I know that we will procure spares for a certain period  of time. Is a global batch of 40 enough to ensure that long term cost-effective spares sustainment will be in place? If no, then why will the AOPS build of 6-8 be any different?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In my experience I never been on one ship that is exactly like the next, even if built in the same yard, plus they each have there own quirky personality. I am not sure how much commonality there will be with the various fleets of Type 26's, perhaps someone can list that on the CSC thread?


----------



## dapaterson

Certainly we can count on our OEM to provide support at moderate rates throughout the lifecycle.

(Well, moderate, extortionate, your choice...)


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Wandering a bit off topic here. So there will be (hypothetically) 20-40 Type 26's built, give or take a few, amongst potentially five different countries. I have read that ours will likely be the most capable of the batch, based on the weapons systems that we put on them. I know that we will procure spares for a certain period  of time. Is a global batch of 40 enough to ensure that long term cost-effective spares sustainment will be in place? If no, then why will the AOPS build of 6-8 be any different?



There are a number of things to unpack here.  AOPS has largely off the shelf equipment with relatively common engineering systems.  The military stuff is common across the world already (deck gun) or across our fleet (like radios are common).  Spares and parts will be readily available for these for a long time to come.  A deck crane or diesel generator is not specialized equipment.

As far as Type 26 one of the interesting things is the global supply chain will be robust as we and two other countries are building these vessels.  As far as weapons systems, all the weapons systems that I have seen are not new or orphan children.  The UK and NZ already use Sea Ceptor systems. The Mk41 VLS and associated missiles are in use with the entire US Navy and Japanese Navy to start (number one and number three largest navies in the world).  The 127mm as either a BAE or Leonardo are in service with many world navies as well. We are upgrading and using the same torpedoes.

Will there be "one off's"? Yes.  All ships have one-off parts.  There is no warehouse holding a dozen spare gearboxes for warship gas turbines.  They are made to order.  But because of robust design, these sorts of things are usually good for the life of the ship, or with regular maintenance, you can predict when a replacement is needed and order ahead.

Where things get irritating is with specialized electronic components, which is why much of the electronic backbone of a ship's systems are software defined and use civilian electronics.  For things that are special like a Travelling Wave Tube its amazing how fast parts can show up when you order them rush.  Saab was quite happy to hand-deliver parts while I was on a NATO, including the staff to help us install it.  I see no difference with any other equipment.

As far as cost-effective, well that's a matter of opinion.  How cost-effective is it to pay for a bunch of parts you don't know if you will need and  then store them? It's not, because that's where just in time manufacturing comes from.  Parts that regularly wear our or need refurbishment will be identified and stored.  Parts that can be manufactured by the RCN itself will also be identified.  If it's not one of these parts, well then we go back to the OEM and buy a new one.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Are the Aussies using the same Rolls Royce power plant as the RN/RCN? I think the RR plant in Peterborough Ontario will be producing engine components for the T26.  
If another navy does not plan to use the SPY7 perhaps that might be reconsidered lest we have another orphan system. It’s already expensive enough.


----------



## Uzlu

Cloud Cover said:


> Are the Aussies using the same Rolls Royce power plant as the RN/RCN?


Yes.


Cloud Cover said:


> If another navy does not plan to use the SPY7 perhaps that might be reconsidered lest we have another orphan system.


Spain and maybe also Japan will also use SPY-7.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Was also just reading LM is trying to have it adopted for the Ticonderoga life extension. That would be a huge ++++


----------



## JMCanada

dapaterson said:


> So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions?


I think this comparison is not fair. Can't compare helicopters, which are usually bought/manufactured/supplied by dozens to vessels, rarely ordered beyond ten units (only RCN Type 26, US Navy ships and a few more examples).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

With the currently announced purchases and intent to purchase, the Type 26 is already the most successful frigate design since the Leander's.

Supporting it for a reasonable amount of time should be no problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JMCanada said:


> I think this comparison is not fair. Can't compare helicopters, which are usually bought/manufactured/supplied by dozens to vessels, rarely ordered beyond ten units (only RCN Type 26, US Navy ships and a few more examples).


Some countries do buy that way, like Israel, KSA because they don't have the industrial base for it or in Israel case the space for it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> So... you're saying we should buy ships off someone else's line instead of our own bespoke solutions?



Lol, yeah, saw that coming.

We did actually buy someone else's ship and are just building it ourselves. Ships are a different kettle though; they don't have an OEM. Whether or not it's built in Canada is really immaterial from a long term supportability view as that is really dependent on equipment level selection, but doesn't really matter at the platform level (as that's basically steel bashing and paint).

For example, when we replaced the diesel generators on the Halifax class, the replacement had to have a certain number in operation in marine applications and also be supportable for the life of the associated ISSC (it was a package equipment+support RFP). So even though it may be on completely different types of ships doing totally different things it's easier to support because there is a big user base.

Similarly, with the type 26 if we use the same propulsion engines or whatever as the base design, even if we've changed some other things, we can exchange info with other navies that use it, and generally collaborate on upgrades. We already do that with a variety of systems. The other nice thing is that you can pull into another naval base and if their fleet uses that same piece of kit you can get second line support from them (even if it's just one tech suggesting things with your crew turning wrenches b/c there isn't an official MOU or something in place). Doesn't even need to be on a type 26 platform, as that doesn't really change anything on the equipment itself. Alternately, we could have bought an off the shelf design, then gotten a custom made widget for something that no one else uses/will use, and have a one off, bespoke piece of kit with long term supportability challenges.

Planes, helos and vehicles have their own OEM for the entire platform which is a totally different situation, especially IP wise. This is more like when the Royal Navy bought a one-off gas turbine for their Type 45s and are they are the only ones in the world operating them. They are totally reliant on the OEM for support, and probably pay a premium for any parts or service, as well as to maintain some kind of third line repair stream open. We ended up in that position for a lot of the systems on the 280s and it cost a fortune. Occasionally we would get informed that they were ceasing support and gave us the option for doing a lifetime parts buy. It really sucked.

For contrast, the LM2500 gas turbines in the Halifax class are widely used for marine, oil and gas and other applications. They are much easier to maintain (in terms of parts and support) and there are even OEM licensed third line repair facilities, so generally speaking we have a lot more options, and there is a really low chance we'll be the last ones left operating them.

If we're starting out as the only operators of Cyclones in the world, we're kind of hooped from the start. My $0.02, but the CAF is a bit player and can't afford to be the only user of planes/heloes/vehicle platforms, or bespoke equipment on ships.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> While I want to agree with you, I suspect that "training and micro fleet" argument will come up.* We jumped onto the Cyclone bandwagon* and likley it will make sense to stay on it if we play more airframes, not sure how much of the moving bits are common to the other Sikorsky products?  i wonder how much in common with the VH-92?



A slight off-topic tangent for the platform specifics, but germane to the discussion because other factors in play then, still exist today in current projects... 

We didn’t jump onto any bandwagon at all.  We asked a bespoke bandwagon to be made just for us!

The Martin government took a deliberate action to commit Canada to an aircraft that would be notably more capable than the SH-60 Sea Hawk type, but more importantly protected Jean Chrétien’s legacy of having taken a good decision back in 1993 to cut the NSA/NSH EH-101 helicopter...”Zip! Zero! Nada!”  The CH-148 Cyclone was going to be a mess from the out start because the Government assigned to role of overall capability integrator to neither Sikorsky, nor to General Dynamics Mission Systems - Canada.  That resulted in the Crown retaining final responsibility for overall platform-systems integration (cue Sikorsky and GDMS-C high-fiving each other with great relief in the background).

Arguably, Sikorsky was attempting to recover at least some of the NRE it spent on FBW flight-control systems it had developed with Boeing for the RAH-66 Comanche, but even then, once they hit the limit of liquidated damages back to the Crown, they pretty much lost interest in bending over backwards to make things work well enough to market the aircraft to compete with the upper echelons of its own (SH-60) customer base


----------



## CBH99

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Sikorsky also somewhat 'pitch' that the Superhawk would start to replace their legacy Blackhawk/Seahawk series, and thus be a widely supportable airframe in the future?  

(Perhaps either high hopes on the part of Sikorsky, or just saying what they needed to say to secure the deal?)


----------



## Good2Golf

Soft pitch, yes, but as a utility/military variant of the S-92, designated the H-92 Superhawk, not the complex fly-by-wire MH92 that became the CH-148 Cyclone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A nice article about HDW visiting Newfoundland and one of the crew getting to show off his new ship to their parents (from a distance) https://tridentnewspaper.com/hmcs-harry-dewolf-newfoundland/


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> A nice article about HDW visiting Newfoundland and one of the crew getting to show off his new ship to their parents (from a distance) https://tridentnewspaper.com/hmcs-harry-dewolf-newfoundland/


"Individual cabins." That is just crazy wrong! 

How will any Navy Officer learn his tradecraft without being stuffed in a JOUT locker. Without hot bunking NCM's will be left to their own designs. The horror, the horror.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> "Individual cabins." That is just crazy wrong!
> 
> How will any Navy Officer learn his tradecraft without being stuffed in a JOUT locker. Without hot bunking NCM's will be left to their own designs. The horror, the horror.


Oh, don’t worry. It always starts out that way with a new class of ships. Pretty soon, triple stack bunks start sprouting everywhere like dandelions.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> Oh, don’t worry. It always starts out that way with a new class of ships. Pretty soon, triple stack bunks start sprouting everywhere like dandelions.


But don't dare suggest we include some extra capacity in the hotel services at the front end (black and grey water, food, etc). That's crazy talk as we'll never exceed the max crew of 70-some odd. 🚣‍♂️


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> But don't dare suggest we include some extra capacity in the hotel services at the front end (black and grey water, food, etc). That's crazy talk as we'll never exceed the max crew of 70-some odd. 🚣‍♂️


Oh, you wild eyed optimist....


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> Oh, you wild eyed optimist....


I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.

It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.

If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump!


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.
> 
> It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.
> 
> If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump!


You can discharge treated effluent in the Arctic...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> You can discharge treated effluent in the Arctic...


Until your command tells you not to, we were told that our icebreakers with Arctic certified sewage systems could not and we were supposed to pump our tanks into the Victoria's sewage system. A few red faces when the Chief Engineer described the ship system vs Victoria's non-existent sewage system.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Until your command tells you not to, we were told that our icebreakers with Arctic certified sewage systems could not and we were supposed to pump our tanks into the Victoria's sewage system. A few red faces when the Chief Engineer described the ship system vs Victoria's non-existent sewage system.


Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> I give it the first real deployment until we get a UCR for 'insufficient bunks'.
> 
> It's especially bad for AOPS with the extra restrictions on any discharges in the Artic, *so the volume of holding tanks may become a limiting factor in time on station.*
> 
> If I'm optimistic it would be that someone added an 'engineering safety factor' to the tank volumes to give an extra 30% sewage capacity or something so you could accomodate at least another 20 -30 on top of their 'max crew'. I wouldn't bet a coffee on that though! Time for the sneaky pete pump!





Stoker said:


> Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.


Many Navy folks I know were full of shyte, so a couple of extra days holding it shouldn't cause any real problems.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Just going by the environmental regulations for the Arctic for this class of ship. There's always going to be situations where you need to collect, the ship is set up for it and it has multiple ways to treat and hold. We are not the CCG.


Fortunately our treatment systems never break down, and then when they do, require FSR support and/or parts not held on board in large quantities.

Plus we can count on environmental regulations never getting stricter as vessel traffic increases when the passages open up...

🎶

(hotel services can be the bane of your existence when they aren't working, so apologize in advance for being scarred by my experiences and reacting like a beaten dog around the need for functional sewage, hot water, and fresh water collection and treatment systems. Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> (... Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)


Afraid to ask... is it something like


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Fortunately our treatment systems never break down, and then when they do, require FSR support and/or parts not held on board in large quantities.
> 
> Plus we can count on environmental regulations never getting stricter as vessel traffic increases when the passages open up...
> 
> 🎶
> 
> (hotel services can be the bane of your existence when they aren't working, so apologize in advance for being scarred by my experiences and reacting like a beaten dog around the need for functional sewage, hot water, and fresh water collection and treatment systems. Nothing like getting to make a pipe telling people NOT to flush stubby screwdrivers, or a detailed explanation of what a pusser shower is to really kill your personal morale.)


I don't know what to tell you, been in the Arctic multiple times and my BW, GW and Rods never broke down.  In fact in the Arctic my Rods worked the best, way better than the Caribbean obviously. That being said we had redundancy and multiple modes of operation for MARPOL Special Areas. and that helped immensely.  Breakdowns occur of course, all I'm saying is that there are discharge regulations in the Arctic we follow in the Class SEMS and it doesn't include not discharging entirely. In regards to AOPS the fact that they can carry an extra 20 persons over their regular crew size, they have that and an extra capacity built into their treatment plant. They have to, to get the USCG certification.


----------



## torg003

Just wondering, why would Canadian made ships to be used in the Canadian Arctic have to get USCG (or any other American agency's) certification?


----------



## Stoker

torg003 said:


> Just wondering, why would Canadian made ships to be used in the Canadian Arctic have to get USCG (or any other American agency's) certification?


They sewage treatment system has to be certified by the USCG in order to enter US waters and discharge. These ships at times like any other ship in the RCN will be traveling in US waters at some point. Like any sewage certification they require our system to be MARPOL Annex IV compliant. All these systems are designed to have extra capacity in case of situations where there are extra people embarked. AOPS has an extra 20 bunks for embarked forces so they have that extra capacity to process as a design element.


----------



## torg003

Gotcha, thanks.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> Afraid to ask... is it something like


Pusser Shower means: A water-saving evolution in which one attempts to get clean while using as little water as possible. Basically, you turn on the shower for a few seconds to wet yourself down. Then, turn off the shower and lather everything up. Then, you turn the shower back on and rinse off.






						What is the meaning of Pusser Shower, what is the slang definition of Pusser Shower, Pusser Shower is slang for
					

What is the meaning of Pusser Shower, what is the slang definition of Pusser Shower, Pusser Shower is slang for




					lingomash.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

First Paint on the future HMCS William Hall, which will become 
RCN's 4th Arctic & Offshore Patrol Ship! Official Keel Laying up next!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1350168495422660609


----------



## Gorgo

Hopefully, the production of the remaining AOPS will be hurried up so that work can start on the CSCs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Gorgo said:


> Hopefully, the production of the remaining AOPS will be hurried up so that work can start on the CSCs.



I don't think production of AOPS is the holdup; once they do equipment selection there is still a bunch of work to finalize the design, do the production engineering (ie breakdown the ship into modules, then plan how to build the modules), build a test plan and all kinds of good stuff. Also there are long lead items (gearing, and propellers being the most obvious ones).

Expect there will be a bit of a production slow down honestly when they switch over to CSC but as long as there isn't a gap we're good.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Apparently there are some ISI and RCN people on their way over to Australia to observe and learn as they are cutting steel for prototype. Probably same group who were in Scotland last year.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't think production of AOPS is the holdup; once they do equipment selection there is still a bunch of work to finalize the design, do the production engineering (ie breakdown the ship into modules, then plan how to build the modules), build a test plan and all kinds of good stuff. Also there are long lead items (gearing, and propellers being the most obvious ones).
> 
> Expect there will be a bit of a production slow down honestly when they switch over to CSC but as long as there isn't a gap we're good.


Hence the two CCG AOP's, I hope CCG puts a stern ramp on theirs, allows launching and recovery of IRBs in great sea states than cranes or davits.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Hence the two CCG AOP's, I hope CCG puts a stern ramp on theirs, allows launching and recovery of IRBs in great sea states than cranes or davits.


Yeah, now the CCG and RCN can share the ship no one was really looking for!  😁

We always talked about doing that with the 280s once they got rid of the variable depth sonar.  The well was already there, and would have been bad ass to drop some kind of combat RHIB with everyone already in it. Some people made all kinds of good arguments about it tactically, but really just think they wanted to look cool.

Makes even more sense in the Arctic though; climbing up and down a ladder to get into RHIB seems like an extra layer of bad ideas in the Arctic..


----------



## Cloud Cover

That’s why somebody needs to invent the Arctic ice capable Hover-Doo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hovercraft were used quite a bit in the Arctic, the Hovercraft in this film in the end became a donor for parts to build up SRN 6 #045, which I crewed on at Sea Island base  https://www.bpvideolibrary.com/record/305
My Captain at Sea Island ran the 4 fan one you see lower left on page 2, it was a dog as this was a converted Hover cable ferry, it had no keel bag and had zero directional stability, doing 360's in a white out was interesting he said... 


			https://dfdickins.com/pdf/ICETECH08-115-RO.pdf


----------



## GAP

why are they not more widely used today?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Expensive machines to run. The skirt takes a lot of work to keep in good repair, these craft were built like planes and suffered corrosion issues. The new AP1-88/400's are built like aluminium boats with thicker welded construction. Far less problems, but the skirts remain the same, plus 4x1000hp Cats to look after, so fuel is close to 60 galleons an hour. They are excellent machines in certain niches, but I think there was a backlash from being oversold and resulting poor performances against traditional craft.


----------



## chrisf

> Hence the two CCG AOP's, I hope CCG puts a stern ramp on theirs, allows launching and recovery of IRBs in great sea states than cranes or davits.



The coast guard uses Miranda davits on a large number of their vessels...

Best way to describe it... theres a "skate" that stays in contact with the hull all the way from the water to the hull, and the davit drags the RHIB in towards the hull, so its in contact with the skate all the time.

You can launch and recover in a much higher sea state than a regular single point luffing davit...  you can of course launch with the full crew/casualties/passengers in the boat, or leave hung off at deck level to make getting in/out easier...

Beats the heck out of the paint on the side of the hull is the only downside.

They were literally designed for the Canadian coast guard... no idea why they never caught on with other users, especially navies or the offshore oil industry.


----------



## Spencer100

Form follows function or something like that.

Russian launches their AOPS clones (a little bigger but they're so Russian of course so it is, plus more weapons  

Admiralty Shipyard Launches Russian Navy's First Project 23550 Patrol Icebreaker Ivan Papanin - DefPost


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Spencer100 said:


> Form follows function or something like that.
> 
> Russian launches their AOPS clones (a little bigger but they're so Russian of course so it is, plus more weapons
> 
> Admiralty Shipyard Launches Russian Navy's First Project 23550 Patrol Icebreaker Ivan Papanin - DefPost
> 
> View attachment 64404



I would have been much happier if our AOPS had been similarly armed. With the current fit, it seems much more suitable to a constabulary role with our Coast Guard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

chrisf said:


> The coast guard uses Miranda davits on a large number of their vessels...
> 
> Best way to describe it... theres a "skate" that stays in contact with the hull all the way from the water to the hull, and the davit drags the RHIB in towards the hull, so its in contact with the skate all the time.
> 
> You can launch and recover in a much higher sea state than a regular single point luffing davit...  you can of course launch with the full crew/casualties/passengers in the boat, or leave hung off at deck level to make getting in/out easier...
> 
> Beats the heck out of the paint on the side of the hull is the only downside.
> 
> They were literally designed for the Canadian coast guard... no idea why they never caught on with other users, especially navies or the offshore oil industry.


Didn`t have that on the Pearkes when I was on it, the Gordon Reid and John Jacobson had the stern ramp.


----------



## Spencer100

Putting my Tin Foil hat on......I think one of the main reason for the under arming is that the Brass didn't want the politicos looking at them a saying "see you armed shipped why are we spending 65 billion on frigates?"  With these they can say nope those ships just have a tiny gun on them.

FYI I do understand the reason given in thread about the armament, IE they don't need, why the cost of maintaining an expensive system, higher cost CMS etc.   I just think not giving the Politicos any ideas was part of it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> Putting my Tin Foil hat on......I think one of the main reason for the under arming is that the Brass didn't want the politicos looking at them a saying "see you armed shipped why are we spending 65 billion on frigates?"  With these they can say nope those ships just have a tiny gun on them.
> 
> FYI I do understand the reason given in thread about the armament, IE they don't need, why the cost of maintaining an expensive system, higher cost CMS etc.   I just think not giving the Politicos any ideas was part of it.


Actually I don't doubt that was a consideration. I have seen some strange ideas come out of Ministers and their staff mouths.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> Putting my Tin Foil hat on......I think one of the main reason for the under arming is that the Brass didn't want the politicos looking at them a saying "see you armed shipped why are we spending 65 billion on frigates?"  With these they can say nope those ships just have a tiny gun on them.
> 
> FYI I do understand the reason given in thread about the armament, IE they don't need, why the cost of maintaining an expensive system, higher cost CMS etc.   I just think not giving the Politicos any ideas was part of it.


Remember the government wanted two armed heavy icebreakers until the RCN got involved and talked them off the wall.  The RCN went away with the government's concerns (Arctic patrol) and did an analysis of what was the best options and came back to the government and said here's the best way forward. 
As far as navy procurement is concerned we usually get what we need without random interference.  Because the strategic necessity of the RCN is obvious to even politicos.  Airforce stuff on the other hand...


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> Because the strategic necessity of the RCN is obvious to even politicos.



I'll just go to the coasts to look at our 18 Halifax class frigates and nuclear submarine fleet...


----------



## chrisf

> Didn`t have that on the Pearkes when I was on it, the Gordon Reid and John Jacobson had the stern ramp.



They're installed on all the 1100s including the Pearkes, as well as most of the larger ships.

The Louis was even fitted with one within the last couple years following near sinking of the Ann Harvey.

They're fantastic, you're in contact with the skate/hull the whole way up and down so you're swinging around in the air.

Takes up about the same footprint as regular single point luffing davit, its a bit higher to accommodate the skate

Here's a terrible video of one in action.






Its terrible because they skipped the launch completely, but you can see the skate hanging off the side of the ship after they launch (it can be left down or winches back up if the frc is going to be gone a while)

The lowering is controlled from the FRC by pulling the brake cable, much like launching a life boat from a davit, so winch operator is optional (for launch) and its extremely quick to launch, you can pretty much free fall if you want, with an offload release at the bottom.

Usually if we were on SAR standby we left them hung off like in the video (its a bit easier to get in/out, particularly if you've got casualties) but you can embark your full crew and launch from the fully stowed position as soo.

Really don't know why the navy never embraced them.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> I'll just go to the coasts to look at our 18 Halifax class frigates and nuclear submarine fleet...



Different time. That was Cold War thinking and realities.  To use a gaming term the "meta has shifted".  Great power competition.  Shifting US and other NATO ally goals/priorities.  This means unreliable allies (or at least allies with goals opposing or not ideal from Canada's perspective).  Russia as a spoiler, not the main enemy. 

We have to not be bound by our recent historical perspective.  That way leads to the "Canada is peacekeepers" paradigm, not the current one.  The government is well aware of the changes, it shows up in their documentation.  That means different choices for defense. This means the RCN is the spending priority.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back at the Shipyard 



			https://twitter.com/i/topics/news/e-90976504?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email


----------



## Gorgo

Nice to see that happen.  So when's _Margaret Brooke_ going to be properly commissioned again?


----------



## Stoker

I say some pictures of the hanger of HMCS Harry DeWolf. It appears there is no overhead crane. If there usually something to that effect to change out engines and blades. Is this something they will be able to do on the class?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Stoker said:


> I say some pictures of the hanger of HMCS Harry DeWolf. It appears there is no overhead crane. If there usually something to that effect to change out engines and blades. Is this something they will be able to do on the class?


it was never really designed to hangar a Cyclone.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:


> it was never really designed to hangar a Cyclone.


Really?, I assume you would know. The earliest drawings depict a Cyclone inside with tail folded. When did that change?


----------



## dapaterson

Artist's rendition <> actual plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They built a helicopter hanger that won't fit the only Marine helicopter they have?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> They built a helicopter hanger that won't fit the only Marine helicopter they have?


Not to give anything away but the ship is supposed to be Cyclone certified according to what I have seen, so at some point it is supposed to have one aboard.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The pictures I have seen (open sources, look them up) of the flight deck and the inside of the hangar show the presence of a track for the "bear trap". What other helicopter has the CF got that can do traps?

I would have thought the hangar could *house* a Cyclone but, since they are not planning to have one integral to the ship, that they would not have the accommodation for maintenance crew and  a full Airdet  or their equipment, that it would only be for occasional storage out of the elements when circumstances warrant, like an unplanned overnight or bringing back the bird from a place where it broke down, etc.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> The pictures I have seen (open sources, look them up) of the flight deck and the inside of the hangar show the presence of a track for the "bear trap". What other helicopter has the CF got that can do traps?
> 
> I would have thought the hangar could *house* a Cyclone but, since they are not planning to have one integral to the ship, that they would not have the accommodation for maintenance crew and  a full Airdet  or their equipment, that it would only be for occasional storage out of the elements when circumstances warrant, like an unplanned overnight or bringing back the bird from a place where it broke down, etc.


The track is there however no bear trap as of yet, from what I have told some sort of helo haul down is going to be installed. The ship has a air det office, accommodations, briefing room, workshop etc. All the documentation i have seen they will take one at some point. We all know there is not enough Cyclones to go around and the MOU with the CCG has a CCG helo embarked when they go to the Arctic.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense? 

BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG uses a telescoping Hanger to accommodate their helicopters


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense?
> 
> BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...


Do we really need cyclones on AOPs anyway? If we can partner with the CCG and embark their helo and crew, we would presumably be able to leverage their experience in the Artic for the ice spotting and other relevant local ops knowledge.

Really fail to see what advantage we'd get with a big ASW helo over ice, and given the lack of airframes makes more sense to reserve them for their primary purpose. A helo would generally be a big asset, but the Cyclone seems like massive overkill and frankly wasted, especially given the lack of a full ops room or any complementary systems on the AOPS (like sonar or any kind of ASW capability).

AOPs are civilian ice breakers painted gray with a small gun on the front, not a warship. Maybe we should just use them for what they were designed for, instead of trying to strap everything on afterwards and make is useful for nothing?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I do agree somewhat, but these ships will also be assigned to duties outside of the Arctic. In a perfect world the navy would have a smaller helicopter to supplement the Cyclone, similar to the UK's  "AW159 Lynx Wildcat" with a modular setup to allow some ASW, transport, ice recce, vertical replenishment, SAR and transport. Since that is unlikely to happen, TC supplies the crews and helicopters to the CCG, it might be better to have dedicated helicopters and crews to the AOP's even if owned by TC still, sort of Aviation version of the RFA. It would mean an acquisition of 6 new Bell 429 helicopters, with likely 3 being deployed at any one time. Crew normally is a pilot and maintainer, but for RCN support, I would double that, so a 4 person crew of 2 pilots and 2 maintainers. They will be paid by TC, but DND transfers the fund over.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Do we really need cyclones on AOPs anyway? If we can partner with the CCG and embark their helo and crew, we would presumably be able to leverage their experience in the Artic for the ice spotting and other relevant local ops knowledge.
> 
> Really fail to see what advantage we'd get with a big ASW helo over ice, and given the lack of airframes makes more sense to reserve them for their primary purpose. A helo would generally be a big asset, but the Cyclone seems like massive overkill and frankly wasted, especially given the lack of a full ops room or any complementary systems on the AOPS (like sonar or any kind of ASW capability).
> 
> AOPs are civilian ice breakers painted gray with a small gun on the front, not a warship. Maybe we should just use them for what they were designed for, instead of trying to strap everything on afterwards and make is useful for nothing?


The MOU that I saw mentioned difficulty in CCG helos resupplying their ships due to small load capacity and possibly having the Cyclone to support resupplying their ships in exchange of using their helos.  AOPS could very well embark a ASW payload in the future.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> The MOU that I saw mentioned difficulty in CCG helos resupplying their ships due to small load capacity and possibly having the Cyclone to support resupplying their ships in exchange of using their helos.  AOPS could very well embark a ASW payload in the future.


Well sure, but then you would still need trained operators (who we don't have enough of) on a platform that doesn't have a tonne of extra bunks, and adding a useful ASW payload would be pretty tricky on a  ship was never intended to do. 

We'll have a hard time generally keeping the CPFs and subs going with limited resources, so not sure why we'd try and get AOPs to do a bunch of any new things way outside it's design intent.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:


> It was a money saving exercise. To design the AOPs from the keel up to embark a Cyclone Det (as opposed to recover and refuel a Cyclone) would have cost money And was contrary to what the Government of the day wanted. So now, after have built and launched a couple, we are now going to spend money to figure out a way to embark a Cyclone. Make sense?
> 
> BTW, I am not sure any amount money will fix the hangar length. I cannot, for the life of me, figure a way of moving the Cyclone in and out of the hangar, without a major redesign of the back of the ship. The speaks nothing of JP5 bunkerage or places to put parts and tools...or aircrew and techs for that matter...


From the info I have access to there are very large port and stbd JP5 tanks along with JP5 overflow and JP5 ready use tanks along with a JP5 pump room. As well there is a very large crew briefing room, aviation office and on the port side a very large aviation stores and workshop. From what I can gather it will support minor maintenance so no blade or engine changes. The hanger on all the drawing I have access to show the Cyclone with it tail folded in the hanger. The other info that I saw it will support a bell 212 or 412, Cyclone and landing and refueling of a Cormorant. In 2012 they also modeled the air turbulence calculation's of the superstructure and that was in 2012. They have a Flyco station with port and stbd remote foam monitors and the other day when I onboard they has TAU units in the hanger. The ship also has accommodations for 20 more personnel over the 65 crew.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Well sure, but then you would still need trained operators (who we don't have enough of) on a platform that doesn't have a tonne of extra bunks, and adding a useful ASW payload would be pretty tricky on a  ship was never intended to do.
> 
> We'll have a hard time generally keeping the CPFs and subs going with limited resources, so not sure why we'd try and get AOPs to do a bunch of any new things way outside it's design intent.


I think the who idea of the TRAPS ASW Payload is to put it on a platform that it was never intended to do, that's the beauty of it. The ship also has 20 spare bunks over the 65 crew. Personnel is another matter of course.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Stoker said:


> From the info I have access to there are very large port and stbd JP5 tanks along with JP5 overflow and JP5 ready use tanks along with a JP5 pump room. As well there is a very large crew briefing room, aviation office and on the port side a very large aviation stores and workshop. From what I can gather it will support minor maintenance so no blade or engine changes. The hanger on all the drawing I have access to show the Cyclone with it tail folded in the hanger. The other info that I saw it will support a bell 212 or 412, Cyclone and landing and refueling of a Cormorant. In 2012 they also modeled the air turbulence calculation's of the superstructure and that was in 2012. They have a Flyco station with port and stbd remote foam monitors and the other day when I onboard they has TAU units in the hanger. The ship also has accommodations for 20 more personnel over the 65 crew.


I was briefed differently on JP5 capacity, but I defer to you.


----------



## GR66

In my opinion it's great if it can take the cyclone.  You never know what you might need to do in a major conflict so having an additional platform that can land and support an ASW helicopter would be a good thing.


----------



## Underway

I can categorically confirm that the RCN is working on the landing and air safety aspects of the HDW for Cyclone.  Where it will end up and where they are in the process I don't know.  But its being worked on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think i recall a picture recently with a Cyclone hovering near the HDW?


----------



## JMCanada

Maybe you refer to this one... but it's a Cormorant, sorry.


			http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2020/hdw-at-sea/harry-dewolf-1.jpg


----------



## Stoker




----------



## Stoker

They have already trialed the UAV that they will embark


----------



## Spencer100

What are those?  The flying thingy and floating thingy?  

Or is just skynet?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Must be a lot of fun for the crew to be the ones "Writing the book" on procedures for the entire class of vessels, not something everyone gets to do in their career. I suspect morale is quite high onboard.


----------



## Stoker

HMCS Harry DeWolf fitting SUBSAR payload


----------



## dapaterson

Hopefully the RCAF will consult with the RCN and Canadian Army for pointers on employing Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems - after all, they're the only one of the three main environments in the CAF that don't...


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Hopefully the RCAF will consult with the RCN and Canadian Army for pointers on employing Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems - after all, they're the only one of the three main environments in the CAF that don't...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The RCAF will adopt drones, just as soon as they can figure out how to put a pilot seat on them.


----------



## Cronicbny

Stoker said:


> They have already trialed the UAV that they will embark
> View attachment 64430


A very cool system for some circumstances but hamstrung by limitations placed upon it - particularly for OTH operations in ships without air search RADARs and IFF. Plenty of potential if appropriately "unlocked"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> Do we really need cyclones on AOPs anyway? If we can partner with the CCG and embark their helo and crew, we would presumably be able to leverage their experience in the Artic for the ice spotting and other relevant local ops knowledge.
> 
> Really fail to see what advantage we'd get with a big ASW helo over ice, and given the lack of airframes makes more sense to reserve them for their primary purpose. A helo would generally be a big asset, but the Cyclone seems like massive overkill and frankly wasted, especially given the lack of a full ops room or any complementary systems on the AOPS (like sonar or any kind of ASW capability).
> 
> AOPs are civilian ice breakers painted gray with a small gun on the front, not a warship. Maybe we should just use them for what they were designed for, instead of trying to strap everything on afterwards and make is useful for nothing?


MIO, Maritime Counter Terrorism and HADR would like a word with you.

This is a real problem with our Navy though.  The Naval Officer Corps doesn't think in a Joint Context at all.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> The RCAF will adopt drones, just as soon as they can figure out how to put a pilot seat on them.


Or more likely, after the Army and Navy have proven the concept then, like the Fleet Air Arm and Army Aviation, they’ll swoop in out of the sun and nick it all


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> MIO, Maritime Counter Terrorism and HADR would like a word with you.
> 
> This is a real problem with our Navy though.  The Naval Officer Corps doesn't think in a Joint Context at all.


One reason I would like us to have a vessel like the Mistral is it would force the 3 arms to work together.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> MIO, Maritime Counter Terrorism and HADR would like a word with you.
> 
> This is a real problem with our Navy though.  The Naval Officer Corps doesn't think in a Joint Context at all.


Or none of those is a great idea to deploy an artic icebreak with no real armament or defences on? We have actual warships for those kinds of ops. AOPS is a non-combatant. It was built as a non-combatant, and will be maintained as a non-combatant to civilian standards (by the Non-Combatant class desk).

Support to an artic SAR, some kind of land based Ranger/infantry artic ops, things like that would make total sense, and where a helo asset would be great, just doesn't need to be a cyclone. It's great for all kinds of joint ops, as long as none of them involve AOPs doing fighty things.

I'm more of a big fan of using the right tool for the job. The AOPs will do lots of things well, but expecting it to do full spectrum warfare is unrealistic. Even if we slap all kinds of weapons and sensors on it, it's not designed or crewed to live through battle damage so would be effectively disposable. If that's what someone wants a drone fleet would be far more effective.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we send a Kingston to West Africa, you can be sure the AOPs is going as well and likely do most of the jobs better, although a Kingston could get into more places. In fact a Kingston and AOP's (with a helicopter, not Cyclone, likley Allied nation) would make a good set for piracy patrol. The AOP's could carry some extra RHIB's and dedicated security team/boarding party.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> If we send a Kingston to West Africa, you can be sure the AOPs is going as well and likely do most of the jobs better, although a Kingston could get into more places. In fact a Kingston and AOP's (with a helicopter, not Cyclone, likley Allied nation) would make a good set for piracy patrol. The AOP's could carry some extra RHIB's and dedicated security team/boarding party.


They _could_ but generally the MCDVs come back beat to hell. We _could_ send the AOPs, but that would be sending a knife to a gun fight and the # of bunks would limit how many extra capabilities you can pack on concurrently. The MCDVs at least cost a lot less to deploy than a frigate, with AOPs it's still a great big ship to support even if you have less crew.

We'll only have a few per coast, and will generally have one per coast shuffling in/out of docking. And if we want them to be able to carry out extended ops in the artic, we'll also need time for the ISSCs to do the required maintenance in the off season.

Not saying they can't fit in to some extra roles if they have to, but anti piracy, HADR, MIOs etc are pretty bread and butter for CPFs. If we aren't using warships for actual offensive ops, we should just junk them all together and stick with civi ships painted gray. Because that seems like sending a jeep while leaving a LAV tied up to do patrols in a combat zone.

Maybe we should figure out what they can do and how to do it first, before getting them to do things outside the conops?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> Or none of those is a great idea to deploy an artic icebreak with no real armament or defences on? We have actual warships for those kinds of ops. AOPS is a non-combatant. It was built as a non-combatant, and will be maintained as a non-combatant to civilian standards (by the Non-Combatant class desk).
> 
> Support to an artic SAR, some kind of land based Ranger/infantry artic ops, things like that would make total sense, and where a helo asset would be great, just doesn't need to be a cyclone. It's great for all kinds of joint ops, as long as none of them involve AOPs doing fighty things.
> 
> I'm more of a big fan of using the right tool for the job. The AOPs will do lots of things well, but expecting it to do full spectrum warfare is unrealistic. Even if we slap all kinds of weapons and sensors on it, it's not designed or crewed to live through battle damage so would be effectively disposable. If that's what someone wants a drone fleet would be far more effective.


MIO, MCT and HADR aren't even close to Full Spectrum War.  The AOPS is far more suitable at all those OOTW we mostly do. It's far more suitable than a Frigate is.

It's actually better than a Frigate at MIO and MCT as it's got dedicated facilities for it, can carry better RIBs plus more of them, has cargo capacity, unlike the Frigate so it can actually  carry all the mission PUKs we stuff in to random holes on the Frigate.  It's got enough firepower to more than deal with any sort of Piracy threat.

Two SO RIBs armed with machineguns and a boat full of operators, the 25mm + small arms on the ship, + armed helo if we so desire is more than a match for any piracy threat.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin Parkinson said:


> If we send a Kingston to West Africa, you can be sure the AOPs is going as well and likely do most of the jobs better, although a Kingston could get into more places. In fact a Kingston and AOP's (with a helicopter, not Cyclone, likley Allied nation) would make a good set for piracy patrol. The AOP's could carry some extra RHIB's and dedicated security team/boarding party.


You don't even need a helo, put a rotary UAV in the hangar and now you've got a great ISR capability.  

Too bad we don't have a smaller MH of the UH variety.  A couple of Wildcats with Minigun and .50cal would be great for anti-piracy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You don't even need a helo, put a rotary UAV in the hangar and now you've got a great ISR capability.
> 
> Too bad we don't have a smaller MH of the UH variety.  A couple of Wildcats with Minigun and .50cal would be great for anti-piracy.



Dude, you're so out of touch with the preferred payload of the Pleaser-in-Chief 


Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs​








						Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs
					

EDMONTON — Never mind airstrikes. Victims of ISIS just need warm cocoa and woolen touques, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau suggested to a crowd in Edmonton on…




					torontosun.com


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, you're so out of touch with the preferred payload of the Pleaser-in-Chief
> 
> 
> Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs
> 
> 
> EDMONTON — Never mind airstrikes. Victims of ISIS just need warm cocoa and woolen touques, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau suggested to a crowd in Edmonton on…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torontosun.com


Our duty as Military Professionals is to provide advice to our Political Leaders.  Whatever they chose to do with that advice is up to them 😉


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> MIO, MCT and HADR aren't even close to Full Spectrum War.  The AOPS is far more suitable at all those OOTW we mostly do. It's far more suitable than a Frigate is.
> 
> It's actually better than a Frigate at MIO and MCT as it's got dedicated facilities for it, can carry better RIBs plus more of them, has cargo capacity, unlike the Frigate so it can actually  carry all the mission PUKs we stuff in to random holes on the Frigate.  It's got enough firepower to more than deal with any sort of Piracy threat.
> 
> Two SO RIBs armed with machineguns and a boat full of operators, the 25mm + small arms on the ship, + armed helo if we so desire is more than a match for any piracy threat.


Not to mention the Halifax's are getting long in the tooth and the CSC may be farther away than the RCN would like, in which case they may limit the number of deployments of the Frigates to reduce wear and tear.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> If we send a Kingston to West Africa, you can be sure the AOPs is going as well and likely do most of the jobs better, although a Kingston could get into more places. In fact a Kingston and AOP's (with a helicopter, not Cyclone, likley Allied nation) would make a good set for piracy patrol. The AOP's could carry some extra RHIB's and dedicated security team/boarding party.


Yes they will be going there and elsewhere as per the concept of operations, more than likely with a Cyclone.


----------



## Stoker

Vehicle storage HMCS Harry DeWolf. Its large enough to store a pickup, skidoos, side by sides, ATV's and it has a workbench etc.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, you're so out of touch with the preferred payload of the Pleaser-in-Chief
> 
> 
> Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trudeau: Drop parkas, not bombs
> 
> 
> EDMONTON — Never mind airstrikes. Victims of ISIS just need warm cocoa and woolen touques, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau suggested to a crowd in Edmonton on…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torontosun.com


To be fair, winter in Syria is a REAL thing...  I was shocked too when I had a Syrian friend at work describe winters in Syria actually being snowy and cold   

I know a lot of folks made fun of JT for his donation of parkas and winter clothing to Syria.  I did too I think.  

BUT, turns out winter clothing while Syria was in a state of heavy civil war during the winter months was actually pretty useful.  (Colour me shocked, still)


----------



## NavyShooter

It'd still be nice though if  he was able to focus on getting stuff like, y'know, clean water, for Canadians as well.   Not saying that things Canada does abroad aren't important too, but how many of our own don't have the basics as well?


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> Is it really "replacing" if the Attack-class subs never actually get built?





Stoker said:


> They have already trialed the UAV that they will embark
> View attachment 64430





NavyShooter said:


> It'd still be nice though if  he was able to focus on getting stuff like, y'know, clean water, for Canadians as well.   Not saying that things Canada does abroad aren't important too, but how many of our own don't have the basics as well?


 This is going side ways a bit. But most things that Canadians are lacking is not because of lack of funds or resources but mismanagement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Very true, just like our military, spending on First Nations is mismanaged on many levels. Hopefully the AOP's will "adopt/be adopted" some of the Coastal indigenous communities, so the crews and communities can form a bond.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back at the 1990's CCG, they already figured big helicopter options


----------



## AirDet

Colin Parkinson said:


> Very true, just like our military, spending on First Nations is mismanaged on many levels. Hopefully the AOP's will "adopt/be adopted" some of the Coastal indigenous communities, so the crews and communities can form a bond.


That would be ideal for so many reasons. If that's what we want then they should be engaged to be a major part of the commissioning ceremony and asked to smudge each ship before they're floated up for the first time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Awesome picture 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1355239929027190794


----------



## Navy_Pete

AirDet said:


> That would be ideal for so many reasons. If that's what we want then they should be engaged to be a major part of the commissioning ceremony and asked to smudge each ship before they're floated up for the first time.



The 280s had something like that with the namesake tribes. Hopefully they do something similar, or at least have some kind of Northern area towns/villages to partner with.


----------



## daftandbarmy

AirDet said:


> That would be ideal for so many reasons. If that's what we want then they should be engaged to be a major part of the commissioning ceremony and asked to smudge each ship before they're floated up for the first time.



Dude, that smudging ceremony stuff is a Plains thing. I think that coastal First Nations have a different range of practises, which might be more appropriate. 

Unless we're launching 'Prairie Schooners' of course


----------



## Furniture

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, that smudging ceremony stuff is a Plains thing. I think that coastal First Nations have a different range of practises, which might be more appropriate.
> 
> Unless we're launching 'Prairie Schooners' of course


It could be a thing...


----------



## AirDet

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, that smudging ceremony stuff is a Plains thing. I think that coastal First Nations have a different range of practises, which might be more appropriate.
> 
> Unless we're launching 'Prairie Schooners' of course


You do realize that Manitoba has an ocean coast, right? Churchill is in Manitoba. Regardless of what the custom it's the connection that counts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

AirDet said:


> You do realize that Manitoba has an ocean coast, right? Churchill is in Manitoba. Regardless of what the custom it's the connection that counts.



Well, to be fair, it's only open ocean for three months of the year


----------



## AirDet

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, to be fair, it's only open ocean for three months of the year


That's true for now. They do have a port.


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, to be fair, it's only an open port for three months minutes of the year


FTFY.


----------



## CBH99

AirDet said:


> You do realize that Manitoba has an ocean coast, right? Churchill is in Manitoba. Regardless of what the custom it's the connection that counts.


I'm straight up embarrassed to admit this, but I didn't realize Manitoba had an ocean coast...  😐


----------



## GR66

Following up here on a point raised in the CSC thread...



Colin Parkinson said:


> The Batch 2 River Class OPV are nice ships, but your pushing into the territory of the AOP`s , not the CSC. The Kingston's fulfill roles that neither the AOPs or the CSC/Halifax can do properly like mine hunting....



My (extremely limited) understanding of mine counter-measures is that most the work nowadays is taken care of by USVs, UUVs and even UAVs rather than traditional fibreglass hulled mine-hunting ships.  Is this a role that the AOPs actually could take over/support the Kingston-class with?


----------



## Stoker

GR66 said:


> Following up here on a point raised in the CSC thread...
> 
> 
> 
> My (extremely limited) understanding of mine counter-measures is that most the work nowadays is taken care of by USVs, UUVs and even UAVs rather than traditional fibreglass hulled mine-hunting ships.  Is this a role that the AOPs actually could take over/support the Kingston-class with?


That's true however AOPS do not have degausing gear and less economical to operate than a Kingston Class. Would you want to risk a high costing asset like a AOPS or a low costing asset like the Kingston Class.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe you are correct, but the Kingston is smaller which allows it to go places the bigger ships can't and as mentioned costs and crewing are a factor.


----------



## GR66

Thanks for the education.


----------



## NavyShooter

Ah good, we've finally realized that the KIN class are expendable ;-)

In all seriousness, it's nice to see a 3rd AOPS so far along, but it's right to say that they are not a replacement for the Kingston class - they have a different role and different capability set.


----------



## Weinie

NavyShooter said:


> *Ah good, we've finally realized that the KIN class are expendable ;-)*


Have we broached that with the crews?


----------



## NavyShooter

Remember (and we lived by this on CHA in Libya in 2011) - ANY SHIP can be a mine-sweeper.  Once.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> That's true however AOPS do not have degausing gear and less economical to operate than a Kingston Class. Would you want to risk a high costing asset like a AOPS or a low costing asset like the Kingston Class.


I think as the Kingston class are nearing the end of life with no extension project planned, that question will be academic sooner rather than later.

Good little ships though, and would be nice to have something between the AOPS and the ORCAs, but I think trying to replace them after taking on all the AOPs, rolling out JSS would be too much for what bodies are available, and am glad we're starting to transition to more reservists operating on the heavies now.


----------



## dapaterson

Orcas are not HMCS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMCB's  then?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is the next generation of mine hunting ships, likley to specialised for the RCN, who wants Unicorns, ummm I mean multi-purpose vessels. https://euro-sd.com/2020/09/headline/18841/belgian-and-dutch-naval-replacement-programmes/


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> I think as the Kingston class are nearing the end of life with no extension project planned, that question will be academic sooner rather than later.
> 
> Good little ships though, and would be nice to have something between the AOPS and the ORCAs, but I think trying to replace them after taking on all the AOPs, rolling out JSS would be too much for what bodies are available, and am glad we're starting to transition to more reservists operating on the heavies now.


Kingston Class Chief Engineer here, in fact Chief Engineer of the lead ship of the class HMCS Kingston and we just came out of our docking. The ships are in very good shape and have been upgraded in their 60M dockings. Not a life extension but new OPS room, degaussing, gyro's, steering control system, machinery control system, PLC's etc. The ships are well maintained by outside contractor and have not had any issues structurally. The plan is to update as required and keep them around for another decade. Still incredibly useful and economical to run.
West Coast MCDV just came out of refit.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fully agree with Stoker here: Lots of life left in the MCDVs and still useful little ships ... with more potential than most people give them credit for.



dapaterson said:


> Orcas are not HMCS.



Not sure what you mean by that Dapaterson ???  

Neither are the RHibs or other boats we use for harbour defence, nor were the PBL's when we had some in the reserve. But in both cases they are part of the "uniformed" forces of the DND and both have been used at times for security purposes (Montreal olympics, Oka crisis, Vancouver olympics, post 9-11 naval base security, so forth). Just because a vessel is not commissioned (hence not an HMCS) doesn't mean it's not a military vessel/boat. 



Colin Parkinson said:


> This is the next generation of mine hunting ships, likley to specialised for the RCN, who wants Unicorns, ummm I mean multi-purpose vessels. https://euro-sd.com/2020/09/headline/18841/belgian-and-dutch-naval-replacement-programmes/



he RN is looking at similar type of vessels and concept of mine warfare for their Hunt class replacements, and Sandown class down the road. Something about 85-90 meters, and coming in at about 2,000 tons. That makes them in the same size class as our old steamers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Like to see the MCDV's get the same gun/mount and combat systems as the AOP's.


----------



## GR66

Sorry to contribute to the MCM derail of this thread, but as noted in the Belgian/Dutch article they are not going with a degaussed hull for their new MCM vessels and instead use USVs/UUV's with over-the-horizon deployability to conduct MCM operations, so potentially I guess the AOPS and any future Kingston-class replacement with the ability to deploy USVs/UUVs could conduct MCM operations if required.

Could such an over-the-horizon MCM role with the stone frigates replacing mother ships not become a role for the Naval Reserve in terms of protecting our major ports?  Having this as an assigned role could build up a core of trained MCM personnel in the Reserves that could then be available for deployment on a ship for when expeditionary MCM operations are required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Type 26 could do it as it has a configurable mission bay with space for extra boats.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Type 26 could do it as it has a configurable mission bay with space for extra boats.


They could but the whole idea of small boats doing it is not to risk your high value asset.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Kingston Class Chief Engineer here, in fact Chief Engineer of the lead ship of the class HMCS Kingston and we just came out of our docking. The ships are in very good shape and have been upgraded in their 60M dockings. Not a life extension but new OPS room, degaussing, gyro's, steering control system, machinery control system, PLC's etc. The ships are well maintained by outside contractor and have not had any issues structurally. The plan is to update as required and keep them around for another decade. Still incredibly useful and economical to run.
> West Coast MCDV just came out of refit.


Fully agree with you there; I was thinking of longer term. A decade takes us out until 2031, but as more AOPS and JSS come online we'll probably be forced to make cuts to pay for that ISSC at the cost of MWAV, and a phased retirement of the MCDVs is going to happen anyway. We should have four or so AOPS in service by then, with a few more ramping up, and one or both JSS in full service.The frigates will be hitting 40 with maybe another full ships cycle or two before CSC, so the maintenance/sustainment costs on those are only going up as well.

I think we needed an MCDV replacement more than we needed an AOPS for the military functions, but that's what the goverment wants so that's what we're stuck with. They're good little ships and I have nothing but respect for the crew (after being beaten up on a day sail for a simple power trial) but things move slowly enough that we probably need to start planning now for when they are gone, and working on things to do with the NSS normally talk in 20+ year timelines.

I was involved in all the decisions to support the 280s and tankers after the budgets got slashed (and MCDVs were tied up for a bit) and it was pretty ugly. Expect we'll have a similar round for the MCDVs and then the CPFs (which I'll probably be long retired/dead by then).


----------



## dapaterson

When push comes to shove, and cost becomes a driving force, MCDVs will still sail and frigates will be turned into razor blades.  More life left in MCDV hulls than frigates.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> When push comes to shove, and cost becomes a driving force, MCDVs will still sail and frigates will be turned into razor blades.  More life left in MCDV hulls than frigates.


I think both are in pretty rough shape, but the frigates should have fairly easy to support combat systems, and can carry a helo, so they bring a lot to the party.

Logically, might make sense to sacrifice a few frigates to keep some MCDVs, but can't see that happening politically. I also can't see the frigates making it until CSC starts to be delivered, so some of them may 'self retire' anyway (like PRE).

We're starting to bring in Lloyd's surveyors; I think the brakes will slam on that once we start adopting their more extensive hull surveys they start doing as the ship gets old and they tell us we need to replace half the steel and most of the piping.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Have we broached that with the crews?


They know.  When you're the lead ship on a mined harbour exit exercise it's pretty clear....


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> They know.  When you're the lead ship on a mined harbour exit exercise it's pretty clear....


So they have to be right............ _every time._


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> So they have to be right............ _every time._



A ship in a harbour is safe.  But that's not what ships were made for...  🍻


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> *A ship in a harbour is safe*.  But that's not what ships were made for...  🍻


The French Navy may disagree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> The French Navy may disagree with you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir


As may members of Greenpeace at the hands of the French 45 years later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_(1955)


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> As may members of Greenpeace at the hands of the French 45 years later.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_(1955)


Shouldn't have called their ship Rainbow *Warrior*.


----------



## Underway

HDW is sailing up near Labrador right now looking for ice to practice on.  

Also here's a nice video from the RCN on the new ship.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> HDW is sailing up near Labrador right now looking for ice to practice on.
> 
> Also here's a nice video from the RCN on the new ship.


Here is the HDW going through ice in Northern Labrador enroute to Baffin Island.


----------



## YZT580

Are they travelling with any coast guard officers to provide advice and a CCG helicopter for guidance or is it too soon in the learning curve?


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> Are they travelling with any coast guard officers to provide advice and a CCG helicopter for guidance or is it too soon in the learning curve?


Do you mean by “don’t do what we did” type of guidance?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the Arctic knowledge was gained that way.


----------



## CBH99

Not a pilot here, but wouldn't the pilot have had some sort of instrumentation to tell him his altitude?  And if flying back to the ship, was it necessary to be flying extreme low level?   

(Not trying to derail the thread, just curious after reading the article)


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Not a pilot here, but wouldn't the pilot have had some sort of instrumentation to tell him his altitude?  And if flying back to the ship, was it necessary to be flying extreme low level?
> 
> (Not trying to derail the thread, just curious after reading the article)


There was a laser-based height system on the ice sensor, but I saw no mention of a separate radar altimeter, which could otherwise have provided an indication of descending below a pre-set altitude limit.  From what I took from the investigation report (below), they were still in the third leg of the ice survey, so flying at the assigned ice assessment altitude, although I don’t know what the SOC directives require when crossing open water during an ice survey. 

Aviation Investigation Report A13H002


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> HDW is sailing up near Labrador right now looking for ice to practice on.
> 
> Also here's a nice video from the RCN on the new ship.


Tell me...what domestic law does the RCN enforce?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Tell me...what domestic law does the RCN enforce?


Liquor Control Act?


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Liquor Control Act?


Enforce, not ignore & embrace 😉


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Tell me...what domestic law does the RCN enforce?


Guess they edited out the "in support of" narrative... lol

Or perhaps the more cheeky answer should be "With a 25mm whatever domestic laws we want!  Buahahahaha!"


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Guess they edited out the "in support of" narrative... lol
> 
> Or perhaps the more cheeky answer should be "With a 25mm whatever domestic laws we want!  Buahahahaha!"


That is my point. We are not a law enforcement agency. We certainly do not used crew served weapons to enforce law in Canada, except in some very last resort circumstances that require both the Solicitor General and the MND to sign off. This is a poorly written script that implies the role of these ships is Constabulary (and by extension the CAF). This video should never have been posted to the internet. It is not particularly a laughing matter.


----------



## Underway

I think you are overreacting to an error from the PA's office if at that.  If the video stated "support to domestic law enforcement" you wouldn't have batted an eye.  This is at worst a minor blip fixed with a reupload of the video.

As for crew served weapons... when a potential "domestic threat" has a weapon as dangerous as 1000's tons of ship then it's an appropriate tool in the toolbox.  A ship like any vehicle can be used as a weapon.

I understand fully concerns about domestic law enforcement from the RCN.  I just don't see the issue in this case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mind you media releases are both the primary tools and weapons of the PAO, so failing in the detail is somewhat concerning. Sort of like a rifleman that consistently misses the target.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> Mind you media releases are both the primary tools and weapons of the PAO, so failing in the detail is somewhat concerning. Sort of like a rifleman that consistently misses the target.


Given what I have seen lately from PAOs on social media, house cleaning may be in order especially after 5 divs black history month post went political


----------



## dapaterson

PAOs advise, they do not command.  They require sound information and guidance from subject matter experts in order to do their job.  If messages are escaping that do not meet a commander's intent, then the immediate place to look should be the commander who authorized the release of the material, not the staff who supported him/her in drafting it.


----------



## MilEME09

In other news AOPS #4 HMCS William Hall had its keel laying ceremony today.


----------



## Underway

If the PAO still calls sailors "troops" I find it difficult to believe that they can distinguish the minutiae of who enforces what policy.  They are all about the big message.  They don't care about the details.  Big message - new ship, here are some features, government delivering new capability...


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> If the PAO still calls sailors "troops" I find it difficult to believe that they can distinguish the minutiae of who enforces what policy.  They are all about the big message.  They don't care about the details.  Big message - new ship, here are some features, government delivering new capability...


So VAdm Bain was okay with sailors being called troops? 🤔


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:


> PAOs advise, they do not command.  They require sound information and guidance from subject matter experts in order to do their job.  If messages are escaping that do not meet a commander's intent, then the immediate place to look should be the commander who authorized the release of the material, not the staff who supported him/her in drafting it.


It's also the duty of the PAO's to learn about what they are talking about and not just live on limited briefing notes. Within their nodes, they should each become limited SME's on that subject, what's been said before, what can be said and what the immediate future looks like. Otherwise they just become useless appendages. I have worked with both types, having people that go beyond the minimum makes a huge difference for the Department, the SME's, the audience and the media.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> It's also the duty of the PAO's to learn about what they are talking about and not just live on limited briefing notes. Within their nodes, they should each become limited SME's on that subject, what's been said before, what can be said and what the immediate future looks like. Otherwise they just become useless appendages. *I have worked with both types, having people that go beyond the minimum makes a huge difference for the Department, the SME's, the audience and the media.*


And I have worked with two types as well, the operators and folks that understand and assist the Public Affairs objectives, hence making a huge difference, and the those who covertly despise PA, or are trying to protect their unit and could give a fuck about transparency or access., although overtly supportive. 

*"It's also the duty of the PAO's to learn about what they are talking about and not just live on limited briefing notes."*

My preference was always to have a SME speak to the media/public about the topic at hand. With several hundred occupations/trades across the CAF, and dozens on each base, I would be hard pressed to get more than a laymans knowledge of what each did. Better that I knew who should speak to a topic, as opposed to trying to speak for everybody. The only person that I officially spoke for was the Commander.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> I think you are overreacting to an error from the PA's office if at that.  If the video stated "support to domestic law enforcement" you wouldn't have batted an eye.  This is at worst a minor blip fixed with a reupload of the video.
> 
> As for crew served weapons... when a potential "domestic threat" has a weapon as dangerous as 1000's tons of ship then it's an appropriate tool in the toolbox.  A ship like any vehicle can be used as a weapon.
> 
> I understand fully concerns about domestic law enforcement from the RCN.  I just don't see the issue in this case.


I agree with you.

It’s a quick line in a promo vid, that sounds good to the public.  Law enforcement?   Support of law enforcement?  Peaks interest in recruiting??

The only folks that will really catch that like are us on this forum, and members.  The general public doesn’t have a clue, nor do they really care.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> It’s a quick line in a promo vid, that sounds good to the public.  Law enforcement?   Support of law enforcement?  Peaks interest in recruiting??
> 
> The only folks that will really catch that like are us on this forum, and members.  The general public doesn’t have a clue, nor do they really care.


What is even the point in being precise in language anymore?


----------



## Stoker

Into the ice now


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I bet they have a lot of temporary sensors on the hull to measure pressure, deflection, etc.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Stoker said:


> Into the ice now
> View attachment 64568



Nice! Are you stuck yet? 

Just kidding: Added the pic to my collection (the one that I roll through for my screen saver).


----------



## Stoker

Ice core sampling


----------



## Stoker




----------



## Underway

Amazing photos!  Slush breaker indeed...


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Amazing photos!  Slush breaker indeed...


Because a CPF would do better? 🙄🙄

Thanks for the photos, Stoker!


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Thanks for the photos, Stoker!


Yup. Ditto that. It actually looks like they are having fun.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Starting in slush ice and working up on a new design is prudent and smart, Polar 5 hull and Polar 4 bow is nothing to sneer at, I am guessing she is likley more capable than CCG 1100 class are currently (Canadian ice class 2)



			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20464177.2014.11658118
		




			http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf


----------



## CBH99

In the second picture, it looks like there is rust/grime/dirt or something visible on some of the surfaces.  What is that??  (Ship is too new for it to be rust... is it oil of some kind?)


----------



## Underway

The ship is new but that steel has been sitting outside since 2018-19.  It does not take long at all for surface rust to form on exposed steel in salt water conditions.  Not saying it is rust just that rust happens.  Surface rust is fine, ships are designed with the expectation that steel will get thinner over time from rust. It's that long term deep stuff or edges that cause problems.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Some of that ice looks just about thick enough to ski on.

Hmmmmm....


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> Some of that ice looks just about thick enough to ski on.
> 
> Hmmmmm....



Combine two recognized adventure training activities into one.  Start off from the ship and marry up a couple of days later at an RV point.





__





						DAOD 5031-10, Adventure Training - Canada.ca
					

Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5031-10 - Adventure Training




					www.canada.ca
				





> *2.7* The following are recognized adventure training activities:
> 
> mountaineering, including rock, snow and ice climbing;
> caving;
> hiking and trekking in rugged terrain, on foot, bicycle,* skis* or horseback;
> canoeing, kayaking and rafting; and
> *ocean sailing*.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> Combine two recognized adventure training activities into one.  Start off from the ship and marry up a couple of days later at an RV point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAOD 5031-10, Adventure Training - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Defence Administrative Orders and Directives - DAOD 5031-10 - Adventure Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



I'm wondering how close they could actually get to the North Pole so a chap might make history by approaching it from a completely unexplored route which, unlike other successful pole treks (AFAIK), would be launched not from a land base, but from a start point on deep ocean ice.

If they could drop a sledging party within about 4-500 nm of 90 North that would mean about a 2-3 week ski trip, given good ice conditions and decent weather. It's fairly easy to pack enough food and fuel for an unsupported trip of that duration and sled weights might be around 250-300lbs each, I'd guess. Not an impossible load using the fancy new man hauling sleds they have these days.

We would leave in April with a plan to arrive and plant Pearson's Flag on the top of the barber pole by NLT Queen Victoria's Birthday, for obvious reasons.

But hey, that's just me...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> The ship is new but that steel has been sitting outside since 2018-19.  It does not take long at all for surface rust to form on exposed steel in salt water conditions.  Not saying it is rust just that rust happens.  Surface rust is fine, ships are designed with the expectation that steel will get thinner over time from rust. It's that long term deep stuff or edges that cause problems.


i just say that I am not overwhelmed by Irving's apparent painting and surface preparation capability.


----------



## Underway

Ships been in RCN hands and sailing quite a bit since the handover in the summer.  I'm not entirely sure it's Irving at this point.  But I'm not going to argue.  I don't actually know anything about that stuff aside from the basics, and certainly haven't been on AOPS to even look.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Modern paint technology is pretty awesome, the Lions Gate bridge was painted 10 years ago with high tech paint under climate controlled conditions, it still looks new. In fact the only way these new super ships can exist long enough to pay back their costs is because of improvements in painting technology. It's a whole profession in itself. From what I see , I think Irving either is using old technology/procedures or rushed it to get finished in time with "good enough" workmanship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now this photo is awesome and i hope they make it into a publicly available poster!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Now this photo is awesome and i hope they make it into a publicly available poster!
> View attachment 64584


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Modern paint technology is pretty awesome, the Lions Gate bridge was painted 10 years ago with high tech paint under climate controlled conditions, it still looks new. In fact the only way these new super ships can exist long enough to pay back their costs is because of improvements in painting technology. It's a whole profession in itself. From what I see , I think Irving either is using old technology/procedures or rushed it to get finished in time with "good enough" workmanship.



The paint hall at both yards is pretty awesome, and we follow all the normal NACE inspection/QC standards, so not really the issue for new builds there (different story for the refits).

Halifax is one of the rustiest places on earth, so takes no time for any scratches to flash over, so if something gets bumped during assembly or testing and you don't touch it up right away you are foxed. This time of year especially; I used to get salt burns on my lips walking to work. Given that we've had it for months now I would tend to guess a lot of the dings are from us though (but I hate the steel drain piping; you always end up with those huge rust stains down the sides regardless of what you do).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They could reduce the steel piping issue by going for a higher nickel steel, but then of course it has different properties than the steel it welded to, so you might end up with other issues. 
So what make Halifax so different rust wise?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> They could reduce the steel piping issue by going for a higher nickel steel, but then of course it has different properties than the steel it welded to, so you might end up with other issues.
> So what make Halifax so different rust wise?


I thought it was an olds maid tale, but something about the humidity level and temperature shifts means there is a tonne of salty condensation everywhere, and car manufacturers use it for testing rust treatments and metals (see link below; not really confirmation but makes sense to me, and had seen that before ). Lower grades of stainless steel weren't, and even a knick on a car paint would flash rust. There would occasionally be power outages because of salt buildup on equipment shorting things out.

I've never encountered anything like it and some days you could taste the brine in the air and it would build up in my beard and hair, it was crazy. Actually felt less salty in the middle of the ocean. Probably similar throughout the Maritimes, but Halifax generally had a bit of a strange microclimate around the harbour, possibly because it was a big bowl with some pretty big elevation changes over a few short blocks going up from the water with a whole lot of concrete and ashphalt to hold in the heat. I was about 10 feet above my neighbour across the street, and the house behind me was about 30 feet above me in elevation.

That's before they put down a bunch of salt for all the constant freeze/thaw cycles that make the sidewalks treacherous; on the same walk would get puffs of salt dust as I walked along, or be falling on my arse all the time. I miss some things about being on the East coast, but my car is lasting a lot longer.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glo...e-maritimes-rust-never-sleeps/article4180574/


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> *I thought it was an old maids tale, but somethings  about the humidity level and temperature shifts means there is a tonne of salty condensation everywhere, *and car manufacturers use it for testing rust treatments and metals (see link below; not really confirmation but makes sense to me, and had seen that before ). Lower grades of stainless steel weren't, and even a knick on a car paint would flash rust. There would occasionally be power outages because of salt buildup on equipment shorting things out.
> 
> I've never encountered anything like it and some days you could taste the brine in the air and it would build up in my beard and hair, it was crazy. Actually felt less salty in the middle of the ocean. Probably similar throughout the Maritimes, but Halifax generally had a bit of a strange microclimate around the harbour, possibly because it was a big bowl with some pretty big elevation changes over a few short blocks going up from the water with a whole lot of concrete and ashphalt to hold in the heat. I was about 10 feet above my neighbour across the street, and the house behind me was about 30 feet above me in elevation.
> 
> That's before they put down a bunch of salt for all the constant freeze/thaw cycles that make the sidewalks treacherous; on the same walk would get puffs of salt dust as I walked along, or be falling on my arse all the time. I miss some things about being on the East coast, but my car is lasting a lot longer.
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/glo...e-maritimes-rust-never-sleeps/article4180574/


I grew up in Nova Scotia, but had been away for a long period of time. I went back on vacation about 10 years ago, and because I am both a big wine drinker, and supporter of all things N.S., went to Jost Vineyards in Malagash. They have a great tour and tasting set-up, but every one of their wines tasted salty. After the third tasting, I remarked on this to the sommelier, his response was "That's what gives Jost wines their distinctive taste, aroma, and body. My response was " And that's why I won't be buying your wine."
We spent a week at the cottage. We are on the north shore of N.S., opposite Halifax, but salt air permeates everything you do. I can smell it when I get to Aulac, just inside the N.B. border, across from Amherst, just on the other side of the border, and my home town.

There are a ton of century houses in Amherst, many brick/and/or stone. The effect of the salt air on the stone and the mortar is crazy.  Navy Pete is not embellishing, you just get born with it, get used to it, or fight it.(or all three)


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm wondering how close they could actually get to the North Pole so a chap might make history by approaching it from a completely unexplored route which, unlike other successful pole treks (AFAIK), would be launched not from a land base, but from a start point on deep ocean ice.
> 
> If they could drop a sledging party within about 4-500 nm of 90 North that would mean about a 2-3 week ski trip, given good ice conditions and decent weather. It's fairly easy to pack enough food and fuel for an unsupported trip of that duration and sled weights might be around 250-300lbs each, I'd guess. Not an impossible load using the fancy new man hauling sleds they have these days.
> 
> We would leave in April with a plan to arrive and plant Pearson's Flag on the top of the barber pole by NLT Queen Victoria's Birthday, for obvious reasons.
> 
> But hey, that's just me...



Others have launched from a vessel.









						The untold story of the boldest polar expedition of modern times
					

Two of the greatest living polar explorers went to investigate the extent of the melting Arctic for themselves. It almost killed them.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				




But yeah, it would make for an interesting trek.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:


> Others have launched from a vessel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The untold story of the boldest polar expedition of modern times
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest living polar explorers went to investigate the extent of the melting Arctic for themselves. It almost killed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah, it would make for an interesting trek.



Well, after saying this: 

Says Gamme, “The great modern polar exploration era ended with that trip.”

You just know that's like a red rag to a bull


----------



## Stoker




----------



## Kirkhill

Now that the navy has got ahold of the ships have they decided how many berths they are leaving for Pongos?  It seems to me the original design was for 45 crew and 40 pax.  I've seen reference to an RCN crew of 66 which would only leave room for 19 pax.  I am assuming that the 19 pax also includes people like an RCAF air det, an RCMP liaison, and FPO, INA, CCG and other Odd Government types.

Or am I wrong to assume that the RCN still rebels at the notion of muddy, leather soled boots stomping all over their bare feet and holystoned decks?

While on the subject - how many passengers are the CSCs now expected to carry in RCN service?


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> Now that the navy has got ahold of the ships have they decided how many berths they are leaving for Pongos?  It seems to me the original design was for 45 crew and 40 pax.  I've seen reference to an RCN crew of 66 which would only leave room for 19 pax.  I am assuming that the 19 pax also includes people like an RCAF air det, an RCMP liaison, and FPO, INA, CCG and other Odd Government types.
> 
> Or am I wrong to assume that the RCN still rebels at the notion of muddy, leather soled boots stomping all over their bare feet and holystoned decks?
> 
> While on the subject - how many passengers are the CSCs now expected to carry in RCN service?


68 crew and a 20 person mess for riders I do believe and that can all change due to mission.


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> Now that the navy has got ahold of the ships have they decided how many berths they are leaving for Pongos?  It seems to me the original design was for 45 crew and 40 pax. * I've seen reference to an RCN crew of 66 which would only leave room for 19 pax.*  I am assuming that the 19 pax also includes people like an RCAF air det, an RCMP liaison, and FPO, INA, CCG and other Odd Government types.
> 
> Or am I wrong to assume that the RCN still rebels at the notion of muddy, leather soled boots stomping all over their bare feet and holystoned decks?
> 
> While on the subject - how many passengers are the CSCs now expected to carry in RCN service?


Berths......pffft. You can sleep at least a battalion of Pongos on the decks on all levels. Bivvy bags for all. 

Cookie might be a little overworked.........unless IMP's.


----------



## Kirkhill

Typical.  Bolshies get the bunks and the showers.  Hammocks for the real workers.


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> Typical.  Bolshies get the bunks and the showers.  Hammocks for the real workers.


All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.



There's a crane and a flat bit on the back. That would be perfect for a big RV or, even better, a couple of double wides.

Have to maintain brand integrity, after all


----------



## Kirkhill

There's always the back of the pickup truck in the garage....


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> There's always the back of the pickup truck in the garage....


You can sleep 10 squaddies in there. Struth.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh my gawd father!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

IIRC, they can ship three full size containers on the aft deck, partly under the flight deck. This should mean they can carry six of the 20 foot container accommodation modules that are used onboard the MCDV's. That's six times self-contained six person accommodation units (that's 36 total for you pongos) each with it's own bunks, heads and shower facilities. With the other 20, that can make 56 total: enough for a company of RCR or a platoon of Vandoos ... whatever!


----------



## Weinie

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> IIRC, they can ship three full size containers on the aft deck, partly under the flight deck. This should mean they can carry six of the 20 foot container accommodation modules that are used onboard the MCDV's. That's six times self-contained six person accommodation units (that's 36 total for you pongos) each with it's own bunks, heads and shower facilities.* With the other 20, that can make 56 total: enough for a company of RCR or a platoon of Vandoos ... whatever!*


I see what you did there.........hah.

I am a little distressed at your suggestion that infantry needs any cover.


----------



## CBH99

56 members in a company?  Man times have changed 😉


----------



## Czech_pivo

So, with the delays and such, is it safe to say that Irving will start on the first CSC after the 6th and final RCN AOPS is completed and not build at all the 2 CCG AOPS's?  In essence, there won't be any 'production gap' that everyone was nattering on about and biting their nails to the quick, oui or non? 

Here's a link to the latest Govt Canada site on these 2 ships - note, no project cost or timeline mentioned.
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/arctique-coastgd-eng.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely the government will keep those two AOP's in reserve and confirm the contracts if needed to keep things going, but with increased costs for the CSC and possibility of no gap in steel cutting, they may disappear likely to the relief of the CCG who wants more specialised ships.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Likely the government will keep those two AOP's in reserve and confirm the contracts if needed to keep things going, but with increased costs for the CSC and possibility of no gap in steel cutting, they may disappear likely to the relief of the CCG who wants more specialised ships.


I agree, its looking more and more that the CCG will not be operating any version of the AOPS and the CSC will have steel cut in the 2023-2024 time frame.


----------



## YZT580

gravy train for Irving and the design team at CCG regardless.  They have the contract in hand for the design work so it will keep their draftspeople going


----------



## Underway

Steel is cut far in advance of when you would think it was. JSS steal is almost completely cut for ship set one and they are looking to start the CCG ship shortly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:


> I agree, its looking more and more that the CCG will not be operating any version of the AOPS and the CSC will have steel cut in the 2023-2024 time frame.


We need a replacement for the 500 class, with the stern ramp, but also improved towing capacity. the AOP's is to big and to many features that won't work.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Steel is cut far in advance of when you would think it was. JSS steal is almost completely cut for ship set one and they are looking to start the CCG ship shortly.


Great point; the production gap they are talking about is really at the module assembly level and up. The steel cutting is really cool to see, but basically it gets loaded on a conveyor and rolls through, with only a few people involved. After that it spools up and gets spread around to all kinds of workstations for the fitup and welding. Once the steel is cut the bits can get bundled up into work packages and chucked in storage so it doesn't become a choke point. There is a balance between doing it far enough ahead so it doesn't hurt production, and the storage/additional prep costs.

Wild to see though; it's a huge plasma cutter  with an ink jet head, so the whole sheet will get marked up, cut to size, and parts labeled with minimal wastage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yes I saw that setup at Seaspan, impressive how little wastage there is in modern shipbuilding.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> yes I saw that setup at Seaspan, impressive how little wastage there is in modern shipbuilding.


Watching it go from cut steel, through forming, made into modules, blocks then megablocks is pretty impressive. There is a more wastage on the first build, but once they dial everything in there is very little trimming left before they line up these huge steel assemblies to tight enough tolerances where the pipe flanges line up and all the weld points line up. The 3D surveying across each stage is nuts.


----------



## childs56

Navy_Pete said:


> Watching it go from cut steel, through forming, made into modules, blocks then megablocks is pretty impressive. There is a more wastage on the first build, but once they dial everything in there is very little trimming left before they line up these huge steel assemblies to tight enough tolerances where the pipe flanges line up and all the weld points line up. The 3D surveying across each stage is nuts.


Not sure if you have ever seen the oilfield modules they make out West, it is pretty awesome to see the precision of module built off site. Transported umpteen hundred kms, Then reassembled. It is awesome. Modern design is so amazing.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> I see what you did there.........hah.
> 
> I am a little distressed at your suggestion that infantry needs any cover.


Or showers... sheesh


----------



## Gorgo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Likely the government will keep those two AOP's in reserve and confirm the contracts if needed to keep things going, but with increased costs for the CSC and possibility of no gap in steel cutting, they may disappear likely to the relief of the CCG who wants more specialised ships.



Agreed.  The sooner the first steel is cut on the CSCs, the better.


----------



## Weinie

Gorgo said:


> Agreed.  The sooner the first steel is cut on the CSCs, the better.


Amen


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> Not sure if you have ever seen the oilfield modules they make out West, it is pretty awesome to see the precision of module built off site. Transported umpteen hundred kms, Then reassembled. It is awesome. Modern design is so amazing.


 The whole industrial engineering field is pretty interesting; it's fascinating to see things scaled up for production, plus all the tweaks (like the lean six sigma type programs) where they are shaving off the redundant steps is really interesting to dive into.

Not sure if I'd feel much of a sense of accomplishment with getting a widget made 0.35% more efficiently, but would be more hands on then fighting through procurements, internal business processes etc to get things done in DND.  Even contributing to something that makes a genuine difference is pretty abstract when all you are doing is emails and forms. I really miss getting my hands dirty and crawling around places to figure out how to keep it running.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Not sure if I'd feel much of a sense of accomplishment with getting a widget made 0.35% more efficiently, but would be more hands on then fighting through procurements, internal business processes etc to get things done in DND.  Even contributing to something that makes a genuine difference is pretty abstract when all you are doing is emails and forms. I really miss getting my hands dirty and crawling around places to figure out how to keep it running.



That 0.35% saves 0.35% dollars per widget which in a production line can work out to quite a bit of money when you're producing a million widgets.  It's the small efficiencies that make the big result. Just like in workups.  Those small fixes across the team shave minutes off of evolutions.

I get it regarding the dirty hand's bit.  I'm lucky right now that I get to play around in the design space.  It's all virtual but virtual lego is still uses the same brain parts as actual lego...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting, this article talks about the RCN's AOPS being used for SAR in the Arctic.....I know that in a time of an emergency that would be the case, an 'all hands on deck' situation but I'm not certain that the RCN is taking on SAR per se.

"Beginning in 2021 the Royal Canadian Navy will start deploying its new Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships of the _Harry Dewolf_ class to the Canadian Arctic. Those ships are equipped with a helicopter as well as a rigid inflatable boat. They will be a major addition to the Coast Guard’s existing search and rescue capability."









						Strengthening Canada's Arctic Search and Rescue Capabilities
					

Residents of the Canadian Arctic are painfully aware of climate change and more specifically global...




					www.maritime-executive.com


----------



## Good2Golf

All CAF assets have a SAR mission, some primary, some secondary. It’s not a stretch really.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> That 0.35% saves 0.35% dollars per widget which in a production line can work out to quite a bit of money when you're producing a million widgets.  It's the small efficiencies that make the big result. Just like in workups.  Those small fixes across the team shave minutes off of evolutions.
> 
> I get it regarding the dirty hand's bit.  I'm lucky right now that I get to play around in the design space.  It's all virtual but virtual lego is still uses the same brain parts as actual lego...


Yeah; one of those things I understand intellectually, but actually joined the Navy instead when my job prospects were doing things exactly like that in the plastic processing industry. Really interesting to look at, just not sure I'd want to do it as a career.

Hope to end up at one of the PMOs eventually; nice to be involved tangentially from the Matrix but agree that part is pretty fun.


----------



## YZT580

Good2Golf said:


> All CAF assets have a SAR mission, some primary, some secondary. It’s not a stretch really.


Considering the flight time with the new aircraft from Trenton, having a platform with a deployable helicopter sitting on deck would definitely be an asset that would be called upon.  Of course it would depend upon relative positioning as  to whom to send but you can be sure that Trenton would be making best use of whatever was available.  And don't just think cruise ships.  There are still numerous light aircraft that make the European trek via the north


----------



## Colin Parkinson

New video of the HDW breaking ice


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's not ice. That's slush: most of it is barely one meter thick!

Just kidding: Awesome.


----------



## YZT580

can't be doing the paint any good but it is good to see that it looks like we are getting what we paid for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dockside propulsion tests on HMCS Margaret Brooke 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1374070226623459329


----------



## Gorgo

Are the crew for _Margaret Brooke_ being mustered now?


----------



## Underway

Gorgo said:


> Are the crew for _Margaret Brooke_ being mustered now?


 Most of the leadership positions and supply positions should already have been filled at least a year ago.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> Most of the leadership positions and supply positions should already have been filled at least a year ago.


Is it a two and a half or a three ringer commanding?


----------



## Cronicbny

Weinie said:


> Is it a two and a half or a three ringer commanding?


Cdr. Cdr Michele Tessier is the current CO. Incumbent this APS is Cdr Nicole Robichaud


----------



## Underway

HDW CO is also getting a new CO this APS. I'm not sure the name but he sailed with her during the ice trials.


----------



## Cronicbny

Underway said:


> HDW CO is also getting a new CO this APS. I'm not sure the name but he sailed with her during the ice trials.


Cdr Collin Forsberg - MT 21


----------



## Halifax Tar

Cronicbny said:


> Cdr. Cdr Michele Tessier is the current CO. Incumbent this APS is* Cdr Nicole Robichaud*


My former XO on FRE.  MB is a lucky ship.  She is an exceptional leader.


----------



## Underway

I have met Cdr Tessier a couple of times.  She's very approachable and is a good ambassador for the RCN.  It's unfortunate that she won't be able to sail the MB before her replacement takes over.  Did all the ice navigation training and won't be able to apply it in practice.


----------



## Loachman

YZT580 said:


> Considering the flight time with the new aircraft from Trenton, having a platform with a deployable helicopter sitting on deck would definitely be an asset that would be called upon.  Of course it would depend upon relative positioning as  to whom to send but you can be sure that Trenton would be making best use of whatever was available.  And don't just think cruise ships.  There are still numerous light aircraft that make the European trek via the north


The Arctic is much bigger than people realize.

Neither ships nor helicopters go very far very fast.

Refuelling sites can be very far between, and caches may not have been tested recently enough.

Weather can be harsh, preventing flight and causing more things to break.

It took six weeks to get two Griffons from Borden to Alert a few years ago, between weather delays, breakages (a windscreen and a tail rotor blade), and minor things that would not normally be of significance except where available seats and cargo space on commercial aircraft can be hard to come by (and sometimes only one or the other, ie a seat is available for a tech in three days but no cargo space for tools and parts for over a week more). It's a bit annoying to find, once the box labelled "Windscreen, Left-Hand" arrives and is opened, only to find that it contains a "Windscreen, Right-Hand", and it tales six days to get the right one to the tiny gravel strip in the middle of nowhere and then, once work begins, it turns out that the six tubes of PRC sealant required turn out to be not the large size but the small size (not enough), and then, when everything's finally finished, a possible hairline crack in a tail rotor blade is detected on next morning's walkaround.

Those two crews were lucky. There was a hangar, fuel, and a "hotel" with a telephone available.

Many/most places are just a short gravel strip with no facilities at all, and the nearest community can be several miles away. In another case in one of those locations (another windscreen that cracked just after take-off), the local Ranger patrol had to guard the machine against polar bear attacks until the weather improved enough. Once the repair had been made (a tarp had to be secured across the windscreen so that a Herman-Nelson heater could warm everything up for the PRC to cure for a day), it was still a few days until we could get fuel flown in from the other side of James Bay by a commercial Twin Otter, which required several trips that had to be worked in around higher priorities. Then there were more weather delays...

And both of these cases happened in summer. Winter is not so easy.

See Rescue at the top of the world - Skies Mag and Ordeal in the Arctic - Wikipedia for another tragic illustration of Arctic reality.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:


> The Arctic is much bigger than people realize.
> 
> Neither ships nor helicopters go very far very fast.
> 
> Refuelling sites can be very far between, and caches may not have been tested recently enough.
> 
> Weather can be harsh, preventing flight and causing more things to break.
> 
> It took six weeks to get two Griffons from Borden to Alert a few years ago, between weather delays, breakages (a windscreen and a tail rotor blade), and minor things that would not normally be of significance except where available seats and cargo space on commercial aircraft can be hard to come by (and sometimes only one or the other, ie a seat is available for a tech in three days but no cargo space for tools and parts for over a week more). It's a bit annoying to find, once the box labelled "Windscreen, Left-Hand" arrives and is opened, only to find that it contains a "Windscreen, Right-Hand", and it tales six days to get the right one to the tiny gravel strip in the middle of nowhere and then, once work begins, it turns out that the six tubes of PRC sealant required turn out to be not the large size but the small size (not enough), and then, when everything's finally finished, a possible hairline crack in a tail rotor blade is detected on next morning's walkaround.
> 
> Those two crews were lucky. There was a hangar, fuel, and a "hotel" with a telephone available.
> 
> Many/most places are just a short gravel strip with no facilities at all, and the nearest community can be several miles away. In another case in one of those locations (another windscreen that cracked just after take-off), the local Ranger patrol had to guard the machine against polar bear attacks until the weather improved enough. Once the repair had been made (a tarp had to be secured across the windscreen so that a Herman-Nelson heater could warm everything up for the PRC to cure for a day), it was still a few days until we could get fuel flown in from the other side of James Bay by a commercial Twin Otter, which required several trips that had to be worked in around higher priorities. Then there were more weather delays...
> 
> And both of these cases happened in summer. Winter is not so easy.
> 
> See Rescue at the top of the world - Skies Mag and Ordeal in the Arctic - Wikipedia for another tragic illustration of Arctic reality.



Tangentially, a RUSI article on Canadian Arctic Airspace stuff:

With the onset of global warming, more and more of Canada’s north is becoming open and accessible due to the “melt.” At the current rate of warming, the Northwest Passage and other routes will soon be waterways open all year. More sea lane traffic will result and with that comes the possibility of accidents and the need for rapid northern search and rescue response, both from the sea and the air. In this article however, we are not going to discuss the sea issues around our northern landmass as this will be dealt with in another RUSI(NS) paper later this fall in the Canadian Naval Review. What we wish to discuss here is what is happening overhead – our airspace. Newly launched satellites providing total coverage of the north is a tremendous technological advance and as a result, more and more air traffic will result as domestic and foreign carriers will transit our northern airspace to cut time and costs on their overseas routes. RUSI(S) is currently looking at air aspects of our northern sovereignty and this short primer will address some, not all, of the issues with respect to the airspace over Canada’s north coupled with a need for robust search and rescue resources. 









						The Canadian North - Airspace, Surveillance, Air Traffic Control, Search & Rescue
					

RUSI(NS) primer describing the Canadian North: air and water space, surveillance, air traffic control, and search & rescue.



					rusi-ns.ca
				






			https://rusi-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The_Canadian_North.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HDW conducts it's first RAS 


	
	






__ https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/posts/1401570230204708


----------



## Underway

Good lord that kingpost is in an awkward spot.  I wonder how many people it took to drag it out there and set it up.  Must be 500lbs at least.

BZ to the RAZ team, looks like quite the setup.


----------



## NavyShooter

We were discussing that kingpost at work last week - looks like an awful lot of potential strain from a span-wire on a very few small looking bolts.

I'm glad it worked and that no-one got injured through a RUD.

NS


----------



## Gorgo

Given where that kingpost is - and that it seems to be a temporary setup on the _*flight deck *_of all the places on the ship! - something tells me that doing a RAS evolution will be a sort of "done by necessessity" function.

In other words, if an AOPS needs to fuel up, head to a port and do it there.


----------



## Stoker

Gorgo said:


> Given where that kingpost is - and that it seems to be a temporary setup on the _*flight deck *_of all the places on the ship! - something tells me that doing a RAS evolution will be a sort of "done by necessessity" function.
> 
> In other words, if an AOPS needs to fuel up, head to a port and do it there.


The ship is set up to do a light line transfer just aft of the bridge and any solid transfers will be done via VERTREP. It is very unlikely you'll see many RAS as the set up is to enable the ship to be fueled at the Arctic fueling deport which has a RAS type setup. Due to enviro regs we don\t RAS in the Arctic and Asterix can't go above 60 as a civilian ship.  Because the ship will be doing many of the missions the Kingston Class has done fueling alongside will be the norm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As i recall the AOP's has significant tankage and might be used to refuel other navy ships?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice to see things going well, I am glad the CO got time in the ice with CCG.









						HMCS Harry DeWolf excels through ice trials | Trident Newspaper
					

Hard work paying off – HMCS Harry DeWolf excels through ice trials By Ryan Melanson, Trident Staff Navigating the Arctic and sailing through ice is nothing new for Cdr Corey Gleason. As the first Commanding Officer of the Navy’s first Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship, he’s spent years preparing...




					tridentnewspaper.com


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> As i recall the AOP's has significant tankage and might be used to refuel other navy ships?


It can't reverse RAS but it can pump fuel to another ship alongside just like any other RCN vessel.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Questions; in the  picture showing HDW returning back to Halifax there appears to be a large amount of ice covering the bow deck gun.  If that is the case, how would that ice be removed if the HDW was required to use that deck gun quickly? How much time would it take to remove the ice, how would you remove the ice and how long would the process be to 'certify' that the gun is in good order and able to be fired after the removal of the ice?

Another question, is it going to be standard policy to allow ice to be built up and remain on the deck gun during operational tours in the Arctic during the time periods when ice build up can occur?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They might have a heating element to warm up the gun prior to use


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> They might have a heating element to warm up the gun prior to use


That must be some heating element that will be able to remove ice in -15-40c weather quick enough to make a difference between needing to have an active gun and being a lame duck.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Questions; in the  picture showing HDW returning back to Halifax there appears to be a large amount of ice covering the bow deck gun.  If that is the case, how would that ice be removed if the HDW was required to use that deck gun quickly? How much time would it take to remove the ice, how would you remove the ice and how long would the process be to 'certify' that the gun is in good order and able to be fired after the removal of the ice?
> 
> Another question, is it going to be standard policy to allow ice to be built up and remain on the deck gun during operational tours in the Arctic during the time periods when ice build up can occur?


All ships will accrue ice in the Arctic and off Halifax if the right conditions are met, for your awareness the ice on HDW's gun was accrued off Halifax and this is not a new thing for the RCN. You just need the right sea state, air temp mix and you'll have it.  Just because it will be operating in the Arctic doesn't necessarily mean it will be in icing conditions much. I did nine deployments to the Arctic and only accrued ice once and that was easily removed. That being said the gun does have features to certain parts of it free from ice and there are other methods at our disposal to remove ice. Once ice is removed from the gun, I would imagine the WEng onboard would check it for obvious issues dependent on the amount of ice, for the ice you mentioned it wouldn't be. For deployments the SOP would to remove ice every time it accrues just like anywhere else.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> That must be some heating element that will be able to remove ice in -15-40c weather quick enough to make a difference between needing to have an active gun and being a lame duck.


Again, it's a non-combatant. Unless the polar bears find RPGs probably pretty low risk of a sudden attack in the Arctic where the small gun will be instantly required. And like Stoker said, you don't usually let things build up to the point where it's a problem, and if you think you'll need it, you'll keep an eye on it and break it up as necessary.

Similarly doing mutliple concurrent evolutions is very labour intensive, so no way they have enough crew to do RAS and flight ops at the same time., nor any need to. I've done that on the frigate, and everyone not off watch was involved in some way with a 250 person crew. They have about 70; they are a single evolution at a time kind of vessel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The only way it will not be a potentiel combatant is that you don't send it anywhere outside of coastal waters and you can't even be sure of the arctic with China and Russia having their own agenda. If you send outside of Canadian waters it is a potential combatant or a juicy target.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> The only way it will not be a potentiel combatant is that you don't send it anywhere outside of coastal waters and you can't even be sure of the arctic with China and Russia having their own agenda. If you send outside of Canadian waters it is a potential combatant or a juicy target.


Yes lots of that going on eh?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the CSC gets delayed any further, a number of the secondary missions the Halifax's will be cascaded down onto the AOP's to preserve the life of the Halifax's. There has already been at least two successful attacks on naval vessels by non-state actors and semi-autonomous suicide drones or loitering munitions will become a favorite weapon terrorist groups. The AOP's as currently equipped makes a fairly easy target.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> If the CSC gets delayed any further, a number of the secondary missions the Halifax's will be cascaded down onto the AOP's to preserve the life of the Halifax's. There has already been at least two successful attacks on naval vessels by non-state actors and semi-autonomous suicide drones or loitering munitions will become a favorite weapon terrorist groups. The AOP's as currently equipped makes a fairly easy target.


I had a bet with a friend that your next reply would be concerning armed drones and non-state actors. Man you are predictable. You must also be a fortune teller with your prediction that AOPS will be sent into high threat areas.


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> I had a bet with a friend that your next reply would be concerning armed drones and non-state actors. Man you are predictable. You must also be a fortune teller with your prediction that AOPS will be sent into high threat areas.


OK, you won your bet. But I offer that his prediction has some substance, we will be in a state of uncertainty between the timings for the intro of the CSC's and the retirement of the Halifax frigates. Many of us saw how quickly the 280 went from excellence to obsolescence. The MCDV's initial intent was not to deploy to Africa. So, future work arounds will likely involve the AOPS. Unless the RCN does a major upgrade, he is correct. They will be a sitting duck in a threat area.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes I do bang on the drum, it's a threat I see and expect to grow. I really hope to be proven wrong and whole bunch of sailors don't die from such a threat. Yemen Houthi with the help of Iran have badly damaged a Incat and guarded oil installation hundreds of miles from their territory. The technology is getting smaller, cheaper and more capable and will flow to the less well equipped groups. Nailing a western naval vessel with one will be great propaganda for them.
Canada already sends the MG armed Kingstons to Africa, you can bet beer on the AOP's going there and further. As for avoiding threats, Canada already sent equipment into conflict zones when it said that they would not previously.


----------



## Stoker

Weinie said:


> OK, you won your bet. But I offer that his prediction has some substance, we will be in a state of uncertainty between the timings for the intro of the CSC's and the retirement of the Halifax frigates. Many of us saw how quickly the 280 went from excellence to obsolescence. The MCDV's initial intent was not to deploy to Africa. So, future work arounds will likely involve the AOPS. Unless the RCN does a major upgrade, he is correct. They will be a sitting duck in a threat area.


Sure any lightly armed ship will be a "sitting duck" in a threat area unless they're well protected. I deployed to Africa twice in the Kingston Class and I can assure you we weren't in danger. There is always what ifs and yes HDW with its 25mm will be doing Caribs and Op Projections when fully operational. Based on my experience the RCN will not be sending these ships to the Gulf or anywhere like that. Of course I know you and Parkinson know better and if they don't get attacked you guys will probably say we got lucky...lets agree to disagree.


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> Sure any lightly armed ship will be a "sitting duck" in a threat area unless they're well protected. I deployed to Africa twice in the Kingston Class and I can assure you we weren't in danger. There is always what ifs and yes HDW with its 25mm will be doing Caribs and Op Projections when fully operational. Based on my experience the RCN will not be sending these ships to the Gulf or anywhere like that. *Of course I know you and Parkinson know better and if they don't get attacked you guys will probably say we got lucky...lets agree to disagree.*


It's not that I know better. Your own posting above gives you more credibility about the Navy then I will ever have. His point is that he is concerned about the AOPS ability to defend itself. I share those concerns, especially with future asymmetric attacks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada has long and colourful history of sending people into a fight poorly equipped. I don't pretend to "know better" but I do read a lot and try to make myself aware of what has happened, what may happen and what we are doing about it. Had Canada started with a lot more money to spend on ships, you can bet the armament would have been greater.
I suspect two reasons played a role in the current setup. One, Canadians are cheap bastards and we were already paying premium dollar to have these ships built here to our standards, so something had to be cut. The other is that from what I hear the senior brass were not enamoured with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
I also point to the Kingstons who should be getting the same gun that is on the AOP's, but as always we are to bloody cheap to a fault. it's always better to go to a potentiel fight expecting the worse and then not having to use it, than the other way around.

I am glad you won your bet, I hope it involved beers.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Canada has long and colourful history of sending people into a fight poorly equipped. I don't pretend to "know better" but I do read a lot and try to make myself aware of what has happened, what may happen and what we are doing about it. Had Canada started with a lot more money to spend on ships, you can bet the armament would have been greater.
> I suspect two reasons played a role in the current setup. One, Canadians are cheap bastards and we were already paying premium dollar to have these ships built here to our standards, so something had to be cut. The other is that from what I hear the senior brass were not enamoured with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
> I also point to the Kingstons who should be getting the same gun that is on the AOP's, but as always we are to bloody cheap to a fault. it's always better to go to a potentiel fight expecting the worse and then not having to use it, than the other way around.
> 
> I am glad you won your bet, I hope it involved beers.


Yes you must read a lot based on some of your "informed" opinions I see on social media.  Being informed doesn't make you a naval expert by any means and of course all the rumors you "heard" all adds up to someone who don't have a clue about these ships, why they were armed in this manner and what they will be doing.  Stop the speculation, easy target comments and drum banging and stay in your lanes of what you actually know.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My current "lane" is a concerned taxpayer who feels we taken a good design and handicapped it. Plus my experience with working with the Canadian government tells me that we will always take the cheap way out if possible. Basically your getting annoyed that I am concerned about our ships being properly equipped? If I and others like me followed your suggestions, then there would be even less pressure on the government to support the military. I would be careful for what you wish for.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> My current "lane" is a concerned taxpayer who feels we taken a good design and handicapped it. Plus my experience with working with the Canadian government tells me that we will always take the cheap way out if possible. Basically your getting annoyed that I am concerned about our ships being properly equipped? If I and others like me followed your suggestions, then there would be even less pressure on the government to support the military. I would be careful for what you wish for.


No just pointing out that most of what you say is sheer speculation based on rumor's that you heard concerning these ships, what they'll be doing and where they'll be used. Couple that with your threat assessments to the RCN and statements of future doom for our ships and sailors based on your opinions. Concerned taxpayer? Really?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So it's a rumour that the ships are only equipped with MG and 25mm gun? It's a rumour that we sent the Kingstons to Africa? Yes it is speculation that the AOP's will go with or instead of the Kingstons, but it's a fair speculation. Africa is a evolving situation with many potentiel threats and we are a legitimate target in the eyes of those groups. the question is do you want to be an easy target or a hard target? Intelligence and threat assessments are only so reliable. 
As for the Arctic, I don't doubt for a minute that China would set up a "research station" in Arctic areas claimed by Canada, if they felt they can get away with it. Just ask Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines about China respect for other claims.
If I was asking to put 16" guns on the AOP's then yes I would be foolish. But what I have suggested is in line with what other nations are doing with their OPV's. I guess they perceive the world differently?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> So it's a rumour that the ships are only equipped with MG and 25mm gun? It's a rumour that we sent the Kingstons to Africa? Yes it is speculation that the AOP's will go with or instead of the Kingstons, but it's a fair speculation. Africa is a evolving situation with many potentiel threats and we are a legitimate target in the eyes of those groups. the question is do you want to be an easy target or a hard target? Intelligence and threat assessments are only so reliable.
> As for the Arctic, I don't doubt for a minute that China would set up a "research station" in Arctic areas claimed by Canada, if they felt they can get away with it. Just ask Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines about China respect for other claims.
> If I was asking to put 16" guns on the AOP's then yes I would be foolish. But what I have suggested is in line with what other nations are doing with their OPV's. I guess they perceive the world differently?


Rumour's and speculation like " I hear the senior brass were not enamored with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy" Perhaps is true, perhaps its not, but you are speculating Joe tax payer.

What is your preoccupation and problem with send the Kingston Class to Africa anyways? They're there to train other African navies are not doing anti piracy patrols. They'll actually done pretty well for themselves over there. Since they been going absolutely no problems and I have real world experience in this and based on historical data not a pirate target. Yep non state actions could very well make it a bad day for us and any other ship over there even heavily armed. Again more than likely will never happen and we assume the risk when we go to those areas, part of being in the Navy, can you comprehend that? We do take our role there seriously and have measures in place for piracy's activity if we encounter it. You don't need to speculate on the AOPS going to Africa because the RCN has made that very clear in what they release publicly that they will be going and doing the same engagement and training to African nations the Kingston Class was doing.
I'm not going to touch your China turning the Arctic into the south China sea comments because frankly its not the South China Sea. A larger gun in this day and age doesn't make a difference and the 25mm seems to work for other classes of ships doing exactly what the AOPS will be doing. You need to accept the fact that there ships will never have missiles and more than likely a larger gun and move on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The bit about the brass as I recall was from this forum. As for speculation about politicians neutering programs, for something that is nowhere near as capable, I been privy to enough stuff over the years in the PS to know that is always a concern. So I take that as a highly likely possibility.
I respect the opinions and experience you have and listen to them, but we are not just talking now or the near future, we are talking about the lifetime of these ships. Why reduce their capabilities when things are getting more complex? From what I have read here and elsewhere a gun system like the 57mm would give the AOP's a much better chance to defend itself from loitering munitions and suicide drones if required and now is the time to advocate that as there are still ships under construction where the mounts and supporting infrastructure can be built in. I realize it also means enhancing the Combat Suite to support the extended capabilities of that gun system. 57mm and up means programable fuzes and more throw weight than a 25mm can ever hope to. i think the 25mm and it's mount appears to be a great system, which is why i like to see it put onto the Kingstons and the system move to the aft arc for the AOP's. That would reduce the training and munitions burdens on the RCN.

As to China, they have declared themselves a "near Arctic nation" and built quite capable icebreakers. It's very likely that as they either fish out other regions or are pushed out, they be sending their fishing militias into our arctic waters and contesting our claims. Under their current leadership anything is possible. I really like the AOP's and think they were long overdue. but I will continue to advocate the one area I think we have failed and there are reasonable and not overly costly/complex solutions to resolve it.


----------



## CBH99

Stoker said:


> Rumour's and speculation like " I hear the senior brass were not enamored with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy" Perhaps is true, perhaps its not, but you are speculating Joe tax payer.
> 
> What is your preoccupation and problem with send the Kingston Class to Africa anyways? They're there to train other African navies are not doing anti piracy patrols. They'll actually done pretty well for themselves over there. Since they been going absolutely no problems and I have real world experience in this and based on historical data not a pirate target. Yep non state actions could very well make it a bad day for us and any other ship over there even heavily armed. Again more than likely will never happen and we assume the risk when we go to those areas, part of being in the Navy, can you comprehend that? We do take our role there seriously and have measures in place for piracy's activity if we encounter it. You don't need to speculate on the AOPS going to Africa because the RCN has made that very clear in what they release publicly that they will be going and doing the same engagement and training to African nations the Kingston Class was doing.
> I'm not going to touch your China turning the Arctic into the south China sea comments because frankly its not the South China Sea. A larger gun in this day and age doesn't make a difference and the 25mm seems to work for other classes of ships doing exactly what the AOPS will be doing. You need to accept the fact that there ships will never have missiles and more than likely a larger gun and move on.


What was the reasoning behind putting a 25mm on it, versus the 57mm on the original design?

Just genuinely curious.  What is mostly a cost issue?


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:


> What was the reasoning behind putting a 25mm on it, versus the 57mm on the original design?
> 
> Just genuinely curious.  What is mostly a cost issue?


The earliest presentation I saw for the ship is one dated 2011.

It said:

"AOPS is a naval ship but is not considered a combatant. The AOPS has a small caliber gun for sovereignty enforcement, two machine guns, and weapons lockers."

So Canada decided on what gun it was to be armed with over a decade before the first one was built. Except for the hull form this ship is very different that the Norwegian Arctic Patrol ship its being based on. If the RCN announced that the intent was a 57mm and overtime it dropped its requirement to a 25mm then I would agree that it was a cost cutting measure. It seems to me that the original design intent was a 25mm. If the ship was to have a 57mm, then how much more would the ship cost? Can't see it costing that much more.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99
Wiki says the idea for the ships were announced by the PM in 2006, with plans firming up in 2007, 2008 a contract was let to start preparing technical specifications. To find out the discussions as to the general "wants and needs" you might try an ATIP, however I suspect the foundation documents are likely covered under Cabinet confidence and not subject to the ATI Act.

From CASR, you can see some of the evolution of thought behind the ships Iqaluit Port - Deep-Water Port - Armed Icebreakers - CASR In Detail - Canadian American Strategic Review - Canadian Defence Planning - Nanisivik Port

and backgrounder from 2007 DND/CF | Backgrounder | Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships

and a TSOR from that period that mentions between 20-40mm, although the artwork on the link shows the Bofor turret. Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships - AOPS - Armed Naval Icebreakers - Offshore Patrol Vessels - Statement of Operational Requirement - TSOR - CASR Documents - Arctic Sovereignty - Canadian Shipbuilding - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin 

The RN is sending it's OPVs to establish Forward Presence all over the world. Individual hulls operating independently with a single 20-30 mm gun and a couple of GPMGs.  

And an embarked troop of Marines.

Just sayin


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I saw that and I recall they plan on replacing some of them with Type 31's as they come on line. Interesting the crewing arrangements they plan on having. I wonder if the RCN will trial something like that with the AOP's, leaving the ships up North throughout the spring/summer months and rotating the crews through? Similar to the CCG schedule.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> I saw that and I recall they plan on replacing some of them with Type 31's as they come on line. Interesting the crewing arrangements they plan on having. I wonder if the RCN will trial something like that with the AOP's, leaving the ships up North throughout the spring/summer months and rotating the crews through? Similar to the CCG schedule.


I believe the USN is doing much the same with the LCS hulls.  And Norway did the Two out Three Divisions afloat in the Svalbard.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> I believe the USN is doing much the same with the LCS hulls.  And Norway did the Two out Three Divisions afloat in the Svalbard.


The RCN has done chew changes before in the Arctic as proof of concept in regards to the Kingston Class and could be easily accomplished at the Arctic fueling depot. The plan as it stands the AOPS assigned to the Arctic will stay there the entire time and for now no crew changes planned.


----------



## Kirkhill

For information purposes only.  Some slides from the 2008 Industry Day on the notional design requirements.


----------



## Jarnhamar

That's an awesome-looking ship. I'd add another big gun to the rear of the ship, some gun placements (4) on the top of the bridge and top deck, and mortars.  Because Ice Pirates.


----------



## Kirkhill

Arguably transporter of the Commonwealth's most valuable cargo - The Royal Yacht Britannia.  Not a deck-mount to be found.  In fact such mounts would be counter-productive in the Forward Presence role.  It would indicate that the seas were not safe.

"The government argued that the cost was justified by its role in foreign policy and promoting British interests abroad, particularly through conferences held by British Invisibles, formerly the Committee on Invisible Exports. It was estimated by the Overseas Trade Board that events held on board the yacht helped raise £3 billion for HM Treasury between 1991 and 1995 alone.[13]"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Kirkhill: One deck mount. HMY Britannia was fitted with one saluting gun.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Actually, Kirkhill: One deck mount. HMY Britannia was fitted with one saluting gun.


Roger that, OGBD.  I stand corrected.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Somebody mentioned, upthread, about icing problems and the need to clear the tarps off the 25mm and that even the 57s had problems.

The Swedes seem to have solved that problem for their Visby Corvettes.  Their 57s are totally enclosed.  As are all their other major weapons systems - SSMs, Torps and Rheinmetal MASS decoy launcher.  This has the additional advantage of the reducing the radar signature to something akin to that of  a buoy, reportedly.









						Photo Emerges Showing Sweden's Stealthy Visby Class Corvette's Tiny Radar Signature
					

The ships combine a radar-deflecting physical design with composite materials and other features to achieve an impressive level of low observability.




					www.thedrive.com
				
















The Norwegians also hide their NSMs on their Skjold class "Corvettes"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









Additional advantage - beyond the James Bond Cool Factor - reinstate the command - "Run out the guns".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I recall generally sailing with an escort as well with the Queen onboard


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I recall generally sailing with an escort as well with the Queen onboard



Seems the right thing to do.  When the situation demands.  Maybe she only needs a PB escort.  Sometimes she may need a Carrier Group.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Isn`t it supposed to convert to a hospital ship in wartime or has that gone away?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Her last visit to Quebec City: Escorted on the Halifax to Quebec City by the naval reserves, employing HMCS FORT STEELE. Not  single gun on her - not even a hand gun for the C.O.

And,yes, she could be converted into a hospital ship in wartime - but only after the threat of nuclear attack passed. Otherwise, she was the designated safe place for Her Majesty to take refuge at sea.


----------



## Spencer100

Did she not go the Falklands for a little fun in 1982?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Spencer100 said:


> Did she not go the Falklands for a little fun in 1982?


Good God, no!  They would have soiled the carpets.  Though she did evacuate "refugees" from Aden in 1986.  Hopefully they wiped their boots before boarding.  I wonder what the Royal Yacht was doing in the Red Sea at the time?






						Aden: British Evacuation (Hansard, 21 January 1986)
					

Aden: British Evacuation (Hansard, 21 January 1986)



					hansard.millbanksystems.com
				





> On the 13th January fighting broke out in Aden. The ferocity of the fighting presented grave risks to the safety of British subjects. In those circumstances, and with the full agreement of Her Majesty the Queen, the Royal Yacht 'Britannia', which was just leaving the Red Sea, was ordered to remain off Aden; Her Majesty's ships 'Newcastle' and 'Jupiter', with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary 'Bramblelear, were ordered to Aden at full steam in case they were needed for an evacuation.
> 
> "The situation in the country continued to deteriorate and the level of fighting approached that of a civil war. After close consultation with the Russians and French, both in Aden and in the capitals, it was agreed that evacuation was necessary and that as far as possible our efforts should be co-ordinated. On the 17th January, Soviet merchant vessels lifted off from Aden about 1,000 people, mostly their own nationals.  On the same day, the Royal Yacht took off 450 people, 38 of them British—44 nationalities altogether. Eighty-one French nationals were then transferred to a French ship, and the rest of the evacuees were taken on 'Britannia' to Djibouti. The Royal Yacht then returned to the area and on the 19th January lifted off a further 209 people from an area 35 miles from the capital. Eighteen of them were British. These have since arrived in Djibouti, after transferring to HMS 'Jupiter'. I am now very pleased to be able to add that 'Britannia' has this morning picked up a further 15 British nationals from Little Aden. 'Britannia' is maintaining close contact with the vessels of the other nations involved and remains offshore nearby to take on board further parties of British and other foreign nationals as soon as conditions permit.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Blackadder1916 said:


> . . .   I wonder what the Royal Yacht was doing in the Red Sea at the time?



Britannia was en route in advance of the Royal Visit to New Zealand and Australia (22 Feb - 13 Mar 86).  It carried on.  While the Royal Yacht had a detour for its bit of bother, the Queen might have wished for a slight detour during one day of the visit to NZ when she was attacked by egg throwing protestors and "mooned" by a grass skirt wearing Maori (such action apparently the greatest insult).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The commentary is a bit off, I don't think the RCN ever went to the pole even when the HMCS Labrador was in service? But some nice footage of the HDW. Yes Stoker, I made my obligatory comment about her armament, I like to be consistent.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> The commentary is a bit off, I don't think the RCN ever went to the pole even when the HMCS Labrador was in service? But some nice footage of the HDW. Yes Stoker, I made my obligatory comment about her armament, I like to be consistent.


No the RCN has never made it the pole as of yet. The furthest North they have gone is 80 degrees in a Kingston Class.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Going by Wiki the furthest North the Labrador sailed in the RCN is Melville Island at 75 Degrees, which means the honour belongs to the Kingston's as you said, unless someone knows more about the Labrador voyages?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Going by Wiki the furthest North the Labrador sailed in the RCN is Melville Island at 75 Degrees, which means the honour belongs to the Kingston's as you said, unless someone knows more about the Labrador voyages?


It was already confirmed by DH. HMCS Shawinigan in Nares Strait Sept 8th 2014.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's awesome


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> That's awesome


It sure was.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Furthest North I got was around 74 Degrees in Peel Sound, then we turned around and started making our way back to Pt Barrow before the ice got to thick.


----------



## Underway

Jarnhamar said:


> That's an awesome-looking ship. I'd add another big gun to the rear of the ship, some gun placements (4) on the top of the bridge and top deck, and mortars.  Because Ice Pirates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually 68lb Cannonades work best for Ice Pirates


----------



## Stoker

HMCS Harry DeWolf is in the Caribbean conducting warm weather trials.


----------



## lenaitch

Like my wife looking for a mall parking spot at Christmas.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Puerto Rico appears to be ice free at this time of year 



			https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?ea_u=1230735902801944576&ea_e=1621269076&tweet_id=1388182251146461185&ea_s=c29c7bdee9a514d5656725e770c91ff942d953be&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 2nd AOP's (future HMCS Margaret Brooke) is off the wall for sea trials, I expect the trials and the hand over will go much quicker this time around. 




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=950028162427642


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> Puerto Rico appears to be ice free at this time of year
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?ea_u=1230735902801944576&ea_e=1621269076&tweet_id=1388182251146461185&ea_s=c29c7bdee9a514d5656725e770c91ff942d953be&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email


Well, it is now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and more good news on the third ship of the series.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1391164048822112262


----------



## CBH99

That's 2 in the water, and a 3rd that now looks like a full ship.  Nice!

Obviously it took some time for the program to build up some momentum, which is expected when we are heavily modifying an already existing design, contracting a shipyard, they contract their suppliers and hire workers, get them trained, and the final details are all worked out.  But now that the AOPS program has some momentum behind it, it's good to see these ships rolling out at what seems (to the most uneducated person ever in regards to shipbuilding) a pretty decent pace


----------



## OceanBonfire

Initial firing trial of the ship's 25 mm gun:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1391855675823828992




__ https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/posts/1422273518134379
			





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1391134055513559040


----------



## Underway

The pain they had to go through to get that thing certified ...  So many issues (non-technical) that just kept jumping up in the way.  BZ to the crew, ISI and the shore support staff for sorting it all out and getting it done on schedule!

In honour of the momentous occasion here's a nice article from Forbes that takes a balanced outside of the echo chamber look at the AOPS and Canada's approach to arming it.

Nice New Patrol Ship You’ve Got There, Canada—It’d Be A Shame If Somebody Sank It


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> The pain they had to go through to get that thing certified was unbelievable.  So many issues (non-technical) that just kept jumping up in the way.  BZ to the crew, ISI and the shore support staff for sorting it all out and getting it done on schedule!
> 
> In honour of the momentous occasion here's a nice article from Forbes that takes a balanced outside of the echo chamber look at the AOPS and Canada's approach to arming it.
> 
> Nice New Patrol Ship You’ve Got There, Canada—It’d Be A Shame If Somebody Sank It


Oh oh oh!   Don’t leave us hanging!

What kinda of issues kept popping up to get it certified??


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> Oh oh oh!   Don’t leave us hanging!
> 
> What kinda of issues kept popping up to get it certified??


BAE needed a SME there to certify the weapon.  The SME is based out of the head office.  In the UK.  COVID.  I think you can follow the equation on this one.

There were other challenges of course, but I'm gonna let them breathe until they are no longer operationally or project relevant.   🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> The pain they had to go through to get that thing certified ...  So many issues (non-technical) that just kept jumping up in the way.  BZ to the crew, ISI and the shore support staff for sorting it all out and getting it done on schedule!
> 
> In honour of the momentous occasion here's a nice article from Forbes that takes a balanced outside of the echo chamber look at the AOPS and Canada's approach to arming it.
> 
> Nice New Patrol Ship You’ve Got There, Canada—It’d Be A Shame If Somebody Sank It


Except the article missed that the Arctic is only one of the areas they will operate in.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Except the article missed that the Arctic is only one of the areas they will operate in.


Except that the Brits will be operating similarly armed Patrol Vessels on the High Seas.....

But there again the Brits will also be operating these on the High Seas..



It's good to have company


----------



## Spencer100

I wonder if Irving will bid? With GoC help?   It would be an interesting idea if the gov subsidizes it.  With an election coming.  One more ship in the que before the start of CSC.  But suspect we can't beat the Asian and European builders on price.









						New Zealand is seeking industry info to build Antarctic patrol vessel
					

The government cautions that the ship will traverse “one of the roughest seas in the world,” where waves regularly exceed 33 feet and some are more than 66 feet high.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is the challenge:
_The RFI anticipates the ship will be 295-377 feet in length, with* accommodations for 100 people*, including 60 crew members, 30 scientific staff and a military helicopter flight crew of 10. The RFI cautions that the ship will traverse “one of the roughest seas in the world.” *Waves in the region regularly exceed 33 feet and some are more than 66 feet high.*_

I suspect they can squeeze in the 100 people with a downgrade in accommodations, the heavy weather aspect, I can't say. But I believe the design stands a good chance and perhaps the CCG might relinquish one of the ships destined for it? Meaning Irving can provide a fairly concrete timeline and the ship will be limited in it's bespoke aspects. Plus apparently NZ was pleased with VSS handling of their frigate upgrade, so perhaps Canada will become NZ new best ship building/repair buddy?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

First stage done already, great news 








						Canadian Navy's HMCS Margaret Brooke completes sea trials
					

Royal Canadian Navy's second Arctic and offshore patrol ship HMCS Margaret Brooke has completed sea trials conducted by Irving Shipbuilding.




					www.navaltoday.com


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> I wonder if Irving will bid? With GoC help?   It would be an interesting idea if the gov subsidizes it.  With an election coming.  One more ship in the que before the start of CSC.  But suspect we can't beat the Asian and European builders on price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Zealand is seeking industry info to build Antarctic patrol vessel
> 
> 
> The government cautions that the ship will traverse “one of the roughest seas in the world,” where waves regularly exceed 33 feet and some are more than 66 feet high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



I don't think AOPS meets the requirements.  The sea's are too heavy, the number of crew are too high and the range is too long and AOPS is an icebreaker, not an ice-strengthened ship.

NZ is looking for a horse of a different colour.  I'm sure NZ reached out the PMO AOPS for info as they were developing their requirements.  Allies do that sort of thing all the time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Today the first steel is cut on the 5th Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS), the future HMCS Frédérick Rolette, named for prominent Canadian naval hero Lieutenant Frédérick Rolette. 









						Royal Canadian Navy
					

Royal Canadian Navy. 43,877 likes · 863 talking about this. The Official page of your Royal Canadian Navy.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## Gorgo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Today the first steel is cut on the 5th Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS), the future HMCS Frédérick Rolette, named for prominent Canadian naval hero Lieutenant Frédérick Rolette.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy. 43,877 likes · 863 talking about this. The Official page of your Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.facebook.com



Sweet!  The sooner these ships get out of the way, the sooner the CSCs can be built!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of me is envious, figuring out how to run a new ship would be fun and challenging









						HMCS Harry DeWolf trades ice-breaking for warm weather trials | Trident Newspaper
					

HMCS Harry DeWolf trades ice-breaking for warm weather trials By Darlene Blakeley, RCN PA The temperature was a little different this time around. After a month of conducting cold weather and ice trials off the coasts of Northern Labrador and Nunavut earlier this year, Her Majesty’s Canadian...




					tridentnewspaper.com


----------



## Uzlu

> Canadian and Danish firms collaborate on containerised minehunting payloads
> 
> *Modular payloads will include Kraken surveillance systems and SH container modules for offshore patrol vessels.*
> 
> Canada-based Kraken Robotics is co-operating with Danish firm SH Defense (SHD) to design and sell containerised mine countermeasure (MCM) and other subsea surveillance payloads for the naval and commercial marine industries.
> 
> These modular payloads will include Kraken surveillance systems and SH container modules for offshore patrol vessels.
> 
> ‘SH Defense will globally promote and sell containerised subsea surveillance solutions with a variety of Kraken’s surveillance solutions,’ Karl Kenny, Kraken president and CEO, said on 7 June.
> 
> He added: ‘In Canada, Kraken, supported by SHD, will promote, sell, deliver, install and service SHD hydraulic, electric and mechanical system modular containerised solutions to the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Coast Guard and commercial industry.’
> 
> These solutions could feature in the _Harry DeWolf_-class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships for the RCN and Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The use of containerised modules for MCM would reduce the need for preventative maintenance while also meaning that ships can remain in service when equipment requires servicing.
> 
> ‘New systems can be installed on vessels by fitting them to a module, instead of refitting the entire ship,’ Kraken added, and when a ship is removed from service, the modules can be reused by other vessels.








						Canadian and Danish firms collaborate on containerised minehunting payloads | Shephard
					

Modular payloads will include Kraken surveillance systems and SH container modules for offshore patrol vessels.



					www.shephardmedia.com


----------



## OceanBonfire

More details (with pictures) of the interior of the ship:









						Tour of HMCS HARRY DEWOLF
					

HMCS HARRY DEWOLF alongside in November 2020. Back in January, I was fortunate enough to receive a tour of the future* HMCS HARRY DEWOLF and...




					sandblings.blogspot.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice accommodations and that Foscle is likely to be good place to hang out in calm weather


----------



## Underway

If you critically filter some of the tire pumping and focus on the details, this is an excellent video tour and explanation of how the HDW is being trialed and some of its capabilities.

How they are proving the equipment and systems is very interesting.

Delivering the AOPS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Article on the AOP's


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405946866777395203


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:


> If you critically filter some of the tire pumping and focus on the details, this is an excellent video tour and explanation of how the HDW is being trialed and some of its capabilities.
> 
> How they are proving the equipment and systems is very interesting.
> 
> Delivering the AOPS



Dammit, the RCN's secret is out: Now someone at ISL knows, not just suspects but knows, that the RCN ships are run by professional seafarers.

Just kidding. Couldn't resist seeing as how the commentator seems surprised that the sailors know how to secure everything properly for heavy seas, that the Captain shows good leadership and the Navigator and met tech are so good at getting all the meteorological information needed to confirm the validity of the tests.


----------



## Underway

*You are invited to watch

The Royal Canadian Navy’s virtual Commissioning Ceremony of AOPV 430, Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Harry DeWolf*

With reviewing officer

His Honour, The Honourable Arthur J. LeBlanc, ONS, QC,

Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia



Saturday, June 26 at 1 p.m. ADT

*LIVE Facebook Event*

LIVE stream of the ceremony will be broadcast on the Royal Canadian Navy Facebook page at

Log into Facebook


Vous êtes invités à assister à

*La cérémonie virtuellement de mise en service du NPEA 430, le Navire canadien de Sa Majesté Harry DeWolf de la Marine Royale Canadienne*
Officier de la revue
Son Honneur l’honorable Arthur J. LeBlanc, O.N.S., c.r.,
lieutenant-gouverneur de la Nouvelle-Écosse

Samedi 26 juin à 13 h HAA
*EN DIRECT sur Facebook
*
La cérémonie sera diffusée en direct sur la page Facebook de la Marine royale canadienne à l’adresse
Log into Facebook​


----------



## Underway

The original plan for the commissioning ceremony. 

They wanted to do it in Hamilton Ontario beside HMCS Haida, Harry DeWolf's old ship and the ceremonial flagship of the RCN.  A Great Lakes tour to show it off to Quebec and Ontario.  

Stupid COVID.  As a former STAR that would have been spectacular.


----------



## Maxman1

HMCS Harry DeWolf welcomed into Royal Canadian Navy fleet - Halifax | Globalnews.ca
					

The vessel, built at Irving Shipbuilding's Halifax Shipyard, will be the navy's lead ship in its class of Arctic offshore patrol vessels.




					globalnews.ca
				




I can't help but wonder why they didn't go with Admiral DeWolf's legal name, Henry.


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> HMCS Harry DeWolf welcomed into Royal Canadian Navy fleet - Halifax | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> The vessel, built at Irving Shipbuilding's Halifax Shipyard, will be the navy's lead ship in its class of Arctic offshore patrol vessels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder why they didn't go with Admiral DeWolf's legal name, Henry.


Likely because the name on all his medals and citations say Harry.  His nickname was literally "Hard over Harry".


----------



## MilEME09

It's good to see ships finally joining the fleet, hopefully after all the delays, lessons learned from HDW will mean the rest will start to arrive more quickly


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

More quickly?

The ISL press release indicates they expect to start construction of the CSC in 2024. In the UK, BAE started on the first one in 2017 and they still expect that she will join the fleet in 2023 (6 1/2 year), the Australians are currently planning on laying down the first one in 2022, with an expected in service date of 2031 (9 years). Assuming ISL can do it in 7 years, that puts the first replacement of the actual combat fleet joining in 2033, at which point the youngest of the Halifax will be 37 years old. Perhaps people remember that the original plan of the Shipbuilding Strategy was that the first replacement combat ship would *join the fleet* in mid-2020's, not start to build.

There just has to be some form of interim solution, I don't know what, but something that leaves us with a combat fleet that can fight in the meantime.*

*: My personal choice would be a one time quick purchase (or even leasing) of six Arleigh Burke, not older than 10 years, from the US, to retire the six oldest Halifax, and then proceed as planned with the continual build from ISL.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> More quickly?
> 
> …
> 
> There just has to be some form of interim solution, I don't know what, but something that leaves us with a combat fleet that can fight in the meantime.*


Taking a page from the Lineral Government’s savvy move to help extend the RCAF capability until….well….whenever, why don’t we look to overpay for some used surplus Type 23s?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> More quickly?
> 
> The ISL press release indicates they expect to start construction of the CSC in 2024. In the UK, BAE started on the first one in 2017 and they still expect that she will join the fleet in 2023 (6 1/2 year), the Australians are currently planning on laying down the first one in 2022, with an expected in service date of 2031 (9 years). Assuming ISL can do it in 7 years, that puts the first replacement of the actual combat fleet joining in 2033, at which point the youngest of the Halifax will be 37 years old. Perhaps people remember that the original plan of the Shipbuilding Strategy was that the first replacement combat ship would *join the fleet* in mid-2020's, not start to build.
> 
> There just has to be some form of interim solution, I don't know what, but something that leaves us with a combat fleet that can fight in the meantime.*
> 
> *: My personal choice would be a one time quick purchase (or even leasing) of six Arleigh Burke, not older than 10 years, from the US, to retire the six oldest Halifax, and then proceed as planned with the continual build from ISL.


The US is short of DDs, too. That lease thing ain’t going to happen…


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> More quickly?
> 
> The ISL press release indicates they expect to start construction of the CSC in 2024. In the UK, BAE started on the first one in 2017 and they still expect that she will join the fleet in 2023 (6 1/2 year), the Australians are currently planning on laying down the first one in 2022, with an expected in service date of 2031 (9 years). Assuming ISL can do it in 7 years, that puts the first replacement of the actual combat fleet joining in 2033, at which point the youngest of the Halifax will be 37 years old. Perhaps people remember that the original plan of the Shipbuilding Strategy was that the first replacement combat ship would *join the fleet* in mid-2020's, not start to build.
> 
> There just has to be some form of interim solution, I don't know what, but something that leaves us with a combat fleet that can fight in the meantime.*
> 
> *: My personal choice would be a one time quick purchase (or even leasing) of six Arleigh Burke, not older than 10 years, from the US, to retire the six oldest Halifax, and then proceed as planned with the continual build from ISL.


Your timelines for CSC are very close to the actual planned ones.

As for the interim solution, fighting isn't an issue.  The HCM refit means the ships can fight, combat systems are fully modernized, the new sonar system install coming next and the Cyclone means they can fight even better underwater.  New diesel engines have really improved the electrical system as well.

However, the hulls are old, and wear and tear are taking their toll.  The maintenance is getting a little crazy. Freddie had 20m long section of her hull replaced (all-round, keel to 1 deck) with a fix of her frame in that same place. 

The solution as being applied is for two ships at a time to be in a Docking Work Period one in Davie and the other at Irving.  That also means its more likely that frigate availability rates will drop.  AOPS can shoulder some of the burden but they aren't a combatant.  

The West Coast ships are in better condition, though they have certain advantages.  West Coast ships do not have tiled decks they have seamless ones which have significantly reduced rust/rot getting between the deck covering and the steel. They also don't have the same winters, so no tracking of salt/grit into the ship and no large temp flux putting strain on the ship as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

IIRC, Underway, the National Strategy called for, when the winners were announced, delivery of ALL contracted vessels within 30 years. The winners were announced end of 2011, so final delivery would be 2041/42. At one ship a year, subtract 15 from 41 and you get first delivery in 2026.

As for the age of the current ships, it was not the combat systems and weapons that bother me: its the capability to even deploy, and what you are telling me is that the deterioration of the basic hull and its fixtures has already started. Will we have to wait for the Halifax's to start falling apart as the Iroquois did before? I don't believe the HAL's can last much longer than another ten years. As ships age, they get to point where no one, not the engineers, not the navarcs, not even professional hull surveyors can tell you or predict what will let go next. How can you get into a fight with ships like that? That was all I was driving at.

And SKT, the US Navy is not short of DD. If they were, they would be pushing congress to appropriate more - and they would get it as these are vote getters - but they are not: DDg's are coming out at a steady rate that could be increased if need be. What the USN is short of is ships for the lower end tasks. These were supposed to be covered by the Littoral ships, but they turned out to be a bust, which is why the USN is now pursuing the acquisition of frigates. In short, I think the USN would have no problem with providing Canada 6 of its ten year old Arleigh Burke and slightly increase the production tempo of more recent brand new ones for a couple of years to make it up.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> IIRC, Underway, the National Strategy called for, when the winners were announced, delivery of ALL contracted vessels within 30 years. The winners were announced end of 2011, so final delivery would be 2041/42. At one ship a year, subtract 15 from 41 and you get first delivery in 2026.
> 
> As for the age of the current ships, it was not the combat systems and weapons that bother me: its the capability to even deploy, and what you are telling me is that the deterioration of the basic hull and its fixtures has already started. Will we have to wait for the Halifax's to start falling apart as the Iroquois did before? I don't believe the HAL's can last much longer than another ten years. As ships age, they get to point where no one, not the engineers, not the navarcs, not even professional hull surveyors can tell you or predict what will let go next. How can you get into a fight with ships like that? That was all I was driving at.
> 
> And SKT, the US Navy is not short of DD. If they were, they would be pushing congress to appropriate more - and they would get it as these are vote getters - but they are not: DDg's are coming out at a steady rate that could be increased if need be. What the USN is short of is ships for the lower end tasks. These were supposed to be covered by the Littoral ships, but they turned out to be a bust, which is why the USN is now pursuing the acquisition of frigates. In short, I think the USN would have no problem with providing Canada 6 of its ten year old Arleigh Burke and slightly increase the production tempo of more recent brand new ones for a couple of years to make it up.


Not sure why you are thinking the deterioration of the CPF fixtures is just starting; the piping, wiring and most mechanical systems are 30 years old. The 280s were actually in much better condition after their TRUMP modernization as they did baseline refits for the first half of the life and then switched to 'condition based'. The CPFs started as condition based, just without funding to check the condition or adequate time to repair the known defects. At retirement, the firemains on the 280s were actually newer than anything in the CPFs now. DWPs aside, they are being beaten to heck in service without enough time/resources for repairs with the half crews that are working them, and then people are surprised when they limp into the ditch needing massive repairs (that we can't do all of). The combat systems are great, but the core 'float move' systems are pretty much all foxed, with significant challenges in basics like the sea water, fresh water, sewage, and HP/LP air systems that are essentially original.

In the interim, we should probably slow the operational tempo so that we aren't putting ships to sea with defects that wouldn't allow them out of the harbour if they were merchant ships for routine training exercises, and give a chance for the partially crewed departments and limited FMF resources time to do actual repairs. It takes a few years to do the training for a new class, and the USN crewing philosophy is totally different, so we'd need two core crews to get a single Arleigh out the harbour. We're already short crew with retention/recruiting issues, not really sure where they would come from. Or we could keep pretending we're fine until something goes really poorly; we've dodged the bullet a few times already, but there are major breakdowns that cost millions in repairs from PM not being completed and ships being pushed out to sea anyway.


----------



## dapaterson

The RCN's biggest problem isn't platforms, it's people.  Its leadership refuse to accept that they could ever be wrong.  And they still think themselves more British than the British, as is evidenced in the makeup of hard sea trades: about 10% Francophone, despite the country being 25% Francophone. Indeed, in the one hundred eleven years of the RCN, there has never been a Francophone in command.

No shipbuilding program, no enhanced maintenance program, no re-introduction of the executive curl or extra-legal rank change will solve the RCN's foundational problem: its leaders.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> IIRC, Underway, the National Strategy called for, when the winners were announced, delivery of ALL contracted vessels within 30 years. The winners were announced end of 2011, so final delivery would be 2041/42. At one ship a year, subtract 15 from 41 and you get first delivery in 2026.


Which contract for CSC?  Five contracts have been awarded so far.  They haven't signed the build contract yet, and it will be likely for 3 ships as they need to complete the design phase first.  The winner of CSC warship design team (LMC and BAE) was announced in Feb 2019, 7 years after you state.  The ship design contract wasn't signed until May 2019.  The CSC construction contract was awarded to ISI in 2020.  The first CSC delivery is expected in early 2030 and closeout is mid-2040.  

I think you are referring to the award of the two shipyards to do the NSPS building, which was awarded around 2011.  But I don't know what if any timeframes that came with that announcement.



Navy_Pete said:


> In the interim, we should probably slow the operational tempo


The next two years have a significant reduction in total sea days.  Which of course means there is going to be a pinch in training... give some take some away.  AFAIK only two frigates will be sailing on a regular basis on the east coast.  The rest are getting work done of one sort or the other.  We'll see if that holds.

In AOPS news...

The maiden voyage for the newly commissioned ship will be a circumnavigation of North America.  They are going in Aug to sail the northwest passage, visit their Inuit sponsors and other communities.  Refuel Nanisivik and then head over to Victoria.  Victoria is a Short Work Period, a little leave for the crew and then they are heading south to OP CARIB on both the west coast of Mexico and the Caribbean. They will be embarking USCG for that operation.  When the OP is done, back home to Halifax, medals, and awards all around!  

I can't help but be a little jealous.  That sounds like a pretty cool trip to brag about when you're a grandparent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would be an awesome trip. We almost had to do a eastward passage as it it was touch and go to get around Pt Barrow, we made it by hours and then the sheet ice piled up, blocking the passage. I was kind of sad as it would have made a good trip.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> The next two years have a significant reduction in total sea days.  Which of course means there is going to be a pinch in training... give some take some away.  AFAIK only two frigates will be sailing on a regular basis on the east coast.  The rest are getting work done of one sort or the other.  We'll see if that holds.


I've heard that repeatedly, but don't see any actual lower tempo materializing. EC work periods keep getting canceled, and ships are doing all kinds of trials, and other  'low tempo' operations that still mean they are still out to sea. Even with COVID shutting down the dockyards and severely impacting the amount of work that could get done there were no real schedule delays, despite significant known serious defects. There are so many out there they aren't even being properly documented, OPDEFd or risk managed. The DWPs are in the 9 figure range now and not even addressing all the issues, and we're still blindly pressing on.

The entire world was basically shut down for the last 18 months and we still drove the crap out of the fleet, so I'm not optimistic. 'Low Ops Tempo' without meaningful work periods with enough resources and time to fix things, reasonable crewing levels and actually understanding the mechanical state of the ships means we're just crossing our fingers and hoping we continue to get lucky, and that no one actually dies when something goes badly. We self regulate, so we can send the ships to sea not meeting the same technical standard as what a merchant ship would, but that has become the norm instead of the exception. It's totally unecessary when we are on a reduced tempo, peacetime footing.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> Indeed, in the one hundred eleven years of the RCN, there has never been a Francophone in command.


It took me a few read-throughs to realize you were saying there has never been a Francophone CRCN.


----------



## Weinie

dimsum said:


> It took me a few read-throughs to realize you were saying there has never been a Francophone CRCN.


I think you meant Commandant de la Marine royale canadienne (CMRC)  🍿


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> That would be an awesome trip. We almost had to do a eastward passage as it it was touch and go to get around *Pt Barrow*, we made it by hours and then the sheet ice piled up, blocking the passage. I was kind of sad as it would have made a good trip.



Which reminds me of a song


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The delivery of the second of six Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Margaret Brooke,






						Navy News | RCN takes delivery of second Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship
					

RCN takes delivery of second Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship




					navy-marine.forces.gc.ca


----------



## FJAG

Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.


Why do we need a 4* CDS?
Why does JAG need to be a 1*?

Why do some equate rank with qty of subordinates?

So what then should be the associated min-max of subordinates for each rank?  (Given that it seems command authority should be blanket equalized to how many subordinates a unit/Ship commander has?)

Perhaps mistakenly I had understood appointment rank to be associated with scope of responsibilities, as inflated as Canada may be argued to be relative to other Western militaries (of course based on absolute size, not relative position within a national-level security regime).

Dare one ask why a land force unit perpetually undermanned and with minimal influence on its own be commanded by anyone above the rank of Major? 

🤔

Regards


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:


> Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.


Not enough warships for all the ranks to be able to command?


----------



## Stoker

FJAG said:


> Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.


For a diesel electric ship they are surprisingly sophisticated. I suspect it has to do with the tonnage of the ship. Realistically a LCdr CO, with LT(N) XO and CPO2 Coxn could easily sail this vessel.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> For a diesel electric ship they are surprisingly sophisticated. I suspect it has to do with the tonnage of the ship. Realistically a LCdr CO, with LT(N) XO and CPO2 Coxn could easily sail this vessel.


Experience maybe, given that they are icebreaking? Not sure if the trend of them doing ride alongs with CCG will continue, but with the prep it's really just a time thing and where the people on the CO list sit for promotion.   The ship is also operating with a helo onboard and doing some other big ship things so the rank seems reasonable given the scope of the responsibilities.

On the flip side the 280s used to have four ringers doing a second tour as COs, so it's all pretty arbitrary anyway. Maybe once we figure out what we are doing with them we can relook at the rank.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.



Because after you fire the Commander for some spurious reason you’ll still have a 2 1/2 ringer that can command the ship


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.


MCDV's have LCdr's as CO's.  It's done generally just before they are posted to a Major Warship (Frigate) as an XO and is part of their command development stream.

An AOPS tonnage, range, cost, admin, and mission sets currently require a Commander who has done an XO tour on board a frigate (and soon an AOPS itself).  There is also the risk right now of ice navigation.  The RCN is still learning the ropes so to speak and until there is a good amount of ice experience they de-risk with the seagoing experience of a Commander (and bringing an ice experienced CCG officer onboard).

There is also the potential of an airdet embarked which generally comes with a Major or LCol.  Tough to have the CO of the ship being outranked by the Airdet CO.  The relationship can get awkward enough when you have squadron commanders coming out and flying off the deck. Flight ops may be the deciding factor for having a Cdr.

I'm sure one day there may be LCdr CO's and LtN) XO's.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> MCDV's have LCdr's as CO's.  It's done generally just before they are posted to a Major Warship (Frigate) as an XO and is part of their command development stream.
> 
> An AOPS tonnage, range, cost, admin, and mission sets currently require a Commander who has done an XO tour on board a frigate (and soon an AOPS itself).  There is also the risk right now of ice navigation.  The RCN is still learning the ropes so to speak and until there is a good amount of ice experience they de-risk with the seagoing experience of a Commander (and bringing an ice experienced CCG officer onboard).
> 
> There is also the potential of an airdet embarked which generally comes with a Major or LCol.  Tough to have the CO of the ship being outranked by the Airdet CO.  The relationship can get awkward enough when you have squadron commanders coming out and flying off the deck. Flight ops may be the deciding factor for having a Cdr.
> 
> I'm sure one day there may be LCdr CO's and LtN) XO's.


Okay, I can buy into that. Just looked up the AOPS and Frigate again and see that while a bit shorter, the AOPS displaces around thirty percent more tonnage and is twice the length and six times the displacement of the MCDV. That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.

Of course now that gets me to wondering why we didn't hang a few more weapon systems on her.   

🍻


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> Okay, I can buy into that. Just looked up the AOPS and Frigate again and see that while a bit shorter, the AOPS displaces around thirty percent more tonnage and is twice the length and six times the displacement of the MCDV. That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.
> 
> Of course now that gets me to wondering why we didn't hang a few more weapon systems on her.
> 
> 🍻


Yes they are very chonky (as my kids would say!).

She has a specific job, she's basically a recce asset (in army terms). Don't fight, get info.

Patrol and Recognize Maritime Picture compilation up to and including ice and near-ice waters.  Carry other government departments to do science, sovereignty, and law enforcement tasks in areas where they can't get to normally.  Deploy light army assets onto the ice or amphib them onto the Arctic archipelago.

That's the CONOPs. If the shooting starts then they call the frigates and airforce in.  AOPS are our only (aside from Rangers) persistent active surveillance asset for the arctic for 6+ months of the year.

Also weapon changes significantly change the costs, crewing and space available onboard for those other tasks.  I have no issues with the ship as is.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When the Halifax's start self-divesting and the Gap for the first CSC gets bigger, I suspect these ships are going to be doing far more than anticipated and they might regret going cheap on armament , combat suite and self defense systems. But then that is the Canadian way. Other than that issue I think they are going to be great ships.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I'll be curious to see how much quicker the process is to have BROOKE go from delivery to commission, than it was with HDW. At least I assume it should take less time...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even the time from launch to the crew taking over is shorter if I recall correctly, plus being the 2nd ship, she have less issues than the HDW and most of the remaining ones identified and fixes being worked on already. Along with the crew having a chance to work on HDW, it's going to go much faster.


----------



## JMCanada

FJAG said:


> Okay, I can buy into that. (...) That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.


The reinforced hull to deal with the ice may have misled you.
A typical non-Arctic of-shore patrol vessel of similar dimensions (length and beam) as the AOPS would displace half or even one third than the AOPS. Steel is cheap but its cost is weight, hence displacement to keep floating. The diesel-electric propulsion also adds in more weight than a classical diesel one.


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:


> The reinforced hull to deal with the ice may have misled you.
> A typical non-Arctic of-shore patrol vessel of similar dimensions (length and beam) as the AOPS would displace half or even one third than the AOPS. Steel is cheap but its cost is weight, hence displacement to keep floating. The diesel-electric propulsion also adds in more weight than a classical diesel one.


Her beam and height are quite... robust.  Her 1 deck is higher from the waterline than a frigate.  There is plenty of icebreaking in her hullform, which would never have those dimensions if she wasn't breaking ice.  There is definitely more than just steel thickness that makes her heavier.  But I totally get what you are driving at.  A similar length OPV would have a narrower beam and a lower superstructure as well.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> When the Halifax's start self-divesting and the Gap for the first CSC gets bigger, I suspect these ships are going to be doing far more than anticipated and they might regret going cheap on armament , combat suite and self defense systems. But then that is the Canadian way. Other than that issue I think they are going to be great ships.


Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's?  Not really.  They have a role, do their role.  I don't think there will ever be regret _choosing_ the armament.  It was designed exactly like it is without anything cheap about it.  If there is regret it will be not getting CSC going sooner.


----------



## JMCanada

(In response to the second post above this)

Totally agree, was thinking of that after my post. Thank you.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's?  Not really.  They have a role, do their role.  I don't think there will ever be regret _choosing_ the armament.  It was designed exactly like it is without anything cheap about it.  If there is regret it will be not getting CSC going sooner.


The debate about the LAV and their role is ongoing. I would much prefer that the AOP's was better protected or least built with adding that on if needed. Canadians make a lot of excuses/reasons about taking the cheap road and it almost always bites us in the long term. I certainly agree with you that the CSC should have happened a decade ago. If we build the CSC as planned, it will likely be one of the best ships of the type out there, which will be very nice. You and I are not likely to agree on the equipping of the AOP's. Personally I hope I am wrong and you are right, but time and events will tell.


----------



## Ostrozac

Underway said:


> Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's?


Absolutely elements of the army regret not putting an ATGM capability on the LAV. M113 TUA and LAV TUA were divested as “not needed for Afghanistan” and now we have units tasked to deter Russians without a modern ATGM capability. If we had bought LAV3 with Bradley turrets instead, with their TOW missiles, then we might be in a better place now for the more modern war type missions we are currently receiving.

Similarly, the AOPS is well suited for domestic and constabulary type roles, and so long as that’s all the RCN is tasking them with, they’ll be fine. But if they ever receive a NATO, DPRK or a China-related task, these new ships may not be able to contribute much. And they will be much more expensive in terms of both money and personnel than the MCDVs.


----------



## Weinie

Ostrozac said:


> Absolutely elements of the army regret not putting an ATGM capability on the LAV. M113 TUA and LAV TUA were divested as “not needed for Afghanistan” and now we have units tasked to deter Russians without a modern ATGM capability. If we had bought LAV3 with Bradley turrets instead, with their TOW missiles, then we might be in a better place now for the more modern war type missions we are currently receiving.
> 
> Similarly, the AOPS is well suited for domestic and constabulary type roles, and so long as that’s all the RCN is tasking them with, they’ll be fine. But if they ever receive a NATO, DPRK or a China-related task, these new ships may not be able to contribute much. And they will be much more expensive in terms of both money and personnel than the MCDVs.


Wouldn't it be better, to have a capability, and then not have to use it, than to not have a capability, and get your ass kicked. Just asking.


----------



## Stoker

Weinie said:


> Wouldn't it be better, to have a capability, and then not have to use it, than to not have a capability, and get your ass kicked. Just asking.


If that was the case all ships would be armed to the hilt.  Most of my career I have been in ships only lightly armed carrying out missions the AOPS will be doing, not once did I feel unsafe.


----------



## Underway

Ostrozac said:


> Similarly, the AOPS is well suited for domestic and constabulary type roles, and so long as that’s all the RCN is tasking them with, they’ll be fine. But if they ever receive a NATO, DPRK or a China-related task, these new ships may not be able to contribute much. And they will be much more expensive in terms of both money and personnel than the MCDVs.


Like an MCM or other specialized asset, they will only go into a combat zone under the cover of warships, or after the area has been pacified.  Why is it so easy to accept that the army/airforce has specialized platforms but the navy has to have all singing and dancing ones?

The whole point of having a domestic patrol vessel is to _free up the warfighting assets.  _Frigates do the fighting.  They go on dangerous missions.  AOPS has a different role.  One that is valuable, necessary, doesn't cost $120,000 a day or requires harpoon missiles (which of course could be installed in about 2 days given how the Terra Nova was converted for the Gulf War).

Even if you up-gunned an AOPS it would be a sitting duck to any ASM given the fact it doesn't have a CMS, 3D radar, ESM, ECM.  If you're going to add all that stuff then you might have well just built CSC.  Canada doesn't build warships without making them so their sailors can come home.  The main thrust of CSC is survivability.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Wouldn't it be better, to have a capability, and then not have to use it, than to not have a capability, and get your ass kicked. Just asking.


We have that capability. In the FRIGATES.  This is like saying a LUVW needs a 120mm.  Just in case.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> We have that capability. In the FRIGATES.  This is like saying a LUVW needs a 120mm.  Just in case.


…or maybe an MSVS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Even if you up-gunned an AOPS it would be a sitting duck to any ASM given the fact it doesn't have a CMS, 3D radar, ESM, ECM.


I always advocated the self defence systems as well, what do other navies put on their OPV's in regards to Combat suites and Self defense systems? There are a lot of small patrol vessels that are designed to go into harms way, I suspect they have some protection systems?

On another note, could an AOP's act as a refueler for a Frigate, as I understand it, two vessels can RAS together to a limited extent without an AOR present? I was thinking in how much spare fuel can a AOP's carry and how many times could it resupply a Halifax Class?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I always advocated the self defence systems as well, what do other navies put on their OPV's in regards to Combat suites and Self defense systems? There are a lot of small patrol vessels that are designed to go into harms way, I suspect they have some protection systems?


Unless you have a full suite of self-defence systems it's a waste of money IMHO. In order to get a PKill high enough to shoot down anything that wasn't made during the cold war, you have to know what is being shot at you (ESM).  Then you have to know how to kill it soft and hard kill (ECM, various guns/missiles) and have that combination of defensive measures onboard.  Each missile type is its own unique snowflake which requires a different response from the defending ship.  Which means you need a full suite of defensive measures to survive.  All the tools in the toolbox.

Given Canadian CONOPS  we can't predict where we will be operating, thus we can't design a ship with one note defensive measures and hope that those work (ex: Pakistan can plan for India, we have to plan for everyone...).  

This is the core of my opposition for more weapons on AOPS as an integral part of the ship's design. Expensive one-note defensive systems add significant operating and purchasing costs without adding useful effectors.  Patrol ships are supposed to be cheap.  Let's save the RCN some money here because CSC is gonna be expensive.

Modular add on systems for specific mission sets?  Yes, develop the MCM package, developed an ASW sensor package with TRAPS and an embarked helo etc...   but don't expect the AOPS to be fighting in a hot zone.



> On another note, could an AOP's act as a refueler for a Frigate, as I understand it, two vessels can RAS together to a limited extent without an AOR present? I was thinking in how much spare fuel can a AOP's carry and how many times could it resupply a Halifax Class?



Without the RAS Mast and pump room on an AOR it would not be easy.  You might be able to go alongside one another and pump but the evolution generally requires specific gear while underway.  





  Just a nice video showing how the setup works even if it is an advertisement for a trainier.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks for your replies Underway. I could see the AOP's acting as a refueling station in the Arctic for MCDV's and Frigates, in a protected anchorage. 
As for the defense of the AOP's you are right that we will never know where and what the threat may be. I would still like to see an ability to protect itself against older Anti-ship missiles and suicide drones/loitering munitions that will be proliferating. I agree that getting a defense against modern ship to ship missiles would be cost prohibitive, but i would like to see that basic layer.


----------



## Kirkhill

Weinie said:


> Wouldn't it be better, to have a capability, and then not have to use it, than to not have a capability, and get your ass kicked. Just asking.


Then you can only afford to buy 2x AOPS or 80x second hand Leopards.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> Then you can only afford to buy 2x AOPS or 80x second hand Leopards.


Just as a useless bit of information, our Leopard 2s came in at a base price of $100,000 apiece at the second-hand Leopard shop in the Netherlands. We could have gotten a whole lot more Leopards (and even a herd of M109s) for the cost of one AOPS. Not sure you could get them again at that price. Also not saying whether we should have or not. Just saying ...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Out of curiosity, and I may have mentioned it before, but, is an AOPS capable of doing something like CTF 150 patrols in Gulf of Aden? I'm wondering if the max speed is too limiting a factor to be truly effective or if there's anything else inherent in the class that counts them out.


----------



## Pelorus

I would suspect that in the grand scheme of things 18 kts (or whatever the AOPS top speed is) is not really significantly different than 30 in the context of maritime interdiction. Most dhows are probably not ripping across the ocean at 20+ kts, and any sort of small speedboat is going to outrun both types of vessel.

Is more speed nice if you need to intercept someone who's a ways away? Undoubtedly. But I would guess (and this is just a guess) that most CTF 150 stuff involves hanging out near known areas of higher traffic based off of historical observations of pattern of life.

That said, I think it will be some time before you see an AOPS go that far. I imagine that you'll see them sorting out the 1s and 0s of maritime interdiction in AOPS on Op CARIBBE.  To see an AOPS assigned to CTF 150 would possibly be when there is a political/strategic imperative to commit a Canadian asset to the mission, and a frigate is unavailable (some years down the road when they begin to rust out?).

The main advantages of a frigate for that mission vice an AOPS is a) the flexibility to re-roll the high readiness crew into any conceivable mission in the world that the government could ask of the RCN, b) the ability for true 24/7 ops, c) the better helicopter support, and d) the significantly better self-defence capability which allows flexibility to go into "CTF 150-adjacent" areas (i.e., Strait of Hormuz or near to the coast of Somalia) if required.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Just as a useless bit of information, our Leopard 2s came in at a base price of $100,000 apiece at the second-hand Leopard shop in the Netherlands. We could have gotten a whole lot more Leopards (and even a herd of M109s) for the cost of one AOPS. Not sure you could get them again at that price. Also not saying whether we should have or not. Just saying ...


…ah the in-fighting cost argument. 

Always great to see one service want to screw another service over to get more of what it wants than to make the pitch upwards to have its requests/needs/wants stand on their own merit…how’s that internal AD capability doing BTW?


----------



## Swampbuggy

boot12 said:


> To see an AOPS assigned to CTF 150 would possibly be when there is a political/strategic imperative to commit a Canadian asset to the mission, and a frigate is unavailable (some years down the road when they begin to rust out?).



It was this possible lack of available frigates that got me into this line of thinking.  And to your earlier point regarding speed of AOPS vs speed of dhow, I completely agree. With the AOPS having the ability to deploy 2, 3 or maybe even more small craft (RHIBS, work boats etc) that are capable of 25 or 30+ knots, it's not as important to have your main asset be able to make a similar speed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The AOP's would offer persistent presence which is also a factor. Often very fast vessels have a limited fuel load, or food/water supplies.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> …ah the in-fighting cost argument.
> 
> Always great to see one service want to screw another service over to get more of what it wants than to make the pitch upwards to have its requests/needs/wants stand on their own merit…how’s that internal AD capability doing BTW?


Go ahead.  ... With a straight face try to tell me that this is not the way of it in Ottawa. ... Try to tell me that fighting for resources at the expense of their peers isn't the number one challenge that every CLS, CAS, CNS are involved in ... with a straight face.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> The AOP's would offer persistent presence which is also a factor. Often very fast vessels have a limited fuel load, or food/water supplies.


There's also the mission planning space and flexibility to consider. I think the weapons suite is also fairly well suited to that sort of mission. May be a viable option if frigates are in shorter supply.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Go ahead.  ... With a straight face try to tell me that this is not the way of it in Ottawa. ... Try to tell me that fighting for resources at the expense of their peers isn't the number one challenge that every CLS, CAS, CNS are involved in ... with a straight face.


In my experience, the Navy was the most honest and often would provide options within its own means for addressing in-service issues. Air Force middle of the road, and the Army seemed to have a penchant for espousing ‘equal’ share of capital, notwithstanding well-regarded data that things that fly or sail are capital intensive.  The irony being that the Army seemed less adept at the PY game after the Navy and Air Force endured years and years of purple “Jarmyoint” force build up (1 Cdn Div as “J”oint).

The Navy and Air Force matured their organizational make up years, even decades ago.  Frankly, the Army is still out walking in a snow storm trying to figure out what it wants to be…heavy, mech, what about light, 9 BNs, 6+PRes?, symmetrical, asymmetrical, own AD or not, mortars, pioneers, combat sp pl, etc.?

YMMV


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> In my experience, the Navy was the most honest and often would provide options within its own means for addressing in-service issues. Air Force middle of the road, and the Army seemed to have a penchant for espousing ‘equal’ share of capital, notwithstanding well-regarded data that things that fly or sail are capital intensive.  The irony being that the Army seemed less adept at the PY game after the Navy and Air Force endured years and years of purple “Jarmyoint” force build up (1 Cdn Div as “J”oint).
> 
> The Navy and Air Force matured their organizational make up years, even decades ago.  Frankly, the Army is still out walking in a snow storm trying to figure out what it wants to be…heavy, mech, what about light, 9 BNs, 6+PRes?, symmetrical, asymmetrical, own AD or not, mortars, pioneers, combat sp pl, etc.?
> 
> YMMV


Can't argue too much with that although it took the Air Force a lot of time to wrap its brain around the whole tactical air concept as air defence and air superiority was dropping away. I guess that's the middle of the road stuff.

The trouble with the Army is that it is PY more intensive then the other two combined and that eats up a lot of cash by and of itself. On top off that equipment is now both more numerous (per capita) than it was and also more expensive than it was. Individually Army capital costs pale in comparison to Air or Navy projects but the individual systems add up substantially in the aggregate. The army still has to choose which five of the ten most critical capabilities needed it will have to forego for the next decade. Not a good way of having to do business.

My personal opinion about the Army's position isn't so much that it doesn't know which way to go, its that the place where it is now was as a result of assumptions made in the late 1990s about where it needed to be by 2020 and that those assumptions were just wrong. Even worse, I think it was foreseeable that those assumptions were wrong. It is now trying to figure out how to correct course within the limited financial envelope available. I'll be blunt, I blame Hillier for a lot of what went wrong. The problem with a dynamic personality is that sometimes it convinces you to go where you know that you shouldn't be.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

Perhaps the Army could give the Navy’s ‘Leadmark’ methodology a look to ensure that assumptions in its assessment/mission analysis have a stronger element of strategy to balance its strong sense of tactical acumen?


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> Perhaps the Army could give the Navy’s ‘Leadmark’ methodology a look to ensure that assumptions in its assessment/mission analysis have a stronger element of strategy to balance its strong sense of tactical acumen?


I think in fairness to the Army, its various transformation initiatives were also thoroughly analyzed. I quite frankly do not have enough knowledge of maritime strategy or operations to be able to tell if the Leadmark methodology is sound or better than the Army's or not.

However, when I look at "Future Force: Concepts for Future Army Capabilities" published by the Army's Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts in 2003 and the first versions of Advancing With Purpose and see their nod towards the reality of Canada needing to maintain an army capable of up to full-spectrum operations and then see the project's outcome as anything but that. One can only conclude that the builders of the system, for various reasons, became overly enamoured with the concept of the touted rapid deployability of the nascent Stryker brigades; a capability that remains mostly unfulfilled to this day.

Effectively, the strategic analysis that the Army made included a need for full-spectrum ops. The unstated assumption made by Army planners was that they would most probably not be involved in such operations and, as a result, the force today, as built, does not have many of the key enablers and capabilities needed for full spectrum operations. Right from the beginning the plan was to shed the "heavy" capabilities as unnecessary and as the years went by they continued down that rabbit hole.

I think if one tried to put that into a naval context it would be to design the CSC as stated but then as they go along start shedding the air/missile defence components and then the anti-ship components and finally the anti-submarine components until all that is left is one rapid fire gun on the foredeck. The ship can still go to sea and can still do a lot of peacetime stuff, but go to a peer war ... no.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG, agree with your last para.  I was part
Of the writing team of FF: CFAC, and there were some of us who tried to inject some wants/needs/Pol.guidance/direction consideration, but there was still more prevailing ‘New Version of Corps 86’ thinking going on mixed with some injected way-out thought pieces that contributed subsequently into how you described CSC Ver.1.2.15.b.13…

Leadmark is more of a strategically considered ‘on the balance of things’ aim towards the future that seems to stand the test time reasonably well (and adjusts accordingly when a Govt Constraint (cough…AOPS) gets thrown into the calculus).


----------



## suffolkowner

FJAG said:


> I think in fairness to the Army, its various transformation initiatives were also thoroughly analyzed. I quite frankly do not have enough knowledge of maritime strategy or operations to be able to tell if the Leadmark methodology is sound or better than the Army's or not.
> 
> However, when I look at "Future Force: Concepts for Future Army Capabilities" published by the Army's Directorate of Land Strategic Concepts in 2003 and the first versions of Advancing With Purpose and see their nod towards the reality of Canada needing to maintain an army capable of up to full-spectrum operations and then see the project's outcome as anything but that. One can only conclude that the builders of the system, for various reasons, became overly enamoured with the concept of the touted rapid deployability of the nascent Stryker brigades; a capability that remains mostly unfulfilled to this day.
> 
> Effectively, the strategic analysis that the Army made included a need for full-spectrum ops. The unstated assumption made by Army planners was that they would most probably not be involved in such operations and, as a result, the force today, as built, does not have many of the key enablers and capabilities needed for full spectrum operations. Right from the beginning the plan was to shed the "heavy" capabilities as unnecessary and as the years went by they continued down that rabbit hole.
> 
> I think if one tried to put that into a naval context it would be to design the CSC as stated but then as they go along start shedding the air/missile defence components and then the anti-ship components and finally the anti-submarine components until all that is left is one rapid fire gun on the foredeck. The ship can still go to sea and can still do a lot of peacetime stuff, but go to a peer war ... no.
> 
> 🍻


I think you pretty much summed it up however when push came to shove the army was deployed to Afghanistan anyways whether outfitted correctly or not. In fairness the RCAF and RCN have been and were pretty much run down as well. The difference seems to be that there is a plan to move forward with the other two services to maintain or reestablish basic capabilities. For all the capabilities the CAF have lost over the decades how much money has really been saved?


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> FJAG, agree with your last para.  I was part
> Of the writing team of FF: CFAC, and there were some of us who tried to inject some wants/needs/Pol.guidance/direction consideration, but there was still more prevailing ‘New Version of Corps 86’ thinking going on mixed with some injected way-out thought pieces that contributed subsequently into how you described CSC Ver.1.2.15.b.13…
> 
> Leadmark is more of a strategically considered ‘on the balance of things’ aim towards the future that seems to stand the test time reasonably well (and adjusts accordingly when a Govt Constraint (cough…AOPS) gets thrown into the calculus).


One of my regrets--as I was still in at the time--is that I wasn't paying closer attention to what was going on in the Army at that time. I was more involved in broader legal branch issues. The closest I got was being a legal advisor to the ill-conceived and poorly executed Reserve Force Employment Project. Whatever came up to Chief of Reserves Council was heavily filtered and sanitized of controversial issues.

I always liked Corps 86, not as an organizational goal but as a framework for studying doctrine. We used it on my Command and Staff Course and it provided a viable framework for study - but that was while the Cold War was still active. I must admit, when I got to the part about "Tactical Self Sufficient Units", FF lost me because it diverged from my long standing background of tactical units that were already built and trained together as combined teams to cobbling mix and match things together like a Chinese restaurant menu - and again, the heavy capabilities were already being divested to be replaced by nebulous direct and indirect fire capabilities. To me it was obvious that any TSSU would be incapable of rapid deployment because it would require assembling and then substantial training.

I've always wondered about the Navy's constituent parts. I grew up in a time when the Navy's chief role was anti-submarine warfare and in those days our submarines were generally considered as training aids to the ASW hunters. It seems that now, however, they have a much greater warfighting role. I like that about the Navy. The main ships all have a peer warfighting role and capability even if in peacetime they are assigned less aggressive roles. That's why I find the AOPS and the MCDV somewhat out of type because they are not as well weaponized as they could be. That makes them just fine for peacetime roles but not as viable in a peer conflict unless heavily converted with better act and shield capabilities. The Army should be more like CSCs and less like AOPS. 😉

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:


> The Army should be more like CSCs and less like AOPS. 😉
> 
> 🍻


So this is how you see the army?


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> In my experience, the Navy was the most honest and often would provide options within its own means for addressing in-service issues. Air Force middle of the road, and the Army seemed to have a penchant for espousing ‘equal’ share of capital, notwithstanding well-regarded data that things that fly or sail are capital intensive.  The irony being that the Army seemed less adept at the PY game after the Navy and Air Force endured years and years of purple “Jarmyoint” force build up (1 Cdn Div as “J”oint).
> 
> The Navy and Air Force matured their organizational make up years, even decades ago.  Frankly, the Army is still out walking in a snow storm trying to figure out what it wants to be…heavy, mech, what about light, 9 BNs, 6+PRes?, symmetrical, asymmetrical, own AD or not, mortars, pioneers, combat sp pl, etc.?
> 
> YMMV


Now that I've switched to the O&M side of the house I get a bit of a behind the curtain look at how the different elements "sell" their funding.

When the meetings happen with all the bigwigs the RCN always comes out smelling like roses.  The RCN has its ducks squarely in a row being able to clearly articulate the relationships between cost and impact/importance.  

Despite what one might think the RCN is mostly aware of all of our maintenance issues, lifecycle management, and operational limitations and can directly draw a line between that operations and cost.  This is another reason why the RCN is doubling down on inspections of equipment.  It's not perfect but we are a long way away from being surprised by the 280's suddenly rusting out.

That being said the other elements are miles behind.  The Airforce is excellent in its maintenance has difficulty at times drawing the relationships to the operational and cost lines, partially because they need the Army and RCN to tell them what to support for some things.  The Army is even further behind that...

As such, the RCN can justify its costs, purchases, and operations financially to the government.  Which means decision-makers are more inclined to say yes.  The other two elements more often get a no because they have a harder time justifying the expenses.


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> Now that I've switched to the O&M side of the house I get a bit of a behind the curtain look at how the different elements "sell" their funding.
> 
> When the meetings happen with all the bigwigs the RCN always comes out smelling like roses.  The RCN has its ducks squarely in a row being able to clearly articulate the relationships between cost and impact/importance.
> 
> Despite what one might think the RCN is mostly aware of all of our maintenance issues, lifecycle management, and operational limitations and can directly draw a line between that operations and cost.  This is another reason why the RCN is doubling down on inspections of equipment.  It's not perfect but we are a long way away from being surprised by the 280's suddenly rusting out.
> 
> That being said the other elements are miles behind.  The Airforce is excellent in its maintenance has difficulty at times drawing the relationships to the operational and cost lines, partially because they need the Army and RCN to tell them what to support for some things.  The Army is even further behind that...
> 
> As such, the RCN can justify its costs, purchases, and operations financially to the government.  Which means decision-makers are more inclined to say yes.  The other two elements more often get a no because they have a harder time justifying the expenses.


I think that the AOPS will make that even better for the Navy because their operations are directly linked to very desirable political goals vis a vis the North. The Navy's flexibility to switch to a defence of Canada role on a dime also helps.

I think the Navy has done itself a good service by using well weaponized platforms for current operations. The Army on the other hand has divested itself of weapon systems and therefore must bring arguments to the table as to why the premiums on the insurance policy that it effectively is need to increase when its been good to go (presumably) for quite some time. Its hard to argue that we need to up our deterrence posture through a stronger Army.

The Navy's singular problem is the escalating costs of the CSC. That might reach the "Not on my watch" point for an LPC government. I really wish the reporting would break down the actual costs as between build the ship, arm the ship, maintain and crew the ship for its expected service life. The latter adds a very large sum, much of which is part and parcel to having a Navy at all rather than acquiring a new vessel. Its very misleading and never well reported.

🍻


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> I think that the AOPS will make that even better for the Navy because their operations are directly linked to very desirable political goals vis a vis the North. The Navy's flexibility to switch to a defence of Canada role on a dime also helps.
> 
> I think the Navy has done itself a good service by using well weaponized platforms for current operations. The Army on the other hand has divested itself of weapon systems and therefore must bring arguments to the table as to why the premiums on the insurance policy that it effectively is need to increase when its been good to go (presumably) for quite some time. Its hard to argue that we need to up our deterrence posture through a stronger Army.
> 
> The Navy's singular problem is the escalating costs of the CSC. That might reach the "Not on my watch" point for an LPC government. I really wish the reporting would break down the actual costs as between build the ship, arm the ship, maintain and crew the ship for its expected service life. The latter adds a very large sum, much of which is part and parcel to having a Navy at all rather than acquiring a new vessel. Its very misleading and never well reported.
> 
> 🍻


You can access the PBO report.  I think it's all open source.  Be warned though, there are weird calculations in there.

The government won't cancel the project at least for the first seven ships (or two flights).  There is no backup plan.  And they know a new plan would lead to more delay and no cost savings. And vote losses in the Maritimes.

Frankly, I worry more about reduced capability than a reduced number of hulls.


----------



## YZT580

Underway said:


> You can access the PBO report.  I think it's all open source.  Be warned though, there are weird calculations in there.
> 
> The government won't cancel the project at least for the first seven ships (or two flights).  There is no backup plan.  And they know a new plan would lead to more delay and no cost savings. And vote losses in the Maritimes.
> 
> Frankly, I worry more about reduced capability than a reduced number of hulls.


since acquisition is spread out over time it allows for a succeeding government to reverse, using those same votes as a leaver during the campaign so I don't see this as too much of a concern.   All N.S. has to do is look at what happened to the St. John shipyards.


----------



## Underway

An interesting image for HDW.

Originally posted here.  



It's a TRAPS installed on HDW.  Payload space is already paying off apparently. Should be interesting to see the CONOPS for that addition.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> So this is how you see the army?


Cool. How do I get one of those? GC Surplus?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG wanted to replace the hovercraft with this, but during trials at the base during freshet, it could not handle the current and just about got swept out to see. Really noisy inside and bit like being in a WWI tank, not to mention slooooowww.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> CCG wanted to replace the hovercraft with this, but during trials at the base during freshet, it could not handle the current and just about got swept out to see. Really noisy inside and bit like being in a WWI tank, not to mention slooooowww.


Don't care. Still want one.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Now that I've switched to the O&M side of the house I get a bit of a behind the curtain look at how the different elements "sell" their funding.
> 
> When the meetings happen with all the bigwigs the RCN always comes out smelling like roses.  The RCN has its ducks squarely in a row being able to clearly articulate the relationships between cost and impact/importance.
> 
> Despite what one might think the RCN is mostly aware of all of our maintenance issues, lifecycle management, and operational limitations and can directly draw a line between that operations and cost.  This is another reason why the RCN is doubling down on inspections of equipment.  It's not perfect but we are a long way away from being surprised by the 280's suddenly rusting out.
> 
> That being said the other elements are miles behind.  The Airforce is excellent in its maintenance has difficulty at times drawing the relationships to the operational and cost lines, partially because they need the Army and RCN to tell them what to support for some things.  The Army is even further behind that...
> 
> As such, the RCN can justify its costs, purchases, and operations financially to the government.  Which means decision-makers are more inclined to say yes.  The other two elements more often get a no because they have a harder time justifying the expenses.


I would disagree with that; generally when we do a physical survey the actual material state is worse than the poor condition we expected it to be in. The snr mgt is usually shocked when they find out that things like no hot water, lack of heat etc are common issues. THere is also a big delta into the actual defects and what is being tracked as defects. 

We used to joke that the risk assessments were a 'talk about it until it's blue' exercise (acceptable with review). It's now a talk about it until it's yellow (undesirable), and there are so many defects that most don't get actually risk assessed or included in a 'safe for sea' review. Most of the CPFs wouldn't go to sea if we applied basic SOLAS standards.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> I would disagree with that; generally when we do a physical survey the actual material state is worse than the poor condition we expected it to be in. The snr mgt is usually shocked when they find out that things like no hot water, lack of heat etc are common issues. THere is also a big delta into the actual defects and what is being tracked as defects.
> 
> We used to joke that the risk assessments were a 'talk about it until it's blue' exercise (acceptable with review). It's now a talk about it until it's yellow (undesirable), and there are so many defects that most don't get actually risk assessed or included in a 'safe for sea' review. Most of the CPFs wouldn't go to sea if we applied basic SOLAS standards.



The navy has a plan, shows the plan, points to the effects, and says here how much it's going to cost and what you're going to get in operational results from that cost.  Governments love that.  RCN is clearly the big winner right now in Ottawa because of this.  It's also why the RCN despite misgivings has fully embraced the Arctic mission.  More funding. 

It doesn't mean that the RCN gets everything it wants.  3rd JSS for example.  That's a hard one to swallow, particularly if the Asterix doesn't stay around (or something like it).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Grrr, painfully clear 2 AOR's is not enough, we really need 4. With some rejigging of the Federal Services model to make it more sustainable, the government wins by having another juicy contract to give out, more merchant marine spots to generate a supply of experienced ticketed personal who can become the next generation of Ships pilots. The ability to support Allied operations and exercise with minimal costs and political risk.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> The navy has a plan, shows the plan, points to the effects, and says here how much it's going to cost and what you're going to get in operational results from that cost.  Governments love that.  RCN is clearly the big winner right now in Ottawa because of this.  It's also why the RCN despite misgivings has fully embraced the Arctic mission.  More funding.
> 
> It doesn't mean that the RCN gets everything it wants.  3rd JSS for example.  That's a hard one to swallow, particularly if the Asterix doesn't stay around (or something like it).


I agree with that part; we're really good at tying the white paper of the day to capabilities and laying out the funding, and think the CCG learned a lot from how we justified out NSS funding.

I meant more that the RCN is not aware of the maintenance issues or the actual material state of the surface ships. They are starting to get an inkling, but it's worse than what the roll up summary portrays by a lot.  There are so many individual issues that people don't even bother to understand what it means for basic safety. Even with the extended DWPs the ships are coming out with all kinds of fundamental issues.

The worse part is that we are still trying to get BOI related safety issues resolved, but QoL engineering changes for things like wifi get rammed to the top of the list.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> An interesting image for HDW.
> 
> Originally posted here.
> 
> View attachment 65814
> 
> It's a TRAPS installed on HDW.  Payload space is already paying off apparently. Should be interesting to see the CONOPS for that addition.


No way! That is freaking cool!


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:


> No way! That is freaking cool!


TRAPS was fitted just to see if it could, its never been trialed however the potential is there.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Stoker said:


> TRAPS was fitted just to see if it could, its never been trialed however the potential is there.


I am fully aware of the potential!


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am fully aware of the potential!


So am I, they trialed it on my ship. Pretty slick.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:


> It's a TRAPS installed on HDW.


----------



## Steve

I noticed yesterday during HMCS Harry Dewolf's departure from Halifax for northern operations that both her starboard lifeboat and rib stations were empty. Just curious why this would be?


----------



## Steve

Question answered, looks like the loaded the starboard bays after feeling at Imperoil.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

new video up


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Norway getting a "Super AOP's" at 9,800 DWT 








						Here comes Norway's new ice-strengthened coast guard ship
					

Vanishing sea ice gives Norway more waters to patrol. The hull for the first of three new Coast Guard ships to operate in the Arctic zone is now being towed from the shipyard in Romania.




					thebarentsobserver.com


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Norway getting a "Super AOP's" at 9,800 DWT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes Norway's new ice-strengthened coast guard ship
> 
> 
> Vanishing sea ice gives Norway more waters to patrol. The hull for the first of three new Coast Guard ships to operate in the Arctic zone is now being towed from the shipyard in Romania.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebarentsobserver.com


It looks nice but AOPS is a heavier ice class. That's not a ice breaking bow.


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> It looks nice but AOPS is a heavier ice class. That's not a ice breaking bow.


With sea ice “vanishing” around Norway, no need for an ice breaking bow


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> It looks nice but AOPS is a heavier ice class. That's not a ice breaking bow.


Yes it's an interesting choice, likley more focus on protecting the North Sea and fish stocks


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Yes it's an interesting choice, likley more focus on protecting the North Sea and fish stocks


Their CG is also their military, so they will be using it for that.


----------



## Stoker

Weinie said:


> With sea ice “vanishing” around Norway, no need for an ice breaking bow


That's their assessment as well that I read, they still have their AOPS version. These are to replace another class of CG ship.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> With sea ice “vanishing” around Norway, no need for an ice breaking bow



Spitzbergen is still fairly ice bound, and a very strategic chunk of rock in Russia's way:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

No. 4 on the way

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428054280880017408


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Awesome picture


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Awesome picture


That's awesome - do you have the link to the original?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's a link to the one on Twitter, maybe contact the ship directly to see if you can get a better quality version.


----------



## dapaterson

...or find some friends in a CP140 to do a fly past and get another shot ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also a good shot of the AOP's landing craft


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> That's awesome - do you have the link to the original?


If you look at the public combat camera page they usually end up there as well


----------



## Underway

HDW has left the Western entrance of the NWP and on its way to Esquimalt.  The've recently passed 48 days underway and the crew are looking forward to seeing the sights of Victoria and hitting a pub after so much time in very small and very poor communities (many dry) in the North.  They are learning a ton about the ship.  Generally performing well with irritants of course.  Spares are tough to get because the new supply contract is maturing, and their learning maint cycles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

All in all a impressive shakedown cruise and less problems than some people thought. I am really happy for the crew, hopefully they get to see some big marine mammals between Dutch Harbour and Esquimalt. Not to mention possible Chinese warships which might still be in the area.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Harry Dewolfe visited Prince Rupert, some nice drone pictures in a private group, will try to get permission to post. any idea if she is going to visit Vancouver?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

#HMCSHarryDeWolf will be making stops throughout the weekend!
First it will stop in North Vancouver Burrard Dry-Dock Pier and will be tied alongside from 10:00 AM Friday 1 October until it departs early Sunday 3 October.
Second it will be transiting from North Vancouver to Ogden Point where it will come alongside on Sunday around 16:00 or 4:00PM! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Due to the restrictions associated with COVID-19 tours will not be available for the public but if you wanted to catch a glimpse of the @RoyalCanNavy’s newest ship the info maps show you where and when it will be coming alongside. You'll be able to get close enough for pictures 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Photo submissions appreciated through the MARPAC Facebook messenger! Stanley Park could be a good vantage point.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Drone footage of HDW in Prince Rupert


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Drone footage of HDW in Prince Rupert


I think the craziest part is that it's not raining in PR.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Looks like the RCN took advantage of the HDW visit to Prince Rupert to see how things had changed.








						Prince Rupert Port Authority on LinkedIn: #port #princerupert #maritimesafety #marinesecurity #smalltownbigport
					

Today we welcomed Royal Canadian Navy | Marine royale canadienne Maritime Forces Pacific Commander Rear Admiral Angus Topshee and Chief Petty Officer First…




					www.linkedin.com


----------



## dimsum

FB Live video of HDW going to North Vancouver.









						Arrival of HMCS Harry DeWolf into North Vancouver,BC. | By Royal Canadian Navy | Facebook
					

9.9K views, 353 likes, 106 loves, 221 comments, 75 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Royal Canadian Navy: Arrival of HMCS Harry DeWolf into North Vancouver,BC.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just on my way to look at her


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What an awesome looking ship and she looks better now than when she left Halifax. You really get a sense of her size when your up close. had a good chat with a PO2 who has sailed on the CFP's and we talked a lot about crew accommodations. I feel sad that the crew is not getting much time to relax in Vancouver. Apparently they are getting some R&R and family time when they get to Esquimalt. He mentioned the Margert Brooke is scheduled to make the same trip, but then based in Esquimalt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> View attachment 66670


Cool ship. Too bad we didn't make the decision to arm her harder.


----------



## KevinB

Weinie said:


> Cool ship. Too bad we didn't make the decision to arm her harder.


Great Minds...

I was just about to say, too bad it's a Coast Guard vessel, as with some weapons out could have been a decent northern  warship, I guess you could park a LAV on the rear area and double the firepower...


----------



## KevinB

I will say I think it is great that the RCN has a PC5 vessel that can operate in the Arctic year round (now it seems the RCN won't do that - but it could) - I am however disappointed it wasn't armed with some stand-off capability, several CIWS, and of course a much bigger gun


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> I will say I think it is great that the RCN has a PC5 vessel that can operate in the Arctic year round (now it seems the RCN won't do that - but it could) - I am however disappointed it wasn't armed with some stand-off capability, several CIWS, and of course a much bigger gun


Could probably still bolt on some AD capability...............but, that would take a massive re-think within the RCN. Pretty sure they are nowhere  near that space.


----------



## dapaterson

Don't worry.  I'm sure there's an awning for the flight deck so that the cocktail parties are sheltered.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> Don't worry.  I'm sure there's an awning for the flight deck so that the cocktail parties are sheltered.


And the groping can be somewhat (fuzzily) observed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> #HMCSHarryDeWolf will be making stops throughout the weekend!
> First it will stop in North Vancouver Burrard Dry-Dock Pier and will be tied alongside from 10:00 AM Friday 1 October until it departs early Sunday 3 October.
> Second it will be transiting from North Vancouver to Ogden Point where it will come alongside on Sunday around 16:00 or 4:00PM!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the restrictions associated with COVID-19 tours will not be available for the public but if you wanted to catch a glimpse of the @RoyalCanNavy’s newest ship the info maps show you where and when it will be coming alongside. You'll be able to get close enough for pictures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo submissions appreciated through the MARPAC Facebook messenger! Stanley Park could be a good vantage point.



I know a guy with a kayak who might try and struggle by for a look see.

Question: Do they have powerful fire hoses on board? Asking for a friend


----------



## Stoker




----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> I will say I think it is great that the RCN has a PC5 vessel that can operate in the Arctic year round (now it seems the RCN won't do that - but it could) - I am however disappointed it wasn't armed with some stand-off capability, several CIWS, and of course a much bigger gun



Please no.  The crew of ~60- could not and would not be able to handle that much crap stapled to the ship, not to mention a ship with a bunch of weapons and garbage sensors is the same usefulness in a fight as the current AOPS, it just is double the cost (and likely double the crew).  It's a patrol boat. Want to fight a war, call a warship.

AOPS is a utility vehicle not a tank.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I said before, your enemies get a vote and may not be nice enough to inform you of when hostilities commence. My preference has been a better self defence suite, using the same gun it has to cover the aft arc and either a 57mm or 76 if stability allows up forward. Improved combat suite to utilize the greater range and detect threats. Some counter measures equipment. Plus having the magazine capacity. I would have been happy if they had designed the vessel for this and just fitted the vessel with the 25mm for now. At least up arming it would be easy. 
As our CFP's start to fail, you can bet these ships will be sent further than anticipated and various bad actors are growing their capabilities. If 60 people on a new ship that size with shore support can not maintain that level of equipment, then we are doing things very, very wrong.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Please no.  The crew of ~60- could not and would not be able to handle that much crap stapled to the ship, not to mention a ship with a bunch of weapons and garbage sensors is the same usefulness in a fight as the current AOPS, it just is double the cost (and likely double the crew).  It's a patrol boat. Want to fight a war, call a warship.
> 
> AOPS is a utility vehicle not a tank.


So a Coast Guard vessel -- got it.


----------



## T700

Canada has repeatedly sent equipment into areas it was never intended to go. First Gulf War none of the ships were ready without massive upgrades,  Cougar AVGP(Tank trainer) Bosnia and Somalia, LSVW(with Armour kit?) Bosnia and Afghanistan, Iltis,
MCDV initially was not to cross North Atlantic Ocean or chase pirates. 
 Better to show up with something and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Minimal standard should be last resort.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I said before, your enemies get a vote and may not be nice enough to inform you of when hostilities commence. My preference has been a better self defence suite, using the same gun it has to cover the aft arc and either a 57mm or 76 if stability allows up forward. Improved combat suite to utilize the greater range and detect threats. Some counter measures equipment. Plus having the magazine capacity. I would have been happy if they had designed the vessel for this and just fitted the vessel with the 25mm for now. At least up arming it would be easy.
> As our CFP's start to fail,* you can bet these ships will be sent further than anticipated* and various bad actors are growing their capabilities. If 60 people on a new ship that size with shore support can not maintain that level of equipment, then we are doing things very, very wrong.



You know we must be doing something wrong in terms of training our leaders.  This argument comes around again and again.  We can't do such and such because somebody won't use it properly and people will die.   Ships, tanks, planes, atvs, jeeps, infantry battalions....


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> So a Coast Guard vessel -- got it.



Yes a Coast Guard vessel.  Yes a utility vessel.  Yes a Command, Control, Co-Ordination, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance vessel.  Yes a logistics hub.  Yes an emergency response facility.  Yes a police station.

Not a bad investment in my opinion.   If some one starts hauling through the arctic at walking pace, intent on attacking an AOPS the ancient CF18s are only 4 hours away.   The enemy will have advanced 16 miles from their initial point of observation.

And again, yes it is a Coast Guard vessel, in the US sense.  Because to put a gun on a ship in Canada we have to make it a Navy ship.  Our Coast Guard doesn't want that job.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I said before, your enemies get a vote and may not be nice enough to inform you of when hostilities commence. My preference has been a better self defence suite, using the same gun it has to cover the aft arc and either a 57mm or 76 if stability allows up forward. Improved combat suite to utilize the greater range and detect threats. Some counter measures equipment. Plus having the magazine capacity. I would have been happy if they had designed the vessel for this and just fitted the vessel with the 25mm for now. At least up arming it would be easy.
> As our CFP's start to fail, you can bet these ships will be sent further than anticipated and various bad actors are growing their capabilities. If 60 people on a new ship that size with shore support can not maintain that level of equipment, then we are doing things very, very wrong.


Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.


Probably the required changes needed to get ammo up to the gun.  I suspect the 57mm infrastructure goes down a few decks, when the 25mm probably doesn't.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.


Why would we? We had 5 or 6 76mm's and a mound of shells left over from the 280's that could had been installed while they were building the ships. We returned them for credit. I suspect the same for the 57's.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> Why would we? We had 5 or 6 76mm's and a mound of shells left over from the 280's that could had been installed while they were building the ships. We returned them for credit. I suspect the same for the 57's.


I'm legitimately curious as to why a 25mm cannon was chosen - with a 2-3km max range - when a handheld missile can outrange you fairly easily.

 To me EVERY RCN ship should be a warship - as that is what a Navy generally does.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> I'm legitimately curious as to why a 25mm cannon was chosen - with a 2-3km max range - when a handheld missile can outrange you fairly easily.
> 
> To me EVERY RCN ship should be a warship - as that is what a Navy generally does.


Probably because they are extensively used world wide on patrol ships and we have the ammo more than likely.

To you I guess but the reality is that all navies have ships that are armed lightly or sometimes not armed at all. AOPS is not built like a warship regardless of what you place on it for weapons and a big gun is not going to make frig all difference in my opinion as someone actually in the RCN when dealing with a armed warship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 57mm as I understand it has an excellent rate of fire, fuzes that can be set while in the gun, giving it excellent ability to deal with drones, loitering munitions and small boats. I feel the 76mm would give even better reach, has many of the same benefits of the 57mm and would allow significant shore support for landing parties. However the 57mm has the benefit of being the same gun on the CFP's making training and certification easier. I like to see the same 25mm and mount on the AOP's, CFP's and Kingstons, again making ammunition, parts, training and certification easier in the fleet.


----------



## T700

Stoker said:


> Probably because they are extensively used world wide on patrol ships and we have the ammo more than likely.
> 
> To you I guess but the reality is that all navies have ships that are armed lightly or sometimes not armed at all. AOPS is not built like a warship regardless of what you place on it for weapons and a big gun is not going to make frig all difference in my opinion as someone actually in the RCN when dealing with a armed warship.


When you go into the forest full of angry animals that think you are part of their diet do you want a 22 pistol or a 12 gauge. Those ships will be used for more than the Arctic Patrols. It’s the Canadian Way.


----------



## Stoker

T700 said:


> When you go into the forest full of angry animals that think you are part of their diet do you want a 22 pistol or a 12 gauge. Those ships will be used for more than the Arctic Patrols. It’s the Canadian Way.


Most of my career I have been sailing in Kingston Class ships with a couple of .50 Cals, been to Europe off Russia, West Africa, Op Caribe's and the Arctic more times than most on this message board. Guess what? we were fine. The hilarious part of this is that the ones it seems to be loosing the most sleep over this are not in the Navy, I sleep fine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

People, organisations, leaders, politicians and militaries get complacent, because things have not changed in a long while. But things are changing and staying ahead of the curve is always hard and takes effort. The Army in Afghanistan learned the hard way not to fall into a routine, because people identify the patterns and exploit them. From my reading it's what happened to the Israel Corvette, they became complacent because they felt there was no threat. Outside of Canadian and friendly waters your ship is a big juicy propaganda target for someone.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> People, organisations, leaders, politicians and militaries get complacent, because things have not changed in a long while. But things are changing and staying ahead of the curve is always hard and takes effort. The Army in Afghanistan learned the hard way not to fall into a routine, because people identify the patterns and exploit them. From my reading it's what happened to the Israel Corvette, they became complacent because they felt there was no threat. Outside of Canadian and friendly waters your ship is a big juicy propaganda target for someone.


Yes I heard that from you before, noted. I still sleep fine.


----------



## T700

Stoker said:


> Most of my career I have been sailing in Kingston Class ships with a couple of .50 Cals, been to Europe off Russia, West Africa, Op Caribe's and the Arctic more times than most on this message board. Guess what? we were fine. The hilarious part of this is that the ones it seems to be loosing the most sleep over this are not in the Navy, I sleep fine.


Not loosing sleep but I have been out gunned and so have others on this forum.  I think a catastrophic failure will happen at some point. It’s always a matter of time… Maybe it’s a good thing others don’t want to see it happen again.


----------



## Stoker

T700 said:


> Not loosing sleep but I have been out gunned and so have others on this forum.  I think a catastrophic failure will happen at some point. It’s always a matter of time… Maybe it’s a good thing others don’t want to see it happen again.


Been doing it for 32 years no issues and I doubt we will ever have any. The ships are appropriately armed to the current missions including the Arctic, Africa, the Caribbean. If those missions evolve overtime and the risk increases I would suspect equipment would be updated or added just like another ship. You know we just didn't throw a 25mm on the ship and say frig it right?


----------



## T700

Stoker said:


> Been doing it for 32 years no issues and I doubt we will ever have any. The ships are appropriately armed to the current missions including the Arctic, Africa, the Caribbean. If those missions evolve overtime and the risk increases I would suspect equipment would be updated or added just like another ship. You know we just didn't throw a 25mm on the ship and say frig it right?


   Hmm. AOR forward gun, MCDV weapon?
Minimum standard works until it doesn’t. Just my opinion and experience


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> Yes I heard that from you before, noted. I still sleep fine.


and as I said before, I dearly hope you are right and I am wrong.


----------



## Stoker

T700 said:


> Hmm. AOR forward gun, MCDV weapon?
> Minimum standard works until it doesn’t. Just my opinion and experience


The AOR 3" 50 was put there solely to claim warship status going through the Panama Canal, the 40mm on the MCDV was for mine destruction when we did minesweeping. Both there for a reason.


----------



## T700

Stoker said:


> The AOR 3" 50 was put there solely to claim warship status going through the Panama Canal, the 40mm on the MCDV was for mine destruction when we did minesweeping. Both there for a reason.


----------



## T700

Thanks for the clarification. Do you support those decisions. If you put people at risk they should be able to protect themselves as a minimum maybe add to the overall protection. 
  We see things differently….


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> Most of my career I have been sailing in Kingston Class ships with a couple of .50 Cals, been to Europe off Russia, West Africa, Op Caribe's and the Arctic more times than most on this message board. Guess what? we were fine. The hilarious part of this is that the ones it seems to be loosing the most sleep over this are not in the Navy, I sleep fine.


Sleep fine all you want -- but you need to understand this is why a lot of foreign governments see the RCN as a glorified CG these days.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Sleep fine all you want -- but you need to understand this is why a lot of foreign governments see the RCN as a glorified CG these days.


No it just seems that you do from all your misinformed statements here calling us this and that or that our ships don't make the cut in your expert opinion. Seems to be a lot of Admirals on here all of a sudden.  Can't wait until the CSC starts to come on line and all the "informed" comments about those ships start.


----------



## Good2Golf

@Stoker, I’d at least give KevinB credit for having done at least enough research/informed himself enough that AOPS are PC5 and what that means, to the degree that a non-sailor can appreciate that.  If a few more folks at least made an effort to try to understand some of the other shades of their purple colleagues, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.  To be honest, the way Nansivik was promised back in the day, today’s version of emptying the tanks before the snow flies is not what most reasonable people would have expected.  Having been involved in ESSM procurement as a non-dark blue guy, I take your point about the ‘people perhaps not appreciating all that goes into fitted weapons’ piece…almost like some non-green folks saying to just ‘bolt an AD weapon into a LAV’ and you’re good to go.  Thanks for your ongoing insight to the HDW and family.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> Sleep fine all you want -- but you need to understand this is why a lot of foreign governments see the RCN as a glorified CG these days.


This is patently false.  Not only what constitute a CG defined differently around the world, but the Canadian ships the world does see on a regular basis for the RCN are ready to fight and participate.

Flagships for SNMG 1 and 2 over the last two years.  Flagstaff and Commander for SNMG1 and Op Apollo. ASW Warfare Commander for STANAVFORLANT, ASW Commander for 2nd Fleet, 2IC for 2nd Fleet,  OP CARIBBE, OP ALLIGATOR etc...

Frankly from an engineering perspective adding combat systems detracts from the margins for what the ship's real job is way too often.


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:


> @Stoker, I’d at least give KevinB credit for having done at least enough research/informed himself enough that AOPS are PC5 and what that means, to the degree that a non-sailor can appreciate that.  If a few more folks at least made an effort to try to understand some of the other shades of their purple colleagues, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.  To be honest, the way Nansivik was promised back in the day, today’s version of emptying the tanks before the snow flies is not what most reasonable people would have expected.  Having been involved in ESSM procurement as a non-dark blue guy, I take your point about the ‘people perhaps not appreciating all that goes into fitted weapons’ piece…almost like some non-green folks saying to just ‘bolt an AD weapon into a LAV’ and you’re good to go.  Thanks for your ongoing insight to the HDW and family.
> 
> Cheers
> G2G


Yes doing a wiki on the class will indeed revel those facts.

 Sometime ago someone stated it took the government 15 years to build the fueling depot at Nansivik and inferred some kind of mismanagement. The simple fact it took years for the mines owner to remediate the site and then we had to conduct environmental assessments of what we wanted to build. These assessments in the best of times down south take many months to complete. Now take into account that its in the north where the construction season is a few months long, all the supplies equipment etc. has to come in by barge, consultations into the community and the fact we are building fuel storage tanks close to the water where the environmental regulations are much more stringent than doing the same thing in the south. The actual jetty is settling into the clay and that is the reason why the original plan was scaled back somewhat as resources had to be allocated to correct that . To top it off the last few years of Covid by government policy personnel couldn't come in to work on the project for sometime because these communities were deemed closed to visitors. Of course the people had no way of knowing all of that but if they did a little bit of research they would have an idea. I do get about the having the fuel tanks empty. If we built that as a 365 day manned depot does anyone having an inkling on what that would cost to maintain yearly? You have to ask yourself will the government or public support that kind of expense on a annual basis? I personally think it was a major achievement that we have what we have. This will help immensely in supporting AOPS, Kingston and Halifax classes including our allies patrolling the Arctic.


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe as the NWP opens up in future years, Govt will see fit to upgrade the fuel storage system to 365/yr.  til then, folks see the O&M for using C-17s to drop in ost-freeze fuel as the lesser of two evils, vice capital cost for NAN’s infra.


----------



## Stoker

I think it was in this thread that someone talked about stationing a class of boat at some communities for the rangers to operate, I thought about this and put forward this idea. Have a boat in a hanger on a metal slip way into the water. The boat launches under its own weight and it retracted with a winch into the hanger for storage and maintenance. Sort of like the Royal Lifeboat society had in the UK. I would go with these Danish boats, we operated with them in the past and they seem very capable.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> til then, folks see the O&M for using C-17s to drop in ost-freeze fuel as the lesser of two evils, vice capital cost for NAN’s infra.


I'll just add that NAN is the acronym for HMCS Nanaimo (MM 702).  Unless you were referring to that MCDV's infrastructure...

_Back to Lurking Stations_


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> I'll just add that NAN is the acronym for HMCS Nanaimo (MM 702).  Unless you were referring to that MCDV's infrastructure...
> 
> _Back to Lurking Stations_


Would you believe auto correct changed NNF to NAN?


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> I think it was in this thread that someone talked about stationing a class of boat at some communities for the rangers to operate, I thought about this and put forward this idea. Have a boat in a hanger on a metal slip way into the water. The boat launches under its own weight and it retracted with a winch into the hanger for storage and maintenance. Sort of like the Royal Lifeboat society had in the UK. I would go with these Danish boats, we operated with them in the past and they seem very capable.View attachment 66691View attachment 66692View attachment 66693









RNLI Lifeboat Station at The Lizard in Cornwall, UK.


----------



## Kirkhill

LCP Class (2004- ), Landing Crafts
					

Data Sheet for the Landing Crafts of the LCP Class (2004- )



					www.navalhistory.dk
				




The Danish version of the CB-90/ SRC 90E (about half the size).


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> LCP Class (2004- ), Landing Crafts
> 
> 
> Data Sheet for the Landing Crafts of the LCP Class (2004- )
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalhistory.dk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Danish version of the CB-90/ SRC 90E (about half the size).


That's the one, pretty impressive actually.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> I think it was in this thread that someone talked about stationing a class of boat at some communities for the rangers to operate, I thought about this and put forward this idea. Have a boat in a hanger on a metal slip way into the water. The boat launches under its own weight and it retracted with a winch into the hanger for storage and maintenance. Sort of like the Royal Lifeboat society had in the UK. I would go with these Danish boats, we operated with them in the past and they seem very capable.View attachment 66691View attachment 66692View attachment 66693


How feasible would that be as a "bolt on"?
   Looking at the rear 'fantail?" of the AOPS could a temporary ramp type attachment system to do something like that be done?
 Mainly just curious if a new ship would be needed for that type of activity, as but for that aspect the AOPS seems to be a solid fit for that.
    Does that rear deck crane looking thing take up all the space - and if so, could it be removed to make room for a ramp/dock 




Underway said:


> This is patently false.  Not only what constitute a CG defined differently around the world, but the Canadian ships the world does see on a regular basis for the RCN are ready to fight and participate.
> 
> Flagships for SNMG 1 and 2 over the last two years.  Flagstaff and Commander for SNMG1 and Op Apollo. ASW Warfare Commander for STANAVFORLANT, ASW Commander for 2nd Fleet, 2IC for 2nd Fleet,  OP CARIBBE, OP ALLIGATOR etc...
> 
> Frankly from an engineering perspective adding combat systems detracts from the margins for what the ship's real job is way too often.


Would you be overly offended if I cut fight out and left participate?
   Look I pick on the CA and RCAF a lot too - as my point is as a whole the CF tends to pigeonhole acquisition, and not look at theatre requirements - which lends Canada to a participant role in a coalition - which is fine - but comes with limitations as well as how those capabilities that are missing are viewed on a global scale.

That isn't a dig at the personnel of the RCN (except the absolutely senior leadership and the Politicians who abrogate responsibility for delivering a robust multimillion capable Navy).


----------



## Underway

Offended no.  A little sad yes.  There is rarely a question about individual RCN unit fighting capabilities.  For their role (ASW) Halifax Class are quite good, particularly now the Cyclone is online.  The doctrine and training of the sailors often outthink and outclass their peers in exercise and in operations.  NATO peers are always very happy to have an RCN frigate join because they don't need to babysit us. We carry our own weight and add capability.

USN in particular has no frigates and is overjoyed when a CPF joins.  We can replace their ships one for one on ASW picket duty.

If your concern is the RCN as a whole, yes there are huge gaps.  Since the 280 rusted out and the Protecteur fire there has not been a task group capability available.  And a TG is the basic formation (not unit) required for independent national naval operations.

Asterix fixed that somewhat and allowed for a TG core to be created around a supply ship.  JSS will be accepted in 2023-24ish timeline and create a navy only TG core.  

But it won't be till the 2030's where the full TG capabilities are reborn, and then we can do the 2001-2015 full TG contribution globally again. If you want to complain about that, sure. It's not wrong, but that's not what you were saying.   Other countries don't care if we have a TG.  They care if we show up, help, and don't get in the way.  And the RCN does that.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> How feasible would that be as a "bolt on"?
> Looking at the rear 'fantail?" of the AOPS could a temporary ramp type attachment system to do something like that be done?
> Mainly just curious if a new ship would be needed for that type of activity, as but for that aspect the AOPS seems to be a solid fit for that.
> Does that rear deck crane looking thing take up all the space - and if so, could it be removed to make room for a ramp/dock
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be overly offended if I cut fight out and left participate?
> Look I pick on the CA and RCAF a lot too - as my point is as a whole the CF tends to pigeonhole acquisition, and not look at theatre requirements - which lends Canada to a participant role in a coalition - which is fine - but comes with limitations as well as how those capabilities that are missing are viewed on a global scale.
> 
> That isn't a dig at the personnel of the RCN (except the absolutely senior leadership and the Politicians who abrogate responsibility for delivering a robust multimillion capable Navy).



Kev - I think the addition of a stern ramp at this stage of the game might be a bit beyond both the capabilities and the need.

On the other hand that crane thingy is used for hoisting boats and a mini-landing craft aboard, as well as seacans, a pickup truck, atvs and snowmobiles.

I am pretty sure that if the RCN wanted to host a Danish LCP aboard it could do it.  In addition to the crane (actually cranes plural), and subject to confirmation by our RCN SMEs, the AOPS also has 4 bays athwartships that could berth similar boats.


----------



## JMCanada

Stoker said:


> (...) I do get about the having the fuel tanks empty. If we built that as a 365 day manned depot does anyone having an inkling on what that would cost to maintain yearly? (...)



Excuse my curiosity regarding fuel constrains in the north:
Ethanol's freezing point is much lower than marine fuel's, probably would not require heating to keep it liquid, and water diluted in it should not affect performance of a fuel cell.
Ottawa University is making some progress in direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC). Maybe in 10-20 years this technology will be  commercially available. Would it be useful to build ethanol tanks up there, if not for sailing an AOPS-size ship at least for smaller boats or vehicles?


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:


> Excuse my curiosity regarding fuel constrains in the north:
> Ethanol's freezing point is much lower than marine fuel's, probably would not require heating to keep it liquid, and water diluted in it should not affect performance of a fuel cell.
> Ottawa University is making some progress in direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC). Maybe in 10-20 years this technology will be  commercially available. Would it be useful to build ethanol tanks up there, if not for sailing an AOPS-size ship at least for smaller boats or vehicles?


Large amounts of fuel, about 7 Million liters at the facility at Nanisivik need to be tended to by someone who will circulate the fuel, test it and maintain it. Unfortunately its a fairly remote area connecting Arctic Bay with the site via a 32KM road that is not maintained in the winter. Winters there are harsh with some pretty bad  storms,  that's also a reason why the fueling infrastructure is built away from the shore as mounds of ice tend to pile up there. Liability is another thing as the government will want to maintain security of the site. That all boils down to having the tanks empty at the end of the season as a cost effective way to keep the site until the first shuttle tanker fills the tanks at the beginning of the season. Unless something changes or the technology changes like you mentioned that's the way its going to be maintained.
​


----------



## brihard

Stoker said:


> You know we just didn't throw a 25mm on the ship and say frig it right?


Well of course not; it would need a 57mm.


----------



## Navy_Pete

JMCanada said:


> Excuse my curiosity regarding fuel constrains in the north:
> Ethanol's freezing point is much lower than marine fuel's, probably would not require heating to keep it liquid, and water diluted in it should not affect performance of a fuel cell.
> Ottawa University is making some progress in direct ethanol fuel cells (DEFC). Maybe in 10-20 years this technology will be  commercially available. Would it be useful to build ethanol tanks up there, if not for sailing an AOPS-size ship at least for smaller boats or vehicles?


Minimum fuel flash point allowed on ships is 60 °C; going below that needs a lot of special storage considerations, processing etc, but ethanol is so volatile it would be a bit of a nightmare with no real gain. Ethanol also has about half the calorific value as diesel, so you would need more for the same energy output.

They've done some work on biodiesel but it tends to gel at normal sea temps, so is not usable outside of warm waters.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.



Scramble nets?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am a big fan of stern ramps for launching and recovery of boats, but they have trade offs and take up a fair bit of internal space. So I can understand why they went with the crane and the PO2 I was chatting with in North Van when HDW was here was very happy about the big crane as it allowed them to replenish the ship from the dock far faster than doing it by hand. So likley the crane won out over a stern ramp for the flexibility aspect. But it does limit your launch and recovery envelope for the landing barge. Technically the AOP's is the closest thing we have to a amphibious support ship. I expect that they will do a lot of the shore assault training in the future.


Reading this I am really happy that you got down there to see the ship yourself.  I'm even happier that you were able to ask intelligent and insightful questions from the crew.  I know when I'm doing the PR stuff I am much more comfortable with some salt asking nautical questions that can't be answered by a google search.

If you could capsulate your jetty visit what would you say was the thing that impressed you the most, the thing that concerned you the most, and the thing that surprised you the most about the ship.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Scramble nets?


Having done one of those off a ship - I will give a solid pass to the "obstacle course at sea", even in a moderate swell it is unpleasant - and the ship wasn't underway.
   Mesh or rope rungs are terrible dry, and nasty when wet - it's easier to board a ship underway with a pole ladder than use a scramble net or Jacobs ladder.  As while the boarding pole is a little dinky - it has rigid steps -


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Reading this I am really happy that you got down there to see the ship yourself.  I'm even happier that you were able to ask intelligent and insightful questions from the crew.  I know when I'm doing the PR stuff I am much more comfortable with some salt asking nautical questions that can't be answered by a google search.
> 
> If you could capsulate your jetty visit what would you say was the thing that impressed you the most, the thing that concerned you the most, and the thing that surprised you the most about the ship.


What I got from the couple of crew I talked to and few I overheard is that they are really excited to be part of this adventure, new ship in class, first Westward circumnavigation of North America by the RCN since 1954.

The PO2 and I discussed a few things (he been in 20 years, wish I could remember his name, about 6' and fit)

Comparison of accommodations from the CFP's to the AOP's. He raved about the quality of the accommodations, he was worried that some of the new crew will be shocked when they go over to the CFP's. I think accommodations on the CSC are going to be far more important than the planners realize as that is what will keep people going to sea. 

Talked about the ice trials, I did learn that she is equipped with flume tanks to rock the vessel. He found going through ice really exciting, which I get as I remember my first time steering a ship through ice. He said they did not push the ship to the limit in the trials, which make sense, since I know they used a lot of sensors on the hull and ice to obtain data to build the "Ice profile" for the ship.

We talked about the crane and the ships cargo capability, the crane was something really new for him and it's capabilities really makes a difference, the ability to load seacans and small vehicles. As I mention he was really happy that they are no longer dependent on shoreside support to load supplies and cargo. They took a Ranger patrol from one community to another, the ship was prepared to transport all their equipment, but the Rangers had already taken care of getting it moved. I think that the Northern Communities, the Rangers, the army and the RCN are going to need sometime to figure how to integrate the capabilities of the AOP's in their plans moving forward, I think it's going to bring more flexibility and opportunities than people realize. It will take time and experiments, but I suspect that the RCN is going to be very busy in the North. I have to wonder if a lesson learned is to consider a Hiab crane on the CSC's to assist in moving supplies to and from the ship? 

He mentioned the armament and I stated that it was the one area where I felt they had missed the mark, we left it at that, I didn't want to spend what little time I had going over it, because I have you guys to argue with anytime I want   

I complimented them on how good the ship looked, I could see how much painting on the sides they had been doing, the ship was looking great, particularly after crossing the Arctic. You really get a sense of how big this vessel is when dockside. The ship certainly has "presence". I got a sense that the ship was comfortable and the workspaces are good. The fact that the RCN felt that a brand new ship was up to the voyage is a credit to the design work and I suspect that Northern Operations are going to be desirable for the crews and officers. All in all I will say the ship and crew are a credit to the RCN (I am aware they doing a PR cruise and won't talk much about the negatives, but I didn't get a sense that the optimism was not forced and it was clear they are proud of their new ship) 

I could not stay long as I had take my daughter to the doctors. I did ask one of the officers to request the PAO to send a poster to our Cadet Hall, hopefully that happens so I can frame it. They mentioned the Margret Brooke is planned to do the same voyage, but finish in Esquimalt. Hopefully when she comes to Vancouver I can arrange a tour for our Navy League Cadets.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> I could not stay long as I had take my daughter to the doctors. I did ask one of the officers to request the PAO to send a poster to our Cadet Hall, hopefully that happens so I can frame it. They mentioned the Margret Brooke is planned to do the same voyage, but finish in Esquimalt. Hopefully when she comes to Vancouver I can arrange a tour for our Navy League Cadets.


That would be awesome.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Scramble nets?



Dude...

I have had to do that a fair bit, by day and night in a wide variety of weather conditions.

I can confirm that it's probably the least suitable options for getting troops on or off a ship. Unless you're trying to 'cull the herd' of course


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently you survived the cull


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently you survived the cull



Physically...

If you ever want to give someone a good case of PTSD you should dangle them from one of those nets in a churning sea, at night


----------



## Kirkhill

Does a 50 ft Jacobs ladder in the Bering Sea at night in January get some consideration?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Offended no.  A little sad yes.  There is rarely a question about individual RCN unit fighting capabilities.  For their role (ASW) Halifax Class are quite good, particularly now the Cyclone is online.  The doctrine and training of the sailors often outthink and outclass their peers in exercise and in operations.  NATO peers are always very happy to have an RCN frigate join because they don't need to babysit us. We carry our own weight and add capability.
> 
> USN in particular has no frigates and is overjoyed when a CPF joins.  We can replace their ships one for one on ASW picket duty.
> 
> If your concern is the RCN as a whole, yes there are huge gaps.  Since the 280 rusted out and the Protecteur fire there has not been a task group capability available.  And a TG is the basic formation (not unit) required for independent national naval operations.
> 
> Asterix fixed that somewhat and allowed for a TG core to be created around a supply ship.  JSS will be accepted in 2023-24ish timeline and create a navy only TG core.
> 
> But it won't be till the 2030's where the full TG capabilities are reborn, and then we can do the 2001-2015 full TG contribution globally again. If you want to complain about that, sure. It's not wrong, but that's not what you were saying.   Other countries don't care if we have a TG.  They care if we show up, help, and don't get in the way.  And the RCN does that.


A nice, current, example of us still being invited to work with a seriously strong task force almost in the home waters of China. 

U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific​The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.









						U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific - USNI News
					

KUALA LUMPUR – Two U.S. carrier strike groups drilled with the United Kingdom’s Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21) and a Japanese big-deck warship over the weekend in a major naval exercise in the waters off the southeast of Okinawa, Japan. The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy...




					news.usni.org


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> A nice, current, example of us still being invited to work with a seriously strong task force almost in the home waters of China.
> 
> U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific​The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S., U.K. Aircraft Carriers Drill with Japanese Big Deck Warship in the Western Pacific - USNI News
> 
> 
> KUALA LUMPUR – Two U.S. carrier strike groups drilled with the United Kingdom’s Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21) and a Japanese big-deck warship over the weekend in a major naval exercise in the waters off the southeast of Okinawa, Japan. The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org


Doesn't that seem like a very small ship count for 4 carriers?
    Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes? 
 Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes Japanese naval classifications are "interesting". Smaller carriers seem to be coming into favour, you can still fly off the same jet (F35B) and most nations can't afford the larger carriers or to equip them. Plus it spreads out your assets.


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Doesn't that seem like a very small ship count for 4 carriers?
> Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes?
> Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)


I've got a feeling that they didn't count the SSN's attached to the Taskforce.


----------



## Kirkhill

As well, despite Chinese excursions aren't they generally operating under friendly skies?  In those littoral waters they are generally within range of islands that have their own air forces?


----------



## Kirkhill

I think I found an alternate US model for considering the role of the AOPS.

The USN has maintained two Blue Ridge LCCs in service since the 1970s.  They are fleet flagships.

They are much bigger than the AOPS with much larger crews but. like the AOPS they are very lightly armed.  They also don't have much aviation capacity, nor much in the way of boats and other connectors.  In fact I think the AOPS might be comparably equipped if not slightly moreso.







Class and type_Blue Ridge_-class command shipDisplacement19,609 tonsLength634 ft (193.2 m)[2]Beam108 ft (32.9 m)Draft28.9 ft (8.8 m)Propulsion2 boilers, 1 geared turbineSpeed23 knots (43 km/h)Range10,000 nmi (18,520 km)Complement
Crew: 52 officers, 790 enlisted
With command staff: 268 officers, 1,173 enlisted
Armament
2 × Phalanx CIWS guns
2 × 25 mm Bushmaster cannons
8 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Mark 36 SRBOC chaff rockets
Aircraft carried2 × Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk helicoptersAviation facilitiesFlight deck


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt the command ships every sail alone, smack in the middle of the Task Force I suspect.


----------



## JMCanada

A notional Arctic amphibious ship to deploy some 200-300 troops should probably 'recover' [ from the Blue Ridge class ] those cantilever (protruding) davits in order to accommodate not only 3-4 landing craft (LCVPs?) but some SOLAS compliant lifeboats as well,
... I guess.


----------



## Kirkhill

I guess the issue is how secure the waters you are sailing are.  Either "uncontested" waters, like the NWP or the Caribbean, or in the middle of a well protected fleet.

In the meantime - back to thinking about partners for the AOPS and the need for Submarines.  Are they necessary for Canada?

AOPS at both ends of the NWP, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Straits of Juan de Fuca partnered with XLUUVs - 3 months endurance, 3000 miles range, 2 tonnes payload, 8 MUKP - can sit on the seabed indefinitely - no oxygen worries.



> On 16 April (2019) the Ministry of Defence (MOD) released a competition document calling for extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles (XLUUV), which could mark a radical new stage in the evolution of underwater warfare.
> 
> Of course, the Royal Navy already has a number of unmanned underwater vehicles, such as the Remus 600.
> These tend to be torpedo-sized devices, connected via a tether to an operator who works the vehicle by remote control. They are used for jobs such as locating and making safe underwater mines, which are typically brief and carried out relatively short range.
> The new vessels will be very different. For one thing, they will be much bigger, carrying up to two tons of payload. And they will carry out missions lasting up to three months with a range of over 3,000 miles.





> The Royal Navy already has some unmanned underwater vehicles, such as the Remus 600 (Picture: Kraken Robotics).
> *Underwater technology*​Aerial drones like the RAF’s Reapers are always under the supervision of a remote pilot, but radio waves do not work underwater, so the new robot submarines need to work without human assistance.
> They will navigate and avoid obstacles on their own, taking decisions which would normally require the judgement of a human captain.
> 
> 
> In 2016, Boeing launched the Echo Voyager, a 16-metre-long unmanned submarine, the largest ever built.
> Like many manned submarines, it has hybrid diesel-electric power; the diesel is used when surfaced, batteries while submerged.
> Echo Voyager is designed for long-range, long-duration missions. It has successfully completed thousands of hours of sea trials, including one three-month exercise off Southern California.
> Earlier this year, the US Navy ordered four ‘Orca’ XLUUVs from Boeing which are expected to closely resemble Echo Voyager. Lockheed Martin also competed for this contract, and both companies are likely to take in interest in the Royal Navy’s requirements.
> The US Navy ordered four ‘Orca’ XLUUVs from Boeing which are expected to closely resemble Echo Voyager, pictured above (Picture: Boeing).
> *Secret Missions*​The MOD's competition is a Defence and Security Accelerator program to gain a better understanding of the limits and capabilities of autonomous submarines.
> There’s £1m of research & development funding, with another £1.5m for field testing once the basic technology is proved.
> 
> 
> The document lays out three vignettes describing the type of mission the unmanned submarines would carry out.
> These are ‘sneakies’, clandestine operations requiring the sort of stealth and secrecy which the silent service has perfected.
> Even these days, subs still sometimes return flying the skull and crossbones, the sign of a successful mission, with crews unable to discuss what they have been doing or where.
> The Royal Navy has just seven fleet submarines of the Trafalgar and Astute class for such missions across the globe. Unmanned vessels would add extra capacity to carry out more operations in more places at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MOD's competition is a Defence and Security Accelerator program to gain a better understanding of the limits and capabilities of autonomous submarines (Picture: Boeing).
> The first vignette is for covert intelligence gathering.
> This scenario requires the XLUUV to leave its dock and make its way unobserved to the operational area, where it monitors traffic for up to three months.
> It would carry out electronic and optical intelligence gathering using a range of sensors. For example, it might release a tethered sensor to periscope depth to get pictures of passing vessels or activity ashore, or raise an aerial to listen in on radio traffic.
> Even in the age of advanced satellite observation, subs can see things which spy satellites cannot. Although not in constant communication, the XLUUV reports back whenever it spots a ‘vessel of interest’.
> 
> 
> The second vignette is similar but applies specifically to anti-submarine warfare.
> In this scenario, underwater acoustic sensors would be the chief tool for identifying activity.
> An unmanned submarine has an advantage, because it can wait completely silently, with no human movement on board.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear submarines cannot turn off their reactors entirely, so electric subs like the XLUUV also have an edge when it comes to engine noise.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the vignette, when a submarine is spotted, the XLUUV may continue monitoring or may be re-tasked, for example trailing the submarine it has picked up.
> Nuclear submarines cannot turn off their reactors entirely, so electric subs also have an edge when it comes to engine noise (Pictutre: Royal Navy).
> In the third vignette, the XLUUV is sent to covertly deploy a sensor payload to the seabed and recover it sometime later.
> This type of sensor played a key role in the Cold War, keeping one step ahead of the Soviets.
> It might be monitoring shipping, or it might be doing something smarter, such as tapping underwater communication cables.
> *More for Less*​The competition document sets out a 12-month research and development phase, followed by 24 months of testing.
> After that, the decision will be made on whether to proceed with an unmanned underwater force.
> Orca XLUUVs are 175 times cheaper than a new Astute-class submarine (Picture: Royal Navy).
> 
> 
> While robot submarines cannot match manned vessels in many ways, they are certainly cheaper.
> The US Navy is paying just £8 million for each of its new Orca XLUUVs, compared to around £1.4 billion for a new Astute-class submarine, making them 175 times cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> Dropping off a small sensor with a 7,000-ton nuclear-powered manned submarine is like delivering pizzas from a chauffeur-driven limo: the vehicle can certainly do the job well enough, but it may not be the most economical way of doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fleet of XLUUVs could give the Royal Navy vastly more capability for covert operations.
> The robots might also take on tasks like minelaying. This would free up the manned submarines to tackle the more challenging aspects of underwater warfare – such as those that require vessels equipped with missiles and torpedoes which still demand hands-on human control.
Click to expand...










						Frontline Tech: Why Does The Royal Navy Want Huge Unmanned Submarines?
					

This could mark a radical new stage in the evolution of underwater warfare.




					www.forces.net
				




And Canada is already in the hunt.  









						Theseus AUV - International Submarine Engineering
					






					ise.bc.ca


----------



## Maxman1

KevinB said:


> Also is the term "big deck warship" to simply get around the whole JSDF nomenclature aspect with offensive themes?
> Looks like a small escort carrier (relative to the UK and US CV's)



It is, though the JDSF's official term is "multipurpose destroyer," but I think they've pretty much abandoned that and are converting it and the _Kaga_ to full-blown aircraft carriers. I'm a bit surprised they're not going the full SCB-125 route and adding an angled deck and CATOBAR.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Yes Japanese naval classifications are "interesting". Smaller carriers seem to be coming into favour, you can still fly off the same jet (F35B) and most nations can't afford the larger carriers or to equip them. Plus it spreads out your assets.



There's also arguments that the American supercarriers, which are larger with every new class, are excessive for their purpose and capabilities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A video about the AOP's


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Appears they are getting ready to float the future HMCS Max Bernays. According to the The Canadian Warship Group - Canadian Naval History 1600 - present, Boa Barge 37 is in position to take on the vessel to be floated out.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> What I got from the couple of crew I talked to and few I overheard is that they are really excited to be part of this adventure, new ship in class, first Westward circumnavigation of North America by the RCN since 1954.
> 
> The PO2 and I discussed a few things (he been in 20 years, wish I could remember his name, about 6' and fit)
> 
> Comparison of accommodations from the CFP's to the AOP's. He raved about the quality of the accommodations, he was worried that some of the new crew will be shocked when they go over to the CFP's. I think accommodations on the CSC are going to be far more important than the planners realize as that is what will keep people going to sea.
> 
> Talked about the ice trials, I did learn that she is equipped with flume tanks to rock the vessel. He found going through ice really exciting, which I get as I remember my first time steering a ship through ice. He said they did not push the ship to the limit in the trials, which make sense, since I know they used a lot of sensors on the hull and ice to obtain data to build the "Ice profile" for the ship.
> 
> We talked about the crane and the ships cargo capability, the crane was something really new for him and it's capabilities really makes a difference, the ability to load seacans and small vehicles. As I mention he was really happy that they are no longer dependent on shoreside support to load supplies and cargo. They took a Ranger patrol from one community to another, the ship was prepared to transport all their equipment, but the Rangers had already taken care of getting it moved. I think that the Northern Communities, the Rangers, the army and the RCN are going to need sometime to figure how to integrate the capabilities of the AOP's in their plans moving forward, I think it's going to bring more flexibility and opportunities than people realize. It will take time and experiments, but I suspect that the RCN is going to be very busy in the North. I have to wonder if a lesson learned is to consider a Hiab crane on the CSC's to assist in moving supplies to and from the ship?
> 
> He mentioned the armament and I stated that it was the one area where I felt they had missed the mark, we left it at that, I didn't want to spend what little time I had going over it, because I have you guys to argue with anytime I want
> 
> I complimented them on how good the ship looked, I could see how much painting on the sides they had been doing, the ship was looking great, particularly after crossing the Arctic. You really get a sense of how big this vessel is when dockside. The ship certainly has "presence". I got a sense that the ship was comfortable and the workspaces are good. The fact that the RCN felt that a brand new ship was up to the voyage is a credit to the design work and I suspect that Northern Operations are going to be desirable for the crews and officers. All in all I will say the ship and crew are a credit to the RCN (I am aware they doing a PR cruise and won't talk much about the negatives, but I didn't get a sense that the optimism was not forced and it was clear they are proud of their new ship)
> 
> I could not stay long as I had take my daughter to the doctors. I did ask one of the officers to request the PAO to send a poster to our Cadet Hall, hopefully that happens so I can frame it. They mentioned the Margret Brooke is planned to do the same voyage, but finish in Esquimalt. Hopefully when she comes to Vancouver I can arrange a tour for our Navy League Cadets.


There is are three cranes aboard AOPV's, the 20 Tonne can move sea canes on or off the ship


Colin Parkinson said:


> Appears they are getting ready to float the future HMCS Max Bernays. According to the The Canadian Warship Group - Canadian Naval History 1600 - present, Boa Barge 37 is in position to take on the vessel to be floated out.


Yes it has to be done soon before the weather starts to freeze and the barge won't be able to operate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What the reach for the crane with a mid-weight load?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> What the reach for the crane with a mid-weight load?


 3 tonnes at a reach of 7.3 metres, 1 tonne at a reach of 8.4 metres, and 500 kilograms at a maximum outreach of 9.781 metres.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I wasn't aware that the AOPS had a third crane. Where is it located?


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:


> I wasn't aware that the AOPS had a third crane. Where is it located?


Two electric provisions handling cranes are located on 01 Deck, on the port and starboard sides of the ship, at Frame 19. External access to each crane is through a 2.5 metre by 1.4 metre hatch in the side shell which swings outwards and upwards to open. Each crane is a monorail-type system with a retractable boom that operates a trolley and hoist. The crane boom can be extended 2 metres outboard from the side shell when in port to hoist loads with a maximum load of 2 metric tonnes. The lifting range is 10 metres.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Stoker said:


> Two electric provisions handling cranes are located on 01 Deck, on the port and starboard sides of the ship, at Frame 19. External access to each crane is through a 2.5 metre by 1.4 metre hatch in the side shell which swings outwards and upwards to open. Each crane is a monorail-type system with a retractable boom that operates a trolley and hoist. The crane boom can be extended 2 metres outboard from the side shell when in port to hoist loads with a maximum load of 2 metric tonnes. The lifting range is 10 metres.


Thanks for the info. These things really are well appointed vessels and should be a valuable addition everywhere they deploy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile Russian AOP's








						Russia’s New Multirole Arctic Patrol Ships to Feature Cruise Missiles - Naval News
					

The Ivan Papanin-class (Project 23550) multirole icebreaking patrol ships can be armed with Kalibr-K (NATO reporting name: SS-N-27 Sizzler) cruise missiles...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile Russian AOP's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Multirole Arctic Patrol Ships to Feature Cruise Missiles - Naval News
> 
> 
> The Ivan Papanin-class (Project 23550) multirole icebreaking patrol ships can be armed with Kalibr-K (NATO reporting name: SS-N-27 Sizzler) cruise missiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com



We come in pieces


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The future HMCS Max Bernays, has been loaded onto a barge for floating off earlier today.

Also the bridge of HDW on twitter 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451183532148023303


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile Russian AOP's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia’s New Multirole Arctic Patrol Ships to Feature Cruise Missiles - Naval News
> 
> 
> The Ivan Papanin-class (Project 23550) multirole icebreaking patrol ships can be armed with Kalibr-K (NATO reporting name: SS-N-27 Sizzler) cruise missiles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


The stats on the Russia ship look to be impressive, forgetting the fact that it completely outguns us, is it true that it can punch through thicker ice than ours? That displacement is close to 50% greater than the Harry.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> The stats on the Russia ship look to be impressive, forgetting the fact that it completely outguns us, is it true that it can punch through thicker ice than ours? That displacement is close to 50% greater than the Harry.


Our ship was designed to operate in ice experienced in our territory during the period of time specified in our requirements. The Russian Arctic Patrol ship will operate in areas and in the ice encountered in their northern sea route.

Their Arctic Patrol ship is in the water but somewhat delayed due to funding issues, the second one is still being constructed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

3rd one in the water, great news


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1452039493016604673


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HDW departing San Diego


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455206215659700227


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe we should suggest to the USN that they buy the two AOP's allocated to the Coast Guard and use them to patrol the Alaskan Arctic, or sell them the design?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Stoker said:


> Their Arctic Patrol ship is in the water but somewhat delayed due to funding issues, the second one is still being constructed.



If only they had....nuclear icebreakers or something as well as.  Oh wait.

😁


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe we should suggest to the USN that they buy the two AOP's allocated to the Coast Guard and use them to patrol the Alaskan Arctic, or sell them the design?








						Biden Proposes Flat Budget for Coast Guard
					

Biden Proposes Flat Budget for Coast Guard




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
				




USCG is already doing a recapitalization.



			Polar Security Cutter
		


Interestingly there is a lot of joint US/Can technical data sharing etc.

2021

Feb. 23, 2021 - Coast Guard awards task order for Polar Star service life extension contract

Jan. 13, 2021 - Coast Guard awards Polar Star service life extension contract

2020

Dec. 18, 2020 - Coast Guard awards polar security cutter communication management system contract

Aug. 7, 2020 - Coast Guard releases request for information for polar landing craft

2019

Sept. 12, 2019 - Coast Guard establishes PSC Project Resident Office

Aug. 8, 2019 - Polar Security Cutter Integrated Program Office recognized as DHS Program of the Year

July 25, 2019 - Coast Guard acquisition excellence on full display at DHS awards ceremony

April 23, 2019 - Acquisition update: Coast Guard and Navy Integrated Program Office awards polar security cutter detail design and construction contract

2018

March 5, 2018 - RFP released for Coast Guard's heavy polar icebreaker

Feb. 22, 2018 - Polar icebreaker acquisition proceeds to next phase

2017

Oct. 19, 2017 - U.S. Navy releases draft request for proposal for Coast Guard icebreaker design, construction

July 26, 2017 - Coast Guard participates in icebreaker model testing demonstration with DHS, National Research Council Of Canada (NRC)

April 4, 2017 - Acquisition update: Coast Guard releases draft polar icebreaker specifications

Feb. 22, 2017 - Acquisition update: Coast Guard awards multiple contracts for heavy polar icebreaker industry studies

Feb. 9, 2017 - Acquisition update: U.S., Canada governments partner on model and test activities to support heavy polar icebreaker acquisition efforts

2016

Dec. 23, 2016 - Acquisition Update: Coast Guard Requests Quotes For Heavy Polar Icebreaker Industry Studies

Oct. 26, 2016 - Acquisition Update: Coast Guard Releases Request For Information For Heavy Polar Icebreaker Industry Studies

March 17, 2016 - Deep Freeze 2016: Reaching the bottom of the world

Feb. 9, 2016 - Coast Guard To Hold Polar Icebreaker Industry Day March 18

2015

April 20, 2015 - Coast Guard Team Observes Icebreaking Technology In Finland

2014

Nov. 20, 2014 - U.S., Canadian Coast Guards Exchange Polar Icebreaker Acquisition Knowledge


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually a couple of AOP's would fill their gap, that "security Cutter" is closer to our 'Polar Class" icebreaker. we should make that pitch to them, certainly can't hurt.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Actually a couple of AOP's would fill their gap, that "security Cutter" is closer to our 'Polar Class" icebreaker. we should make that pitch to them, certainly can't hurt.


I was a little confused - as the Polar Security Cutter isn't the same program as the Heavy Polar Ice Breaker program.
   The PSC is more of a larger AOPS.

Neat video of the HPIB model being tests at the NRC in St. John's NL








						Heavy Polar Icebreaker Model Testing Underway
					

The U.S. and Canadian governments on Feb. 7, 2017, established a partnership that will enable the U.S. Coast Guard heavy polar icebreaker acquisition program to test and validate potential heavy polar icebreaker design models at Canada's National Research Council in St. John's, Newfoundland.  In...




					www.dvidshub.net


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think they are confused as well, found this:

_The Coast Guard requires six new polar
icebreakers, at least three of which will be
polar security cutters (PSCs), to support the
country’s economic, commercial, maritime
and national security needs. The new PSCs
will be national assets that will ensure
access to both polar regions and be capable
of executing key Coast Guard missions,
including defense readiness; marine
environmental protection; ports, waterways
and coastal security; and search and rescue.
The ships will operate worldwide and
face the range of extreme environmental
conditions found in the polar, tropical and
temperate regions. _


----------



## FSTO

So a little birdie told me today that Irving cut corners with the documentations aspect of the AOPS. It seems that the crew is now crawling about the engineering spaces tracing all the piping and electrical lines since Irving never supplied them. Colour me not shocked at all.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> So a little birdie told me today that Irving cut corners with the documentations aspect of the AOPS. It seems that the crew is now crawling about the engineering spaces tracing all the piping and electrical lines since Irving never supplied them. Colour me not shocked at all.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Actually a couple of AOP's would fill their gap, that "security Cutter" is closer to our 'Polar Class" icebreaker. we should make that pitch to them, certainly can't hurt.


The US military and government departments can't buy foreign manufactured ships.  Jones act and all etc etc.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> So a little birdie told me today that Irving cut corners with the documentations aspect of the AOPS. It seems that the crew is now crawling about the engineering spaces tracing all the piping and electrical lines since Irving never supplied them. Colour me not shocked at all.


Any guesses on whether they'll get any flak from that?  A sternly-worded email perhaps?


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Any guesses on whether they'll get any flak from that?  A sternly-worded email perhaps?


They don't care (Irving) cause they are practically the only game in town.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> So a little birdie told me today that Irving cut corners with the documentations aspect of the AOPS. It seems that the crew is now crawling about the engineering spaces tracing all the piping and electrical lines since Irving never supplied them. Colour me not shocked at all.


This seemed very odd to me.  A large amount of money is tied up in drawings and documentation delivery.  ISI wants to get paid.  So I reached out for more info:

I can say this rumor is incorrect.  HDW has all the electrical and piping drawings they need both paper and electronic.  There were some differences that needed to be corrected but errors crop up between drawing, 3D model, and installation sometimes.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> This seemed very odd to me.  A large amount of money is tied up in drawings and documentation delivery.  ISI wants to get paid.  So I reached out for more info:
> 
> I can say this rumor is incorrect.  HDW has all the electrical and piping drawings they need both paper and electronic.  There were some differences that needed to be corrected but errors crop up between drawing, 3D model, and installation sometimes.


I stand corrected.

But what does it say about Irving that this rumour can be accepted at face value?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> The US military and government departments can't buy foreign manufactured ships.  Jones act and all etc etc.


As I understand the Jones Act, is that it only applies to commercial shipping. I agree that buying a Canadian built ship would be a very hard sell, unless they "leased" them from us until they had a replacement.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> There were some differences that needed to be corrected but errors crop up between drawing, 3D model, and installation sometimes.


ISO 9001 would say that isn't possible


----------



## Underway

I wish ISO or Class was a documentation standard instead of a manufacturing/build standard respectively. Instructions on how to assemble things like new kitchen fittings would be so much easier to read... lol


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> This seemed very odd to me.  A large amount of money is tied up in drawings and documentation delivery.  ISI wants to get paid.  So I reached out for more info:
> 
> I can say this rumor is incorrect.  HDW has all the electrical and piping drawings they need both paper and electronic.  There were some differences that needed to be corrected but errors crop up between drawing, 3D model, and installation sometimes.


When I originally saw the "rumour" and knowing how documentation is handled as part of the TDP I treated it just like l any other rumour in regards to this class of ship as BS.  Ships staff having to trace systems because there's no drawings, sure


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> When I originally saw the "rumour" and knowing how documentation is handled as part of the TDP I treated it just like l any other rumour in regards to this class of ship as BS.  Ships staff having to trace systems because there's no drawings, sure


I completely forgot about the training aspect.  AOPS has online courses with all the system diagrams as part of their reference documentation for the course.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> I completely forgot about the training aspect.  AOPS has online courses with all the system diagrams as part of their reference documentation for the course.


That's right as well. Didn't take long for all the non engineering types to jump on the bandwagon though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> That's right as well. Didn't take long for all the non engineering types to jump on the bandwagon though.


Likely as we have all lived a reality where such things have happened and it's very much in the realm of possibility. I used to get calls at my office where companies were trying to figure out what they owned and what it looked like, because people throw out stuff like plans, approvals, technical manuals on a regular basis.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> This seemed very odd to me.  A large amount of money is tied up in drawings and documentation delivery.  ISI wants to get paid.  So I reached out for more info:
> 
> I can say this rumor is incorrect.  HDW has all the electrical and piping drawings they need both paper and electronic.  There were some differences that needed to be corrected but errors crop up between drawing, 3D model, and installation sometimes.


 The quality and layout is awful, and the drawings are effectively unusable. HVAC symbols on a PI&D? Things clustered together so close that you can't see them? CFTOs that are mostly glossy brochures for tech data in a pdf? Yup.

The ones I've tried to decipher are frankly quite shit, and I would have failed grade 9 drafting for submitting them. The electrical ones are okay, but the mechanical ones are useless. Feel sorry for Thales who is supposed to be supporting the 2nd line work with this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> The quality and layout is awful, and the drawings are effectively unusable. HVAC symbols on a PI&D? Things clustered together so close that you can't see them? CFTOs that are mostly glossy brochures for tech data in a pdf? Yup.
> 
> The ones I've tried to decipher are frankly quite shit, and I would have failed grade 9 drafting for submitting them. The electrical ones are okay, but the mechanical ones are useless. Feel sorry for Thales who is supposed to be supporting the 2nd line work with this.


Sounds like drawings created by Engineers.  Their drawing skills are often on a par with their ability to write a paragraph.

Oh for the days where draughtsmen worked on vellum.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Sounds like drawings created by Engineers.  Their drawing skills are often on a par with their ability to write a paragraph.
> 
> Oh for the days where draughtsmen worked on vellum.


Nah, it's drawings created by people who will never have to use them that 'meet the contract requirement', and not calling up the prescriptive CFTO on drawing and publications because 'commercial rules work better'.  I should be able to look at a drawing, identify the part and figure out what is fitted.

Hilariously mutliple thread types seem to be used on the same system, so is a weird mix of metric, NPT and BPT, depending on where the OEM is from.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> Nah, it's drawings created by people who will never have to use them that 'meet the contract requirement', and not calling up the prescriptive CFTO on drawing and publications because 'commercial rules work better'.  I should be able to look at a drawing, identify the part and figure out what is fitted.
> 
> Hilariously mutliple thread types seem to be used on the same system, so is a weird mix of metric, NPT and BPT, depending on where the OEM is from.


I love the 6mm air line in the 1/4" NPT fitting on the US made  DIN standard valve with BSP threads.


----------



## lenaitch

Underway said:


> I wish ISO or Class was a documentation standard instead of a manufacturing/build standard respectively. Instructions on how to assemble things like new kitchen fittings would be so much easier to read... lol


Meaning every manufacturer would need ISO-trained translators.  Maybe engineers should take the lead of Ikea and just use pictograms and little stick people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:


> Meaning every manufacturer would need ISO-trained translators.  Maybe engineers should take the lead of Ikea and just use pictograms and little stick people.


and every AOP's would then come with this


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> and every AOP's would then come with this


And you’d end up having a few extras, and wondering what you missed along the way 😐😕

“Does it collapse right away?  No?  Awesome, good enough!”  


Not sure the AOPS should be built with the same magical fairy dust most of my furniture is held together by 😉🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## Maxman1

Stoker said:


> That's right as well. Didn't take long for all the non engineering types to jump on the bandwagon though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I noticed the RCN was there in regards to personal, hopefully next year a AOP's can also be part of the exercise. CCG and USCG conduct Arctic SAR exercise.









						Did you know that we recently trained with the U.S. Coast Guard in the Arctic?  Our Commissioner, Mario Pelletier, joined our crew members on CCGS... | By Canadian Coast Guard | Facebook
					

6.1K views, 218 likes, 26 loves, 7 comments, 58 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Canadian Coast Guard: Did you know that we recently trained with the U.S. Coast Guard in the Arctic?  Our...




					fb.watch


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A history lesson on the RCN and the Arctic and a reminder of what the RCN accomplished.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The future #HMCSMargaretBrooke heads out today for sea trials. The ship’s company is looking forward to driving the ship and testing how the ship functions at sea. #DYK? MARGARET BROOKE is the 2nd Arctic & Offshore Patrol Vessel delivered to the 
@RoyalCanNavy, in July 2021


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462825772205453320


----------



## calculus

Official GC announcement re. TRAPS deployment in Arctic aboard HMCS Harry DeWolf: Navy News | New sonar system tested aboard Harry DeWolf

I wonder how capable this system is? Could the plan be to use these as sonar picket ships for sub detection at the _approaches_ to our Arctic waters? If so, the next question would be what would we be capable of doing to deter an incursion?


----------



## KevinB

calculus said:


> If so, the next question would be what would we be capable of doing to deter an incursion?


A very polite passive aggressively worded letter...


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> A very polite passive aggressively worded letter...


…with a meandering, super-woke intro…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> …with a meandering, super-woke intro…


and a selfie with a link to JT's instagram


----------



## Eye In The Sky

calculus said:


> If so, the next question would be what would we be capable of doing to deter an incursion?


 😁


----------



## NavyShooter

Well, seeing as the AOPS has no fitted ASW weapons, the two options that I would see are:

1 - Fly in a Cyclone with torps, leave the torps on the helo, launch the helo from the AOPS to drop torps on the sub

2 - AOPS Calls in an Aurora, who drops torps


----------



## Good2Golf

NavyShooter said:


> Well, seeing as the AOPS has no fitted ASW weapons, the two options that I would see are:
> 
> 1 - Fly in a Cyclone with torps, leave the torps on the helo, launch the helo from the AOPS to drop torps on the sub
> 
> 2 - AOPS Calls in an Aurora, who drops torps


 
Certainly supports a multi-static detect element to the detect-recognize-identify-prosecute chain…as long as it’s still afloat/operational.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> …with a meandering, super-woke intro…


Let's not forget those pronouns and official killer signature block


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NavyShooter said:


> Well, seeing as the AOPS has no fitted ASW weapons, the two options that I would see are:
> 
> 1 - Fly in a Cyclone with torps, leave the torps on the helo, launch the helo from the AOPS to drop torps on the sub



Time-of-year dependent, of course...below certain temps, this likely won't work.  I'd change 'fly in a Cyclone' to "AOPS with an ASW tail deploy with a MH embarked.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> Well, seeing as the AOPS has no fitted ASW weapons, the two options that I would see are:
> 
> 1 - Fly in a Cyclone with torps, leave the torps on the helo, launch the helo from the AOPS to drop torps on the sub
> 
> 2 - AOPS Calls in an Aurora, who drops torps


Or Option 3; do SFA, and stay fat, dumb and happy in our ignorance of the ASW picture in the Artic.

If AOPs is aware of a sub in the area, it's probably by accident.  If anything is going to do something about a sub, it won't be the non-combatant. Showing the flag is one thing NCs can do, prosecuting a sub is a hard core combatant function (with support from other combat assets, possibly lead by other subs).

Trying to pretend AOPs is something it's not just because it's gray is a great way to ignore the stuff it can do well (like break ice).  How about we get proficient at what AOPS is good at instead of trying to make it do things it can't do at all? ASW is not even within the same galaxy as the AOPS CONOPS, and all they would be is an easy target.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'll observe that tail ops can be a very useful tool to expand maritime situational awareness, and not just of submarines.  Surface ships, small fast moving contacts, etc, all have distinct acoustic signatures, and sometimes a SONAR system can detect things beyond RADAR range.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Or Option 3; do SFA, and stay fat, dumb and happy in our ignorance of the ASW picture in the Artic.
> 
> If AOPs is aware of a sub in the area, it's probably by accident.  If anything is going to do something about a sub, it won't be the non-combatant. Showing the flag is one thing NCs can do, prosecuting a sub is a hard core combatant function (with support from other combat assets, possibly lead by other subs).
> 
> Trying to pretend AOPs is something it's not just because it's gray is a great way to ignore the stuff it can do well (like break ice).  How about we get proficient at what AOPS is good at instead of trying to make it do things it can't do at all? ASW is not even within the same galaxy as the AOPS CONOPS, and all they would be is an easy target.


As far as I know there is no plans to put these payloads on the Kingston Class or AOPS and I'm fairly certain we don't actually own the payload. This was simply a demonstration in Arctic conditions that's all.  My ship embarked the payload several years ago for initial trials just as from time to time embarked other experimental payloads as proof of concept. It is a pretty nice piece of kit regardless if you agree with it or not.
The way I look at it is that it gives us possible options in the future. CONOPS for this class of ship reminds me of the original for the Kingston Class and we saw how that has evolved over the years as with many other classes. We are far away from having this capability on non combatants on a regular basis.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> A very polite passive aggressively worded letter...


Funnily enough, in ASW the fact you sent a letter detailing the location of the submarine would be good enough. Oh BTW we are tracking your subs.  Take a hike hoser!


----------



## AirDet

NavyShooter said:


> Well, seeing as the AOPS has no fitted ASW weapons, the two options that I would see are:
> 
> 1 - Fly in a Cyclone with torps, leave the torps on the helo, launch the helo from the AOPS to drop torps on the sub
> 
> 2 - AOPS Calls in an Aurora, who drops torps


The reality is a surface ship's only reason for existence is to serve as an airport so the helo can do the real work. ;-)


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:


> The reality is a surface ship's only reason for existence is to serve as an airport so the helo can do the real work. ;-)


In ASW not gonna get much argument from me on this.  Helo is much better at this job than the ship usually is.


----------



## AirDet

I wrote that hoping to rekindle the same sort of "discussions" we have while underway. However, the new helo makes an amazing force multiplier for any surface ship.


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:


> I wrote that hoping to rekindle the same sort of "discussions" we have while underway. However, the new helo makes an amazing force multiplier for any surface ship.


Oh was that your goal?  I though you hadn't gotten 8hrs yet so was going to leave you alone...  🍻


----------



## Maxman1

Maybe we could glue some Mk 32 torpedo launchers on the deck.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As a surface ship with modern up to date tail, if you left a submarine get close enough to you to use your shipboard Mk 32's, you have let that sub come way way way too close to you.

In fact,  I would think that in a one on one encounter where I did not have an onboard deployable helo, my solution would be to bug off from the datum as fast as I can. In such encounter, the surface ship's chances of survival are pretty slim.

Just like depth charges, hedgehog, squid and limbo have gone the way of the Dodos, the on board Mk 32 are quickly getting to be just extra storage for torpedoes you can load on your helo when necessary. I jest ... but barelly.


----------



## calculus

Interesting article. Some mention of listening for submarines in the Arctic - apparently none detected. 









						Canada’s ice-breaking warship in Norfolk after trip through the Arctic
					

“We made it from Halifax to Vancouver on one tank of gas”




					www.dailypress.com


----------



## dimsum

calculus said:


> Interesting article. Some mention of listening for submarines in the Arctic - apparently none detected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s ice-breaking warship in Norfolk after trip through the Arctic
> 
> 
> “We made it from Halifax to Vancouver on one tank of gas”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailypress.com


That's what _they_ want you to think


----------



## lenaitch

_"A big ship — significantly larger than the frigates that comprise a major part of Canadian naval forces"_

???

No doubt some here will discuss the "warship" label, as well as the comparative ASW capabilities between an AOPS and Frigate.


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> _"A big ship — significantly larger than the frigates that comprise a major part of Canadian naval forces"_
> 
> ???
> 
> No doubt some here will discuss the "warship" label, as well as the comparative ASW capabilities between an AOPS and Frigate.


They are not wrong.  It's about 2000 tons heavier.  If a US flavour article wants to call it a warship I'm fine with that.


----------



## Good2Golf

To be fair, it’s big and grey/gray and has a gun on it. 👍🏼


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> To be fair, it’s big and grey/gray and has a gun on it. 👍🏼



It's the Navy version of people calling anything that has tracks and looks "army" a "tank".  Even if it is really just an MICV...not that I ever point that out to Mrs EITS during the news or movies...much to her enjoyment...


----------



## TacticalTea

calculus said:


> Interesting article. Some mention of listening for submarines in the Arctic - apparently none detected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s ice-breaking warship in Norfolk after trip through the Arctic
> 
> 
> “We made it from Halifax to Vancouver on one tank of gas”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailypress.com








						HMCS Harry DeWolf transits Northwest Passage, tests ASW towed sonar – Canadian Naval Review
					

By Timothy Choi, 1 October 2021 On 1 October, 2021, HMCS Harry DeWolf, first-of-class of the Arctic & Offshore Patrol Vessels, arrived in Vancouver following its 10,050 km long journey from Halifax via the Northwest Passage - the first RCN vessel to do so since HMCS Labrador in 1954.




					www.navalreview.ca
				




It's been public knowledge for some time.

I can't confirm or deny any sub detections.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TacticalTea said:


> HMCS Harry DeWolf transits Northwest Passage, tests ASW towed sonar – Canadian Naval Review
> 
> 
> By Timothy Choi, 1 October 2021 On 1 October, 2021, HMCS Harry DeWolf, first-of-class of the Arctic & Offshore Patrol Vessels, arrived in Vancouver following its 10,050 km long journey from Halifax via the Northwest Passage - the first RCN vessel to do so since HMCS Labrador in 1954.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalreview.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been public knowledge for some time.
> 
> I can't confirm or deny any sub detections.


Clearly subterfuge at work here.

Peak ASWing would be detecting a sub and then transmitting to them "Hello, we been trying to reach you about your car warranty" in their native language.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> Clearly subterfuge at work here.
> 
> Peak ASWing would be detecting a sub and then transmitting to them "Hello, we been trying to reach you about your car warranty" in their native language.


…we could offer them guided tours of Montana?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One ping for Montana
Two ping for car warranty


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> …we could offer them guided tours of Montana?


----------



## calculus

Nice little write-up in USNI. Seems to be a fair bit of international interest in this class. 

Interesting comments re. the fuel efficiency. I wonder if the class is exceeding expectations in this regard? The published range is 6800 nautical miles at "cruise" speed (which I think is 14 knots), though I would think that would be in open water, not bashing through ice.









						New Royal Canadian Navy Offshore Patrol Vessel Visits Norfolk After Circumnavigating North America - USNI News
					

Canada’s newest Arctic and offshore patrol ship stopped in Virginia last week after finishing a circumnavigation of North American for its first deployment. During the visit, the commander of HMCS Harry DeWolf‘s (AOPV 430) jokingly boasted that it sailed from Halifax, Nova Scotia through the...




					news.usni.org


----------



## Stoker

calculus said:


> Nice little write-up in USNI. Seems to be a fair bit of international interest in this class.
> 
> Interesting comments re. the fuel efficiency. I wonder if the class is exceeding expectations in this regard? The published range is 6800 nautical miles at "cruise" speed (which I think is 14 knots), though I would think that would be in open water, not bashing through ice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Royal Canadian Navy Offshore Patrol Vessel Visits Norfolk After Circumnavigating North America - USNI News
> 
> 
> Canada’s newest Arctic and offshore patrol ship stopped in Virginia last week after finishing a circumnavigation of North American for its first deployment. During the visit, the commander of HMCS Harry DeWolf‘s (AOPV 430) jokingly boasted that it sailed from Halifax, Nova Scotia through the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org


They carry over 700 cums of fuel and I know they topped up in Nuuk. MCDV can go 6000 nm on 160 cums. Given the size of the ship I suppose that's good efficiency.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> They carry over 700 cums of fuel and I know they topped up in Nuuk. MCDV can go 6000 nm on 160 cums. Given the size of the ship I suppose that's good efficiency.


700 cums?  You really need to get those pumps fixed, spurting all over the place like that.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:


> 700 cums?  You really need to get those pumps fixed, spurting all over the place like that.


Auto mis direct rides again or against or something else utterly unrelated....


----------



## dimsum

GK .Dundas said:


> Auto mis direct rides again or against or something else utterly unrelated....


Cubic meters.  It's the unit of measurement.  Don't ask me why - ask @Stoker.


----------



## AirDet

Good2Golf said:


> To be fair, it’s big and grey/gray and has a gun on it. 👍🏼


What gun? Is that what you've calling that useless thing on the bow?


----------



## Underway

It always drives me crazy that measurement.  Proper math is meters cubed (m^3) not cubic meters.  Which would be mecs if you wanted to short-form it.  _sigh_


----------



## KevinB

I thought Navies measure fuel burn in tons?
   Or is that just non Metric Navies (I mean the USN)...


----------



## Underway

Coal is in tons.  But we haven't used that in a loooong time (despite the obvious age of the fleet).  Much easier to measure volume.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Much easier to measure volume.


So I am surprised you don't use tons 
Oh there must be a harder stupider way is only for the Army?


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> It always drives me crazy that measurement.  Proper math is meters cubed (m^3) not cubic meters.  Which would be mecs if you wanted to short-form it.  _sigh_


That's because cums sounds funny, if your mental age is 12.


----------



## GK .Dundas

dimsum said:


> That's because cums sounds funny, if your mental age is 12.


Hey! You do know that I am standing here....


----------



## TacticalTea

AirDet said:


> What gun? Is that what you've calling that useless thing on the bow?


I would say it responds to the identified requirements as per the concept of use.

Namely, to deter, disable, and soften an uncooperative vessel prior to a boarding supported by the embarked _air det_.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> It always drives me crazy that measurement.  Proper math is meters cubed (m^3) not cubic meters.  Which would be mecs if you wanted to short-form it.  _sigh_


You could always add 3 zeros and call it liters.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

TacticalTea said:


> I would say it responds to the identified requirements as per the concept of use.
> 
> Namely, to deter, disable, and soften an uncooperative vessel prior to a boarding supported by the embarked _air det_.



Oh look...there it isn't!!  😁


----------



## Good2Golf

AirDet said:


> What gun? Is that what you've calling that useless thing on the bow?


Mk.38 Mod 3 seems just fine for the USN…those aren’t insignificant ships it’s on…


> Installed aboard CG, CVN, DDG, LSD, LHD, LHA, LCC, MK VI, PC, OSV, AS and USCG FRC class ships and planned for installation aboard USCG OPC and WMEC class cutters, the MK 38 MGS is a low cost, stabilized self-defense weapon system that dramatically improves ships' self-defense capabilities.


----------



## dimsum

AirDet said:


> What gun? Is that what you've calling that useless thing on the bow?


The AOPS isn't supposed to be a combatant - it's not meant to duke it out with other warships.  

No one complained when the Tankers didn't (and future ones won't) have 57mm or 76mm guns.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> The AOPS isn't supposed to be a combatant - it's not meant to duke it out with other warships.
> 
> No one complained when the Tankers didn't (and future ones won't) have 57mm or 76mm guns.


If I had my way the JSS wouldn't even have CIWS


----------



## calculus

A bit more on HDW's maiden voyage, featuring some perspectives from an embarked USN exchange officer: 









						U.S. Navy Officer Completes Maiden Deployment of Newest Royal Canadian Navy Ship
					

A U.S. Navy surface warfare officer returned to Naval Station Norfolk after deploying aboard the Royal Canadian Navy’s newest ship, Dec. 9.




					www.dvidshub.net


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> No one complained when the Tankers didn't (and future ones won't) have 57mm or 76mm guns.


I did


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> No one complained when the Tankers didn't (and future ones won't) have 57mm or 76mm guns.


If I didn't I should have. 

Every Navy ship should be armed - some much more than others - but at a minimum a self defence capability that should encompass potential threats.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> If I had my way the JSS wouldn't even have CIWS


You must be really glad I am not the CRCN 
   I'd have folks out welding weapons everywhere - that life boat -- yeah mount a C6 to it.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> You must be really glad I am not the CRCN
> I'd have folks out welding weapons everywhere - that life boat -- yeah mount a C6 to it.


So, a "death boat" then.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> So, a "death boat" then.


Self Defense provisions for the Life Boat was my original intent -- but I like where your going -- Death Boat it is


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> If I didn't I should have.
> 
> Every Navy ship should be armed - some much more than others - but at a minimum a self defence capability that should encompass potential threats.
> 
> 🍻


Every navy ship should be equipped properly to do its task.  If it's not a fighting task then it doesn't need weapons.  Particularly when said weapons get in the way of it doing its task properly.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Every navy ship should be equipped properly to do its task.  If it's not a fighting task then it doesn't need weapons.  Particularly when said weapons get in the way of it doing its task properly.


Clear it was given the wrong task then 

In all seriousness - what task would weapons get in the way of that the RCN would undertake?


----------



## Underway

Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs.  More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.

AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO.  And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.

Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines.  Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.

🧂🧂


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs.  More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.


Okay I see your point there.



Underway said:


> AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO.  And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.


AOR is a fleet support ship?


Underway said:


> Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines.  Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.
> 
> 🧂🧂


What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
  How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew?   Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?


----------



## AmmoTech90

KevinB said:


> What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
> How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew?   Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?


That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at.  Also, as it's a barge with very limited sea handling, we aren't going to give any engineer units anything but school buses to move around in even when not hooked up to a Leopard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs.  More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.
> 
> AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO.  And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.
> 
> Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines.  Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.
> 
> 🧂🧂


That is a sign that your trades are under strength, I suspect that every ship is going to have to contribute to their own defense in the next few conflicts. We don't have enough ships to escort every AOR as they go back and forth to resupply to support a sustained operation. there are weapon and self defense systems coming on line that were not available even a few years ago. I expect to see on AOR's, laser based weapons for self defense. Potentially UAV to attack small craft or autonomously hunt subs or attempt to suppress their activities.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
> How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew? Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?


I'd hate to be in a FFG/DDG purposely going into a potential minefield.


----------



## KevinB

AmmoTech90 said:


> That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at.  Also, as it's a barge with very limited sea handling, we aren't going to give any engineer units anything but school buses to move around in even when not hooked up to a Leopard.


Okay just was curious 


dimsum said:


> I'd hate to be in a FFG/DDG purposely going into a potential minefield.


I'd hate to be anyone in anything doing that...
   UAV/RPV work from a far would be my goal.


----------



## AirDet

TacticalTea said:


> I would say it responds to the identified requirements as per the concept of use.
> 
> Namely, to deter, disable, and soften an uncooperative vessel prior to a boarding supported by the embarked _air det_.


Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.


----------



## Stoker

AirDet said:


> Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.


So the hundreds of MK 38 mounts at sea today on ships in 15 navies are a useless toy? Sorry I disagree.


----------



## Kirkhill

AirDet said:


> Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.



Soft-Sided Vehicle?  Doesn't that describe pretty much every bridge ever?  It certainly describes most civvy bridges and pilot houses I have seen.


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:


> Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.


You have no idea what you are talking about if you think a 25mm is a toy suitable for killing soft sided vehicles.  50 cals kill soft sided vehicles. 

When have you seen a civilian ship recently that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 or higher? There isn't one. 

When have you seen a modern military ship that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 our higher?  There isn't one (though NATO armoured magazines and hangars for carriers may be).

Having fired a 25mm from a LAV (in training) and having seen what it can do to armored targets (in training) as well as buildings (not in training) and the soft people inside of those buildings (not in training) I have no doubt it will have no issues dealing with whatever targets that an AOPS is likely to come across.  Targets such as illegal fishermen, polluters, drug runners, refugee ships, and various others.  For that matter, a 50 cal has proven its more than good enough for the same in the 25ish years the MCDVs were doing the same job..


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AmmoTech90 said:


> That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at.



Well.  Now someone in NDHQ will read this and “surprise!!!”, guess what new role the PRes Engr Sqn’s are going to be gifted in 2022??


----------



## Maxman1

KevinB said:


> You must be really glad I am not the CRCN
> I'd have folks out welding weapons everywhere - that life boat -- yeah mount a C6 to it.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about if you think a 25mm is a toy suitable for killing soft sided vehicles.  50 cals kill soft sided vehicles.
> 
> When have you seen a civilian ship recently that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 or higher? There isn't one.
> 
> When have you seen a modern military ship that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 our higher?  There isn't one (though NATO armoured magazines and hangars for carriers may be).
> 
> Having fired a 25mm from a LAV (in training) and having seen what it can do to armored targets (in training) as well as buildings (not in training) and the soft people inside of those buildings (not in training) I have no doubt it will have no issues dealing with whatever targets that an AOPS is likely to come across.  Targets such as illegal fishermen, polluters, drug runners, refugee ships, and various others.  For that matter, a 50 cal has proven its more than good enough for the same in the 25ish years the MCDVs were doing the same job..


25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
   AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...

While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.


----------



## AirDet

KevinB said:


> I did


The tankers had two CWIS. Originally they had and AD turret with twin guns and a missile deck for ManPADS. I'm not saying the AOPS and AORs should be armed like a frigate. I'm just saying they operate often by themselves. As such they need to be able to protect themselves. CIWS at a minimum should be part of all our ships.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> 25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
> AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...
> 
> While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.


Hence why they’re ancillary close in self-protection on Ticonderoga, Nimitz, Ford, OHP, etc……. 😉


----------



## Good2Golf

AirDet said:


> The tankers had two CWIS. Originally they had and AD turret with twin guns and a missile deck for ManPADS. I'm not saying the AOPS and AORs should be armed like a frigate. I'm just saying they operate often by themselves. As such they need to be able to protect themselves. CIWS at a minimum should be part of all our ships.


Why not the seacan 16-pack of ESSM?


----------



## AirDet

KevinB said:


> 25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
> AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...
> 
> While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.


Actually, you've made my point. This weapon is more suitable on and APC/LAV/etc not a warship. It can't be used for missile defense, nor would it provide any form of intimidation for another ship. 

I'm not a naval tactician but I was an armorer. Therefore I look at weapons systems pragmatically. This system has zero compatibility to the design concept of this ship. We'd be better off just removing it.


----------



## AirDet

Good2Golf said:


> Why not the seacan 16-pack of ESSM?


The Danish have a great system whereby you can change out the weapon system for the mission, StanFlex. The systems StanFlex - Wikipedia can include 76mm, AD missile kits, etc. Personally, I think we would've been better off incorporating this feature into the AOPS rather than that pop gun it came with.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One reason I like the 57mm for the AOP's is it out reaches by a fair margin most of the things the non-State actors will point at it. It brings a good AD system using the programmable fuze feature against drones, loitering munitions and older Anti-ship missiles. It's also in our system and would allow crew to carry over their training from AOP-Halifaxes. It has minimal deck penetration as well. It would likely mean a major rejig of the magazine and Combat systems and some weight distribution.


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> You must be really glad I am not the CRCN
> I'd have folks out welding weapons everywhere - that life boat -- yeah mount a C6 to it.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1464303788026732549
This should please you. 

Officially, those are the Harry's "Multi-role *Rescue* Boats".


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> One reason I like the 57mm for the AOP's is it out reaches by a fair margin most of the things the non-State actors will point at it. It brings a good AD system using the programmable fuze feature against drones, loitering munitions and older Anti-ship missiles. It's also in our system and would allow crew to carry over their training from AOP-Halifaxes. It has minimal deck penetration as well. It would likely mean a major rejig of the magazine and Combat systems and some weight distribution.


The 57mm's are likely to go where the 76mm went from the 280's and that's back to the factory for credit. We'll just have to face all the swarms of drones from those pesky non state actors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker, laugh all you want, till it happens...

Meanwhile Congrats to the RCN and the crew of HDW for a awesome and safe trip, welcome home!!!


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Stoker, laugh all you want, till it happens...
> 
> Meanwhile Congrats to the RCN and the crew of HDW for a awesome and safe trip, welcome home!!!
> 
> View attachment 67678


As before if we had to worry about all manner of threats out there real or imagined we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin let alone go to the Arctic, Caribbean, Baltic, Africa.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

AirDet said:


> Actually, you've made my point. This weapon is more suitable on and APC/LAV/etc not a warship. It can't be used for missile defense, nor would it provide any form of intimidation for another ship.
> 
> I'm not a naval tactician but I was an armorer. Therefore I look at weapons systems pragmatically. This system has zero compatibility to the design concept of this ship. We'd be better off just removing it.



Comparatively, should they have removed the C6 from the Bison in Afghanistan?  It won’t take out a MBT or anything so…why bother?  

I’m an operator. I look at a weapons system from a “tactical employment” perspective.   I’d take the 25 over “nothing”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Stoker said:


> As before if we had to worry about all manner of threats out there real or imagined we wouldn't leave the Bedford Basin let alone go to the Arctic, Caribbean, Baltic, Africa.....



If you don’t mind me saying, that isn’t much of an argument.   Threats exist;  they must be assessed, risk calculated and a commander assume that risk.  The “meh” argument doesn’t convey that message ….


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:


> If you don’t mind me saying, that isn’t much of an argument.   Threats exist;  they must be assessed, risk calculated and a commander assume that risk.  The “meh” argument doesn’t convey that message ….


I previously stated that before any unit is sent anywhere a comprehensive risk assessment and risk mitigation is done, all I got back from some here was the RCN was inept and would somehow send us into harms way. All I'm saying is that we are in the risk business, its managed and we go. I believe for what we do, we are appropriately equipped and prepared. There are all kinds of things that could happen by chance, no unit can be prepared 100% but if we had to worry about everything we wouldn't go anywhere. Like any CAF deployment its always inherently risky.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> I previously stated that before any unit is sent anywhere a comprehensive risk assessment and risk mitigation is done, all I got back from some here was the RCN was inept and would somehow send us into harms way.


I don't disagree with you there, but also the CAF has a history of making risk analysis and then sending anyway...
   I don't consider the RCN to be alone there.  CA and RCAF assets have been sent a lot of places without what many would consider appropriate enablers to conduct the mission.


Stoker said:


> All I'm saying is that we are in the risk business, its managed and we go. I believe for what we do, we are appropriately equipped and prepared. There are all kinds of things that could happen by chance, no unit can be prepared 100% but if we had to worry about everything we wouldn't go anywhere. Like any CAF deployment its always inherently risky.


Your original posts IMHO where fairly dismissive of the threats out in the world to Canadian flagged vessels.  I think your last post is a much better summation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> I don't disagree with you there, but also the CAF has a history of making risk analysis and then sending anyway...
> I don't consider the RCN to be alone there.  CA and RCAF assets have been sent a lot of places without what many would consider appropriate enablers to conduct the mission.
> Your original posts IMHO where fairly dismissive of the threats out in the world to Canadian flagged vessels.  I think your last post is a much better summation.



This; exactly this.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> I don't disagree with you there, but also the CAF has a history of making risk analysis and then sending anyway...
> I don't consider the RCN to be alone there.  CA and RCAF assets have been sent a lot of places without what many would consider appropriate enablers to conduct the mission.
> 
> Your original posts IMHO where fairly dismissive of the threats out in the world to Canadian flagged vessels.  I think your last post is a much better summation.


Sorry I just don't see that in regards to where we send RCN assets. If your suggesting we are intentionally sending our ships into harms way regardless of the risk which they can't handle I don't agree.   Just tired of seeing posts about why the ships are armed the way they are over and over again.


----------



## GR66

There was an interesting comment made on one of RUSI's Western Way of War podcasts (Episode 71:  Alessio Patalano: The Evolution of Warfare at Sea) which basically noted that the roles and requirements of a peacetime navy are quite different than the roles and requirements of a wartime navy and that all navies struggle to find that balance.

I think that perfectly describes the discussions we're seeing on this thread.  AOPS and the MCDVs are quite suitably armed for their roles in a peacetime Navy.  The roles they fulfill as non-combatant Navy vessels are very important to the political goals of Canada at peace and quite possibly some of those roles may not be politically suitable for a heavily armed warship.  Most of those roles would also be significantly more expensive to be performed by combatant vessels as well (with many possible knock-on effects from that as well).

What we're seeing now is a period of heightened tensions globally where our thoughts are shifting further away from the requirements of our peacetime Navy and more to our potential need for a wartime Navy.  That naturally means that we're questioning the mix we have of combatant vs non-combatant vessels in our fleet as well as the suitability of some of our vessels for a conflict.  The balance becomes more difficult to find when you're dealing with a Navy as small as ours.

My personal opinion is that:

Our Navy is too small in the first place (for either peacetime or wartime) for the size of our maritime domain and the role we profess to play in the world.
With the potential for armed conflict seemingly increasing we need to (rapidly) begin shifting more toward a wartime (combatant heavy) Navy than the mix we currently have.
We should be more thoughtful in our planning in the future by taking advantage of modularity, etc. in order to be able to up-arm (and down-arm) our ships in order to more quickly shift the peacetime-wartime balance of our fleet.  Building completely new ships to face a changing environment simply takes too long (and is too expensive) and likely won't be quick enough to meet a suddenly changing need.


----------



## Stoker

GR66 said:


> There was an interesting comment made on one of RUSI's Western Way of War podcasts (Episode 71:  Alessio Patalano: The Evolution of Warfare at Sea) which basically noted that the roles and requirements of a peacetime navy are quite different than the roles and requirements of a wartime navy and that all navies struggle to find that balance.
> 
> I think that perfectly describes the discussions we're seeing on this thread.  AOPS and the MCDVs are quite suitably armed for their roles in a peacetime Navy.  The roles they fulfill as non-combatant Navy vessels are very important to the political goals of Canada at peace and quite possibly some of those roles may not be politically suitable for a heavily armed warship.  Most of those roles would also be significantly more expensive to be performed by combatant vessels as well (with many possible knock-on effects from that as well).
> 
> What we're seeing now is a period of heightened tensions globally where our thoughts are shifting further away from the requirements of our peacetime Navy and more to our potential need for a wartime Navy.  That naturally means that we're questioning the mix we have of combatant vs non-combatant vessels in our fleet as well as the suitability of some of our vessels for a conflict.  The balance becomes more difficult to find when you're dealing with a Navy as small as ours.
> 
> My personal opinion is that:
> 
> Our Navy is too small in the first place (for either peacetime or wartime) for the size of our maritime domain and the role we profess to play in the world.
> With the potential for armed conflict seemingly increasing we need to (rapidly) begin shifting more toward a wartime (combatant heavy) Navy than the mix we currently have.
> We should be more thoughtful in our planning in the future by taking advantage of modularity, etc. in order to be able to up-arm (and down-arm) our ships in order to more quickly shift the peacetime-wartime balance of our fleet.  Building completely new ships to face a changing environment simply takes too long (and is too expensive) and likely won't be quick enough to meet a suddenly changing need.


I agree. If we somehow become involved with a conflict then there are plenty of tasks the AOPS and MCDV can do in safer areas and close to home and the reason why we have risk assessments based on the current threat. I can't see us ever having excess in ships that we currently have or are planned. Perhaps the smarter thing for us to have done is in addition to the 15 CSC was to have a smaller GP combatant with some with an ice class, a MCM version and offshore patrol with modular payloads.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> Sorry I just don't see that in regards to where we send RCN assets. If your suggesting we are intentionally sending our ships into harms way regardless of the risk which they can't handle I don't agree.   Just tired of seeing posts about why the ships are armed the way they are over and over again.


Many us here are also critical of the army for failing to maintain a viable AD arm, ATGM, mortar, artillery and vehicle fleet. Neither does the RCAF get off from criticisms. Personally I am a big fan of the AOP's in every area except this issue, same with the MCDV.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Many us here are also critical of the army for failing to maintain a viable AD arm, ATGM, mortar, artillery and vehicle fleet. Neither does the RCAF get off from criticisms. Personally I am a big fan of the AOP's in every area except this issue, same with the MCDV.


There's nothing wrong with being critical when it warrants it. The problem that I have is when its not.  That's only my opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:


> There was an interesting comment made on one of RUSI's Western Way of War podcasts (Episode 71:  Alessio Patalano: The Evolution of Warfare at Sea) which basically noted that the roles and requirements of a peacetime navy are quite different than the roles and requirements of a wartime navy and that all navies struggle to find that balance.
> 
> I think that perfectly describes the discussions we're seeing on this thread.  AOPS and the MCDVs are quite suitably armed for their roles in a peacetime Navy.  The roles they fulfill as non-combatant Navy vessels are very important to the political goals of Canada at peace and quite possibly some of those roles may not be politically suitable for a heavily armed warship.  Most of those roles would also be significantly more expensive to be performed by combatant vessels as well (with many possible knock-on effects from that as well).
> 
> What we're seeing now is a period of heightened tensions globally where our thoughts are shifting further away from the requirements of our peacetime Navy and more to our potential need for a wartime Navy.  That naturally means that we're questioning the mix we have of combatant vs non-combatant vessels in our fleet as well as the suitability of some of our vessels for a conflict.  The balance becomes more difficult to find when you're dealing with a Navy as small as ours.
> 
> My personal opinion is that:
> 
> Our Navy is too small in the first place (for either peacetime or wartime) for the size of our maritime domain and the role we profess to play in the world.
> With the potential for armed conflict seemingly increasing we need to (rapidly) begin shifting more toward a wartime (combatant heavy) Navy than the mix we currently have.
> We should be more thoughtful in our planning in the future by taking advantage of modularity, etc. in order to be able to up-arm (and down-arm) our ships in order to more quickly shift the peacetime-wartime balance of our fleet.  Building completely new ships to face a changing environment simply takes too long (and is too expensive) and likely won't be quick enough to meet a suddenly changing need.



I would add that even in peace time, in a low threat environment, there needs to be a plan B.  Plan B doesn't need to be on board.  It can be a supporting asset available as a Quick Reaction Force - either an offensively armed frigate or air cover from national or allied aircraft.


----------



## Spencer100

To reply to early posts.....and stir the pot!  

This would take out the AOPS!  









						Eclipse (yacht) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Crew of Russian Navy and Spetnaz (they serve dinner!) 

Rumored to have more than just LRAD and a missile detection system.  May have an active system too like missiles.  Plus enough small arms to invade a small island.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> I agree. If we somehow become involved with a conflict then there are plenty of tasks the AOPS and MCDV can do in safer areas and close to home and the reason why we have risk assessments based on the current threat. I can't see us ever having excess in ships that we currently have or are planned. Perhaps the smarter thing for us to have done is in addition to the 15 CSC was to have a smaller GP combatant with some with an ice class, a MCM version and offshore patrol with modular payloads.


My concern is the CAF never buys enough capital items to do not dual role tasking.  Thus and as @Kirkhill can't attest I am very critical on any platform that isn't up for a wartime role - or a peacetime role in a contested area.
  - the LAV 6.0 and the CH-146 Griffon get a lot of my axe grinding here - the RCN gets off pretty lightly.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> To reply to early posts.....and stir the pot!
> 
> This would take out the AOPS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eclipse (yacht) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crew of Russian Navy and Spetnaz (they serve dinner!)
> 
> Rumored to have more than just LRAD and a missile detection system.  May have an active system too like missiles.  Plus enough small arms to invade a small island.


I've seen that ship - and the one the owner had before.
   It has both a missile and gun anti-missile systems - and I suspect some more offensive tools as well.
Crew is former Russian Mil - not currently serving (or so claimed  )


----------



## Underway

What everyone is missing is that the RCN isn't a wartime asset.  It's an "all the time" asset.  The army is a "break in case of war" asset.  The airforce is divided neatly into assets for war and assets for everything else and specialized platforms are the way things have always been done for the airforce.

The RCN has and will continually operate in what is essentially a civilian environment with civilian threats almost exclusively within certain areas. The AOPS is one of the specialized vessels that deal with civilian-type problems.  

AOPS isn't the SWAT team, it's the bobby with a nightstick.  Therefore we shouldn't waste money, time, effort in making it something that it's not.  Its a specialized vehicle for a specialized role.

Why am I still arguing this?  Must be a masochist....


----------



## dapaterson

If the RCAF was run like the Army there would be maritime aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing, permanently based in Cold Lake.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and the Canadian Government would never send equipment bought for training/domestic use into a conflict zone.......right?


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> and the Canadian Government would never send equipment bought for training/domestic use into a conflict zone.......right?


The Iltis says hold my beer


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> The Iltis says hold my beer


Cougar laughs at your beer


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Cougar laughs at your beer


Can I get a shout out for the Bison?


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> and the Canadian Government would never send equipment bought for training/domestic use into a conflict zone.......right?


uh...Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel?

Although they didn't specify _which_ coast...


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> The Iltis says hold my beer


I see your Iltis and raise you a LSVW.


----------



## Kirkhill

At the other end of the spectrum - purchased for war but never used

Eryx.


----------



## Maxman1

Spencer100 said:


> To reply to early posts.....and stir the pot!
> 
> This would take out the AOPS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eclipse (yacht) - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crew of Russian Navy and Spetnaz (they serve dinner!)
> 
> Rumored to have more than just LRAD and a missile detection system.  May have an active system too like missiles.  Plus enough small arms to invade a small island.



A squadron of these would take that out.






Just modernize the design with a steel hull, radar that actually works, a 25mm Bushmaster on the bow and make a roll-off launcher for the Mk 48 torpedo.


----------



## Good2Golf

A Mk.48? 😳 

I think a 54 is as big as a PT boat could  carry


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Aussies have launched their OPV recently, interesting is the classes it replace, with a significant size increase. I do like the stern launch options. Mind you at 1,600 tons it's sort of inbetween our MCDV's and AOP's


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Aussies have launched their OPV recently, interesting is the classes it replace, with a significant size increase. I do like the stern launch options. Mind you at 1,600 tons it's sort of inbetween our MCDV's and AOP's


Such a South Pacific ship design.  I really like that ship though. Some interesting thoughts went into it, most will be posted up north to keep an eye on the colonies.... errr smaller islands in Australia's protectorate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and will they make a TV Series about it?


----------



## Maxman1

Good2Golf said:


> A Mk.48? 😳
> 
> I think a 54 is as big as a PT boat could  carry



They originally carried the Mk 8 torpedo, which is 21 feet long and 1,600 pounds, or two feet longer and 1,000 pounds lighter than the Mk 48.


----------



## JMCanada

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Aussies have launched their OPV recently, interesting is the classes it replace, with a significant size increase. I do like the stern launch options. Mind you at 1,600 tons it's sort of inbetween our MCDV's and AOP's


... we know you really like stern ramps.  😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maxman1 said:


> They originally carried the Mk 8 torpedo, which is 21 feet long and 1,600 pounds, or two feet longer and 1,000 pounds lighter than the Mk 48.



Mk48s are a little heavier than 2600lbs.   ADCAP weighs in around 3700 IIRC.


----------



## Maxman1

My bad, the Mk 8 torpedo was 2,600 pounds, not 1,600. I hit the wrong key while typing.


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Aussies have launched their OPV recently, interesting is the classes it replace, with a significant size increase. I do like the stern launch options. Mind you at 1,600 tons it's sort of inbetween our MCDV's and AOP's



I'm still partial to the _Braunschweig_ corvette, with an enlarged hangar for a Cyclone.


----------



## calculus

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Aussies have launched their OPV recently, interesting is the classes it replace, with a significant size increase. I do like the stern launch options. Mind you at 1,600 tons it's sort of inbetween our MCDV's and AOP's


Some problems with that ship already (40mm main gun cancelled): 









						Defence quietly cancels another navy contract – after denying problems
					

The Defence Department cancelled a contract for the main gun for new patrol boats, as cumulative delays exceed more than 33 years for defence projects.




					www.afr.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> Can I get a shout out for the Bison?



I was actually a fan of the Bison;  IIRC they faired pretty well in Somalia (thinking of a pic of one I remember seeing that had a mine strike....).

It was a pretty good mud recce rig.  I never really wanted the 25mm, I'd of rathered really good comms and a few TOWs.


----------



## Kirkhill

For Canadian service, just hauling Militia reaction forces along highways, over broken ground and swimming when absolutely necessary, the Bison is still more than adequate. 13 tonnes light and 15 tonnes loaded. 

Just a go anywhere tin can that floats.  Sounds like just the thing for domestic transport platoons.  

Apparently additional metal is required for war zones now.   Although the USMC are limiting themselves to LAVIII levels at 18.5 tonnes and not going up to the 25 tonnes of the LAV6.0


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder, if you swam it out to the AOPS would they be able to sway it onboard....(silly question to justify keeping this discussion open on the AOPS thread  )


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Weight of a Cougar was 10.7 so no, a coyote perhaps but really pushing the 10 ton crane. Even a TAPV is way to heavy. Now the BVS 10 weighs in around 5-6 tons so it could launch one of them, or better yet, carry the bvs and bridging raft to be used as landing craft. You might be able to get away with 2-3 BVS on the flight deck? (not sure of it's weight limitations) 
So question for the navy lads, what are the flight deck limitations weight wise?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> I wonder, if you swam it out to the AOPS would they be able to sway it onboard....(silly question to justify keeping this discussion open on the AOPS thread  )



Turret surfing competition at the 29 second mark. Lol


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> I wonder, if you swam it out to the AOPS would they be able to sway it onboard....(silly question to justify keeping this discussion open on the AOPS thread  )


What condition are they simulating with the tires removed in the video?


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> So question for the navy lads, what are the flight deck limitations weight wise?


----------



## Good2Golf

That’s LPD 52 - USS PEARL HARBOR, but AOPS is also rated for the Chinook.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> That’s LPD 52 - USS PEARL HARBOR, but AOPS is also rated for the Chinook.


Rated meaning can land and needs to maintain power to reduce weight - or can fully shut down?

The only reason I ask is every pic I see of Hooks on ships outside a Tarawa type they are spinning their blades and it looks like the pilot is trying to keep some sort of lift going.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fully shut down and tied down (airframe to deck, blades to airframe tie downs).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

calculus said:


> Some problems with that ship already (40mm main gun cancelled):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defence quietly cancels another navy contract – after denying problems
> 
> 
> The Defence Department cancelled a contract for the main gun for new patrol boats, as cumulative delays exceed more than 33 years for defence projects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.afr.com


I wonder if because the gun was showcased in 2018, that the requirements for it, were not properly integrated into the design. Perhaps the ship has stability issues and this is the least worse ways to address it? the gun comes from a well known designer?
Leonardo Presents New Marlin 40 Naval Defence System at DIMDEX 2018


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> I wonder if because the gun was showcased in 2018, that the requirements for it, were not properly integrated into the design. Perhaps the ship has stability issues and this is the least worse ways to address it? the gun comes from a well known designer?
> Leonardo Presents New Marlin 40 Naval Defence System at DIMDEX 2018


A gun like that is not going to affect the ships stability. IF you read the article it appears that the integration of the gun was the issue and delays from the guns manufacturer. They looked at the risk and decided it wasn't needed and moved on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The article is a behind a paywall. I know on our 500 class, they had to go on a weight reduction program that include losing fire monitors and having a ships officer and naval architect go around and actually mark everywhere they could cut out steel to reduce top hamper.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> The article is a behind a paywall. I know on our 500 class, they had to go on a weight reduction program that include losing fire monitors and having a ships officer and naval architect go around and actually mark everywhere they could cut out steel to reduce top hamper.


Not really the same at all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's been my experience is that our government builds top heavy ships, so it's a possibility I always consider.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> It's been my experience is that our government builds top heavy ships, so it's a possibility I always consider.


Considering the ship we were talking about is a design produced by a shipyard in a completely different country and a different hull form than the 500 class you mentioned it wasn't a consideration.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get that, but that issue has not been uncommon, nor is attempting to not mention the issue to avoid embarrassment. Did the Germans ever correct the list issue in their frigates?


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> I get that, but that issue has not been uncommon, nor is attempting to not mention the issue to avoid embarrassment. Did the Germans ever correct the list issue in their frigates?


Like I said previously, there is no indication that it was a stability issue. I base that on was stated in the article and the fact such a weapon system is negligible in weight and its position. I base that also on my experience. Of course it could also be that they dropped it because they are embarrassed because it somehow makes the entire ship unstable just like the 950 t 500 class or that it is indeed what the article mentioned.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice bit on the interaction of the HDW and the USCG




__ https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/posts/284725010356504
			




also a little blurb from a USN officer on an exchange program with HDW Navy News | Harry DeWolf exchange: Once-in-a-lifetime experience for U.S. junior officer


----------



## suffolkowner

In focus: the Bofors 40mm Mk 4 gun that will equip the Type 31 frigates | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




a little info on the RN's 40mm


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That has 28 more rds in the ready magazine than the one the Aussies were looking at.


----------



## Underway

They have much more space to do that on a frigate than on a OPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interviews of some of the officers of the HMCS Margaret Brooke


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seems like the RCN made a good choice on the all rank cafeteria.

HMCS Margaret Brooke crew praise new platform ahead of ice trials | Trident Newspaper


----------



## Underway

It's a no-brainer on a ship that size.  The shore office "lunch meeting" is carried over to the ship.  A lot can get done if you have lunch with your department.  A lot of problems can get fixed early when you're able to just have some soup with the LS who seems a bit down that day.


----------



## dapaterson

Are those concepts being carried over to CSC as well?


----------



## Underway

Not that I'm aware of.  Certainly not on the JSS.  Much harder to do on a larger ship.  The messes are separate for a reason. And there really isn't space for messes and a cafeteria.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> The messes are separate for a reason.


But why would they be good for the AOPS but not CSC?  Wouldn't it be good to have soup with the S1 there too, as you said?


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> But why would they be good for the AOPS but not CSC?  Wouldn't it be good to have soup with the S1 there too, as you said?


AOPS is just a big fat civvy ship with limited DC capabilities and no war fighting capabilities. Therefore tons of room to make everyone comfortable (re: civilians going to sea)

CSC? The smoking pit is where you talk to (actually listen to) the killicks!


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> But why would they be good for the AOPS but not CSC?  Wouldn't it be good to have soup with the S1 there too, as you said?


It's primarily a throughput thing; you need so many seats at a table to push through more people in a window, and the size of a single space for 200+ people doesn't work. The size of the cafeteria would be too big for the watertight divisions with all the stuff we jam into a warship.

On top of the smoke area though, the gyms, workout areas are good for that as well, and on a sunny day lots of people take their coffee break on the uppers. Departmentally lot of common spaces, so the MCR etc are all great places to mingle. On the weirdroom side it's a spot to catch up with officers in other departments as well, so you do a lot of coordination over food.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> But why would they be good for the AOPS but not CSC?  Wouldn't it be good to have soup with the S1 there too, as you said?


Messes are separate on the AOPS as well. But unlike other ships, you don't eat your meals in the AOPS messes.  They are basically lounges with an entertainment system, bar, toaster, and snacks. As @Navy_Pete stated the throughput wouldn't work as the number of people is too high for a larger ship cafeteria.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Messes are separate on the AOPS as well. But unlike other ships, you don't eat your meals in the AOPS messes.  They are basically lounges with a bar, toaster, and snacks.  As @Navy_Pete stated the throughput wouldn't work as the number of people is too high.


I believe the intent was to make them like CCG Icebreakers who has the combined cafeteria and separate lounges.


----------



## calculus

Nice little video chronicling some of the highlights of HMCS Harry DeWolf's circumnavigation of NA.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice little video from the home office. How many people will see it?

But, considering it is the first such circumnavigation of North America in quite a while by a canadian governement vessel, why was no ENG team invited with "unpecedented access" (especialy considering nothing really classified was going on) so I would now be watching a six part series of one hour episodes on the CBC or some other Canadian network?

Other countries celebrate their naval achievements, why can't we?


----------



## Spencer100

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Nice little video from the home office. How many people will see it?
> 
> But, considering it is the first such circumnavigation of North America in quite a while by a canadian governement vessel, why was no ENG team invited with "unpecedented access" (especialy considering nothing really classified was going on) so I would now be watching a six part series of one hour episodes on the CBC or some other Canadian network?
> 
> Other countries celebrate their naval achievements, why can't we?


Being on the outside but watching the CAF PR machine. It leaves a lot to be desired.  Second the CBC which should do stuff like this, how do I say their have other agenda items they would like to focus on.  

But if they still were doing mighty ships it would be perfect.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Nice little video from the home office. How many people will see it?
> 
> But, considering it is the first such circumnavigation of North America in quite a while by a canadian governement vessel, why was no ENG team invited with "unpecedented access" (especialy considering nothing really classified was going on) so I would now be watching a six part series of one hour episodes on the CBC or some other Canadian network?
> 
> Other countries celebrate their naval achievements, why can't we?


Because quite frankly NDHQ never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Because if what.passes for Public Affairs actually got their act together and starting reacing out to every news agency and production company in the country, with this sort of material.
You might have people knocking down the doors to recruiting centres and God forbid that
should happen.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Addendum to the above.
It was just that ,that was one of the most beautiful shorts I've seen in a.while.
They really missed a golden opportunity here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's almost heartbreaking to see such opportunities slip by


----------



## Weinie

GK .Dundas said:


> Because quite frankly NDHQ never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
> Because if what.passes for Public Affairs actually got their act together and starting reacing out to every news agency and production company in the country, with this sort of material.
> You might have people knocking down the doors to recruiting centres and God forbid that
> should happen.


Your bias, and interest in this type of coverage is showing in your frustration. You forget that media outlets and production companies are business ventures first and foremost. No media company with any reach would commit the considerable resources, over the period of time required, to film, do post-production, and then market this. It would be a huge loss for them. The niche audience for this is too small.

This is the main reason why PA has internal teams to document these types of Exes/Ops. We then offer it to media agencies. the pick up is meh!

BTW, war is good for recruiting. Not much else we offer motivates a large portion of the population to "knock down the doors."


----------



## Spencer100

Weinie said:


> Your bias, and interest in this type of coverage is showing in your frustration. You forget that media outlets and production companies are business ventures first and foremost. No media company with any reach would commit the considerable resources, over the period of time required, to film, do post-production, and then market this. It would be a huge loss for them. The niche audience for this is too small.
> 
> This is the main reason why PA has internal teams to document these types of Exes/Ops. We then offer it to media agencies. the pick up is meh!
> 
> BTW, war is good for recruiting. Not much else we offer motivates a large portion of the population to "knock down the doors."


Oh but is that not why we spend 1.5 billion for the CBC?  To have Canadian stories told by Canadians.  They don't have a profit case to make or even (becoming more evidently everyday) viewers to make a program.


----------



## Weinie

Spencer100 said:


> Oh but is that not why we spend 1.5 billion for the CBC?  To have Canadian stories told by Canadians.  They don't have a profit case to make or even (becoming more evidently everyday) viewers to make a program.


Sigh...........the CBC.


----------



## KevinB

Weinie said:


> Sigh...........the CBC.


Da comrade, Communist Broadcasting Commune has no interesting in capitalist imperial Yankee lap dog war machine.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Nice little video from the home office. How many people will see it?
> 
> But, considering it is the first such circumnavigation of North America in quite a while by a canadian governement vessel, why was no ENG team invited with "unpecedented access" (especialy considering nothing really classified was going on) so I would now be watching a six part series of one hour episodes on the CBC or some other Canadian network?
> 
> Other countries celebrate their naval achievements, why can't we?


There was media access.  Peter Mansbridge and film crew sailed with them for a special.   For a portion of the NWP sail anyways. Probably still in production.

In the second part of the cruise, there was no extra space on board.  The ship was full of US CG pers doing counter-drug operations, which are also classified. No media

The north knew what they were doing, they visited every community practically.  The people who really needed to see the PR got it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Weinie said:


> Your bias, and interest in this type of coverage is showing in your frustration. You forget that media outlets and production companies are business ventures first and foremost. No media company with any reach would commit the considerable resources, over the period of time required, to film, do post-production, and then market this. It would be a huge loss for them. The niche audience for this is too small.
> 
> This is the main reason why PA has internal teams to document these types of Exes/Ops. We then offer it to media agencies. the pick up is meh!
> 
> BTW, war is good for recruiting. Not much else we offer motivates a large portion of the population to "knock down the doors."


There is an audience for tow truck drivers,  ice road truckers and Bering Sea fishermen.  As well as the aforementioned Mighty Ships.

I think there are some possibilities there.

Probably not up to Sea Patrol though....


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> *There is an audience for tow truck drivers,  ice road truckers and Bering Sea fishermen.*  As well as the aforementioned Mighty Ships.
> 
> I think there are some possibilities there.
> 
> Probably not up to Sea Patrol though....


Because each of these shows presage/present the possibility of calamity/carnage/drama. And who doesn't like the possibility of that. Witness Ukrainian war porn.


----------



## NavyShooter

Make it "Seal Patrol" and add some touchy- feeley stuff to the plan with some baby seals and you'll get some traction.  

That can cascade into a children's cartoon TV show about baby seal rescue by the RCN, and that'll start indoctrinating them when they're young!


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:


> Make it "Seal Patrol" and add some touchy- feeley stuff to the plan with some baby seals and you'll get some traction.
> 
> That can cascade into a children's cartoon TV show about baby seal rescue by the RCN, and that'll start indoctrinating them when they're young!


For a second I thought you said "Sea Patrol" and thought, where would we get impossibly beautiful people to frolic on the beaches of the high arctic from?


----------



## Kirkhill

Weinie said:


> Because each of these shows presage/present the possibility of calamity/carnage/drama. And who doesn't like the possibility of that. Witness Ukrainian war porn.


There is that.....


----------



## Spencer100

FSTO said:


> For a second I thought you said "Sea Patrol" and thought, where would we get impossibly beautiful people to frolic on the beaches of the high arctic from?


they do have a moon pool!  Bikini's around the moon pool.....water may be a tad chilly.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> Make it "Seal Patrol" and add some touchy- feeley stuff to the plan with some baby seals and you'll get some traction.
> 
> That can cascade into a children's cartoon TV show about baby seal rescue by the RCN, and that'll start indoctrinating them when they're young!


The Coast Guard does all the watching of baby seal clubbing.

And we had our version of "Seal Patrol". It's called Danger Bay and was all the rage when I was a kid.  I watched it for Nicole, my sister watched for Johna... so dreamy...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> There was media access.  Peter Mansbridge and film crew sailed with them for a special.   For a portion of the NWP sail anyways. Probably still in production.
> 
> In the second part of the cruise, there was no extra space on board.  The ship was full of US CG pers doing counter-drug operations, which are also classified. No media
> 
> The north knew what they were doing, they visited every community practically.  The people who really needed to see the PR got it.


You forget the people that pay the taxes that fund these ships. The UK has learned to connect the RN with the public and not afraid of some of the nitty gritty parts of it as well, We have the CBC and the NFB for this sort of thing. If you want a properly funded military, you need to connect with the people who vote for the people who allot the money.


----------



## FSTO

Colin Parkinson said:


> You forget the people that pay the taxes that fund these ships. The UK has learned to connect the RN with the public and not afraid of some of the nitty gritty parts of it as well, We have the CBC and the NFB for this sort of thing. If you want a properly funded military, you need to connect with the people who vote for the people who allot the money.


The NFB used to to some great stories of the Canadian Military. The last one called "Quiet Forces" was done in 2015.








						Quiet Forces
					

In this non-narrative short, director Sophie Dupuis documents the daily lives of sailors aboard the frigate HMCS Ottawa on a mission in the Pacific Ocean, somewhere between the …




					www.nfb.ca


----------



## Dana381

FSTO said:


> The NFB used to to some great stories of the Canadian Military. The last one called "Quiet Forces" was done in 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quiet Forces
> 
> 
> In this non-narrative short, director Sophie Dupuis documents the daily lives of sailors aboard the frigate HMCS Ottawa on a mission in the Pacific Ocean, somewhere between the …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nfb.ca



I found that interesting however I don't think it will connect with the people the way Warship: Life at Sea will.

Canada's attempt at a TV show about the CAF was low budget, hard to watch and I don't think most Canadians even know it exists


----------



## FSTO

^^
Well if you want a little more action, take a look at the RCAF in the Nifty 50's. Trigger Warning.....Fighter Pilots are gonna Fighter Pilot









						Canada's Air Defence
					

This short 1956 documentary shows how the Royal Canadian Air Force fulfills its primary role of maintaining constant vigilance and providing a blanket of aerial defense. It illustrates …




					www.nfb.ca
				












						Fighter Wing
					

In this short documentary, Fred Davis introduces us to Canadian Air Force operations in Zweibrucken, West Germany. Follow Green Section as they perform drills and explain what it …




					www.nfb.ca


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> You forget the people that pay the taxes that fund these ships. The UK has learned to connect the RN with the public and not afraid of some of the nitty gritty parts of it as well, We have the CBC and the NFB for this sort of thing. If you want a properly funded military, you need to connect with the people who vote for the people who allot the money.


Not forgetting anything. But the people in the North know the ship was there, the ship was built for them. They are the prime target audience IMHO.  

Do we need better PR and shows regarding navy stuff?  Yes.  I won't argue with that generally.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> Do we need better PR and shows regarding navy stuff?  Yes.  I won't argue with that generally.


We have tried multiple sells of multiple mousetraps through the years. But audiences vote with their remote/mouse, and the content providers monitor this and program their feeds accordingly. Given enough resources and higher sp, we could produce and distribute amazing stuff, but would then be criticized by operators and pundits as getting away from the real CAF role and wasting time/resources.

#nopleasingeverybody


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> The Coast Guard does all the watching of baby seal clubbing.
> 
> And we had our version of "Seal Patrol". It's called Danger Bay and was all the rage when I was a kid.  I watched it for Nicole, my sister watched for Johna... so dreamy...


Ocean Helman...very fond memories


----------



## Dana381

Weinie said:


> We have tried multiple sells of multiple mousetraps through the years. But audiences vote with their remote/mouse, and the content providers monitor this and program their feeds accordingly. Given enough resources and higher sp, we could produce and distribute amazing stuff, but would then be criticized by operators and pundits as getting away from the real CAF role and wasting time/resources.
> 
> #nopleasingeverybody



That is a possibility, however if they don't try making *quality* content then they will never know if it will work. Justifying not trying because previous half assed efforts failed is done by people that really don't want to suceed. That is the key to this, if the GOC wants to elevate Canadians impression of the CAF then they can do it.

 The U.S. Army even devgeloped a Video game franchise to increase their reputation and according to some it worked quite well!


> How well did it work? A 2008 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that “30% of all Americans ages 16 to 24 had a more positive impression of the Army because of the game and, even more amazingly, the game had more impact on recruits than all other forms of Army advertising combined.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 20 years, the U.S. Army is shutting down its recruitment video game, ‘America’s Army’
> 
> 
> After decades of enlisting gamers in the U.S. military, ‘America’s Army’ leaves a lasting legacy of video games as recruitment tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fastcompany.com



Canada has many stories of heroism in its past, They could commision a movie about any one of them


----------



## Weinie

Dana381 said:


> That is a possibility, however if they don't try making *quality* content then they will never know if it will work. Justifying not trying because previous half assed efforts failed is done by people that really don't want to suceed. That is the key to this, if the GOC wants to elevate Canadians impression of the CAF then they can do it.
> 
> The U.S. Army even devgeloped a Video game franchise to increase their reputation and according to some it worked quite well!
> 
> 
> Canada has many stories of heroism in its past, They could commision a movie about any one of them


Agreed................but. I have lead horses to water, I have pulled their snouts into the water. I balked at running around and sucking on their ass to create an airlock so that they can drink.


----------



## Stoker

HMCS Labrador documentary


----------



## Underway

Into the North

This came up on one of those emails on "whats happening in ADM Mat".

Haven't watched it yet.  But since we were posting videos.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Into the North
> 
> This came up on one of those emails on "whats happening in ADM Mat".
> 
> Haven't watched it yet.  But since we were posting videos.


I saw it when it first came out a month or so ago.  

It's really good, to the point that CAF Reddit actually stopped complaining for a second and wondered how the RCN made such a good video.


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> Into the North
> 
> This came up on one of those emails on "whats happening in ADM Mat".
> 
> Haven't watched it yet.  But since we were posting videos.


I think it's the same video I posted in 2852, but I haven't watched them back to back.

This was tweeted out by Irving related to the ice trials for future HMCS Margaret Brooke. Apparently breaking ice as thick as 2 meters at points. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507068233781706752


----------



## Underway

Canadian Military Journal article on 

Becoming an "Arctic Capable" Navy: Not just the AOPS

In the process of reading it between doing my actual job.  Will post thoughts later but I figured I'd give everyone else some time to chew on it!


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> I think it's the same video I posted in 2852, but I haven't watched them back to back.
> 
> This was tweeted out by Irving related to the ice trials for future HMCS Margaret Brooke. Apparently breaking ice as thick as 2 meters at points.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507068233781706752


Nope.  Fake news.  2m thick ice is obviously slush breaking.  These things are terrible and will never sail in ice. /sarcasm


Had a nice briefing from Cdr Gleason commissioning CO of Harry DeWolf the other day.  Some tidbits from their historic circumnavigation of North America.


with embarked DRDC folks and HDW deployed TRAPS as a trial.  It is the most northern usage of a towed ASW sonar array from a ship in RCN history and given some research no other NATO ship has used a towed array that far north either.
HDW was supposed to take on fuel twice on their trip.  The first time the refueling ship had a mechanical issue and couldn't make it.  The second time they were stopped by weather.   HDW did all of their missions and traveled from Halifax to Esquimalt *on a single tank of gas.  *Apparently, the fuel economy estimations were conservative.  It was a very pleasant surprise as it allowed HDW to carry on with the mission despite the challenges and reduces operating costs for the ship quite a bit.
At no time was Cdr Gleason worried about the safety of the ship through the ice they encountered.  The trials in Feb 2021 proved the ship can handle just about anything ice-wise during that time of year.
They had CCG helicopters do touch and go for trials.
The trip to Esquimalt including stops for their missions (amphib operations with Rangers, community outreach, TRAPS, RMP, etc...) took 53 days (again single tank of gas).  The facilities onboard were sufficient and the crew was pretty comfortable.  Apparently, they converted the OPS room into a games room,  and despite being at sea for that long on some really boring stretches they didn't get to stir crazy.
The embarkation of USCG folks for OP Caribbe was a success, with lots of space available for the boarding team and their gear.
There were some lessons learned about cooling in the Carib.  It's a bit uneven on the ship (the bridge wore sweaters, some parts of the ship were quite warm).  There are some EC's submitted to look into that.  Interestingly the ship didn't have heating issues in the arctic.
They took on three Humanitarian Relief containers in the US to trail the process.

Those are the high points I could remember.  Really a very interesting briefing.  So far the ship generally is performing at expectations with some pleasant surprises and some things that need fixing.  RCN seems excited about what capabilities they are getting with the ship as its potential is being explored.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Nope.  Fake news.  2m thick ice is obviously slush breaking.  These things are terrible and will never sail in ice. /sarcasm
> 
> 
> Had a nice briefing from Cdr Gleason commissioning CO of Harry DeWolf the other day.  Some tidbits from their historic circumnavigation of North America.
> 
> 
> with embarked DRDC folks and HDW deployed TRAPS as a trial.  It is the most northern usage of a towed ASW sonar array from a ship in RCN history and given some research no other NATO ship has used a towed array that far north either.
> HDW was supposed to take on fuel twice on their trip.  The first time the refueling ship had a mechanical issue and couldn't make it.  The second time they were stopped by weather.   HDW did all of their missions and traveled from Halifax to Esquimalt *on a single tank of gas.  *Apparently, the fuel economy estimations were conservative.  It was a very pleasant surprise as it allowed HDW to carry on with the mission despite the challenges and reduces operating costs for the ship quite a bit.
> At no time was Cdr Gleason worried about the safety of the ship through the ice they encountered.  The trials in Feb 2021 proved the ship can handle just about anything ice-wise during that time of year.
> They had CCG helicopters do touch and go for trials.
> The trip to Esquimalt including stops for their missions (amphib operations with Rangers, community outreach, TRAPS, RMP, etc...) took 53 days (again single tank of gas).  The facilities onboard were sufficient and the crew was pretty comfortable.  Apparently, they converted the OPS room into a games room,  and despite being at sea for that long on some really boring stretches they didn't get to stir crazy.
> The embarkation of USCG folks for OP Caribbe was a success, with lots of space available for the boarding team and their gear.
> There were some lessons learned about cooling in the Carib.  It's a bit uneven on the ship (the bridge wore sweaters, some parts of the ship were quite warm).  There are some EC's submitted to look into that.  Interestingly the ship didn't have heating issues in the arctic.
> They took on three Humanitarian Relief containers in the US to trail the process.
> 
> Those are the high points I could remember.  Really a very interesting briefing.  So far the ship generally is performing at expectations with some pleasant surprises and some things that need fixing.  RCN seems excited about what capabilities they are getting with the ship as its potential is being explored.


Unreal how efficiently the vessel uses fuel, particularly considering the amount of ice it was going through. That's really impressive.


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> Nope.  Fake news.  2m thick ice is obviously slush breaking.  These things are terrible and will never sail in ice. /sarcasm
> 
> 
> Had a nice briefing from Cdr Gleason commissioning CO of Harry DeWolf the other day.  Some tidbits from their historic circumnavigation of North America.
> 
> 
> with embarked DRDC folks and HDW deployed TRAPS as a trial.  It is the most northern usage of a towed ASW sonar array from a ship in RCN history and given some research no other NATO ship has used a towed array that far north either.
> HDW was supposed to take on fuel twice on their trip.  The first time the refueling ship had a mechanical issue and couldn't make it.  The second time they were stopped by weather.   HDW did all of their missions and traveled from Halifax to Esquimalt *on a single tank of gas.  *Apparently, the fuel economy estimations were conservative.  It was a very pleasant surprise as it allowed HDW to carry on with the mission despite the challenges and reduces operating costs for the ship quite a bit.
> At no time was Cdr Gleason worried about the safety of the ship through the ice they encountered.  The trials in Feb 2021 proved the ship can handle just about anything ice-wise during that time of year.
> They had CCG helicopters do touch and go for trials.
> The trip to Esquimalt including stops for their missions (amphib operations with Rangers, community outreach, TRAPS, RMP, etc...) took 53 days (again single tank of gas).  The facilities onboard were sufficient and the crew was pretty comfortable.  Apparently, they converted the OPS room into a games room,  and despite being at sea for that long on some really boring stretches they didn't get to stir crazy.
> The embarkation of USCG folks for OP Caribbe was a success, with lots of space available for the boarding team and their gear.
> There were some lessons learned about cooling in the Carib.  It's a bit uneven on the ship (the bridge wore sweaters, some parts of the ship were quite warm).  There are some EC's submitted to look into that.  Interestingly the ship didn't have heating issues in the arctic.
> They took on three Humanitarian Relief containers in the US to trail the process.
> 
> Those are the high points I could remember.  Really a very interesting briefing.  So far the ship generally is performing at expectations with some pleasant surprises and some things that need fixing.  RCN seems excited about what capabilities they are getting with the ship as its potential is being explored.


Thanks Underway. Great post! I don't suppose the issue of speed was discussed was it? I'd heard that the ship's _designed _open water speeds were said to have been conservative_, _but search as I might, have have yet to see any information on how this class does "in real life"_. _


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Unreal how efficiently the vessel uses fuel, particularly considering the amount of ice it was going through. That's really impressive.


My eyebrows hit my (receding) hairline with that comment.  Cdr Gleason was measured in his words but his demeanor showed how happy he was with this feature.  He was very effusive in his praise of the project office for their hard work and understood many of their challenges. 



calculus said:


> Thanks Underway. Great post! I don't suppose the issue of speed was discussed was it? I'd heard that the ship's _designed _open water speeds were said to have been conservative_, _but search as I might, have have yet to see any information on how this class does "in real life"_. _



He didn't mention it.  Having been on these sorts of sails if they just chugged along with 2DG's at 12kts then that's not a bad speed to go for patrol work.  It's likely the most efficient speed for fuel economy as well.  I can ask around. I know a few guys.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> My eyebrows hit my (receding) hairline with that comment.  Cdr Gleason was measured in his words but his demeanor showed how happy he was with this feature.  He was very effusive in his praise of the project office for their hard work and understood many of their challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't mention it.  Having been on these sorts of sails if they just chugged along with 2DG's at 12kts then that's not a bad speed to go for patrol work.  It's likely the most efficient speed for fuel economy as well.  I can ask around. I know a few guys.


Having watched any number of vids featuring Cdr Gleason, I've been consistently impressed with his openness and attitude towards presenting this vessel. An excellent ambassador for the class and the Navy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Canadian Military Journal article on
> 
> Becoming an "Arctic Capable" Navy: Not just the AOPS
> 
> In the process of reading it between doing my actual job.  Will post thoughts later but I figured I'd give everyone else some time to chew on it!


I find it interesting that he neglected to mention the MCDV is ice strengthened and was doing a lot of the representing the Navy in the North. I get the feeling that he is writing it with a "Blue water Navy" background. The AOP's are going to create a significant number of officers with Arctic/ice experience that is going to make the Halifax's and CSC more useful in the North. 
Likely we are going to see on average two AOP's in the Arctic each summer, which adds significantly to the 4-6 CCG Icebreakers that are normally there. I don't buy the complaint that they are not "year round icebreakers" Pretty much only the Russians operate true year round capable Icebreakers and they only have a handful of them as well.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Some news in regard to HMCS Max Bernays recently, apologies if it's been posted previously. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509252369820827650

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513577659606859777

I believe this is on April 6th and would mark the first time they've fired up her machinery. Good progress so far on the first West Coast AOPV, word I've seen is that she is planned to be delivered into RCN hands throughout this coming summer.


----------



## Underway

Things feel like they are picking up steam... pun intended.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yikes!  Are those Tier 4 diesels just running through some manufacturing/transport lube, or did we skimp on the environmental standards for machinery? 😮


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Yikes!  Are those Tier 4 diesels just running through some manufacturing/transport lube, or did we skimp on the environmental standards for machinery? 😮


Arctic vessel with high environmental standards.  I suspect that the stacks have a lot of moisture in them from being out in the weather for so long.  Not uncommon for a ship out of dock to have that sort of plume that is mostly steam.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm a CSE not an MSE!


----------



## Good2Golf

Yeah, mostly white, but I saw a twinge of blue in it, which made me wonder about some type of manufacturing/storage lube…probably also takes some time for the SOX scrubber to get into the groove and not hold moisture.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, mostly white, but I saw a twinge of blue in it, which made me wonder about some type of manufacturing/storage lube…probably also takes some time for the SOX scrubber to get into the groove and not hold moisture.


Most of my stack plume identification comes from living near Hamilton and seeing what crap the stacks for the harbourside Mordor are spewing out.  Lots of it is cooling steam, but lots of it can be classified as "other"....


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> I find it interesting that he neglected to mention the MCDV is ice strengthened and was doing a lot of the representing the Navy in the North. I get the feeling that he is writing it with a "Blue water Navy" background. The AOP's are going to create a significant number of officers with Arctic/ice experience that is going to make the Halifax's and CSC more useful in the North.
> Likely we are going to see on average two AOP's in the Arctic each summer, which adds significantly to the 4-6 CCG Icebreakers that are normally there. I don't buy the complaint that they are not "year round icebreakers" Pretty much only the Russians operate true year round capable Icebreakers and they only have a handful of them as well.



We should also build stations in Iqaluit, Churchill and Tuktoyaktuk. That would greatly increase our ability to support Arctic operations, more than just a fuel depot in Nanisivik.


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> We should also build stations in Iqaluit, Churchill and Tuktoyaktuk. That would greatly increase our ability to support Arctic operations, more than just a fuel depot in Nanisivik.


Iqaluit is getting its new jetty finally sorted out.  If Churchill had been viable it would have been viable already.  It's cheaper and more effective to refuel ships by sending other ships to meet them in the arctic than it is to detour all the way away from the NWP to Churchill.  There is no need to "build stations" when you can be mobile.  That's the entire point of the AOPS.  It's a mobile "station".


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Most of my stack plume identification comes from living near Hamilton and seeing what crap the stacks for the harbourside Mordor are spewing out.  Lots of it is cooling steam, but lots of it can be classified as "other"....


I've never understood why people want to live along the water in Aldershot...so they can stare at the stacks blenching God know what across Burlington Bay.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Maxman1 said:


> We should also build stations in Iqaluit, Churchill and Tuktoyaktuk. That would greatly increase our ability to support Arctic operations, more than just a fuel depot in Nanisivik.


Churchill is so under utilized, never understood why this port is like the ugly duckling of Canada.


----------



## dapaterson

Unreliable surface access by rail, for one.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Unreliable surface access by rail, for one.


That why Canada is so serious about battling climate change…it’s all about saving the Churchill Railway from rising ocean levels.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> I've never understood why people want to live along the water in Aldershot...so they can stare at the stacks blenching God know what across Burlington Bay.


You must be from Burlington.  It hasn't been called Burlington Bay since 1919!  Lol.  Language is funny though, I know we golden horseshoe types use the name interchangeably.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> That why Canada is so serious about battling climate change…it’s all about saving the Churchill Railway from rising ocean levels.


Well, there is an advantage. Churchill harbor is going to become a proper deepwater port then...

I thought the problem with the railway was the northern permafrost issue, where you need to build a high raised burm to run the railway across....


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> You must be from Burlington.  It hasn't been called Burlington Bay since 1919!  Lol.  Language is funny though, I know we golden horseshoe types use the name interchangeably.


Oh, you mean Stelco Bay? 😆


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Well, there is an advantage. Churchill harbor is going to become a proper deepwater port then...
> 
> I thought the problem with the railway was the northern permafrost issue, where you need to build a high raised burm to run the railway across....


I think the permafrost issue is icing on the “remind me why were doing this again” cake. 😉


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> You must be from Burlington.  It hasn't been called Burlington Bay since 1919!  Lol.  Language is funny though, I know we golden horseshoe types use the name interchangeably.


Yup, living in Burlington since 2009. Boring here,  but a great place to raise kids.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Well, there is an advantage. Churchill harbor is going to become a proper deepwater port then...
> 
> I thought the problem with the railway was the northern permafrost issue, where you need to build a high raised burm to run the railway across....


IIRC correctly, the rail line to Churchill is closed for at least this season to do roadbed/rail upgrades.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> You must be from Burlington.  It hasn't been called Burlington Bay since 1919!  Lol.  Language is funny though, I know we golden horseshoe types use the name interchangeably.


Huh, I grew up in the Hammer and never heard it called anything else.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Most of my stack plume identification comes from living near Hamilton and seeing what crap the stacks for the harbourside Mordor are spewing out.  Lots of it is cooling steam, but lots of it can be classified as "other"....


Hey, hey....seeing/feeling that smokey atmosphere just lets me know I'm getting closer to Hutch's. I'd brave Mordor any number of times to pound back a hammer and poutine...


----------



## lenaitch

SeaKingTacco said:


> IIRC correctly, the rail line to Churchill is closed for at least this season to do roadbed/rail upgrades.


Two years according to this article, but not closed completely.  It sounds like service sufficient to support the town will remain.









						Port of Churchill will close for two years
					

Canada’s only deep-water Arctic shipping port will be closed until 2023 as the rail link to the docks is replaced – grain shipments have already halted




					www.westerninvestor.com
				




Much of the line is south of the area of continuous permafrost, but the northern section, roughly from Gillam, is in the Hudson's Bay Lowlands, which is a very low, very flat poorly drained area of peat bog, interspersed with patches of sand, silt and gravel.  I've been into the Lowlands part in Ontario, and you think you are standing on solid ground until you jump up and down and a tree 20' away moves.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> My eyebrows hit my (receding) hairline with that comment.  Cdr Gleason was measured in his words but his demeanor showed how happy he was with this feature.  He was very effusive in his praise of the project office for their hard work and understood many of their challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't mention it.  Having been on these sorts of sails if they just chugged along with 2DG's at 12kts then that's not a bad speed to go for patrol work.  *It's likely the most efficient speed for fuel economy as well.*  I can ask around. I know a few guys.


The ship was stopped, at anchor, for a good amount of those 53 days. Notably while waiting for the fuel that never made it. Icebreaking wasn't all that energy-intensive, as it was pretty light. Only had to ram it a few times, driving through slush and thin ice for most of the time that we weren't in open waters.

To anyone who hasn't driven a ship into obstacles; yes it feels as totally insane as it sounds. But shit, it works.


Underway said:


> At no time was Cdr Gleason worried about the safety of the ship through the ice they encountered.


Reading this brings me much relief.



Colin Parkinson said:


> I find it interesting that he neglected to mention the MCDV is ice strengthened and was doing a lot of the representing the Navy in the North. I get the feeling that he is writing it with a "Blue water Navy" background. The AOP's are going to create a significant number of officers with Arctic/ice experience that is going to make the Halifax's and CSC more useful in the North.
> Likely we are going to see on average two AOP's in the Arctic each summer, which adds significantly to the 4-6 CCG Icebreakers that are normally there. *I don't buy the complaint that they are not "year round icebreakers"* Pretty much only the Russians operate true year round capable Icebreakers and they only have a handful of them as well.


Well they're polar class 5+. So it does have its limitations. But yes, pretending that it means that specific seasons are out of the question is a bit absurd, especially given climate change and further recession of the ice sheets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

TacticalTea said:


> The ship was stopped, at anchor, for a good amount of those 53 days. Notably while waiting for the fuel that never made it. Icebreaking wasn't all that energy-intensive, as it was pretty light. Only had to ram it a few times, driving through slush and thin ice for most of the time that we weren't in open waters.
> 
> To anyone who hasn't driven a ship into obstacles; yes it feels as totally insane as it sounds. But shit, it works.
> 
> Reading this brings me much relief.
> 
> 
> Well they're polar class 5+. So it does have its limitations. But yes, pretending that it means that specific seasons are out of the question is a bit absurd, especially given climate change and further recession of the ice sheets.


Polar 4 bow with 5 hull, which puts them roughly on par with the CCG 1100 class which are no slouches either in ice.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Polar 4 bow with 5 hull, which puts them roughly on par with the CCG 1100 class which are no slouches either in ice.


Shhhh... don't tell the NWO's. That's supposed to be an engineering secret so we have a margin of error in case "we get some buckaroo".


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> He was very effusive in his praise of the project office for their hard work


Now that's a phrase you don't hear every day.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Now that's a phrase you don't hear every day.


No, you don't.  I think he knew just how hard the AOPS team worked to get things where they needed to be despite the challenges from the builder and our own bureaucracies.  They were literally breaking the ice for all the follow-on ship projects.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> Iqaluit is getting its new jetty finally sorted out.  If Churchill had been viable it would have been viable already.  It's cheaper and more effective to refuel ships by sending other ships to meet them in the arctic than it is to detour all the way away from the NWP to Churchill.  There is no need to "build stations" when you can be mobile.  That's the entire point of the AOPS.  It's a mobile "station".



Good point. 

Although I admit I'm out of my 'depth' here, we should also probably be building ice capable logistics/ tanker shipping which, given the resupply issues in the north, might want to be a higher priority.

Kind of like these:

Elbrus Class (Project 23120) Logistics Support Vessels​The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ordered three Project 23120 class ice-capable logistics support vessels for multiple mission needs of the Russian Navy.









						Elbrus Class (Project 23120) Logistics Support Vessels
					

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ordered three Project 23120 Elbrus class ice-capable logistics support vessels.




					www.naval-technology.com


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> Shhhh... don't tell the NWO's. That's supposed to be an engineering secret so we have a margin of error in case "we get some buckaroo".


"In case" or "when"?


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> "In case" or "when"?


I just want to know, did you hear the Scottish when you read "buckaroo"?  Lol


----------



## dapaterson

I hear Buck Owens...


----------



## Underway

I was going more for this...

Buckaroo


----------



## Spencer100




----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Nope.  Fake news.  2m thick ice is obviously slush breaking.  These things are terrible and will never sail in ice. /sarcasm
> 
> 
> Had a nice briefing from Cdr Gleason commissioning CO of Harry DeWolf the other day.  Some tidbits from their historic circumnavigation of North America.
> 
> 
> with embarked DRDC folks and HDW deployed TRAPS as a trial.  It is the most northern usage of a towed ASW sonar array from a ship in RCN history and given some research no other NATO ship has used a towed array that far north either.
> HDW was supposed to take on fuel twice on their trip.  The first time the refueling ship had a mechanical issue and couldn't make it.  The second time they were stopped by weather.   HDW did all of their missions and traveled from Halifax to Esquimalt *on a single tank of gas.  *Apparently, the fuel economy estimations were conservative.  It was a very pleasant surprise as it allowed HDW to carry on with the mission despite the challenges and reduces operating costs for the ship quite a bit.
> At no time was Cdr Gleason worried about the safety of the ship through the ice they encountered.  The trials in Feb 2021 proved the ship can handle just about anything ice-wise during that time of year.
> They had CCG helicopters do touch and go for trials.
> The trip to Esquimalt including stops for their missions (amphib operations with Rangers, community outreach, TRAPS, RMP, etc...) took 53 days (again single tank of gas).  The facilities onboard were sufficient and the crew was pretty comfortable.  Apparently, they converted the OPS room into a games room,  and despite being at sea for that long on some really boring stretches they didn't get to stir crazy.
> The embarkation of USCG folks for OP Caribbe was a success, with lots of space available for the boarding team and their gear.
> There were some lessons learned about cooling in the Carib.  It's a bit uneven on the ship (the bridge wore sweaters, some parts of the ship were quite warm).  There are some EC's submitted to look into that.  Interestingly the ship didn't have heating issues in the arctic.
> They took on three Humanitarian Relief containers in the US to trail the process.
> 
> Those are the high points I could remember.  Really a very interesting briefing.  So far the ship generally is performing at expectations with some pleasant surprises and some things that need fixing.  RCN seems excited about what capabilities they are getting with the ship as its potential is being explored.


They fueled in Nuuk Greenland as a matter of fact.


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> They fueled in Nuuk Greenland as a matter of fact.


Long way from Nuuk to Esquimalt!  That's more range than was anticipated for the class.  Which is excellent.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Iqaluit is getting its new jetty finally sorted out.  If Churchill had been viable it would have been viable already.  It's cheaper and more effective to refuel ships by sending other ships to meet them in the arctic than it is to detour all the way away from the NWP to Churchill.  There is no need to "build stations" when you can be mobile.  That's the entire point of the AOPS.  It's a mobile "station".


The issue is that we are prohibited in fueling above 60 for RAS and Asterix due to insurance reasons cannot travel above 60. Of course in time of war all of that goes away.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Long way from Nuuk to Esquimalt!  That's more range than was anticipated for the class.  Which is excellent.


Indeed, the ship carries something like 700 M3 of fuel. The only issue they had was with food.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:


> I just want to know, did you hear the Scottish when you read "buckaroo"?  Lol


 Pictured the face too…


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Long way from Nuuk to Esquimalt!  That's more range than was anticipated for the class.  Which is excellent.


If they didn't get fuel they would have ran out at Dutch Harbour. The ship uses around 2% a day.


----------



## Stoker

So the port in Iqaluit is getting finished but will be busy with sea lift activity, a few hundred million from the feds could easily expand that to a separate DND jetty and tank farm and home of the future RCN Arctic Squadron. Just need the will to do so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This picture is from 2021. A offshoot benefit from this project, is a number of people and companies that have learned from their mistakes (hopefully) and further Arctic port projects will proceed faster and better. There is also upgrades to the small boat dock and basin on the other side of the harbour.


----------



## AirDet

KevinB said:


> 25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
> AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...
> 
> While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.


Funny but with 15 years at sea I don't ever remember seeing a T54/55 out there. I have seen lots of large ships with huge hulls and very wide bridges.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AirDet said:


> Funny but with 15 years at sea I don't ever remember seeing a T54/55 out there. I have seen lots of large ships with huge hulls and very wide bridges.


You just need to get out more


----------



## Spencer100




----------



## Spencer100

One more from the Cuban Navy


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:


> View attachment 70229


As I recall they quickly discovered from those trials why things needed to be marinized, but it worked as a concept tester.


----------



## Rainbow1910

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521202912315158528


HMCS Margaret Brooke departed Halifax yesterday to conduct warm weather post-acceptance trials. The trials demonstrate its ability to operate not only in the frigid Arctic temperatures but in warm temperatures as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully we have an AOP's come to Vancouver for next years Fleetweekend


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Hopefully we have an AOP's come to Vancouver for next years Fleetweekend


Saw a youtube video of that.  It looked like an interesting time.  Not often do you have that kind of Naval presence in Vancouver.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It was a great time, I do a post on it. Growing up the fleet used to come in and do open houses on a regular basis. Everyone wants it to happen again.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> Hopefully we have an AOP's come to Vancouver for next years Fleetweekend


I really enjoyed attending that. Seeing two Halifax and Kingstons in person was quite the treat.


----------



## lenaitch

After all the images I've seen of these ships, I just noticed that the bow anchor(s) well (or whatever it's called - not a sailor) is right down at the waterline.  It seems that it would be right in the middle of the bow wave and be susceptible to ice damage.  Just curious if there is a reason or if it really matters.


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> After all the images I've seen of these ships, I just noticed that the bow anchor(s) well (or whatever it's called - not a sailor) is right down at the waterline.  It seems that it would be right in the middle of the bow wave and be susceptible to ice damage.  Just curious if there is a reason or if it really matters.


Ice no.  When icebreaking you aren't bouncing up and down like in seas and ice is pushed aside or under the bow, not up it.

There is a problem during heavy seas that when a wave hits the anchor at the right angle the pressure shoots water up the hawsepipe into the covered foc'sle.  They have had to do some waterproofing for things they didn't expect to get that wet.  They also put rubber stoppers around the cable but really that just changes the trajectory of the water spout.


----------



## dapaterson

Sounds like engineers did detailed design for waterproofing etc, and NWOs said "Hold My Beer!"


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Sounds like engineers did detailed design for waterproofing etc, and NWOs said "Hold My Beer!"


We can only predict so much... lol.  Users will always find a way to mess up your nice design!


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> Sounds like engineers did detailed design for waterproofing etc, and NWOs said "Hold My Beer!"


C'mon dude, focus on the positive.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> Ice no.  When icebreaking you aren't bouncing up and down like in seas and ice is pushed aside or under the bow, not up it.
> 
> There is a problem during heavy seas that when a wave hits the anchor at the right angle the pressure shoots water up the hawsepipe into the covered foc'sle.  They have had to do some waterproofing for things they didn't expect to get that wet.  They also put rubber stoppers around the cable but really that just changes the trajectory of the water spout.


So, one of the hawse pipes had a purpose-built metal plate with a semi-circle cut-out (for the anchor cable) you could slide into two horizontal slits along the hole to reduce water ingress. So did the other, but it had a *badly-built* metal plate instead. Hah! So it got stuck and took a while to get dislodged and thus, wasn't used again.

So it was replaced by logs, rope, and a fender.


----------



## newfin

Strange but true..... Today, while vacationing with my family on the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, I looked offshore and saw what looked like a naval vessel in the distance.  I said to my son, "That looks like a Harry DeWolf class ship!"  I instantly recognized the two large recesses in the side of the ship that house the blaze orange life boat and Multi-role rescue boat.  I thought to myself that I had to be mistaken since....What are the odds that I'm in Mexico and so is the HDW AND I actually see and recognize it so far from shore?  Well, I borrowed my daughters' phone to check a vessel tracking app and sure as sh!t there it was.... the HDW herself a few kilometres offshore making her way south between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cozumel Island . Since I live in Niagara Ontario I have never had the chance to see an AOPV myself but this first sighting was quite a treat.  I hope the RCN brings her on a Great Lakes tour soon for me to board her visit.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Royal Canadian Navy announces Ship’s Sponsor for HMCS Max Bernays - Canada.ca
					

The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is pleased to announce the selection of Ms. Shannon Bernays as the Ship’s Sponsor for the third Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS), the future Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Max Bernays, which was named after her grandfather.




					www.canada.ca
				




News about HMCS Max Bernays


----------



## Rainbow1910

HMCS Harry DeWolf and HMCS Margaret Brooke recently alongside in Key West, Florida. DeWolf is operating as part of Operation CARIBBE and Brooke is conducting warm weather trials.


----------



## Underway

Good to see DeWolf is doing the good work she was designed for in part.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Harry DeWolf has returned home from Operation Caribbe. 

The official naming ceremony of Margaret Brooke and Max Bernays also occurred today in Halifax.


----------



## calculus

I see that the future HMCS William Hall is due to finish the move to the landside assembly area at Irving sometime tomorrow.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1535306008272068613
So, that's the fourth of what is to be an 8 ship class, and it took 7 years to get here. I know things are progressing faster now, but is a 2024 timeframe for start of construction on CSC actually realistic, given four more of these vessels (two RCN, and two CCG) need to be built?


----------



## suffolkowner

calculus said:


> I see that the future HMCS William Hall is due to finish the move to the landside assembly area at Irving sometime tomorrow.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1535306008272068613
> So, that's the fourth of what is to be an 8 ship class, and it took 7 years to get here. I know things are progressing faster now, but is a 2024 timeframe for start of construction on CSC actually realistic, given four more of these vessels (two RCN, and two CCG) need to be built?


Maybe the two CCG ships get postponed or cancelled depending if they feel they can start cutting steel on the 1st CSC?
How long do they need to decide on whether they need an enclosed final assembly building and how long to build it?


----------



## Underway

AOPS #3 Max Bernay's (MAX) will be doing sea acceptance trails end of this month.  Depending on how those go will determine when the ship is handed over to the navy.

Some changes to MAX from the other two ships that are fixing defects/issues with the design (as one does with a new ship class).

new anchor housing design
changes to some internal/external drains
HVAC upgrades/improvements
more robust RAS arrangement

The number of manufacturing defects found during inspections continues the downward trend from HDW now that we are on ship three.  I'm expecting ship five to be the "ideal" design with no need to go back and adjust.

HDW and MAR  are doing OP NANOOK this summer.  William Hall (WIL) expected delivery date will be Fall 2023.

I'm not going to lie, it's a little exciting to see the ships starting to hit a bit of a stride.  I'm expecting OP CARIBBE, OP PROJECTION, EX TRADEWINDS, EX CUTLASS FURY and of course multiple OP NANOOKS in the next few years with HDW and MAR taking the lead.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> The number of manufacturing defects found during inspections continues the downward trend from HDW now that we are on ship three.  I'm expecting ship five to be the "ideal" design with no need to go back and adjust.



This.


----------



## Navy_Pete

We are still working through 'first of class' issues though, so will likely need to be changes that run through the rest of the ships.

Once we are through the learning phases though and shake out the bugs, the status quo with AOPs will be a nice change to CPFs falling apart. Going to be a big learning curve for the RCN though where there isn't really any redundancy on the ships and 'built to SOLAS' means ships need systems working when they leave to meet SOLAS. The navy is far too used to running around with multiple systems degraded because combatant standards allow that so is a bit of a system shock.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> We are still working through 'first of class' issues though, so will likely need to be changes that run through the rest of the ships.
> 
> Once we are through the learning phases though and shake out the bugs, the status quo with AOPs will be a nice change to CPFs falling apart. Going to be a big learning curve for the RCN though where there isn't really any redundancy on the ships and 'built to SOLAS' means ships need systems working when they leave to meet SOLAS. The navy is far too used to running around with multiple systems degraded because combatant standards allow that so is a bit of a system shock.


For sure,  hawsepipe redesign and rescue boat crane fix are two that come to mind immediately as things that will be corrected by ship five and have to be adjusted on the previous three or four when the opportunity arises.   Might have a VDQ quarterdeck situation here or there... lol

There are also procedural changes that are helping.  The fluid system particle contamination issue has been resolved with better systems flushing and preservation during construction and prior to operation.  That should help out the pumps significantly.

What is good for MAX is the in-service support contract will be just about running full steam with a lot of the kinks worked out.  Calling them before getting ISI to fix something can save quite a bit of money.  

*Fun fact:* The AOPS will be the only ship in the RCN to always carry the new Ranger Rifles (SARTECH variant) in their Small Arms lockers.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> For sure,  hawsepipe redesign and rescue boat crane fix are two that come to mind immediately as things that will be corrected by ship five and have to be adjusted on the previous three or four when the opportunity arises.   Might have a VDQ quarterdeck situation here or there... lol
> 
> There are also procedural changes that are helping.  The fluid system particle contamination issue has been resolved with better systems flushing and preservation during construction and prior to operation.  That should help out the pumps significantly.
> 
> What is good for MAX is the in-service support contract will be just about running full steam with a lot of the kinks worked out.  Calling them before getting ISI to fix something can save quite a bit of money.
> 
> *Fun fact:* The AOPS will be the only ship in the RCN to always carry the new Ranger Rifles (SARTECH variant) in their Small Arms lockers.


Question re:VDQ…As she’s in the shop at the moment, are they doing any of the hull or fatigue issues at this point? I’ve seen in other threads how the FELEX didn’t cover much beyond the combat systems, to the detriment of the vessels. Are they able to address that stuff now in refit periods or is it a matter of too far gone without stripping everything out?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Some changes to MAX from the other two ships that are fixing defects/issues with the design (as one does with a new ship class).
> 
> new anchor housing design
> changes to some internal/external drains
> HVAC upgrades/improvements
> more robust RAS arrangement
> 
> The number of manufacturing defects found during inspections continues the downward trend from HDW now that we are on ship three.  I'm expecting ship five to be the "ideal" design with no need to go back and adjust.



This process is something that I don't gets enough attention in general procurement.   Accountants love having all the answers up front.  But this process is typical for any piece of equipment in any industry or application.  It makes more sense to concentrate on building a small batch of units, beyond the prototype stage, debug them, and then build to the new spec that will fall out from that original effort.

It is true for ships, planes, tanks, trucks and radios.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Question re:VDQ…As she’s in the shop at the moment, are they doing any of the hull or fatigue issues at this point? I’ve seen in other threads how the FELEX didn’t cover much beyond the combat systems, to the detriment of the vessels. Are they able to address that stuff now in refit periods or is it a matter of too far gone without stripping everything out?


They try to address it.  But it's very challenging.  I remember Freddie had 30m of hull plate replaced.  Toronto was supposed to get 02 deck replaced but ended up with the CSE flats being replaced instead as that was way worse and they ran out of time.  Only so much money and time before the ship has to get back in the water.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> They try to address it.  But it's very challenging.  I remember Freddie had 30m of hull plate replaced.  Toronto was supposed to get 02 deck replaced but ended up with the CSE flats being replaced instead as that was way worse and they ran out of time.  Only so much money and time before the ship has to get back in the water.


To bad we don't have leadership to say "This is not acceptable and needs to be repaired before going to sea and damm the inconveniences"


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> To bad we don't have leadership to say "This is not acceptable and needs to be repaired before going to sea and damm the inconveniences"


Grasshopper, you must learn.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Is there any sense in taking, say, 4-5 out of service to do the required deep repairs and have them ready in 4 years or so to take the place of the worst of the rest? It seems we’re going to need them much longer to bridge the gap to CSC.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> To bad we don't have leadership to say "This is not acceptable and needs to be repaired before going to sea and damm the inconveniences"


That's what risk assessments are used for, but don't try and look at more then one at a time; it's too inconvenient with several thousand to figure out the overall big impact.

Also, don't include crewing, that's not a technical risk. Oh, and training. 

It used to be 'talk it until it's blue' as a joke (ie acceptable with review) and that somehow became 'talk it until it's yellow' (undesirable). That can include up to a scenario with multiple losses of lives, loss of platform or complete mission failure, as long as the probability is 'occasional'. 

Commercial rules avoid this by simply having red lines where things are fixed before sailing. We pretend we 'actively' manage those risks, but it falls apart as soon as you poke at it.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Is there any sense in taking, say, 4-5 out of service to do the required deep repairs and have them ready in 4 years or so to take the place of the worst of the rest? It seems we’re going to need them much longer to bridge the gap to CSC.


I think it's going to be like when FELEX was implemented.  MCDV's and AOPS will start shouldering the burden of OPs to a certain extent.  They've added Davie to the list of places that can do repairs so have increased capacity by 50%.  So it will be 3 out of service at a time.  But four years?  No.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:


> Is there any sense in taking, say, 4-5 out of service to do the required deep repairs and have them ready in 4 years or so to take the place of the worst of the rest? It seems we’re going to need them much longer to bridge the gap to CSC.


Yes, but we don't have the people to manage that kind of workload; it takes a lot of expertise to do properly, and still requires a lot of ship staff to assist.

Lot of technical issues, but also a lot of contractual and logisitic support required. Steel repairs are actually pretty easy as is big piping repairs, just a lot of work with a lot of interference items, so can get complicated. It's all the obsolete things like valves, controllers etc that are 30 years old without drop in replacements available. In a lot of cases the tech data is pretty lacking so basically have to go back to first principles to figure out a replacement, and then re-engineer the attachement point and signals.

Some we have the expertise to do, so is an HR shortfall. For some things we never had the expertise and the widget requires specialized SME support.

There are thousands of obsolete line items just in the CPF alone; the whole class is a 5000 tonne marshmallow.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> I think it's going to be like when FELEX was implemented.  MCDV's and AOPS will start shouldering the burden of OPs to a certain extent.  They've added Davie to the list of places that can do repairs so have increased capacity by 50%.  So it will be 3 out of service at a time.  But four years?  No.


In that case, just as a sort of spitballing exercise, would it be worth it to build AOPS 7-8 as RCN vessels (at least in the interim), since the line is already in full swing and refining their product? 2 more AOPS would help to spread the load around and could always be divested to the CCG if deemed necessary when CSC’s are available?


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> In that case, just as a sort of spitballing exercise, would it be worth it to build AOPS 7-8 as RCN vessels (at least in the interim), since the line is already in full swing and refining their product? 2 more AOPS would help to spread the load around and could always be divested to the CCG if deemed necessary when CSC’s are available?


I don't see it, and frankly, they've done a not insignificant redesign for ships 7 and 8 so the Coast Guard can use them.  No need for magazines, guns, ops room, comms room, or boarding RHIB.  But they need a lab space instead for example, and I think a more powerful crane.


----------



## RedFive

Navy_Pete said:


> the whole class is a 5000 tonne marshmallow.


Because of poor design, age, or both?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RedFive said:


> Because of poor design, age, or both?


I think mostly age and not enough lifecycle support. As I recall they were considered very modern and impressive ships when they first came out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think mostly age and not enough lifecycle support. As I recall they were considered very modern and impressive ships _*when they first came out ...*_


... in the 1980s. Remember the late 1980s? Milli Vanilli and rotary dial phones?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think mostly age and not enough lifecycle support. As I recall they were considered very modern and impressive ships when they first came out.


They still are good ships from a performance perspective.  With a helo embarked they are still very good UWW platforms.  But they are like an old star goalie who has had injuries.  Can still play the game, but take longer to recover each time, with more icing, massages, acupuncture and Tylenol. Need a pregame shot in their knee to ignore the niggling pain and are one save away from pulling their groin and being out for six weeks.


----------



## Navy_Pete

RedFive said:


> Because of poor design, age, or both?


The mechanical side is generally a really good design. A few odd choices, but you find that on any complicated ship.

We're 30 odd years into them now though, and they have a 30 year design life, so at the point where some items failing are original to build.

Pretty crazy to see a 300 class bronze valve fail because turbulence has eroded a hole right through the body (about 1.5" of material) and some other items. But a lot of old piping, mechanical parts, etc that have a long lifespan are failing.

Currently rebuilding an old Peugeot road bike from the 80s, and reminds me a bit like that, where you go to buy parts and the original ones aren't available, and usually some kind of 'making it work' adaptations required for a replacement. Pretty common to find a functional replacement that will do the same job but needs some kind of mounting, piping or other modification to fit, but usually means you need to dig through the TDP to hopefully find details on the original item, or just figure that out from scratch.

A lot of parts have shock, noise and vibration requirements as well, so can be a lot of testing to get things like a valve, pump etc catalogued.

So wash/rinse repeat that process a few thousand times, with half the HR, huge experience losses due to retirements, procurement bottlenecks, etc then add on COVID screwing up the global supply chain and it's a big problem.

While we're doing that we are also trying to support the fleet to keep limping along with work arounds, so usually the time people can put aside for this kind of work and the supporting engineering change documentation is a 'when you have time' thing, vice top priority.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The future HMCS William Hall. The bow Mega Block has been successfully rolled onto land level to form the fourth Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see HDW is sidelined due to a fire suppression issue, is it a minor thing or a major thing to fix?


----------



## Rainbow1910

Colin Parkinson said:


> I see HDW is sidelined due to a fire suppression issue, is it a minor thing or a major thing to fix?


The Ottawa Citizen article pertaining to it (the only one article I can really find) has them speaking to an RCN spokesperson, they say DeWolf should be departing "early next week" pending successful inspection, cleaning and parts replacement to the fire fighting system. That article was posted on August 5th which would seem to suggest DeWolf should be departing sometime within the next few days. I can't speak to the particulars of the system but being out of service for maybe a week or two at most doesn't seem terribly catastrophic. These things happen, it's good to see them taking it seriously instead of sending it off with duct tape fixes.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> I see HDW is sidelined due to a fire suppression issue, is it a minor thing or a major thing to fix?


Anytime you miss your sailing date it's not a minor issue it's automatically a significant issue.  It will be fixed short-term, but I'm unsure as to if this has the potential to reoccur and thus needs a longer-term solution for the entire class.


----------



## DBNSG

Underway said:


> Anytime you miss your sailing date it's not a minor issue it's automatically a significant issue.  It will be fixed short-term, but I'm unsure as to if this has the potential to reoccur and thus needs a longer-term solution for the entire class.


HDW was still in Bedford basin as I crossed the Macdonald Bridge at 15:00 today


----------



## Colin Parkinson

First steel for the future HMCS Robert Hampton Gray has been cut, officially beginning production on Canada's sixth and Final Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) for the 
@RoyalCanNavy
 built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559248581017579520


----------



## Navy_Pete

Those plasma cutters are pretty cool; they can handle something like a 80' x 40' sheet of plate, cut out all the parts and then has what is effectively an inkjet so you can mark the parts up for assembly and tracking.

When there are 4 ships under various stages of construction/trials gives you an idea of how complex the management of the NC program is where they are doing that with different classes of ship at the same time. At least ISI is only doing the one.


----------



## suffolkowner

2 more years and two more ships for CCG? 2023,2024 I expect that theyll be cutting steel for the CSC in that time as well


----------



## Rainbow1910

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559257464708669441
HDW departed Halifax for OP Nanook on August 15th, seems repairs are complete.


----------



## Rainbow1910

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560627216383361024
Back to Halifax for HDW after only a few days at sea from her last repair. Not exactly a huge confidence booster for such a relatively new vessel on the inaugural two ship Arctic deployment of the class.


----------



## MTShaw

Rainbow1910 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560627216383361024
> Back to Halifax for HDW after only a few days at sea from her last repair. Not exactly a huge confidence booster for such a relatively new vessel on the inaugural two ship Arctic deployment of the class.


To true. the first of any class of warship tends to suck  I’m actually proud of our naval engineers for finding these problems in that they find problems down here instead in the Arctic.


----------



## MilEME09

Looks like some teething pains for the AOPS are starting to show up






						CityNews
					






					calgary.citynews.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don’t applaud th


MTShaw said:


> To true. the first of any class of warship tends to suck  I’m actually proud of our naval engineers for finding these problems in that they find problems down here instead in the Arctic.



Your favourite group The Spin Doctors by any chance?  😬


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Know not if that is important.









						HMCS Harry DeWolf diverts to Halifax due to failure en route to Arctic mission  | Globalnews.ca
					

A diesel generator failure has forced HMCS Harry DeWolf to divert back to Halifax while en route to join a two-month, multinational mission to the Arctic.




					globalnews.ca
				




EDIT: didn't even notice that stuff had been posted already.


----------



## KevinB

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Know not if that is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HMCS Harry DeWolf diverts to Halifax due to failure en route to Arctic mission  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> A diesel generator failure has forced HMCS Harry DeWolf to divert back to Halifax while en route to join a two-month, multinational mission to the Arctic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: didn't even notice that stuff had been posted already.


Still had 3/4 of the DG’s left. 
    One figures the damage to the 1 had to be really significant to divert - or concern it may cascade.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MTShaw said:


> To true. the first of any class of warship tends to suck  I’m actually proud of our naval engineers for finding these problems in that they find problems down here instead in the Arctic.



COs coin for doing a vehicle DI.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

KevinB said:


> Still had 3/4 of the DG’s left.
> One figures the damage to the 1 had to be really significant to divert - or concern it may cascade.



Not necessarily.

She was going to the Arctic, in situations where she was expected to go in and break fairly thick ice. Missing one quarter of your power (not to be confused with speed) is significant.


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Still had 3/4 of the DG’s left.
> One figures the damage to the 1 had to be really significant to divert - or concern it may cascade.


These DAs are quite large and certain parts are not typicially carried. There are many factors to consider when making a decision to return. It could be as simple as how hard it would be to get technical staff and parts in for repairs in the Arctic which is not easy. It also could be what is the min safe to sea state the ship could be in before it would have to go along side. We have a document called the material baseline standard that dictates what is the min technical state we need to be at before going to sea or remaining at sea safely.
That being said the failure wasn't catastrophic and no danger of causing any other issues to the other DGs.


----------



## Good2Golf

I’m tracking correctly that these DGs are propulsion, not smaller ones for hotel power, right?  Like the CCG R-Class?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are correct that they are "primarily" for propulsion (i.e. to provide the power to the electric motors). But on an "all-electric" vessel, any DG can be used to provide part or all of the hotel services if you want/had to.

Don't know what you refer to about the CCG R-boats. They didn't have electrical propulsion, they had diesel driven twin screws. 

You may be thinking of the CCG icebreakers. Icebreakers are generally electric motor driven to reduce potential ice damage to the screws and engines. Think snowblower: If you have a gas one it will chomp through ice and snow even if it damages the turning blades, until it stalls the engine. An electric one will stop moving if too much ice and snow is encountered, but back off a bit to reduce the amount and the motor will start turning again right away.

Same concept for icebreakers: If the screws were diesel driven through gearbox, any large chunk of hard ice that would drift into them would cause either damage to the screw, the gearbox and ultimately even stall the diesel engine. Electrical motor just takes the hit and either slows down or stops while the ice chunk blocks the screw and start to rotate as soon as it clears (like the old small fans of our
youth: stick your finger in and it stops, restarting as soon as you remove it).


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Don't know what you refer to about the CCG R-boats. They didn't have electrical propulsion, they had diesel driven twin screws.


I thought they had ALCOs driving generators, powering main electric motors driving the shafts?  Isn’t that like the AOPS setup?


----------



## Stoker

Good2Golf said:


> I’m tracking correctly that these DGs are propulsion, not smaller ones for hotel power, right?  Like the CCG R-Class?


All 4 DGs provide propulsion. As you need more power you bring on another DG. At sea you always have a min one DG online. Each DG has a 450V Alternator that provides hotel load. As back up you have one emergency DG.
When HDW left they had 3 DGs with the intention of picking up parts in a port and repairing the 4th. When the 3rd failed they only had 2 DGs, didn't meet MBS and they decided to return to Halifax.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, I drove Rally when she was in the reserve fleet, and my recolection is twin diesel driving screws. Maybe Colin can correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe you have a different R-class in mind. These were dinky toy little 95 footers used as SAR cutters with pretty small engine compartment. Diesel electric drives would have been pretty complex things to put in such small vessels. Besides, I distinctly remember that we had to "click" the throttles in at the lowest setting and wait a second or two for the screws to engage before we could slowly ramp up the RPMs, which to me is indicative of a fixed pitch screws on diesel driven shafts - not electric motors.

Perhaps it is the MCDVs you have in mind. They are diesel electric ships set up the same way as the AOPS (or rather, the AOPS are set up like the MCDVs because "chicken and egg").


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Well, I drove Rally when she was in the reserve fleet, and my recolection is twin diesel driving screws. Maybe Colin can correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Maybe you have a different R-class in mind. These were dinky toy little 95 footers used as SAR cutters with pretty small engine compartment. Diesel electric drives would have been pretty complex things to put in such small vessels. Besides, I distinctly remember that we had to "click" the throttles in at the lowest setting and wait a second or two for the screws to engage before we could slowly ramp up the RPMs, which to me is indicative of a fixed pitch screws on diesel driven shafts - not electric motors.
> 
> Perhaps it is the MCDVs you have in mind. They are diesel electric ships set up the same way as the AOPS (or rather, the AOPS are set up like the MCDVs because "chicken and egg").


Sorry OGBD, I meant Raddison class.  CCG site interchangeably uses ‘Medium Icebreaker’ and Raddison/R Class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

OK. That makes sense. Yes the Radisson/Amundsen/Des Grosseilers are set up exactly like the AOPS (or, again, the reverse). First time I hear they are referred to as the R class. Coast guard tends to refer to them as the Type 1200 ice breakers.


----------



## Good2Golf

I remember Colin referring to 1100s, but haven’t heard 1200s before. Funny that the CCG site doesn’t use the term Type 1200 for the Raddison / Imrpoved-Raddison types…that I could find. 






						Vessel - CCG Fleet
					

CCG Fleet




					inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Type 1100 are the High Endurance Multi Task, like the Martha Black and the Ann Harvey.

And I see from the CCG site that the Type 1200 are now referred to as the Pierre Radisson class. Says so (that they formerly were type 1200) on the medium ice breakers page, right here: List of equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard - Wikipedia


----------



## Good2Golf

Ah, there it is, the Formerly Known As… 👍🏼

…although in fairness to me I was trying to us CCG site, vice Wikipedia. 😉 

The CCG site is a bit of a jumble (though lot as bad at DND’s.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Well, I drove Rally when she was in the reserve fleet, and my recolection is twin diesel driving screws. Maybe Colin can correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Maybe you have a different R-class in mind. These were dinky toy little 95 footers used as SAR cutters with pretty small engine compartment. Diesel electric drives would have been pretty complex things to put in such small vessels. Besides, I distinctly remember that we had to "click" the throttles in at the lowest setting and wait a second or two for the screws to engage before we could slowly ramp up the RPMs, which to me is indicative of a fixed pitch screws on diesel driven shafts - not electric motors.
> 
> Perhaps it is the MCDVs you have in mind. They are diesel electric ships set up the same way as the AOPS (or rather, the AOPS are set up like the MCDVs because "chicken and egg").


Spent a lot of time on the Ready and Racer
They started with Twin Cummings for propulsion through individual gearboxs , shaft and screws. There were two Cat generators on either side. Later the CCCG replaced the Cummings with DEUTZ's. One Generator was hard mounted to run  fire pump. That one rattled your teeth running, so we ran it for the first week of patrol and then switched to the quiet one for the 2nd.


----------



## Rainbow1910

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563830017419014144


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Does that beat the previous furthest north record for the RCN set by a Kingston class a few year ago?


----------



## dapaterson

No, further down the thread in Twitter is a picture of _Shawinigan_ and her record setting voyage north.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our Navy family is growing! 
#HMCSMaxBernays was delivered today marking an important milestone for your Navy -- a new ship for our fleet, and a new unit for the crew to call their own!
MAX BERNAYS is our third Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships. These multifunctional vessels enhance Canada's Arctic presence, and increase our capability of participating in a wide variety of international operations, and undertake a diverse range of missions worldwide


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> Our Navy family is growing!
> #HMCSMaxBernays was delivered today marking an important milestone for your Navy -- a new ship for our fleet, and a new unit for the crew to call their own!
> MAX BERNAYS is our third Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships. These multifunctional vessels enhance Canada's Arctic presence, and increase our capability of participating in a wide variety of international operations, and undertake a diverse range of missions worldwide


That is a cool looking ship.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:


> No, further down the thread in Twitter is a picture of _Shawinigan_ and her record setting voyage north.


... when *MARS* our fellow-member, here, was in command.


----------



## ArmyRick

Sorry to ask but I am a retired ground pounder. Can someone explain more about the ship breaking ice? Is that a lot of ice? Can bigger naval ships do that or know?

Basically I need an ice breaking and ships primer. thanks navy guys.


----------



## ArmyRick

F me, I spelled no as know. That is grand crayon eating material right there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ArmyRick said:


> Sorry to ask but I am a retired ground pounder. Can someone explain more about the ship breaking ice? Is that a lot of ice? Can bigger naval ships do that or know?
> 
> Basically I need an ice breaking and ships primer. thanks navy guys.


The AOP's is a light icebreaker with a PC 5 hull and PC 4 bow (ice class explained here Polar Class - Wikipedia)

This is roughly equivalent to the Coast Guard 1100 class light icebreakers/buoy tenders and is quite suitable for spring, summer and fall Arctic ice conditions. Some people criticise that level of ice breaking, but in reality the CCG itself only have a handful of ships with higher ice class and even the Russians don't have that many ships that can go into winter Arctic ice. The AOPs can also go into tropical waters if need be and that is highly unusual for a Arctic capable ship. So you may see them operating in the High North and off of West Africa or the Caribbean. Who knows maybe one day they visit the Antarctic? 

As a ex-Coast Guard guy I quite like these ships and am impressed with them, I am critical of the armament choices, but that's it. As the Frigates get older and older, expect these to fill a lot of missions until the CSC's come into service. The crews I spoke to really like their ship and they are very comfortable to live on.


----------



## suffolkowner

when you look at the ice up north there doesn't seem to be a lot of thick multi year ice left at least at the end of the season


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> when you look at the ice up north there doesn't seem to be a lot of thick multi year ice left at least at the end of the season


Depends where you pull data.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Depends where you pull data.
> 
> View attachment 73280


@KevinB, did you just out Santa Clause’s sub-ice toy factory installation?


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> Depends where you pull data.
> 
> View attachment 73280


I think they are not so different. My image is a forecast for Aug 18th by the US Navy while yours appears to be up to date from University of Bremen. The University of Bremen tops off at greater than 50 cm while the US Navy has greater detail up to a possible 5m


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> I think they are not so different. My image is a forecast for Aug 18th by the US Navy while yours appears to be up to date from University of Bremen. The University of Bremen tops off at greater than 50 cm while the US Navy has greater detail up to a possible 5m


My only point was there are a lot of maps out there, and the Multi-year ice seems to vary on many of them.


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> My only point was there are a lot of maps out there, and the Multi-year ice seems to vary on many of them.


Where do you see that? Ok when I first read your post I thought it said 5m.  The graphs are going to differ as they are using different algorithims to extrapolate over area. They are not meant as navigation tools. The Bremen doesn't have the resolution to say that it differs to me

Here is an updated one from the US Navy


----------



## KevinB

Fair point.  

I was just trying to show that multiple sites had some different data - and while the Bremen map didn’t have more info on greater thicknesses (and suffered from @Good2Golf Santa Blackout Zone) the coverage of the ice seemed to differ.  






						Sea Ice
					

DOI: 10.25923/n170-9h57 D. Perovich1, W. Meier2,3, M. Tschudi4, S. Hendricks5, A. A. Petty6, D. Divine7, S. Farrell8, S. Gerland7, C. Haas5, L. Kaleschke5, O. Pavlova7, R. Ricker5, X. Tian-Kunze5, M. Webster9, and K. Wood10,11 1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA...



					arctic.noaa.gov
				






As the NOAA data shows - it may be moot anyway as Multiyear ice is on a significant decline.


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Fair point.
> 
> I was just trying to show that multiple sites had some different data - and while the Bremen map didn’t have more info on greater thicknesses (and suffered from @Good2Golf Santa Blackout Zone) the coverage of the ice seemed to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sea Ice
> 
> 
> DOI: 10.25923/n170-9h57 D. Perovich1, W. Meier2,3, M. Tschudi4, S. Hendricks5, A. A. Petty6, D. Divine7, S. Farrell8, S. Gerland7, C. Haas5, L. Kaleschke5, O. Pavlova7, R. Ricker5, X. Tian-Kunze5, M. Webster9, and K. Wood10,11 1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA...
> 
> 
> 
> arctic.noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 73315
> 
> As the NOAA data shows - it may be moot anyway as Multiyear ice is on a significant decline.


An obvious observation is; before you can have multi-year ice you need annual ice that doesn't melt.  For the last several years we have had relatively mild summers so the multi-ice has tended to diminish.  Much of the loss in ice was produced by strong currents and winds that caused the ice to be driven away from sheltered areas and out into the open waters where the currents and temperatures combined to break it up.  This year, for the first time in a while, we have  a significant amount of first year ice remaining which will harden further and contribute to the ice pack this winter.  Another year or two of this and we will be back where we were in the 70s.  What goes around comes around.


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> Fair point.
> 
> I was just trying to show that multiple sites had some different data - and while the Bremen map didn’t have more info on greater thicknesses (and suffered from @Good2Golf Santa Blackout Zone) the coverage of the ice seemed to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sea Ice
> 
> 
> DOI: 10.25923/n170-9h57 D. Perovich1, W. Meier2,3, M. Tschudi4, S. Hendricks5, A. A. Petty6, D. Divine7, S. Farrell8, S. Gerland7, C. Haas5, L. Kaleschke5, O. Pavlova7, R. Ricker5, X. Tian-Kunze5, M. Webster9, and K. Wood10,11 1Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA...
> 
> 
> 
> arctic.noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 73315
> 
> As the NOAA data shows - it may be moot anyway as Multiyear ice is on a significant decline.


Yes and I think that ice will not be a significant deterrent to AOPS conceived deployments. Time will tell on how hard they get pushed at the beginning and end of the melt season


----------



## Underway

ArmyRick said:


> Sorry to ask but I am a retired ground pounder. Can someone explain more about the ship breaking ice? Is that a lot of ice? Can bigger naval ships do that or know?
> 
> Basically I need an ice breaking and ships primer. thanks navy guys.


For ice thickness and age are the important measurements.  Icebreakers push ice downwards to break it using the weight of their hull.  Its easier to push down into water then across into more ice.  Older ice is more dense, which is why we use the "multiyear ice" label.  Also "ice inclusitions" generally referes to bits of multiyear ice inside a bunch of first year ice.  Harder rocks mixed into the soil so to speak.  AOPS is rated to 1m thick first with ice inclusions.  In practice it was engineered to do better than that.

@Colin Parkinson did a great job explaining how capable AOPS are.  They are going to be able to deal with anything the NWP and area throw at them for most of the AO during the 6 summer months.  Winter is not a time to be sailing up there unless you're doing research or something.

@Stoker or anyone else, when the MAX slated to switch over to the Pacific?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Multi-year ice is not to trifled with , nor are Growlers. One CCG icebreaker had her hull sliced opened by a growler lodged in a ice sheet, they were able to save her because they had a bunch of construction material aboard and were able to make a concrete patch on the inside so she could limp home. Ice also took the blade off of one of the props of the USCG Polar Star during a North Pole attempt with the CCG Louie St Laurent.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> anyone else, when the MAX slated to switch over to the Pacific?


Summer 2023 as per a 2022 projected operations document put out by the RCN that I can't seem to find at the moment.


----------



## Underway

Thanks @Rainbow1910 I figured that would be the timeline, as they probably want to shake out the crew this year and then do the NWP next year.  Besides, B Jetty isn't finished yet (getting close though) so there is no where to put MAX if they came soon!


----------



## Spencer100

The "they stole my homework feeling" here 











						Russia launches Project 23550 patrol ship "Purga" - Naval News
					

On October 7, 2022, Russian Vyborg Shipyard launched Project 23550 patrol vessel named "Purga" for the Russian Coast Guard.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## MTShaw

Spencer100 said:


> The "they stole my homework feeling" here
> 
> View attachment 74472
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia launches Project 23550 patrol ship "Purga" - Naval News
> 
> 
> On October 7, 2022, Russian Vyborg Shipyard launched Project 23550 patrol vessel named "Purga" for the Russian Coast Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


I wonder if it’s also based on the NoCGV Svalbard, just like Harry DeWold class. (Huge Sarcasm)). There’s only so many ways to build a medium class icebreaker.


----------



## Underway

Icebreakers all kinda look the same out of the water.  Seems the Russian's didn't fit a bow thruster on theirs, and it looks like it will sail lower in the water then ours.


----------



## lenaitch

Underway said:


> Icebreakers all kinda look the same out of the water.  Seems the Russian's didn't fit a bow thruster on theirs, and it looks like it will sail lower in the water then ours.


It appears to have what looks like two thrusters - or something - midship.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Icebreakers all kinda look the same out of the water.  Seems the Russian's didn't fit a bow thruster on theirs, and it looks like it will sail lower in the water then ours.


Like most things in Russia, the bow thruster was stolen and sold on the black market.


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> It appears to have what looks like two thrusters - or something - midship.


Docking thrusters? So when it’s crew is drunk, it makes it easier to park…


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> Docking thrusters? So when it’s crew is drunk, it makes it easier to park…


So always?


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> Docking thrusters? So when it’s crew is drunk, it makes it easier to park…


Honestly if you were drunk it would make it harder to park...  if drunk just call the tugs and let them do the parking for you.

Bow thrusters (proper term for "docking thrusters") allow you to apply thrust at the extreme ends of the ship to avoid turning in place while using engine orders to get a ship alongside a pier/jetty.

I don't think those circles on the Russian vessel are thrusters, they are someting else (caterpiller drive or something lol).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Bubble generators to blow compressed air under the ice. Not a new concept. Helps geting out of trouble.


----------



## Underway

Little bit of fun from Margaret Brooke.  AOPS Cribs video.
AOPS Cribs Vid

I was looking at all the different designs of the doors, big eyes, etc...  Interesting to see.  Also gym


----------



## Underway

This could have gone a few places, Arctic Sovereignty post for one but I thought it was better here.






Getting the nav data is one of the best ways to improve safety and enviormental protection in the arctic.  Helps to avoid those potential accidents.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> This could have gone a few places, Arctic Sovereignty post for one but I thought it was better here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting the nav data is one of the best ways to improve safety and enviormental protection in the arctic.  Helps to avoid those potential accidents.


Awkward... ''armed with just a single gun'' as they show footage of the .50 cal... Might give many the wrong idea.


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> Awkward... ''armed with just a single gun'' as they show footage of the .50 cal... Might give many the wrong idea.


Nah... just disinformation to keep the Ruskies guessing!   

That ship is such a bulldozer compared to the frigates. You can just feel the mass and weight of it watching the video.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To bad the reporter/interview didn't talk for 30 seconds about the different types of ice. Most people don't get that there is a distinct difference between 1m of new ice and 1m of multi-year ice.


----------



## Kirkhill

MTShaw said:


> I wonder if it’s also based on the NoCGV Svalbard, just like Harry DeWold class. (Huge Sarcasm)). There’s only so many ways to build a medium class icebreaker.



It seems to have more in common with Harry than Svalbard



> Project 23550 will have a diesel-electric power plant with four 3,500-kilowatt (4,700 hp) Kolomna 28-9DG generating sets consisting of 16-cylinder 10D49 diesel engines driving alternators produced by Ruselprom. In addition, the ships will have two auxiliary diesel generating sets with Kolomna diesel engines and Ruselprom alternators.* While the early concept featured ABB Azipod azimuthing propulsion units, the final design has conventional shaft lines, propellers and rudders. *The 6.3-megawatt propulsion motors will be produced by Ruselprom.[1][4] The ships will have an endurance of 60 days and a range of 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi).











						Project 23550 patrol ship - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Underway

I don't know if this was posted but damn, so far the AOPV's have some great ships crests.


----------



## Underway




----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> View attachment 74821


Max Bernays is extremely poignant when you understand just how many conning orders he carried out in that running gun battle…


----------



## TacticalTea

Quite possibly the best crests.

Though maybe not as good as HMCS Discovery's.


----------



## Navy_Pete

That's a nice change, the CPF crests/mottos are generally pretty lame.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You don't get a new crest every time a new ship hits the water. The CPF's crests are, where they existed (just about all of them but St. John's), the crests of the WWII ships of the same name. 

Everything gets passed on from early ship to new ship: Battle honours, crest, name plates - if still in existence - etc. etc.

When MONTREAL commissioned, we, at DONNACONA, returned all the original MONTREAL's memorabilia that had been entrusted to us to the new ship of that name and retrieved the original ship's bell from the city of Montreal for them.


----------



## FSTO

Lt Hampton-Gray's ship's crest will be epic. 

I hope!


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> Lt(N) Hampton-Gray's ship's crest will be epic.
> 
> I hope!


 

I know, I know...they didn't write that in pre-Unification RCN


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> I know, I know...they didn't write that in pre-Unification RCN


There was a story in the CBC about awarding the VC to Private LaRochelle. 


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/victoria-cross-canadian-forces-1.6645954
		


They had this picture of Hampton-Gray and take a look at his rank


Shit like this pisses me off to no end. So I DM'd Murray Brewster and voila!


Lt. (RCNVR) Robert Hampton Gray, in a photo taken when he received his pilot wings in September 1941. He received the Victoria Cross posthumously for sinking a Japanese warship in 1945. (Veterans Affairs Canada)


I get shit done!!!!


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> Lt. (RCNVR) Robert Hampton Gray, in a photo taken when he received his pilot wings in September 1941. He received the Victoria Cross posthumously for sinking a Japanese warship in 1945. (Veterans Affairs Canada)
> 
> 
> I get shit done!!!!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:


> Lt Hampton-Gray's ship's crest will be epic.
> 
> I hope!


Please let there be a Corsair in it….


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> Please let there be an intact Corsair in it….


Too soon?


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> You don't get a new crest every time a new ship hits the water. The CPF's crests are, where they existed (just about all of them but St. John's), the crests of the WWII ships of the same name.
> 
> Everything gets passed on from early ship to new ship: Battle honours, crest, name plates - if still in existence - etc. etc.
> 
> When MONTREAL commissioned, we, at DONNACONA, returned all the original MONTREAL's memorabilia that had been entrusted to us to the new ship of that name and retrieved the original ship's bell from the city of Montreal for them.


HMCS Ottawa's 341 crest may be slightly different then the 229's crest as the 3rd Ottawa was named after the river not the city .  I seem to recall the 229 crest has the water in a different spot or something.

Of course the crew has a tradition of rebelling against the Ottawa name (as they should) because the second Ottawa was HMCS Griffon. Against the CO's and crews wishes the ship was renamed.  So all of the crests on the CPO's mess, Jr's mess, ships mugs, hats and other canteen items all have the original Ottawa griffon on them!  The second Ottawa's crest is below besides the original Ottawa's crest and of course the current crest...


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> There was a story in the CBC about awarding the VC to Private LaRochelle.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/victoria-cross-canadian-forces-1.6645954
> 
> 
> 
> They had this picture of Hampton-Gray and take a look at his rank
> View attachment 74829
> 
> Shit like this pisses me off to no end. So I DM'd Murray Brewster and voila!
> 
> View attachment 74830
> Lt. (RCNVR) Robert Hampton Gray, in a photo taken when he received his pilot wings in September 1941. He received the Victoria Cross posthumously for sinking a Japanese warship in 1945. (Veterans Affairs Canada)
> 
> 
> I get shit done!!!!


So he was awarded the VC for being a pilot, you’re saying?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:


> HMCS Ottawa's 341 crest may be slightly different then the 229's crest as the 3rd Ottawa was named after the river not the city .  I seem to recall the 229 crest has the water in a different spot or something.
> 
> Of course the crew has a tradition of rebelling against the Ottawa name (as they should) because the second Ottawa was HMCS Griffon. Against the CO's and crews wishes the ship was renamed.  So all of the crests on the CPO's mess, Jr's mess, ships mugs, hats and other canteen items all have the original Ottawa griffon on them!  The second Ottawa's crest is below besides the original Ottawa's crest and of course the current crest...
> 
> View attachment 74832 View attachment 74833 View attachment 74834




Not quite, but close:

Order is reverse: The H60 crest is the original OTTAWA crest, as she was the first.

The second OTTAWA was never HMCS GRIFFON, which is the Thunder Bay Naval Reserve Unit. She was HMS GRIFFIN. Her crest with the Griffon may never have been an official crest but a WWII improvisation.  As for the current OTTAWA, since she is a "City" class, they could have modified her crest, but decided to stick to the "River" class OTTAWA III crest without modification nevertheless.

Ref: _Badges of the Canadian Navy_, J. Graeme Arbuckle, Nimbus Publishing (1987)


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> So he was awarded the VC for being a pilot, you’re saying?


Not       Going          To           Take          The   Bait.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:


> So he was awarded the VC for being a pilot, you’re saying?



Yep: a Naval Aviator, you know, the ones that teach the AF how it's supposed to be done.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Not quite, but close:
> 
> Order is reverse: The H60 crest is the original OTTAWA crest, as she was the first.
> 
> The second OTTAWA was never HMCS GRIFFON, which is the Thunder Bay Naval Reserve Unit. She was HMS GRIFFIN. Her crest with the Griffon may never have been an official crest but a WWII improvisation.  As for the current OTTAWA, since she is a "City" class, they could have modified her crest, but decided to stick to the "River" class OTTAWA III crest without modification nevertheless.
> 
> Ref: _Badges of the Canadian Navy_, J. Graeme Arbuckle, Nimbus Publishing (1987)


I knew it was spelled differently and of course just typed out the wrong way anyways... lol.  As for the order yes completely agree.  I just posted the images in the order I found them, just to test you of course...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> You don't get a new crest every time a new ship hits the water. The CPF's crests are, where they existed (just about all of them but St. John's), the crests of the WWII ships of the same name.
> 
> Everything gets passed on from early ship to new ship: Battle honours, crest, name plates - if still in existence - etc. etc.
> 
> When MONTREAL commissioned, we, at DONNACONA, returned all the original MONTREAL's memorabilia that had been entrusted to us to the new ship of that name and retrieved the original ship's bell from the city of Montreal for them.


No, but they can (and have been) updated when a new ship gets commissioned with the same name.

Doesn't change the fact that the CPF crests are inherently non-warship like and generally pretty lame; they are more suited for auxiliaries and non-combatants. The Tribal class ones were much better, hopefully they do something similar for the CSCs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Wouldn't that depend on wether or not they "recycle" past names (hence past crests) or use completely new ones (with crests to be newly minted)?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Wouldn't that depend on wether or not they "recycle" past names (hence past crests) or use completely new ones (with crests to be newly minted)?


Yes, and I'm hoping they go with something better than the CPFs (which likely won't get swapped over as there is an overlap of the ships in operation). There are plenty of existing names that could be used, but I'm a big fan of a 'First Nations' class where the old crests are redone (with the relevant FN band having input).

Lots of pretty amazing FN artists, think that would be a pretty concrete step towards reconciliation. The war canoes were the first real Canadian warships, so why not?


----------



## dapaterson

Name them after former ADM Mats!  Imagine a crest with a cheezy bowtie for HMCS Williams!


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> Yes, and I'm hoping they go with something better than the CPFs (which likely won't get swapped over as there is an overlap of the ships in operation). There are plenty of existing names that could be used, but I'm a big fan of a 'First Nations' class where the old crests are redone (with the relevant FN band having input).
> 
> Lots of pretty amazing FN artists, think that would be a pretty concrete step towards reconciliation. The war canoes were the first real Canadian warships, so why not?


Naming committee starts meetings in the new year. Stay tuned.


----------



## Underway

Who's on that committee? And how does one get input into it?

This is going round the buoy again but I'm completely in favour of @Navy_Pete 's position on this.

Or use First Nations mythological creatures as names.  Mainly because I want to see HMCS Wendigo and HMCS Thunderbird be a thing.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Who's on that committee? And how does one get input into it?
> 
> This is going round the buoy again but I'm completely in favour of @Navy_Pete 's position on this.
> 
> Or use First Nations mythological creatures as names.  Mainly because I want to see HMCS Wendigo and HMCS Thunderbird be a thing.


Also, having a real life person can be problematic if it turns out that they did something politically/optically "bad" (e.g. Cornwallis).

Not that HMCS RHG would go that far (maybe), but it might get a little awkward if it does a port visit in Japan...


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> Who's on that committee? And how does one get input into it?
> 
> This is going round the buoy again but I'm completely in favour of @Navy_Pete 's position on this.
> 
> Or use First Nations mythological creatures as names.  Mainly because I want to see HMCS Wendigo and HMCS Thunderbird be a thing.


Send me your input.


----------



## childs56

Underway said:


> Who's on that committee? And how does one get input into it?
> 
> This is going round the buoy again but I'm completely in favour of @Navy_Pete 's position on this.
> 
> Or use First Nations mythological creatures as names.  Mainly because I want to see HMCS Wendigo and HMCS Thunderbird be a thing.


I like the First Nations idea.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> Yes, and I'm hoping they go with something better than the CPFs (which likely won't get swapped over as there is an overlap of the ships in operation). There are plenty of existing names that could be used, but I'm a big fan of a 'First Nations' class where the old crests are redone (with the relevant FN band having input).
> 
> Lots of pretty amazing FN artists, think that would be a pretty concrete step towards reconciliation. The war canoes were the first real Canadian warships, so why not?


There was originally a move afoot to recycle the city class names. It had some support but died with the chaos between MacDonald-Baines-Topshee. 

We’ll now be starting fresh. Also I have a bit of an issue calling them frigates because they have the displacement of a WWII Cruiser and tte firepower of a pocket battleship. They should be classed as destroyers at a minimum, but you know, politics.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Yep: a Naval Aviator, you know, the ones that teach the AF how it's supposed to be done.


Good point, OGBD!  Not sure how much true blue AF types are capable of learning from aviators (Naval, Tactical or SF)… 😉x2


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> There was originally a move afoot to recycle the city class names. It had some support but died with the chaos between MacDonald-Baines-Topshee.
> 
> We’ll now be starting fresh. Also I have a bit of an issue calling them frigates because they have the displacement of a WWII Cruiser and tte firepower of a pocket battleship. They should be classed as destroyers at a minimum, but you know, politics.


I'm not overly in favour of recycling the city class, particularly as there will still be city class sailing right up to when the first ship hits the water.

Are destroyers considered general purpose ships or are the AAW and Command and Control ships mainly?

I'm a big propenent of classifying the ships for their role not their tonnage.  CSC is an odd duck.  It's not really a full AAW ship but does well in the self defence category and with its consorts contributes to the entire fleets AAW capability. It is a fully capable ASW platform and C&C ship.

IMHO either destroyer or frigate would work for this class.  I ignore tonnage because that's not how ships are classified.  If that were the case then the Aircraft carriers would have all been called battleships or battlecruisers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I agree with Navy Pete here: Aren't we in the middle of attempting reconciliation? What better way than by honouring our first nations while simultaneously recognising their warrior prowess and past with their input and consent.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I agree with Navy Pete here: Aren't we in the middle of attempting reconciliation? What better way than by honouring our first nations while simultaneously recognising their warrior prowess and past with their input and consent.


If we do decide to use First Nation names we’ll have to do a much better job of engagement with that community than we have done in the past.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I agree with Navy Pete here: Aren't we in the middle of attempting reconciliation? What better way than by honouring our first nations while simultaneously recognising their warrior prowess and past with their input and consent.


This has to be approached with care.

At least on the west coast, those canoes were used for hunting, warfighting and slave raiding.

That last one might be tricky for some people to swallow.


----------



## TacticalTea

FSTO said:


> If we do decide to use First Nation names we’ll have to do a much better job of engagement with that community than we have done in the past.


For sure.

The AOPVs are doing a decent job of demonstrating that can be done. NWS modernization is yet another opportunity for that. For the southern, inland tribes, NavRes divisions can - and have been! - leveraged.

We can probably expect some ''cultural appropriation'' noise from the activist types. That will have to be addressed. I don't know how the Tribal class naming went over; I wasn't there. But in this era of social media, we can't expect that just because we've had the Destroyers, that this issue is already resolved.


----------



## YZT580

TacticalTea said:


> For sure.
> 
> The AOPVs are doing a decent job of demonstrating that can be done. NWS modernization is yet another opportunity for that. For the southern, inland tribes, NavRes divisions can - and have been! - leveraged.
> 
> We can probably expect some ''cultural appropriation'' noise from the activist types. That will have to be addressed. I don't know how the Tribal class naming went over; I wasn't there. But in this era of social media, we can't expect that just because we've had the Destroyers, that this issue is already resolved.


as mentioned above, stay away from the tribal names and go for names from their mythology


----------



## Dana381

I still think we should steal British ship names like HMCS Conquerer, Victorious, Indomitable and Magnificent.

We can call them the 'Bad Ass Class'


----------



## YZT580

Dana381 said:


> I still think we should steal British ship names like HMCS Conquerer, Victorious, Indomitable and Magnificent.
> 
> We can call them the 'Bad Ass Class'


I'd like to see an HMCS Worsley.  To save you time trying to Google it, he was the lieutenant in command of the Nancy during the War of 1812.  Lost his ship to a superior fleet but then rowed the supplies he was responsible for to Macinac.  En route they spotted two American ships so went back after dropping off the supplies and captured them.   Great story, good tradition especially given your tasks of doing more with less all the time.  How about a rowboat against a sloop of war.


----------



## Dana381

YZT580 said:


> I'd like to see an HMCS Worsley.  To save you time trying to Google it, he was the lieutenant in command of the Nancy during the War of 1812.  Lost his ship to a superior fleet but then rowed the supplies he was responsible for to Macinac.  En route they spotted two American ships so went back after dropping off the supplies and captured them.   Great story, good tradition especially given your tasks of doing more with less all the time.  How about a rowboat against a sloop of war.



Don't give the GoC ideas, if they think a rowboat would the job that is exactly what they will get!


----------



## Maxman1

Dana381 said:


> I still think we should steal British ship names like HMCS Conquerer, Victorious, Indomitable and Magnificent.
> 
> We can call them the 'Bad Ass Class'



HMCS _ Shannon_. And _Indefatigable._

Also, the last HMCS _Magnificent _was an aircraft carrier , so it would only be appropriate to reuse that name on an aircraft carrier.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> If we do decide to use First Nation names we’ll have to do a much better job of engagement with that community than we have done in the past.


The 280s at the end of life were pretty well engaged with the bands, and actually learned a bit about the Athabaskan tribe from that. From what I remember, there were Elders there as part of the retirement but the COs/Coxn had regular contact with them as well, and did the occasional visit.

Maybe a start would be to float the idea past the AFN and ask if there is interest? There are already the 4 280s and a whack of others that already have a history/battle honours, but would be more interesting than the safe option. 

I have really enjoyed some of the ships I've been on, but the CHA crest of 5 squares doesn't really start any conversations, where some kind of interesting FN art would. I'm sure that can't hurt recruiting at all.


----------



## Grimey

TacticalTea said:


> Quite possibly the best crests.
> 
> Though maybe not as good as HMCS Discovery's.


During six years spent on and off at CFFS(E), I walked past the various ship and stone frigate crests daily that were by the Engineering Division building entrance.  I thought Discovery’s from a heraldic stand point was a bit underwhelming.  I mentioned it to one of my instructors who just smirked and said “you’re kidding right?  Look at it and sound it out.”  Instant embarrassing lightbulb moment.

I’m an idiot.


----------



## dapaterson

If _Discovery_ doesn't have this as the main heraldic element...


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> The 280s at the end of life were pretty well engaged with the bands, and actually learned a bit about the Athabaskan tribe from that. From what I remember, there were Elders there as part of the retirement but the COs/Coxn had regular contact with them as well, and did the occasional visit.
> 
> Maybe a start would be to float the idea past the AFN and ask if there is interest? There are already the 4 280s and a whack of others that already have a history/battle honours, but would be more interesting than the safe option.
> 
> I have really enjoyed some of the ships I've been on, but the CHA crest of 5 squares doesn't really start any conversations, where some kind of interesting FN art would. I'm sure that can't hurt recruiting at all.


Good point about floating the idea now.  I don’t recall there being much success with engagement with the west coast 280s.  IIRC, this was late ‘90s.  Maybe too little too late.  I don’t remember any indigenous involvement when ALG paid off, but it’s been a few years.


----------



## FSTO

Grimey said:


> Good point about floating the idea now.  I don’t recall there being much success with engagement with the west coast 280s.  IIRC, this was late ‘90s.  Maybe too little too late.  I don’t remember any indigenous involvement when ALG paid off, but it’s been a few years.


When we left for Op Apollo there was a fairly lengthy ceremony from the Songhee's prior to our departure. 

If it is decided to go with some sort of Indigenous theme, there will be extensive consultations with first nations elders.


----------



## Grimey

FSTO said:


> When we left for Op Apollo there was a fairly lengthy ceremony from the Songhee's prior to our departure.
> 
> If it is decided to go with some sort of Indigenous theme, there will be extensive consultations with first nations elders.


Come to think of it, I do remember that.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Navy_Pete said:


> The 280s at the end of life were pretty well engaged with the bands, and actually learned a bit about the Athabaskan tribe from that. From what I remember, there were Elders there as part of the retirement but the COs/Coxn had regular contact with them as well, and did the occasional visit.
> 
> Maybe a start would be to float the idea past the AFN and ask if there is interest? There are already the 4 280s and a whack of others that already have a history/battle honours, but would be more interesting than the safe option.
> 
> I have really enjoyed some of the ships I've been on, but the CHA crest of 5 squares doesn't really start any conversations, where some kind of interesting FN art would. I'm sure that can't hurt recruiting at all.


I personally do think that reviving many of the older RCN vessel namesakes with ties to the FN would be quite nice but I am also not sure how politically tenable doing so is. Many people view having a ship named after you to be a considerable honor but on the flipside others could see it as unwanted appropriation. If they want another "Tribal" class, I think there does need to be quite a bit of consultation with the related nations to gauge approval and support. It could be quite the tightrope to walk and one that I'm not sure the RCN really wants to do. Reusing River names ia another potential option I think as well but there isn't much more I'd like to see than another HMCS Haida in the fleet just like what the UK is doing with another HMS Belfast.


----------



## FSTO

Rainbow1910 said:


> I personally do think that reviving many of the older RCN vessel namesakes with ties to the FN would be quite nice but I am also not sure how politically tenable doing so is. Many people view having a ship named after you to be a considerable honor but on the flipside others could see it as unwanted appropriation. If they want another "Tribal" class, I think there does need to be quite a bit of consultation with the related nations to gauge approval and support. It could be quite the tightrope to walk and one that I'm not sure the RCN really wants to do. Reusing River names ia another potential option I think as well but there isn't much more I'd like to see than another HMCS Haida in the fleet just like what the UK is doing with another HMS Belfast.


Everything is on the table and if the RCN decides to go the FN route, there will be extensive consultations. There will also be a backup plan.


----------



## Underway

Here's a nice article on ship naming.  Minister of National Defence has the final say.

Not a huge River class name fan but some of those names are emblematic of the RCN.

You could the the Provincial class, which would be interesting.
Quebec, Yukon (though named for the River IIRC), Ontario have been used previously.  Newfoundland was an HMS not HMCS.

Tribal Class we could get close to the full 15 ship names

Iroquois
Athabaskan
Huron
Haida
Micmac
Nootka
Cayuga
Algonquin
Ojibwa
Okanagan
Onondaga
Assiniboine (take the river name and make it a tribal name).
That brings you to 12 with previous battle honours.  Add in Cree (largest nation in Canada), Inuit, Metis, maybe remove some that are language groups and/or don't match modern tribal naming conventions.

Edit:  Went out and found a list of the first nations in Canada.  There are some modified spellings from the original ship names, Mi'kmaq is a good example, and an example of a changed name is Iroqouis =>Haudenosaunee.  I think you could make the exception that if you are changing out ships crests for first nations artist ones, you can change the spelling/name and the legacy lives on.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> Here's a nice article on ship naming.  Minister of National Defence has the final say.
> 
> Not a huge River class name fan but some of those names are emblematic of the RCN.
> 
> You could the the Provincial class, which would be interesting.
> Quebec, Yukon (though named for the River IIRC), Ontario have been used previously.  Newfoundland was an HMS not HMCS.
> 
> Tribal Class we could get close to the full 15 ship names
> 
> Iroquois
> Athabaskan
> Huron
> Haida
> Micmac
> Nootka
> Cayuga
> Algonquin
> Ojibwa
> Okanagan
> Onondaga
> Assiniboine (take the river name and make it a tribal name).
> That brings you to 12 with previous battle honours.  Add in Cree (largest nation in Canada), Inuit, Metis, maybe remove some that are language groups and/or don't match modern tribal naming conventions.
> 
> Edit:  Went out and found a list of the first nations in Canada.  There are some modified spellings from the original ship names, Mi'kmaq is a good example, and an example of a changed name is Iroqouis =>Haudenosaunee.  I think you could make the exception that if you are changing out ships crests for first nations artist ones, you can change the spelling/name and the legacy lives on.


I largely enjoy using the Rivers as an alternative scheme due to the extensive ties they have with the recent generation of RCN sailors from the Cold War, alongside the vessels which served prior to that in period surrounding WWII. The St. Laurent-class and its derivatives formed the backbone of the RCN for decades with some fairly unique Canadian names, unofficial nicknames and service records throughout, it's a shame to let that fall to the wayside. Saguenay and Skeena as the first pair would be doubly fitting if they went with a River naming scheme considering they were the first pair of purpose built warships ever ordered for Canada. I really am not a fan of naming ships after towns and cities, I understand why it was done in an attempt to better connect with the general population but it comes off as as overdone and lazy when three classes of combatants we have use effectively the same scheme. 

Naming the class after provinces and territories doesn't sound bad either although it would leave you two ships short of the current order. It's a violation of the class naming scheme but I would like them to reuse HMCS Niobe and HMCS Rainbow sometime for RCN ships at sea, having both of the RCN's first namesakes leading a class made up of all of the provinces and territories has some decent symbolism there. If the AOPS hadn't started the trend of using figures from the RCN's history, an alternative could have been something like the USN with their destroyers although I have my doubts if that would work considering the amount of scrutiny given to historical figures these days. 

HMCS Sioux is another potential addition for the Tribal class given it has battle honors and served in WWII/Korea. 

Atleast in my opinion for the CSC, my preferences in order from favorite to least favorite for naming schemes would likely be something like:
Tribal class > River class > Province class > City class. 

CSC deserves some fitting names given their capability, I think Tribal, River or potentially even Provinces could serve them well.


----------



## Prairie canuck

In today's social climate it would be best to stay well clear of using any indigenous names. There will be incessant complaints (given our history they may be valid) and claims of colonialism and appropriation. We have plenty of rivers, cities, provinces, trees, geology, ocean carnivores, and lakes to choose from. 

My suggestion for the first: HMCS Truculent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Prairie canuck said:


> In today's social climate it would be best to stay well clear of using any indigenous names. There will be incessant complaints (given our history they may be valid) and claims of colonialism and appropriation. We have plenty of rivers, cities, provinces, trees, geology, ocean carnivores, and lakes to choose from.
> 
> My suggestion for the first: HMCS Truculent.


I disagree with you, with a little leg work, must of the FN bands will love it. Particularly some of the most modern and capable warships we have ever had. If fact I can see some competition to get the honour.


----------



## NavyShooter

How about using the names to curry favour with provide a lasting legacy of the current generation of political leadership? This might help ensure funding. 

HMCS Freeland
HMCS Trudeau
HMCS Architect


----------



## Furniture

Colin Parkinson said:


> I disagree with you, with a little leg work, must of the FN bands will love it. Particularly some of the most modern and capable warships we have ever had. If fact I can see some competition to get the honour.


Look at the pipeline issues in BC, a few dedicated activists can make things miserable. 

Sticking to rivers, lakes, animals, provinces, etc., is a much lower political risk.


----------



## Maxman1

If you really wanted to make heads explode, we could name them after historical ships like _Sphinx_.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Prairie canuck said:


> In today's social climate it would be best to stay well clear of using any indigenous names. There will be incessant complaints (given our history they may be valid) and claims of colonialism and appropriation. We have plenty of rivers, cities, provinces, trees, geology, ocean carnivores, and lakes to choose from.
> 
> My suggestion for the first: HMCS Truculent.


I'm with @Colin Parkinson here, done right this could be actually meaningful and actually fully in line with the intent of the TRC.

Worthwhile things aren't usually easy. Safe is boring. If the RCN has enough time for moustache badges they have resources for this at HQ.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm with @Colin Parkinson here, done right this could be actually meaningful and actually fully in line with the intent of the TRC.
> 
> Worthwhile things aren't usually easy. Safe is boring. If the RCN has enough time for moustache badges they have resources for this at HQ.



Agreed, engage the indigenous community and make them a player in the ships naming and through the life span.  Give them a sense of attachment and pride in the ship.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Has there been any murmurings about the naming scheme being looked at for the CCG AOPS? Any potential ideas?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed, engage the indigenous community and make them a player in the ships naming and through the life span.  Give them a sense of attachment and pride in the ship.


In a related note, there was a lot of Inuit that were for the 'Edmonton Eskimo' name, as it was one of the few high profile things for their culture. The older generation didn't necessarily have the same negative connotation with the name, but that was all erased when they went the safe route, vice working with Inuit/Inuk folks to transition the name.

Which is really a shame, because if you want to meet a tough bunch of (really friendly and unassuming) people to name a team after, they are awesome. I'm sure they could have come up with an appropriate mascot (Caribou? Polar bear? Narwhale?) but that was a weak way out.


----------



## ringo

name CSC after provinces and territories
use tribal names when they start paying taxes
no politician names

Wish Canada would purchase icebreaker Polar Circle currently moored in Bedford Basin, for Coast Guard.


----------



## GR66

Instead of looking to the past why don't we look to more modern ship names that more closely reflect the current RCN?

HMCS Neglect
HMCS Overworked
HMCS Heartbreak
HMCS Undermanned
HMCS DuctTape
HMCS Jetty-Jumper

Much more likely to resonate with our sailors!


----------



## MTShaw

HMCS Resolute


----------



## FSTO

Rainbow1910 said:


> HMCS Sioux is another potential addition for the Tribal class given it has battle honors and served in WWII/Korea.


The Sioux were the sworn enemies of the Cree and Ojibwa. They are also mainly a group who lived south of the 49th (some Lakota around Brandon MB). The Blackfoot are a subgroup of the Teton Sioux.

The name Sioux is an abbreviation of Nadouessioux (“Adders”; i.e., enemies), a name originally applied to them by the Ojibwa.


----------



## Maxman1

Rainbow1910 said:


> Has there been any murmurings about the naming scheme being looked at for the CCG AOPS? Any potential ideas?



Coast Guard ships are usually named after significant people. Being arctic patrol ships, they could be named after arctic explorers like George Beck or James Ross, or John Rae and John Richardson (there's already a CCGS _John Franklin_).


----------



## Maxman1

MTShaw said:


> HMCS Resolute



And HMCS _Terror _and HMCS _Erebus._


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin Parkinson said:


> I disagree with you, with a little leg work, must of the FN bands will love it. Particularly some of the most modern and capable warships we have ever had. If fact I can see some competition to get the honour.


<drift>
On a somewhat related note, saw some discussion about order of precedence for indigenous flags (expect there's other carried signifiers once you get into traditional practices) on a Facebook group. Currently very much undefined, but someone needs to have a look at it, both from a TRC perspective and from a practical one: there's more movement by indigenous groups to take a public, visible role in civic ceremonial outside their own communities, and outside events with a solely indigenous focus.

Treaty-signing nations resident within Canada's borders and predating the provinces should have a place in the national ceremonial realm. Expect the tidiest would be nations' flags etc. being senior to everything except the Canadian flag, perhaps with a note that indigenous entities that correspond closely to the current "municipal" and "organization" classes will find their home accordingly.

_Really _wouldn't want to touch precedence _among_ indigenous flags etc.
</drift>


----------



## ringo

Don't think we need to be naming Canadian ships after a British screwup.


----------



## NavyShooter

How about "HMCS Mainguy"?


----------



## dapaterson

NavyShooter said:


> How about "HMCS Mainguy"?


You, sir, win the internet for today.


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:


> How about "HMCS Mainguy"?


And make Hellyer (if the old bastard is still alive) the ship's sponsor. Hopefully his alien buddies will keep him alive enough to see this happen!


----------



## Furniture

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm with @Colin Parkinson here, done right this could be actually meaningful and actually fully in line with the intent of the TRC.
> 
> Worthwhile things aren't usually easy. Safe is boring. If the RCN has enough time for moustache badges they have resources for this at HQ.


That's easy to say, but like with the coastal gaslink pipeline, which group do you engage with? What is the solution when the a few renegades stir up trouble and get the woke Twitter mob coming after the CAF/GoC? Is the juice worth the squeeze? Do you think the GoC wouldn't throw the RCN under the bus to save face? 

There is a fine line between brave and stupid, and I suspect we draw that line slightly differently on this topic. 

Rivers and provinces are an established, _historic_, and _ _safe way to proceed.


----------



## lenaitch

quadrapiper said:


> <drift>
> On a somewhat related note, saw some discussion about order of precedence for indigenous flags (expect there's other carried signifiers once you get into traditional practices) on a Facebook group. Currently very much undefined, but someone needs to have a look at it, both from a TRC perspective and from a practical one: there's more movement by indigenous groups to take a public, visible role in civic ceremonial outside their own communities, and outside events with a solely indigenous focus.
> 
> Treaty-signing nations resident within Canada's borders and predating the provinces should have a place in the national ceremonial realm. Expect the tidiest would be nations' flags etc. being senior to everything except the Canadian flag, perhaps with a note that indigenous entities that correspond closely to the current "municipal" and "organization" classes will find their home accordingly.
> 
> _Really _wouldn't want to touch precedence _among_ indigenous flags etc.
> </drift>


Is there any evidence of flags, banners or other manner of symbology that was inherent to the indigenous cultures, or is that a form of appropriation of western ('settler') culture?   I'm not saying it's a completely bad idea, but I get the sense that any of the flags that I have seen (Mohawk, Warrior & Metis come to mind) seem to be fairly recent adoptions.


----------



## Maxman1

FSTO said:


> And make Hellyer (if the old bastard is still alive) the ship's sponsor. Hopefully his alien buddies will keep him alive enough to see this happen!



He's dead, Jim.

Also, whoever chose a photo of him and a sailor in Square Rig, is an evil genius.


----------



## Maxman1

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm with @Colin Parkinson here, done right this could be actually meaningful and actually fully in line with the intent of the TRC.
> 
> Worthwhile things aren't usually easy. Safe is boring. If the RCN has enough time for moustache badges they have resources for this at HQ.



Considering the government made Truth and Reconciliation Day a holiday for government workers, then skipped out on a ceremony to go surfing, that may be asking for more than they can give at this time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Furniture said:


> That's easy to say, but like with the coastal gaslink pipeline, which group do you engage with? What is the solution when the a few renegades stir up trouble and get the woke Twitter mob coming after the CAF/GoC? Is the juice worth the squeeze? Do you think the GoC wouldn't throw the RCN under the bus to save face?
> 
> There is a fine line between brave and stupid, and I suspect we draw that line slightly differently on this topic.
> 
> Rivers and provinces are an established, _historic_, and _ _safe way to proceed.


Sure, but worth a go.  If it stirs up strong/mixed feelings it's at least worth a try. Worse case you get a 'no', best case you can do something cool, and get some sweet ship's crests with even cooler SWAG, with a genuinely good reason for some TD to keep the relationSHIP going (because that's part of the NSS for the different 'SHIPS' we build... heard that enough it's left mental scars).

I expect we won't bother though, and instead just issue more ugly pins for meaningless career benchmarks.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Maxman1 said:


> Coast Guard ships are usually named after significant people. Being arctic patrol ships, they could be named after arctic explorers like George Beck or James Ross, or John Rae and John Richardson (there's already a CCGS _John Franklin_).


I'm only suggesting this half in jest and half in seriousness. 

CCG Brian Mulroney and CCG David Suzuki 

Both have been champions of the environment in Canada, both have been recognised as such.  Though not specifically Arctic related, they both have done significant things in bettering the 'green' health/awareness in Canada.

Yes, both are currently living and I'm sure there is some traditional reasons not to name the vessels after them as long as they are both living, but in today's Canada, traditions mean little.

Ok, go ahead and start flinging your rocks at my glass house.


----------



## Mike5

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm only suggesting this half in jest and half in seriousness.
> 
> CCG Brian Mulroney and CCG David Suzuki
> 
> Both have been champions of the environment in Canada, both have been recognised as such.  Though not specifically Arctic related, they both have done significant things in bettering the 'green' health/awareness in Canada.
> 
> Yes, both are currently living and I'm sure there is some traditional reasons not to name the vessels after them as long as they are both living, but in today's Canada, traditions mean little.
> 
> Ok, go ahead and start flinging your rocks at my glass house.



I saw former Prime Minister Mulroney speak at an event several years ago, before the pandemic.  I'm a Liberal but I thought he was funny, well-spoken and articulate.  He did a lot for Canada, not least the investment in the Halifax-class frigates.

The Americans don't have a problem naming major vessels after former Presidents ... but (CCG aside) it does not seem to be a tradition in the Commonwealth?


----------



## Spencer100

Mike5 said:


> I saw former Prime Minister Mulroney speak at an event several years ago, before the pandemic.  I'm a Liberal but I thought he was funny, well-spoken and articulate.  He did a lot for Canada, not least the investment in the Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> The Americans don't have a problem naming major vessels after former Presidents ... but (CCG aside) it does not seem to be a tradition in the Commonwealth?


Because being sunk by the HMS Pansy    vs the USS Jimmy Carter is more devastating.....on second thought


----------



## ringo

MV Polar Circle another used icebreaker available for coast guard currently moored in Bedford Basin.


----------



## Good2Golf

What happened to CCGS Icy McIcebreak?


----------



## BdaDug

Navy_Pete said:


> In a related note, there was a lot of Inuit that were for the 'Edmonton Eskimo' name, as it was one of the few high profile things for their culture. The older generation didn't necessarily have the same negative connotation with the name, but that was all erased when they went the safe route, vice working with Inuit/Inuk folks to transition the name.
> 
> Which is really a shame, because if you want to meet a tough bunch of (really friendly and unassuming) people to name a team after, they are awesome. I'm sure they could have come up with an appropriate mascot (Caribou? Polar bear? Narwhale?) but that was a weak way out


----------



## suffolkowner

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1596968375657168896
2 more to go lets skip the CCG versions and start cutting steel on the CSC


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1596968375657168896
> 2 more to go lets skip the CCG versions and start cutting steel on the CSC


You need a design, production engineering, and long lead parts first. CSC is still at preliminary design review.


----------



## suffolkowner

Navy_Pete said:


> You need a design, production engineering, and long lead parts first. CSC is still at preliminary design review.


They havent cut steel on the Robert Hampton Gray yet so that still puts the first CSC a year out. Recently they were talking about starting in 2023. Is it not achievable?


----------



## YZT580

I would guess that there are a number of pieces that remain standard to the design and could be fabricated without the final signed-off version but whether it is worth it to reprogramme, retrain before finishing with the AOPs is another question entirely


----------



## suffolkowner

Its one year out to start versus doing the two CCG ships and pushing it out at least another year. Do they need the time? Do we need the CCG ships?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> Its one year out to start versus doing the two CCG ships and pushing it out at least another year. Do they need the time? Do we need the CCG ships?


The CCG needs ships, but the AOP's is not optimal for them as it can't really do buoy work. ISI can do a test module for the CSC and possibly do some of the modules that do not change.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> They havent cut steel on the Robert Hampton Gray yet so that still puts the first CSC a year out. Recently they were talking about starting in 2023. Is it not achievable?


I have no idea, but if I did I probably couldn't confirm or deny either.

Probably a lot of things they can start on ahead of time, but a big part of the reason for the CCG ships was to plug the gap between AOPs and CSC, so wouldn't expect them to really do much until that point.

It's much thinner plating, so lots of test welds to do to set up the automated stations as well as to build into the modules. Like applying paint, not really exciting, unless you do it wrong, but can get complicated.


----------



## suffolkowner

Navy_Pete said:


> I have no idea, but if I did I probably couldn't confirm or deny either.
> 
> Probably a lot of things they can start on ahead of time, but a big part of the reason for the CCG ships was to plug the gap between AOPs and CSC, so wouldn't expect them to really do much until that point.
> 
> It's much thinner plating, so lots of test welds to do to set up the automated stations as well as to build into the modules. Like applying paint, not really exciting, unless you do it wrong, but can get complicated.


Obviously I have no idea how much work can be done before everything is squared away but mainly I just want the project to get going as I think its going to be a rough replacement process unless Irving can really learn from what has gone on in the UK program and from the AOPS. There were a bunch of welding problems reported on the UK ship and then the desire to assemble under cover as well. We will probably be waiting on an answer for another 6 months at least and if it cant be done then I guess the CCG gets a ship or two


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> Obviously I have no idea how much work can be done before everything is squared away but mainly I just want the project to get going as I think its going to be a rough replacement process unless Irving can really learn from what has gone on in the UK program and from the AOPS. There were a bunch of welding problems reported on the UK ship and then the desire to assemble under cover as well. We will probably be waiting on an answer for another 6 months at least and if it cant be done then I guess the CCG gets a ship or two


There are still a few major design decisions to get figured out that may require some structural changes; doing things like changing major weapon systems, radars etc or making the hull bigger means it's not 'off the shelf'.

Those are really Canada decisions, not really ISI though, so really our own fault for putting a huge AEGIS system up high and some other major changes, but I think the hull itself is now bigger compared to the original.

There are probably a few million feet of welding in a ship, so you'll always have issues somewhere. QC on builds is different then repairs, and they've done a lot on AOPS that will directly translate over, but with the extra deformation you'll get with welding thinner steel it'll be more of a general challenge. Also way more compartmentalization and things packed in, so expect there will be ongoing lessons learned


----------



## don3wing

Navy_Pete said:


> I have no idea, but if I did I probably couldn't confirm or deny either.
> 
> Probably a lot of things they can start on ahead of time, but a big part of the reason for the CCG ships was to plug the gap between AOPs and CSC, so wouldn't expect them to really do much until that point.
> 
> It's much thinner plating, so lots of test welds to do to set up the automated stations as well as to build into the modules. Like applying paint, not really exciting, unless you do it wrong, but can get complicated.


  The Robert Hampton Gray first cutting of the steel occred back on August 15th or whereabouts.

Production of Canada's Sixth and Final Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship for the Royal Canadian Navy Underway with Cutting of First Steel for the Future HMCS Robert Hampton Gray


----------



## suffolkowner

don3wing said:


> The Robert Hampton Gray first cutting of the steel occred back on August 15th or whereabouts.
> 
> Production of Canada's Sixth and Final Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship for the Royal Canadian Navy Underway with Cutting of First Steel for the Future HMCS Robert Hampton Gray


Yeah I was going to post that this morning so likely Irving is over the Covid issues and back on schedule. Odds are better that they will do the two CCG ships


----------



## Navy_Pete

don3wing said:


> The Robert Hampton Gray first cutting of the steel occred back on August 15th or whereabouts.
> 
> Production of Canada's Sixth and Final Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship for the Royal Canadian Navy Underway with Cutting of First Steel for the Future HMCS Robert Hampton Gray


That's a bit of a PR milestone, vice an indication that production has started in earnest. The cutting line is pretty wild though and only really needs one or two people, and then the output parts go into a bin/flat for later production. Makes sense generally though as they'll have 2 in production and starting to get the steel prepped for the next one, but still years out from actually seeing that one hit water.


----------



## Halifax Tar

It's being reported the HDW is down until April. Max Bernays was accepted with mechanical issues and Margaret Brooke just came back to serviceability from bow thruster problems.

And Irving is off the hook for HDW.  It's out of its 1 year warranty.

And apparently RCN sailors have been speaking with the press questioning the capability of the AOPS.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> It's being reported the HDW is down until April. Max Bernays was accepted with mechanical issues and Margaret Brooke just came back to serviceability from bow thruster problems.
> 
> And Irving is off the hook for HDW.  It's out of its 1 year warranty.
> 
> And apparently RCN sailors have been speaking with the press questioning the capability of the AOPS.


Yes, but the accommodations are money!


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> It's being reported the HDW is down until April. Max Bernays was accepted with mechanical issues and Margaret Brooke just came back to serviceability from bow thruster problems.
> 
> And Irving is off the hook for HDW.  It's out of its 1 year warranty.
> 
> And apparently RCN sailors have been speaking with the press questioning the capability of the AOPS.


The Halifax Class were a dog's breakfast when they first came out, lots of initial issues that were rectified this is no different. One-year warranty on items is pretty standard. Considering where this story came from, I would question some of the facts being reported.


----------



## Maxman1

I don't think you can even get a warranty that long from Chrysler.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> The Halifax Class were a dog's breakfast when they first came out, lots of initial issues that were rectified this is no different. One-year warranty on items is pretty standard. Considering where this story came from, I would question some of the facts being reported.



Well I definitely hope we continue to give business to Irving.  From the CPFs to the AOPs its top quality product right out of the gate.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> Yes, but the accommodations are money!



And WiFi ...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> The Halifax Class were a dog's breakfast when they first came out, lots of initial issues that were rectified this is no different. One-year warranty on items is pretty standard. Considering where this story came from, I would question some of the facts being reported.


Which facts are you questioning? The issues aren't minor in nature, and not really comparable to first of class for the CPFs. It's also a commercial standard build so way less tolerance for major defects as there is less redundancy and way less compartmentalization.


----------



## NavyShooter

My thoughts on ISI are well known I think.

I am completely unsurprised by any of this.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> My thoughts on ISI are well known I think.
> 
> I am completely unsurprised by any of this.


Also a big difference between warranty work and underlying design issues; at least car makers will do a recall on earlier models if they realize something they build doesn't work and is a safety issue.

I blame our lawyers for being giant weenies though; they are too worried about 'optics' to actually enforce contract terms and conditions. A good working relationship is important in a partnership, but that doesn't mean we should lie down and take it if they shit the bed (and the class society doesn't catch it, or head office is pressured into overruling the local surveyors when they find something).


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> Also a big difference between warranty work and underlying design issues; at least car makers will do a recall on earlier models if they realize something they build doesn't work and is a safety issue.


…and the actuarial insurance tables vetted by lawyers say a class action lawsuit would cost more than fixing the problem.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> …and the actuarial insurance tables vetted by lawyers say a class action lawsuit would cost more than fixing the problem.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Which facts are you questioning? The issues aren't minor in nature, and not really comparable to first of class for the CPFs. It's also a commercial standard build so way less tolerance for major defects as there is less redundancy and way less compartmentalization.


What I'm saying is that builds regardless of what they are, pretty much always have issues, minor and major. Delivering a ship with broken equipment as long as both parties agree sometimes happens for many practical reasons. The issues are identified and rectified. One year warranty is standard same thing when we received the KIN Class for the first time back in the day. The bow thruster issue is being covered under warranty, the generator issue will be covered under the maintenance package. No company is going to stand up and say we'll fix it anyways even out of warranty. These ships even commercially built are large and complex in many ways and ultimately will have lots of ongoing defects. It seems that people think things don't break or something.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> What I'm saying is that builds regardless of what they are, pretty much always have issues, minor and major. Delivering a ship with broken equipment as long as both parties agree sometimes happens for many practical reasons. The issues are identified and rectified. One year warranty is standard same thing when we received the KIN Class for the first time back in the day. The bow thruster issue is being covered under warranty, the generator issue will be covered under the maintenance package. No company is going to stand up and say we'll fix it anyways even out of warranty. These ships even commercially built are large and complex in many ways and ultimately will have lots of ongoing defects. It seems that people think things don't break or something.


Sure, but things breaking is different than a design not fundamentally working. There are a few of those that are starting to get fixed on the new builds but we're on our own to fix it on the in-service ships (while not having the infrastructure etc to start doing ECs).

Some are known issues, that aren't being fixed in build, with the faulty design still being built, and passed over to in service, so it's strange. If ISI's lawyers are better at arguing it 'meets the contract' and we aren't pushing back, or paying to fix thing in build if required, still ends up with sailors with sub par equipment or things that don't work the way they are supposed to.

Politics also played into it; HDW shouldn't have been accepted at the time without the outstanding issues addressed, and caveats for the sea trials that still weren't done until after the warranty period was up.

Sure it's a complex ship that we're still learning but bad design is bad design.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, but things breaking is different than a design not fundamentally working. There are a few of those that are starting to get fixed on the new builds but we're on our own to fix it on the in-service ships (while not having the infrastructure etc to start doing ECs).
> 
> Some are known issues, that aren't being fixed in build, with the faulty design still being built, and passed over to in service, so it's strange. If ISI's lawyers are better at arguing it 'meets the contract' and we aren't pushing back, or paying to fix thing in build if required, still ends up with sailors with sub par equipment or things that don't work the way they are supposed to.
> 
> Politics also played into it; HDW shouldn't have been accepted at the time without the outstanding issues addressed, and caveats for the sea trials that still weren't done until after the warranty period was up.
> 
> Sure it's a complex ship that we're still learning but bad design is bad design.


Sure and design flaws happen as well and are corrected and we carry on. Accepting the ship if the Navy is not happy is totally up to the Navy. We are often our own worse enemy for that at times. The ships are going to have teething problems but at the end of the day they will be rectified and the ships will carry on. That is the way of things as you probably are well aware.


----------



## NavyShooter

If the HDW is a 'complex ship' then I hold even less hope for success for the CSC if they're to be built by ISI.

Buy the hulls in the UK from their production line, and pay the price to fit out here in Canada.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:


> If the HDW is a 'complex ship' then I hold even less hope for success for the CSC if they're to be built by ISI.
> 
> Buy the hulls in the UK from their production line, and pay the price to fit out here in Canada.


Well Brad its way more complex then any ship I've been on and pretty impressed with the level of automation and the diesel electric system. There's even no mold. A step in the right direction I would think. Just keep FMF away from her, not like she can be docked in the dockyard anyways.


----------



## YZT580

NavyShooter said:


> If the HDW is a 'complex ship' then I hold even less hope for success for the CSC if they're to be built by ISI.
> 
> Buy the hulls in the UK from their production line, and pay the price to fit out here in Canada.


Not a viable suggestion would suggest that the hull construction is reasonably routine it is the stuff that goes inside that is going to cause problems.  Besides, that would give you first delivery in or around 2035.  Do you think our existing fleet can last til then?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Sure and design flaws happen as well and are corrected and we carry on. Accepting the ship if the Navy is not happy is totally up to the Navy. We are often our own worse enemy for that at times. The ships are going to have teething problems but at the end of the day they will be rectified and the ships will carry on. That is the way of things as you probably are well aware.


My issue is really that you are calling it 'teething problems'.

Using a car analogy, paint not sticking to a bumper on a new production model of car is a teething problem; poor finish quality on trim is a teething problem, something like the brakes not working is a major safety issue.

The fire suppression issue that was found in the summer was a show stopper, and the class would never have been allowed to go to sea without it being fixed if had known about it on HDW or MAR. They are basically tied up now until the engine cooling issue is fixed, and there are other design flaws that need sorted before they can do helo ops.

Sure, it'll get fixed, but it's not just something cosmetic or inconvenient, and it doesn't get better as we poke at it. None of the design is innovative, unusual or unique as it's all commercial standard gear, and it's actually less complex in comparison to the smaller CCG science ships that VSY built.  It's impressive only because we are used to beaten to heck old ships that don't get properly maintained. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> My issue is really that you are calling it 'teething problems'.
> 
> Using a car analogy, paint not sticking to a bumper on a new production model of car is a teething problem; poor finish quality on trim is a teething problem, something like the brakes not working is a major safety issue.
> 
> The fire suppression issue that was found in the summer was a show stopper, and the class would never have been allowed to go to sea without it being fixed if had known about it on HDW or MAR. They are basically tied up now until the engine cooling issue is fixed, and there are other design flaws that need sorted before they can do helo ops.
> 
> Sure, it'll get fixed, but it's not just something cosmetic or inconvenient, and it doesn't get better as we poke at it. None of the design is innovative, unusual or unique as it's all commercial standard gear, and it's actually less complex in comparison to the smaller CCG science ships that VSY built.  It's impressive only because we are used to beaten to heck old ships that don't get properly maintained. 🤷‍♂️


Fire suppression is MBS and I assume the ship requires so many working generators to also meet MBS. The cooling problem and whatever else that needs to be repaired will be eventually and the ships will carry on. I'll take your word on the CCG science ships being more complex and you are right its impressive to us as its new gear and its a good go for a young sailor. Regardless of their limitations, issues I'm still pretty impressed with them and they will end of serving us well in the end.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe we should just be spending our money, our very limited money, on actual warships.


----------



## NavyShooter

The argument has long been that as part of the NSPS, we have to learn how to build ships again.

We would honestly have been better off 're-learning' by punching out 4 new Halifax Class hulls, and transferring the 'gear' from our 4 worst condition ships into the new hulls as they're built.  Then switching the production line to whatever we end up with as CSC's...instead of wasting the effort on the AOPS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:


> The argument has long been that as part of the NSPS, we have to learn how to build ships again.
> 
> We would honestly have been better off 're-learning' by punching out 4 new Halifax Class hulls, and transferring the 'gear' from our 4 worst condition ships into the new hulls as they're built.  Then switching the production line to whatever we end up with as CSC's...instead of wasting the effort on the AOPS.


The government wanted the RCN in the Arctic, whether you agree or not, that is why the AOP's and to be fair, any other nation would have already have navy ships or armed CG patrolling up there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe we should just be spending our money, our very limited money, on actual warships.



Maybe the RCN should just have accepted the Svalbard design as it was offered and accepted the least cost solution - A more capable Orca.

The money, and time saved could have been spent on AORs, CSCs or other stuff.


----------



## Underway

We'll be happy we spent the time and money on them when CSC is built.  Lots of experience was gained in that shipyard which will do us well as those get on the line.

Besides some of the modular capability that's coming for those ships is... surprising.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe we should just be spending our money, our very limited money, on actual warships.



You stop it lol 

They are a warship, a very Nova Scotia styled warship.  Short, fat, rarely works and poorly armed.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> Short, fat, rarely works and poorly armed. loose in stays, but it still took the Antelope two whole days...


----------



## Halifax Tar




----------



## Maxman1

God damn them all! I was told we'd cruise the seas for American gold.


----------



## NavyShooter

Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)

Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)

I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....

You know the rest...


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)
> 
> Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)
> 
> I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....
> 
> You know the rest...



You, good Sir, missed your calling lol


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Fire suppression is MBS and I assume the ship requires so many working generators to also meet MBS. The cooling problem and whatever else that needs to be repaired will be eventually and the ships will carry on. I'll take your word on the CCG science ships being more complex and you are right its impressive to us as its new gear and its a good go for a young sailor. Regardless of their limitations, issues I'm still pretty impressed with them and they will end of serving us well in the end.


It's not even MBS; the design didn't meet SOLAS. Don't worry though, we're told the experience and oversight of the Class society that signed off on it and certified the ship will keep us safe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:


> Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)
> 
> Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)
> 
> I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....
> 
> You know the rest...


Oh god, the rest of the internet today will pale in comparison to this


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to Music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit



Can I prez of the fan club ?


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> We'll be happy we spent the time and money on them when CSC is built.  Lots of experience was gained in that shipyard which will do us well as those get on the line.
> 
> Besides some of the modular capability that's coming for those ships is... surprising.



Svalbard - 575 MNOK in 2000 - 78 MCAD each 
2007 - Steven Harper asks for a fleet of 8 Svalbards  = 8x 78 = 624 MCAD 
2007 - AOPS Project - 4,300 MCAD

Canadian Delta = 3,676 MCAD
Overrun = 589%


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Svalbard - 575 MNOK in 2000 - 78 MCAD each
> 2007 - Steven Harper asks for a fleet of 8 Svalbards  = 8x 78 = 624 MCAD
> 2007 - AOPS Project - 4,300 MCAD
> 
> Canadian Delta = 3,676 MCAD
> Overrun = 589%


As per the AG report, the public Svalbard costs only include a fraction of what we include in ours. The details have been included in this thread and others repeatedly, so not sure why you still default back to the PR lines.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> As per the AG report, the public Svalbard costs only include a fraction of what we include in ours. The details have been included in this thread and others repeatedly, so not sure why you still default back to the PR lines.



Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.

Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Navy Shooter, we really need someone to tweak the words and put it to music. We can call it the "Irving Privater song". Then post it to Reddit


I eagerly wait the next SCS


----------



## NavyShooter

I have my work cut out for me this evening I guess....

I'll grab a glass of rum, and ponder the next verse...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.
> 
> Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.


There needs to be an agreed upon NATO standard for report costs on large projects. So countries can still use their methods internally, but must disclose the NATO Standard costing. That would solve a lot of PR problems down the road for all the NATO members. Plus allow for meaningful discussion on defense spending.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.
> 
> Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.


Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.

Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.

Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.
> 
> Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.
> 
> Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.




I read it.  And giving up sounds like a bloody poor analysis.  Jus' sayin'.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> I read it.  And giving up sounds like a bloody poor analysis.  Jus' sayin'.


Thinking you can get a fair comparison from public news releases that use totally different contexts and scope for costs is similarly a waste of time.

When they do parametric analysis for just the ships based on tonnage/class and adjust for inflation (using the industiral indexes, because some things like steel and copper have gone up a lot more than the CPI) it's comparable, and generally within the margin of error and allowances for a learning curve expected of new shipyards.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> Thinking you can get a fair comparison from public news releases that use totally different contexts and scope for costs is similarly a waste of time.
> 
> When they do parametric analysis for just the ships based on tonnage/class and adjust for inflation (using the industiral indexes, because some things like steel and copper have gone up a lot more than the CPI) it's comparable, and generally within the margin of error and allowances for a learning curve expected of new shipyards.



The monkey's chased the weasel on that one long enough.

Cheers.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Navy_Pete said:


> Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.


I've heard of this report in the past but have been unable to find it. Would you happen to have a link to it? Thanks.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> Because beyond the hard costs of the hulls there is a great deal of discretion exercised in the nature of other costs that were apportioned.
> 
> Those discretionary decisions ate up dollars which might have been apportioned to the AORs, a prototype CSC or ordnance that would have assisted all three services.


Had a good chat with an Snr Australian Officer who works in their own project office.  His response when I asked about the Hobarts was "You get what you pay for."  They had no spares, no missiles, no ammo and bad workmanship (shockingly bad) which lead to a lot of after acceptance work by the yards.  He was surprised to learn our projects always include spares and ammo.  

And I'm not even relating the story about how their new (2021) HMAS Supply (II) was almost lost TWICE because of flooding.  Once just before acceptance (when it was sailing from Spain to Australia) and the second time at RIMPAC when they had a fuel flood...

I'm not saying we're better, but cheapness isn't the be all and end all of shipbuilding.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Had a good chat with an Snr Australian Officer who works in their own project office.  His response when I asked about the Hobarts was "You get what you pay for."  They had no spares, no missiles, no ammo and bad workmanship (shockingly bad) which lead to a lot of after acceptance work by the yards.  He was surprised to learn our projects always include spares and ammo.
> 
> And I'm not even relating the story about how their new (2021) HMAS Supply (II) was almost lost TWICE because of flooding.  Once just before acceptance (when it was sailing from Spain to Australia) and the second time at RIMPAC when they had a fuel flood...
> 
> I'm not saying we're better, but cheapness isn't the be all and end all of shipbuilding.



I'll stipulate all of that.  I'll even stipulate that there is merit in evaluating the life-cycle or capability cost.

My issue is that I don't seem to be the only person on the planet that finds it difficult to determine real comparable costs on Canadian projects.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> I'll stipulate all of that.  I'll even stipulate that there is merit in evaluating the life-cycle or capability cost.
> 
> My issue is that I don't seem to be the only person on the planet that finds it difficult to determine real comparable costs on Canadian projects.


That's why I suggest a NATO Standard for costing, everyone can do their own thing, but also have to produce a costing using the same standard, so there is a apples to apples comparison.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> That's why I suggest a NATO Standard for costing, everyone can do their own thing, but also have to produce a costing using the same standard, so there is a apples to apples comparison.


 Nobody wants that.

Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> Spare parts, infrastructure, training and TDP/IP aren't discretionary, they just aren't normally reported as part of the ship costs by other countries when they do press releases.
> 
> Some countries, like the US, frequently provide a lot of equipment as 'GSM' and is why some of their really expensive ships look really cheap. If you have the combat suite on a completely different project, it looks good.
> 
> Don't take my word on it, read the AG report where they tried to compare AOPs and SValbard costs in 2017 ish; they basically admitted it was impossible to do in an apples to apples way and gave up.


FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms 

GFM: Government Furnished Materials 
 Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.  

GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
 Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms
> 
> GFM: Government Furnished Materials
> Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.
> 
> GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
> Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.


I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.

Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout), as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.

And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.

They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.

I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Nobody wants that.
> 
> Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…


Well then Canada should push it, as we have no worries there.


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.
> 
> Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout), as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.


The arguments could be made that regardless of platform you’d still need those items, but I understand the logic behind incorporating the initial load out.  



Navy_Pete said:


> And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.


That’s where I find it hard to fathom the logic.  


Navy_Pete said:


> They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.


Annual Operations and Maintenance Budgets would to me be more of an honest way of accounting that.  


Navy_Pete said:


> I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.


That I 110% agree with.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> FWIW, we use GFM/GFE as terms
> 
> GFM: Government Furnished Materials
> Usually used for consumables (munitions etc) that are either used up in qualifying or testing, or within the first year of use.
> 
> GFE: Government Furnished Equipment
> Actual permanent items that stay with the item(s) being provided.


And GFI: Government Furnished Information
Information that is required for the contractor to meet specific design specifications or trials.

All together in the PMO we called it GFX


Navy_Pete said:


> I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.


GSM is the old term that still gets thrown around, basically means GFX.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Whats fun is someone in PMO designated a lot of common equipiment as GSM without telling us, and AOPs keeps drawing on in-service ships items for their initial provisioning. We had to turn the taps off for some items, but still don't have a list, forecast or schedule.  

Can't give supply a new unit without a list of what they need and when. We don't have resources to do regular replenishment so maybe they'll put in HPRs so we can buy something.🤷‍♂️


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> Nobody wants that.
> 
> Literally everyone wants to obfuscate costs, so they can be the ones getting international sales…



True that

But also true that it serves Governments to obfuscate their spending within NATO.  Some countries like to make it seem as if they are spending more than they are while other countries prefer to make it seem they are spending less.

By the way,  Canada has increased our contribution to Ukraine.  We've increased our winter clothing contributions.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1601199990419750914


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> I think we officially use the same, but generally they get lumped together in practice as 'GSM' in conversation.
> 
> Our cost estimate for ship cost includes the consumable munitions as well (which makes sense, *when you'll have a few hundred million in missiles for each ship loadout)*, as well as the actual hardware fitted on the ships and integration with the combat suite.
> 
> And then we add on the cost for the tech data, training, storage and contingency, plus spares.
> 
> They PBO/AG usually do some kind of adjustment to the budget cash phasing against a reference year (usually in the future) so it gets complicated very quickly. It makes sense from an accounting perspective, but makes it an almost impossible PR thing.
> 
> I honestly think that's deliberate to artificially limit spending on defence, as we're really the only department with projects on that scale and timeline.



But does every ship carry all missiles, or even full magazines, on every deployment?  And are weapons only designated to single platforms?

There has to be an accounting mechanism that accounts for 5.56 and 7.62 across services, branches and platforms.  Don't the same rules apply to Harpoons launched from frigates and F18s?  Or ESSMs from frigates and NASAMS GBAD?  Or AIM-120s launched from NASAMS and F-18s?

Are consumables project costs or ops and trg costs?


----------



## dapaterson

Initial outfitting and sparing is a project cost.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> Initial outfitting and sparing is a project cost.



How many years of spares?  Or is it just the first set of spares?  And is that gaskets and bearings that will be changed within the first year or is that gears that are purchased on the off chance they may break but may have service lives of 10 years?  

Is that filling the magazines once?  What if you only buy enough missiles to fill the magazines of two out of 15 ships?

Rhetorical questions.

I get that life is complex.  I get the need for standardized definitions.  But I also get that it can be a short step into the realm of "lies, damn lies and statistics" with words meaning whatever politicians want them to mean.  

Platform Costs, Project Costs, Operating Costs, Life Cycle Costs, Capability Costs.   If only there was greater clarity.


----------



## dapaterson

All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process.  And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.

That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process.  And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.
> 
> That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.



DAP - no argument.  

My continuing point is that in the public debate the detail gets lost.  And it isn't even an issue of fake news so much as the employment of alternate facts.  Obfuscation works to win arguments and elections.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> All of your questions are documented and part of the DND capability / procurement process.  And assumptions are documented in the project charter and other supporting documents.
> 
> That you, personally, don't have access to them and haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.


The question is never that they don’t exist - the question in my mind is that the correct or honest manner of doing it? 

Spares to me seem to be rather an arbitrary thing to put into project costs, as they can’t dramatically change depending on Operations, and Operational Needs.  
  Hence why many Militaries have O&M to deal with that, and those funds are plussed up as required by the Government to support their directed operations.  

I find the CAF accounting methods for the larger programs to be rather a lazy excuse for making giant numbers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

NavyShooter said:


> Fire no guns (because they're unserviceable)
> 
> Shed no tears (because you've cried yourself dry due to all the shoddy workmanship)
> 
> I'm a broken ship stuck to a Halifax Pier.....
> 
> You know the rest...


The last of Irving's stooges who licked a Liberal rear?  😁


Edit:  I don't even blame Irving, they are a business who wants to make money, it's us who enable them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> The question is never that they don’t exist - the question in my mind is that the correct or honest manner of doing it?
> 
> Spares to me seem to be rather an arbitrary thing to put into project costs, as they can’t dramatically change depending on Operations, and Operational Needs.
> Hence why many Militaries have O&M to deal with that, and those funds are plussed up as required by the Government to support their directed operations.
> 
> I find the CAF accounting methods for the larger programs to be rather a lazy excuse for making giant numbers.


It's not all spares; just initial spares to get the ships up and running, as well as some of the large initial purchases.

It can take a few years to go through trials and get to full operational capability (FOC) and you need things to do maintenance.

And from a shearly practical purpose it's a lot easier when you are buying parts to fit on the ships to also buy stuff at the same time for some spares.

There will probably be 15-20k parts that come with a new ship, and cataloguing them and buying spares takes time and HR. If the projects didn't buy spares when they supply ship they'd get tied up pretty quickly when we can't fix things or maintain them. Even with an ISSC, takes them a while to get spooled up, so they are still building in service spares for AOPs now that we're 3 ships in.

After that it's under the normal O&M budget.

It's not actually the CAF reporting the numbers though because they want to do it like that, it's our treasury board rules that want all that included (and also includes things like project staff salaries, office costs etc).

The inclusion of contingency blows my mind though; until an actual cost comes up it's just part of the budget cap, not a forecasted cost.


----------



## MilEME09

Yes, hi Irving, why should we let you build anything again? Like Jesus this is a basic thing









						Drinking water deemed unsafe aboard new Arctic patrol ships
					

The Royal Canadian Navy is providing sailors aboard Canada's new arctic patrol ships with bottled water to drink after tests showed increased levels of lead in the ships’ water systems.




					atlantic.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Yes, hi Irving, why should we let you build anything again? Like Jesus this is a basic thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drinking water deemed unsafe aboard new Arctic patrol ships
> 
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy is providing sailors aboard Canada's new arctic patrol ships with bottled water to drink after tests showed increased levels of lead in the ships’ water systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> atlantic.ctvnews.ca



Because it buys votes in NS.  

Side note every time I see Ken Hansen's name in an article I get mad.  He's either on the Irving payroll or wants to be.


----------



## KevinB

What an asshat. 

_*Halifax-based independent security and defence analyst Ken Hansen doesn't want to downplay the issue but says the task of bringing Canada's shipbuilding program back to life is a huge one, and issues are bound to come up -- especially when many processes and parts are involved.
*_
*"Apart from the personal health issue, I don't see it as a threatening or dangerous issue in any way," said Hansen, who spent 33 years with the Royal Canadian Navy.*


Other than that Mrs. Kennedy how was Dallas…


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What a crock of shit "More complex than a spaceship" They are also apparently not a warship either, according to the RCN. So I can see why your pissed about him.


----------



## dapaterson

KevinB said:


> What an asshat.
> 
> _*Halifax-based independent security and defence analyst Ken Hansen doesn't want to downplay the issue but says the task of bringing Canada's shipbuilding program back to life is a huge one, and issues are bound to come up -- especially when many processes and parts are involved.*_
> 
> *"Apart from the personal health issue, I don't see it as a threatening or dangerous issue in any way," said Hansen, who spent 33 years with the Royal Canadian Navy.*
> 
> 
> Other than that Mrs. Kennedy how was Dallas…



Peak MARS officer, there: Sure the lower decks who stay onboard longer in their careers than officers may well die of lead poisoning, but that's a risk to them I'm willing to take.

And naturally, spent a decade at CFC as an instructor.



			https://ca.linkedin.com/in/ken-hansen-b354661a


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It boggles my mind how you can have this happen in this day and age, where anything with lead in it is tightly controlled in the workplace.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> It boggles my mind how you can have this happen in this day and age, where anything with lead in it is tightly controlled in the workplace.


By using valves clearly labeled as 'non-potable' in a potable water system?

Don't worry, it's not against code so we're good.

Edited to add: Also, Ken Hansen is an asshat who regularly talks about stuff he knows nothing about; surface ships are no where near as complicated as a spaceship, and non combatants aren't that big a deal. This is also the least complicated non-combatant in the NSS.

Everytime we poke at the AOPs we find things that shouldn't have gotten past class or accepted. They will need some engineering changes to get helo certification, and some other issues with their fire insulation that we're just finding out about. But given some genius put the local activation for the fitted system inside the protected compartment, not really surprised about bad design items, but lost confidence that Lloyd's Register (LR) is anything other than an ISI shill at this point as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Peak MARS officer, there: Sure the lower decks who stay onboard longer in their careers than officers may well die of lead poisoning, but that's a risk to them I'm willing to take.
> 
> And naturally, spent a decade at CFC as an instructor.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/ken-hansen-b354661a



He's on the Todd Veinotte show all the time here in Halifax.  

He's a disgusting shill.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> By using valves clearly labeled as 'non-potable' in a potable water system?
> 
> Don't worry, it's not against code so we're good.
> 
> Edited to add: Also, Ken Hansen is an asshat who regularly talks about stuff he knows nothing about; surface ships are no where near as complicated as a spaceship, and non combatants aren't that big a deal. This is also the least complicated non-combatant in the NSS.
> 
> Everytime we poke at the AOPs we find things that shouldn't have gotten past class or accepted. They will need some engineering changes to get helo certification, and some other issues with their fire insulation that we're just finding out about. But given some genius put the local activation for the fitted system inside the protected compartment, not really surprised about bad design items, but lost confidence that Lloyd's Register (LR) is anything other than an ISI shill at this point as well.


So they used non potable water valves in the FW system, is that confirmed?


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> So they used non potable water valves in the FW system, is that confirmed?


Based on the article yes.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> So they used non potable water valves in the FW system, is that confirmed?


And weirdly there doesn't seem to be anything in SOLAS or LR that prevents that, and we didn't have it clearly in our specs to only use potable water components.

There are federal rules for lead in water on land based system, so is applied for the shore supply, but nothing really for the water on ship systems or on the taps that applies, so it's a bit of a mess.

We went through this 20+ years ago on the 280s where there were a few fittings that had lead that was leaching out into the water, and was fully surveyed and replaced every item (inluding a few that some genius used lead solder for a copper pipe fitting). No idea why we have to specify something like that in a spec, but there you go.

It's made worse by the low mineral content of ROD water, so part of the treatment is to remineralize the water, but they don't clearly say they are replacing the components with lead.

edit to add: lead in water is a general issue in city water supplies as well, and lots of buildings had problems during COVID where the stagnant water let it build up, so there were big flushes etc on the go. There is some ongoing monitoring on the ships in general from previous concerns on the shore supply and stagnant water in the systems generally, but this definitely doesn't help.

Personnally would put in a CF98 for every person onboard the AOPs as a precaution, which is what you are supposed to do for even suspected exposures to things like this (and we'll start doing on the navy side once we get the live fire trainers for the potential carcinogen exposures).


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> There are federal rules for lead in water on land based system, so is applied for the shore supply, but nothing really for the water on ship systems or on the taps that applies, so it's a bit of a mess.
> 
> We went through this 20+ years ago on the 280s where there were a few fittings that had lead that was leaching out into the water, and was fully surveyed and replaced every item (inluding a few that some genius used lead solder for a copper pipe fitting). No idea why we have to specify something like that in a spec, but there you go.
> 
> It's made worse by the low mineral content of ROD water, so part of the treatment is to remineralize the water, but they don't clearly say they are replacing the components with lead.



Did it have anything to do with the health Canada changing the guidelines for allowable lead in potable water systems from a concentration from 0.01 mg/L, set in 1992, to 0.005 mg/L in 2019? That caused lots of issues on ships and at land based units.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You would think that a experienced pipefiitter at the yard would say something.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Personnally would put in a CF98 for every person onboard the AOPs as a precaution, which is what you are supposed to do for even suspected exposures to things like this (and we'll start doing on the navy side once we get the live fire trainers for the potential carcinogen exposures).


Apparently everyone has put in CF 98's and 663's. I had a number of high lead incidents on the ships I was on, usually when the jetty connection is not flushed properly or water being stagnant in our brominater. Flushed then system, tested and carried on. Sounds like the valves used probably would have passed the total allowable lead under the previous pre 2019 limits.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> You would think that an experienced pipefiitter at the yard would say something.


And deny the OEM of higher-margin re-work?


----------



## NavyShooter

Stoker said:


> Apparently everyone has put in CF 98's and 663's. I had a number of high lead incidents on the ships I was on, usually when the jetty connection is not flushed properly or water being stagnant in our brominater. Flushed then system, tested and carried on. Sounds like the valves used probably would have passed the total allowable lead under the previous pre 2019 limits.


Dude, I gotta say, you are ever the apologist for ISI's faults.  

I will simply add this to the list of times they've screwed up and endangered our sailors.

I have no surprise, as mentioned previously, I use the words "willful deliberate sabotage" along with "thievery" and "incompetence" to describe the work that I have seen from that yard with my own eyes.

Cutting Fiber Optic cables?  Stealing brass fittings and cutting off hose ends?  Catching their 'workers' sleeping in compartments on the ship during the refit period?

Yeah...now they failed to track and apply standard lead quality levels thus endangering every member of the crew.

I'm not surprised at all that this happened.  I'm less surprised that NDQAR failed to pick it up.


----------



## Stoker

NavyShooter said:


> Dude, I gotta say, you are ever the apologist for ISI's faults.
> 
> I will simply add this to the list of times they've screwed up and endangered our sailors.
> 
> I have no surprise, as mentioned previously, I use the words "willful deliberate sabotage" along with "thievery" and "incompetence" to describe the work that I have seen from that yard with my own eyes.
> 
> Cutting Fiber Optic cables?  Stealing brass fittings and cutting off hose ends?  Catching their 'workers' sleeping in compartments on the ship during the refit period?
> 
> Yeah...now they failed to track and apply standard lead quality levels thus endangering every member of the crew.
> 
> I'm not surprised at all that this happened.  I'm less surprised that NDQAR failed to pick it up.


Buds I couldn't give a flying f*ck about things you seen Irving do and I could quote many things I saw FMF Cape Scott has done of a similar nature over the years. I'm going by first hand information I personally have experienced with lead in FW systems on ships that I have been on and first hand information from ships staff on the ships in question. Considering the person who first "broke" this story I would question all the details including the navy trying to cover it up. That being said if Irving is at fault then they should step up and make it right.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Did it have anything to do with the health Canada changing the guidelines for allowable lead in potable water systems from a concentration from 0.01 mg/L, set in 1992, to 0.005 mg/L in 2019? That caused lots of issues on ships and at land based units.


Nope. This is unrelated to that, and due to non-potable water components used in the FW system on AOPs. They are specifically labeled by the OEM as not being fit for potable water, and would have been chosen before 2019 anyway.

There are still general concerns if lines aren't flushed properly etc but this has nothing to do with that. 

Someone decided to use cheaper valves that included lead in the components. Class approved it in the design. We are living with it. If Irving met the contract requirements, we need to pay for it to make it right, but also requires an engineering change for the in service ships.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Nope. This is unrelated to that, and due to non-potable water components used in the FW system on AOPs. They are specifically labeled by the OEM as not being fit for potable water, and would have been chosen before 2019 anyway.
> 
> There are still general concerns if lines aren't flushed properly etc but this has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Someone decided to use cheaper valves that included lead in the components. Class approved it in the design. We are living with it. If Irving met the contract requirements, we need to pay for it to make it right, but also requires an engineering change for the in service ships.


Well that's good clarification, FW quality is always a worry for me. I did hear that there may be a filter system going in to mitigate things until the valves can be changed and the later ships will be have the corrected specs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Well that's good clarification, FW quality is always a worry for me. I did hear that there may be a filter system going in to mitigate things until the valves can be changed and the later ships will be have the corrected specs.


This is a weird one; it would have been reasonable to assume part of the LR review would have been to make sure the parts in the potable water system were meant for potable water.

We seem to do a lot of double checking on things that were 'certified' by LR. The PMOs and ISSC were set up with small teams with the assumption that the designs would actually be fit for purpose using normal commercial standards and we wouldn't need to heavily review the designs. So far we've had a fire main that doesn't work as designed, a main fire suppression system that wouldn't work on the machinery spaces, main engines whose cooling system doesn't work and some other basic things that are normal basic ship things as well as this issue.

Welding and fitup things are normal growing pains, but this is just poor design and oversight by class. I'm sure we'll keep finding design flaws as time goes by.


----------



## childs56

Colin Parkinson said:


> You would think that a experienced pipefiitter at the yard would say something.


I know a few people who walked away from the shipyard because of the stupidity there. Bring up a issue and your blacklisted.


----------



## NavyShooter

I was once headhunted by staff in the CSC Project Office - apparently a CSE Chief with a good understanding of Navigation and SONAR gear was desirable to them.   I explained to the exec that I met with that I had too much pride in myself to ever see my name on the same business card as the word "IRVING"

I'm pretty sure I'm black listed with them.  I don't really care.  

There's been some bad outcomes from FMF as well - but in my experience, ISI does things that are borderline (or actually) sabotage or theft.  The worst that FMF does is usually delays work until the last minute so that they can have weekend overtime approved, particularly in November/December so that they can get their Christmas shopping paid for.  

FMF was very unhappy when we tracked their presence onboard ship on a daily basis, and for which work order...then during the weekly PLOW meetings they got their chains yanked and had to actually show up during the SWP, instead of getting away with OT on the weekend before we sailed.


----------



## CBH99

NavyShooter said:


> There's been some bad outcomes from FMF as well - but in my experience, ISI does things that are borderline (or actually) sabotage or theft.


Care to elaborate on the kind of nonsense that ISI does, that's sabotage and/or theft?  (That you're able to share, ofcourse)

I think we've all heard stories of ships coming out of ISI, and the navy being 'less than impressed'...


----------



## NavyShooter

Cutting open black-water suction pipes in the ship's Mini-Laundry (FRE and MON during MLR) and plugging the same section of pipe with threaded rod and welding rod respectively.  Then welding the pipe back into place, thus blocking all of the black water suction in the forward end of the ship.  

Cutting the AHWCS cables and tucking the cut ends back into the wiring bundle in the wire-way.  We had to use a TDR (Time Domain Reflexometer) to measure how far down the cable the cut was.

Every ship in the fleet loses brass fittings.  At one point, we had 2 ships in a row come back requiring all fire-hoses to be replaced because someone cut off the hose ends in the racks.  39 hose stations, 4 hoses per station, that's nearly 160 fire hoses needing replacement.  Not to mention the lazy rod covers that went missing on a couple of ships, the brass bulkhead number markers...and so on.  The fire sentries from ISI using our extinguishers, and keeping them.

Failing to put up a heated enclosure around the SONAR transducers when the dome had been removed, resulting in them freezing, the rubber separating from the crystal, and having to replace over 10% of the SET's.

The list goes on...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Have the blockage treated as sabotage and start arresting/investigating and integrating people as if they are working for a foreign government. Throw the book at anyone proven to do wilful acts as espionage, because it might as well be. Stupidity and outright theft can be treated as either by contract or civil charges.


----------



## Spencer100

NavyShooter said:


> Cutting open black-water suction pipes in the ship's Mini-Laundry (FRE and MON during MLR) and plugging the same section of pipe with threaded rod and welding rod respectively.  Then welding the pipe back into place, thus blocking all of the black water suction in the forward end of the ship.
> 
> Cutting the AHWCS cables and tucking the cut ends back into the wiring bundle in the wire-way.  We had to use a TDR (Time Domain Reflexometer) to measure how far down the cable the cut was.
> 
> Every ship in the fleet loses brass fittings.  At one point, we had 2 ships in a row come back requiring all fire-hoses to be replaced because someone cut off the hose ends in the racks.  39 hose stations, 4 hoses per station, that's nearly 160 fire hoses needing replacement.  Not to mention the lazy rod covers that went missing on a couple of ships, the brass bulkhead number markers...and so on.  The fire sentries from ISI using our extinguishers, and keeping them.
> 
> Failing to put up a heated enclosure around the SONAR transducers when the dome had been removed, resulting in them freezing, the rubber separating from the crystal, and having to replace over 10% of the SET's.
> 
> The list goes on...


How much is deliberate?  How much is pure theft?  How much is the miss management? And its hard for any company to manage any project on the scale of these refits  when the job is so fest and famine.  Also on the costumer side of the house too.  Contract management is a skill too, on both sides.  

Here is my take away
My guess with your examples in first one union problems.  The second one misreading plans or incorrect instruction.  The third is just pure theft, that has happened to me even when I put in what I think are the controls.  The fire sentries and the extinguishers....I can see this happening as many workers or employees at this level are not very entuned with who owns what and the cost of said equipment.  Could be honest mistakes.  I have had projects when assets like that are shared and then just packed up by different people and then go to the wrong home.  The freezing sounds like pure lack of knowledge.  

The main take away I see here is the lack of program and project management on both sides.  On the government/RCN side it is my understanding many program managers have retired or moved on. On the company side Irving etc. may never had the skill set and if they ever did it is hard to retain when government work is the way it is.


----------



## STONEY

NavyShooter said:


> My thoughts on ISI are well known I think.
> 
> I am completely unsurprised by any of this.


The Coast Guard has to extend the life of its fisheries research vessels for two more years because the new ones built on the west coast have yet to become operational and are not expected to be for some time. So much for Navy Shooter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

STONEY said:


> The Coast Guard has to extend the life of its fisheries research vessels for two more years because the new ones built on the west coast have yet to become operational and are not expected to be for some time. So much for Navy Shooter.



What does that have to do with Navy Shooter ?


----------



## Spencer100

Halifax Tar said:


> What does that have to do with Navy Shooter ?


I think he means Shooters point about Irving being a bad contractor....by pointing out Seaspan is not doing a great job either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

STONEY said:


> The Coast Guard has to extend the life of its fisheries research vessels for two more years because the new ones built on the west coast have yet to become operational and are not expected to be for some time. So much for Navy Shooter.


Most of the issues seem to be with the winches and Seaspan was doing that work under warranty. The question is who spec the winches, Seaspan or the DFO?

_A series of short sea trials last fall tested oceanographic equipment — which measure conductivity, temperature and depth — and acoustic and trawling gear on board.

As is not unusual during the shakedown of a new ship, problems were found.

There were data communication and software issues with acoustic sensors and malfunctions with the winches, according to records released under access to information laws.

The most serious mishap was the total failure of the starboard trawl winch which reels up the nets and heavy metal weights used to keep the nets on the ocean bottom.

Winch problems again 
The winch stopped working with more than two kilometres of cable in the water and could not be restarted.

DFO said the acoustic sensors have since been repaired and are awaiting testing.

The winch issue has also been identified and fixed.

"The problem aboard the CCGS Capt. Jacques Cartier was attributed to a singular bearing failure rendering the gearbox non-operational. The bearing has been replaced under warranty and the gearbox issue has been resolved," DFO said in response to questions from CBC News.


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/coast-guard-ship-capt-jacques-cartier-behind-schedule-1.6031596
		

_


----------



## Navy_Pete

@STONEY  VSY ** (the build yard in Vancouver) and VSL (the repair yard in Esquimalt) are actually two different companies under the same Seaspan mother company, but don't have common management, or the same workers.

ISI has different management for the build/repair side of things, but they are colocated and some workers move back and forth a bit, so it's a bit different context.

Production/design issues are pretty normal, especially on a new class of ship, in a new shipyard, and the NC build plan for 4 concurrent designs (that aren't fully done with requirements still changing) was crazy, so much harder start than ISI had with just AOPs.

Some of the things you see at ISI on the repair side (and Davie to a lesser extent in the past) are straight up sabotage /theft by workers, and haven't heard of that at all out of VSL (or in St. Catherines). We also don't see anything like that frequently at small yards that do the minor vessel refits (and if we do, they get blacklisted).  Doesn't mean production is perfect elsewhere, but that's the kind of thing you can catch with normal QC.

(** may have VSY and VSL backwards)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I do security for VDC, some of their guys also work at VSY, I have heard them say it's boring over there, compared to ship repair. In the repair business, time is important and so is quality of work. The workers are well aware that their workmanship influences how much work they get. So they generally work hard and want to do a good job.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Spencer100 said:


> I think he means Shooters point about Irving being a bad contractor....by pointing out Seaspan is not doing a great job either.



Ah ok a deflection


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> I do security for VDC, some of their guys also work at VSY, I have heard them say it's boring over there, compared to ship repair. In the repair business, time is important and so is quality of work. The workers are well aware that their workmanship influences how much work they get. So they generally work hard and want to do a good job.


The side benefit of doing commercial work.  

As an aside I have thought that the government should not have defence only contracting companies (but then Boeing enters the chat)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

NavyShooter said:


> Cutting open black-water suction pipes in the ship's Mini-Laundry (FRE and MON during MLR) and plugging the same section of pipe with threaded rod and welding rod respectively.  Then welding the pipe back into place, thus blocking all of the black water suction in the forward end of the ship.
> 
> Cutting the AHWCS cables and tucking the cut ends back into the wiring bundle in the wire-way.  We had to use a TDR (Time Domain Reflexometer) to measure how far down the cable the cut was.
> 
> Every ship in the fleet loses brass fittings.  At one point, we had 2 ships in a row come back requiring all fire-hoses to be replaced because someone cut off the hose ends in the racks.  39 hose stations, 4 hoses per station, that's nearly 160 fire hoses needing replacement.  Not to mention the lazy rod covers that went missing on a couple of ships, the brass bulkhead number markers...and so on.  The fire sentries from ISI using our extinguishers, and keeping them.
> 
> Failing to put up a heated enclosure around the SONAR transducers when the dome had been removed, resulting in them freezing, the rubber separating from the crystal, and having to replace over 10% of the SET's.
> 
> The list goes on...


You know, the Military has their own Police Force and that's Military Property, just saying.

At my company, if a 3rd Party Contractor or Employee were screwing around like that, you can bet dollars to donuts our Police Force (which has more jurisdictional power than the bloody RCMP) would be tearing the place apart finding out who the culprits are. 

MPs must be too busy giving parking tickets at Stadacona.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You know, the Military has their own Police Force and that's Military Property, just saying.
> 
> At my company, if a 3rd Party Contractor or Employee were screwing around like that, you can bet dollars to donuts our Police Force (which has more jurisdictional power than the bloody RCMP) would be tearing the place apart finding out who the culprits are.
> 
> MPs must be too busy giving parking tickets at Stadacona.


Priorities...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You know, the Military has their own Police Force and that's Military Property, just saying.
> 
> At my company, if a 3rd Party Contractor or Employee were screwing around like that, you can bet dollars to donuts our Police Force (which has more jurisdictional power than the bloody RCMP) would be tearing the place apart finding out who the culprits are.
> 
> MPs must be too busy giving parking tickets at Stadacona.



No way in hell is ISI going to be held accountable for their production.  It's all about politics my friend.  These ships are meant to buy votes not fight or even be operational.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> No way in hell is ISI going to be held accountable for their production.  It's all about politics my friend.  These ships are meant to buy votes not fight or even be operational.


Ahhhb yes, so we have found the enemy and he is us.  Wouldn't it be great if we had a few Red Hats that just didnt GAF and decided to go rogue 😄


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Ahhhb yes, so we have found the enemy and he is us.  Wouldn't it be great if we had a few Red Hats that just didnt GAF and decided to go rogue 😄



Just look into Irving's tax avoidance practices. They have no interest in being part of a better Canada.  They just want to suckle from the government teat and drain the taxpayer.

I bring 80 liters of diesel in jerry cans with me when I drive to Ont so I can avoid spending money in any Irving gas station I drive by.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Just look into Irving's tax avoidance practices. They have no interest in being part of a better Canada.  They just want to suckle from the government teat and drain the taxpayer.
> 
> I bring 80 liters of diesel in jerry cans with me when I drive to Ont so I can avoid spending money in any Irving gas station I drive by.


Yah I don't think Irving is going to change any time soon but shitty Unionized employees at FMF and Irving should absolutely be investigated for any shenanigans.  

The Company wouldn't defend them and I am certain would punt them ASAP.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yah I don't think Irving is going to change any time soon but shitty Unionized employees at FMF and Irving should absolutely be investigated for any shenanigans.
> 
> The Company wouldn't defend them and I am certain would punt them ASAP.



I've never seen the level from FMF that I have from Irving. 

What I have seen from FMF is a lazy workforce that pushes work to the last minute to gain overtime.  

I remember when their riggers used to steal from our rations on the jetty.  And we'd have to bribe them with rations to get work done.  The Log world got fed up and BLog went and bought a bunch of zoom booms, trained up our Sup Tech's and now we don't use the riggers anymore unless the ZB can't reach or the material is too heavy; And because of that the riggers lost alot of positions.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> I've never seen the level from FMF that I have from Irving.
> 
> What I have seen from FMF is a lazy workforce that pushes work to the last minute to gain overtime.
> 
> I remember when their riggers used to steal from our rations on the jetty.  And we'd have to bribe them with rations to get work done.  The Log world got fed up and BLog went and bought a bunch of zoom booms, trained up our Sup Tech's and now we don't use the riggers anymore unless the ZB can't reach or the material is too heavy; And because of that the riggers lost alot of positions.


Years ago one they went to pull some of the big valves off a shelf at FMF to fix something on PRE and it was missing all the internal bronze parts, so they checked a whack of them and a lot of them were just shells. They sent the MPs around to the scrapyards and found some pieces, but most of it was gone, and cost us a few million in write offs/custom fabrication (plus downtime) as they were all obsolete. I think that's aorund the same time we bought a new one off ebay for about a 10th of what it would cost from a mining company that was clearing out old spares.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> Years ago one they went to pull some of the big valves off a shelf at FMF to fix something on PRE and it was missing all the internal bronze parts, so they checked a whack of them and a lot of them were just shells. They sent the MPs around to the scrapyards and found some pieces, but most of it was gone, and cost us a few million in write offs/custom fabrication (plus downtime) as they were all obsolete. I think that's aorund the same time we bought a new one off ebay for about a 10th of what it would cost from a mining company that was clearing out old spares.


Around 2010, PRO sourced a main stop valve from a scrapyard in Phoenix.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Years ago one they went to pull some of the big valves off a shelf at FMF to fix something on PRE and it was missing all the internal bronze parts, so they checked a whack of them and a lot of them were just shells. They sent the MPs around to the scrapyards and found some pieces, but most of it was gone, and cost us a few million in write offs/custom fabrication (plus downtime) as they were all obsolete. I think that's aorund the same time we bought a new one off ebay for about a 10th of what it would cost from a mining company that was clearing out old spares.



We caught a civi in BLog stealing brass from items going to be sold for scrap. He lost he job.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> Around 2010, PRO sourced a main stop valve from a scrapyard in Phoenix.


That was Dan the valve guy in MEPM, and they found it on ebay (and then got a normal contract in place for the buy).

Ebay is actually a pretty good spot to identify old NSNs that don't have much on the system, and usually comes with pictures which is also great. Figured out what some legacy NSNs from the 60s and 70s were that way which were on my code.


----------



## NavyShooter

If it's stuff that I've seen in my day job as an HPR, then I'll guarantee you that it's got a photo attached to the MMR in DRMIS now.  

I got caught short once on an inspection I did for materiel sent out west.  20 bolts, checked 10% (2) and both of them were correct size/shape/tolerances.  Upon arrival in ESQ, the other 18 were found to have been missing the through hole for the lock wire.  Ever since, I've been photographing every HPR and adding that to the MMR.

It's always fun to call up an LCMM and mention to him/her that there's a winch/widget/etc of theirs that has shown up on GC Surplus, and did they mean for it to go there?  Usually a moment of dead space on the phone after I ask that question, followed by "SEND ME THE LINK"  

With my current and past role, I have absented myself from anything to do with buying from GC Surplus, since I've got the ability to sentence items for DS, and don't want to ever end up being questioned about a conflict of interest.  Personal integrity is something I try to value.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Halifax Tar said:


> We caught a civi in BLog stealing brass from items going to be sold for scrap. He lost he job.


But was he prosecuted?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Halifax Tar said:


> I've never seen the level from FMF that I have from Irving.
> 
> What I have seen from FMF is a lazy workforce that pushes work to the last minute to gain overtime.
> 
> I remember when their riggers used to steal from our rations on the jetty.  And we'd have to bribe them with rations to get work done.  The Log world got fed up and BLog went and bought a bunch of zoom booms, trained up our Sup Tech's and now we don't use the riggers anymore unless the ZB can't reach or the material is too heavy; And because of that the riggers lost alot of positions.


Sounds like a Leadership problem, wasn't FMF once a Navy asset?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> But was he prosecuted?



No idea it was all above my pay grade at the time.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> Sounds like a Leadership problem, wasn't FMF once a Navy asset?



Empires be empiring ... 

It's it's own UIC separate from the CFB or MARLANT and I honestly don't know who it reports too.  Could be an engineering wing of the RCN or ADM MAT somewhere maybe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Halifax Tar said:


> Empires be empiring ...
> 
> It's it's own UIC separate from the CFB or MARLANT and I honestly don't know who it reports too.  Could be an engineering wing of the RCN or ADM MAT somewhere maybe.


As I recall a long time ago on this coast that FMF was based on the Cape Breton and the concept was that they were capable of being a mobile repair asset as opposed to a fixed landbased shipyard?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Empires be empiring ...
> 
> It's it's own UIC separate from the CFB or MARLANT and I honestly don't know who it reports too.  Could be an engineering wing of the RCN or ADM MAT somewhere maybe.


There are FMF COs but believe they fall under MARLANT/MARPAC, which is why N37 can give them direction on priority and authorize OT. On the Adm(Mat) side we just give them annual funding ($15M?) in funny money.

When they are doing EC work or similar that's sometimes under an LCMM DRMIS notification (N2?) so requests for OT have to get approved within MEPM. It gets complicated.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NavyShooter said:


> If it's stuff that I've seen in my day job as an HPR, then I'll guarantee you that it's got a photo attached to the MMR in DRMIS now.
> 
> I got caught short once on an inspection I did for materiel sent out west.  20 bolts, checked 10% (2) and both of them were correct size/shape/tolerances.  Upon arrival in ESQ, the other 18 were found to have been missing the through hole for the lock wire.  Ever since, I've been photographing every HPR and adding that to the MMR.
> 
> It's always fun to call up an LCMM and mention to him/her that there's a winch/widget/etc of theirs that has shown up on GC Surplus, and did they mean for it to go there?  Usually a moment of dead space on the phone after I ask that question, followed by "SEND ME THE LINK"
> 
> With my current and past role, I have absented myself from anything to do with buying from GC Surplus, since I've got the ability to sentence items for DS, and don't want to ever end up being questioned about a conflict of interest.  Personal integrity is something I try to value.



Can you tell me what a HPR is?

I’m really hoping the P is for Pirate but…


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> If it's stuff that I've seen in my day job as an HPR, then I'll guarantee you that it's got a photo attached to the MMR in DRMIS now.
> 
> I got caught short once on an inspection I did for materiel sent out west.  20 bolts, checked 10% (2) and both of them were correct size/shape/tolerances.  Upon arrival in ESQ, the other 18 were found to have been missing the through hole for the lock wire.  Ever since, I've been photographing every HPR and adding that to the MMR.
> 
> It's always fun to call up an LCMM and mention to him/her that there's a winch/widget/etc of theirs that has shown up on GC Surplus, and did they mean for it to go there?  Usually a moment of dead space on the phone after I ask that question, followed by "SEND ME THE LINK"
> 
> With my current and past role, I have absented myself from anything to do with buying from GC Surplus, since I've got the ability to sentence items for DS, and don't want to ever end up being questioned about a conflict of interest.  Personal integrity is something I try to value.


I've seen that on some items, it's always hugely appreciated (especially when you suddenly get 900 items, and DSCO has stripped all identifying information off after 'valve'). I'm looking forward to the updated IDE package, which, if it is as advertised, should be like all the repair part websites where you have photos, measurements, part #s etc against it in an easier interface than DRMIS, and can do minor pub/drawing updates directly through there.


----------



## NavyShooter

HPR = High Priority Requirement

(Formerly called IOR - Immediate Operational Requirement, but someone realized that would preclude using the HPR for non-operational reasons, ie FMF or NDQAR forgot to order a part on time, so they changed it to HPR instead.  No doubt someone mastered "Leading Change" that year.)


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:


> Can you tell me what a HPR is?
> 
> I’m really hoping the P is for Pirate but…


High Priority Request (for parts)

Requires an OPDEF (operational deficiency message) for the higher priority ones, but automatically authorizes things like priority shipping, and when category 1 HPRs come in they will (theoretically) call people in to get it pulled from the depot and shipped.

With the shortage of procurement people on the LCMM side, basically we only have time to buy against HPRs (ie none in the depot), then we go to 'expedited requests' (part demands tied to work orders in DRMIS for PM/CM), and then maybe some manual buys to fill bins.

Usually don't get to routine buys, so we've been padding HPR buys as much as possible without delaying the procurements by pushing the dollar amounts to the next threshold where additional delays kick in.

If I could find the person that thought 'Just in Time' was a good idea without making sure we could actually keep up with the buys I'd kick them in the nuts repeatedly. We are now buying 2-3 years worth (sometimes more) on our 'annual review' levels just because of how infrequently anyone can ever get to it.

In theory AOPs is being supported by the ISSC, but they still seem to be getting up to speed, and sometimes they draw items from the normal supply system. The initial provisioning is even worse; some genius decided that a lot of things would be GSM without making sure there was actually an entitlement set up or the LCMMs were even aware, so the first indication some of us got of that was when there was a demand from a new class of ship we weren't supposed to be supporting with parts that emptied the bins by drawing a years worth of normal spares in one go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thanks!  

*slightly disappointed there is Pirate involved…


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> But was he prosecuted?


Most likely not.  

In the private sector to get the police to investigate and the crown to prosecute its an uphill battle every time I have seen it.  The crown thinks if the guy loses his job that is good enough.  And its just crime on a "capitalist for profit business so who gives a shit."


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> HPR = High Priority Requirement
> 
> (Formerly called IOR - Immediate Operational Requirement, but someone realized that would preclude using the HPR for non-operational reasons, ie FMF or NDQAR forgot to order a part on time, so they changed it to HPR instead.  No doubt someone mastered "Leading Change" that year.)



You're talking more and more like a Storesman every day 



Navy_Pete said:


> High Priority Request (for parts)
> 
> Requires an OPDEF (operational deficiency message) for the higher priority ones, but automatically authorizes things like priority shipping, and when category 1 HPRs come in they will (theoretically) call people in to get it pulled from the depot and shipped.
> 
> With the shortage of procurement people on the LCMM side, basically we only have time to buy against HPRs (ie none in the depot), then we go to 'expedited requests' (part demands tied to work orders in DRMIS for PM/CM), and then maybe some manual buys to fill bins.
> 
> Usually don't get to routine buys, so we've been padding HPR buys as much as possible without delaying the procurements by pushing the dollar amounts to the next threshold where additional delays kick in.
> 
> If I could find the person that thought 'Just in Time' was a good idea without making sure we could actually keep up with the buys I'd kick them in the nuts repeatedly. We are now buying 2-3 years worth (sometimes more) on our 'annual review' levels just because of how infrequently anyone can ever get to it.
> 
> In theory AOPs is being supported by the ISSC, but they still seem to be getting up to speed, and sometimes they draw items from the normal supply system. The initial provisioning is even worse; some genius decided that a lot of things would be GSM without making sure there was actually an entitlement set up or the LCMMs were even aware, so the first indication some of us got of that was when there was a demand from a new class of ship we weren't supposed to be supporting with parts that emptied the bins by drawing a years worth of normal spares in one go.



One point of clarity an HPR is not an HPR without an OPDEF for the RCN side of the house.  The engineering side creates the OPDEF, its brought to the Storesmen who then start the ball rolling on the material management.   That's if every thing goes as planned and the engineers aren't trying to back door anything.  The OPDEF is the instigation for the whole process.

@Eye In The Sky much like an AOG (Aircraft On Ground) message for you guys.  It spools up priority shipping and duty people (if after hours) to get the part picked packed and shipped most riki tik.


----------



## NavyShooter

Completely unrelated to this activity that made the news 9 years ago:



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cfb-halifax-police-uncover-suspected-915k-fraud-1.1336002


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> Completely unrelated to this activity that made the news 9 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cfb-halifax-police-uncover-suspected-915k-fraud-1.1336002



That was all contracting fraud wasn't it ?


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> That was Dan the valve guy in MEPM, and they found it on ebay (and then got a normal contract in place for the buy).
> 
> Ebay is actually a pretty good spot to identify old NSNs that don't have much on the system, and usually comes with pictures which is also great. Figured out what some legacy NSNs from the 60s and 70s were that way which were on my code.


Absolutely!  In my current job, a few years back I sourced a few boiler combustion control system I/O cards that had been out of production for years on eBay.  The pics of same were invaluable in determining it was the right part.


----------



## Kirkhill

Grimey said:


> Absolutely!  In my current job, a few years back I sourced a few boiler combustion control system I/O cards that had been out of production for years on eBay.  The pics of same were invaluable in determining it was the right part.



This sounds more like an Antique Society forum discussion.  Or a military museum.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> You're talking more and more like a Storesman every day
> 
> 
> 
> One point of clarity an HPR is not an HPR without an OPDEF for the RCN side of the house.  The engineering side creates the OPDEF, its brought to the Storesmen who then start the ball rolling on the material management.   That's if every thing goes as planned and the engineers aren't trying to back door anything.  The OPDEF is the instigation for the whole process.
> 
> @Eye In The Sky much like an AOG (Aircraft On Ground) message for you guys.  It spools up priority shipping and duty people (if after hours) to get the part picked packed and shipped most riki tik.


Learning some basics on the supply side was probably the most bang for the buck I ever got; wish I had gotten the basic supply manager training a decade ago, but really useful on the LCMM side as well.

Which makes it really awkward for AOPs to try and HPR initial provisioning (because they don't have TICs or SCBAs for example) or ships in DWPs in places like Davie that are trying to reactivate to sail back when, in both cases, they aren't supposed to be putting out OPDEFs. It's kind of stupid, but someone expects us to suddenly read minds and anticipate future part requirements that no one tells us about, or somehow reduce a 9 month lead time to a few weeks if they wait a year to submit the demand/test the part.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Learning some basics on the supply side was probably the most bang for the buck I ever got; wish I had gotten the basic supply manager training a decade ago, but really useful on the LCMM side as well.
> 
> Which makes it really awkward for AOPs to try and HPR initial provisioning (because they don't have TICs or SCBAs for example) or ships in DWPs in places like Davie that are trying to reactivate to sail back when, in both cases, they aren't supposed to be putting out OPDEFs. It's kind of stupid, but someone expects us to suddenly read minds and anticipate future part requirements that no one tells us about, or somehow reduce a 9 month lead time to a few weeks if they wait a year to submit the demand/test the part.



I agree with you.  And it's what happens when we let LogOs, who have little to no experience at the operational level in any facet of material management, go on their own and write policy.

I had a few for AOPs when I was at MLOC.  We definitely had to improvise.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wouldn't they start standing up stocklists for the AOP's as soon as the design is approved and building starts? Manufactures could give you information on normal wear rates and service items to use as a place to start your stocklist and projected needed stocklevels. Then add on normal items like bedding, PPE, replaceable electrical components (fuses, lightbulbs etc), machinary maintience items (zincs, filters, oils, impellers, etc)  Then you start working on the more exotic items like specific valves, high wear pipe sections, spare glass and items unique to that design.


----------



## Spencer100

Grimey said:


> Absolutely!  In my current job, a few years back I sourced a few boiler combustion control system I/O cards that had been out of production for years on eBay.  The pics of same were invaluable in determining it was the right part.


This is done all the time in civilian industry.  Try keeping a very old HVAC computer and control system functional.  The computer itself going with very old software and boards.  It's pain but replace the whole is millions.  We have an old retired guy come once or twice a year.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Wouldn't they start standing up stocklists for the AOP's as soon as the design is approved and building starts? Manufactures could give you information on normal wear rates and service items to use as a place to start your stocklist and projected needed stocklevels. Then add on normal items like bedding, PPE, replaceable electrical components (fuses, lightbulbs etc), machinary maintience items (zincs, filters, oils, impellers, etc)  Then you start working on the more exotic items like specific valves, high wear pipe sections, spare glass and items unique to that design.



Given the lead times on some of these vessels I wouldn't surprise me if some of the manufacturers were out of business by the time the hulls hit water and other equipment was already discontinued.   Another reason for short, fast flights.



Spencer100 said:


> This is done all the time in civilian industry.  Try keeping a very old HVAC computer and control system functional.  The computer itself going with very old software and boards.  It's pain but replace the whole is millions.  We have an old retired guy come once or twice a year.



And this is a reason for low productivity in Canada.   Plants aren't refreshed fast enough.  Old plants are kept in service too long rather than being regularly replaced.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Establishing the SHARP (Ships Allowance Replenishment Program), ESL (Equipment Support List) and GS (General Stores List) are normally established during the initial provisioning of a ship.  They can evolve and be different to hull number depending on the fitting out of the ship.

In the case of the AOPs being heavily ISSC it may take sometime for this to flesh out.  Add into that that Logistics is not a major concern for the RCN and the global supply chain problems and you have a perfect storm for a ship with few spares available.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Wouldn't they start standing up stocklists for the AOP's as soon as the design is approved and building starts? Manufactures could give you information on normal wear rates and service items to use as a place to start your stocklist and projected needed stocklevels. Then add on normal items like bedding, PPE, replaceable electrical components (fuses, lightbulbs etc), machinary maintience items (zincs, filters, oils, impellers, etc)  Then you start working on the more exotic items like specific valves, high wear pipe sections, spare glass and items unique to that design.


@Halifax Tar explained it, but it seems like there were a number of items put on the ISSC that only kicks in for in-service, and also not on the CFM list, but some bright light decided that we would buy (so it's not on the project costs) or supply (but didn't tell the LCMMs). Some things we happen to have a lot of it in stock, but others we were already short on it for the inservice fleet, so don't suddenly have an entire ship set worth lying around.

Aside from some common to fleet fire fighting/DC equipment, it was a lot of common things like plates, cutlery etc. Doesn't sound exciting, but because of the sheer volume of it it's a lot, and not something the base log side is set up to do the buys for. And some of it kicked past the dollar amount the coast has delegation for, so had to get pushed up the chain.

 Additional complications are that we had been told 5 years ago to assume the MCDVs would be retiring in our planning, so there is some common fleet equipment that we don't have for the AOPs because it's still in use on the MCDVs with no end in sight.

On the sparing side they seem to be providing the absolute bare minimum with initial provisioning and pretty minimal insurance items (ie long lead items that if they break, you are foxed, like spare gearing). JSS is doing the same, and didn't even want to get spare relief valves and other similar items because the LSAR said they were unlikely to fail in 6 months. They completely ignored any input that we had for things getting broken during STW or initial operation, and when we will pay huge amounts for the sea trials, they could be down for extended periods due to lack of a $10 part (that the class will need within a year or two anyway).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get the cost bit of mundane items, as the QM of my unit, I took a look at the cost of a average set of "Desk toys" back in the day and it was horrendous. For a ship, throw in wear items like lines and fenders.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I bring 80 liters of diesel in jerry cans with me when I drive to Ont so I can avoid spending money in any Irving gas station I drive by.


Road tripping to Halifax to see the son for Christmas and sadly didn’t have room for yellow Jerry cans…got bent over by Irving in Edmumdston to the tune of $2.52/L…Ottawa was $2.09/L when we left. 😔 🐼


----------



## Halifax Tar

1.97$ for Diesel in Halifax, today.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> 1.97$ for Diesel in Halifax, today.


That’s it, I’m going out to fill up now!!! 🚙 💨


----------



## Underway

Get your storm chips.  I wish I had some in Vancouver Airport for the last 4 days...


----------



## Blackadder1916

Spencer100 said:


> . . .   We have an old retired guy come once or twice a year.



Really, how . . . whatever?  They have pills for that now.



Sorry, couldn't pass the opportunity.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Road tripping to Halifax to see the son for Christmas and sadly didn’t have room for yellow Jerry cans…got bent over by Irving in Edmumdston to the tune of $2.52/L…Ottawa was $2.09/L when we left. 😔 🐼



Welcome to the Maritimes, please let us know if we can spend more of your money daily.  🙂


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> 1.97$ for Diesel in Halifax, today.



Seriously!


----------



## Good2Golf

Good2Golf said:


> That’s it, I’m going out to fill up now!!! 🚙 💨


UPDT:  $1.952 at the GO o Herring Cove Rd. FTW!

Not today, J.D.!  Not today! 😆


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> UPDT:  $1.952 at the GO o Herring Cove Rd. FTW!
> 
> Not today, J.D.!  Not today! 😆


Weren't we talking about gun control?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> Weren't we talking about gun control?


I didn’t get a free pistol with a full up… 😔


----------



## Underway

If you want an really in depth analysis of the AOPS program so far check out this link.

Maritime Engineering Journal - AOPS Special Edition

Its extremely good covering the Nav Arch hull design differences with Svalbard and how they came to their particular hull form, power plant, Combat Systems, ships crew experiences, project management issues, dealing with COVID, tests and trials and a whole lot more.

In particular I liked the section on Critical Design Specifications (CDS) and how some of the could have been written better, and ways to approach writting them for future projects.

All in all everything you wanted to know about AOPS but were afraid to ask!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks, interesting write up, I liked that they identified they needed more space and added length to the design, this is different to the CCG 500 Class, where they went shorter and the design suffered stability issues as they crammed to many asks in to little hull.

Also interesting that the class was identified as capable of freeing up 3 Halifax's for other duties.

I suspect the article understates the frustration with DWAN and the training materials.

I wonder if they want to revisit the wording on page 21 about specifications, given the problems cropping up.....

The part on the hull design and tradeoff is quite interesting and I agree I think they made the right choices, although I wonder if they could have gone with more power with the same engine room design? I guess the question is that in sustained operation in ice, or near top speed, are you in the 80%, 90% or 100% of your power rating? That impacts the longevity of the machinery.

I note a lot of comments by crews on the good livability of the class. A study should be conducted on how this affects personal decisions on retention and desire to go to sea. 

I see the Combat Systems section glosses over the inability to manage the gun range/safety template issues, something that should have been caught during the design stage. 

Interesting the learning experience of operating in ice, regarding things like sea chest warming and such. I think the AOP's has pushed the design concept of a ice capable naval patrol ship and it will likley influence future similar designs. It would be nice if we were able to licence the design to another nation to help recoup costs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> I didn’t get a free pistol with a full up… 😔


That would be the Petro-can at Jane&Finch…


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

When you build ships every 15 years, you can keep the skills and suppliers up to date, but when you do it every 40 years, skilled trades retire and there is no one to teach the skills to the new guys.  We end up paying 3 times the going rate for those skills because the lack of ship building trades they can demand what ever they want. 


As for BAS HVAC, we are doing that at one of the buildings have to replace the computer,  the old one runs on windows XP, the software is the same age, the controls are older.  So looking to replace it for 60 000 square foot 7 story high building, will be over 50k when done. Plus updated computer.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Thanks, interesting write up, I liked that they identified they needed more space and added length to the design, this is different to the CCG 500 Class, where they went shorter and the design suffered stability issues as they crammed to many asks in to little hull.





Colin Parkinson said:


> The part on the hull design and tradeoff is quite interesting and I agree I think they made the right choices, although I wonder if they could have gone with more power with the same engine room design? I guess the question is that in sustained operation in ice, or near top speed, are you in the 80%, 90% or 100% of your power rating? That impacts the longevity of the machinery.



I found that interesting as well.  The particular comparison to the Svalbard and how its more optimized for patrol and cuts through ice where the AOPS bends the ice was interesting.  The power difference often comes with range.  AOPS needs a lot more range than Svalbard does, as well the more traditional propulsion methodology I believe changed that equation as well.  Design tradeoffs are really intersting to read about.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Interesting the learning experience of operating in ice, regarding things like sea chest warming and such. I think the AOP's has pushed the design concept of a ice capable naval patrol ship and it will likley influence future similar designs. It would be nice if we were able to licence the design to another nation to help recoup costs.


 Agreed.  But I think we've realized from this project that arctic vessels need to specific build to their environment moreso then other seagoing vessels.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> You're talking more and more like a Storesman every day
> 
> 
> 
> One point of clarity an HPR is not an HPR without an OPDEF for the RCN side of the house.  The engineering side creates the OPDEF, its brought to the Storesmen who then start the ball rolling on the material management.   That's if every thing goes as planned and the engineers aren't trying to back door anything.  The OPDEF is the instigation for the whole process.
> 
> @Eye In The Sky much like an AOG (Aircraft On Ground) message for you guys.  It spools up priority shipping and duty people (if after hours) to get the part picked packed and shipped most riki tik.



Ack thanks!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> @Halifax Tar explained it, but it seems like there were a number of items put on the ISSC that only kicks in for in-service, and also not on the CFM list, but some bright light decided that we would buy (so it's not on the project costs) or supply (but didn't tell the LCMMs). Some things we happen to have a lot of it in stock, but others we were already short on it for the inservice fleet, so don't suddenly have an entire ship set worth lying around.
> 
> Aside from some common to fleet fire fighting/DC equipment, it was a lot of common things like plates, cutlery etc. Doesn't sound exciting, but because of the sheer volume of it it's a lot, and not something the base log side is set up to do the buys for. And some of it kicked past the dollar amount the coast has delegation for, so had to get pushed up the chain.
> 
> Additional complications are that we had been told 5 years ago to assume the MCDVs would be retiring in our planning, so there is some common fleet equipment that we don't have for the AOPs because it's still in use on the MCDVs with no end in sight.
> 
> On the sparing side they seem to be providing the absolute bare minimum with initial provisioning and pretty minimal insurance items (ie long lead items that if they break, you are foxed, like spare gearing). JSS is doing the same, and didn't even want to get spare relief valves and other similar items because the LSAR said they were unlikely to fail in 6 months. They completely ignored any input that we had for things getting broken during STW or initial operation, and when we will pay huge amounts for the sea trials, they could be down for extended periods due to lack of a *$10 part* (that the class will need within a year or two anyway).


This literally cracks me up now that I'm no longer in the CAF. Especially when it's something like a Ship that basically requires constant maintenance to keep it running.

I'm only starting to realize how bad things are in the CAF WRT preventative and routine maintenance now that I am out.

It's extremely bad for what should be very simple items as well, like gaskets, valves, etc.

In my current line of work, we are performing near constant maintenance on the equipment.  We often have to redneck temp fix on the fly as well because time = money.  

I carry a handful of spare gaskets in my utility vest at all times and we carry essential spare parts everywhere we go.  Just the other day I had to do a field expedient hose change because we would have been dead in the water otherwise and lost revenues quickly start adding up.

It's good enough field maintenance to get us across the line at which point the experts takeover and do a real thorough job on a full repair.  This is done constantly on our equipment and it is continuously monitored using the latest technology (heat sensors, load detectors, GPS, etc). 


I contrast this with my last deployment where we ended up sailing for months without a PDE because we couldn't get a simple air hose delivered to us 🤣.  Just think of how much money we wasted steaming around on only a Gas Turbine 😉.  That's some good taxpayer value right there.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This literally cracks me up now that I'm no longer in the CAF. Especially when it's something like a Ship that basically requires constant maintenance to keep it running.
> 
> I'm only starting to realize how bad things are in the CAF WRT preventative and routine maintenance now that I am out.
> 
> It's extremely bad for what should be very simple items as well, like gaskets, valves, etc.
> 
> In my current line of work, we are performing near constant maintenance on the equipment.  We often have to redneck temp fix on the fly as well because time = money.
> 
> I carry a handful of spare gaskets in my utility vest at all times and we carry essential spare parts everywhere we go.  Just the other day I had to do a field expedient hose change because we would have been dead in the water otherwise and lost revenues quickly start adding up.
> 
> It's good enough field maintenance to get us across the line at which point the experts takeover and do a real thorough job on a full repair.  This is done constantly on our equipment and it is continuously monitored using the latest technology (heat sensors, load detectors, GPS, etc).
> 
> 
> I contrast this with my last deployment where we ended up sailing for months without a PDE because we couldn't get a simple air hose delivered to us 🤣.  Just think of how much money we wasted steaming around on only a Gas Turbine 😉.  That's some good taxpayer value right there.



Just a couple points.  Your last deployment was during COVID right ?  

Did you guys have the CAT diesel ?

I was involved in material support for your last deployment and there various factors complicating your supply chain most of which were diplomatic in nature. 

Definitely not trying to put the CFSS in a better light, but if you were on the deployment I think you were, it was a disaster getting you parts because where you were + COVID + diplomatic relations = a mess.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Just a couple points.  Your last deployment was during COVID right ?
> 
> Did you guys have the CAT diesel ?
> 
> I was involved in material support for your last deployment and there various factors complicating your supply chain most of which were diplomatic in nature.
> 
> Definitely not trying to put the CFSS in a better light, but if you were on the deployment I think you were, it was a disaster getting you parts because where you were + COVID + diplomatic relations = a mess.


CATs actually worked great.  The PDE stopped working about 2 months in to the deployment and didn't work for the rest of the time.  It was a bloody HP Air Hose 😄, I have about 5 similar sized hoses sitting in my unit at work at any given time.  We aren't talking about a complex piece of Military equipment here.

We had some difficulty getting parts but there were also deliberate choices made by the CAF. 


Most of the customs issues were the CAFs own doing by choosing the "cheapest" possible solutions to problems.

Our Logisticians worked very hard but.... we suck a lot and our talk about being a Navy with "global projection" where we talk up our blue-water credentials makes me laugh.

We also could have brought a tanker, instead our rented tanker sat in Halifax doing exercises with the AOPS 🤣


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> CATs actually worked great.  The PDE stopped working about 2 months in to the deployment and didn't work for the rest of the time.  It was a bloody HP Air Hose 😄, I have about 5 similar sized hoses sitting in my unit at work at any given time.  We aren't talking about a complex piece of Military equipment here.
> 
> We had some difficulty getting parts but there were also deliberate choices made by the CAF.  One was choosing to ship a very important part via DHL instead of using the dedicated grey tail in Kuwait to send us a part to a friendly airfield.
> 
> We then chased said part halfway around the World and got shaken down by our "valued partners" for some money when we finally got to where the part was.
> 
> This part was a mission critical piece of kit for our helicopter.  When we finally got it, months later, it didn't work due to getting banged up in the travel.
> 
> Most of the customs issues were the CAFs own doing by choosing the "cheapest" possible solutions to problems.
> 
> Our Logisticians worked very hard but.... we suck a lot and our talk about being a Navy with "global projection" where we talk up our blue-water credentials makes me laugh.
> 
> We also could have brought a tanker, instead our rented tanker sat in Halifax doing exercises with the AOPS 🤣
> 
> I laughed when we were begging the Americans for a RAS in the Indian Ocean while the RCN was using our one Tanker to refill AOPS 30 miles off the Coast of Halifax....
> 
> What a joke!



I can't speak to the employment methods of Asterix. 

But ya your deployment's material support was a mess.  At one point something like 15 to 20 pallets were being held hostage by a "country" in south East Asia. 

The other problem is the way our ships are fitted out for spares.  It's supposed to be a living document.  But it's almost never actioned.  I can give you many first hand examples of this being poorly management.

Things like hose and gasket material should be plentiful.  If not the specific hoses and gaskets themselves. 

Logistics is great, it's THE war winner IMHO, and we have some great people.  But if the parts/materials don't exist to move or issue they are powerless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

At the Hovercraft base, we had the "Skirt shop" (Inserts jokes about rubber and skirts here) When there was a bit of down time a couple of the engineers went in and using patterns, made up new skirt components, mostly the wearable fingers. When working on the bigger components, we would all pitch in during any lulls between calls. We had people from around the world begging us to sell them skirt bits as we were the only ones outside of BHC that made skirt components. We also made all the gaskets for manholes, etc. I note at the Shipyard they have a dedicated space for making gaskets for manholes, inspection ports, etc and a specialised gasket maker company for making complex gaskets (apparently one of the ex-employees who got really good at it). I would hope that the RCN does similar stuff and keeps rolls of the more common gasket material for making their own on site?


----------



## childs56

Humphrey Bogart said:


> CATs actually worked great.  The PDE stopped working about 2 months in to the deployment and didn't work for the rest of the time.  It was a bloody HP Air Hose 😄, I have about 5 similar sized hoses sitting in my unit at work at any given time.  We aren't talking about a complex piece of Military equipment here.
> 
> We had some difficulty getting parts but there were also deliberate choices made by the CAF.
> 
> 
> Most of the customs issues were the CAFs own doing by choosing the "cheapest" possible solutions to problems.
> 
> Our Logisticians worked very hard but.... we suck a lot and our talk about being a Navy with "global projection" where we talk up our blue-water credentials makes me laugh.
> 
> We also could have brought a tanker, instead our rented tanker sat in Halifax doing exercises with the AOPS 🤣


Not on the same level But my MLVW blew a air line on exercise, the Maintainers did not have a hose to fix it. Their solution was to low bed it home at a cost of $1200.  I bought a locally sourced hose from the parts store for under $50 and had the truck up and running in no time.  
Where I use to work, we had a hose machine, darn near every fitting size/ type you could even need and the local area Farmers could ever need of hose and fittings. 
Yet the Military choose to do things the hard way every time.


----------



## Furniture

childs56 said:


> Not on the same level But my MLVW blew a air line on exercise, the Maintainers did not have a hose to fix it. Their solution was to low bed it home at a cost of $1200.  I bought a locally sourced hose from the parts store for under $50 and had the truck up and running in no time.
> Where I use to work, we had a hose machine, darn near every fitting size/ type you could even need and the local area Farmers could ever need of hose and fittings.
> Yet the Military choose to do things the hard way every time.


It's more that the CAF takes the easy way every time. 

It's easier to lowbed a MLVW than to train all of your drivers and mechanics to do more than part swap with approved parts. Making hoses and gaskets would require training mechanics to use the machines, ordering hoses and gaskets requires MMTs to do a core part of their job. 

It's a bad way to run, but it's easy.


----------



## Dana381

childs56 said:


> Not on the same level But my MLVW blew a air line on exercise, the Maintainers did not have a hose to fix it. Their solution was to low bed it home at a cost of $1200.  I bought a locally sourced hose from the parts store for under $50 and had the truck up and running in no time.
> Where I use to work, we had a hose machine, darn near every fitting size/ type you could even need and the local area Farmers could ever need of hose and fittings.
> Yet the Military choose to do things the hard way every time.



The average truck driver does not know what hoses are rated for what systems. If a driver uses fuel line in the air brake system it could cause a brake failure. Same thing if a nylon air brake line is used where a rubber one is needed. 
Towing the vehicle to a properly trained mechanic is a way to ensure it is repaired properly. It would have been cheaper to send a mechanic to the truck but that may not be an option.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> CATs actually worked great.  The PDE stopped working about 2 months in to the deployment and didn't work for the rest of the time.  It was a bloody HP Air Hose 😄, I have about 5 similar sized hoses sitting in my unit at work at any given time.  We aren't talking about a complex piece of Military equipment here.
> 
> We had some difficulty getting parts but there were also deliberate choices made by the CAF.
> 
> 
> Most of the customs issues were the CAFs own doing by choosing the "cheapest" possible solutions to problems.
> 
> Our Logisticians worked very hard but.... we suck a lot and our talk about being a Navy with "global projection" where we talk up our blue-water credentials makes me laugh.
> 
> We also could have brought a tanker, instead our rented tanker sat in Halifax doing exercises with the AOPS 🤣


The way we do hoses and some other things is just stupid; condition based assessment only makes sense if it saves money/time. Usually takes more time to actually inspect/test the hoses then just replace them, but I'm sure there are a lot of original hoses on systems that have never been changed unless they broke. Tried to get a contractor in with a mobile hose fab to just go around and replace flex hoses on some systems but the coasts wanted to do a survey first.

 Or sometimes for the long lead hoses they will get tested at the 11th hour, fail, and then cause unecessary churn when the system is being reactivated after being down for 2 years during DWP. And then surprised pikachu faces when you can't just substitute carbon steel for a stainless steel fitting on a fire suppression system.

Similarly a lot of the PM we are skipping includes basic things like swapping out o-rings and other soft goods while doing general component checks and grease routines; pretty simple stuff but avoids major failures down the roads.

Not the ship's fault at all though; this is entirely on the RCN for trying to run the ships with skeleton crews and having a fleet sched that doesn't allow time alongside for catchup. We genuinely have about twice as many operational ships as we can really support properly.


----------



## FSTO

^^
Can we not have the capability of making those types of hoses onboard? I seem to recall back in the day the machine shop onboard was able to fabricate damn near anything!

Remember MARS type talking here. So the engineering voodoo is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## lenaitch

Dana381 said:


> The average truck driver does not know what hoses are rated for what systems. If a driver uses fuel line in the air brake system it could cause a brake failure. Same thing if a nylon air brake line is used where a rubber one is needed.
> Towing the vehicle to a properly trained mechanic is a way to ensure it is repaired properly. It would have been cheaper to send a mechanic to the truck but that may not be an option.


OK, so what is the plan when you are in the field, for real?  Isn't the mantra 'train the way you fight'?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Can we not have the capability of making those types of hoses onboard? I seem to recall back in the day the machine shop onboard was able to fabricate damn near anything!
> 
> Remember MARS type talking here. So the engineering voodoo is beyond my comprehension.



It can be done onboard.  But having the right material is the first step.


----------



## childs56

Dana381 said:


> The average truck driver does not know what hoses are rated for what systems. If a driver uses fuel line in the air brake system it could cause a brake failure. Same thing if a nylon air brake line is used where a rubber one is needed.
> Towing the vehicle to a properly trained mechanic is a way to ensure it is repaired properly. It would have been cheaper to send a mechanic to the truck but that may not be an option.


LOL, I know lots of Truck Drivers Civie side who have a full repair shop in their sleeper cabs. 
Air lines are air lines. nothing special about them. A nylon line can usually be substituted for a nylon and vice versa as long as you have a cross over to do so. 
Most truck shops sell Airbrake repair kits with different size fittings ferrules etc. You can buy all the airline, all the sizes you need. 

LOL most fuel line used on large trucks are rated for 150-200psi and would suffice for a field fix to get back to the shop.  The fittings are usually different size/ threads. 
I see where your coming from disagree. 

The Mechanic did come to the Vehicle and said they could not repair the hose.


----------



## Dana381

childs56 said:


> LOL, I know lots of Truck Drivers Civie side who have a full repair shop in their sleeper cabs.
> Air lines are air lines. nothing special about them. A nylon line can usually be substituted for a nylon and vice versa as long as you have a cross over to do so.
> Most truck shops sell Airbrake repair kits with different size fittings ferrules etc. You can buy all the airline, all the sizes you need.
> 
> LOL most fuel line used on large trucks are rated for 150-200psi and would suffice for a field fix to get back to the shop.  The fittings are usually different size/ threads.
> I see where your coming from disagree.
> 
> The Mechanic did come to the Vehicle and said they could not repair the hose.



Your right there are some truck drivers who know what's what and can make repairs on the road. Most of them are owner operators. Most company drivers do not have that knowledge and their attempts can be scary. 

I have seen some dooseys, We once told a driver to unplug the speed sensor on the back of his transmission to defeat the 5mph derate so he could get the truck to the shop. Rather than unplug the connector he used his pin puller to rip the wires out. The wires broke inside the wrap 3 feet further up as well as at the connector. It was a difficult break to find. Cost his boss an extra couple hours labour.

The mechanic was unprepared then, I would not go out to a call for a blown air line without taking the stuff to fix it. I carry rubber and nylon line on my truck and all the needed fittings.

Most fuel line on large trucks is either nylon brake line or 1 wire hydraulic hose, very adequate for air brake service. I was envisioning an unknowing driver going to a Canadian tire and grabbing 60 psi fuel line and a couple barb fittings.

Rubber air brake lines are used where flexibility is needed. They are between the frame and axles to flex with suspension travel and steering angles. Using nylon in these places can cause kinking and breakage from repeated bending. I have seen it done without issue but it's not a good idea.


----------



## lenaitch

Dana381 said:


> owner operators


A dying breed in an era of leased tractor fleets driven by operators hired from a driver pool company.  An o/o had a vested interest and a need to keep costs down.  Now, many fleet drivers don't know and don't care.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Can we not have the capability of making those types of hoses onboard? I seem to recall back in the day the machine shop onboard was able to fabricate damn near anything!
> 
> Remember MARS type talking here. So the engineering voodoo is beyond my comprehension.


Most of the important ones are high pressure hoses so need specialized equipment to fabricate them, but generally the FMFs or local contractors can do it. When deployed, can generally also be done with suitable substitutions for the specific hoses to something that meets/exceeds the specs. Aside from the fabrication also has to be pressure tested so a few steps in the process.

There is a lead time for the fabrication/materials though, so waiting until the day before the system is being reactivated and a week out from the ship sailing doesn't give you that. Or throwing out the old hoses instead of keeping them to use as templates to fabricate the new ones also doesn't help, as they need to be the right length so you don't have too much hose (can flop around and get damaged/damage other gear) or not enough (need a minimum bend radius to avoid kinks/failures).

Lot of lower pressure hoses as well; some of them are similar to garden hoses or just held on with a ratcheting steel band so you can easily replace those on your own. The idea to get a contractor to do those ones was more for HR, as it's an easy thing to sub out and lot more important things SS can do with limited time.


----------



## NavyShooter

On the returns side, we see on a regular basis valve bodies that have had the stem/head replaced, but the old body has been left in situ.

Obviously they think it's harder to swap out the whole valve body (4 bolts on each flange = 8 bolts) since the head of the valve only has 4 bolts.  

I've lost count of how many times we've seen this happen.  

Or, seeing a valve swapped out because it's 'leaking by' - indicating that they don't know how to replace the gasket.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> On the returns side, we see on a regular basis valve bodies that have had the stem/head replaced, but the old body has been left in situ.
> 
> Obviously they think it's harder to swap out the whole valve body (4 bolts on each flange = 8 bolts) since the head of the valve only has 4 bolts.
> 
> I've lost count of how many times we've seen this happen.
> 
> Or, seeing a valve swapped out because it's 'leaking by' - indicating that they don't know how to replace the gasket.



Ugh returns.  

So many of our issues could be helped if we all just did it right.


----------



## NavyShooter

I worked real hard to get things to be "one and done".  Unfortunately, that requires people to do things right in the fleet, or giving the power to BLog to fix the ship's errors - meaning a different level of DRMIS access pushed to a lower level - we're trying some of that now.


----------



## CBH99

I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…

But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….

Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things?  Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…
> 
> But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….
> 
> Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things?  (Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?


No.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> I worked real hard to get things to be "one and done".  Unfortunately, that requires people to do things right in the fleet, or giving the power to BLog to fix the ship's errors - meaning a different level of DRMIS access pushed to a lower level - we're trying some of that now.



Absolutely.  I know the problem is generally in the fleet.  Poor use of DRIMS and poor material management. 

If we were ever able to find out how many A class parts have been thrown away, over the side or hoarded in the bowels of ship, Jesus would weep.


----------



## CBH99

SeaKingTacco said:


> No.


Is there a deliberate reason for that?

Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future?  (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)


It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:


> Is there a deliberate reason for that?
> 
> Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future?  (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)
> 
> 
> It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…


We do sometimes reach out to our NATO allies for supplies, engineering support at times. Just last summer had to go our German support ship to source chemicals for our water as our stores system ashore couldn't do anything for us.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CBH99 said:


> Is there a deliberate reason for that?
> 
> Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future?  (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)
> 
> 
> It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…



Standardization is great in principle.  Then people, politics and interests get in the way.  

Look into the adoption of 7.62x51 as the NATO standard.  

It would be awesome if NATO used all the same kit.  It's makes so much sense.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> On the returns side, we see on a regular basis valve bodies that have had the stem/head replaced, but the old body has been left in situ.
> 
> Obviously they think it's harder to swap out the whole valve body (4 bolts on each flange = 8 bolts) since the head of the valve only has 4 bolts.
> 
> I've lost count of how many times we've seen this happen.
> 
> Or, seeing a valve swapped out because it's 'leaking by' - indicating that they don't know how to replace the gasket.


Depends on the valve, but pretty common for most of the bigger valves to need rebuilt to make sure the sealing face is even. That can be as easy as some lapping to smooth out the valve face on a butterfly, but that still takes fair bit of skill. The rebuild kits usually include a sealing face and new butterfly, but something you need to do on a bench anyway. Not uncommon to see a butterfly mostly gone and just a spindle left with a bit of sad material kicking around it by the time it gets taken off, as we don't tend to get to things that are just 'leaking by'.

On smaller valves (usually 1.5" and below) it's simply cheaper to replace it then fix it.

Most of our valves are a metal on metal seal, so very few of them are simply a gasket replacement.


----------



## childs56

CBH99 said:


> I know nothing about shipbuilding or preventative/proper maintenance of ships - so pls forgive if this is a brutally elementary question…
> 
> But with all of these challenges of finding spare parts, or parts being partially repaired, difficulties in getting needed spare parts to a deployed ship, etc….
> 
> Are NATO warships built with ‘some’ commonality in mind on the non-sexy end of things?  Same size flux capacitors & doo-hickey-doo’s to make maintenance easier & more streamlined?


They may not be built to the same specs, but the majority of turbines, diesels, generators are commercially available.  Many of the other parts may not be common but valves and things can be spec'd out to valve manufactures. If you are not on the "special" supplier list then they wont look at you.  Many of the issues with DND parts procurement are due to the lack of common sense then actual shortages.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> Is there a deliberate reason for that?
> 
> Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future?  (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)
> 
> 
> It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…


There are NATO standards for building ships. Like NATO standard power and standards for ammunition and fuel.  That's to ensure interoperability for jetty power, and logisitical supply for consumables.  But generally parts are not standardized by type they are standardized by function (must detect at this range, must resist this stress/strain etc...) .  

However sizes are often standardized.  If you need a generic 3" gasket (or metric one) and are with a NATO task group likely you can find one amoungst the fleet.  But if you need a 3" gasket that fits this exact type of pump you're probably hooped.

This may change when Canada, UK and Australia all have the Type 26 baseline for frigates.  Should increase the parts avail when sailing in company  with those other countries.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> Is there a deliberate reason for that?
> 
> Since you guys have experience - do you think standardization of some of these parts could help our readiness state in the future?  (Readiness of the ships, ease of finding parts, etc)
> 
> 
> It would ‘seem’ that navies across the alliance could benefit from having having some commonly used parts standardized…but I also only know Port & Starboard thanks to Star Trek TNG…


Most combat systems are like that, and has it's up and downsides; ITAR rules is one that comes to mind when they are too rigidly done (ie a bolt available at home depot is suddenly ITAR when catalogued under an NSN associated with a system because someone didn't vet the list on the US side).

If we have something unique to our ships, it's usually because it's so old we are the only ones still using it. Our readiness issues are more to do with lack of personnel/resources and lack of planning over a really long time than equipment selection.

Everything starts as COTs/MOTs and we aren't a big enough customer to sustain any business. So things like the new Cat DGs are COTs engines widely used in a number of applications that we built a special box around and mounted on shock mounts, with a few thousand other units in service. A lot of OEMs also have common components on their equipment, so for example most diesels have a common family with a high degree of shared parts (60-80%).

For major pieces of equipment there are notices sent out when there are obsoloscence things coming up pretty routinely, and that works for major items, but for all the valves, sensors etc etc (especially things bought from resellers vice the OEM) we frequently only find out it's not avaiable when we need to replace it, and that might be 20 years past the original buy. Doing that proactively takes a lot of time/effort, and we don't have capacity for either.

In theory AJISS is supposed to be doing that for everything down to the last nut and bolt, but I don't think we'll pay for that so don't expect it to be any different.


----------



## Prairie canuck

In the event of a needed force response in the north and since the AOPS crane is rated at 20 tonnes the only armoured vehicle it could transport and unload is the TAPV and BV's. So, would some trials of a dozen or so TAPVs with Mattracks or something similar on the TAPV not be of interest? Also as some have suggested some trailers equipped a variety of armaments (such as mortars and base tents etc) would go along with the same project.


----------



## Good2Golf

I don’t think the hull shape would support Mattracks, no?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Prairie canuck said:


> In the event of a needed force response in the north and since the AOPS crane is rated at 20 tonnes the only armoured vehicle it could transport and unload is the TAPV and BV's. So, would some trials of a dozen or so TAPVs with Mattracks or something similar on the TAPV not be of interest? Also as some have suggested some trailers equipped a variety of armaments (such as mortars and base tents etc) would go along with the same project.


The landing craft they have will only support ATV's and the crane may be rated at 20T but at what reach? At best might be a pickup or a BV 206 but would require a better landing craft, at which point your running out of deck space. The AOP's is a small but definite leap up for supporting small amphibious ops. Canada really needs a ice class landing ship likely run by a Canadian RFA.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Colin Parkinson said:


> The landing craft they have will only support ATV's and the crane may be rated at 20T but at what reach? At best might be a pickup or a BV 206 but would require a better landing craft, at which point your running out of deck space. The AOP's is a small but definite leap up for supporting small amphibious ops. Canada really needs a ice class landing ship likely run by a Canadian RFA.


Could the AOPS design be "stretched" to include a 100 lane meters vehicle deck, a much larger crane, additional hanger space for a second helicopter and larger landing craft? Ya I know, engineering, hull design, etc.  Let's just use 30m as a number for discussion purposes. I imagine it might require widening along with stretching. It would be a very modest landing ship but 2 or 3 would add a modest capability not now available.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Good2Golf said:


> I don’t think the hull shape would support Mattracks, no?


They may need spacers to get them away from the hull or maybe not. Maybe drive one to a Mattracks dealer and try them on for size?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Prairie canuck said:


> Could the AOPS design be "stretched" to include a 100 lane meters vehicle deck, a much larger crane, additional hanger space for a second helicopter and larger landing craft? Ya I know, engineering, hull design, etc.  Let's just use 30m as a number for discussion purposes. I imagine it might require widening along with stretching. It would be a very modest landing ship but 2 or 3 would add a modest capability not now available.


It would be a bad idea to add that much to the ship, she be an absolute pig to manoeuvre and likely it would reduce her ice class and make her slower.
Way better go for a dedicated design for landing ship and then work the design to meet a certain ice classification.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream.  ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines) 

The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.

I think and believe nothing will ever change that.

I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash.  Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol.  Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.

But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FormerHorseGuard said:


> A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream.  ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines)
> 
> The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.
> 
> I think and believe nothing will ever change that.
> 
> I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash.  Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol.  Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.
> 
> But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.


FYSA doing the fit up after the hull is built is a massive increase in LOE (5-7 times the labour). If you think about how hard it is to move a big couch into a house, and then how easy it would be to do before when the walls are on, its kind of like that, only worse. Huge amount of extra rigging for absolutely everything along a tortured path.

During the modular build they do all the equipment and piping installation, so it's mostly just completing the cable runs when the blocks go together.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Navy_Pete said:


> FYSA doing the fit up after the hull is built is a massive increase in LOE (5-7 times the labour). If you think about how hard it is to move a big couch into a house, and then how easy it would be to do before when the walls are on, its kind of like that, only worse. Huge amount of extra rigging for absolutely everything along a tortured path.
> 
> During the modular build they do all the equipment and piping installation, so it's mostly just completing the cable runs when the blocks go together.


My thought was if they could ship a US Navy DDG on a heavy lift ship they could do the same for any ship.  Our ships are much smaller etc


----------



## Underway

FormerHorseGuard said:


> A NATO standard in Canada and used by Canadians is a huge pipe dream.  ( We Canadians can only dream of pipe lines)
> 
> The NATO standard would have to include made in Canada engines, steel and made in a Eastern Ship yard, but would prefer a Quebec ship yard.
> 
> I think and believe nothing will ever change that.
> 
> I think a reasonable answer would be a hull made overseas and shipped across for finishing with Canadian made content. Follow the UK plan for ship building and save the cash.  Have a supply chain outside of Canada just in case something is needed when on patrol.  Canada can always borrow and replace the parts instead of waiting for our supply chain to FedEX it over the ocean if needed.
> 
> But never will happen, our MPs would never go for a plan for anything outside of the their ridings.


 Be careful what you wish for.

Australia did that twice.  The Hobarts were a friggin mess when the showed up and one of the reasons for the massive cost increases and project delays was the Ozzies fixing all the crap that Spain screwed up in the hull.  

Same thing for their resupply vessel which almost sunk within sight of Sydney on its trip over to Australia.  Then a year later it had an internal fuel FLOOD on RIMPAC.

NATO standard ship build isn't a thing BTW, and has nothing to do with where the ship is built.  Germany, UK, France, US, Canada, Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania and Turkey all build their own ships in their own shipyards.  The Dutch, Norway and a few other have the hulls built elsewhere and then final refit is in their own yards.

Having a shipbuilding industry that can do the start to finish build is a _strategic industrial capability.  _

I think that its cheap ass, small country thinking, to not want our own shipbuilding.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> Be careful what you wish for.
> 
> Australia did that twice.  The Hobarts were a friggin mess when the showed up and one of the reasons for the massive cost increases and project delays was the Ozzies fixing all the crap that Spain screwed up in the hull.
> 
> Same thing for their resupply vessel which almost sunk within sight of Sydney on its trip over to Australia.  Then a year later it had an internal fuel FLOOD on RIMPAC.
> 
> NATO standard ship build isn't a thing BTW, and has nothing to do with where the ship is built.  Germany, UK, France, US, Canada, Spain, Italy, Poland, Romania and Turkey all build their own ships in their own shipyards.  The Dutch, Norway and a few other have the hulls built elsewhere and then final refit is in their own yards.
> 
> Having a shipbuilding industry that can do the start to finish build is a _strategic industrial capability.  _
> 
> I think that its cheap ass, small country thinking, to not want our own shipbuilding.



Just a couple points I suspect that if we experienced what the Aussies did the same pro Irving folks would simply call it growing pains and normal for a first of class. 

Moving on, a shipbuilding industry is great and I think everyone here would love us to have one.  But at what cost does it become unreasonable ? What quality should be expecting and not accept anything less ?  Sure a shipbuilding industry would be fantastic, but make it about building the right ships to a good mix a quality VS cost and on time. 

Altruistic I know, but I want our defence production about defence production and not politics, jobs and local economic spin offs.


----------



## NavyShooter

I think the problem with our "shipbuilding industry" is that it is built around the only customer that it currently has...the Canadian Government.  As a result, it's not an industry that's capable of building ships for anyone else.  What company would be willing to pay the porkbarrel overhead that the GOC does for a product?  

We are building a strategic national capability, which is important.  

We are not building a productive industrial part of the national economy.  It will always be a money sink.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FormerHorseGuard said:


> My thought was if they could ship a US Navy DDG on a heavy lift ship they could do the same for any ship.  Our ships are much smaller etc


You can do it, it just turns a build project into essentially a refit type job, and you lose all the benefits of efficient work of doing it during build, for no real benefit.

If we're going to do it overseas, just do it overseas, but just doing a hull and then filling it afterwards is a massive waste of money, and the whole point of the NSS is to build capable shipbuilders, which includes the hull.

We accepted upfront there would be a learning curve (ie initial inefficiencies for learning how to build ships again), so the build pace is withing real expectations; the problem is the PR was based on unacheivable BS and not reality for the schedule. That's the downside of having 15 layers between the people that know what they are talking about and who is briefing the BGHs, and then gets further dumbed down for the PR releases.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Just a couple points I suspect that if we experienced what the Aussies did the same pro Irving folks would simply call it growing pains and normal for a first of class.
> 
> Moving on, a shipbuilding industry is great and I think everyone here would love us to have one.  But at what cost does it become unreasonable ? What quality should be expecting and not accept anything less ?  Sure a shipbuilding industry would be fantastic, but make it about building the right ships to a good mix a quality VS cost and on time.
> 
> Altruistic I know, but I want our defence production about defence production and not politics, jobs and local economic spin offs.



Part of the sales pitch for NSS was to 'leverage' class societies for the design review, which allowed much smaller PMOs. Which is great in theory, because we've lost the expertise for the project offices, and the SMEs doing the LCMM work are shorthanded already, but assumes;

requirements are clear and acheivable, and the standard is up to what the RCN wants
class society does proper due diligence
RCN adapts SOPs/crewing to suit new design
Requirements are pretty complex and can be competing, so that will always be difficult, but for AOPs anyway when there are capability gaps due to unclear requirements, we haven't had luck getting the PMO to fix it in the build side, so lots of engineering changes for brand new ships (including on the 6th AOPs which hasn't even started yet, so they'll be building things we'll change later).

Some things can't get a clear answer out of class society how the base design met safety codes, and seems to have been pressure placed on head office to overrule local surveyors assessments.

But the commercial standards are also built around commercial SOPs and crew qualifications, which we don't follow, so our old way of doing things also doesn't work. You really need to start with what the goal was for the old SOP, see how the different design changes the context, and start fresh.

Definitely some things that could be better on the shipyard side of things, but we suck as well. We pay for a lot of overhead for the extra bureaucracy and government interfaces, as there are whole cells whose job is basically just to feed the needy customer demands for a lot of extras that aren't part of normal business. Reporting on all the economic spin offs, requiring additional part selection rules, and all kinds of other things adds in a huge amount of extra work that adds in delays and costs money. That's all on the GoC requirements, so really unfair to pretend it's a standard commercial contract when we've added on a lot of direct/indirect bloat to meet the demands of TBS, finance, PBO etc etc.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Part of the sales pitch for NSS was to 'leverage' class societies for the design review, which allowed much smaller PMOs. Which is great in theory, because we've lost the expertise for the project offices, and the SMEs doing the LCMM work are shorthanded already, but assumes;
> 
> requirements are clear and acheivable, and the standard is up to what the RCN wants
> class society does proper due diligence
> RCN adapts SOPs/crewing to suit new design
> Requirements are pretty complex and can be competing, so that will always be difficult, but for AOPs anyway when there are capability gaps due to unclear requirements, we haven't had luck getting the PMO to fix it in the build side, so lots of engineering changes for brand new ships (including on the 6th AOPs which hasn't even started yet, so they'll be building things we'll change later).
> 
> Some things can't get a clear answer out of class society how the base design met safety codes, and seems to have been pressure placed on head office to overrule local surveyors assessments.
> 
> But the commercial standards are also built around commercial SOPs and crew qualifications, which we don't follow, so our old way of doing things also doesn't work. You really need to start with what the goal was for the old SOP, see how the different design changes the context, and start fresh.
> 
> Definitely some things that could be better on the shipyard side of things, but we suck as well. We pay for a lot of overhead for the extra bureaucracy and government interfaces, as there are whole cells whose job is basically just to feed the needy customer demands for a lot of extras that aren't part of normal business. Reporting on all the economic spin offs, requiring additional part selection rules, and all kinds of other things adds in a huge amount of extra work that adds in delays and costs money. That's all on the GoC requirements, so really unfair to pretend it's a standard commercial contract when we've added on a lot of direct/indirect bloat to meet the demands of TBS, finance, PBO etc etc.



I get it.  Our major asset procurement contracts are always going to be complicated. 

I just want the best product, on time and on budget. 

To me, if that means we build off shore, or tack on our order to allied order then we should do it.  And if Irving can build the best bang for our buck and on time then they should get the contract.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:


> I think the problem with our "shipbuilding industry" is that it is built around the only customer that it currently has...the Canadian Government.  As a result, it's not an industry that's capable of building ships for anyone else.  What company would be willing to pay the porkbarrel overhead that the GOC does for a product?
> 
> We are building a strategic national capability, which is important.
> 
> We are not building a productive industrial part of the national economy.  It will always be a money sink.


The Westcoast yards survived, mainly on repair work, as very little of the government new work came out here. We had a good rep for doing repairs on time and on budget with the international ship industry.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> I get it.  Our major asset procurement contracts are always going to be complicated.
> 
> I just want the best product, on time and on budget.
> 
> To me, if that means we build off shore, or tack on our order to allied order then we should do it.  And if Irving can build the best bang for our buck and on time then they should get the contract.


'on time' and 'on budget' though both depend on having a realistic schedule and budget from the start with float/contingency to allow for normal things, and you don't keep changing the requirements as you go. 'Value for money' is also incredibly subjective, so it's a hard one to answer.

You can't really set the schedule/budget until your requirements are set, so our whole process drives the initial TBS demand/plan to be a crazy ROM with an educated guess schedule, and then someone expects that to hold up 10 years later when we finally jump through the hoops to get into contract.

We licensed existing designs, changed them enough so that it's basically a redesign, and then went all surprised pikachu that a brand new shipyard took longer (which costs more) to build it.

If you want fast, buying something already under construction and not changing anything (ie like a Svalbard when it was actively under construction) is probably the best option. Even then we'd probably need to make some changes (like switching domestic power to normal NA 120/240 V, 60 Hz power). May not be cheaper, and supporting equipment with EU suppliers may be a challenge too.

ALso need the right type of contract and monitoring in place though; if we're doing some kind of cost plus, doesn't really incentivize efficiency, but if we're doing fixed price you can expect to get just the bare minimum to meet the spec, and you can meet SOLAS with cheap equipment if you don't have some kind of additional performance standards (like minimum hours between overhaul, availability targets, etc).

I'd be happier if we had a higher standard for what is 'good enough' and were more aggresive at making sure the ship actual meets the requirements (even if it means paying to fix it because we didn't write them well), but seems to be more political/operational concerns than quality driven at the moment, so no real surprise they are tied up with serious technical defects.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Westcoast yards survived, mainly on repair work, as very little of the government new work came out here. We had a good rep for doing repairs on time and on budget with the international ship industry.


Interestingly enough, VSL (the repair yard) and VSY (the build yard) are independent companies with the same parent company. I don't think Canada really appreciated that during the bid evals, but VSL does do excellent work.

VSY has an insane build package that a mature yard would struggle with, but optimistic.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The schedule should be set by the contractor in negotiations with the GoC. 

If we spend XXX dollars for such and such a product to begin delivery on such and such a date, then I as a Canadian tax payer expect that to be upheld.

*Hit send too fast sorry* 

I also agree we shouldn't be letting for tender until we are set on what we want. 

So why not just buy existing ships ?  Some Arleigh Burkes for example.  

We don't need the best, we need good value and quantity, IMHO.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Colin Parkinson said:


> The landing craft they have will only support ATV's and the crane may be rated at 20T but at what reach? At best might be a pickup or a BV 206 but would require a better landing craft, at which point your running out of deck space. The AOP's is a small but definite leap up for supporting small amphibious ops. Canada really needs a ice class landing ship likely run by a Canadian RFA.


S0,  just an example, say something this size Small LHD with the hull designed for ice?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> The schedule should be set by the contractor in negotiations with the GoC.
> 
> If we spend XXX dollars for such and such a product to begin delivery on such and such a date, then I as a Canadian tax payer expect that to be upheld.
> 
> *Hit send too fast sorry*
> 
> I also agree we shouldn't be letting for tender until we are set on what we want.
> 
> So why not just buy existing ships ?  Some Arleigh Burkes for example.
> 
> We don't need the best, we need good value and quantity, IMHO.


The general challenge with USN ships is they use a completely different crewing model that has more people with much more specific but less general training. We have almost identical set ups to the RN, RAN, RNZN and other EU countries so lot more compatible.

The FREMM bid for example, didn't include any training, spares, IP, infrastructure or contingency (or inflation), so their non-tendered $30B bid was only a partial scope compared to CSC, and would have ballooned when all those real costs are added in.

The NSS structure was actually pretty reasonable for the framework of what we can do within the procurement system, but at the end of the day if political pressures over ride things like contract adherence it really doesn't matter what we do. I think if we properly implemented the vision that was there at the start, did things like performance monitoring, and also recognized/reduced the waste driven by our own bureaucracy, it has a pretty good chance of actually getting good ships.

From what I can tell, the designers at BAE can design a really good and capable ship, so if we stay out of their way CSC might potentially be great, but I think we'll likely probably try and get it to do too many conflicting things and just screw it up. For a ship that wasn't supposed to have major changes to a MOTS design, we were pretty quick to select a radar system that will require major and really significant engineering changes to be feasible, and will also have all kinds of other changes that will render it very different from a T26. Probably going to still be a good ship (lot of folks trainer by the people that built the CPF, that was fundamentally a really good design) but it's effectively a bespoke design.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Prairie canuck said:


> S0,  just an example, say something this size Small LHD with the hull designed for ice?


That size and class would be perfect, but I fear it would be to much ship to get through committee and to many crewing impacts. I was thinking this with mostly civilian crew/RFA type crew.  One of these in these ice-strengthened in 80-120m length would give us lot of domestic ops capability, the good old "Humanitarian Relief Ops" card and allow the army to use more of it's equipment in ops. Things like AD systems, communications vehicles, medical stations and vehicles.


----------

