Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 415633 times)

GAP, Halifax Tar, Chief Stoker, PuckChaser, AlexanderM, bLUE fOX (+ 1 Hidden) and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,758
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1450 on: Yesterday at 18:39:14 »
Enjoy your gloried MCDV, guys!

No, no, no, they are the RCNYC  :stirpot:

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,589
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1451 on: Yesterday at 19:08:51 »
The RCN never wanted these ships. They should be given to the Coast Guard.

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,796
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1452 on: Yesterday at 19:14:34 »
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.
"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 FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,589
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1453 on: Yesterday at 19:16:31 »
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.

Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,796
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1454 on: Yesterday at 19:19:54 »
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.
"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 FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,589
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1455 on: Yesterday at 19:36:07 »
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.



Online Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 737,437
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,796
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1456 on: Yesterday at 19:39:57 »
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.
"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 MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,094
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1457 on: Yesterday at 19:54:02 »
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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?):

Quote
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

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 18,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 822
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1458 on: Yesterday at 23:17:30 »
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. 

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.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,445
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1459 on: Today at 08:17:44 »
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. 

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,589
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1460 on: Today at 08:31:53 »
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!