Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 487706 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 139,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,622
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1875 on: May 23, 2019, 20:11:41 »
Besides maybe the now one only polar icebreaker planned, might some further icebreakers go the Davie?

Mark
Ottawa

That is actually the thought that entered my mind: There as been no mention whatsoever of the replacement of the CCG icebreaker fleet. The Multi-Task vessels are considered light icebreakers - they can give an extra hand, especially in spring lighter ice that has already partially melted and is starting to break on its own, but they cannot do the heavy River and Arctic lifting required during the coldest part of the season. For that last part, the Coast Guard needs its six actual icebreakers  (Seven with Captain Molly Kool?).

The icebreakers - not mentioned - go from 32 years old for the Henry Larsen to 50 for the Louis-St-Laurent, with three of them (the Type 1200) basically at 40.

So the lack of mention is either indicative of the Liberal intending to go with the three interim icebreakers being updated at Davie as permanent replacement of the Type 1200, the Diefenbaker replacing the Louis and the Terry-Fox and Henry-Larsen going on for an odd 20 more years ...

Or, the real idea is to "select"* Davie as the third NSS yard, after a "rigorous" selection process and then announce that it will get the icebreakers.

P.S.: That would certainly be a smart move, IMHO, as building actual icebreakers is a more specialized form of shipbuilding and it makes sense to concentrate it at a single specialist yard.


*: Magically!

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1876 on: Yesterday at 07:29:39 »
Are all these ships possible? Even adding Davie into the mix we will have three yards building non stop for 30 years at current rate.

That sounds about right though 3 yards at a ship a year each gives you 90 ships over 30 years, then start over. Might be some ongoing issues for the first 30 year cycle but if the government stays the course we should end up with a logical progression plan. History suggests that wont happen but I can hope.

The costing has never made any sense on this program partly due to funding yard modernization, but mostly since the government seems to have given away its negotiating leverage. Perhaps going forward it would be wiser for the yards to have to actually submit/compete among each other for the work. Probably the only comparable on ship construction would come from South Korea as it seems that every other national endeavor seems to have subsidies buried in there somewhere.

Lots of questions and concerns about the NSS but more about the execution than the premise.

Hopefully these next two AOPS don't cost more than the sixth one? Usually it is claimed that shipbuilding cost go down over longer production runs
Meanwhile Seaspan is building the AOR without a contract in place!
Does a 2:6 ratio of AOPS for the CCG:RCN even make sense?
To me they should almost be reversed. Correct me if I am wrong but does not the CCG only have 6 ships with a greater Ice Class than the AOPS?

Years ago I was told by Minister O'Connor that it would be impossible for the ship construction assignments to be switched between Irving and Seaspan due to the commitments already made and that the ship yard modernization completed prohibited the ability of Irving for example building the AOR's. I did not believe it then and I do not today, but most of what i know about ships I have learned from this site.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 252
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1877 on: Yesterday at 07:46:34 »
I had mentioned the pricing of the 2 AOPS CCG ships previously.  Here is the article that discusses prices.

https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/irving-to-build-two-more-arctic-patrol-ships-in-halifax-314621/

Irving to build two more Arctic patrol ships in Halifax
$1.5-billion purchase to offset production gap

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1878 on: Yesterday at 08:07:45 »
I had mentioned the pricing of the 2 AOPS CCG ships previously.  Here is the article that discusses prices.

https://www.sackvilletribunepost.com/news/irving-to-build-two-more-arctic-patrol-ships-in-halifax-314621/

Irving to build two more Arctic patrol ships in Halifax
$1.5-billion purchase to offset production gap

I took that as more of a guestimate as it is a crazy number. We were told the sixth ship cost twice as much because the government was paying for the slowed down production. What is the excuse for the 7th and 8th ship?

Ships 1-5  $460 per
Ship 6       $810 or $518 per
Ships 7-8  $750 or $576 per

I have read in the past in regards to ship costing from USN that you basically flatten out at 9 platforms, nowhere have I seen an explanation for the cost to increase as production maturity is reached. If this is true then there is obviously no incentive for either Irving or Seaspan to even try to be competitive.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 153
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1879 on: Yesterday at 09:35:08 »
I took that as more of a guestimate as it is a crazy number.
Numbers seven and eight are not Harry DeWolfs.  They are modified Harry DeWolfs.  And, as such, they will cost extra for re-design work and government program management.  I suspect, however, that the vast majority of the extra cost is a—nudge nudge wink wink—subsidy for Irving to help them prepare for the surface combatants. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1880 on: Yesterday at 09:49:49 »
That sounds about right though 3 yards at a ship a year each gives you 90 ships over 30 years, then start over. Might be some ongoing issues for the first 30 year cycle but if the government stays the course we should end up with a logical progression plan. History suggests that wont happen but I can hope.

The costing has never made any sense on this program partly due to funding yard modernization, but mostly since the government seems to have given away its negotiating leverage. Perhaps going forward it would be wiser for the yards to have to actually submit/compete among each other for the work. Probably the only comparable on ship construction would come from South Korea as it seems that every other national endeavor seems to have subsidies buried in there somewhere.

Lots of questions and concerns about the NSS but more about the execution than the premise.

Hopefully these next two AOPS don't cost more than the sixth one? Usually it is claimed that shipbuilding cost go down over longer production runs
Meanwhile Seaspan is building the AOR without a contract in place!
Does a 2:6 ratio of AOPS for the CCG:RCN even make sense?
To me they should almost be reversed. Correct me if I am wrong but does not the CCG only have 6 ships with a greater Ice Class than the AOPS?

Years ago I was told by Minister O'Connor that it would be impossible for the ship construction assignments to be switched between Irving and Seaspan due to the commitments already made and that the ship yard modernization completed prohibited the ability of Irving for example building the AOR's. I did not believe it then and I do not today, but most of what i know about ships I have learned from this site.

Ice classes are confusing and in a previous post I did it appears the AOPS are rated less than the current 1100 class  (Black, Pearkes) which are the current multi-task ships. The Multi task ships have a dual hook 10 ton crane, fast rescue boat, deep hold with between decks for storing buoys, chains, anchors and other stores, plus a hanger for a helicopter.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 71,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,448
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1881 on: Yesterday at 10:43:52 »
Suffolkowner: To repeat:

Quote
In 2015 cost of five RCN A/OPS from Irving was $3.5B or $700M each:
https://www.cgai.ca2015_status_report_on_major_defence_equipment_procurements#ArcticOffshorePatrolShip

Sixth ship added and cost went to $4.3B, last ship most expensive (!) at $800M:
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html

Cost of two more for CCG "Under review":
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/projets-projects-eng.html#s7

So the costing for Justin's big 18 new vessels for CCG announced May 22 is thin to say the least. Last minute effort to buy votes without proper procurement groundwork having been done.
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,64037.msg1572562.html#msg1572562

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1882 on: Yesterday at 10:56:16 »
Shocked I tell you, shocked that no groundwork has been done.......

He is trying to buy us with our money. 

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,838
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1883 on: Yesterday at 11:16:37 »
Ice classes are confusing and in a previous post I did it appears the AOPS are rated less than the current 1100 class  (Black, Pearkes) which are the current multi-task ships. The Multi task ships have a dual hook 10 ton crane, fast rescue boat, deep hold with between decks for storing buoys, chains, anchors and other stores, plus a hanger for a helicopter.

The Canadian government has a weird way of ice classing ships, based on zones of the Canadian arctic/periods of entry.

The AOPS are PC5, but they're billing it as "PC5+".

The short description of PC5 is first year ice, which arguably puts them at about the same as the 1100 class ice breakers, which only operate solo in first year ice.

It's got to be a purely political decision, the AOPS are a foolish buy for the coast guard.

They're not really suitable to replace any of the multi-role ice breakers, they'd be limited in what they can do in other roles the only ships I can see them being suitable to to replace are the Cygnus and the Cape Roger, but but neither are ice breakers or have any ice breaker tasking, so it's a lot of hull/power you don't need, plus ice breaker hulls typically make terrible sea boats, both the cygnus and the cape roger regularly find themselves in severe weather on a grand banks.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1884 on: Yesterday at 14:38:09 »
Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions

Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions

Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions

Sources = Wiki and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,202
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,838
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1885 on: Yesterday at 16:19:52 »
Wiki lists the AOPS as PC- 5= Year-round operation in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions

Wiki lists the 1100 class as Arctic class 2 = Appears to be equivalent to PC -3 = Year-round operation in second-year ice, which may include multi-year ice inclusions

Wiki lists the Radisson as Arctic Class 3 =Appears to be equivalent to PC -2 = Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions

Sources = Wiki and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Class

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/8074/Ice%20Class%20Rules_CD.pdf

Keep in mind that surveys of the current ships conditions might have downgraded their ice class based on the hull condition of these ships which all have been well used.

The 1100 class ships were designed as Arctic 2, however early in their life in was found they were/are not suitable for arctic operations after suffering damage in ice conditions they were classed for.

Presently they are only operated in seasonal/first year ice... one of the goals of the future life extension project is to bring the weaker portions of the hull *up* to a PC5 standard.

Assuming the AOPS meets their design specifications, they should be roughly equivilent to the 1100 class ships.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 335
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1886 on: Yesterday at 18:29:08 »
I think the PC5+ is because the bow is PC4 and the hull is PC5

The numbers all around don't make a lot of sense. Mark I was just using the construction costs not the so called design cost etc.

Online Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 896
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1887 on: Yesterday at 21:50:02 »
I think the PC5+ is because the bow is PC4 and the hull is PC5

The numbers all around don't make a lot of sense. Mark I was just using the construction costs not the so called design cost etc.

Something like that.  The engineers who were working on the project did a presentation for one of my courses.  Told us that they strengthened specific parts (mainly front end) of the ship beyond PC5 "just in case".  Helps with ice inclusions apparently and will also help the new CO's as they learn a bit more about how to recognize ice strength etc...  They made us (jokingly) promise to never tell the watchkeepers this information.

Wiki is off on this particular ship, but that's ok.  For all intents and purposes they are PC5.