• 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

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
Stripping away the deck gun and the combat management system on an AOPS, how does one of these stack up against some of the CG’s ships in terms of ice breaking capability and such?
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Yes, I’d be interested to know what role these ships would actually have in the Arctic as a CCG asset. How would they stack up against, say, a PIERRE RADISSON class icebreaker in terms of ice capabilities? I imagine they’d be useful as a response vessel should any civilian ship be in distress, but could they provide towing capability too? Just curious, not skeptical.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
238
Points
680
From an icebreaking capability point of view, the Radisson and the AOPS are pretty well evenly matched.

BTW, neither can usefully tow a large merchant ship. Not all CCG vessels (in fact very few of them, actually) are fitted for rescue towing.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
Are you sure about the icebreaking capability? The Radisson Was about double the ice class of the 1100's as I recall? I think the AOPs are closer to the 1100's for ice class?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
64
Points
560
From gov't:

...
The Harry DeWolf-class patrol ships will operate in the Arctic between June and October, providing a greater, and longer, CAF presence in the north. They will be capable of operating in first-year ice of 120-centimetre thickness. This will allow the Royal Canadian Navy to have unescorted access to areas of the Arctic that were previously inaccessible...
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
566
Points
1,060
Czech_pivo said:
Stripping away the deck gun and the combat management system on an AOPS, how does one of these stack up against some of the CG’s ships in terms of ice breaking capability and such?

Why bother?  Why not just build the vessel exactly as is but without the weapons fit?  Then, in time of need, the vessel can be converted into an RCNR vessel and outfitted appropriately.

In the meantime I am sure the Bosn would find a use for any empty spaces on board that result from not carrying weapons and ammunition.  And given the small amount of both I can't see their lack having a material impact on stability.

As to employment - I could see them doing the same job as the Leonard J Cowley but operating further north and for more of the year.

300px-CCGS_Leonard_J_Cowley%2C_Offshore_Patrol_Vessel.jpg



Name: Leonard J. Cowley
Namesake: Len Cowley
Operator: Canadian Coast Guard
Builder: West Coast Manly Shipyards Limited, Vancouver, British Columbia
Yard number: 590
Launched: November 1984
Completed: June 1985
Commissioned: 1984
Refit: 1996
Homeport: CCG Base St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
Identification: IMO number: 8320494
Status: Ship in active service

General characteristics

Type: Fisheries patrol vessel
Tonnage:
2,188 GT
655 NT
Displacement: 2,080 long tons (2,110 t) full load
Length: 72 m (236 ft 3 in)
Beam: 14.2 m (46 ft 7 in)
Draught: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Installed power:
2 × Polar Nohab F312V geared diesels
3,160 kW (4,240 hp)
Propulsion: 1 × controllable-pitch propeller
Speed: 15 knots (28 km/h)
Range: 10,000 nmi (19,000 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
Endurance: 35 days
Complement: 19
Aircraft carried: 1 × light helicopter
Aviation facilities: Hangar and flight deck
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
MarkOttawa said:
From gov't:

Mark
Ottawa

Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions

Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions

Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions

Sources = Wiki and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.



 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
164
Points
680
MarkOttawa said:
From gov't:

Mark
Ottawa

AOPS has a PC4 ice breaking bow and PC5 hull from what I have been told. It probably explains the extra cm in ice breaking.
 

Privateer

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
VT Halter Reveals New [U.S.] Coast Guard Icebreaker Details
May 8, 2019 by Mike Schuler

Link: https://gcaptain.com/vt-halter-coast-guard-icebreaker-details/?fbclid=IwAR1Ul2_4cpvBMPbtJNamNF_OjfxOHnl78RJpIp_H_OqXrU4q6uTp3pbaGhw

TAI1197web.jpg


Summary of ship:
The vessels will be 460 feet in length with a beam of 88 feet overall, a food load displacement of approximately 33,000 long tons at delivery. Propulsion will be diesel electric with over 45,200 horse power for breaking ice between six to eight feet thick. The vessel will accomodate 186 personnel with an extended endurance of 90 days.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,495
Points
940
Chief Engineer said:
AOPS has a PC4 ice breaking bow and PC5 hull from what I have been told. It probably explains the extra cm in ice breaking.

Discerning ice class and making comparisons to other ships in other classes appears to be a black art. Not to mention the differences from river to ocean icebreakers.

Privateer
That is closer to our Polar 8 or the Louie St Laurent. 
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
164
Points
680
Swampbuggy said:
If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?

I can't see why, the whole reason for the extra two AOPV's is for the CCG which is desperately needing ships.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
Swampbuggy said:
If they build two more AOPS, would it not be a better way to go to give them to the RCN and maybe then retire two or three MCDV’s?

I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class.

15 CSC
12 River-like
6 AOPS
2 JSS
1/2 Asterix
4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Chief Engineer said:
I can't see why, the whole reason for the extra two AOPV's is for the CCG which is desperately needing ships.

I thought the whole reason was to keep Irving in the black?

Point taken about the pressing needs of the CCG, though. I suppose they’ll outfit them with some sort of laboratory space etc...
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Czech_pivo said:
I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class.

15 CSC
12 River-like
6 AOPS
2 JSS
1/2 Asterix
4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats

I like the GOWIND 1000 as a replacement for the MCDV. It’s got helo ability, room for a VLS, reasonably quick and also weighs in around 1000t so could be built by any shipyard (Davie) without being in contravention of the NSS parameters.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
40
Points
280
Colin P said:
Hopefully we can make some more AOPs for New Zealand or perhaps Chile?

We’ve recently been working closely with/on the Navies and their vessels from both countries, so that would make a nice fit.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
164
Points
680
Swampbuggy said:
I thought the whole reason was to keep Irving in the black?

Point taken about the pressing needs of the CCG, though. I suppose they’ll outfit them with some sort of laboratory space etc...

Thats what I have been hearing, most of the ship will be the same but some spaces reconfigured for CG needs.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
164
Points
680
Czech_pivo said:
I’m holding out hope that we replace the Kingston’s with a dozen or 15 ships similar to the RN’s River class.

15 CSC
12 River-like
6 AOPS
2 JSS
1/2 Asterix
4 Vic’s, replaced by 7/8  German under ice boats

So you want to replace the MCDV's with a ship that has no mine warfare capability, no capability to embark containerized payloads and the capability to embark helos that we don't have in our inventory. Aren't you the one who posts about worries of not  having enough helos for the AOPV?
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
530
Chief Engineer said:
So you want to replace the MCDV's with a ship that has no mine warfare capability, no capability to embark containerized payloads and the capability to embark helos that we don't have in our inventory. Aren't you the one who posts about worries of not  having enough helos for the AOPV?

LOL- you got me Chief!

From an RCAF perspective, I'd add another 15 helo's.  There is no doubt that we can use them.

Regarding the mine warfare capabilities, how much of this do the Kingston's actually do right now? I haven't read a single article within the last 12 months of them doing an exercise on wine warfare.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that me being the 'joe public' isn't aware of a large percentage of what the RCN is actually doing on a daily basis, but at the same time, the RCN does a decent job of getting out the good news stories when they happen.

So, reduce the 12 River class down to 8/9 and add another 8/9 mine warfare ships (why not combine this role with the role that the Orca's now perform?).  The River class also, I believe, require less crew than a Kingston does.
 
Top