Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Loch Sloy!]

Do we have enough people interested up there to crew 6-8 OPVs?

I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.

 

[Sailorwest]

I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.

Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port.
Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm almost positive we would. In fact in some of the larger centers I would bet you could support an army reserve unit too. I have worked throughout most of the Eastern Arctic and in addition to a lack of employment there is also great enthusiasm for the military and for Canada as a nation. I understand that even entry into a Ranger detachment is highly sought after and highly competitve.

Speaking of the Rangers they already patrol in small vessels albiet locally owned ones.

which is why I propose that miltary in partnership with other agencies build small patrol vessesl that can be based, maintained and crewed out of the North. Nothing complex for now, basically creating a marine Ranger detachments. Vessels could be either:

http://www.titanboats.com/newboats.html

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sH-M_awQ7g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90

Vessels would be stored out of the water in a hanger in the winter, launching could be by Ramp or trailer. The benifit of this approach is that it lessens the need for southern personal, resources and increases the resources in the Arctic to support operations. Also funding could be tapped from other agencies for the employment of civilan staff to take care of the facilites. it would increase employment and strenghten the bond between the communities and the military.

Maybe I should start up a website promoting my idea, I could call it ARCTICCOMBATREFOMNOW.COM and promote the use of BV210 with 106mm RR on them and the Combat boat 90 of course I will have to come up with some name for them and ataack anyone who does not use it!  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Either I'm going a wee bit dottie, Loch Sloy, or you're ower early for Spring.

But back to the subject.  I have agreed with Colin on this one before, especially with respect to the CF acquiring CBH-90s or, as they are known in Danish service, LCPs (Landing Craft Personnel).

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/KnudRasmussen_Class(2007).htm
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

They launch the SAR version from a stern ramp (much like a trawler ramp) on their 1700 tonne OPVs.  Scroll down the last link to see a picture.

I think they would make a great addition to both the shore based Rangers as well as the boat inventory of larger vessels.

 

[gwp]

Two things. First, these ships will not likely have an exclusive arctic role. In truth, they are offshore patrol ships that will be ice-capable. That means that most of the role would be offshore fishery patrols, east and west coast where it is too expensive for a CPF and too difficult for a KIN. I don't think the intent would be that they remain in the arctic for extended durations but instead be able to cruise north for a two or three month period and operate out of whatever arctic port.
Secondly,the Navy operates as a national organization, unlike a regiment. You don't join MARPAC or MARLANT. The Naval Reserve is the same. West coast and east coast KIN class are manned by reservists from across the country, not just locally. It would be difficult to think that any northern Naval establishment would be different in this regard. At a certain level, the Rangers could be used for smaller boat patrols but I don't see it likely that they would be able to man these ships locally.

There is a lot of "blue skying" going on here.  This document may help everyone.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2370

 

[Stoker]

Ack. The point is, I don't think you need to have a formalized midlife refit for MWS like the KIN. Although I agree that they are more sophisticated than the ships they replace, they don't need to go through a full refit to continue to operate in their current role, well past a 20 year life span.

The MCDV's were envisioned to have a lifespan of 25 years. The "midlife" they were talking about can be easily turned back on as was turned off. As it stands now one MCDV west coast and east coast is put into extended readiness for a year, with a TRP process up to 6 months. This includes a docking period to inspect the hull, tanks etc. As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars, and new diesel beds among other things.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?

 

[aesop081]

As it stands now the ships are receiving brand new radars,

Type ?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Type ?

Any EWs know?

 

[Stoker]

Type ?

Bridge Master from Sperry.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html

 

[Stoker]

Not being an engineer type would these new diesel beds increase the MCDVs speed or range?

Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nope, but they will cut down on the vibration problems the DA's are having and hopefully cut down on the number of diesels catastrophically failing.

And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?

 

[Stoker]

And thereby increasing the MCDVs ability and availability to go to sea?

To a certain extent I guess. As it stands the ships are highly reliable due to the redundancy built into the plant.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thanks for the info.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?

 

[Stoker]

New diesel and beds or just new Diesels? What type do they have? Our cutter had an issue with one engine due to the need to hard mount it for the fire pump, normally viberation is issue of out of balance crank due to additional equipment, engine bed, attached equipment preventing the engine from floating on it's mounts, poor shaft alignment, cavitation on the propeller caused wrong design for vessel or interactions with the water passing near the hull and propeller which would create cavitation. Do the blades or hull around the blades suffer from pitting or loss of paint?

The original SACM UD 23 diesel was originally a stationary power plant diesel. For it to operate on MCDV's they converted it to "marine use", however the diesel beds weren't heavy enough and we began to have cracking from the weight and vibrations.  The beds are in poor shape , so a hole will be cut in each engine space, the diesel removed , a new more heavier bed will be installed and the original diesel will be reinstalled.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ah yes! let me guess they bought these engines as they were able to save some money instead of buying marine diesels........  :

 

[dimsum]

Bridge Master from Sperry.

http://jproc.ca/rrp/kingston.html

Finally!  The same radar displays as the rest of the fleet, who woulda thought?   

 

[Jack Stratton]

While the discussion seems to have wondered off into the issues associated with the MCDV. I am wondering why such a minimal spec was developed for the AOPS. If we look at the latest in ice going naval architecture from Finland (Kvaerner) it should be possible using azipod design to develop a vessel capable of actual offshore patrol (adequate speed) while going forwards, and decent ice breaking while in reverse (ability to ride up on ice). On the down side we would have to design a whole new hull and all that so the cost would be relatively higher than a conventional design.

Canada has too much coast line to buy a naval asset not capable of blue water operation, by the same token we probably ought to be able to conduct naval operations in arctic areas where we claim sovereignty. The proposed AOPS seems to be not quite up to either task. AOPS is a great concept, but the specification reminds me of the army AVGP (cougar/grizzly/husky) purchase in the 70s, a vehicle platform that was in theory all things to everyone, but in reality was too small and too poorly armoured for any serious combat and when the army started getting into more actual fights new kit had to bought to get the job done.

Just a newbie to the forums doing some thinking out loud here. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Where in all the literature regarding the the AOPs does it state they will not be capable of blue water operations? As for keeping the price down, we tend to trade off so we will be able to get them in the water sooner rather then later. Off topic, the JSS was a nightmare of a ship that did everything but ended up not getting built. If the AOPV can get the job done, then IMO thats what we need it to do.

WRT to the Cougar I believe that ones who have used in combat would tell you otherwise that it got the job done.