Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs, do you want to send equipment that would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate? Personnel will have enough to worry why make things harder for them?

Kirkhill:
page 17 for the type of LCVP we use. wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc33/exnh/paddock.doc

It depends how much more capability they give me in the environment as opposed to the less maintenance intensive option.  If they can be used on open water, over broken ice or pack ice (and that happens to be superior to what we can do in an LCVP-type vehicle), then 'yes', I'd probably go for the maintenance pig.


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

They don't add any capability if they are down for repairs or sidelined for maintenance all the time....

Admittedly its been several years since I did any sort of Arctic training but from what I remember equipment that required less maintenance was more desired...of course things may have changed...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs, do you want to send equipment that would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate? Personnel will have enough to worry why make things harder for them?

Kirkhill:
page 17 for the type of LCVP we use. wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc33/exnh/paddock.doc

Hovercraft are also notorious maintenance pigs= correct

would be even harder to maintain in such an inhospitable climate= Already been done, one of the SRN6 I worked on in the CCG spent most of it's life in the Arctic. ATL also used large Finnish hoverferries converted to hovercraft as well, they lacked directioal stabilty due to their bag design.


My personal favorite are these boats (giving people a chance to drive one these would help with recruiting!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYXBvCrzbHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPmVuXqENM&feature=related

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

http://www.eliteukforces.info/uksf-gear/lcvp/

Is this the same LCVP that we are currently embarking?

It seems to fit the 6 tonne requirement.

The requirement is for 10 tons, but 14 tons is preferred. That moves it into LCM/LCU territory. Both vessels are way too big to be operated from an AOPS.

Apparently they want to be able to land a Viking. We don't have any, but maybe they're thinking of buying them too.

D Contains all AOPS Technical Statement of
Requirements as of 14 April 2008
DELMS Contractor Notes BMT comments PMO AOPS comments
SRD-496 The AOPS shall have one landing craft that:
a.  complies with appropriate Classification Society or
equivalent standards,
b.  has a diesel powered propulsion system,
c.  can maintain a speed of at least 15 knots at full
power when fully loaded,
d.  has a range of at least 250 nautical miles at 15 knots
when fully loaded,
e.  has load carrying capability - in addition to fuel, crew
and crew effects - of not less than 10 tonnes (desirable
14 tonnes),
f.  can transport a land force or OGD contingent of up to
forty personnel with their personal weapons and
equipment,
g.  has a load carrying area sufficient in size and
configuration to accommodate one Carrier, Utility,
Articulated, Tracked, Amphibious, BV206,
h.  has the beaching capability and ramp suitable for
landing and recovering Carrier, Utility, Articulated,
Tracked, Amphibious, BV206,
i.  has a fully enclosed, weather tight, environmentally
controlled, “walk around” cabin/wheelhouse,
j.  has a portable canopy system sufficient to shelter the
whole load carrying area, and
k.  is fitted with one marine head with associated sanitary facilities and holding tanks. This requirement will be further developed
by PMO AOPS during definition.
For the purposes of this requirement, the
Carrier, Utility, Articulated, Tracked,
Amphibious, BV206 shall be assumed to
have the dimensions, weight and other
relevant characteristics of the BAE
Systems Hägglunds BvS 10 (essentially a
slightly larger and armored version of the
Bv206).
The DELMS Contractor to conduct a
market search for possible solutions.
The DELMS Contractor to identify the
Classification or equivalent standards:
applied to any off-the-shelf landing craft, or
that need to be mandated for a
new/modified landing craft.
The requirement is to carry 40 personnel or
vehicles/cargo, not both simultaneously.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're right DSM.

I read that but ended up focusing on the 6 tonne Bv206 vice the 10 tonne Viking.

If anybody were asking, and they ain't, I would be building the Volume necessary to hold the LCM/LCU, and keep the Jetboats under cover.  As I understand it, (and poorly), it doesn't cost very much to wrap some steel around an empty space - as opposed to building Accomodation or a Combat space for example.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST.

Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The LCM and LCU are pretty large...> 60 tons. I don't think you could adequately operate them from an AOPS unless it was the size of an LST.

Maybe it would be a better idea to just build new LST's as patrol boats and not use landing craft.

Actually the DEW line was built using LST's if I recall correctly. Landing craft have have become commercially non viable for a variety of reasons, including manning requirement, lack of flexibility. The ramp equipped barge has taken their place. We could use a notched barge with a pusher tug, which is generally faster than towing. But this could also limit flexibility for naval ops. A dedicated shallow draft LST could operate well up there, but they are pigs in a heavy sea. They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

They could be manned by a Arctic based naval reserve.

There have often been troubles in finding enough shads for the MCDVs to sail.  I doubt that this would be a more popular option, once the novelty of not always being on an MCDV wears off.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How about an Arctic recruited Naval Reserve?

That's what I mean, having small patrol vessels based in the Arctic and manned by people that live there, it would provide employment, build a corp of people used to the North and minimize using human assets from down south. It would take time to build it up, likely start one unit in the Western Arctic and one in the East, later maybe more units in Cambridge and Coppermine. They could work close with the Rangers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I doubt right away. I would start out with a couple of 40' patrol boats at each end. They are big enough to do overnight patrols, teach basic skills and be mainatined locally and can be hauled out and dry stored on land in the winter, this was how ATL handled it's fleet. As i understand it Invuik had a military base with up to 250 people on it. This would be a good place to start again. it will take time to build the skill sets and get people in long enough to get promoted.



Some light reading

http://www.usmm.org/msts/arctic.html

http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/Arctic.htm

http://www.mfa.is/media/Utgafa/Breaking_The_Ice_Conference_Report.pdf

http://www.akeryards.com/?page=580&xml=A/134984/PR/200802/1193541

 

[NavyShooter]

Enough people of Arctic ships?

Do we have enough people for 12 frigates, 3 destroyers and a couple of AOR's?

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.

 

[dimsum]

I suspect the Navy will manage to have one ship manned with a smallish mixed crew of naval reservist and regulars mostly the latter.

Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Unless NAVRES recruiting numbers have gone up a lot in the past year and a bit, I suspect we're having enough problems manning MCDVs, let alone anything else.

I would also suspect the Kingston class would be slowly withdrawn from service to free up some personnel for the AOPs.

 

[HalfmyLife]

I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.

 

[Sailorwest]

I believe laying up the kingston class was part of the plan since they are not considering to do a mid life refit for them.

The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?

The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.

 

[HalfmyLife]

The adults would need to give some serious consideration as to where to set priorities. The drop of the mid-life refit leads one to think that the KIN class would not remain in service past 2015 or so but how many mid life refits did the PB's or gate boats have in their 40+ years?

The real issue for the AOPS will be manning. You have the JSS and a potential requirement for a replacement to the 280's in works all coupled with the current recruiting retention problems.

Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though

 

[Sailorwest]

Comparing MCDV to Gate Vsl and PB's is an apple vs orange Comparison. Like comparing the FFH to the steamers they replaced. I do agree that manning/retention and recruiting are the main issue though

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.