Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 540631 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,699
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #775 on: July 06, 2015, 17:18:30 »
Taken in April 2009 in Tracy Arm, AK. The Sawyer Glacier is pictured, which, for the sake of interest originates in Canada.

It was all first year ice - varying from slush at the start to 4-6" elsewhere.







And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #776 on: July 06, 2015, 17:22:01 »
Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch

Offline IN ARDUA NITOR

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 144
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #777 on: July 06, 2015, 17:28:42 »
And for the sake of clarity: It is the glacier that originates in Canada, not the Arm, which is entirely in the US and, coinciding with my earlier observation, is about 240 nautical Miles North of Ketchikan.

Yes, I posted to agree with you, not to bring your statement into disrepute.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #778 on: July 06, 2015, 17:47:08 »
Great pictures and my opinion of the MCDV's went up another notch

Great to see we have the CCG approval ;D
"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
  • *****
  • 142,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,699
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #779 on: July 06, 2015, 17:50:32 »
Should we start painting the hulls red?  ;D

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #780 on: July 07, 2015, 10:51:20 »
Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D

The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #781 on: July 07, 2015, 10:54:37 »
Don't go there, the DFO guys are still whining about that!  ;D

The sad part is I only learn here after many years that the MCDV have some ice rating, frigging PAO's

It does and we also have arctic cooling as well when operating in slush.
"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 Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 473
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #782 on: July 17, 2015, 10:29:13 »
Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette. 

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,864
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #783 on: July 17, 2015, 11:18:37 »
Here is the name of the next one. The fifth will be the HMCS Frederick Rolette. 

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/federal-government-names-arctic-vessel-after-local-war-hero

Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 184,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,448
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #784 on: July 17, 2015, 11:28:54 »
Little bit of nit-picking here but you never put "the" before HMCS.

I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 192,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,029
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #785 on: July 17, 2015, 12:52:46 »
I wouldn't say "nitpicking" - it's grammatically correct.  You wouldn't say/write "the Her Majesty's....", etc.

Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #786 on: July 17, 2015, 13:15:02 »
Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5JvchsfnmQ
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 184,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,448
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #787 on: July 17, 2015, 13:20:16 »
Have we reached the stage of being pedantic about being pedantic?

Yes.   >:D
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 473
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #788 on: July 17, 2015, 16:02:53 »
Sorry, I will never do that again.   :o

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 986
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #789 on: July 21, 2015, 20:04:25 »
So any guesses on whether they will bother naming a 6th ship only to cancel after the election, or wait until they figure there's enough money in the kitty to pay up for the 6th one.

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #790 on: July 21, 2015, 20:42:27 »
IMHO 5 AOPS types will be enough leave money in the kitty for more important programs.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #791 on: July 21, 2015, 22:11:48 »
With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 154,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,515
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #792 on: July 21, 2015, 23:49:06 »
I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.

Offline Harrigan

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 175
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #793 on: July 22, 2015, 03:44:51 »
I wouldn't split the AOPS between the coasts. I would keep all the AOPS on east coast and give that fleet year the arctic mission. I would then move some frigates and/or CSC west to deal with the Pacific reality.

Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #794 on: July 22, 2015, 08:16:00 »
Perhaps wintering in Halifax but it is a long voyage from there to even Hudson's Bay.  You are going to need a northern port (perhaps Churchill?) to use as a summer base otherwise a third of your deployment will be taken up with transit.

Offline Pat in Halifax

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 33,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 906
  • Jackwagon
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #795 on: July 22, 2015, 08:27:27 »
I have actually said Churchill before many times in various circles. In the past, it has been utilized as a FLS for northern deployments. The infrastructure is there (though privately owned apparently by an American company) and I would suggest that in 10-15 years, Churchill itself may become an ice free port meaning a possible third major Naval Base. Actually for the time being, basing AOPS out of St John's vice Halifax makes far more sense (for the northern deployments). I suppose one must keep in mind that these vessels are also mandated as Offshore Patrol as well.

Pat
"No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb ******* die for his"
George S. Patton

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #796 on: July 22, 2015, 09:31:55 »
Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan

The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west

Offline Harrigan

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 175
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #797 on: July 22, 2015, 10:03:03 »
The primary purpose of the AOPS is not to break ice but to provide military services to the north.  The ice capability is simply a tool to enable those services.  The greater part of our northern coast and the primary commercial activity will be centred around the Mackenzie delta ergo, you need to go there and the easiest quickest passage is from the west

I know it may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually not the easier quickest passage to the Beaufort Sea.  While it is marginally shorter than going from Halifax (Alaska is big), there are no places to get fuel north of Dutch Harbour in the Aleutians.  Using Nuuk, Thule (in Greenland) and Nanisivik when (if) it becomes active make operating across the Arctic far more feasible from the East than the West.

As for the commercial activity, they have been waiting decades for the Mackenzie Delta to be economically viable for extraction purposes and to justify building the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, but they are still waiting.....  Meanwhile, there are plenty of mines in Nunavut that are either operating now or opening up, and that is increasing commercial shipping traffic.  For the foreseeable future, the Eastern High Arctic is where the action is.

Harrigan

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,680
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #798 on: July 22, 2015, 10:08:04 »
Concur.  With ice conditions prevalent at various points all down the Eastern Seaboard as well as the Arctic, makes more sense to base all the AOPS in Halifax.  No ice in the Pacific.  Presumably that is why the CCG has all their icebreakers in the East.

Harrigan

CCG also bases a 1100 class in the Pacific as the Pacific region is responsible for the Western Arctic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #799 on: July 22, 2015, 11:54:20 »
With the Arctic's new importance as a resource rich yet vulnerable region I would suggest that it is one of the more important responsibilities of the DND in general and the RCN in particular.  If anything the AOPS are going to prove as too small and will require replacement with a more robust vessel with greater available resources.  'but that is down the line, in the meantime 5 is not enough.  Need 3 on each coast with one in the shop, one on patrol and one working up.  Two on each coast with one spare is just too hard on both equipment and crews: the Arctic is not a forgiving place to work.  IMHO

I would say AOPS will be extremely busy in the Arctic, there's lots of work for them to do.
"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