Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 485121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,022
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1800 on: May 10, 2019, 08:01:02 »
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...
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1801 on: May 10, 2019, 08:02:37 »
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.
"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

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 246
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1802 on: May 10, 2019, 08:04:56 »
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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1803 on: May 10, 2019, 08:32:54 »
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.

"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
  • *****
  • 139,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,340
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1804 on: May 10, 2019, 17:59:20 »
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.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1805 on: May 10, 2019, 18:04:52 »
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.
"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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,660
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1806 on: May 10, 2019, 18:07:13 »
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).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,440
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1807 on: May 10, 2019, 18:58:29 »
Further to this post on idea of two extra Irving A/OPS for CCG, https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64037.msg1571024.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)?

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline kratz

    Spring is still hiding under the covers.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 261,403
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,281
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1808 on: May 10, 2019, 19:16:41 »
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.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,675
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1809 on: May 10, 2019, 21:53:50 »
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?
Everything happens for a reason.

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

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1810 on: May 10, 2019, 22:29:31 »
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.
"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
  • *****
  • 217,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,675
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1811 on: May 10, 2019, 22:40:02 »
Copy, thanks.  Like most people, I know very little about the Kingston class deployments (outside of the CARIBBE piece).
Everything happens for a reason.

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

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1812 on: May 11, 2019, 08:16:08 »
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.
"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 Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,025
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1813 on: May 11, 2019, 09:07:36 »
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.
Living the lean life.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1814 on: May 11, 2019, 10:55:55 »
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.
"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
  • *****
  • 139,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,340
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1815 on: May 12, 2019, 21:04:16 »
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?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1816 on: May 12, 2019, 21:36:45 »
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.
"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 Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,025
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1817 on: May 13, 2019, 21:05:10 »
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!
Living the lean life.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,439
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1818 on: May 21, 2019, 22:50:51 »
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

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 717
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1819 on: May 21, 2019, 23:02:08 »
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?

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,439
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1820 on: May 21, 2019, 23:04:18 »
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?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,025
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1821 on: Yesterday at 00:37:35 »
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.
Living the lean life.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,660
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1822 on: Yesterday at 01:21:42 »
And then there is this:

Quote
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.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,025
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1823 on: Yesterday at 01:39:06 »
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.
Living the lean life.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,740
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1824 on: Yesterday at 06:49:12 »
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?