Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Lex Parsimoniae]

So its a go then, That's great .

Not yet.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard

Lets wait until the steel is cut and they are being built before getting all riled up.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nice looking Ship, Kirkhill . So its a go then, That's great .Will they carry any defensive armaments? Finally we can control our own North. Keep us posted Cheers Old Naval Guard

Sir, I just saw your post.  I'm afraid that I am in much the same boat (or perhaps ship as Old Gate Boat Driver might have it) as yourself.

I come here for enlightenment, to bounce information and ideas off of those who know more than I do.

I agree that the images do indeed look good, and it seems that there is continuing movement on the project but it seems to be too early to say that the project is a a go.

I would highly recommend the comments of RC as a useful guide on status, along with the many comments of othes like OGBD and Ex-Dragoon.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

Bump:

The sole-sourcing of the F-35s is not the only dubious procurement decision made in recent years by the Conservatives. Contracts will soon be awarded for between six and eight Arctic patrol ships(some sources think because the ships must be made in Canada -- a more expensive option -- the Canadian Forces Maritime Command will only be able to afford five vessels).

Hardly anyone inside DND believes this is a good use of $4-to $6-billion, particularly in the Navy, which wants nothing to do with constabulary duties in the North. They worry that the cost of the offshore patrol vessels will eat into their budget for new destroyers and frigates and would prefer that the Canadian Coast Guard took over the job of patrolling the Arctic.

That would seem to be what the Jacks in the Canadian Navy would call "common dog" -- good sense. While the Coast Guard is civilian, and so cannot be armed, we are about to buy 65 $138-million fighter jets that can fly at 2,000 kilometres per hour and are bristling with more weaponry than a Klingon Bird of Prey.

That's more than enough muscle to exercise our sovereignty in the North. Surely an F-35 is much more useful than a Arctic slush-breaker when you're staring down the gun-sights of a Russian long-range bomber--an unlikely scenario but one that apparently keeps people awake in the Prime Minister's Office.



Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Sole+sourcing+stupid+buzz+jets/3520110/story.html#ixzz0zofQKrSF

This came from John Ivison's National Post column on the F35 procurement.


IF his observarions are correct and IF there is a body of thought in the Navy that does not want these things then that may contribute to escalating prices, decreasing numbers and decreasing capabilities. 

It doesn't seem to be a totally insupportable conclusion.  The Navy is the inheritor of the Rainbow and Niobe, a couple of superannuated vessels too large in size and too small in number to be useful domestically but absolutely wonderful at showng the flag in time of peace, and demonstrating willingness in time of war....and welcomely received by our allies.  They also convinced a francophone PM's (Laurier) fellow citizens, Brit settlers, that he was on the right side of things - critical after the Boer War.  A useful contribution they make but they are not about guarding the frontiers.

Likewise the Army is not geared to domestic ops.  They originate in manning choke points along the globe spanning Imperial Red Route (Halifax, Quebec, Kingston and Esquimalt)... but that is to digress too far.

The Coast Guard, really isn't a Guard at all but rather more of a Garde.  They passively Watch rather than actively Guard.

On top of all that our government, the bureaucrats and our fellow citizens are not thrilled about bumping shoulders with members of the military on a professsional basis.  They much prefer to deal with civilians even if those civilians are armed.... like the Canadian Borders Services, Fisheries and Wildlife and the RCMP.


Which brings me to my solution.

I believe that 6-8 AOPS are a good thing.  I believe that the original Svalbard (with a large helo deck) is also a good thing at the original price and manning levels.

I propose to buy the 6-8 AOPS and turn them over to the RCMP Marine Service.

The RCMP has always been our domestic frontier force: Prairies, Chilcoots, Yukon, Arctic.
They are used to working in a civilian environment with civilian gear and lightly armed.
They don't expect to face down subs or missile carrying cruisers. 
They would probably consider a 25mm ROWS on the foredeck and a large helo-pad back aft as adequate support for dealing with wayward trawlers, hunters and passenger ships.

Besides, they have form in the arctic.  They supplied and supply isolated detachments in the north.  50 shipmates might even be too crowded for some of them.

And beside, the first vessel to transit the Northwest Passage from West to East was not a Navy ship, nor even a Coast Guard ship.  It was the RCMP vessel St Roch.

Assign the entire St Roch class of AOPS to the RCMP and let them be responsible for carry CBSA and DFO and enforcing the law... and if they do turn up a marauding LPD well there is always the radio, that helodeck for the Army and an F35 out of Resolute.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Mildly related (though I think the RCMP already has far too much to do to take on a major new mission--see:

Abolish the RCCP
http://unambig.com/abolish-the-rccp/ )

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Better yet a combined RCMP and CCG crew would probably work better then a combined Navy and CCG crew.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

And will continue to on the CCG's new Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0004254

...
4.2.4 Maritime Security Services

The Fleet supports the Government of Canada's maritime security priorities by providing platforms and maritime expertise to security and law enforcement agencies across the country. In particular, the CCG and RCMP have established the joint Marine Security Enforcement Teams (MSET) Program with armed on-water patrols on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, where the CCG manages, maintains, and operates the vessels while the RCMP provides law enforcement expertise and onboard personnel.

Four mid-shore patrol vessels are being built specifically for the MSET Program. During 2007-2008, CCG dedicated three vessels in support of the MSET program and next year's plan calls for the use of four CCG vessels in support of this program on an interim basis until the four new mid-shore patrol vessels are delivered. In winter, teams operate from icebreakers where and when required...

More on the new vessels:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/117784/canada-begins-construction-of-new-patrol-vessels.html

...
Five of the mid-shore patrol vessels will be used primarily to support Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation and protection programs in the Maritimes, Quebec and Pacific Regions.

The other four vessels will be used in a joint program with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to enhance maritime security along the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system. Since this joint maritime security program was announced in Budget 2007, aging Coast Guard vessels have been performing duties on an interim basis. The new mid-shore patrol vessels will provide a permanent platform for the Coast Guard and RCMP Officers to do their work.

About the new vessels

These new mid-shore patrol vessels are a new type of vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard. Each vessel will support a crew of eight and up to six RCMP Officers or Fishery Officers. Each vessel will be approximately 43 metres in length, have a top speed of 25 knots and a range of 2000 nautical miles, and be able to stay at sea for two weeks without reprovisioning...

In other words faster than the A/OPS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat-smamat/arcticoffshorepatrolshippmoaops-projetnavirevaisseaudepatrouilleenmerenarctiquebgpnpea-eng.asp

Other CCG vessels can act as platforms for armed RCMP personnel--or CF--as required, and if really necessary weapons can be mounted.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

There we go.... It's not impossible to find common ground. ;D

I just choose to believe that my opinion on the F35 is better founded than yours.  :warstory:

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

That is because the Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 pretty much prohibits military vessels on the Great Lakes (it allows for each country to station four vessels, each equipped with an 18-pound cannon).  Recently (post 9/11) Canada and the US have agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may have crew served weapons by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.  IIRC, they have agreed to limit this to < .50 cal.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think a Harpoon kind of trumps a 18 pounder.

Ex-Dragoon: The CCG and RCMP already do it on the Great Lakes:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2005/hq-ac66-eng.htm

I am already aware of that thanks...

 

[Kirkhill]

Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism? 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Could the Harpoon be redesignated as a Single Use UAV with Self Destruct Mechanism? 

But it is much more then 18 lbs lol.

 

[MarkOttawa]

If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ab18da1fd-82f5-4280-bb87-13cff78dd5ac

The Friesland, the third Ocean Going Patrol Vessel (OPV) of the Holland class, was launched this morning at Damen Shipyards in Galati, Romania. Further work will be done on the Friesland in a dock on the Danube, after which the patrol vessel will go to the Netherlands.

The other three OPVs are the Holland, Zeeland, and Groningen. Together with the Friesland, they are being built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding in the Netherlands and Romania and will replace the M-frigates.

At the beginning of the week, a naval detachment was established to man the Zeeland. OPV crews will number 50 personnel.

With a displacement of 3,750 tons, a speed of 21.5 knots and a length of 108 meters, the OPV is designed to be a small, flexible patrol ship for missions such as counter-piracy, counter-narcotics and coast guard missions off the coast of the Netherlands and its Caribbean territories.

More from the builder:
http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_holland-class-patrol-vessels.htm

Plus:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If we could get rid of the "Arctic" in the A/OPS, would something like this be useful for us?  Enough speed?
Mark
Ottawa

You do know that when we get the AOPS they will be used for more then the Arctic right?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa

More hulls do squat if we cannot man them.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, I know they are to replace the MCDVs, that`s why I am just wondering if we might get more hulls of a better vessel if the government would tone down its arctic sovereignty hysteria.

Mark
Ottawa

Thank goodness the Navy icebreakers may be sunk--now it only the Coast Guard can get new ones.

Military Current Affairs & News / Re: Military Budget predictions
on: April 20, 2006, 06:17:47

Well I can't fault you for consistency and tenacity Mark.

Passages  open or closed I want an armed government presence everywhere the  Canadian government claims jurisdiction.  If that is an armed Coast Guard with Mounties on board operating  on the Grand Banks, the Charlottes and Lancaster then fine. 

The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3,  that at least some of the Chinooks be fitted with the Air to Air refuelling probes( I believe that the probes can be added as needed) and that Canada retain the air to air, probe and drogue  refuelling capability currently supplied by its 5 C130 H tankers.

Together with the ability to ship a CH147 inside a C17 to any friendly air base te lilly pads of the Navy and the Coastguard would allaow the government to bounce an armed body of troops over great distances and intervene in remote locations.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Your cpmpliment much appreciated .  You may be getting part of your wishes:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-983337.html#msg983337

Tories to consider arming Arctic-bound coast guard ships...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+consider+arming+Arctic+bound+coast+guard+ships/3707631/story.html#ixzz134n7GvxC

In which case why continue with the A/OPS that are neither fish nor cetacean?  And whose capabilities are being reduced in order to be affordable:

New fighters, Joint Support Ships, and Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships: What’s good enough?
http://unambig.com/new-fighters-joint-support-ships-and-arctic-offshore-patrol-ships-whats-good-enough/

Now if only we could follow the Dutch example and ditch the requirement to build the damn ships in Canada--but politics will not allow any government to do that:

Canadian shipyards can’t competitively build large civilian vessels–but the government insists they build naval ones
http://unambig.com/canadian-shipyards-cant-competitively-build-large-civilian-vessels-but-the-government-insists-they-build-naval-ones/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The only thing that I wold suggest, now that we have bought the Chinooks, is that ALL Canadian vessels  over 4000 tonnes be built with the ability to land a Chinook on deck, not in high seas but at least SS2-3

I think you would need a ship much larger then 4000 tons to operate an aircraft like the Chinook in SS3. There is a reason why you only see tandem rotor helos based off of larger amphibs and I am betting the ability to recover and launch said aircraft is one of them.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Fully concur with Ex-D.

First, there is a turbulence problem from superstructure: Single rotors simply correct twisting around their pivot point (right under the main rotor shaft) using the tail rotor. Tandems have to turn the whole body using differential power in the rotors, so lining up is more difficult and they can handle much less turbulence near the landing spot. That is why, you will notice that even on the larger phibs (LSD's, LPD's) that are not "flattops" they always use the after most landing spot.

Second, and for similar reasons, I do not believe (I have never seen one used) that you can operate a beartrap for tandems: The point were vertical force is applied on a single rotor is in vertical line with  the shaft. That is where the beartrap is attached for winching in. The two forces are in line and it creates no moment. I do not think such a single point exists on tandems - the point where the vertical force is concentrated (so to speak) would vary depending on the constant adjustments by the pilot. so we would create a moment while we winch the bird in and either bring it in nose first or tail first: not a good way.

This said, I have seen pictures of one of the old SAR Labrador's landed on the after deck (not a helo platform per se) of a large CCG cutter. But I'm pretty certain it was in sea state near zero and the coast guard was stopped in the water.