Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[FSTO]

Some of the old sailors are excited as well, and would love to give them a go. 

There is quite an attraction because of the different engineering systems, the small crew, and the types of missions that the ships will be doing, the accomodations and the ice navigation.  And yes, there is certainly an aspect of "newness".

As for whether or not these should be Coast Guard ships, well... no.  Everything that is armed on the water in Canada that has a higher rate of fire than a C7, or a calibre greater then .50 belongs to the RCN.  The Canadian Coast Guard suffers from the USCG overshadowing it, similar to so many other things in Canada.  We do things our own way not the US way.  SAR, Aids to Navigation, Buoy Tendering, Icebreaking to keep shipping routes open, these are the day to day bread and butter of the Coast Guard.  None of that is armed.  And none of that is "guarding" in the security sense (unlike the USCG).

Anything armed to the point where you can sink something on the water or burn it to the waterline belongs to the Navy and the Navy alone.  Not to mention the missions the AOPV have been designed for which are way out of the Coast Guards area of expertise.

Now if you want to make some unarmed AOPV and give them to the Coast Guard well that's the wrong ship for the job.  The've been designed with military missions in mind.  Right tool for the job.

The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule.

And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.

Cheers!

 

[Cloud Cover]

They could be very useful if they were equipped with a full ELINT surveillance suite.

 

[YZT580]

The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule.

And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.
t day identified a political deficiency that they wanted rectified and chose to do so via the AOPS.  Almost all of our forces are concentrated within 100 miles of the CDN/US border with the exception of Cold Lake and Bagotville.  Politically it implies that the north and the people of the north are not a significant part of Canada.  The ships and indeed the northern exercises that the government has emphasised over the last decade serve to rectify that deficiency.  I don't believe that Harper intended that the ships would only be lightly armed but I also don't believe that they require heavy artillery.  The armament and the ancillary equipment being installed have been significantly watered down as a result of politics.  You are right, we don't need the ships but then again we don't need subs, F35's, F18's or tanks: that is, until we need them and then it is too late.  The AOPS will allow reliable military operations during the season when the north is accessible.  Our current fleet is not suitable for north of 60 ops: they are too fragile to deal with ice.  The fact that the AOPS are not good for 2 meter or more ice is simply because the opposition in parliament made too big a stink about the cost and the right ship became a liability.  Maybe the next generation of vessel will finally do the job that was intended.

 

[FSTO]

The AOPS are what they are and the Navy will make them work for whatever they are going to do. I'm of the opinion that we could have spent our limited funds better as in new subs vice refurbishing the used ones or getting 4 AOR's (2 iAOR and 2 JSS) or if the current government really wanted to announce loudly to the world the "Canada's Back!" build a couple of "Peace Support Ships" (cough cough Helicopter Carriers). But here we are with the "Make Irving Great Again" project and the RCN will use them like a rented mule.

And yes I know exactly what the Canadian Coast Guard is mandated to do and that law enforcement (a USCG task) is not one of them.
t day identified a political deficiency that they wanted rectified and chose to do so via the AOPS.  Almost all of our forces are concentrated within 100 miles of the CDN/US border with the exception of Cold Lake and Bagotville.  Politically it implies that the north and the people of the north are not a significant part of Canada.  The ships and indeed the northern exercises that the government has emphasised over the last decade serve to rectify that deficiency.  I don't believe that Harper intended that the ships would only be lightly armed but I also don't believe that they require heavy artillery.  The armament and the ancillary equipment being installed have been significantly watered down as a result of politics.  You are right, we don't need the ships but then again we don't need subs, F35's, F18's or tanks: that is, until we need them and then it is too late.  The AOPS will allow reliable military operations during the season when the north is accessible.  Our current fleet is not suitable for north of 60 ops: they are too fragile to deal with ice.  The fact that the AOPS are not good for 2 meter or more ice is simply because the opposition in parliament made too big a stink about the cost and the right ship became a liability.  Maybe the next generation of vessel will finally do the job that was intended.

And what job is that? Being an ice breaker? That's what the coast guard does and it is a very specialized skill set. Currently the RCN has a tough enough job to get properly qualified and competent OOW's, directors and ORO's in a non-arctic environment and now you expect us to lump ice-breaking as well on top of that?

And in what world would you want a valuable asset like a warship stuck in the ice (because that is what ice-breaking is all about, being stuck in the ice) for? Nothing like having a juicy fat target that can't move (remember the adage "Float, MOVE, Fight?") for a missile to home in on.

 

[Dale Denton]

In the arctic, this is higher mobility. Albeit, not the fastest thing, but leaps and bounds more than what we ever had.

Yet you paint them into a corner.

We get a new capability, and people complain that its something we don't need or that there are other, higher priorities. The fact that this class is being built before X project has nothing to do with the fact that we need these.

People say we don't need it, yet no other gov't entity could operate it to its fullest potential or use it for what it was built for like the RCN would.

We don't have enough access to our own territory, now we have better mobility. I'd call that an improvement.

Side note, could a Victoria class follow the path of one of these? AOPS punches breathing holes for a sub alittle further North?

Could we use a containerized ASW drone capability and use it up North? Planting some listening devices up north under the ice?

 

[YZT580]

And what role does the guard at the gate serve?  His presence is intended to deter but in the event of an assault his life expectancy is zilch.  He is a deterrent, a barrier to law-abiding folks and an alarm to give those within a chance to react.  He also is a symbol of an organisation's ownership and demonstrates by his very presence that the gate is a far as you go without facing repercussion.  That is probably the main function of the AOPS.  It is not intended as an ice breaker but rather as a ship that can operate in ice. There is a difference. It is a posted guard at the northern gate to Canada that tells others that this is as far as you go without conflict.  And it is probably one of the cheaper ways to convey that message.  If you think that getting crews is hard, try keeping troops on strength when they are confronted with a six month posting to Resolute or Churchill.  It isn't hard to imagine the disappointment in getting these ships first rather than the very badly needed replacements for our defunct destroyer fleet, and sadly over-worked frigates but the folks who sign your paycheck decided that, after decades of neglect, some form of guard was needed in the north.  You may disagree with their choice and there certainly are a lot of limitations built into their selection as a result of trying to appease the naysayers but they did make a decision and they are following through.  And it will add another tool to work with.  My attitude is 'let's wait and see what we can do with it' rather than judge it as useless before we even accept it into the fleet.

 

[Kirkhill]

And here we have the problem in a  nutshell:

The Government of Canada wanted a job done and nobody wanted to do it.  So the Government assigned it.  As was, and is its right.

The Coast Guard Union didn't want the job.  Neither did the Slackers Cartel, inheritors of the Fleet that didn't want the Corvettes either.

And before people think I am picking on the Coast Guard and the Navy (I am) the problem is not restricted to them.  It is also a problem with the Army and the Air Force and any institution that has been around long enough.  They are built to solve a problem but don't disappear when the problem disappears.  Worse.  They insist on not changing just in case the problem reappears.

 

[FSTO]

My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)

Pros
- They're new
- Command experience
- OOW experience
- Seamanship experience
- Arctic Presence
- SWOAD Experience

Cons
- Slow
- Lightly armed
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)

As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.

Cheers!

 

[YZT580]

My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)

Pros
- They're new
- Command experience
- OOW experience
- Seamanship experience
- Arctic Presence
- SWOAD Experience

Cons
- Slow
- Lightly armed
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)

As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.

Cheers!

Slow is a function of design.  Speed is not a requirement when manoeuvring in ice.  Lightly armed can easily be rectified but it would be contrary to our current government's attitude towards the military in general.  Perhaps if there is a regime change next year hulls 2 through 6 (optimism) will be fitted with a more powerful weapon.  I hope so because, although I don't believe we need anything larger in the north we could certainly use it elsewhere if the ships are deployed beyond America.  And maybe having a newer more flexible presence will encourage young people to sign and encourage recruitment in the arctic.  Let us wait and see.

 

[Bearpaw]

Does anyone know the draught of the de Wolf class?  I did a small search for this information but found nothing.

Bearpaw

 

[Swampbuggy]

My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)

Pros
- They're new
- Command experience
- OOW experience
- Seamanship experience
- Arctic Presence
- SWOAD Experience

Cons
- Slow
- Lightly armed
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)

As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.

Cheers!

I think under the “pro” category, you could list “an extra platform” period. At the very least they provide a presence with the capability to house an air detachment. That maybe frees up a very in demand frigate to deploy elsewhere. I’d say there is some value in that. And also, with embarked landing craft, large multi-use RHIBS, ability to carry vehicles/cargo containers, they will presumably be a better platform to send than a CPF or MCDV to aid in disaster relief, especially if working in conjunction with ASTERIX, for example. They’re not exactly what I would’ve asked for, but I’ve no doubt the RCN will put them to good use.

 

[Stoker]

My last comment on this (who am I kidding, of course I'm going to comment more!)

Pros
- They're new
- Command experience
- OOW experience
- Seamanship experience
- Arctic Presence
- SWOAD Experience

Cons
- Slow
- Lightly armed
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow)
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments)

As I've said before, not an ideal platform but they're ours to employ and employed they'll be and our sailors and officers will get valuable experience sailing them.

Cheers!

You should add in the pro's

Ability to embark 8 20ft containers
Ability to embark vehicles, snowmobiles, ATV's in support to the rangers.
Medical facility onboard
Ability to operate independent for up to 4 months.

Lets see your Con's

Cons
- Slow (17 knots), really is this slow for a ship this size with a tonnage greater than a CPF? Just as fast as existing ice breakers
- Lightly armed True, it does have the ability to up arm but sufficient for anti drug, anti piracy and other constabulary duties it is designed to do.
- Poor DC capabilities (truthfully I've never crossed the brow) I have and the firefighting and DC considerations are sufficient for a ship going to the Arctic and elsewhere. Can it survive a missile hit?, probably not.
- Not an ice breaker (but that goes towards my Coast Guard comments) Con ops actually states it is not meant to be, that is the CCG responsibility./color]

 

[MarkOttawa]

Are the 17 knots sufficient for constabulary patrols off east and west coasts (I note Kingston-class does 15)?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Stoker]

Are the 17 knots sufficient for constabulary patrols off east and west coasts (I note Kingston-class does 15)?

Mark
Ottawa

Marked with the possibility of embarking a helo, drones and a RIB yes I do.

 

[NavyShooter]

The Sea Containers are definitely amongst the 'PRO' category.  I will note that over the past year I've successfully had some influence on getting the RCN's HADR (Humanitarian Aid/Disaster Relief) kits shifted into 20 foot TEUs.  I did not, however, get them painted ships side grey...nor did I get one of the ROWPUs assigned to AST.  Not for lack of trying though.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are a lot of models of what a Coast Guard can be. There is little to stop the government from making them an armed branch and give them the Constabulary role. It actually makes sense. It will be fought tooth and nail by the RCN and CCG, the former because they fear funding and importance being cut. The latter because they will be taking on a new role that is not terribly compatible with their current missions and corporate culture.

However if the government tells the RCN that they will be patrolling/operting in the arctic as a naval force, then that is the navy task whether they like it or not.

 

[Stoker]

The Sea Containers are definitely amongst the 'PRO' category.  I will note that over the past year I've successfully had some influence on getting the RCN's HADR (Humanitarian Aid/Disaster Relief) kits shifted into 20 foot TEUs.  I did not, however, get them painted ships side grey...nor did I get one of the ROWPUs assigned to AST.  Not for lack of trying though.

and optional containerized weapon payload.

 

[Baz]

However if the government tells the RCN that they will be patrolling/operting in the arctic as a naval force, then that is the navy task whether they like it or not.

True, but as a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, I get to express my opinion and (one) vote whether or not this is what I want our (it belings to the Canadian public) navy to do.

To be honest, from very much the start, I was of the opinion this was a distraction for an already stretched navy, and a bone tossed to Irving and the Maritimes; however, seeing as it's unkikely we will have the navy appropriate for our GDP, maritime commerce, G7, NATO, and 5 eyes position, for which I believe our stature in the world has suffered, I'm starting to shift to the position that they do bring flexibility to the force for low intensity ops that otherwise wouldn't be there.

I will point out that the "big honkin' ship," otherwise known as a "peace support vessel" that has been talked about so often in these forums (ie something akin to a Canberra or Mistral) wouldn't be much more capable of defending itself, and it's a much juicier target..

 

[Stoker]

True, but as a Canadian citizen and taxpayer, I get to express my opinion and (one) vote whether or not this is what I want our (it belings to the Canadian public) navy to do.

To be honest, from very much the start, I was of the opinion this was a distraction for an already stretched navy, and a bone tossed to Irving and the Maritimes; however, seeing as it's unkikely we will have the navy appropriate for our GDP, maritime commerce, G7, NATO, and 5 eyes position, for which I believe our stature in the world has suffered, I'm starting to shift to the position that they do bring flexibility to the force for low intensity ops that otherwise wouldn't be there.

I will point out that the "big honkin' ship," otherwise known as a "peace support vessel" that has been talked about so often in these forums (ie something akin to a Canberra or Mistral) wouldn't be much more capable of defending itself, and it's a much juicier target..

Personally I think a more capable Naval presence regardless of what people think of it is a good thing in our often marginalized Arctic.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Chinese made equipment on the AOPS....

Hmmm, 17% of the steel used in the Harry DeWolf (and the other two under construction I assume) is from China....  I'll just let that sink in.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-patrol-ships-chinese-content-1.4849562

"It noted that 17 per cent of the steel being used to construct the warship — as well as the lifeboats, mooring and towing system components and various pipes and fittings — came from Chinese companies."

"Complicating matters is an almost-forgotten case of alleged espionage that is still grinding its way through the legal system.

Chinese-born Qing Quentin Huang, who worked for Lloyd's Registry, was charged in 2013 with "attempting to communicate with a foreign entity."

He was accused of trying to pass design information about Canada's Arctic ships to the Chinese."