Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[DBNSG]

Wasn't that filled in and turned into a drywall plant?

The whole point of the NSS building shipyard capacity though isn't just the facility, it's the experience and ability to do design, (including actual production design of a bought design), planning, execution, quality control and testing of a ship. The facility part is the easy bit that is done in the first year or so in a 10-20 year process to build up all the experience and processes.

I mentioned that facility because Jim Irving still owns it and no the only thing filling the drydock is water.
No doubt some TLC would be needed but the main assembly hall is where the wallboard is made and there is plenty of yard space around the former ship building . If need be I am sure the Irvings would make things work. Saint John could use the boost.

 

[Stoker]

Could they build another shed on the Dartmouth side? Or up by Bedford?

Lots of room at NAD across the way.

 

[Stoker]

I mentioned that facility because Jim Irving still owns it and no the only thing filling the drydock is water.
No doubt some TLC would be needed but the main assembly hall is where the wallboard is made and there is plenty of yard space around the former ship building . If need be I am sure the Irvings would make things work. Saint John could use the boost.

Brought this up a number of times over the years about a rehabilitation of the SJS site. At the very least its a strategic asset to surge shipbuilding or repair capacity in time of war. Right now we are limited on docking facilities that can take AOPS, JSS or RCD. We need more suitable docks.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I mentioned that facility because Jim Irving still owns it and no the only thing filling the drydock is water.
No doubt some TLC would be needed but the main assembly hall is where the wallboard is made and there is plenty of yard space around the former ship building . If need be I am sure the Irvings would make things work. Saint John could use the boost.

The primary issue with Saint John is the fact all of the actual infrastructure there outside of the repurposed buildings for the wallboard plant and the drydock structure itself is gone, it's isn't just TLC but effectively a ground up building of an entire shipyard using the few bones remaining on the property. As @Navy_Pete said earlier, rebuilding the yard itself is only one piece of the puzzle as you would need to hire, train and qualify an entirely new yards worth of staff at all levels in order to bring the yard up to a basic operational standpoint. Even once you get to that point, you won't be building anything efficiently and will be running into a laundry list of issues.

You would be looking at likely billions of dollars and who knows how many years just to get a basic functioning shipyard which at the end of the day, Canada cannot realistically maintain with our current/future orderbooks. We have Davie entering the fray with potentially multiple foreign yard subsidiaries abroad to fight for contracts as well. If we start splitting up contract orders even further between this new yard and the existing yards, you are going to find yourself looking down the same barrel that caused Saint John to close in the first place. Canada cannot support another major shipbuilding yard on top of Irving, Seaspan and Davie without unduly hurting the future prospects of all involved.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Do we know that?

An awful lot of stuff keeps changing fast these days.

I hope you are right. I'd love to some sort of monetization from the AOPS design/work from a country outside of Canada.

 

[Underway]

Lots of room at NAD across the way.View attachment 94431

There is a lot of potential at the dockyard annex for a lot of things. Though you would have to duplicate all the security arrangements for the main dockyard over there, and that seems... expensive? There is also the Shearwater jetty IIRC as well. Same challenges though.

 

[Stoker]

The primary issue with Saint John is the fact all of the actual infrastructure there outside of the repurposed buildings for the wallboard plant and the drydock structure itself is gone, it's isn't just TLC but effectively a ground up building of an entire shipyard using the few bones remaining on the property. As @Navy_Pete said earlier, rebuilding the yard itself is only one piece of the puzzle as you would need to hire, train and qualify an entirely new yards worth of staff at all levels in order to bring the yard up to a basic operational standpoint. Even once you get to that point, you won't be building anything efficiently and will be running into a laundry list of issues.

You would be looking at likely billions of dollars and who knows how many years just to get a basic functioning shipyard which at the end of the day, Canada cannot realistically maintain with our current/future orderbooks. We have Davie entering the fray with potentially multiple foreign yard subsidiaries abroad to fight for contracts as well. If we start splitting up contract orders even further between this new yard and the existing yards, you are going to find yourself looking down the same barrel that caused Saint John to close in the first place. Canada cannot support another major shipbuilding yard on top of Irving, Seaspan and Davie without unduly hurting the future prospects of all involved.

There’s no denying that bringing Saint John back online would be difficult and expensive—but dismissing it outright ignores both precedent and future need.

Yes, the infrastructure is mostly gone, and yes, the workforce would need to be rebuilt. But that was exactly the case with Irving pre-NSPS. They modernized the Halifax yard with $350M in upgrades (much of it public money), and Seaspan followed suit out west. Let’s not pretend this is uncharted territory. Saint John already has deepwater access, a legacy of naval construction, and a skilled labour base in the region that could be retrained or re-attracted.

As for cost—sure, it would run in the billions. But so did standing up the current NSPS yards, and we didn’t blink at those numbers when they were deemed strategically necessary. The argument that “Canada can’t support another major yard” assumes a fixed future. That’s flawed thinking. With the River-class Destroyer (RCD) program stretching over decades, the Continental Corvette program being actively studied, Possible military icebreakers, multi-purpose vessels, submarine tenders, support ships, drone tenders, and other potential projects, the demand signal is not shrinking. It’s growing.

Frankly, we think too small in Canada. Any new capability—like a revived Saint John yard—doesn't need to be maxed out year-round to be worth it. It can be used to surge during emergencies, support allied workshare, or even be mothballed in peacetime like strategic airlift or reserve forces. Flexibility has value. Redundancy has value.

As for Davie, let’s be honest they’ve only recently been fully integrated into the NSS, and much of their current push is built on the promise of foreign subcontracting in Finland. That’s fine if you’re running a business, but if you’re running a country that claims to care about sovereignty and economic resilience, you shouldn’t be outsourcing the future of your fleet halfway across the world. Canada needs capacity here.

The real risk isn’t in reviving Saint John—it’s in putting all our eggs in two or three increasingly overloaded baskets, while pretending it’s still 2006 and not a more dangerous, unpredictable world.

 

[YZT580]

There’s no denying that bringing Saint John back online would be difficult and expensive—but dismissing it outright ignores both precedent and future need.

Yes, the infrastructure is mostly gone, and yes, the workforce would need to be rebuilt. But that was exactly the case with Irving pre-NSPS. They modernized the Halifax yard with $350M in upgrades (much of it public money), and Seaspan followed suit out west. Let’s not pretend this is uncharted territory. Saint John already has deepwater access, a legacy of naval construction, and a skilled labour base in the region that could be retrained or re-attracted.

As for cost—sure, it would run in the billions. But so did standing up the current NSPS yards, and we didn’t blink at those numbers when they were deemed strategically necessary. The argument that “Canada can’t support another major yard” assumes a fixed future. That’s flawed thinking. With the River-class Destroyer (RCD) program stretching over decades, the Continental Corvette program being actively studied, Possible military icebreakers, multi-purpose vessels, submarine tenders, support ships, drone tenders, and other potential projects, the demand signal is not shrinking. It’s growing.

Frankly, we think too small in Canada. Any new capability—like a revived Saint John yard—doesn't need to be maxed out year-round to be worth it. It can be used to surge during emergencies, support allied workshare, or even be mothballed in peacetime like strategic airlift or reserve forces. Flexibility has value. Redundancy has value.

As for Davie, let’s be honest they’ve only recently been fully integrated into the NSS, and much of their current push is built on the promise of foreign subcontracting in Finland. That’s fine if you’re running a business, but if you’re running a country that claims to care about sovereignty and economic resilience, you shouldn’t be outsourcing the future of your fleet halfway across the world. Canada needs capacity here.

The real risk isn’t in reviving Saint John—it’s in putting all our eggs in two or three increasingly overloaded baskets, while pretending it’s still 2006 and not a more dangerous, unpredictable world.

I thought that one of the purposes for the NSS programme was to re-build ship building in Canada as an industry and attract foreign customers. Well, you got one knocking on the door so what do we do about it? Same as ship manning: we wring our hands and say we can't, proving all that Trump says is true. And it wouldn't be a new yard it would be a subsidiary of Halifax. Doesn't BAE have more than one construction area?

 

[Kirkhill]

There is a lot of potential at the dockyard annex for a lot of things. Though you would have to duplicate all the security arrangements for the main dockyard over there, and that seems... expensive? There is also the Shearwater jetty IIRC as well. Same challenges though.

I'm guessing that that would still be cheaper than revitalizing Saint John. And the management teams, design teams, even the trades SMEs are all there.

If it were me I would build a new hall for the destroyers and start building new teams along with the new facilities. Let the existing teams continue working on the AOPS for the Yanks and have them crank them out as fast as possible. Get the Yanks to pay for the new hall for the destroyers.

The trades are already engaged all round the Basin in any event.

 

[Kirkhill]

I thought that one of the purposes for the NSS programme was to re-build ship building in Canada as an industry and attract foreign customers. Well, you got one knocking on the door so what do we do about it? Same as ship manning: we wring our hands and say we can't, proving all that Trump says is true. And it wouldn't be a new yard it would be a subsidiary of Halifax. Doesn't BAE have more than one construction area?

Defense contractor BAE Systems is expanding on Scotland’s rich tradition of shipbuilding and advancing the future of the industry by opening a new assembly and outfit hall in Glasgow. The unique facility will contribute to ensuring the timely delivery of the next generation of warships for the UK’s Royal Navy.

The new facility is part of a £300 million ($411 million) modernization and digitalization of BAE Systems’ operations in Glasgow. It is named Janet Harvey Hall in honor of a World War II female shipyard electrician and offers the capacity for the construction of two Type 26 frigates side-by-side.

BAE Systems Boosts Shipbuilding Capacity for Frigates with Massive New Hall

Defense contractor BAE Systems is expanding on Scotland’s rich tradition of shipbuilding and advancing the future of the industry by opening a new ass...

maritime-executive.com

The first Type 26 frigate for the Royal Navy is named HMS Glasgow. It was formally named at a ceremony on May 22, 2025, in Glasgow. The ship is the lead vessel of the Royal Navy's new City-class frigates and is designed for anti-submarine warfare. It is expected to enter service in 2028.

June 16, 2025, by Fatima Bahtić
HMS Venturer, the first of five new Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy, has completed its first entry into the water.

The 26 came out of Glasgow while the 31 came out of Edinburgh, an hour's drive away.

 

[Stoker]

I'm guessing that that would still be cheaper than revitalizing Saint John. And the management teams, design teams, even the trades SMEs are all there.

If it were me I would build a new hall for the destroyers and start building new teams along with the new facilities. Let the existing teams continue working on the AOPS for the Yanks and have them crank them out as fast as possible. Get the Yanks to pay for the new hall for the destroyers.

The trades are already engaged all round the Basin in any event.

I would imagine the trades that are needed for a newly opened shipyard in Saint John could possibly come from that province. I would also imagine its a lot cheaper to live, not to mention the strategic benefit of not having all the facilities in one geographic area.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I mentioned that facility because Jim Irving still owns it and no the only thing filling the drydock is water.
No doubt some TLC would be needed but the main assembly hall is where the wallboard is made and there is plenty of yard space around the former ship building . If need be I am sure the Irvings would make things work. Saint John could use the boost.

One of the issues would be the safety zone around the oil terminal

 

[Stoker]

Was the safety zone there when the shipyard was in operation? If not I'm sure allowance's can be made or build somewhere else in Saint John.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sell the USGC two of our existing 6 AOPS right now. Irving can promise them more later.

Use the money to buy other things we desperately need, now.

 

[Stoker]

Sell the USGC two of our existing 6 AOPS right now. Irving can promise them more later.

Use the money to buy other things we desperately need, now.

Sell 2 AOPS then we wouldn't be able to meet operational taskings now that the Kingston Class is being decommissioned. That would put even more strain on the remaining four platforms. Better off selling the 2 CCG variants and placing a order for 3 COTS patrol vessels for fisheries.

 

[dapaterson]

Sell the USGC two of our existing 6 AOPS right now. Irving can promise them more later.

Use the money to buy other things we desperately need, now.

A large vat of hackle dye?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Was the safety zone there when the shipyard was in operation? If not I'm sure allowance's can be made or build somewhere else in Saint John.

No idea, but the issue came up in TERMPOL reviews out here

TP 743 – TERMPOL Review Process – 2019 Edition

Guidelines for the technical review process of marine terminal systems and transshipment sites. The TERMPOL Review Process is a way for proponents of marine terminals for bulk handling of oil, chemicals and liquefied gases to voluntarily have the marine transportation components of their project...

tc.canada.ca

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sell 2 AOPS then we wouldn't be able to meet operational taskings now that the Kingston Class is being decommissioned. That would put even more strain on the remaining four platforms. Better off selling the 2 CCG variants and placing a order for 3 COTS patrol vessels for fisheries.

The USCG won’t want the CG versions. They want the RCN ones.

We can’t staff all the ships we currently have. I would rather have 2 fewer AOPS now and make them up again in the future, once Irving can figure how to build both AOPS and RCDs at the same time.

 

[Stoker]

The USCG won’t want the CG versions. They want the RCN ones.

We can’t staff all the ships we currently have. I would rather have 2 fewer AOPS now and make them up again in the future, once Irving can figure how to build both AOPS and RCDs at the same time.

How do you know that? Do you know someone in the USCG? Like mentioned before two less AOPS means less operations and taskings which is a big deal. The reason why the Kingston Class are being decommissioned is to provide personnel for JSS and AOPS. Regardless its only speculation that the USCG will want to buy AOPS in the first place.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The recent USCG RFI for their Arctic Security Cutter program basically fits the AOPS perfectly, the big issue is that Irving is entirely unable to build them any ships and thus the efficiencies of scale would be lost if the hypothetical build is sent elsewhere.

View attachment 94427

I can only go by what was posted upthread.

If true, what they want is an RCN AOPS, not the significantly modified CCG versions.