Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Halifax Tar]

That is... unusual.

I suppose if you're going to spend $35 billion for actual proper ports and your current ships that sail through the Arctic don't actually need a refueling station in that location.

Money and effort better spent in other places makes sense.

Looking back at my enthusiasm for Nanisivik (with 20/20 hindsight) it was a "on the cheap" solution for a different time. Probably should have tempered my expectations. But on the other hand... that's boring. I like dreaming big!

Nanisivik was BER when I was in F4 LOGOPs planning HDWs initial navigation of the Artic.

 

[Stoker]

Glad to see that someone finally had the testicular fortitude to stand up and make this decision.

https://archive.ph/KYvWZ

Ottawa to pull plug on Arctic naval facility​

That decision was made several years ago. It was a good idea but poorly executed.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That decision was made several years ago. It was a good idea but poorly executed.

It was a good idea that was executed with the extremely limited funding it actually received, rendering it not useful. The replacements they are talking about will be in other locations, but also cost far more now than if we did Nanisivik properly then. But at least the CCG is getting heavy input now, as they will be the ones using it, so will actually support icebreaking without leaving them stuck on the other side of the ice where they can't touch it due to hunting patterns.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It was a good idea that was executed with the extremely limited funding it actually received, rendering it not useful. The replacements they are talking about will be in other locations, but also cost far more now than if we did Nanisivik properly then. But at least the CCG is getting heavy input now, as they will be the ones using it, so will actually support icebreaking without leaving them stuck on the other side of the ice where they can't touch it due to hunting patterns.

Hopefully someone with some clout and ability will be charged with the authoring of a 'lesson's learned' document from all of this. One that will be included/referenced in future decision making processes. All mistakes and missteps can and should be learned from.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Hopefully someone with some clout and ability will be charged with the authoring of a 'lesson's learned' document from all of this. One that will be included/referenced in future decision making processes. All mistakes and missteps can and should be learned from.

I think the LLs here are pretty easy; building and maintaining things in the Arctic is hard, and if you give someone a dime don't expect something that costs a dollar.

The amount of money earmarked for the Arctic base expansion with all the announcements is in the 10s of billions of dollars though, with a lot of clout behind it right to the PMO, cabinet etc, so it's really an affordability question.

A lot of benefit to the communities is built in with a lot of Vote 10 funding, dual use assets etc so think a lot of people will get onboard just for that, which is what got NSS over the line and still supported, so pretty optimistic.

Even if CAF/CCG don't really use it, things like a deep water port, infra investment in basic municipal services and a lot of other things the CAF would need to operate in these communities would be there, so makes a lot of sense economically with the changes to the Northern passages and what that will open up commercially generally. Much easier to do any work up there if there is a good option for a port on each northern coast, runways able to take heavier cargo, Polar icebreakers, etc. Still remote AF in a harsh environment, but much more manageable.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the LLs here are pretty easy; building and maintaining things in the Arctic is hard, and if you give someone a dime don't expect something that costs a dollar.

The amount of money earmarked for the Arctic base expansion with all the announcements is in the 10s of billions of dollars though, with a lot of clout behind it right to the PMO, cabinet etc, so it's really an affordability question.

A lot of benefit to the communities is built in with a lot of Vote 10 funding, dual use assets etc so think a lot of people will get onboard just for that, which is what got NSS over the line and still supported, so pretty optimistic.

Even if CAF/CCG don't really use it, things like a deep water port, infra investment in basic municipal services and a lot of other things the CAF would need to operate in these communities would be there, so makes a lot of sense economically with the changes to the Northern passages and what that will open up commercially generally. Much easier to do any work up there if there is a good option for a port on each northern coast, runways able to take heavier cargo, Polar icebreakers, etc. Still remote AF in a harsh environment, but much more manageable.

Understood.

I was questioning more along the lines of the initial assessments in terms of the status of the existing facilities back when this was kicked off - the status of the airfield, the status of the docks/wharf, the road beds/status to Arctic Bay, etc.

Have a read of this 2013 document.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiy3Jb28KeUAxVorisGHQH5IxsQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nirb.ca%2Fportal%2Fdms%2Fscript%2Fdms_download.php%3Ffileid%3D273166%26applicationid%3D123958%26sessionid%3Dc3i2nmoi4do5m3bsr79le67501&usg=AOvVaw0UsYRfWdR0x13MfpQe7m0i&opi=89978449

Here's an interesting snippet:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Build up the docks and fuel storage of existing communities instead.

 

[YZT580]

Build up the docks and fuel storage of existing communities instead.

or put in docks in the first place. There are a number of villages up there where everything from the ships is lightered ashore and beached. Watching supplies being delivered is like watching a video from the beaches of Normandy

 

[Maxman1]

or put in docks in the first place. There are a number of villages up there where everything from the ships is lightered ashore and beached. Watching supplies being delivered is like watching a video from the beaches of Normandy

Sounds like a good excuse to build a few landing ships, like the Runnymede class or similar.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sounds like a good excuse to build a few landing ships, like the Runnymede class or similar.

I actually drank with these US Army sailors in the Avalon Rock Pub in Chania Crete on my last deployment in '24. Their master was an NCM or WO I cant remember; and they sailed these things across the Atlantic into the eastern Med.

Good dudes.

 

[YZT580]

I actually drank with these US Army sailors in the Avalon Rock Pub in Chania Crete on my last deployment in '24. Their master was an NCM or WO I cant remember; and they sailed these things across the Atlantic into the eastern Med.

Good dudes.

not sure how good they would be in the ice though. The concept is good and I am sure that any of the companies operating in the north would be delighted with having the government buy them new ships but I have never read about an ice certified LST

 

[daftandbarmy]

not sure how good they would be in the ice though. The concept is good and I am sure that any of the companies operating in the north would be delighted with having the government buy them new ships but I have never read about an ice certified LST

How about a hovercraft?

This one holds 16 troops...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I actually drank with these US Army sailors in the Avalon Rock Pub in Chania Crete on my last deployment in '24. Their master was an NCM or WO I cant remember; and they sailed these things across the Atlantic into the eastern Med.

Good dudes.

I worked with one of their "master" before, who was assisting in some Naval Control of Shipping Ex (why, I don't recall). They are Warrant Officers, but you must remember that in the US, the "Warrants" are neither fish nor fowl. They mess with the officers but are not officers, but neither are they or have ever served with or started as non-comms. They are highly educated/trained specialists that carry out tasks for which they are trained for their whole career, like flying the Apache attack helicopters and some of the Blackhawks, for instance. In the case of those vessels, they hold the equivalent to a merchant master mariner degree and they basically drive those vessels for their whole time in the service (probably because no officer in the US Army would want to take the time off his/her career in the combat arms it would take to learn the seaman's trade and then do at least one or more stint on one of those vessels).

 

[Kirkhill]

or put in docks in the first place. There are a number of villages up there where everything from the ships is lightered ashore and beached. Watching supplies being delivered is like watching a video from the beaches of Normandy

If lighterng works and it is the least cost solution then Normandy looks pretty good to me.

And don't forget mulberry.

Mulberry harbours - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The bigger issue, I would think, is having adequate storage on hand so that you can skip a shipment or two. And an alternate supply route for when that isn't the answer.

 

[Kirkhill]

The only problem with the Mulberry solution, while easy enough to build and drag into place, of the two piers built one of them didn't survive the first big storm. On the other hand the other is still there. Presumably the damaged one acted as a breakwater to the one that survived.

But, there is no ice in Arromanches waters.

 

[lenaitch]

Is the goal to put fuel and supplies ashore, or to put fuel and supplies ashore so it can be ready to supply and ship. Moving tons of fuel to/from shore by boat doesn't seem very efficient.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There are two possible situations here:

If the idea behind the depot is to be able to have year round access to fuel for land operations (Rangers/Army/Ground Air), then refueling them the way it is currently done in the Arctic by the summer resupply runs (i.e. civilian tankers that refill them using floating hoses from an anchorage near the tank farm) is sufficient and you just hire them like any other user - so long as you remember that those tanks, to be usable in the cold season (it's the Arctic, I should the the coldest of the cold seasons) have to be insulated and heated for the fuel to flow through the pumps properly.

If the idea is to have a resupply of fuel on hand for the naval vessels that will deploy there from a little before to a little after the navigation season in order to carry out surveillance and operations, then I suggest a different approach, that might end up being cheaper too. It harks back to an earlier era in the RCN (1950's to early 1980's - for those who may remember) when QHM operated on the East Coast through CFAV a coastal tanker that could be sent to refuel us in protected bays and harbours. Seems to me that if we had one or two ice breaking tankers of the same ice ratings as the AOPS/CDC, manned and operated by CFAV (I dare not suggest Federal Services ) that would sail with us up North for the season, that would be a cheaper and faster way of ensuring the fuel resupply of the ships up there. Land based depots and landing crafts can still be used for the dry goods and fresh rations.

 

[YZT580]

There are two possible situations here:

If the idea behind the depot is to be able to have year round access to fuel for land operations (Rangers/Army/Ground Air), then refueling them the way it is currently done in the Arctic by the summer resupply runs (i.e. civilian tankers that refill them using floating hoses from an anchorage near the tank farm) is sufficient and you just hire them like any other user - so long as you remember that those tanks, to be usable in the cold season (it's the Arctic, I should the the coldest of the cold seasons) have to be insulated and heated for the fuel to flow through the pumps properly.

If the idea is to have a resupply of fuel on hand for the naval vessels that will deploy there from a little before to a little after the navigation season in order to carry out surveillance and operations, then I suggest a different approach, that might end up being cheaper too. It harks back to an earlier era in the RCN (1950's to early 1980's - for those who may remember) when QHM operated on the East Coast through CFAV a coastal tanker that could be sent to refuel us in protected bays and harbours. Seems to me that if we had one or two ice breaking tankers of the same ice ratings as the AOPS/CDC, manned and operated by CFAV (I dare not suggest Federal Services ) that would sail with us up North for the season, that would be a cheaper and faster way of ensuring the fuel resupply of the ships up there. Land based depots and landing crafts can still be used for the dry goods and fresh rations.

an ice-rated Asterix perhaps?