Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Navy_Pete]

Probably some more training working in ice and like you said when the CO is satisfied. You won't have to start out over.

Isn't that the standard approach for BWK tickets in general from going between classes?  There is always a delta with how the ship handles, emergency procedures etc, so I've always seen a retraining period for BWKs going between the heavies. 

 

[Stoker]

Isn't that the standard approach for BWK tickets in general from going between classes?  There is always a delta with how the ship handles, emergency procedures etc, so I've always seen a retraining period for BWKs going between the heavies.

Speaking to my bosses , what may eventually happen that all NWO's will get their tickets on a CPF, then will go to Kingston Class or Harry Dewolf and after receiving the confidence of the CO be endorsed to that class. As for NWO's in the OP situation probably will be grandfathered and have to go to a CPF to get that endorsement and then move on to the Harry DeWolf. Although the CO of Margret Brooks a former reservist I believe never received her BWK on a CPF.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link - CBC

Ottawa buys another Arctic and offshore patrol ship to be built in Halifax

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government will buy a 6th ship when the plan was to build 5


The federal government is purchasing another ship to be built in Halifax, the defence minister says a day after Ottawa awarded $7 billion in contracts to three shipyards for work on Royal Canadian Navy frigates — leaving concerns over an 18-month gap in work for Irving Shipyard employees.

The government will buy a sixth Arctic and offshore patrol ship for the navy, Harjit Sajjan said to a crowd at the Irving Shipyard in Halifax on Friday.


"The women and men of the Irving Shipyard build incredible ships and are essential for enabling the success of the Royal Canadian Navy," said Sajjan.

The government originally planned to purchase five Arctic and offshore patrol ships.

Public Services and Procurement Canada announced Thursday in a news release that it intends to sign contracts worth $7 billion with Davie in Lévis, Que., Irving Shipbuilding Inc. in Halifax and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in Victoria for maintenance on 12 Canadian navy ships.

With the maintenance program split between three yards, workers in Halifax feared they would be laid off in between the end of the patrol ships program and the start of the Canadian Surface Combatant program.

Last month, Irving employees held a march in Halifax to protest against the Liberal government's intention to split the contracts with other yards, saying it would result in job losses.

Friday's announcement appears to be aimed at allaying those fears.

In a news release, the Department of National Defence said the sixth ship will help sustain hundreds of jobs at Irving shipyards.

"Today's announcement is good news for the Royal Canadian Navy, but it is also good news for Canadians, our economy and the city of Halifax. This is a region with deep ties to our navy," said Sajjan.

"By adding a sixth Arctic and offshore patrol ship, we are ensuring that our Royal Canadian Navy remains an agile and responsive force for years to come, so that Canada can continue to assert and enforce our Arctic sovereignty," he said.

Irving will begin construction on the fourth Arctic and offshore patrol vessel later this year.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?

I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....

 

[PuckChaser]

The sole concern isnt capability or fiscal responsibility, its pork barrelling jobs (especially at Iriving).

 

[NavyShooter]

Well, 6 AOPS to replace 12 Frigates sounds about right...

 

[Uzlu]

Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?

I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....

In an alternate universe, there is no sixth Harry DeWolf, there are massive layoffs at Irving after completion of the fifth ship, the expense of re-hiring shipbuilders for the start of the first surface combatant is too expensive to build fifteen surface combatants, and the Royal Canadian Navy would have liked to have seen a sixth Harry DeWolf to prevent the loss of the fifteenth surface combatant.

 

[Czech_pivo]

In an alternate universe, there is no sixth Harry DeWolf, there are massive layoffs at Irving after completion of the fifth ship, the expense of re-hiring shipbuilders for the start of the first surface combatant is too expensive to build fifteen surface combatants, and the Royal Canadian Navy would have liked to have seen a sixth Harry DeWolf to prevent the loss of the fifteenth surface combatant.

Or, Irving gets all 7 Halifax's to work on under the 7 billion maintenance programme and there are no layoffs.

 

[Stoker]

Anyone ask the RCN if they wanted/needed a 6th one?

I'm willing to bet that given the choice of accepting a 6th AOPS or using that money to ensure that 15 CSC's were built, that the RCN would have chosen the  2nd option....

Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Ottawa buys another Arctic and offshore patrol ship to be built in Halifax

In a news release, the Department of National Defence said the sixth ship will help sustain hundreds of jobs at Irving shipyards.

Condensed version of the entire article...

 

[Kirkhill]

Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.

I believe the original plan was for 8.

 

[Uzlu]

Or, Irving gets all 7 Halifax's to work on under the 7 billion maintenance programme and there are no layoffs.

Is it in Canada’s best interest to have three shipbuilding companies capable of building or at the very least refitting large ships?

 

[Stoker]

I believe the original plan was for 8.

The original ask for for 6 to 8 and that takes into account ships being into maintenance cycles, readiness training.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Absolutely, the RCN would gladly take 6 as all the tasks and missions it has for it they will be stretched thin.

Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?

 

[YZT580]

Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?

If they make the Armed Forces a desirable career, absolutely.  Kind words such as those by Ford can go a long way towards that goal

 

[Stoker]

Wil the RCN have the crew and budget to keep 6 going?

I think so, crewing requirements are expected to be lower than needed with the level of automation onboard and 13 billets will be res.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think so, crewing requirements are expected to be lower than needed with the level of automation onboard and 13 billets will be res.

I seem to remember reading an article out of the UK that talked about their new carriers in which it was said that the crewing needs were to be about 700 personal needed per ship.  I also remember reading a more recent article again out of the UK that said that they revised upwards the number of crew needed after running the ship through her sea trails. The current number now stands at just over 800 crew per ship.  Note that these numbers do not include any of the air crews or Royal Marines needed.

As a result, I think that it would be safe/prudent to say that crewing needs may in fact be 7-8% higher than stated, both for the AOPS and the yet to be built CSC's - which as the number of 125 per ship being bantered about.

 

[Stoker]

I seem to remember reading an article out of the UK that talked about their new carriers in which it was said that the crewing needs were to be about 700 personal needed per ship.  I also remember reading a more recent article again out of the UK that said that they revised upwards the number of crew needed after running the ship through her sea trails. The current number now stands at just over 800 crew per ship.  Note that these numbers do not include any of the air crews or Royal Marines needed.

As a result, I think that it would be safe/prudent to say that crewing needs may in fact be 7-8% higher than stated, both for the AOPS and the yet to be built CSC's - which as the number of 125 per ship being bantered about.

The CPF's will be replaced one for one as the CSE's come online and a still a few years away. The 125 crew for ship probably won't change. Don't lose any sleep over this.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Quite possible that one AOP is leased to the CCG to fill in for a dead science research ship.

 

[jmt18325]

Quite possible that one AOP is leased to the CCG to fill in for a dead science research ship.

Why - the plan was for 6 originally.  That's what the navy wanted.