Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 523776 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1550 on: November 02, 2018, 11:07:08 »

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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1551 on: November 02, 2018, 11:09:01 »
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?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1552 on: November 02, 2018, 11:12:43 »
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.
"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 Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,899
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1553 on: November 02, 2018, 11:14:26 »

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?
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 760
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1554 on: November 02, 2018, 11:17:34 »
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

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1555 on: November 02, 2018, 11:23:02 »
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.
"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 Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 270
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1556 on: November 02, 2018, 14:36:10 »
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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1557 on: November 02, 2018, 14:47:05 »
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.
"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 Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1558 on: November 02, 2018, 14:51:24 »
Quite possible that one AOP is leased to the CCG to fill in for a dead science research ship.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,215
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1559 on: November 02, 2018, 16:33:08 »
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.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,215
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1560 on: November 02, 2018, 16:34:34 »
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?

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1561 on: November 02, 2018, 17:43:35 »
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?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1562 on: November 02, 2018, 17:46:11 »
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.
"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 Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1563 on: November 02, 2018, 18:27:03 »

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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1564 on: November 02, 2018, 18:37:47 »
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.
"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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1565 on: November 03, 2018, 02:56:21 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1566 on: November 03, 2018, 03:41:14 »
Ordered 5 with an option of 6, now they are agreeing to the option. "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1567 on: November 04, 2018, 09:24:21 »

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.

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:

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1568 on: November 04, 2018, 09:40:55 »
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.
"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 Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1569 on: November 04, 2018, 11:01:53 »
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.

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.

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.

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. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1570 on: November 04, 2018, 11:17:56 »
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.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1571 on: November 04, 2018, 11:31:18 »
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?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,927
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,056
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1572 on: November 04, 2018, 11:48:25 »
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.

"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 Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 176,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,314
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1573 on: November 04, 2018, 12:00:26 »
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:
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1574 on: November 05, 2018, 07:44:40 »

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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"