Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Swampbuggy]

That question was asked.  The presenters were not going to commit to a timeframe but said they expect builders trials to take up to a year.  Lots of integration needs to happen from IPMS to Nav and Comms systems.  Systems integration can take quite a while.

With her being the 1st in to hit the water, I’d guess these trials will be the most time consuming for the clsss. I’m sure lessons will be learned that will make things more streamlined for the others. Thanks for the info, Underway.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Somehow I don't find the arguments here in favour of the A/OPS all that convincing--seems to me that new, desperately needed, CCG icebreakers, with RCMP or Fisheries Officers on board (indeed even RCN personnel) armed as necessary, could do the useful stuff the CGAI piece suggests. In any event Harper gov't foisted the concept on the RCN when they realized that the Navy did not operate icebreakers,while their 2005-6 election platform said they would buy three armed ones for the service ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-buying-up-to-8-arctic-patrol-ships-1.651892 ):

Unarmed Warships: What are the AOPS for?
...
Despite their flying the naval ensign, the AOPS are not intended to be warships. That is not a mistake, it was a careful decision stemming from several years of government and CAF assessment of threats and requirements. The security threat to the Canadian Arctic is unconventional, and will likely remain so, centred on monitoring, policing, and assisting civilian and commercial activity. These are the low-risk, high-probability security threats projected to emerge as a result of the increased use and development of the Arctic...
https://www.cgai.ca/unarmed_warships_what_are_the_aops_for

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

'Sfunny

"not intended to be warships"

So why "warship" standards and "warship" costs?

 

[Underway]

The're built to civilian standards.  Hence the Lloyds Certification.  They are classified as Non-Combatant ships for the navy same as the MCDV's.  They aren't supposed to go anywhere something can kill a ship by shooting it.  That's what the Frigates are for.  They are the SUV, LUVW or whatever equivalent you wish to draw for the CAF on the water.

Somehow I don't find the arguments here in favour of the A/OPS all that convincing--seems to me that new, desperately needed, CCG icebreakers, with RCMP or Fisheries Officers on board (indeed even RCN personnel) armed as necessary, could do the useful stuff the CGAI piece suggests. In any event Harper gov't foisted the concept on the RCN when they realized that the Navy did not operate icebreakers,while their 2005-6 election platform said they would buy three armed ones for the service ( http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-buying-up-to-8-arctic-patrol-ships-1.651892 ):

If you believe that we need to re-role the CCG into a constabulary force (a la USCG) then that's an entirely different discussion.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One hopes that any potential enemy abides by the rules we have laid down for these ships. The next serious naval conflict is going to be a "come as you are" event and like the Falklands ships that are there will be used and some will be lost.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Underway:

...
If you believe that we need to re-role the CCG into a constabulary force (a la USCG) then that's an entirely different discussion.

Such a CCG change not necessary. As I noted they can provide platforms (vessels) for the other armed agencies to use in fulfilling their mandates--which they do now for armed Fisheries Officers and RCMP on Great Lakes/St. Lawrence:

1) ...Through the acquisition of new Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels, the department [DFO/CCG] is increasing its on-water capability for providing platform support to security and law enforcement organizations...
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/corporate-services/planning-dpr-2013-14-1188.html

2) Marine Security Enforcement Teams (MSET)
...
The Marine Security Enforcement Team (MSET) program is a joint Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)-Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) project that was established in 2005 to enhance marine security in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway (GL-SLS) area. The program combines the law enforcement powers of the RCMP with CCG vessels and expertise in order to provide an armed, on-water law enforcement capacity in one of Canada’s busiest marine regions.

...RCMP officers working in uniform aboard patrol vessels that are operated and maintained by CCG personnel. The role of these units is to patrol the GL-SLS area, provide on-water law enforcement, and be able to deliver a fast, armed response to potential threats...
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Maritime-Security/Fact-Sheet/MSET

No reason RCN personnel could not also be carried if necessary/appropriate, with weapons mounts pre-fitted on CCG ships.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Training CCG crews to fire and care for mounted .50cals would be easy, the training could be done during the regular duty cycles with little or no OT for the CCG crews, nor would practice be an issue, both West and East coast have accessible ranges the ships could use. You would have a small navy team going from ship to ship to do the training.
The big issue is teaching the Ships Officers and ashore management, Command and Control of the deployment and use of the guns. The fire orders and comms would be easy, but getting people and management past the ROE's and into the mindset of engaging living targets is the big issue and may take time. Those CCG crews would provide protection to other services boarding parties Navy or RCMP which is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good grief--look at the three ships Norwegian Coast Guard is getting for $860 million total whereas we are paying Irving some $500 million each for what look like quite similar A/OPS ( http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1728 ).  And compare our length of construction with how fast Norway will get them:

Norway's new Coast Guard vessels for Arctic waters
With a length of 136 meters, the three will be the largest Coast Guard vessels sailing the European Arctic.

Norway’s Ministry of Defense on Monday signed contract with VARD Langsten yard for construction of the three ice-classed Coast Guard vessels. The contract has a value of 5,2 billion kroner (€552 million).

The vessels will be specially designed to withstand operations in demanding Arctic areas, but will as well be capable of sailing in worldwide operations in all weather and sea conditions. Keywords are strong ocean-going capacities, long-distance transits, search-and-rescue operations, surveillance and oil-recovery.

For Norway, these capabilities are important in a time when the Coast Guard gets more waters to patrol as the sea-ice in the Arctic melts away in the northern Barents Sea and Arctic Ocean north of Svalbard.

Deliveries are set to beginning of 2022, 2023 and 2024 [emphasis added] and the three vessels are to replace the current Nordkapp-class Coast Guard vessels,  «KV Nordkapp», «KV Senja» and «KV Andenes»...

VARD Langsten yard is the same yard that built Norway’s current largest Coast Guard vessel «KV Svalbard».

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2018/06/norways-news-coast-guard-vessels-arctic-waters

Note that A/OPS design is based on the Svalbard mentioned above--presumably the new Norwegian ships will be more advanced than that predecessor.

From 2013:

CBC Does Good Digging on RCN’s Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships’ Bizarre Design Cost
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/mark-collins-cbc-does-good-digging-on-rcns-arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-bizarre-design-cost/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Does the 500 million each include non-ship costs like docks, jetties, life time personal costs?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The hulls are being built by Vards yards (say that quickly 5 times), in Romania, definitely a factor on a portion of the cost.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on VARD (Fincantieri subsidiary) sensibly building hulls of new Norwegian Coast Guard A/OPS-similar ships in Romania.  Boy are we stupid to build-in-Canada for pure political motives supported by all parties. Defence--or CCG needs--pale here before Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
https://navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/vard-inks-nok-5bn-deal-for-3-norwegian-coast-guard-vessels/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Uzlu]

Boy are we stupid to build-in-Canada for pure political motives supported by all parties. Defence--or CCG needs--pale here before Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Not pure political motives, there are good reasons why it is supported by all the parties, and not just jobs, jobs, jobs.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1517415.html#msg1517415

Good grief--look at the three ships Norwegian Coast Guard is getting for $860 million total whereas we are paying Irving some $500 million each for what look like quite similar A/OPS

Your comparison might be unfair.  If the price for the Harry DeWolfs includes things like costs resulting from production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities but the Norwegian ships do not, then the comparison is unfair.  The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates if Canada bought fifteen surface combatants from another country without any changes, there would be a saving of about 25 per cent on the total program cost.  So I doubt very much three Harry DeWolfs can be built overseas for about $860 million.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention that the yard will need some new builds to recapitalize their equipment, without that type of improvement, they will be unable to do ship repair and maintenance, in which case your taking your ships out of the country. What you are suggesting is political suicide. By all means force some pencil sharpening and take down Irvings Empire, but ship building is a strategic resource. 

 

[Czech_pivo]

The reality is that there is so much to replace over the next 15yrs - Subs, Coast Guard, Kingston Class - that Irving's Halifax operations and Seaspans's operations are too small and over-booked to handle all of the upcoming replacements.  Our choices will be 3 fold - do nothing (always a leading option here in Canada), use Davie or go overseas.  Regarding the Subs being replaced in 15yrs, we'll never build them here since we don't have any desire to add that expertise internally, so we'll end up buying Brit or French subs, whether used or new.  Regarding the Coast Guard ships and the Kingston replacements, Davie is the only yard with the size/volume/expertise left in which to build them.  I highly doubt we'll go overseas for any of it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not to mention that the yard will need some new builds to recapitalize their equipment, without that type of improvement, they will be unable to do ship repair and maintenance, in which case your taking your ships out of the country. What you are suggesting is political suicide. By all means force some pencil sharpening and take down Irvings Empire, but ship building is a strategic resource. 

It actually most certainly is for a nation, such as Canada, that is an island nation. It may be difficult to fathom for a country so vast in landmass but we, Canada, as the United States are and the UK before, and especially as we share the continental defence with the US, are basically ocean-bound in our defence needs and our collective economic interests. Even our second closest neighbour - France - could only invade from the sea.

So, yes, for us, the capacity to control our own shipbuilding is an essential strategic capacity, unlike Norway, which even though it has extensive coast lines, is not reliant on the access to the sea for its national defence or livelihood, at least not outside the more local aspects of seaward defence.

 

[Kirkhill]

First off - From Mark's last post - second to last paragraph.

Commenting on the recently signed contract, Mette Sørfonden, Director General of NDMA, said: “Due to national security interests, the Norwegian government decided that the competition should be restricted to Norwegian yards only. Vard Group with its Vard Langsten yard was the provider that overall satisfied the defined requirements for solution and the navy and the coast guard’s needs in the best manner.”

The Norwegians decided that the ship should be built by Norwegians for Norwegians on National Security* grounds. They determined they need to keep the design capability in house. 

The yard decided that they could contract out the metal banging to the Romanians.  The Norwegians apparently agreed that that was not a strategic imperative.  Apparently, in my view of their opinion, metal banging is not a primary skill set.  And the Romanians will do it faster and cheaper, in warmer waters, than the Norwegians.

On the other hand - the matter of cost of the vessel and the cost of the project.

We cost the project.  They cost the vessel. 

Apples to oranges right enough.  The thing is, we never get around to actually costing the vessel.  Direct comparisons are difficult if not impossible.  They don't have to be.  They are quite simple if line item cost estimates on the project are prepared.

One might be inclined to suspect the reluctance to disclose the actual separate cost of the vessel provides benefit to some parties involved in the trade.  One might even be convinced that the obfuscation was intentional.

It might be suspected that some parties might wish to hide the actual costs so as to further agendas. 

With a high price fewer hulls can be afforded.  Fewer capabilities are available. Fewer commitments can be made.  Fewer expectations exist.  Fewer demands are made.
With a high price more profits might be available.
With a high price more money might be injected into the economy through paying Canadians to buy from Canadians buying from international suppliers.

But I suspect that only a cynic would suspect such things.

* Interesting point about what constitutes a National Security issue - retained capabilities apparently qualify.

 

[Dale Denton]

Why don't we start costing vessels differently then? If it makes things sound more expensive than they are then just change the way we count then...

I don't understand the thinking behind saving money by building offshore (unless its highly-specialized). Isn't there a better return/optics by spending the billions on shipyards and other Canadian companies within Canada? The money going through the local/national economy for these projects partly justifies the added expense.

Any new pics of HDW?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

looking good

 

[Gorgo]

Does anyone have a date for the planned launching?

 

[Stoker]

Does anyone have a date for the planned launching?

Mid Sept in the basin off the barge