• 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

Meanwhile, on the cost front.

HMS Protector - Ice Patrol Ship

From April 2011, she was chartered to the Royal Navy[8] for three years as a temporary replacement for the ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, and was renamed HMS Protector.[13][14] The annual cost of the charter was £8.7m. In September 2013 the British Ministry of Defence purchased the ship outright from GC Rieber Shipping, for £51 million.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)

HMS Tyne Severn and Mersey - Fisheries OPV

initially chartered (or leased) the ships under a five-year, £60 million contract from the builder VT.[2] As part of the contract, VT would be responsible for all maintenance and support during the charter period. This contract was renewed in January 2007 for another five years at £52 million.[2] However, in September 2012, instead of renewing the contract again, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels for £39 million.

"The average running cost... of [the] River class is £20 million... These figures, based on the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence in 2009–10, include maintenance, safety certification, military upgrades, manpower, inventory, satellite communication, fuel costs and depreciation."[11]

HMS Clyde - Fisheries OPV(H)

Cost Unknown

HMS Forth Medway Trent - Fisheries OPV Batch 2

On 6 November 2013 it was announced that the Royal Navy had signed an Agreement in Principle to build three new offshore patrol vessels, based on the River-class design, at a fixed price of £348 million including spares and support.[17

HMS Tamar Spey - Fisheries OPV Batch 2.1

A £287m order, for two new ships and support for all five Batch 2 ships, was announced on 8 December 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

The points to be made are that:

Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere.

Yes, the OPVs are closer in execution to the MCDVs - but are apparently sufficient for both North and South Atlantic patrols despite being cheap and requiring minimal manpower.

And the Protector is close in execution to the NoCGV Svalbard - neither of which cost anything like the Harry de Wolf to acquire.

It makes no sense to build nothing but battleships on the grounds that only battleships are unsinkable. 
 
6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.
 
whiskey601 said:
6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.

Agreed.  Across the board.
 
What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?

And what are the chances it will be employed like Moma's, etc...personally I think we are too much of a "risk adverse" military lead by a risk adverse government to do things like that...
 
Eye In The Sky said:
What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?

Probably about as likely as the RCAF getting something like an RJ or EP-3.  :nod:
 
Chris, I must take partial exception with some of your recent positions:

Chris Pook said:
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.

I suggest the above is incorrect.

If there is a "small" or "patrol" boat tradition under the White Ensign, it is that of the MGB's and MTB's of WWII, culminating in the post war Gay class of MTB's.

The UK vessels you mention don't carry out "constabulary" duties - save one specific aspect for political reasons.

Starting with the small ones:

The Scimitar's are the Gibraltar defence force, not water police force.

The Archer's are dedicated to the University Officers training scheme for the RNR - they are training vessels, just like our old YAG's and PB's were. For those who don't know, we use to have a gaggle of PB's comprising the six old West coast minesweepers and about nine old RCMP patrol vessels operated by the naval reserve. While designated as Patrol Boats, they did nothing other than training.

As for the "River" class, many issues arise: First, they are the only ones, generally with one specific "constabulary" duty: Fisheries Act enforcement. The Act specifically enables the RN and assigns the enforcement function to it. This is not the case in Canada and RCN officers have no powers whatsoever to enforce the fisheries law in Canadian waters. In the RN, of course, this power was inherited for historical reasons: The Cod wars of the late 50's and early 60's. Seeing fully armed RN frigates being used to push around little Icelandic fisheries protection vessels did not look good for the UK and created a lot of flak, so it was decided to acquire more "reasonable" looking vessels for enforcement but with keeping the role within the military as clear sign that the UK considered this a defence matter. The Fisheries squadron was born - originally with the Island class vessels, followed by the Castle class and then the Rivers.

HMS Clyde, however, is a different animal. She was commissioned to become the Falkland protection vessel until a larger one could be acquired. In that role, she took over from the then reassigned Castle class vessels. These, however, and I include the current "patrol" vessel HMS Protector, are not constabulary. They are "trip-wire" ships out to make a political statement related directly to the defence of the realm. While neither party ever declared war over the Falklands during the Falkland war, neither party renounced its claim either when they renewed diplomatic relations. In fact, Argentina has even ensconced its claim in its Constitution. So the Falkland Patrol vessels have the sole duty of being in the way of any Argentinian military action so as to require any attempt to automatically become a declaration of war under international law. Argentina wants to avoid that as was demonstrated when their submarine that went missing a few years ago clearly changed course to avoid entering UK waters. The presence of the RN in the Falkland works.

And BTW, Tamar and Spey were purchased principally to keep BAE's shipyard busy while waiting for the Type 26 construction to begin. Sounds familiar?  ;)

Thus, The RN does not carry out constabulary duties with its "patrol" vessels, save and except fisheries enforcement, assigned to the RN by an Act of Parliament.

What is the situation in Canada?

Simple: As a naval officer, I have absolutely no constabulary powers whatsoever. I can no more arrest someone in Canadian waters or act to enforce the law than a PPCLI officer can police the streets of Edmonton. There are no Act of parliament that give the RCN any powers to act in a constabulary fashion. There are MOU's that exist with various department whereby they can ask for support under various circumstances, but we are then acting under those departments power and only to the limited extent provided by the MOU. This support is usually limited to transportation: We "drive" fisheries officers and RCMP officers in some places to carry out their duties for given number of hours every year (though, as for the RCMP, this number has gone down since the Coast Guard acquired the mid-shore vessel in part for that purpose).

Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.

So your little ditty, is incorrect - we do not have :

Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere.


You may wonder, then, why the RCN was interested in acquiring OPV's at all. It would be, in order:

1) To provide visible military presence along the Coast;
2) assist in the compilation of the maritime picture;
3) provide junior command positions to develop leader, such as CO, XO, CERA, COXN's;
4) training platforms;
5) and, platforms for cheaper provision of support to other departments as required.

The whole humbly submitted.
 
One reason why I would arm the CCG big ships, to support law enforcement (DFO,EC & RCMP) in their duties. Two .50cals per ship. Arming them, teaching them how to use it, ongoing training and developing ROE's for the Ships officers to command their use would not be very expensive. The one place the AOP's would excel over the CCG in these roles is in boarding parties. Training and maintaining those skills sets is expensive and require a mindset that you will not find on the CCG vessels. 
 
and when the AOP's take part in D-day 2.0, this will be what our guys going into Sword and Juno in

AOPS-Landing-Craft.JPG
 
With respect OGBD

The RN's origins go back to Fisheries Protection and EEZs.  Back to the days when real wealth was measured in salt, herring and cod.

The Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest squadron of the Royal Navy and can be traced back to 1481,[3] although some sources, including the Royal Navy, date it to 1379.[4][5] Even before an organised navy was established, the herring fishermen in Great Yarmouth fought skirmishes with foreign fishermen, who would be hanged as pirates from the gallows at Cross Sands if caught.[6]

Early history

During the reign of Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses, English fishermen were beginning to fish in the waters around Iceland, and the King ordered that minimal protection be provided by and paid for by levies from the fishing industry.[6] Richard III and Henry VII continued this, but occasionally this protection was not enough: 1,200 English herring fishermen were killed in a single action by Flemish warships, and likewise the Scots often had difficulties with Dutch fishermen.[6] Because of these and other incidents, by the 16th century it was clear that an organised force was required. A petition was put forward to the Lord High Admiral for a small bark or two.[6] As a result, the first Fishery Protection ship was commissioned for an annual fee to the Admiralty of £100, paid for by the fishermen of Yarmouth. It took the form of a wafting ship (wafting meaning 'to convey safely' or 'to convoy'), which patrolled the North Sea fishing grounds during the herring season.[6]

This ship was eventually replaced in 1659 by a dedicated fishery protection ship for Yarmouth, with a crew of 25 and an armament of "swords, half-pikes, muskets and an ample supply of large stones".[6] In the 18th century a similar arrangement was brokered by Scottish fishermen from George III, also for an annual payment of £100. This amount is still paid today, although as a token gesture.[6] Samuel Pepys was connected with Fishery Protection: he received an annual honorarium for efforts to gain similar protection on behalf of English fishermen.[6]

Lord Nelson, before he became famous, captained HMS Albemarle in 1781 as part of the Fishery Protection Squadron in North America, capturing the U.S. fishing schooner Harmony off the coast of Cape Cod. He took it in tow, with the master of the schooner acting as pilot for both ships for the unfamiliar shores around Boston Harbor.[7] Once the ships were safe, he allowed the schooner to continue unimpeded, saying to the master, "You have rendered us a very essential service, and it is not the custom of English seamen to be ungrateful. In the name, therefore, and with the approbation of the officers of this ship, I return your schooner and with it this certificate of your good conduct. Farewell, and may God bless you."[7] The certificate of good conduct protected the schooner from capture by a British ship. In return, the master gave a present to Nelson of "four sheep, some poultry, and a quantity of vegetables",[7] which Nelson ordered to be shared amongst the sick.[7] Even today, on Trafalgar Day, the flag officer shaves with the same cut-throat razor used by Nelson while he commanded Albermarle.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishery_Protection_Squadron#History

Of course, back in those days merchant ships, including fishing boats, and merchants, went about their business armed.  Not like today at all.


Another constabulary duty the RN found itself doing was confronting slavery - initially in home waters

... the corsairs plundered British shipping pretty much at will, taking no fewer than 466 vessels between 1609 and 1616, and 27 more vessels from near Plymouth in 1625.[31] Also, printed lists from London in 1682 states of 160 British ships captured by Algerians between 1677 and 1680. Considering what the number of sailors who were taken with each ship was likely to have been, these examples translate into a probable 7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women taken into slavery in those years.

On 20 June 1631, in an event known as the Sack of Baltimore, the village of Baltimore in County Cork, Ireland was attacked by Algerian pirates from the North African Barbary Coast. The pirates killed two villagers and captured almost the whole population of over 100 people, who were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Villagers along the south coast of England petitioned the king to protect them from abduction by Barbary pirates. Item 20 of The Grand Remonstrance,[32] a list of grievances against Charles I and presented to him in 1641, contains the following complaint about Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Empire abducting English people into slavery:

And although all this was taken upon pretense of guarding the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised, and upon the same pretense, by both which there was charged upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do still remain in miserable slavery.

In fact the whole of the English civil wars were predicated on the need to raise money to provide for an adequate fleet to ensure that Britons "never shall be slaves".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the USCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the ASCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...

“Canada has been a longstanding partner in our international task force, which has the mission of detecting and monitoring illicit activities in what we call the transit zone, which is the area north of the South American continent, both in the Caribbean and in the eastern Pacific,” said RAdm Tomney.

He added, “The mission of this international task force is not actual law enforcement, but it is to support law enforcement. That support comes in the form of detecting and monitoring illicit activity, using all source information. Once we have awareness of an illegal event, we monitor that event until a law enforcement group can get on-scene.”

He stated that similar to several other nations, Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) ships cannot directly be engaged in law enforcement. Through the partnership with the USCG, which is a multi-agency organization that is a law enforcement agency in addition to being one of the five armed services of the United States, the USCG puts the LEDETs on board various ships. “When they get on-scene with a suspect vessel, the LEDET is the one that goes on board to carry out the law enforcement mission.”
 
standingdown said:
If we sent an AOPS to Op CARIBBE, would we likely send a Cyclone with it?

I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.
 
How the Royal Navy manages its Fisheries Patrols

https://www.forces.net/news/navy/meet-royal-navys-fishery-protection-squadron

Boarding, checking licences, catches and net mesh size are all part of the job - under contract to the civilian Marine Management Organization
 
Chief Engineer said:
I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.

I think "useful" is understating it  ;D 

I'd like to see a 2 tail LRP Det go with ships and Cyclones...JIATF would likely be significantly impressed with the capability.
 
Thanks for the insight Chief.

Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.






 
Yup, I've done CARIBBE and would really enjoy working there in a Canadian Joint TF;  LRP/MH Co-op with a surface force?  Nice.

Same could be said about operating up north. 
 
standingdown said:
Thanks for the insight Chief.

Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.

They do have a cryptographic capability right to JIATF-South, all our ships do.
 
Back
Top