• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

Underway said:
...Filght deck can land anything short of a chinook and they are doing the math on a retractable hangar or half retractable hanger.  Max speed 17 knots, normal speed 12-14.  40 crew with space for 40 extra (full platoon).

If the design is the one linked by Kirkhill, then putting a CH147F on AOps can be achieved if the deck is rated for a CH149 Cormorant at max weight.  There is sufficient clearance (at least 5.5m more than required minimums).  In fact, a CH147F would have 2m greater rotor clearance from the ship's superstructure sitting sideways, centered on the flight deck than a CH149 Cormorant does facing forward, similarly centered on the "bull's eye."  'SSF' (sideways, starboard-forward) is the preferred method of Chinooks landing-on to anything down to USS Arleigh Burke size.  AOps looks to have a similar sized flight deck than Arleigh Burke (perhaps about 75-100cm narrower).


Ready aye,
G2G
 
What is the value of such a ship?

It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?].

It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]

It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act. 

Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?     

 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
That is one of the beauties of "electric" ships, however, that everything is interchangeable in terms of electric generation and use. If push came to shove, you could probably minimize electrical consumption and drag you butt to harbour at about two knots on the emergency generator alone, while with some of the main gensets running while alongside, you can probably power a small Arctic town while their own power plant gets fixed.

I don't think the ship will be set up to export power like that and most likely it will be 600V AC. Most hamlets and villages do not have the ability for a ship to come alongside and thus wouldn't be able to export power like that anyway.
 
whiskey601 said:
What is the value of such a ship?

It has virtually no worthwhile sensors, is not capable of seriously defending itself, has no weapons to enforce space management except against lesser armed [ie unarmed] ships (will there even be torpedo storage for the helo?].

It does not appear to have sea/land/air battle management suite [can it even communicate and share data with air force or other naval weapons systems?]

It is highly doubtful the mere presence of this thing alone will serve to cause foreign vessels [of any kind] to leave our waters or stop some illegal act. 

Or is the plan to get all Israeli-like and drop some unfortunate souls on the deck of a hostile ship only to have the resultant NBP beatings posted on Youtube?   

With respect Whiskey, a 50 Cal was apparently all that was necessary to convince the Spaniards to cease and desist on the poaching of poor little Greenland Turbot.

Admittedly, coming from a very limited personal experience, but a longer family tradition, I am biased towards the concept of "boots on the ground", I see these vessels as having a very useful role in delivering those same boots.  Both to engage with out friends, and remind them that they have friends to help them, as well as to engage those who would take advantage of a vacuum and remind them there is no vacuum.

The vessel can only reach out and touch to the maximum range of its 25mm and can only outrun trawlers doing less than 17 knots.

On the other hand its RHIBs have MG mounts and can manage 25 to 40 knots (I'm guessing on that speed, but it is speedy).

Also there is nothing to prevent, if the situation warrants, the CCG 412 being replaced with an armed CH-146 from 427 Squadron to give your NBP some cover and range.

And finally, assuming that both I and G2G are correct (he will be,  I may not be) then 450 Squadron should be able to deliver a CSOR platoon to your location if you are within 1000 km or so of a refuelling point, stop over on your deck to gas up, let the troops stretch their legs and grab a hot meal, then proceed to prosecute, in conjunction with the armed CH-146, any target within a 300 km range (limited by the CH-146 and not the CH-147).

Alternately it could be used as a transit point on an evacuation conveyor,  or it could be used as a staging point and Command and Control node for a UUV surveillance network.

And with a radio, if facing an unexpectedly ferocious Danish Cutter, the CF-35s are only a phone call away.
 
Other than a sub, everything else you meet up there will have minimal armament as well. The constraints that work on us will be doubled for anyone trying to project into our waters.

Although I would like to see the ships built with extra hardpoints with necceasy cabling and comms already run. there are several self contained weapon systems that could be purchased and stored away.
 
Stanflex ALSS

Colin, here's a bolt on sea-can that might come in handy some day.  The Yanks might find it useful on the LCSs for that Over-The-Horizon stuff.
 
I don't know if anybody else has noticed the latest kerfuffle over the NSPS programme and it effect on the AOPS project.

Apparently Irving and the Navy are having trouble. The Navy wants many ships for little money.  Irving wants lots of money for no ships.  This is causing the opposition consternation.  Apparently they have never been involved in a commercial negotiation.

The NSPS plan is now being seen askance on two grounds: the negotiators feel they have little leverage and the government isn't directly involved in the negotiations.

Meanwhile, out on the West Coast, Washington Marine is stating they have no problems.

So here's the thought: Could the Government, suggest to Irving that if they are having trouble meeting their commitments then the Government could assist them by taking some of the pressure off them and transferring the AOPS workload to Washington Marine?

After all the AOPS is not REALLY a combatant, it is largely built to Civilian Standards, and Washington Marine has related experience... 

Just offering some deviltry here.  >:D.
 
Well, Irving did bid on building the ships within the stated budget amount....that little problem can be solved quite easily.

It's no skin off the CPC's back. They aren't likely to win many seats come 2015 after changing the status of EI, so solving Irving's banditry should work out.
 
Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.




 
how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back

A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.

A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops

A radio call of "Help I'm being oppressed!". And then Rescue Stations followed by running away as fast as possible while the CF-whatevers deal with the problem.

A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB

Send the helicopter? Maybe with support from the CF-whatevers and the gun mount?

and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

Well yes, that's generally how it's done if the call of "Go away" doesn't work. Although the boarding party may not take well to being called "Somalian Pirates". OTOH after 3 months of patrolling the passage, they may insist on saying "Arrrr" all the time and gun-taping wheel spanners to their arms. Depends on the crew.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

There's also nothing that says "She's gonna roll over!" like when the ice accumulates on all that gear. Or even more likely "The parts we need to keep it working are thousands of miles away in Halifax".

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel.

How do you figure that? It seems to have at least as good of an outfit as the Kingstons.

Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

We have UUV's and naval UAV's? I had no idea. When did that happen?
 
CHA is deployed with UAV's onboard right now (Scan Eagle)

I was recently involved with UUV's not that long ago.  Not a hard piece of technology, just spendy.

NS
 
whiskey601 said:
Kirkhill: turbot is not oil and Spain is not Russia. We've already got Byers writing articles suggesting surrender since there is no tangible, pragmatic plan to enforce sovereignty. Of course the duplicitous jerk just wants to see that happen to irritate the US.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

While I would love to see some arctic ships that are the equals to the Halifax class, the reality is that any armed vessel will be better than what we have now. We have budget issues already, the vessel you aks for is not going to be built. At best we get a ship fitted for but with some of the systems you suggest.
 
It never fails to amaze me that people think that in order to be an effective platform you need to be armed to the teeth.  99% of security is just presence.  Right now we don't even have that.  AOPS is designed to deal with the presence issue more than anything else.

how will this ship deal with:
a missile fired from a Bear bomber
A ship that shoots back
A crew that fights back and shoots down a griffon/cyclone/chinook full of troops
A crew that firehoses or Rpg's the RHiB, and btw are we as a country so reduced we are going to attempt to send a polar version of Somalian pirates to try and take over an offending vessel.

There is nothing that says "go away" like a 5" naval gun, or "fool me twice- i dare you"like a ciws, or "say goodnight" like a Harpoon.

And this ship lacks the air search, surface search and ESM suite required for a territorial surveillance vessel. Let alone all the command and control requirements for uuv, Uav etc.

It can't and it won't.  Thats not its job.  Thats the job of a Task Group.  Or a submarine.  Or a wing of CF-18's.  The AOPS job is to move army and airforce elements around the arctic for soveriegnty.  It is to provide eyes for the recognized maritime picture (almost entirely civilian ships).  Think of your local security guard.  Are they armed?  Do they even have handcuffs?  No.  Their job is to call 911 when things go south and let the professionals deal with things.  These ships will not operate in a vacuum with no cooperation or intelligence.

If the threat level rises then they will move into a supporting role or will be refitted to deal with threats differently.
If the threat level is what it has been since 1952 then a boarding party of fisheries officers and RCMP won't be hozed by RPG fire from a spanish or danish fishing trawler.  A crew that fights back against that party or takes shots at a helo will find that a modern 25-40mm naval gun and .50cal is perfectly acceptable to "encourage" cooperation.

If someone has to deal with a proper warship then the frigates are called up to deal with the problem.  Constabulatory does not mean SWAT.

ESM and air search not needed.  NORAD does air search/detection just fine.

Finally to this quote the Scan eagle UAV works just fine off an MCDV who trialed the program.  If you can fly one out of the back of a Armoured vehicle you can easily do the same with a ship.  Larger UAV's are controled from a central location on the mainland and flow through a satillite uplink.  If you're flying UAV's then that hangar could easily be the space where you set up shop to fly the thing.

 
The federal government has signed a $9.3-million deal with Irving Shipbuilding to get started on the navy shipbuilding contract in Halifax.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the contract will allow the shipbuilding company to review the design and devise a construction plan for the Arctic offshore patrol ships.

Those are the first vessels expected to be built under the overall $35-billion national shipbuilding procurement project.

In October, Ottawa announced that the Irving shipyard would receive the lion's share of the project.

Under its $25-billion deal, Irving will build 21 combat vessels.

The Seaspan Marine Corp. shipyard in Vancouver will construct seven vessels under an $8-billion contract for non-combat ships ....
The Canadian Press, 10 Jul 12
 
If we don't need to have the capability of hurting anyone with our 'sovereignty ships', here's an excellent and very successful example of a cheap and durable arctic capable ship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fram
 
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post breathes some urgency into the AOPS project, and revitalizes the case for an under ice (air independent propulsion system) submarine project, too:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/04/canada-poised-to-claim-ownership-of-vast-underwater-territory-bigger-than-quebec/
Canada poised to claim ownership of vast underwater territory bigger than Quebec

Randy Boswell, Postmedia News

Last Updated: Oct 5, 2012

OTTAWA – Canada is poised to claim ownership of a vast new expanse of undersea territory beyond its Atlantic and Arctic coasts that’s greater in size than Quebec and equal to about 20% of the country’s surface area, Postmedia News has learned.

The huge seabed land grab has been in the works since 1994, when federal scientists first conducted a “desktop study” of Canada’s potential territorial expansion under a new UN treaty allowing nations to extend their offshore jurisdictions well past the current 200-nautical-mile (370-km) limit of so-called “Exclusive Economic Zones” in coastal waters.

But the UN also set strict criteria for converting underwater tracts of “no man’s land” into a nation’s territorial possessions, including exhaustive geological studies proving these distant stretches of seabed — including potentially massive oil-and-gas deposits — are “natural prolongations” of each applicant country’s continental bedrock.

At the time, experts from the Geological Survey of Canada and Canadian Hydrographic Service estimated that as much as 1.75 million square kilometres of seafloor to the east and north of Canada’s 9.9-million-sq.-km. land mass — initially described as an area “equivalent to the size of the three Prairie provinces” — might eventually be claimed under provisions of the new international accord on continental shelf extensions, a component of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.

Canada’s Pacific Coast, with its “narrow margin” continental shelf and steep slope to deep ocean, generally doesn’t meet the UN criteria for territorial extensions beyond the economic zone.

But now, after years of seafloor surveys covering thousands of kilometres of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans — along with countless hours spent analyzing the collected data — the head of Canada’s UNCLOS mapping project is preparing the country’s final submission to acquire new offshore territory ahead of a December 2013 deadline for the claim.

And Jacob Verhoef, the Halifax-based Natural Resources Canada geologist directing the historic effort to redraw the outer boundary of Canada, says the final proposal is proving “pretty close” in size to what federal scientists predicted nearly 20 years ago.

na1005_ocean_borders2.jpg

National Post Graphics

“I can’t give you a number, simply because I don’t have a number – we have not calculated the number. But our preliminary outer limit as we are now defining it is pretty close to what we had expected,” Verhoef told Postmedia News.

At the time of the country’s initial estimates, “we didn’t have enough data to substantiate it, so we could not formally define it,” he added. “Now, with all the data sufficient – and now the analysis of the data (nearing completion) – there are differences from what we originally expected, but nothing major.”

That news will be music to the ears of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has touted Arctic mineral wealth and Canada’s offshore resources as a vital economic inheritance for the nation. And despite inevitable controversies over the prospect of exploiting offshore oil, natural gas and frozen methane deposits — especially in the remote and ice-choked waters of Arctic Canada — the UNCLOS mapping project was strongly supported by previous Liberal governments as well.

The claim document now being prepared under Verhoef’s supervision, which he said will run into the “thousands of pages” and encompass at least 25 separate scientific reports, must be delivered to the UN agency handling submissions by the end of next year, 10 years after Canada ratified the UNCLOS convention and initiated its seabed mapping mission in 2003.

An executive summary of the submission and a cartographic representation of the claim – essentially the first map of the proposed new Canada – are now being prepared for public release sometime next year, Verhoef added.

Other countries have already been granted control over great swaths of seafloor using the UN formula. In April 2009, Norway formally acquired about 235,000 square kilometres of undersea Arctic and Atlantic territory.

And in 2008, Australia added an underwater area equal to one-third of the country’s land mass — about 2.5 million square kilometres, or the combined areas of Ontario and Quebec — to its governing authority.

“This is a major boost to Australia’s offshore resource potential and also to our ability to preserve the marine environment on the seabed,” the country’s resources and energy minister, Martin Ferguson, stated at the time.

“The largest island in the world has just been dramatically increased in size,” Ferguson added after UN approval of Australia’s claim. “This is potentially a bonanza.”

The case for gaining possession of undersea territory can be clinched in one of two ways. Countries can claim seabed anywhere they can prove that the continental shelf extends underwater from existing territory — such as the northern mainland and Arctic islands in Canada’s case — until the seabed drops consistently below a depth of 2,500 metres.

The other approach involves measuring offshore seabed sediment — such as the enormous deposits of silt accumulated at the bottom of the Beaufort Sea, discharged from the outlet of the Mackenzie River — and claiming continental extensions under a complex UN formula calculated from the thickness of those deposits and their distance from shore.

Earlier this year, Verhoef told Postmedia News that three scholarly papers had been published in support of Canada’s undersea land claims — an important credibility-building exercise when it comes to demonstrating the soundness of Canada’s eventual UN submission.

One published article was about the Alpha Ridge — a submerged mountain that extends 1,700 kilometres from Canada to Russia past the North Pole.

One of the other papers concerned the Lomonosov Ridge, another undersea mountain range that federal scientists believe is an extension of North America running from Greenland and Ellesmere Island to the Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean.


That's a lot of seabed, especially in the Arctic, and it will need patrolling.
 
The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.
 
jollyjacktar said:
The Feds can claim all they want but I don't see the other interested parties agreeing or playing along.  As for the ships, I won't hold my breath too long on that front either.  But you're right, we're behind the 8 ball with getting caught up to the capabilites of the others.


You're right: both Russia and the USA will fight us tooth and nail but we can (hopefully will) force the fight in an arena (UNCLOS) where we have a chance of winning ~ we can probably buy a lot more votes than Russia or America. The USA has not signed UNCLOS but they will end up be obliged to respect its outcomes IF we, and others, are smart enough to refuse to deal with them except on the basis of UNCLOS principles.
 
I can see the American objecting, but the Russians ought to take our side (if only to p*** off the Americans).

First, the Russians themselves are using the UNCLOS rules to do the same thing on their side of the Arctic ocean; and second, the extensions on that map are nowhere near areas the Russians intend to claim.
 
The American's effort to drastically swing American sovereignty into the Beaufort towards the East based primarily on the orientation of a few hundred meters of shoreline at the Alaskan/Yukon border is rather telling of their attitude on how they will likely try to press for control of the Beaufort. That is, principle not by using/conforming to UNCLOS guidelines.  In tho regard, I fully agree with OGBD regarding probable support of Canada's UNCLOS application by Moscow.  Regarding the North, the Americans appear to be taking an ostrich-like approach to the specifics of UNCLOS, and I believe they are doing so to their own detriment.

The effect then I that I don't believe the slower than desired rate of AOPS progress to be as critical as some may make it out to be. Yes, Canada needs an appropriate fleet of ships to reinforce what we will hopefully have secured through our case made to UNCLOS; but vessels will not be the principle sherrifing force in the area, so AOPS should do "well enough" -- nuclear-powered guided missile icebreakers is not really required, nor, given the rate of ice disappearing from the North, AIP a "must have", but rarer a "nice to have."

The Government is putting in place a "system of systems" in the North, realistically 'up to speed' in the early 2020's, and by all indications, I believe the AOPS will be in place as a part of that "system" in time.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
 
Back
Top