Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Colin Parkinson]

Wiki says you are correct, plus they have some NBC capability and can be fitted with the Simbad missile system.

 

[Stoker]

The 76mm under the deck on the Danish Knud Rasmussen Class, took it when she was in Halifax.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The green Canadian Tire lawn chairs behind the mount are a nice touch.

 

[Stoker]

The green Canadian Tire lawn chairs behind the mount are a nice touch.

The Danish navy are very atypical naval, the ship even has a sauna. Interesting to note are the containerized weapon payloads that are supposed to be fitted, there are storage racks for parts and other engineering stores in their location. From what I can gather from the crew there's only one set of these payloads and are almost never fitted for training.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I agree the 76mm would have been the best bet and we could have used the ones from the 280's, probably still has lots of ammo and didn't have to reinvent the wheel on SOP's etc. Unfortunately they were divested.

They are a good gun, but think recycling the old ones vs buying new is pound foolish. We wouldn't have had enough for the AOPS in any case, but 20+ years of fatigue is going to mean all kinds of random bits would start failing on you.  Sure a bunch of the ammo could have been kept and used, but there weren't that many crew left with 280 time, and you'd have to refresh the SOPs anyway to work with the quirks of the AOPS. Plus we wouldn't have enough for all the AOPs, so you'd have two different versions, with the associated design/in service support you have there.

Someone wanted to do the same with the VLS for the 280s, but cost more to remove them and store them for a decade or so, then upgrade all the electronics than to buy new.  Not sure who would have been happy with getting a used VLS in a brand new ship in any case, but the same fatigue issues there (especially on all the connection points).  Outside the electronics, its not really much more than some steel tubes and a bunch of vent fans, so was a really weird argument to have. No one wanted to pay for it or limit CSC in equipment selection, so died on the proposal floor, but took up a lot of time and effort to argue why it made no sense.

Big fan of common equipment and interfaces to minimize training and support, but refurbishing old equipment for new ships makes no sense, once you include all the costs. Removing big pieces of kit like that during the decommissioning phase if you need it intact costs a lot of money (otherwise they can be a bit ham handed with it and cut away as it needs demilitarized anyway, plus you offset your costs with scrap weight).  Storage costs can get really significant, and at the end of the day, even if you NDT everything (at great cost), you will start getting the kind of end of life failures of main components on the new ship that you wouldn't see in it's normal service life. And in both cases where we wouldn't have had enough for the new ships, you would have had to design/support different versions of a main piece of equipment, which is both a pain in the arse and expensive.

Sailors are pretty adaptable, so when you look at the big picture over the long term, very minimal benefits to recycling systems onto new ships.  Better solution is if you have something you like, just specify to use the same system and buy the newest version.

One nice thing with AOPs and JSS both being under the same ISSC is that they will look at maintenance and support costs when looking at replacing systems during their life cycle, so can see them getting more common equipment over their life.  Wasn't really possible with the NSS setup, but probably going to start happening at the 15-20 year mark (maybe sooner for the electronics).

 

[Stoker]

They are a good gun, but think recycling the old ones vs buying new is pound foolish. We wouldn't have had enough for the AOPS in any case, but 20+ years of fatigue is going to mean all kinds of random bits would start failing on you.  Sure a bunch of the ammo could have been kept and used, but there weren't that many crew left with 280 time, and you'd have to refresh the SOPs anyway to work with the quirks of the AOPS. Plus we wouldn't have enough for all the AOPs, so you'd have two different versions, with the associated design/in service support you have there.

Someone wanted to do the same with the VLS for the 280s, but cost more to remove them and store them for a decade or so, then upgrade all the electronics than to buy new.  Not sure who would have been happy with getting a used VLS in a brand new ship in any case, but the same fatigue issues there (especially on all the connection points).  Outside the electronics, its not really much more than some steel tubes and a bunch of vent fans, so was a really weird argument to have. No one wanted to pay for it or limit CSC in equipment selection, so died on the proposal floor, but took up a lot of time and effort to argue why it made no sense.

Big fan of common equipment and interfaces to minimize training and support, but refurbishing old equipment for new ships makes no sense, once you include all the costs. Removing big pieces of kit like that during the decommissioning phase if you need it intact costs a lot of money (otherwise they can be a bit ham handed with it and cut away as it needs demilitarized anyway, plus you offset your costs with scrap weight).  Storage costs can get really significant, and at the end of the day, even if you NDT everything (at great cost), you will start getting the kind of end of life failures of main components on the new ship that you wouldn't see in it's normal service life. And in both cases where we wouldn't have had enough for the new ships, you would have had to design/support different versions of a main piece of equipment, which is both a pain in the arse and expensive.

Sailors are pretty adaptable, so when you look at the big picture over the long term, very minimal benefits to recycling systems onto new ships.  Better solution is if you have something you like, just specify to use the same system and buy the newest version.

One nice thing with AOPs and JSS both being under the same ISSC is that they will look at maintenance and support costs when looking at replacing systems during their life cycle, so can see them getting more common equipment over their life.  Wasn't really possible with the NSS setup, but probably going to start happening at the 15-20 year mark (maybe sooner for the electronics).

The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?

 

[Swampbuggy]

The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?

Also, didn't the Dutch do the same with the 127mm's from the 280's? I thought they were actually still in use on the DZP class?

 

[Navy_Pete]

The reason why I asked is the Danish Navy recycled their 76mm into other classes of ships.  If ours were returned to the manufacture for refurbishing then they should be good to go. I know we had  four guns, didnt we have any spares?

I think at the end we had cannabalized the spares to get three "working guns", but by the end they weren't doing repairs to a lot of the combat suite, so not sure how operable the guns were by the end. Probably had spare barrels and other parts from HUR in storage, but a lot of times those get put away without proper preservation and ongoing maintenance (due to the cost) and are eventually only expensive scrap that needs some environmental cleanup first.  Definitely didn't have enough for AOPs though.  We did specifically look at every single NSN during the decomissioning process for all the ships, but unless it was a common piece of equipment (like a valve, pump etc) it didn't make sense to keep them and refurb in case the projects may want to use them, nor did the projects show any interest in using refurb equipment. 

For context at the same time there was a big effort to clear out a whack of gear left over from the steamers; that was also warehoused in case of future need, but most of it was rusted solid or otherwise useless.  It cost a shocking amount of money every year for storage, so ended up getting scrapped/demilitarized at the same time. There were 1000s of sq feet of old crap kept around 'in case of' so got deeply suspicious of any proposal to do the same with parts from the 280s.

Even with a full refurb though there will still be original parts. It's like an engine; you can refurb it any number of times, but eventually the block will wear out. We seem to ride our ships harder and put them away wetter than the Danish from what I gather from conversations with them, so not sure if that's a great comparison point. 

The CAF has a good track record of using things well past their design life, but with the 280s and AORs got a good example of what happens when you push that too far without bumping up the maintenance support.  Both classes served us really well, but we pushed their lifespan right to the end, and cannabalized each ship as it was retired to keep the others going, so really pushed it to the end.  Glad we got rid of ATH when we did, as we had rolled the dice and not had a major incident long enough where it was getting inevitable.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I think at the end we had cannabalized the spares to get three "working guns", but by the end they weren't doing repairs to a lot of the combat suite, so not sure how operable the guns were by the end. Probably had spare barrels and other parts from HUR in storage, but a lot of times those get put away without proper preservation and ongoing maintenance (due to the cost) and are eventually only expensive scrap that needs some environmental cleanup first.  Definitely didn't have enough for AOPs though.  We did specifically look at every single NSN during the decomissioning process for all the ships, but unless it was a common piece of equipment (like a valve, pump etc) it didn't make sense to keep them and refurb in case the projects may want to use them, nor did the projects show any interest in using refurb equipment. 

For context at the same time there was a big effort to clear out a whack of gear left over from the steamers; that was also warehoused in case of future need, but most of it was rusted solid or otherwise useless.  It cost a shocking amount of money every year for storage, so ended up getting scrapped/demilitarized at the same time. There were 1000s of sq feet of old crap kept around 'in case of' so got deeply suspicious of any proposal to do the same with parts from the 280s.

Even with a full refurb though there will still be original parts. It's like an engine; you can refurb it any number of times, but eventually the block will wear out. We seem to ride our ships harder and put them away wetter than the Danish from what I gather from conversations with them, so not sure if that's a great comparison point. 

The CAF has a good track record of using things well past their design life, but with the 280s and AORs got a good example of what happens when you push that too far without bumping up the maintenance support.  Both classes served us really well, but we pushed their lifespan right to the end, and cannabalized each ship as it was retired to keep the others going, so really pushed it to the end.  Glad we got rid of ATH when we did, as we had rolled the dice and not had a major incident long enough where it was getting inevitable.

That's an excellent cautionary note to keep in mind for the CPF'S and SSK'S. I imagine there's going to be a lot of that cannibalism going on by the time the last HALIFAX class is paid off.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sadly I expect that new gun and turret is not that expensive in the scheme of things. With the way a lot of weapons systems seem to be going to modules, what ever system you go for it would seem to be a good idea to have extras so a ship comes in a for a refit, that gun can be pulled as unit and replaced with fresh one and then the gun taken off goes through the refresh cycle. Not sure if the same can work for the various missile systems?

Software and electronic change so fast I suspect that you always be upgrading what ever stock you have.


If we plan to store stuff just in case, we should really hire the Russians to do the preservation as they seem to be really good at doing long term preservation of weapons.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Normally there are a few ships in the docking cycle, so really minimal amount of a full 'hot spare' is required. With the normal 60 month cycle, you want that offset anyway so you minimize the # of ships that are down at once, so it's pretty typical for things like the guns, cranes and other systems that need a 60M ashore to cycle onto a different ship when it's done.  Those are a lot faster then the 6-9 month + docking, so usually pretty seamless.  Not frequent to have something so damaged that a swap out if faster than a repair, as it also depends on what subsequent trials are required.  With condition based maintenance, no guarantee it will even need to come off if it's in working order and no major PM/CM needed.  The old baseline refits used to take them off and get refurbed by default, but that costs too much.  Probably results in better availability during the service time, but sometimes you just make a mess out of something that was working fine.

The killer for storage is the ongoing work; prep is pretty straightforward it's the rotating it etc that's the killer. That's why stuff stays on the ship if it's not getting repaired during the DWP and there is some ongoing PM for turning/oiling things regularly that needs to be planned for.  Additionally there are all the softbits etc that will break down, so even if something is just sitting there you need to do basic PM on it to keep it useable. Parts are spread all over the country, so not going to happen without very directed oversight, and we don't have folks to spare for the depots anyway.

Logistics and supply chain is pretty interesting when you get into the weeds, but was surprised how much more it was than just keeping bits on the shelf.  Costs a lot of money to do properly, and we can't afford to be the neighbourhood hoarder. The nice thing with using COTS and commercial design is that we are less likely to end up with one off systems where we are the only customer using a 3rd line repair center for that piece of kit. Would be great if we can license the AOPS and sell a few so there are even more customers for the big ticket items like the diesels.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.

 

[Stoker]

Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.

They may be doing just that eventually.

 

[Good2Golf]

Considering New Zealand is using Seaspan to upgrade one of their naval ships, might be worth it to sail the 2nd or third one down there to show it off and maybe do an Interoperability exercise in the New Zealand Antarctic territory. That might encourage to buy 1 or 2.

If their defence budget survives and isn’t decimated by buying P-8s...

 

[Cloud Cover]

If their defence budget survives and isn’t decimated by buying P-8s...

It appears the related infrastructure costs and some relocation decisions made by the government (under advice) have added greatly to the financials. As for the defence budget itself, it is a reflection of the government to claim to spend more, or spend more effectively,  while actually doing less.  Familiar stuff.

 

[Underway]

Sadly I expect that new gun and turret is not that expensive in the scheme of things.

I heard recently that cost was the killer of a larger gun, no proof of that however.  The gun itself, the crew costs, the shore support, ammunition issues etc...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am sure they see it that way, as I have seen so many government purchases that can only do half the job because they could save money on "extra's".

 

[Swampbuggy]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with the main gun on AOPS is it's sort of undefined nature. It's not big enough to be talked about as something to be used in case things really get out of hand, away from support. But it's also kind of overkill for almost all of its other likely mission profiles. Since it will be operating in essentially the same waters as MCDV'S and in very similar roles, you would assume that their weapons suites would be similar. But, threat assessments done for the MCDV missions show only a need for .50 cal machine guns. If there has ever been anything stated about what the expected role of this weapon is, I'd be interested to hear. The DS30M has a higher firing rate and better elevation and is essentially an upgrade to the MK38. Why was the 25mm chosen?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think one of the biggest problems people have with the main gun on AOPS is it's sort of undefined nature. It's not big enough to be talked about as something to be used in case things really get out of hand, away from support. But it's also kind of overkill for almost all of its other likely mission profiles. Since it will be operating in essentially the same waters as MCDV'S and in very similar roles, you would assume that their weapons suites would be similar. But, threat assessments done for the MCDV missions show only a need for .50 cal machine guns. If there has ever been anything stated about what the expected role of this weapon is, I'd be interested to hear. The DS30M has a higher firing rate and better elevation and is essentially an upgrade to the MK38. Why was the 25mm chosen?

At a guess - it was chosen because the 25mm, its parts and ammunition are in service.  The .50 has been on life-support for 50 years, variously in and out of service.  Also the 25mm is/was in service with the RAN Armidale OPVs, the RNZN Protector OPVs and HMNZS Canterbury, and the USCG Island Patrol Boats, amongst others.  The RN River OPVs (Batch 1) were kitted with 20mm while Batch 2 is fitted with 30mm.  The British forces do not conventionally use any 25mm weapons having settled on 30mm years ago with the introduction of the Rarden in the Scimitar back in the '70s.

 

[NavyShooter]

I was told many years ago that there was a form of exemption for some transit fees in certain places - ie Panama Canal, for warships in particular, but for a warship to be exempt, it had to have a mounted weapons system.  IE a deck gun.  The fitting of guns dates back to the Preserver class - which had a 3"50 mounted on the foc'sle to provide this exemption for them. 

This may be wrong - but I think it's actually a part of the consideration.

As for why the 25mm?  Parts/ammunition commonality, and theoretically, training system commonality too.

NS