Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 435567 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1600 on: November 07, 2018, 19:21:12 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 54,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1601 on: November 07, 2018, 19:28:05 »
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)


Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1602 on: November 07, 2018, 19:31:38 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1603 on: November 09, 2018, 09:45:07 »
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?

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1604 on: November 09, 2018, 10:28:16 »
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.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1605 on: November 09, 2018, 10:32:22 »
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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1606 on: November 09, 2018, 10:53:22 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1607 on: November 09, 2018, 11:04:51 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,169
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1608 on: November 09, 2018, 11:27:02 »
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:

Quote
...
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1609 on: November 09, 2018, 11:28:14 »
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.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1610 on: November 09, 2018, 11:32:20 »
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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1611 on: November 09, 2018, 11:32:29 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 88
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1612 on: November 09, 2018, 13:04:51 »
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.
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.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 85,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,854
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1613 on: November 09, 2018, 13:57:18 »
Doubled for the 6th ship so I heard.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,880
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1614 on: November 09, 2018, 14:51:12 »
the "Irving factor"  ::)

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,321
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1615 on: November 09, 2018, 17:12:11 »
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.
+60
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 842
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1616 on: November 10, 2018, 16:45:29 »
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. 

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1617 on: November 10, 2018, 16:51:53 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 842
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1618 on: November 10, 2018, 17:19:22 »
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.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 17:26:54 by Underway »

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1619 on: November 10, 2018, 17:31:47 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1620 on: November 10, 2018, 18:26:46 »
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.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1621 on: November 10, 2018, 18:31:08 »
I suck at links, so here’s a screenshot.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1622 on: November 10, 2018, 18:32:13 »
And the follow up

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1623 on: November 10, 2018, 18:43:28 »
And the follow up

I did hear about that, so far a number of years away.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

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

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1624 on: November 10, 2018, 18:48:24 »
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.