Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Kirkhill]

Really interesting.

Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.

I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane. 

Neat stuff anyway.

6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

What a great looking design....

 

[NavyShooter]

I'd like to see it get to the point of hulls being in the water....and hey, if it's such a great design, maybe we can sell some to other countries to pay for our costs!

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Really interesting.

Looking at the linked article from Warship Technology  I see that they are incorporating a landing craft AND the Bv206.

I'm just wondering if they intend to drive the Bv206 into the LCVP on board and then sling the whole rig outboard on the davits or if they will rig the LCVP out than sling the Bv206 into the LCVP with their 10 tonne crane. 

Neat stuff anyway.

6900 tonnes, Sea State 6 and up to 20 knots.

The Polar 8 was supposed to have a SRN6 Hovercraft slung on davits. Never trust a artist rendition or a concept model!

 

[karl28]

NavyShooter

        I second that I am just a civy but I am excited about these ships . Will be great to finall get them in the water . Hopefully like you said we could export the design to tother countries

 

[Sub_Guy]

Export?  Canada?  Not a chance, besides who would we export the Arctic Patrol vessel to?

We haven't been successful in exporting any of our naval designs.  I recall the CPF being shopped around, along with the MCDV design.

I would rather IMPORT a design from one of the Scandinavian countries.

 

[Antoine]

I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?

I hope MP will wake up soon, we are a Nordic country with three coasts (one melting), we need the equipments to keep us in the run with our friendly neighbours. I know, we have other priorities, I hope they just planning something for the near future.

 

[RC]

Unfortunately, Colin P is right.

The BV206 could be fitted, but if you look carefully at the most recent presentations, you'll notice it's no longer a design requirement and the landing craft is not big enough to carry it.  Design speed is now 17 knots.

I was watching a documentary recently that reported the Russian having the best Arctic ship and technology behind it. Is that true?

Not really.  I'm fairly certain that a lot of the Russian ships are Scandinavian design (many by the same guys doing the AOPS hull form) and build, with the Russians providing the nuclear plant for powering.

 

[RC]

BTW, the ship is not an Aker Arctic design as the CASR article implies; it is a Canadian design based on a Scandinavian reference with an AARC designed hull form.

 

[RC]

Much more current info than the CASR page for those who are interested:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/aops-npea/march2009workinggroup-groupedetravailmars2009-eng.asp

 

[Navalgazer]

Judging by the attendees the gun will be BAE mk38 mod 2 or OTO Melara 25mm KBA. Yep, definitely a non-combat vessel.

 

[Stoker]

I see there is some detailed ships layouts. Looks to be pretty straight forward, lots of space. Apparently it will have room for a pickup truck as well. All PM2 routines will be carried out by ISSC and by the looks of it, the fwd operating base will have spare parts storage and ISSC can fly in to do correctives.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I see in the documents this is one of the ships they are looking at:

http://www.usap.gov/vesselScienceAndOperations/contentHandler.cfm?id=1561

 

[RC]

The Palmer is just referenced as an example of simplified hull construction techniques for icebreakers given that there is/was some question as to Canadian yards ability to build fully formed hulls.  It's not a design reference.

 

[RC]

I think the requirement for the landing craft is now that it can hold the pick-up truck or a couple of ATVs.  Should still be quite versatile.

 

[mjohnston39]

http://content.yudu.com/A15e3n/WTMar09/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://www.rina.org.uk/iqs/sid.00537940334448305906298/wt.html

Pages 12-14 for proposed AOPS

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Arctic/Offshore patrol ships: More never never land
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-more-never.html

Guess what? The vessels' planned capabilities are being reduced and the project is being delayed--not enough money...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[karl28]

    Why not just build these ships as a patrol ships alone and than build the armed Ice breakers as a independent project ? That way you get a good product that can do one job really well . Instead of getting one set of ships that can't do the job at all ,  or if they do the job  its done at substandard level because they are being asked to do to much at once .

 

[CBH99]

Damnit Karl, quit making sense...

Don't you know - constantly delaying vital projects at a time when we need them most is in our own best interest??  Can't you see that by letting political bickering get in the way of common sense decisions, we can spend substantially more money for the same product - and get it years after we need it??  And in the meantime, passing legislation to give more teeth to certain organizations/agencies is tough to do because every single thing the government tries to do - the opposition wants it changed and threatens an election over it??

Pfffttt.  Build the ships to the standard required to do the job effectively??  Silliest idea I've ever heard... 

 

[Bass ackwards]

I am admittedly out of my (shipping) lane here, but from what I've gathered in my reading of Navy threads is that the biggest problem of building two types of ships (patrol ships and armed icebreakers) is, apart from the cost, the simple fact that there aren't enough people to man all these various ships.
I'll gladly take correction on that point (although I do heartily agree with you karl).