• 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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
So a few off the cuff thoughts:

* How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.

*  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?

* Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Which of those thoughts will secure the most seats in the October election? As everyone knows, ships have nothing to do with the coast guard or the navy.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,060
And then there is this:

Even then, federal bureaucrats and Irving both warned more would need to be done as even with those measures, there was still the threat of an 18- to 24-month gap between construction of the two fleets.

There is another billion or two opportunity.

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
I’m not against building the ships, originally it was planned for a build of  6-8, and I’m pretty sure the RCN would have preferred less AOPs trading off for more of pretty much anything else. For example, building 8 ships and transferring 2-4 to the CCG, and maybe taking some shipyard time to get the JSS built.
It’s the sneakiness of it all.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
323
Points
930
dapaterson said:
So a few off the cuff thoughts:

* How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.

*  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?

* Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?

Can't answer those questions.
But is there any question now on the power of Irvings over the Liberal cabinet?
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
116
Points
530
Chris Pook said:
And then there is this:

There is another billion or two opportunity.

How is that even possible?
The latest article on the 6 AOPS states that the fleet with all be operational by 2025 - 6 yrs out to get 6 ships built and turned over to the RCN. Add another 2 AOPS (minus some work related to weaponry and C&C) and those ships will come online when? 2028? How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?  Are they saying that the CSC programme won't cut steel until 2029 at the earliest - 10yrs out from now?  If that's the case its going to be near impossible to build 15 CSC's with the 60$ billion all-in money already allocated.

 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
116
Points
530
dapaterson said:
So a few off the cuff thoughts:

* How will SeaSpan react to Irving being given additional work for the CCG?  Under the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), CCG requirements were supposed to go to SeaSpan.

*  If NSS is reopened, with CCG builds going to Irving, does that mean other elements of the NSS can be reopened and reallocated as well?

* Which leads to the Davie question: if additional builds outside the original scope can be shoehorned in, why can't additional builders?

Since his Serene Highness is in BC at a RCN facility today to make the announcement, I'm going to go out on a limb and make the suggestion that His Highness announces a 3rd JSS for Seaspan.  There will still be no word on the Dief and its timelines as His Highness won't want to announce any funding of a ship named after a Conservative PM with the election being less than 6 months away.  Ultimately I see Davie getting the Dief to be built and it comes in bigger in size (and cost) than originally thought. 
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
Czech_pivo said:
How is that even possible?
The latest article on the 6 AOPS states that the fleet with all be operational by 2025 - 6 yrs out to get 6 ships built and turned over to the RCN. Add another 2 AOPS (minus some work related to weaponry and C&C) and those ships will come online when? 2028? How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?  Are they saying that the CSC programme won't cut steel until 2029 at the earliest - 10yrs out from now?  If that's the case its going to be near impossible to build 15 CSC's with the 60$ billion all-in money already allocated.

Built, turned over and operational are different stages of getting a ship accepted.  HDW is currently built.  After builders trials she will be turned over to the RCN this summer (those two steps overlap a bit, as they can do engine trials while outfitting comms for example).  She'll be operational when all of her sea trials are done for all the things she's been designed for.  Despite this fact she might actually be on operations before then.  There needs to a shoot of the gun, helo ops sorted out (which could take months itself with all the wind tests, land and take off, finding different sea states, weather...), turning circles recorded, full shakedown of the crew to figure out how the ship works, replenishment as sea (assuming this is a thing) done, use all the boats for various tasks, sail in different sea states, test the stabilizers, test the bow thrusters, use all the cranes for various tasks, etc...  The builders may have turned her over but the RCN doesn't consider a ship operational until we figure out how she works first!

When the RCN got HMCS Halifax she was known as the Jetty Queen.  It wasn't until the 4-5th CPF was in the water that her issues as first of class were sorted out and she was finally operational.  First of class takes a long time because there is only one ship to do all of the things listed above.  When the Margaret Brooke comes out her acceptance trials will be faster...  I would also expect that the first two ships may be alongside to fix issues at some point.  A fire main problem or a pump replacement, or new wiring for some such equipment, fixed plumbing for the heads in #3 mess etc...  This extends their acceptance to "fully operational" status.

So don't be too distracted by the timeline.  The ships will probably be doing operations before they are fully operational, as you can do SAR zone work without having all of your equipment trialed or tested, as long as you meet Safe At Sea requirements for example.

As an aside JT really needs to call his new BFF Jacinda down in NZ with a sales pitch.  They have an ice capable OPV on their defence policy for a while.  Sell one to them cheap to offset costs for keeping our shipyard running.  I expect however they will just go to Korea and get an COTS OPV that costs nickels to our dollar.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
687
Points
1,010
Czech_pivo said:
How can there be a 18-24 'gap' before the first steel is cut on the CSC?

There's a wording issue with that article.  The 18-24 month gap is referring to the problem after the 6th ship was bought.  I read a separate article from Global and that was made clear.  That matches timelines much better, as it takes about  9-12 months to build an AOPV.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
116
Points
530
Underway said:
There's a wording issue with that article.  The 18-24 month gap is referring to the problem after the 6th ship was bought.  I read a separate article from Global and that was made clear.  That matches timelines much better, as it takes about  9-12 months to build an AOPV.

I certainly hope you're right.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,060
Cloud Cover said:
I’m not against building the ships, originally it was planned for a build of  6-8, and I’m pretty sure the RCN would have preferred less AOPs trading off for more of pretty much anything else. For example, building 8 ships and transferring 2-4 to the CCG, and maybe taking some shipyard time to get the JSS built.
It’s the sneakiness of it all.

100% agreement.  Especially on the sneakiness of it all. 

Wouldn't it be nice if something approximating a plan, any plan, could be delivered?
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
Someone proposed in this forum to use that gap (or future ones) to build new generation MCDVs, myself proposed two oceanic tug & rescue vessels (in line with under-production USN Navajo class). What worries me most is that within 3-4 years sight, by the time the 7th AOPS would start to be built, the shipbuilding industry the NSS is attaining is not capable to produce new (different) vessels. Not even a mk.2 AOPS?

Not even flexible enough as to share some work load from the west coast, at a reasonable trade off, like giving Seaspan to do some parts of the future CSC.

In an ever changing world, NSS is missing (IMHO) the flexibility to deal with key production issues as timeline gaps and changing the "production line" from one platform into another.

With this in mind I wonder if Irving would be capable to produce any variant out of the CSC, meaning an AAW or a C&C variants ... if required, and what would be the delay cost if doing so.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
890
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

"To support future shipbuilding needs and attract more talent and good jobs to our communities, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS. The Government of Canada will move forward with a competitive process to select the third shipyard in the coming months."
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
323
Points
930
dapaterson said:
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

"To support future shipbuilding needs and attract more talent and good jobs to our communities, the Government of Canada intends to add a third Canadian shipyard as a partner under the NSS. The Government of Canada will move forward with a competitive process to select the third shipyard in the coming months."

Gee, wonder who that would be?
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
43
Points
330
Looking at a CCG AOPS, seems logical they should have some. I don't know much about the current CCG ships, but wouldn't these be a big step-up in capability for the CCG?
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html#s18

Official NSS web already updated. ☺

Seems to have moved from
5 future Offshore Patrol Vessels (for the CCG), and
5 future Medium-Endurance Multi-Tasked Vessels (for the CCG).

to...
2 AOPs (built at Irving), plus
"up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels" (Seaspan).
 
"These vessels will:
form the backbone of the Coast Guard large fleet throughout Canada and enable multiple mission deliveries such as:
* being capable of icebreaking in moderate ice conditions and assist shipping and spring time flood control in the St. Lawrence waterway and Great Lakes region
* providing offshore support for search and rescue, emergency response, and security and protection missions
* maintaining Canada’s marine navigation system composed of approximately 17,000 aids to navigation".

Edited:
Seems like 3rd player will be given the maintenance/retrofit part and/or the "new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities", (from the PM's note) which is not (yet?) updated on the NSS web.
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
116
Points
530
FSTO said:
Gee, wonder who that would be?

Finally - acknowledgment that the shear number of ships that are either clapped out, about to be clapped out or have already clapped out far exceeds the ability of the 2 existing NSS shipyards ability to ever replace them has occurred.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
472
Points
1,010
I was pondering this the other day:

If the ability to build our own ships is considered a strategic requirement and the ships being built are all government vessels, why has the government not simply bought ISS, Seaspan and Davie and created a private corporation equivalent to Naval Group in France where the Government of Canada maintains a controlling interest.

It certainly seems stupid to me to have three different companies in Canada fighting over our shipbuilding contracts which are pretty insignificant in comparison to other countries.
 
Top