• 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

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
YZT580 said:
Is Nanisivik open 365 days or does it close in with ice for the winter?  Wondering if, regardless of facilities Churchill might make a good place to winter rather than transiting back to HZ at the end of the season.

AOPS will ply the Arctic for 4 months of the year, with the lessening of ice most likely 6 month. Nanisivik is only seasonal. Churchill would not be a good place to winter as there is no repair facilities there and the ships will be be doing other things.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,025
Points
940
Chief Stoker said:
Moncton requested fuel from the port from 12 different suppliers no one would ship leaving the ship to receive fuel from the Shawinigan. St. John's requested 3 tankers of fuel a number of years ago, only one showed. So the fuel supply in Churchill is unreliable.
Chief Stoker said:
Where we actually operate its closer to go to Nuuk or Thule to get fuel. It a moot point really when we will have a refueling depot in Nanisivik in 2 years.
Now, collectively, that was a great response, reinforced by the answer to YZT580.

One of the highlights of this site is the information and opinions available from informed, experienced posters.

Naval stuff isn't my strong suit, so I'm grateful for the insights; thanks.  :salute:
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
332
Points
880
Additionally, while Churchill is a good location for an "exit" port for Prairie grain, it is out of the way where patrolling the N.W. Passage is concerned.

Churchill is a little over 600 NM (1,000 km) from the entrance to the Fury and Hecta straight. But that doesn't get you into the passage. It only gets you into the Gulf of Boothia and you still have another 400 NM to go to the actual passage. All this is through the Foxe basin/Fury and Hecta straight/Gulf of Boothia area, which is one of the most ice congested area of the Arctic and one of the least likely to be ice free. You would be fighting all the way.

If you want to use Churchill and avoid that, then you have to exit Hudson Bay altogether, transit out of the Hudson Straight to go between the Northern tip of Labrador and the Southern end of Baffin Island, then North along the outside of said Baffin Island. Problem is, if you do that, you may as well go to St. John's, which would then be only about one hundred and fifty NM further than Churchill but will always provide you with full support where maritime services are concerned.

I wish more people would use a globe when looking at Arctic matters: It provides a much more realistic overview of the real navigation challenges.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,885
Points
1,260
Oldgateboatdriver said:
If you want to use Churchill and avoid that, then you have to exit Hudson Bay altogether, transit out of the Hudson Straight to go between the Northern tip of Labrador and the Southern end of Baffin Island, then North along the outside of said Baffin Island. Problem is, if you do that, you may as well go to St. John's, which would then be only about one hundred and fifty NM further than Churchill but will always provide you with full support where maritime services are concerned.

All I got out of that was "make CFS St. John's a full-fledged naval base because...awesome runs ashore...Arctic Sovereignty!"

:D
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,325
Points
1,160
It would make more sense to base out of Pituffik, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik

Oh, I guess that means the Danish will have to stop claiming our islands as theirs, first, right?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,161
Points
1,060
daftandbarmy said:
It would make more sense to base out of Pituffik, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik

Oh, I guess that means the Danish will have to stop claiming our islands as theirs, first, right?

Fortunately the Danes have adopted a more Germanic camouflage.  For a while there they were making life difficult and wearing CADPAT.  You would have had to resort to tossing coins to see who wore Safety Orange and who wore Neon Green.

Please pass the akvavit!
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Chris Pook said:
Fortunately the Danes have adopted a more Germanic camouflage.  For a while there they were making life difficult and wearing CADPAT.

Nope......we have never used digital camo......the pattern you saw was most likely this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M84_camouflage_pattern

A "flecktarn" based camouflage which from a distance could well be mistaken for CADPAT.

We have since completely transitioned to MultiCam (Arid version).
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,161
Points
1,060
I sit corrected MKP.  That is indeed the pattern I was thinking of.  As you say, from a distance, ie any distance further than 2 metres,  it looked indistinguishable from CADPAT. 

Skol.  :cheers:
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
Dimsum said:
All I got out of that was "make CFS St. John's a full-fledged naval base because...awesome runs ashore...Arctic Sovereignty!"

:D

That would actually be a good idea.  It saves the extra nearly thousand kilometre trip from Halifax to get to the area of operations and would be a extra boost to the local economy.  But given how narrow Saint John's Harbour would be, a wiser idea would be to reactivate the old Argentia base the Americans returned to us some years ago.  The bay there is a lot larger and could hold more ships in a pinch.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Fred Herriot said:
That would actually be a good idea.  It saves the extra nearly thousand kilometre trip from Halifax to get to the area of operations and would be a extra boost to the local economy.  But given how narrow Saint John's Harbour would be, a wiser idea would be to reactivate the old Argentia base the Americans returned to us some years ago.  The bay there is a lot larger and could hold more ships in a pinch.

Is not part of Argentia now considered CFS Saint John's ?
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
332
Points
880
From what I gather, the USN did not exactly leave Argentia in the best of conditions. I wonder how much remedial would be necessary to re-purpose it.

In any event, all I was trying to say in my post about St. Johns is that the distance between the eastern entrance of the NW passage and St. Johns is just about the same as the distance from that same entrance to Churchill, Man., so what would be the point of using Churchill as a staging base or over-wintering base.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Oldgateboatdriver said:
From what I gather, the USN did not exactly leave Argentia in the best of conditions. I wonder how much remedial would be necessary to re-purpose it.

In any event, all I was trying to say in my post about St. Johns is that the distance between the eastern entrance of the NW passage and St. Johns is just about the same as the distance from that same entrance to Churchill, Man., so what would be the point of using Churchill as a staging base or over-wintering base.

Argentia is gone, all remediated. The problem with stationing AOPS there is money and there's not alot of money if anyone's noticed. St. John's is out due to having available contractors for PM, jetty space etc. We can get fuel there so that's an option and we often stop there to top up on the way North but staging ships there probably not.  You might as well send them from Halifax through the straits of Belle Isle. Keep in mind that's all moot when the new fueling station opens in the Arctic.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop more infrastructure there, the people deserve it.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,353
Points
1,060
What about increasing dockage and fuel at Rigolet or Mary's Harbour? More as a support than a home base?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Colin P said:
What about increasing dockage and fuel at Rigolet or Mary's Harbour? More as a support than a home base?

Well the northern ranger with a draft of 4.25 meters can get into there, not sure with AOPS with a draft of 5.75 would support it without major dredging. Both fishing ports have pop of about 400 people a piece and not much if any infrastructure. Iqaluit with a population of about 7000 and the Capital would be better suited and have a major airport and some military infrastructure already in place.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,161
Points
1,060
Chief Stoker said:
If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop the more infrastructure there, the people there deserve it.

:goodpost:

I can't see anything on The Rock being useful.  The distance from Halifax to the Beaufort is 3605 nm according to a study by Dalhousie on the AOPS.  Dead reckoning from Google Earth puts St John's about 500 nm out.  You would barely be leaving the jetty.

Nanisivik is 2705 nm out.

The same study says it is 3446 nm from Esquimalt to the Beaufort.

The East Coast route is all national. The West Coast Route is international/U.S.

My guesstimate puts Iqaluit about 1800 nm from Halifax.

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

Link to a newer study with slightly different numbers, but the conclusions are the same.



 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Chris Pook said:
:goodpost:

I can't see anything on The Rock being useful.  The distance from Halifax to the Beaufort is 3605 nm according to a study by Dalhousie on the AOPS.  Dead reckoning from Google Earth puts St John's about 500 nm out.  You would barely be leaving the jetty.

Nanisivik is 2705 nm out.

The same study says it is 3446 nm from Esquimalt to the Beaufort.

The East Coast route is all national. The West Coast Route is international/U.S.

My guesstimate puts Iqaluit about 1800 nm from Halifax.

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

Link to a newer study with slightly different numbers, but the conclusions are the same.


Halifax to Nanisivik 2805 NM
Halifax to St.John's 700 NM
St.Johns to Nanisivik 2005 NM
Nanisivik to Beaufort Sea 900 NM
Esquimalt to Nanisivik 4846 NM
Halifax to London 2741 NM
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,161
Points
1,060
A couple more to add to the list.

Thunder Bay to Inuvik - ~ 4600 nm. The coastal route managed out of Halifax (national waters)


Prince Rupert to Esquimalt - ~ 600 nm. The coastal route managed out of Esquimalt (national waters)

 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
7,830
Points
1,360
Chief Stoker said:
If the government was really serious about the Arctic they would spend the money to build a terminal in Iqaluit where ships could offload containers and AOPS could possibly operate out of. I have deployed on ship to the Arctic seven times now for lengthy periods of time all over and its almost criminal the lack of infrastructure we have there. We should stop wasting billions overseas and develop more infrastructure there, the people deserve it.

Chief Stoker, funny that (if it weren't so true...and sad) - every time I drop into Iqaluit, I'd look at the big-ass runway, then out to the bay then back to the runway just in time to see a huge yellow DC-10 landing, and then I realized that DHL and others (air operators) might have pictures of a compromising nature of various politicians who might otherwise raise the topic of an all-season port at Iqaluit....but don't...  ???

Regards
G2G
 
Top