Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

Not sure where to place this question but this seemed a reasonable place. Please move if it has a more appropriate thread.

Instead of "land basing" any new radar technology (SPY7 etc) would it not be feasible to have them on purpose built ships? It may require a couple more systems to deal with scheduled maintenance of the ships but they would be mobile and less susceptible to stagnant installations, observation, and targeting. It might mean a class 2 or better hull for winter but 6 or seven hulls should provide continued surveillance. Just a thought....

Not really the best idea. Mainly because of availability rate. Geography doesn't change, we know what areas we need to cover with radar. So having a radar available all the time, no worry about the ship breaking down etc... is a better idea. You can also have a lot more power for that radar, both processing and detection. And you can run a land line to other establishments for communication to integrate all that information from all the sensors (sattelite, ships, aircraft, other ground based detectors).

There is merit in having a mobile system to do overlaping coverage, but in Canada our plan is to use aircraft (AEW or AWAC) for that purpose.

 

[Calvillo]

Question, why do the CCG AOPSs cost more than the RCN AOPVs albeit in the same class? I imagine as warships the Navy version requires armaments and better sensors for combat? The Coast Guard is neither military nor law enforcement, why theirs are costlier than Navy's?

 

[k.numbers]

Question, why do the CCG AOPSs cost more than the RCN AOPVs albeit in the same class? I imagine as warships the Navy version requires armaments and better sensors for combat? The Coast Guard is neither military nor law enforcement, why theirs are costlier than Navy's?

This was asked in the House of Commons when the $2.1 billion cost came out. It was vaguely answered as 'inflation'.

Could very well he the whole story; steel prices alone were all over the place. Might have put in the steel orders at the worst possible time: see chart

 

[Kirkhill]

Deleted.

 

[Underway]

Question, why do the CCG AOPSs cost more than the RCN AOPVs albeit in the same class? I imagine as warships the Navy version requires armaments and better sensors for combat? The Coast Guard is neither military nor law enforcement, why theirs are costlier than Navy's?

Well inflation is much higher now than when the original AOPS came out. Also the CCG AOPS were added later so they lost some of their purchasing power by adding on more ships later instead of buying common parts in bulk. Third CCG AOPS have a generally new design (aka NOT the same class) for some parts and that design work adds a one off extra cost. HDW had a lot of that design work paid for in the follow on ships.

 

[Calvillo]

Thank you for the answers irt inflation. However, when I read the Wikipedia page, it read:

Modifications include a new bridge layout and accommodations for a non-military crew subject to Transport Canada requirements. Some areas are to be changed to meet the needs of coast guard equipment and there will be modifications to the deck.

What kind of civilian modifications needed that require the extra cost?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Thank you for the answers irt inflation. However, when I read the Wikipedia page, it read:



What kind of civilian modifications needed that require the extra cost?

There has not been an in-depth explanation given by the Canadian Govt, Irving or the CCG as to the exact nature of changes however, I am not surprised there is substantial extra costs. From what I have gathered, the CCG never really wanted the last two AOPS and they were effectively forced to take them by the Govt in order to bridge the gap between AOPS and River class production so that Irving Shipbuilding was not left idle. Given their lack of feedback into the official design, the fact that the CCG follows a lot more stringent Transport Canada requirements for various standards like accommodations versus the RCN and that they likely have an abundance of changes lined up to have the design better suit their requirements, I am not surprised the costs have mounted.

 

[dapaterson]

Given that they're buying from Irving, I am not surprised the costs have mounted.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What kind of civilian modifications needed that require the extra cost?

You are basically redesigning the interior layout. AOPS have six persons cabins for the crew. The merchant mariners have either single cabins or, at most, double cabins. Change the cabin layout and you have to change the electrical and plumbing runs, etc. etc. The bridge is not the "integrated consoles system that the RCN uses, and it contains a lot less in terms of displays and equipment. The radar suite is made of two, perhaps three common navigation radars, not the types the RCN uses, all displayed on the bridge only (maybe the captain's cabin too) - the CCG has no need for ops room or briefing room, etc. etc.. Similarly, the CCG's ships more limited communications systems are all on the bridge, they don't need a CCR or a room to deal with secure/encrypted communications.

The CCG probably uses different type of boats than the RCN, so davits and deck space for them has to be modified and allocated differently. similarly, they probably need a different layout for their shops that deal with the type of operations they wish to conduct, such as fixing nav aids and buoys, etc. etc. Same for the type of labs they wish to house, again etc. etc.

So there is probably a lot of redesign work and a lot of re-learning how to build the ship going on at Irving.

And as you know, I am not a fan of Irving Shipbuilding, but in this case, there is a justification. Add to that, BTW, the fact that we are now operating under tariffed steel and aluminum. That doesn't help.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How much of that steel and aluminum comes from the US?

 

[suffolkowner]

How much of that steel and aluminum comes from the US?

i was going to ask the opposite. How much has come from Canada?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Keeping in mind, most contracts were let, prior to POTUS 47 coming in. Going forward, we should work really hard to get those products from Canada, then Non-US allies and then elsewhere.

 

[Kirkhill]

Keeping in mind, most contracts were let, prior to POTUS 47 coming in. Going forward, we should work really hard to get those products from Canada, then Non-US allies and then elsewhere.

So now, instead of least cost formulation we are now prepared to pay a premium for security of supply, and, potentially, another premium to support local jobs....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So now, instead of least cost formulation we are now prepared to pay a premium for security of supply, and, potentially, another premium to support local jobs....

Welcome to the club that pretty much every other country with a navy is in.

 

[Underway]

Aluminum I'm pretty sure we're good on. Steel is specialty for icebreaking. So no idea. Might have come from Finland for all I know.