Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 398505 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1325 on: July 11, 2018, 14:35:55 »
Was the intent to use the AOPS to replace the MCDV's. I hadn't heard that before. Those 2 ships may have similar abilities but they also have significant differences.

What is the plan to replace the MCDV's?

I was under the impression that was the original plan. The AOPS would eventually replace the MCDV, if I’m sufficient numbers. But, it was scaled back from 8 to 5 or 6 vessels. So there was the recent study to determine if the lifespan of the MCDV could be extended for 5-15 years. As it stands now, the MCDV is to be used in conjunction with the AOPS for an indeterminate period of time, according to VADM Lloyd. But, I think if ISI got green lit to build a couple more, the RCN might revisit that plan and maybe divest some of the KINGSTON fleet.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 19,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1326 on: July 11, 2018, 15:38:24 »
That seems like a bad idea, replacing MCDV with AOPS?  KINGSTON class are pretty versatile little ships - surely they are far easier to man & cheaper to operate than the big AOPS will be?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1327 on: July 11, 2018, 15:59:05 »
Beef up the armament and defense suite for the AOPS, use the MCDV fitted with the current main gun destined for the AOPS for domestic, US and Caribbean ops. The AOP's do the oversea stuff, like Africa, piracy patrols, RimPac, Asia, along with the Arctic.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1328 on: July 11, 2018, 17:51:09 »
That seems like a bad idea, replacing MCDV with AOPS?  KINGSTON class are pretty versatile little ships - surely they are far easier to man & cheaper to operate than the big AOPS will be?

Definitely the MCDV is cheaper. But, why no mention of it or it’s replacement looking ahead into the next 2 decades? It’s one area that SSE has been conspicuously short on info about.

At any rate, I wouldn’t want to see them all retired, even were we to receive another 2 AOPS for an total of 8. I think there’s sense in refitting 6 of them as MCM vessels with new mine warfare kit and posting a squadron on both Southern coasts.

The remainder could be either divested or repurposed as Diving Support vessels or Ocean tugs ( just spitballing here) or sent to the CCG as a combo FishPat/Hydrographic survey ship. With less taskings and a good refit, maybe there’s a lot of life for MCDV’s in lower tempo operations?

 This line of thinking 🤔 is only really due to no suitable replacement on the horizon for a vessel of this nature.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1329 on: July 11, 2018, 18:16:41 »
Replacing the MCDV is so easy, there is likely a dozen yards in the country that could build them. Take the lessons learned from them, keeping in mind the AOP's coming on line, pick a size and series of missions for them, including minimum crew and maximum crew/passenger. Find a existing design that comes close, tweak it a bit and start building replacements 2-3 ships a year, by 2023.   

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1330 on: July 11, 2018, 18:34:34 »
Replacing the MCDV is so easy, there is likely a dozen yards in the country that could build them. Take the lessons learned from them, keeping in mind the AOP's coming on line, pick a size and series of missions for them, including minimum crew and maximum crew/passenger. Find a existing design that comes close, tweak it a bit and start building replacements 2-3 ships a year, by 2023.

Yes. But, is the political will there to do it? You could have 6-8 quick, simple and amply armed ships (something like an Armidale for ex) to supplement the other classes and stay at home, for a relatively low amount of money. But somebody up top has to want it. Were I Davie, I think that would be my tack, since building them wouldn’t be cutting anybody else’s grass, under the NSS. Jobs, votes, not undermining ISI or VSS... seems like a no brainer, but it hasn’t been on anybody’s radar.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1331 on: July 11, 2018, 19:10:46 »
It's easy so they ignore it till it becomes a crisis, because that is how we do things in Canada.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1332 on: July 11, 2018, 20:49:05 »
It's easy so they ignore it till it becomes a crisis, because that is how we do things in Canada.

I guess the worry then, is if anybody will actually see the end of the MCDV’s as a crisis. By that, I mean, nobody outside of the RCN or chat groups like this one, know what that type of vessel brings to the table. So, if ultimately John Q Public and the government see a half dozen AOPS and 15 CSC, will anybody “important” even realize anything is missing once the KINGSTONs go?
+100

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1333 on: July 11, 2018, 21:03:56 »
I fear you have correctly assessed the likely scenario. The MCDV are an excellent stepping stone for young Captains and Officers, not to mention P.O.'s

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 750
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1334 on: July 11, 2018, 21:30:30 »
Was the intent to use the AOPS to replace the MCDV's. I hadn't heard that before. Those 2 ships may have similar abilities but they also have significant differences.

Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean. 

What is the plan to replace the MCDV's?

There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's. 

I guess the worry then, is if anybody will actually see the end of the MCDV’s as a crisis. By that, I mean, nobody outside of the RCN or chat groups like this one, know what that type of vessel brings to the table. So, if ultimately John Q Public and the government see a half dozen AOPS and 15 CSC, will anybody “important” even realize anything is missing once the KINGSTONs go?

Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?

Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.

The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,559
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1335 on: July 11, 2018, 21:42:36 »
A mine counter measures capability is a key capability for a serious Navy. It would be folly to discard this asset and a serious miscalculation to think AOPS can perform that task.  And, the cost is not prohibitve to refresh that capability and the ships sometime in the future. The MCDV can cede the patrol and seamanship training function to AOPS, and revert to a specialized role, even if the number of ships are less than 12.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1336 on: July 12, 2018, 10:31:19 »
Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean. 

There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's. 

Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?

Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.

The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.

This whole post is excellent. I agree with everything you are saying, with just one reservation. Certainly if there are vessels that can perform the same tasks the MCDV has been doing, then of course it isn’t really a crisis. But, by the time all the CSC arrive, the MCDVS will likely be gone. With the re-focus on task groups, and up to 4 CSC in said groups, that stretches what can be covered by a fleet of 21 vessels. That’s assuming the RCN keeps up with OP CARIBBE etc...whilst upping their patrol time in the Arctic. In the early to mid 2030’s is when the cupboard starts to look bare. I know there’s time to address it, but maybe by banging out AOPS 7 and 8 they put off that potential “crisis” and allow the MCDV to fulfill its original mandate, while extending its life.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1337 on: July 12, 2018, 10:31:50 »
Leadmark 2050 and the Defence Policy don't seem to plan on replacing the MCDV's with the AOPS.  Like you said there are significant differences largest of which is the cost and crew outlay.  MCDV's are in particular really excellent on the West Coast and Caribbean. 

There isn't one.  IMHO the priority should be on replacing the subs well before the MCDV's. 

Is losing them a crisis if their jobs are taken over by other ships?

Honestly I have no idea, time will tell once the AOPS are online.  The MCDV's are moving past their halcyon days.  With AOPS on the way taking over some of those jobs and the frigates finished FELEX (essentially) they don't have to plug gaps like they used to.  Also with the JSS, AOPS and CSC on the horizon no matter how distant there will be a crunch for bodies to sail.  The fleet will go from 24 surface ships to 31+ ships even before the CSC start hitting the water.  I can easily see MCDV's being the first platforms to be pillaged for people.  I see the most likely end of the MCDV's coming from personnel issues, even before the ships get too old.

The other option I see is a consolidation of the MCDV fleet into less hulls and a refocus on Mine Warfare/ route survey.   Getting them to really do the job they were originally envisioned to do.  I have seen a shift in the Reg F navy's awareness of mine warfare since it became their responsibility.  The ships, as stated here before, are in pretty good shape so they are expected to last a while.

This whole post is excellent. I agree with everything you are saying, with just one reservation. Certainly if there are vessels that can perform the same tasks the MCDV has been doing, then of course it isn’t really a crisis. But, by the time all the CSC arrive, the MCDVS will likely be gone. With the re-focus on task groups, and up to 4 CSC in said groups, that stretches what can be covered by a fleet of 21 vessels. That’s assuming the RCN keeps up with OP CARIBBE etc...whilst upping their patrol time in the Arctic. In the early to mid 2030’s is when the cupboard starts to look bare. I know there’s time to address it, but maybe by banging out AOPS 7 and 8 they put off that potential “crisis” and allow the MCDV to fulfill its original mandate, while extending its life.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1338 on: July 13, 2018, 07:58:43 »
Maybe, just maybe, this article might lead to us selling the Kiwi's  a pair of AOPS?

Navy vessel came close to capsize in Southern Ocean, Defence Minister Ron Mark says

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12084397


Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1339 on: July 13, 2018, 08:53:44 »
Wasn't there a post from someone here about Kiwi interest in it? They have plans on procuring one I remember reading in a NZDF White Paper or Policy.

Here's a thought, maybe we could fill the supposed gap between the AOPS and CSC with actual international orders. At least this order wouldn't be to somewhere controversial...

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1340 on: July 13, 2018, 10:40:59 »
Might have to sweeten the pot with some sort of trade stuff to reduce the costs for them.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1341 on: July 13, 2018, 11:19:23 »
Might have to sweeten the pot with some sort of trade stuff to reduce the costs for them.

Lamb for Ships?

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1342 on: July 13, 2018, 11:24:46 »
I think having just one international order would be a huge win for the whole strategy and would be seen as a justification for it all. Would be rich if they ordered it with a larger offensive/defensive suite too...

Long term, might make AOPS attractive to some South American countries too, build a reputation as a competitive shipbuilder again.




Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 118,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,522
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1343 on: July 13, 2018, 13:02:09 »
Lamb for Ships?

Sounds good for me. Although most of their lamb goes to China now, so NZ might want some tech transfers or similar.