Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

Max Bernay's is the third ship and yes they have (as stated by Chief Stoker).  They are actually going at a faster pace than the Harry DeWolfe because of found efficiencies in the build.  Cutting between 2 and 4 months off the build time.  This is of course to be expected.  Looks like HDW will be launched soon.  I expect turned over to the navy July timeframe.

 

[Stoker]

Max Bernay's is the third ship and yes they have (as stated by Chief Stoker).  They are actually going at a faster pace than the Harry DeWolfe because of found efficiencies in the build.  Cutting between 2 and 4 months off the build time.  This is of course to be expected.  Looks like HDW will be launched soon.  I expect turned over to the navy July timeframe.

Yes the barge that will launch her, BOABARGE 37 in the Bedford basin is in Halifax.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db85xsSU8AAroM9.jpg:large

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes the barge that will launch her, BOABARGE 37 in the Bedford basin is in Halifax.

It is and leased for the next four years.  Harry, however, won't be launched until Sept.  My youngest is on that build.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Four years most likely won’t be long enough to get all of the AOPS in the water.

 

[Stoker]

Four years most likely won’t be long enough to get all of the AOPS in the water.

For a guy who couldn't do a simple goggle search to find out they were cutting steel last Dec on the third AOPS you're all of a sudden an expert?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Actually Chief, I did the ‘quick google search’ to find out when they were cutting steel on Max Bernays, as I added that info back into my first question well before anyone answered my original question. I’m simply looking at the fact that if HDW is still not in the water now, how do we expect them to build another 4/5 ships in 4 years to meet the 4 year timeline of the lease?

 

[Stoker]

Actually Chief, I did the ‘quick google search’ to find out when they were cutting steel on Max Bernays, as I added that info back into my first question well before anyone answered my original question. I’m simply looking at the fact that if HDW is still not in the water now, how do we expect them to build another 4/5 ships in 4 years to meet the 4 year timeline of the lease?

I guess you missed the statement on the fact ISL is actually finding faster ways to build the ship and as subsequent ships are built, build time will be reduced.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I truly do hope that this is the case as the sooner we add to the present day capability of the the RCN the better.  I guess we'll have to wait 4yrs to see which timeline turns out to be correct.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.

 

[Lumber]

Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.

Or three Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...

 

[FSTO]

Or three Flight IIIs to be our AAD platforms...

Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.

And, BTW, Chris: I don't think the 18 months gap you mention is the result of greater time efficiencies at Irving, but rather the results of delays in the pre-construction phase of the CSC's. And if, after all the investments they have made in modernizing the yard and in training their people, Irving is currently incapable of filling that 18 months gap, 3 1/2 years from now, with something to do from the private sector, my personal opinion is that the bloody shipbuilding strategy has failed.

During that gap, they should be at the apex of their tradecraft and efficiency. If they can't get contracts then, they never will. If that's the case: nationalize the damn yard so it is government property. After all, it would mean that government vessels is all they will ever be able to build so why should we pay profits on top of actual costs.

 

[Underway]

Just because we (the RCN) stuck our head up our arse and sank Huron doesn't mean that we are now saddled for the rest of eternity of procuring just 3 of these types of ships.

Based on the current bids for CSC we might be procuring 15 of these types of ships.  AAD might depend entirely on missile loadout not sensor or combat suite as they will be common through all of the variants.  If a single system meets the requirements the navy has set out and the cost is right then there might be
no difference in the radars, FCS etc... between an AAD and GP variant.  It might entirely be based on missile loadout, crew embarked (ie Commodores staff) and comms. But I digress from the thrust of this thread.

Quite correct, FSTO. Just like the Navy has to get over the old NATO bias and stop getting stuck all the time in putting more assets on the Halifax side just because it was always thus. I think that if a proper analysis of where Canada's maritime interests lie these days was made, we would find that we need more assets in the Pacific than the Atlantic.

Middle East, Africa, Baltics currently are the historical and recent problem areas, and currently they are still closer to Halifax then Esquimalt.  Halifax is just closer to where stuff goes bad generally.  Halifax can respond faster to the majority of problems in the world.  Also Halifax is closer to allies and friendly supply.  Until Asia starts being twits like the other world problem spots  I don't see an issue in the current fleet deployment.

 

[AirDet]

Can you paint a picture in which the navy actually takes a shot at someone in the name of preserving Canada's arctic sovereignty, in peacetime?

Except when someone wants your land badly enough to shoot at you for it, sovereignty is better asserted by building infrastructure and using it than by military means.  For example, there is a disputed island off the coast of New Brunswick on which the Coast Guard maintains a staffed lighthouse (the only on in the Maritimes) because putting people and equipment on the island is the most effective way to assert sovereignty over it.  An armed naval vessel is nowhere to be seen.

Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.

 

[YZT580]

Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.

 

[YZT580]

I remember it as if it were yesterday. That I remember it at all says something about my seniority I guess. First time I ever witnessed a liberal government take a principled stand on anything.  I actually cheered.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Actually, taking a shot has been done in the recent past in defence of the fisheries.  And Iceland did much the same with the British. That is as much defending sovereignty as standing in the way of an invasion fleet.  It says that this is ours and we are prepared to defend it.

If I’m not mistaken, the same sort of thing took place recently in South American. I believe it was in the last year or so, or at least that’s when the video was posted. A Chinese fishing vessel was illegally operating in ( I want to say Chilean?? ) waters and they didn’t heave to when ordered. The government vessel opened fire and the Chinese boat went under.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Absolutely valid point. If someone were to ever fire that shot though the CCG just needs to back off and shadow. The RCAF with MPA can take over until a CPF can meet them at the other side of the passage.

If you're talking about 'up north', sure an MPA can get there. So can CF-18s;  maritime approaches are part of the NORAD mission too.  Depending on who/what is doing the shooting, MPAs might not be the best asset.

http://www.norad.mil/About-NORAD/NORAD-History/

The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.