Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Larkvall]

: you can't compare a fishing schooner to that of a minor warship.

:  right because building schnoors back in the 1920's was such a piece of cake.

How about the Mercury program then. I am telling you we are moving backwards.

 

[RC]

I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.

You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.

 

[Larkvall]

  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.

Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.

Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

....but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  .....

Amen Brother - especially at the design definition stage.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Why do

Well they said "Hey, we should build a speedy fishy schnoor." right after they lost the race to the Americans in October 1920 and she hit the water March 26, 1921.

Sure Mercury had an immense budget. But the AOPS program has an immense budget compared to the Bluenose.

Why don't we just use some of these Kingston class ships tied up doing nothing. Reinforce the hulls with some 4 x 4s and patrol the arctic with them until these AOPS ships are ready in 10-15 years.

Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.

4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. :

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was trying to illustrate that there is more to the program than just the design and build, and as far as the timeline goes, a healthy part of it is dedicated to developing the requirements and securing financing.

You can't be honest about a comparison of the timelines if you include everything for one and only design and build for the other.  You have to include the time from where someone first thought "Hey, we should build a speedy fishing schooner." to the point where it hit the water.

It's probably also worth noting that the Bluenose was less than 1/20th the size of the proposed AOPS and (scaling for inflation) about 1/1000th of the cost.  One might imagine that would have an effect on the level of planning required.

Mercury doesn't compare very well, as you are talking about a program with an immense design budget and hundreds of engineers for Mercury, versus a dozen engineers developing the AOPS design.  I suppose any ship program could be accelerated by spending more money but numbers vs. productivity doesn't scale very well in the engineering world in my opinion.  Mercury had big pressure to deliver quickly.  That is expensive.  I don't think that's a route we would want to take for our Navy.  Better that the money is spent on the ships.

Well said

 

[Larkvall]

Why do
Why don't you quit talking out of your @ss and read the naval forum. You might learn something.

4x4 indeed....grow a brain for Hilliers sake. :

I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.

Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)

I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.

 

[Sailorwest]

I have been reading the naval forum. How do you think I came across this thread? What I am reading here is the same old, same old from government. Instead of making a call and dealing with a problem governments just kick the can down the road and waste the taxpayers money. Whether it be on defense, garbage disposal, highways, etc. governments just pretend to deal with the problem with commissioning study and study after study wasting the taxpayers money.
Look at the problems with the Sea King replacement, AOR replacement and now the AOPs. Why are you guys not willing to see that this is not a good thing.

Sure use 4x4s or 4x8s or 8x8s. This is how they reinforced hulls in the old days. If there is something better and you can get it by the beancounters sure use it. Else, raid the petty cash and go to Home Depot. The Hudsons Bay Company was doing business in the Arctic over 300 hundred years ago in wooden ships. Where is that same spirit? Maybe I shouldn't ask such questions or else the government might commision a report to find out where it went. (Who knows maybe it already has.)

I am done reading Navy threads for a while. They are very depressing.

I am kind of surprised by the thought that a steel ship in 2010 should be operated in the arctic with wood to reinforce the hull and that it would actually make a difference in the ship coming in contact with significant pack ice. Although I agree ships operated there 300 years ago and they were made of wood, doesn't mean that it should be done that way today.  Also I would hazard a guess that any naval architect would tell you that the complexity of planning, desigining and constructing a fleet of ships to operate in the arctic is exponentially more challenging than building a simple wooden hulled schooner in the 20's.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of Canada's CG Icebreakers had her hull ripped open on a growler, we are talking almost 3" thick steel. It was a near run thing and the ship was saved thanks to a large amount of concrete aboard meant for building beacons. However Larkvill is correct that beams were added to vessels to help prevent them from being crushed and vesselslike the St Roch had Ironwood added as sheathing to make the hull resitant to the ice, although she depend more on her hull shape than the material to protect her when trapped.
That being said our contracting, design and shipbuilding structure is broken. In the late 80's and 90's  I don't think a single CCG vessel was built that didn't have major flaws. The Point class was cancelled after a couple of hulls due to shoddy workmanship, the 41's almost suffered the same fate with the first vessel being rejected, the 500's were built with major stability issues that required 2 active systems and one passive to counter the problem. DFO's Sinclair was barely up to the task. The 47' self-righting lifeboats contract was given to a "shipyard" that had never actually built a boat before, luckily after a couple of boats were built the contract was pulled and given to a competent yard.
The cause of these problems can be pointed at the politicans, Departmental senior management, Public Works and at the ship building business.

 

[RC]

The current policy under development is supposed to help solve the procurement problems Colin P mentions.  It is a bit ironic though that it could delay AOPS, when that is the sort of problem it is trying to solve.

4x4s might provide cheap, silly ice strengthening for ice infested waters.  There's a pretty big difference between bouncing off the occasional bergy bit without sinking while travelling at sailing ship speed and breaking 1 meter of ice.  Not to mention that 300 years ago, sailors who traveled into the arctic did so at extreme risk to their ships and their lives.

At any rate, I understand Larkvall's concerns about doing a bunch of studies without ever getting anywhere.  However, model testing is clear evidence that an advanced design exists.  Model testing is rarely done until the design is very mature as the hull form must be set before doing it and the hull form can't be set without a solid design.  Have some faith Larkvall.  I have a good feeling about this one.

 

[RC]

Actually, while in the interest of full disclosure I must mention that I speak from a position of extreme bias, I think that the progression of the AOPS program, with its relatively limited complexity, will provide a sucessful spring off point for the rest of the fleet renewal plans.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I also agree that using the smaller vessels as a test case to resolve some of the structural problems in the ship acquisition program is a smart move. If the team can then immediately role into the next ship building program so much the better. In fact as one portion of the team finishes the preliminary components of this program, they can then begin to work on the next program, handing off their completed work to the next step, which hopefully would be ready. Having an experienced team with strong network spanning the government/industry to work with would reduce delays and costly errors

 

[a_majoor]

The procurement problem lies in:

1. No one ever seems to have a "Good Idea Cut Off Date", so the project flails about without any clear definitions.

2. Far too many extraneous factors are added to the mix. Regional development, etc. etc. add more layers of "management" to the project.

We are really seeing Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. We want to buy boats, ships, tanks, combat aircraft etc., while Bureaucrats see the projects as ways to stay employed and to increase their budgets and headcounts: DND vs Dilbert...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yep. the good idea and the "multi-tasking ability" became the bane of the Coast Guard boats, talked to Robert Allan who designed the 500class, the Coast guard management forced them to add so much stuff to the vessel that was not required that it became top heavy. He did not have kind words for them.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, I couldn't find it on a search.

It is a March 4, 2010 presentation by the STX Canada Marine Principal Engineer at the Arctic Passion Seminar in Helsinki.

It seems to detail the latest thinking on the AOPS.

Most noteworthy is that the Project Implementation contract award is anticipated in 2011 with First of Class delivery in 2014.

The design seems to have been simplified and possibly lightened.  The displacement is now 5800 tonnes vice IIRC > 6500 tonnes.  The bow form now seems to be more of a conventional ice-capable bow rather than an open water bow, and most interestingly the Azipods seem to have been ditched (which would be in line with the change in bow form) for a more conventional twin-screw diesel-electric plant with fixed shafts.  Also there is no mention of Active Fin Stabilization.

Or perhaps this is old news to all concerned and I haven't been paying attention.


Cheers.

 

[RC]

The design changes were made in early 2009.  I wouldn't read too much into the designer's interpretation of the government's schedule though.

The bow form didn't change below the water line (ie. it has been a balance between offshore and ice breaking right from the start) and the azipods are arguably better for the ice breaking role, but substantially more expensive.  Retractable fin stabilizers remain in the design.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the corrections RC.

Much appreciated as always.

 

[RC]

Np. 

Now, if only there was something more to say about the program than this...

I've been out of Canada for a while, is there any news on breaking the Canadian shipbuilding policy log jam?

 

[Kirkhill]

Nothing heard.

Other than this.....WMG & Thales Teaming Agreement Signed Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Washington Marine Group (WMG) announced the signing of a Teaming Agreement with Thales Canada forming a strategic alliance to provide the Government of Canada a single solution for the future build and in service support of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). The AOPS program is worth over $2b dollars, delivering six ice breaking patrol vessels to the Canadian Navy, as part of the Federal Government’s National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS). It will provide 700 to 800 skilled jobs to BC shipbuilders and 40 to 60 high technology jobs, in Ontario.

Not sure what that augurs, if anything.

 

[Old Naval Guard]

Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard