Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Kirkhill]

Surveillance, presence, coordination and response over a wider territory?

 

[chrisf]

Over what wider territory???

Their role is to monitor fisheries on the Grand Banks. That is the territory they need to cover.

They do that effectively now, those three ships are literally more than enough for the job.

They just sink a little bit sometimes.

As far as "numbers" goes, the coast guard has enough, or close to enough ships to fill all the roles they're required to do now.

The issue is that the ships are old, in need of regular repairs, and unreliable.

The AOPS boats are being built the the navy, for a specific role.

Building one for the coast guard would only mean they'd have to make up a role for it that doesn't exist now, as it wouldn't be useful for any of the tasks they need.

 

[jmt18325]

With all respect - I just don't see that.  It could be used for patrol, light ice breaking, SAR, as a base for helicopter ops, possibly towing.  Those are all jobs that the CCG does now.  It would also have room for environmental response equipment.

 

[Spencer100]

Buoy tendering should be contracted out.  The highways are now maintained by private companies under contract. The CG should be refocused on Security, Safety at sea, SAR and fisheries. 

The Irving situation sounds like the same problem that the UK is having with the timing of GCS and the yards having a break.  But the point for the Coast Guard is two new ships or no new ships, I would think they should take the new ships.  I see to many times that the 80% solution is better than zero 100% solution.

 

[Kirkhill]

Over what wider territory???

Their role is to monitor fisheries on the Grand Banks. That is the territory they need to cover.

They do that effectively now, those three ships are literally more than enough for the job.

They just sink a little bit sometimes.

As far as "numbers" goes, the coast guard has enough, or close to enough ships to fill all the roles they're required to do now.

The issue is that the ships are old, in need of regular repairs, and unreliable.

The AOPS boats are being built the the navy, for a specific role.

Building one for the coast guard would only mean they'd have to make up a role for it that doesn't exist now, as it wouldn't be useful for any of the tasks they need.

I think what I am suggesting is that the Coast Guard take over the role for which the AOPS is designed.  The Armed component is such a modest addition to the vessels as to be able to be ignored in most operations.  A floating operating base for the Government of Canada is sufficient justification.

And as for the armed bit - well, if push comes to shove weapons could be mounted and naval personnel (regs or res) added to the crew, or potentially, replace the crew.

 

[chrisf]

With all respect - I just don't see that.  It could be used for patrol, light ice breaking, SAR, as a base for helicopter ops, possibly towing.  Those are all jobs that the CCG does now.  It would also have room for environmental response equipment.

What do you think "Patrol", "Ice Breaking", "Helicopter Ops" and "Towing" entail?

Buoy tendering should be contracted out.  The highways are now maintained by private companies under contract. The CG should be refocused on Security, Safety at sea, SAR and fisheries. 

The Irving situation sounds like the same problem that the UK is having with the timing of GCS and the yards having a break.  But the point for the Coast Guard is two new ships or no new ships, I would think they should take the new ships.  I see to many times that the 80% solution is better than zero 100% solution.

A large amount of bouy tending is contracted out now.

In a world of smart spending, the rest of it would be contracted out, but the coast guard fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.

Security is not part of the coast guards tasks or mandate now, it would be an entirely new task.

In the mean time, buying AOPS for the coast guard would not be an 80% solution, it would be two very expensive ships that can't effectively fill any role required, that they'd be stuck with for the next 40-60 years.

There are plenty of other options available, as either off the shelf designs, or even literally available for sale, right now, that would be better suited.

The ideal "new" vessel would be an a diesel electric, ice classed, AHTS (Anchor Handling Tug Supply), with ORO (Basically "oil vaccum") capability. Remove the bulk tanks, turn that space into a cargo hold. Slap on a miranda davit for the FRC, and a life boat davit, and you've got an ideal coast guard ship, pretty much off the shelf, for a reasonable price.

Going with Davie's suggestion of buying or leasing the Aiviq would be fantastic plan.

Buying another AOPS just to line Irvings pocket is not an good idea. Period.

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:

 

[Edward Campbell]

What do you think "Patrol", "Ice Breaking", "Helicopter Ops" and "Towing" entail?

A large amount of bouy tending is contracted out now.

In a world of smart spending, the rest of it would be contracted out, but the coast guard fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.

Security is not part of the coast guards tasks or mandate now, it would be an entirely new task.

In the mean time, buying AOPS for the coast guard would not be an 80% solution, it would be two very expensive ships that can't effectively fill any role required, that they'd be stuck with for the next 40-60 years.

There are plenty of other options available, as either off the shelf designs, or even literally available for sale, right now, that would be better suited.

The ideal "new" vessel would be an a diesel electric, ice classed, AHTS (Anchor Handling Tug Supply), with ORO (Basically "oil vaccum") capability. Remove the bulk tanks, turn that space into a cargo hold. Slap on a miranda davit for the FRC, and a life boat davit, and you've got an ideal coast guard ship, pretty much off the shelf, for a reasonable price.

Going with Davie's suggestion of buying or leasing the Aiviq would be fantastic plan.

Buying another AOPS just to line Irvings pocket is not an good idea. Period.

In my opinion, as an old retired Army officer with only limited contact with the Navy, the AOPS is a constabulary vessel, rather than being a first rate warship ... the Coast Guard is not a constabulary service, but we have one, in Canada, that has a Marine Division and a long, proud history of maritime operations in the Arctic.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If you won't name that service, Mr. C., I will for the benefit of enlightening the young pups: It's the R.C.M.P.

We also had a para-military maritime service that was constabulary in nature even before the RCMP: The Fisheries service of Canada. It was an armed service that pre-dates even the R.C.N., and in fact was the incubator for the RCN's first class of officers. It was an armed service of Canada, even if not under the Minister of Defence or of the Naval Service, until it became absorbed, first into the Fisheries and Ocean Canada, an then (the real disaster most Fisheries officer still weep over) with absorption into the Coast Guard, a move that deprived them of their heavy weapons (light deck guns and .50 cals MG's) and their own ship's companies modelled on a military org.

Todays fisheries officers are still constable with police power where fisheries rules and regulations are concerned, but only equipped with personal weapons, such as side arms and shot guns.
 

 

[NavyShooter]

*Apparently, the old brass Gatling gun up at the Halifax Citadel museum was formerly on a Fisheries vessel.

 

[Kirkhill]

So, security would not be a new task - rather it would be a neglected original task?  Should somebody be fired?  >

 

[Kirkhill]

And another thought - who is following the shrimpers and other trawlers up into Baffin Bay? 

 

[chrisf]

So, security would not be a new task - rather it would be a neglected original task?  Should somebody be fired?  >

If only we had another department tasked with maritime defence...

Perhaps they could be given some sort of "coastal defence" vessel to operate.

Maybe even give them a few that could operate in ice?

  :

 

[Monsoon]

If only we had another department tasked with maritime defence...

Perhaps they could be given some sort of "coastal defence" vessel to operate.

Maybe even give them a few that could operate in ice?

  :

And then provide them with an operational C2 structure, use of force doctrine and work-ups, weapons handling training, a supply system for ammunition management, etc, etc, etc... The CCG ain't the USCG, and with the resources available to Canada I'm not sure it makes sense to duplicate the use of force capability across two separate maritime agencies.

 

[serger989]

Unfortunately, jmt, the AOPS are not a good match for the coast guard. They are a bit like a swiss army knife: they have many tools but none of them is even close to the real one in capacity.

They are hybrid vessels at best. Capable of operating in ice, but not really ice breakers - river or arctic ; capable of patrol, but nowhere close to the level of a proper OPV that would be preferred by the coast guard for fisheries protection; not really capable of towing, at least not any better than your standard warship is; reasonable SAR platform, but again, not as good as a dedicated platform for such duties; and finally, and that is the last nail in the coffin as far as coast guard is concerned, they are not work boats that can carry out navigation aids servicing.

Personally, I think Irving's idea is:

(1) Bad;
(2) a feeble attempt by Irving at stealing work that belongs to Seaspan;
(3) a gross misunderstanding by Irving of the Shipbuilding Strategy, which is aimed at helping the industry to rebuild and modernize - which Irving allegedly has done - so it can then compete and obtain its own work in the regular market, not so the Government of Canada can be the only actual constant provider of work.

So as far as I am concerned, Irving can go fly a kite: If it has a bit of slack between two different GoC orders, that is exactly when it is supposed to get off its fat a## and get itself some real work. Otherwise, there is no point in the God damn strategy, and we may as well start getting bids again on every piece of kit Canada wants to buy to benefit from the competition.

I ended up listening to/reading this, and it kind of pertains to what you say about not relying off the government for work.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/national-defence/42-1/34/john-schmidt-1/

I am glad the government is actually looking into the issues and long term solutions to this.

 

[Kirkhill]

Serger - thanks for that.

Despite some concerns over special pleading on the part of Davie and also local MPs defending Irving and Seaspan the testimony brought out a few points of interest:

Warships - 40% ship 60% weapons
Ships - 50% labour 50% materials

Engineering costs on Asterix/Resolve 30,000,000 CAD
Labour costs in Canada comparable to Europe

Canadian costs for AOPS vs Svalbard undefined/undefinable
Canadian costs for JSS vs Berlin undefined/undefinable.

Some Canadian companies can meet foreign suppliers needs more easily than they can meet domestic needs.

Davie is arguing Capacity is the problem with the NSPS
But that only applies if there is money to build the ships "needed" faster.

Now admittedly it does seem that some of that money could come from the "savings" possible between the price of Svalbard and Berlin vs the price of AOPS and JSS.  But that would mean reducing the money going to Irving and Seaspan for the same amount of work - probably not a bad thing but how do you do it?

Davie seems to be arguing that there is no reason why Canada can't build ships competitively with European yards, regardless of subsidies.

 

[Kirkhill]

I put this here because of the reference to the design:

Ice-class tanker reaches remote port in Russian push to open Arctic Ocean to oil and gas shipments

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/ice-class-tanker-reaches-remote-port-in-russian-push-to-open-arctic-ocean-to-oil-and-gas-shipments


This image got my attention - going backwards through the ice.

From a separate article
http://www.lngworldshipping.com/news/view,daewoo-readies-prototype-yamal-icebreaking-lngc-for-action_43397.htm

Super carriers

Yamal’s 15 icebreaking LNGCs are being built to the double-acting ship (DAS) design developed by Aker Arctic in 2003 for a pair of 110,000 dwt oil tankers for use in Neste Shipping’s Baltic Sea operations. The DAS technology enables ice class vessels to proceed in the conventional bow forward direction in open seas and thin ice but astern in thicker ice and the full icebreaking mode.

Astern icebreaking operations on the Yamal LNGCs will be assisted by a heavy-scantling, aft hull structure and a podded propulsion system. Each ship will employ six Wärtsilä dual-fuel engines, comprising four 12-cylinder and two 9-cylinder 50DF units. The complement is able to deliver up to 45MW of power to the three ABB Azipod propeller units on each vessel.
Wärtsilä engines were considered as being the most suitable for handling the extreme engine load variations that can occur within a short timespan when a ship is proceeding through thick ice.

The Azipod units also facilitate icebreaking operations. When a podded ship runs astern in ice, the propellers mill the underwater part of the ridge, cutting a passage through, and at the same time generating a flow of water flow which flushes the hull, facilitating progress through the ridge field.

This was the design rejected for the AOPS.  A design with a Canadian west coast connection and one which was adopted in the 70 MUSD Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard and which permits optimization of the hull for ocean going operations when going forwards and ice operations when going backwards.

But that'll never work.

 

[Stoker]

I see lots of pictures of heavy commercial ice breakers and makes mention often of the Norwegian Navy Svalbard Class ship. The way I look at it AOPS will be able to operate quite well during the time and season the RCN has decided in its concept of operations. They will be heavily utilized on other missions throughout the rest of the year so they certainly won't be tied up. To compare it and its capabilities to another navy or commercial interests is wrong as their requirements for their own vessels and what the government wants them to do or go is determined by the government of that nation.
When complete they will put the RCN back to the Arctic in a bigger way and be able to on a regular basis conduct fisheries patrols, wildlife patrols etc and actually police the Arctic in conjunction with other government departments. My experience patrolling the Arctic waters on missions the AOPS will do is extensive and these will add great RCN capability and do things the CCG won't do.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can accept a charge of 'catalogue shopping'.  I will even accept being accused of 'situating the estimate' by deciding on a vessel first and then designing a concept of operations afterwards.

What I struggle with is that prior to the entry of the Svalbard concept into the discussion there was no Concept of Operations for the RCN in the Arctic.  So then the RCN created a Concept of Operations that resulted in something close to, but not identical to, the Svalbard which seems to have resulted in delays and costs to produce a novel design.

I don't doubt that the AOPS will increase the RCN's presence in the North, and possibly even the Arctic, but wouldn't the original Svalbard design have done at least as well?

 

[jmt18325]

Yeah - I don't understand why we didn't just buy the design and build it.