• 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

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Chief Engineer said:
The CPF's will be replaced one for one as the CSE's come online and a still a few years away. The 125 crew for ship probably won't change. Don't lose any sleep over this.

Are they being replaced 1 for 1, or will all 12 CPF be kept until the 4th CSC to bring us back to 15 ships?
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
I’m wondering about the fleet split between coasts. Is it still likely to be 2 AOPS on the west and 4 on the East?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
jmt18325 said:
Are they being replaced 1 for 1, or will all 12 CPF be kept until the 4th CSC to bring us back to 15 ships?

That's a good point, i'm really not sure.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,798
Points
940
jmt18325 said:
Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.

If they can't resource the ship, they might try that. To be realistic it's not a lot of bang for the buck that you get with an AOPS. If the budget gets slashed, leasing a ship that's tied to the dock makes good business sense, particularly if there is a 2-3 year gap that the CCG needs filled. The order may come from above in that case.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
Swampbuggy said:
I’m wondering about the fleet split between coasts. Is it still likely to be 2 AOPS on the west and 4 on the East?

That's the plan I believe however like any plan subject to change.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
720
Points
940
http://canmnews.ca/2018/11/the-royal-canadian-navy-to-receive-a-sixth-arctic-and-offshore-patrol-ship/

Wasnt the plan already 6? Or did they cut back just to reannounce?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,798
Points
940
Ordered 5 with an option of 6, now they are agreeing to the option. "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough"
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
jmt18325 said:
Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.

Let's clear that up again: The AOPS are not and have never been "what the Navy wanted". The RCN never asked in any way form or shape to be saddled with the AOPS. The AOPS were foisted on the RCN by the Harper government as a way out (sort of) of their original promise for three armed icebreakers for Arctic security (armed icebreakers that the RCN never asked for either, BTW).

What the Navy did ask for - but is not getting - is proper OPV's with sufficient speed and seakeeping capabilities to play catch up with your average merchant ship - which the AOPS are unable to do.

Colin P said:
Ordered 5 with an option of 6, now they are agreeing to the option. "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough"

Actually, IIRC, the original contract was intended to provide 6 AOPS. Irving couldn't guarantee they could do it within the planned monetary envelope, so the contract was re-drafted to provide for five AOPS, with Irving undertaking to do it's best to actually deliver six within that envelope.

What we have now is Irving basically admitting that they knew all along they were not going to try and build a sixth one within the allocated money, but use the gap later to extort (in the political - not criminal - sense) more money from the government for a sixth one. Or maybe I am just getting too cynical - but, yes, "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough". :not-again:
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Let's clear that up again: The AOPS are not and have never been "what the Navy wanted". The RCN never asked in any way form or shape to be saddled with the AOPS. The AOPS were foisted on the RCN by the Harper government as a way out (sort of) of their original promise for three armed icebreakers for Arctic security (armed icebreakers that the RCN never asked for either, BTW).

What the Navy did ask for - but is not getting - is proper OPV's with sufficient speed and seakeeping capabilities to play catch up with your average merchant ship - which the AOPS are unable to do.

Actually, IIRC, the original contract was intended to provide 6 AOPS. Irving couldn't guarantee they could do it within the planned monetary envelope, so the contract was re-drafted to provide for five AOPS, with Irving undertaking to do it's best to actually deliver six within that envelope.

What we have now is Irving basically admitting that they knew all along they were not going to try and build a sixth one within the allocated money, but use the gap later to extort (in the political - not criminal - sense) more money from the government for a sixth one. Or maybe I am just getting too cynical - but, yes, "Cough, cough" Election "cough, cough". :not-again:

Regardless of what the Navy wanted, didn't want or what the government gave us, the ships are being built and we in the RCN are moving on and embracing this new capability. We needed something with more endurance up there, it may not be what people who say we need up there but its something and I speak from experience. Unfortunately they will be double hatted to fill the OPV capability. They do however have a Helo, sea keeping similar to a Halifax Class and they can do 17 knots which should make up for the lack of speed so all is not dire.

Irving getting a sixth ship, certainly will add to the availability of these hulls in their maintenance cycle and ultimately will provide more high readiness platforms. I often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Davie was getting all the contracts would be seeing the same comments.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Chief Engineer said:
Regardless of what the Navy wanted, didn't want or what the government gave us, the ships are being built and we in the RCN are moving on and embracing this new capability.

Of course it is. What else is the Navy supposed to do? That doesn't mean that the government can ignore the professional advice of the senior leadership of the Navy on what is needed and not suffer the consequences. For not listening to it's professional advice,it (government) reaped the reward of naval unpreparedness in two world wars and nearly did so again for Gulf War I. And acquiring the AOPS was done against the advice of the Navy senior leadership. Period. There are no military reasons to be up there, but there are political ones. These last ones are not Naval concerns.

Chief Engineer said:
We needed something with more endurance up there, it may not be what people who say we need up there but its something and I speak from experience.

With all due respect, Chief, your experience of actually going up North is irrelevant to the strategic/tactical needs of the Canadian Navy. We did not need something with more endurance "up there", we simply don't need anything naval up there. There is neither a strategic not a tactical requirement for the Navy in the Arctic until such time as it is actually accessible to merchant ships and  other regular/non-icebreaker vessels- at which point any surface warship can also go, as has been pointed out in these forum by multiple (if not every) NWO's.

Chief Engineer said:
Irving getting a sixth ship, certainly will add to the availability of these hulls in their maintenance cycle and ultimately will provide more high readiness platforms.

Concur, as with any other class of ship.

Chief Engineer said:
I often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and Davie was getting all the contracts would be seeing the same comments.

You would. I never confuse my appreciation for Davie where shipbuilding is concerned as an activity with the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. The AOPS would be just as much of a distraction from providing the proper ships for Canada's Navy if they were built at Davie and I would oppose the requirement for a sixth one just as much.

I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,798
Points
940
China has already cast it's eye on the Arctic, so Canada has to step up it's game there and since we don't have nuke subs, these will be our main naval presence up there for the time being.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
124
Points
430
So what is the cost of the sixth ship?
$2.3 billion for 5 or 6 originally?
Or does Irving get another $460 million for the sixth ship with no cost savings passed on to the taxpayer?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Of course it is. What else is the Navy supposed to do? That doesn't mean that the government can ignore the professional advice of the senior leadership of the Navy on what is needed and not suffer the consequences. For not listening to it's professional advice,it (government) reaped the reward of naval unpreparedness in two world wars and nearly did so again for Gulf War I. And acquiring the AOPS was done against the advice of the Navy senior leadership. Period. There are no military reasons to be up there, but there are political ones. These last ones are not Naval concerns.

With all due respect, Chief, your experience of actually going up North is irrelevant to the strategic/tactical needs of the Canadian Navy. We did not need something with more endurance "up there", we simply don't need anything naval up there. There is neither a strategic not a tactical requirement for the Navy in the Arctic until such time as it is actually accessible to merchant ships and  other regular/non-icebreaker vessels- at which point any surface warship can also go, as has been pointed out in these forum by multiple (if not every) NWO's.

I have no doubt it was done against the advice of the RCN's senior leadership but all I'm pointing out is that's not much to be done about that now and the RCN is embracing these ships. We have being going to the Arctic periodically throughout the years since 1949 with HMCS Cedarwood, periodically with other warships and pretty much continuously since 2002 with HMCS Summerside and HMCS Goose Bay. I certainly disagree with you with not needing something naval up there, if that was so obviously Norway and Denmark are wrong with their continued deployments. Like "Commodore O.C.S. Robertson the Commanding Officer of HMCS Labrador has stated This Arctic, this Canadian Arctic is our business – ours to exploit, ours to defend" Of course its political, but many in the RCN is seeing the value of an ongoing presence up there if you don't.

As for my experience up there I certainly know the capabilities that are needed to safely operate in that area and endurance is one of them due to the lack and difficulty of logistical support. I leave the tactical situation to the higher ups with experience in that area. The Arctic with its navigational season, there certainly is much commercial traffic and quite a bit that has no ice capability at all. If anything we are providing extra help to the CCG, I suspect you don't like that but that's one of the tasks these ships will preform.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
974
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt.

:goodpost:
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
365
Points
910
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I am sorry, but right now, the focal point of Canada's naval interest are in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The Navy's centre of gravity should be Esquimalt.

Exactly.

Prime Minister Harper was, in 2005/06, playing a very safe, very traditional anti-American political card, when he made rash icebreaker promises.

Remember, in his initial enthusiasm, he also promised a full blown Arctic base at Nanisivik, but reality intruded and it is now a less ambitious refuelling facility.

But, it is the right and duty of the government of the day to decide strategic priorities, no matter what the most senior officials, diplomats, scholars and the naval and military leaders might recommend.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,386
Points
890
E.R. Campbell said:
But, it is the right and duty of the government of the day to decide strategic priorities, no matter what the most senior officials, diplomats, scholars and the naval and military leaders might recommend.

But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.

Remember, "Yes, Minister" is not merely a documentary, but also an instructional film, lacking only obese bearded uniformed personnel  (smelling of 8 hour old cannabis smoke) to accurately represent NDHQ.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
571
Points
940
dapaterson said:
But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.
To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity... or inertia.

Just look at the rapid changes since Strong, Secure, Engaged:  Canada's Defence Policy  was released to great fanfare and governmental self-congratulations.

                :crickets:  (OK, not including beards or pot)
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,386
Points
890
I don't think Hanlon posits an either/or; sometimes it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
742
Points
1,060
Patrol vessels sailing under the White Ensign.

HMS Protector (Chartered DNV ICE-05 Ice Patrol Ship) - Displacing 5000 T, LOA 89m, 15 kts, Crew of 88, helideck, 2x Miniguns, 4x GPMG, 12 Pax

HMS Tyne, Severn and Mersey (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 1700 T, LOA 79.5m, 20 kts, Crew of 30, no helideck, 1x 20mm, 2x GPMG, 20 Troops

HMS Clyde (OPV-H (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 81.5m, 21 kts, Crew of 36, helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 5x GPMG, 110 Troops

HMS Forth, Medway, Trent (+2) (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 90.5m, 25 kts, Crew of 58 (39 at sea, 19 on shore - rotating), helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 2x GPMG, 50 Troops

RN also sails 17x 20m Archer patrol boats of 54 T - two of which are fitted for not with 1x 20mm and 3x GPMG

As well it mans 2x 16m Scimitar patrol boats of 24 T - fitted with 2x GPMG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-prepares-for-future-uk-fishery-patrols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar-class_patrol_vessel

The AOPS appears to be conforming to the traditions of the White Ensign.
It will be performing a task the RN undertakes in home waters.
It does not appear to be particularly under-manned, under-armed, under-equipped, particularly slow or un-prepared for activity in the ice.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,798
Points
940
The River Class is more comparable to the MCDV. The OPV have triggered the same debate here and this blog argues that a redesign of the next batch closer to naval standards is worthwhile https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/thoughts-batch-2-river-class/#

 
Top