Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 472439 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 872
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #825 on: October 14, 2015, 18:13:59 »
So then what armament and defenses should they have against an Akula III?

[asked only half tongue in cheek]

Cheers
G2G

If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,874
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #826 on: October 14, 2015, 18:18:38 »
If an Akula is shooting at us (aside from wasting its ammo) we have a whole other world of problems, and I'll pray for the crew, and the rest of the country while we're at it.

Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 872
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #827 on: October 14, 2015, 18:42:58 »
Of course, and puts into question Colin P's assertion that arming a constabulary vessel so lightly, as intended, was tantamount to a criminal activity.

True.

Even the Halifax class would be hard pressed to find and deal with an Akula III by itself any way.  That's why you have SOSUS, MPA's and MH's etc...  Teamwork is key.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #828 on: October 16, 2015, 11:27:33 »
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,959
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #829 on: October 16, 2015, 12:07:48 »
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   

CPFs and CSCs can still operate in the high arctic. No one really has armed icebreakers, and certainly nothing that's going to be any more menacing than the DeWolfe-class.

So, if anyone does send a surface ship that is well armed to challenge our sovereignty, then it will have to be in conditions that will allow us to send CPFs/CSCs in response. Ergo, you don't need to arm the Harries to the teeth.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #830 on: October 16, 2015, 14:07:47 »
I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,959
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #831 on: October 16, 2015, 14:35:28 »
I guess I don't have your faith that all the puzzle pieces will fit when the time comes. (or that they work, have not been sold, etc)

Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.

Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:

"New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"

"New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"

"HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #832 on: October 16, 2015, 14:38:51 »
You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #833 on: October 16, 2015, 14:42:45 »
Who said it needs to be a sub? Not everyone agrees with our assertion of sovereignty, including our major ally. who might decide to sit back and do nothing. A well armed ship in the right place will make tangling with it to high a price and would allow the ship and crew to stand their ground against surface ships that intend to push through with veiled threats. By making a serious effort, you reduce the likelihood of a crisis. A lightly armed vessel will not be seen as real deterrent.   

Actually Colin, I am sorry to say on this one you are wrong.

I wish people talking about Arctic sovereignty would take the time, first to look at the situation on a globe, not on flattened and distorted maps.

ABOVE (considering the North Pole to be "Up") the northernmost Canadian piece of land, on one side, and the European/Asian northernmost piece of land is a huge expanse of water called the Arctic ocean. It is three times the size of the Mediterranean sea. That Arctic ocean is international water, like any other ocean, as of now.

In practice, with very few exceptions, no one goes there other than Canadian, American and Russian ice breakers doing mostly research and show the flag because it is iced over permanently, except near the edges. As a result, the various Nations surrounding the Arctic ocean (and there is a very limited number of them) are proposing that each one of them exercise sovereignty over activities going on on the ice in their "sector", the boundaries of which are being negotiated between them, but which would all meet at the North pole. This is a huge departure from the Law of the Sea ("LOS") and it is far from clear that the other seafaring nations of the world would recognize such claim on the exercise of sovereign powers (I know for sure the Chinese will never agree to this). There is also a process in place and currently being followed by all interested parties for the determination of the extent of each bordering nation's contiguous continental shelf as such shelf's sea based resources belong to the nation whose shelf is contiguous.

As for Canadian sovereignty on our land territory up there, Colin, with the exception of the little fracas with Denmark over Hans Island, NOBODY is contesting our sovereignty or our land borders. This means that they also recognize our twelve nautical miles territorial sea and our 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone. The exact angle and shape of these territorial waters and economic zone, at their ends where we meet with American claims and Danish ones are not set but subject of ongoing discussions.

Now, the closest point between Russia's and Canada's land masses are 1200 Km apart, and permanently ice covered. So the Russian hordes are not about to come across the Arctic, at five Km/h on ten to fifteen big, hard to maneuver icebreakers each carrying a single platoon of soldiers. Our CF-18 would dispose of the lot in a few minutes, with days if not weeks to prepare the assault and deploy to execute it.

As for "heavily armed" vessels getting on our Canadian side of the ocean, as Lumber pointed out, there are no icebreakers so armed in the world so it would have to be regular surface warships coming in either from the Bering straight in the West or the Labrador sea in the East. If they can go (because there is no ice) then so can we with our own heavily armed warships. Moreover, we, and nobody else, have military capable airfields up there so we can mount attacks on other nation's "heavies".

You may have noticed that I did not talk about sovereignty of waters between the Islands of the Canadian archipelago yet. That is the real crux of the matter, actually, and is subject to a dispute between us and the "major" ally you did not name: the Americans.

A quick lesson in LOS for all here: there are four "type" of waters defined under international LOS:

1- International waters: everything not otherwise internal or territorial. Basically, all seas and oceans when more than 12 nautical miles from land. In these waters, there are no national claims to the application of one's laws to someone else (we'll see the EEZ exception later), and ships are free to use these waters as they see fit and of putting themselves under the protection of whichever country they want that will accept them.

2- Territorial waters: waters contiguous to a country, extending from the limits of the nation's internal waters (usually the low tide mark) to twelve miles out. In these waters, the contiguous state can impose its laws on all ships found within these waters, with the exception that, in peace time, it cannot deny the right to innocent passage to  merchant ship's of another nation but may make it conditional on requesting permission to transit through, and can only close these waters to them under special circumstances, However, warships of another nation cannot enter these waters at all without the permission of the nation whose waters these are.

3- Internal waters: Thes are the waters found between the low and high water mark of the shore, the harbours, ports, bays and other similar enclosed waters of a country. The country whose waters these are can do as it pleases with them, even denying access to them to anyone on whim. Obviously that states laws apply in these waters without any restrictions. Where bays are concerned, there is a formula whereby basically, a bay that is "deeper" than it is "wide" at its entrance can be enclosed by drawing a straight line at the mouth and all waters inside it  are internal, and the 12 Nm territorial sea extends from those straight lines.

4- Of course, without changing the designation of Territorial or international waters, a nation can claim in the seas contiguous to its coasts an Exclusive economic zone up to 200 Nautical miles out from its internal waters. This only gives them the power to regulate economic activities in that zone.

There is also an animal called "international straight" which is a narrow passage which may be bordered on each side by different countries or by the same country and may be comprised of international or territorial sea, and which links two bodies of international waters or of different nation's territorial seas (think Juan de Fuca straight for instance). The difference between an International Straight and ordinary territorial waters of a country is that even though these are "territorial" by definition, there are no circumstances under which the right of innocent passage can be denied and this right of innocent passage includes innocent passage (all weapons in "harbour" position and unloaded/submarines surfaced only) by any nation's warships and this right entails that no permission to transit can be required.

And this is where we (and the Russians as regards their own "North-East" passage BTW) are at odds with the Americans.

The USA recognizes our claim to the lands we claim as our own up in the Arctic; they recognize our claim to our "12 NM" territorial sea up there and the attendant 200 NM EEZ, but not from where we calculate it. What they don't recognize is the fact that we have elected, unilaterally and without supporting LOS or international recognition of such method, to draw "straight lines" (like the ones used in LOS for bays and fiords, as described above) not at the entrance of bays but at the entrance of every straight or passage found between the islands and calling all enclosed waters therein "internal" under LOS, in effect making like the whole archipelago is a single land mass belonging to Canada, and calculating our 12 and 200 NM zones accordingly.

The USA is quite willing to recognize 12 nm territorial seas around every island we have up here and 200 nm around these same islands for EEZ (which in effect is just about the same as under our claim since there are no points where the islands are more than 400 nm away from one another), but not our straight lines making larger internal waters than anywhere else in the world. Moreover, because they see the North-West passage (and the "Russian" North-East passage too) as International Straight as it links two international bodies of water: the Beaufort sea and the Labrador sea). Thus they claim aright to innocent passage without permission, even for their warships.

Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS? Or are we going to resolve it between us, knowing that nobody else is really interested in the security of these waters. After all, even for their own security, the American don't want to see everybody and their dog's warships up there, so will certainly be amenable to finding a solution that accommodate everyone.       

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #834 on: October 16, 2015, 14:46:51 »
You have to start making a lot more compromises when dealing with multi-year ice of any thickness. We had one of our CCG ice breakers (Camsull) sliced open by a growler.

Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,312
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,945
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #835 on: October 16, 2015, 14:52:14 »
Oh I have my doubts. For example, I've heard the 25mm on the Harries won't have a cupola to protect them from the elements. I'm sure the Finish fisherman or Russian SigInt vessels will be very intimidated when HMCS Margaret Brooke can't even train her guns on them.

Also, they are only ice "hardened" meaning they will only be capable of handling first year ice. I can just see the headlines now:

"New RCN 'Arctic' vessels spending most of their time outside the 'Arctic'"

"New RCN 'Ice Breaker' damaged in collision with Ice!"

"HMCS Max Bernays stuck in the ice...again!"

The drawings that I saw of the gun has an enclosed cupola.
"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 Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,836
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #836 on: October 16, 2015, 15:56:20 »
Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.

Almost all the bouy tenders are/were ice breakers, the Camsell was part of an evolution of designs that lead to the 1100 boats built in the 80s.


Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 872
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #837 on: October 16, 2015, 21:07:28 »

Are we going to fight with them on on that, when we are the only ones in the world to make such claim in LOS?

This is not entirely true.  Many countries go by the straight baseline theory.  North Korea, Lybia, Russia, Japan etc...  Basically if you have a large bay type area then you usually cleave to the straight baselines (like Hudson Bay).  The main claim to Canada's Arctic is based upon the archipelago concept that in the LotS if you are an archipelagic nation (Phillipines) you can draw straight baselines around your outer islands and call the inside territorial waters.  Canada though a continental country is claiming this same rule applies to us.

There are plenty of things in the baseline rules that are arguable and not clear, hence the interpretation of straight baselines.  The only reason that the US doesn't respect straight baselines is that they don't have any reason where that would be an advantage to them and their waters.

Canada has plenty of evidence and support from many other countries that our interpretation is correct.  It's hardly unilateral or illegal.  It hasn't been tested in any type of court either.  There's a reason that RCN ships who were in the Med during the Regan years didn't go into the Gulf of Sirte claimed by Lybia, while the US just sailed right up to the 12 mile limit.  It's all about straight baselines.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #838 on: October 17, 2015, 03:21:53 »
Really ??? The Coast Guard considered Camsull an Icebreaker ! I thought she was just a buoy tender with a reinforced hull.

The Pearkes is considered Arctic class 2, it not bad considering what others ships are, the Russians I think are the only ones with a Arctic class 6 or higher.

 https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13670-tables-2154.htm

Do you think the Chinese will return? Xuě Lóng unexpectedly arrived in 1999 at the small Canadian coastal village of Tuktoyaktuk, on the Arctic Ocean.[16][17][18]

The inability of the Canadian authorities to track the vessel stirred enough controversy that the incident is still being cited as evidence of Canadian unpreparedness to defend its northern sovereignty
(wiki)

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #839 on: October 18, 2015, 09:39:48 »
This is not entirely true.  Many countries go by the straight baseline theory.  North Korea, Lybia, Russia, Japan etc...  Basically if you have a large bay type area then you usually cleave to the straight baselines (like Hudson Bay).  The main claim to Canada's Arctic is based upon the archipelago concept that in the LotS if you are an archipelagic nation (Phillipines) you can draw straight baselines around your outer islands and call the inside territorial waters.  Canada though a continental country is claiming this same rule applies to us.

There are plenty of things in the baseline rules that are arguable and not clear, hence the interpretation of straight baselines.  The only reason that the US doesn't respect straight baselines is that they don't have any reason where that would be an advantage to them and their waters.

Canada has plenty of evidence and support from many other countries that our interpretation is correct.  It's hardly unilateral or illegal.  It hasn't been tested in any type of court either.  There's a reason that RCN ships who were in the Med during the Regan years didn't go into the Gulf of Sirte claimed by Lybia, while the US just sailed right up to the 12 mile limit.  It's all about straight baselines.

Underway:

Re-read my post carefully.

You will see that I do talk about baselines as a method, and I am not claiming that Canada is the only one using the method as it exists (we have many bays where we do).

You may note that under the current system, the use of baseline at the entrances of bays and fiords (not archipelagoes - not included in international LOS) creates areas of internal waters for a nation, not territorial sea, which is then calculated from the baseline out to sea.

Now, I did not want to go into this detail in my post because that was not Canada's claim for the Arctic archipelago (though it is for the Philippines), but there is in the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) a further defined "type" of waters area: The Archipelagic waters.

The Archipelagic waters apply to (and only to) states that are entirely composed of one or more archipelago (hence the Philippines). Those countries are allowed, after using the straight baselines to define their internal waters (bays, harbours, etc. like everybody else), to create a second set of baselines joining their main islands (there is a whole set of definitions) enclosing their archipelago. Those "Archipelagic Waters" then become territorial waters with exceptions to the rules pertaining thereto (i.e the country cannot deny the right to peaceful passage if they constitute an international straight otherwise), from which the "actual;" territorial waters can then be measured out to sea for 12NM and 200 NM EEZ).

So Canada is not covered by this rule (we are not "entirely" comprised of an Archipelago - we only happen to have one on one side of the country). On top of that, Canada's claim in the Arctic is that we can use these straight lines like the ones for harbours and bays and create internal waters - not territorial (the basic argument being that, since they are ice covered most of the year, and at that point used like land by the natives, they are "land" territory of Canada and thus, when melted, internal waters of Canada). In that regard, we are the only ones making such claim in the world.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #840 on: October 18, 2015, 09:54:15 »
The Pearkes is considered Arctic class 2, it not bad considering what others ships are, the Russians I think are the only ones with a Arctic class 6 or higher.

 https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13670-tables-2154.htm

Do you think the Chinese will return? Xuě Lóng unexpectedly arrived in 1999 at the small Canadian coastal village of Tuktoyaktuk, on the Arctic Ocean.[16][17][18]

The inability of the Canadian authorities to track the vessel stirred enough controversy that the incident is still being cited as evidence of Canadian unpreparedness to defend its northern sovereignty
(wiki)

Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.

On the other hand, I am pretty confident that the Chinese will be back in the Arctic. They are building icebreakers for research right now. And BTW, the nature of oceanic surveillance is such that a ship could arrive unexpectedly in San Fransisco, or Halifax, even Quebec City today or the day after. These things are not  perfect. That Chinese ship in Tuk had to go through the Bering straight and through the Beaufort sea under the nose of the Americans too.

In view of the potential natural resources up in the Arctic ocean and under it, the Chinese cannot afford to admit other nations' claims of sovereignty over the actual Arctic ocean and deprive themselves of potential exploitation (particularly fishing) if these waters become navigable. So I have no doubt they will be back up there again.

That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,617
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #841 on: October 18, 2015, 10:32:47 »
Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.


AFAIK - the AOPS is being built to IMO Polar Class 5 standards with a Polar Class 4 bow resulting in a PC5+ standard with the concept of operations being that she will operate in "navigable" waters as opposed to creating navigable waters.

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/Events/Soule_AOPS_CFPS_Sep11.pdf
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Sangster%20-%20AOPS.pdf

I don't get the sense that she will be creating channels through the ice.  Rather she is to follow the edge of the ice, staying in navigable waters but pushing into the slob as far as her hull will let her.  The idea seems to be that she will stay on station longer and closer than civilian (or even naval) vessels and control access to the ice.

Cutting channels and rescuing stuck ships, including stuck AOPS vessels seems to be reserved for the Coast Guard.  Every packet needs a wrecker.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,312
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,945
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #842 on: October 18, 2015, 10:33:35 »
Aren't the AOPS supposed to be Arctic class 3? That would make them more amenable to ops up there than the Pearkes and her likes.

On the other hand, I am pretty confident that the Chinese will be back in the Arctic. They are building icebreakers for research right now. And BTW, the nature of oceanic surveillance is such that a ship could arrive unexpectedly in San Fransisco, or Halifax, even Quebec City today or the day after. These things are not  perfect. That Chinese ship in Tuk had to go through the Bering straight and through the Beaufort sea under the nose of the Americans too.

In view of the potential natural resources up in the Arctic ocean and under it, the Chinese cannot afford to admit other nations' claims of sovereignty over the actual Arctic ocean and deprive themselves of potential exploitation (particularly fishing) if these waters become navigable. So I have no doubt they will be back up there again.

That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).

According to the presentation I saw in the formation about AOPS, its Polar Class 5, able to operate in first year ice up 1 meter at 3kts. We just got back working with DRDC on the Northern watch program. We were laying acoustic arrays across the Northwest Passage, this will eventually be part of a entire network of surveillance equipment in the North.
"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 Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,874
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #843 on: October 18, 2015, 11:07:41 »
So AOPS PC5/4/5+/etc..., Dief PC2, CPF PC(nil), MCDV PC7(6?) -- will CSC have any rating, or can it be opened up like a tuna can like the CPFs?

G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,617
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #844 on: October 18, 2015, 11:30:01 »
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

According to the above - the CSC is supposed to have the same Arctic capabilities as the current FF/DDs (5kts in brash ice + accretion limits).

Slide 29 (Platform)

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,617
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #845 on: October 18, 2015, 11:45:41 »
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

According to page 4 of the above the Absalon and Huitfeldts are built to DNV (Det Norske Veritas) Ice Class C

https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/rulesship/2005-07/ts501.pdf

See Section 2

Basically a strengthened bow with plates up to 25 mm thick to permit service in waters with light ice concentrations.

The other ships of the Danish navy are the Thetis class frigates and the Rasmussen class OPVs.

Thetis are good to 80 cm

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/thetis/

Rasmussens are good to 40 cm with 70 cm inclusions

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/knud-rasmussen-class/
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #846 on: October 18, 2015, 15:03:40 »
Icebreakers are also classed by ocean vs river, a ocean version needs a allround strong hull to avoid being crushed in the ice when trapped, a river class has most of it's strength in a longitudinal plane.

the US also does not agree with our baseline definition on the west coast between Cape St James and Cape Scott.

Detection is good and important, but very typical will be a Canadian approach that we can detect, but not do much about it. "Canada, fitted for, but not with sovereignty"  8) 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 138,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,594
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #847 on: October 18, 2015, 18:09:48 »
Icebreakers are also classed by ocean vs river, a ocean version needs a allround strong hull to avoid being crushed in the ice when trapped, a river class has most of it's strength in a longitudinal plane.

the US also does not agree with our baseline definition on the west coast between Cape St James and Cape Scott.

Detection is good and important, but very typical will be a Canadian approach that we can detect, but not do much about it. "Canada, fitted for, but not with sovereignty"  8)

As I keep reminding you, Colin, enforcement up there is (or ought to be) with CF-18s with white ones under the wings. I mean, other than debarked infantry, why would you want to fight with things that go only 5 Km/h? If someone wants to send "turtles" up there, why should I fight them with my own turtle when I have access to a Chimpanzee (no offence meant Supersonicmax and Co.  ;D) carrying a hammer? 

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 872
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #848 on: October 18, 2015, 19:14:19 »
That is why the largest part of the Arctic program of DND is oriented towards detection, with the Arctic surveillance network at its heart. Moreover, since 1999, we (Canada) have put Radarsat 2 in orbit. While it is a commercial endeavour of the Space Agency, the ops centre has a permanent RCAF cell to use it for surveillance of the territory, and particularly the Arctic (and to vet "commercial" requests to make sure we are not asked to provide "intelligence" to foreign nations or belligerents).

There is also the fact that NORAD is integrated into continental maritime defence now as well (since 9/11).  All ships are supposed to report their approach to NA waters at least 24 hrs in advance if not longer (I can't recall, long time since I was at Trinity).  "Honest" sailors and those who want to appear to be honest will report.  Naval Intel is supposed to give good info on who's who in the zoo and most ships are equipped with tech that ID's them to our tracking system by international maritime law (like aircraft).

This doesn't stop a foreign power who wants to stay off the grid, but it does do a lot for tracking of civilian traffic.  This helps sort through the clutter and narrow down on those not reporting so we can take a look at them.  If someone just shows up in the Arctic without telling us they better have a good explanation as the US will be looking over our shoulder at them as well.  Combined with acoustic sensors, and radar stations at critical points of the NWP I'm pretty confident that we will know for the most part who's on the water.  What they are doing will be up to AOPS taking a look see along with the RCAF.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 137,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,245
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #849 on: October 18, 2015, 19:16:03 »
because I don't believe the 'chimpanzee" (sorry max) will be allowed to drop anything (well maybe a strongly worded letter). At the end of the day we are going to need more presence up there and my belief is to make that presence very robust, because I suspect it will be a whole bunch of bluffing and gunboat diplomacy. When you opponent knows you can back up the tough talk with action, very likely they will back off in such a confrontation. A robust ship backed up by our RCAF is the best option.