Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 487610 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 58,459
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,062
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1250 on: May 03, 2018, 17:17:07 »
Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.

Or three Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...
"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 FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,743
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1251 on: May 03, 2018, 18:19:37 »
Or three Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...

Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 139,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,622
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1252 on: May 03, 2018, 18:39:51 »
Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.

And, BTW, Chris: I don't think the 18 months gap you mention is the result of greater time efficiencies at Irving, but rather the results of delays in the pre-construction phase of the CSC's. And if, after all the investments they have made in modernizing the yard and in training their people, Irving is currently incapable of filling that 18 months gap, 3 1/2 years from now, with something to do from the private sector, my personal opinion is that the bloody shipbuilding strategy has failed.

During that gap, they should be at the apex of their tradecraft and efficiency. If they can't get contracts then, they never will. If that's the case: nationalize the damn yard so it is government property. After all, it would mean that government vessels is all they will ever be able to build so why should we pay profits on top of actual costs.
 

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 894
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1253 on: May 03, 2018, 18:58:00 »
Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.

Based on the current bids for CSC we might be procuring 15 of these types of ships.  AAD might depend entirely on missile loadout not sensor or combat suite as they will be common through all of the variants.  If a single system meets the requirements the navy has set out and the cost is right then there might be
no difference in the radars, FCS etc... between an AAD and GP variant.  It might entirely be based on missile loadout, crew embarked (ie Commodores staff) and comms. But I digress from the thrust of this thread.


Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.

Middle East, Africa, Baltics currently are the historical and recent problem areas, and currently they are still closer to Halifax then Esquimalt.  Halifax is just closer to where stuff goes bad generally.  Halifax can respond faster to the majority of problems in the world.  Also Halifax is closer to allies and friendly supply.  Until Asia starts being twits like the other world problem spots  I don't see an issue in the current fleet deployment.

Offline AirDet

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 8,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #1254 on: May 09, 2018, 19:51:34 »
Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?

Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.

Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.
Just because an opinion differs doesn't make it any less valid. Remember those who gave their ALL to guarantee freedom of speech.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 718
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1255 on: May 09, 2018, 20:33:13 »
Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it. 

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,026
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1256 on: May 09, 2018, 21:49:50 »
YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.
Living the lean life.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 718
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1257 on: May 09, 2018, 23:57:02 »
 I remember it as if it were yesterday. That I remember it at all says something about my seniority I guess. First time I ever witnessed a liberal government take a principled stand on anything.  I actually cheered.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 145
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1258 on: May 10, 2018, 03:38:48 »
Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it.

If I’m not mistaken, the same sort of thing took place recently in South American. I believe it was in the last year or so, or at least that’s when the video was posted. A Chinese fishing vessel was illegally operating in ( I want to say Chilean?? ) waters and they didn’t heave to when ordered. The government vessel opened fire and the Chinese boat went under.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,677
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #1259 on: May 10, 2018, 10:18:10 »
Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.

If you're talking about 'up north', sure an MPA can get there. So can CF-18s;  maritime approaches are part of the NORAD mission too.  Depending on who/what is doing the shooting, MPAs might not be the best asset.

http://www.norad.mil/About-NORAD/NORAD-History/

The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2018, 10:24:03 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

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

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 894
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1260 on: May 10, 2018, 13:54:39 »
YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.

I think YZT might be referring to the British - Icelandic Cod Wars.  There were three of them running from the 1950's through to the late 70's.  Got rather nasty at points with Iceland finally threatening to leave NATO...

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 718
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1261 on: May 10, 2018, 18:00:02 »
I was referring to both actually.  I didn't realise that so much time had gone by but it doesn't change the significance of the shot across the bows in defence of our sovereignty.  So there is a good reason to have a weapons station and the same reason can be applied to having the presence of the AOPS itself instead of an enhanced coast guard presence. We need the navy.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,966
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,023
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1262 on: May 10, 2018, 22:15:20 »
Having been aboard one of the ships that featured centrally in the Turbot War as it was going on, it was, in my opinion, a good thing that we had more than a constabulary level of armament.

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1263 on: May 11, 2018, 06:34:56 »
So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?
"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 Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 145
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1264 on: May 11, 2018, 07:24:39 »
So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?

If only...Or at least the Phalanxes?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1265 on: May 11, 2018, 11:44:54 »
Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.

The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.

None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 718
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1266 on: May 11, 2018, 11:49:28 »
Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.


Was it the Navy or the budget that caused the design to be changed?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1267 on: May 11, 2018, 11:57:49 »
Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.

The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.

None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.

The original concept also called for a armed ice breaker. Not even the CCG operates in the Arctic all year round. They will be used in many other places than the Arctic and Caribbean as well.
"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
  • *
  • 205,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1268 on: May 11, 2018, 13:42:53 »
I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round" 

But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters. 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 205,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1269 on: May 11, 2018, 13:45:04 »
Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.

For general interest - see the attached
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1270 on: May 11, 2018, 14:58:12 »
I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round" 

But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters.

To be honest I don't know if the government thought that crunching ice all year round was even possible. I don't see the point of having a 365 day presence patrolling up there with all the AOPS as we have no ice free ports in the Arctic and really nothing moves up there of significance. A continuous presence during the navigation season certainly so the RCN doesn't like to see any ships underemployed so they will be deployed to other areas. AOPS and the Caribbean seems a good fit.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 15:07:41 by Chief Stoker »
"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 Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 894
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1271 on: May 11, 2018, 16:40:07 »
So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?

I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.

That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1272 on: May 11, 2018, 16:53:51 »
I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.

That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.

I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge. The crew was only 18 and included a weapon tech. If the Danes can do it why not us? As for the AOPS its not like they don't have the bunks.
"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
  • *
  • 205,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,662
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1273 on: May 11, 2018, 17:28:41 »


The Danish 76s were originally installed in the Flyvefisken Patrol Boats (320 tonnes light, 450 tonnes deep, 54 m long with a crew of 19 to 29).

The Stanflex Containers, which mounted the 76s amongst other things, were 3.5 by 3 by 2.5 metres (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft × 8.2 ft).

Here's my favourite picture.  ;D



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 741,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1274 on: May 11, 2018, 17:42:15 »

The bottom part of the 76mm on EJNAR MIKKELSEN. They were very accommodating in regards to me taking photos

This station can operate the 76mm


"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