Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[NavyShooter]

Unlike the Monty Python sketch about the Art of not Being Seen, there is, sometimes, great value in having our national flag shown in certain areas.

Waving the flag is not just something for Canada Day, or for IIHF games.  Every day in the RCN is Flag Day. 

Our warships are a means of demonstrating our national sovereignty wherever they go.  Or rather, wherever they are SEEN to go.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ok, I have to ask this question, if its 2,000NM closer to Nanisivik approaching from the east - all the while going through our own waterways, then why not base all of the AOPS out of Halifax and then just have them run up to Nanisivik and then push further west to the end of our area of responsibility and then turn back again towards Nanisivik.  They will be travelling a lesser distance. Why bother travelling over 3,500NM through US and International waters before even beginning to police our own backyard? What value is in it for us?

CCG finds value in having ice breakers based in BC to cover the Western Arctic, it also means the ship can conduct other tasks when not on arctic duty.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CCG finds value in having ice breakers based in BC to cover the Western Arctic, it also means the ship can conduct other tasks when not on arctic duty.

Why not just station 3 of the 6 Kingston class ships from the East Coast over to the West Coast (having 9 in total stationed there on the West Coast) and put all 5/6 AOPS on the East Coast?  The AOPS can then cover all of the arctic in a shorter time period.  If the CCG still stations true ice breakers on the West Coast for operations on the Western Arctic, fine, no harm done. They can fly the flag in that area as much as they want and they'll have a longer season to do so since they are most likely better than a Polar Class 6 that the AOPS may/will have.

 

[Stoker]

Ok, I have to ask this question, if its 2,000NM closer to Nanisivik approaching from the east - all the while going through our own waterways, then why not base all of the AOPS out of Halifax and then just have them run up to Nanisivik and then push further west to the end of our area of responsibility and then turn back again towards Nanisivik.  They will be travelling a lesser distance. Why bother travelling over 3,500NM through US and International waters before even beginning to police our own backyard? What value is in it for us?

Because we don't like keeping all our assets in one place, keep in mind AOPS will be deploying lots of other places other than the Arctic.

 

[Underway]

Why not just station 3 of the 6 Kingston class ships from the East Coast over to the West Coast (having 9 in total stationed there on the West Coast) and put all 5/6 AOPS on the East Coast?  The AOPS can then cover all of the arctic in a shorter time period.  If the CCG still stations true ice breakers on the West Coast for operations on the Western Arctic, fine, no harm done. They can fly the flag in that area as much as they want and they'll have a longer season to do so since they are most likely better than a Polar Class 6 that the AOPS may/will have.

Kingston class are perfect for around the islands and inshore area's in and around Alaska and BC.  They have a shallow draft, are super maneuverable and can go just about anywhere.

Western Arctic is an ingress point in the northwest passage.  Need to cover both sides.  Also AOPS does other jobs than just arctic stuff.  Though I expect there will more of them out East then on the West coast.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Interesting re: AOPS being deployed elsewhere.  Great Lakes tours would be a good show, but is there something of operational value that this ship brings to say, a relief operation in the Caribbean, or anti-drug operations, that the 330's and/or the Asterix do not?  Just asking.
I could, for example, see the ship being useful in the event of search and rescue / debris and body recovery operation at sea. Are there diving support facilities that are unique to the ship? Etc. 

I've come around to the position that it is a good thing these ships are being built for the navy, they will give many young sailors a chance to experience the arctic and other places that the navy seldom goes. But,  I also believe that a sovereignty vessel they should have a very advanced surveillance sensor capability that is built in (not just modular), and it seems the current equipment fit does not bring a whole lot that is new to the table.

 

[Stoker]

Interesting re: AOPS being deployed elsewhere.  Great Lakes tours would be a good show, but is there something of operational value that this ship brings to say, a relief operation in the Caribbean, or anti-drug operations, that the 330's and/or the Asterix do not?  Just asking.
I could, for example, see the ship being useful in the event of search and rescue / debris and body recovery operation at sea. Are there diving support facilities that are unique to the ship? Etc. 

I've come around to the position that it is a good thing these ships are being built for the navy, they will give many young sailors a chance to experience the arctic and other places that the navy seldom goes. But,  I also believe that a sovereignty vessel they should have a very advanced surveillance sensor capability that is built in (not just modular), and it seems the current equipment fit does not bring a whole lot that is new to the table.

The ships will be eventually equipped with a UAV. You are correct the ships will be used for the Arctic, Anti Drug, Fisheries, Search and Rescue, Support to other government departments, disaster relief and whatever else the RCN wants them to do.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Is it true that the 5/6 AOPS is intended to replace all 12 of the Kingston class? How is this even feasible?

 

[Stoker]

Is it true that the 5/6 AOPS is intended to replace all 12 of the Kingston class? How is this even feasible?

That's not correct, the Kingston Class will continue to be used for at least another decade.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If that’s the case, then who’s going to build them? Neither of the two ordained shipyards will have any ability at all to build any new ships in at least 13-15yrs in the case of Seapan and for Irving into the 2040s if they are going to be building 1frigate per year until then. How will this be achieved? The more I read and research and understand about this entire rebuild of the coast guard and the navy the more I’m convinced it’s totally screwed and virtually nothing will correct it. It’s FUBAR.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks for the reply and the info.
I was able to find an article from 2015 which talked about a pair of Kingston class ships doing a patrol up to Tuk where it talked about the trip being 6,500km - not sure if that was one way or round trip. If that’s the distance for one way, that would mean a min of say 16,000km for the entire patrol - is that considered a normal distance for a single patrol? Also, considering that large distances of the trip going and coming will be in water with a fair amount of Russian sub activity, will they have any ability to at least indentify if they are being tracked by a Russian sub? Will the helo on board be armed with sonar and mk48’s? It seems a long way to send a ship with only a little 25mm canon.

Mk48 is an awfully big fish for a helo.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Mk48 is an awfully big fish for a helo.

Yep! Try and load a couple of them on a helo and ... I am not sure it will ever take off  ;D.

Now, I don't believe Czech_Pivo is a seaman, so we should cut him some slack.

I also think that many people see the A, for Arctic, but forget the O, for Offshore.

The concept behind the acquisition of the AOPS was combining the RCN's wish for larger offshore patrol vessels to substitute in for the combat vessels (destroyers and frigates) for the support of other departments duties in winter on the Grand Banks or off Haida Gwai (the Old Queen Charlottes islands for those of you who don't update your maps of Canada from time to time  ;D) and the Government of the day's fixation of the day of foisting on the RCN Arctic duties in ice. These winter duties off the shores of Canada were too much for a small vessel like the MCDV's which are not meant to work effectively in such harsh weather. Not that there is anything wrong with the MCDV's themselves: They are great little ships for their purpose - which is primarily mine warfare and support for other similar underwater duties - not patrolling offshore in high sea states.

So the idea is: in summer, the AOPS carry out their Arctic duties. Once the ice hardens in, they move South to do Other Departments Support duties in the Canadian EEZ. And that is why you have some on the West coast as well as on the East coast - not because we like to split our assets from one coast to the other (which wasn't so with the aircraft carriers, the cruisers, the DDH's, the O-boats, the diving support ship Cormorant, or the training vessels, to name a few instances of not splitting assets)

The MCDV's will be retained because: (1) they are great little ships for their duty as mine warfare support crafts; (2) they are economical, even as compared to AOPS, for inshore general duties; (3) they have a lot of life left in them; and, (4) they are much more readily available vessels for reserve officers and seamen training.

Finally, regardless of how busy ISL and Seaspan get, there are more than enough small and medium size shipyards in Canada (and very large ones if you include Davie) to compete for and build the next generation of mine warfare crafts when the need arises in 10-15 years.

 

[Underway]

If that’s the case, then who’s going to build them? Neither of the two ordained shipyards will have any ability at all to build any new ships in at least 13-15yrs in the case of Seapan and for Irving into the 2040s if they are going to be building 1frigate per year until then. How will this be achieved? The more I read and research and understand about this entire rebuild of the coast guard and the navy the more I’m convinced it’s totally screwed and virtually nothing will correct it. It’s FUBAR.

Any shipyard can build a build an MCDV.  They are literally the simplest ships.  Less than 1000 tonnes and 50m long.  There are a number of yards in Canada that could build them easy.  Hell, Davie could build 3 at a time they have a tonne of capacity.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yep! Try and load a couple of them on a helo and ... I am not sure it will ever take off  ;D.

Now, I don't believe Czech_Pivo is a seaman, so we should cut him some slack.

True.

Czech_Pivo, a maritime helicopter is going to use something much smaller, like the Mk 46.

I also think that many people see the A, for Arctic, but forget the O, for Offshore.

Or they see it Arctic Offshore, vice Arctic / Offshore. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

Or they see it Arctic Offshore, vice Arctic / Offshore.

There’s a difference?

Like Safe & Stowed or Safe/Stowed?  One of my biggest pet peeves.

Are there plans to embark a CH-148?  I would think for fisheries/sov & offshore patrols the CH-148 would come in quite handy.

 

[jmt18325]

The bow is being joined to the rest of the ship:

https://twitter.com/IrvingShipbuild/status/939116965075005441

 

[Half Full]

if you can't access twitter...here is an article from NavalToday:

https://navaltoday.com/2017/12/08/canadian-navys-first-aops-hmcs-harry-dewolf-takes-shape/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There’s a difference?

Like Safe & Stowed or Safe/Stowed?  One of my biggest pet peeves.

Are there plans to embark a CH-148?  I would think for fisheries/sov & offshore patrols the CH-148 would come in quite handy.

Well, ya like people think it means "offshore in the arctic" vice "arctic or offshore"....

My pet peeve is the "offline continuity check complete" being called before hearing "AOIU power is off".  ;D

Time to make the donuts...feliz navidad! 

 

[Underway]

Some photos I took today.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair do's - she looks good.