• 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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
I fully agree that a well armed AOPs would be a political threat to the CSC program because for politicians a big gray ship is the same as the other big gray ship. If Canada wants to maintain it's sovereignty over the Arctic, it has to step up it's game, the AOP's are a baby step in that direction, I fully agree with nuclear subs being the only true way to control the northern seas, however, politically unlikely for now. Plus subs do best while not being seen but just that they might be there. However ships often do much of their work by being seen and being threatening in their form. Plus these ships will end up far away perhaps supporting a UN mission on a failed West African State or patrolling the shore of Somali, Indonesia or elsewhere.

As for spies, well we haven't been the only ones who have failed in that area. Our opponents seem to do HUMINT better than we do. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
531
Points
1,060
Humphrey Bogart said:
....
Having switched from the Army to the Navy the one thing I've immediately noticed is the Navy is very small, it is probably way too small for a country of our size and stature and if there is one service that needs to be expanded, it is the Navy.  I've been saying this for years though and it is just being confirmed further now.

Humphrey, I'll go you one step further and declare that the Army's budget should be halved and the money shifted to the RCN and the RCAF.  As I have noted before - they are actually operational.  They are useful even when they are not being shot at.

Based on the way we actually employ our army ..... Afghanistan, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, NW Rebellion..... we call for volunteers and build to suit.  Beyond that we never really seem to get beyond a School of Infantry, a School of Cavalry and a couple of batteries of artillery in garrison.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Humphrey Bogart said:
The Americans used to run the program out of Argentia when they had a Station there but when they closed it, handed the responsibility over to HMCS Trinity in Halifax, which was only stood up as a unit in 1994.  Which is why the Jeff Delisle spy case was such a big deal because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he probably gave info to the Russians concerning locations, frequency bands, etc. with respect to SOSUS, SURTASS and the Integrated Underwater Surveillance System (IUSS). 

I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count). 

Do we monitor the network in Halifax?

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Colin P said:
I don’t mean to dis-respect people, but I really see a “beaten wife syndrome” in the forces, the fight to maintain any capability in the face of either wilful disdain or outright hostility from successive governments has so conditioned people into an acceptance of inadequate resources and defense of that inadequacy that is not entirely rational. I can’t fathom any rational argument to build a naval ship the size of the AOPs without the means to project power or defend itself, while other allied navies using similar ships do. Going by our history, these ships will be called upon to do far more than we ever envisioned and we are not setting up the future crews for success.

Hopefully “the forces” don’t go all Lavalee on their abusers.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
  • Dolphin_Hunter said:
    I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count). 

    Do we monitor the network in Halifax?

    I wouldn't know but I was reading about SOSUS and IUSS the other day (I am nerdy like that) and I read on the IUSS Alumni Association webpage that IUSS monitoring was transferred to Trinity. It says so at the following link:

    http://www.iusscaa.org/idn.htm

    See 1994 in timeline

    1994

    Commander Undersea Surveillance Atlantic and Pacific consolidate into one command located in Norfolk, VA: Commander Undersea Surveillance and staff relocate to Dam Neck VA. Unfortunately, the downsizing of undersea surveillance is in full swing.

    • HMCS Trinity established at Halifax Nova Scotia; CFS Shelburne, Nova Scotia disestablished.
    Readiness Training Facility, Dam Neck disestablished
    [*]NAVFAC Argentia, Nfld disestablished; operations turned over to Canadian Forces IUSS Centre (CFIC), Halifax, Nova Scotia.
    [*]NAVOCEANPROFAC Ford Island, HI disestablished.
    [*]NAVFAC Bermuda acoustic data secured at NOPF Dam Neck

There was also a spy case involving a Hungarian-Canadian named Stephen Joseph Ratkai who tried to obtain information on SOSUS from NAS Argentina.  He was arrested in Newfoundland. 

Article:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/06/us/spy-case-is-called-threat-to-finding-soviet-submarines.html

Again, this is all open source information.  What exactly goes on in Trinity, who knows?  It is supposedly a big secret!  Although apparently it was important enough that some said Mr. Delisle did "irreparable damage" to our national interests and the Five Eyes intelligence community writ large.
Delisle’s unauthorized disclosure to the Russians since 2007 has caused severe and irreparable damage to Canadian interests.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/naval-officer-did-irreparable-damage-to-canadian-interests-for-mere-3kmonth

The point in all of this is that if we want to become a Military player in the Arctic, we need Nuclear Submarines.  Otherwise, we basically cede sovereignty of our Arctic Waterways to the Americans which, considering they and not the Russians might I add, disagree with our stance that our Arctic Waters are an internal waterway, who should we be siding with in this case?

Chris Pook said:
Humphrey, I'll go you one step further and declare that the Army's budget should be halved and the money shifted to the RCN and the RCAF.  As I have noted before - they are actually operational.  They are useful even when they are not being shot at.

Based on the way we actually employ our army ..... Afghanistan, Korea, WW2, WW1, Boer War, NW Rebellion..... we call for volunteers and build to suit.  Beyond that we never really seem to get beyond a School of Infantry, a School of Cavalry and a couple of batteries of artillery in garrison.

Yep, the Fleet Commander supposedly threw out the number that the Reg Force Navy is sitting at like 7500 all ranks.  12 Major Combatants, 12 Minor Combatants (MCDVs), 4 Submarines and one rented AOR with an understaffed RCN to patrol territorial waters in excess of 7.1 million sq km.  oh did I mention that we can't patrol a large piece of it because we have no Vessels that can actually operate in one of our oceans year round?



 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Dolphin_Hunter said:
I didn’t think IUSS was monitored in Canada at all (the passive network monitored by UVIC doesn’t count). 

Do we monitor the network in Halifax?

we have (had) pers at Dam Neck. (Unclassified)
 

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Eye In The Sky said:
Quick question;  is the AOPS Link capable?

Don't know the answer, but it may not be strictly required with the SATCOM backhaul of link you're getting in Block IV.  You connect to Halifax directly, they do the same, Bob's your uncle...
 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Privateer said:
Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)

It's a Patrol Ship and for technical matters a non combatant.
 

kratz

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
34
Points
630
Privateer said:
Is the A/OPS classified as a "major" or "minor" warship by the RCN?  (Or is that distinction gone now?)

By definition1, A/SOP would be a minor warship, but more accurately referred to as a non combatant warship2.




1NPTORD 4500-57: defined as “surface warships which do not carry over-the-horizon, anti-air or ASW weapon systems, and which do not operate
aircraft.

2NATO Allied Procedure Publication 20 (APP-20) Standard Ship Designator System, Paragraph 0102.1: 2.Non-Combatants. Auxiliary, Service Support or Merchant/Recreational Vessel types, which tend to be role specific.  They may possess an armed or combat capability intended primarily for self-defence purposes.





 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
Chief Engineer said:
It's a Patrol Ship and for technical matters a non combatant.

Gee I hope whatever opponent we have uses the same criteria. It's navy and it's a legit target in any conflict.
 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I ask because I had a "minor warship" bridge watch keeping certificate, which was good for an MCDV but not a CPF, so I am curious as to whether an MCDV BWK would be able to stand watch on the A/OPS (after appropriate qualification and CO's confidence etc).
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Colin P said:
Gee I hope whatever opponent we have uses the same criteria. It's navy and it's a legit target in any conflict.

I say this because I'm currently posted into sea training Atlantic Patrol which will be looking after AOPS and Kingston Class. I will be posted soon into SO Non Combatants which will look after technical matters for AOPS and Kingston Class.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
Privateer said:
I ask because I had a "minor warship" bridge watch keeping certificate, which was good for an MCDV but not a CPF, so I am curious as to whether an MCDV BWK would be able to stand watch on the A/OPS (after appropriate qualification and CO's confidence etc).

Probably some more training working in ice and like you said when the CO is satisfied. You won't have to start out over.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
By the current definition (the reg force, IMHO changes the damn definition whenever it fits their mood as to what constitutes a "minor" or "surface" warship for ticket's qualification) the AOPS are "surface" ship tickets vessels. There is no such thing as a "major" warship - only  a definition of what is a "minor" one - everything else requires a "surface/subsurface" watch keeping or command certificate -and since the AOPS are meant to operate aircraft, they are NOT minor warships.

Sad, but that's the way it is.

Personally, since the MCDV's are no longer strictly reserve vessels, I would like to see the reserve NW Officers being run through the frigates instead of the MCDV's after they complete their phase training - even if it requires two summers instead of one - and get their full BWK, even if after that they only are assigned to "minor" warships for short periods to keep up their knowledge base. This way, if any national emergency occurs, you have that many more people holding a somewhat up to date ticket to quickly re-qualify and hold a valuable position on a actual fighting ship.


But hey! That's just me! What do I know.  ::) 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
Chief Engineer said:
I say this because I'm currently posted into sea training Atlantic Patrol which will be looking after AOPS and Kingston Class. I will be posted soon into SO Non Combatants which will look after technical matters for AOPS and Kingston Class.

You find the ice navigation bit quite interesting and challenging
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
113
Points
530
Not sure if this has been discussed on this thread in the past.

"Chile Builds Its First Icebreaker Ship"

https://www.janes.com/article/84022/euronaval-2018-asmar-ramps-up-production-of-new-chilean-navy-icebreaker
https://dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/chile-builds-its-first-icebreaker-ship

The article is a bit old, but they just started cutting steel on it yesterday.  We could have slotted our 3rd AOPS as being their's and moved our production out by 1 ship as Irving is asking for. So there goes one of the few potential places that we could possibly sell (gift?) an AOPS.  Would have thought that since we are doing the re-vitalization on their existing Frigates that we'd have a shot at building them an AOPS.  Interesting to see in the article that Vard Canada is doing work for them on the engineering.  The size of the ship looks quite similar to our AOPS.  Oh well.
 
Top