|
|
Background
– Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) Naval Icebreaker |
|
The AOPS project is fallout from the 2005 Tory election promise for three "armed naval heavy icebreakers" to be in service within five years. That half decade has come
and gone. So what happened? Maritime Staff baulked at a role not performed by the Navy since the 1950s.[1] The
concept was revised to 6 - 8 ice-capable patrol ships – Ice Class 5 AOPS slushbreakers
plying the NW Passage in summer months and operating as OPVs in southern waters in winter. [2]
|
|
|
When Cabinet approved proceeding to the 'definition' phase
of AOPS procurement, it was said that the vessels would be based on KV Svalbard, a 6300t OPV of the Norwegian
coast guard. [3] But AOPS concept artwork (above, right ) showed considerable differences from Svalbard
(larger forecastle deck and aft-placed funnels/landing deck being the most obvious changes ). Initial reports
had AOPS displacing less than half that of Svalbard. If so, the Svalbard's design needed substantial
weight reduction. Equipment cuts might help but most weight-savings would be reduced ice protection.
|
|
|
The Technical Statement of Operational Requirement or
TSOR for AOPS made no mention of displacement but a proposal from Aker did – approximately 6,940 tonnes
or 550 t more than Svalbard. [4] As would be expected of a modern icebreaking designs, Aker
proposed a 'double acting ship', ie: capable of tackling thicker ice (1m in the case of AOPS) by proceeding
stern-first and thinner ice bow-first (finer bow lines allowing AOPS to achieve an initial demanded top
speed "...of at least 20 knots" ). [5]
|
|
|
Like most DND projects, AOPS is in a state of near-continuous flux. Later Aker schemes show conventional
propellers and the stern- first 'DAS' approach abandoned. The funnel arrangement and superstructure around the
helicopter hangar has also been completely revised. Worryingly, the main armament also has been changed
– from 40mm Bofors L/70 to a smaller-calibre Remote Weapon Station.
|
|
|
AOPS was "postponed indefinitely" pending a new National Shipbuilding Strategy. Then, the RFP was
delayed two years while the shipyard is designated. In other words, the AOPS project has hit the perfect
storm of defence procurement – government dictates a previously non-existant requirement, then hobbles the
process; the military resists a new duty area until another agency threatens the promised monies, then Maritime Staff
planners tweak and fiddle the requirement endlessly making AOPS, ironically, a project whose design never
gets frozen.
|
|
|
[1] HMCS Labrador served from 1954 until 1957. Labrador was transferred to the DOT then used by
the Canadian Coast Guard until 1987.
[2] Year-round operations sound economical but AOPS must carry around the weight of its ice-resistant hull year round.
Even in slimmed- down form, AOPS displaces 5780 tonnes compared to the Halifax class frigate's 4750 t. Most
OPVs weigh less than half that of the AOPS.
[3] It is worth noting that Kystvakt is a part of the Norwegian military. Svalbard is a
military ship that was designed to civilian standards.
[4] As noted later, Aker Arctic documents give revised figures for the updated AOPS concept – 98m long overall,
displacing 5780 tonnes. STX Europe holds a majority share in Aker Arctic, and Vancouver's STX Marine Inc. was
formerly Aker Marine (and Aker Marine Yards).
[5] Required speeds have been revised. Cruise is still 14 kts, maximum speed is at least 17 kts at 85% MCR
(Maximum Continuous Rating).
[6] Rafael's Typhoon mount accommodates the CF's 25mm M242 Bushmaster (as adopted by Australia and
the US – as the Mk 38 Mod 2 ).
|
|
A weak armament has been a major criticism of the AOPS
concept as a naval vessel. But Maritime Staff are convinced that a calibre "between 20mm and 40mm is likely
appropriate". That's odd because CF warships carry 57mm Bofors as does Svalbard. Foreign coast guards use
40mms but rarely face thick, ice-resistant hulls. Aker's revised concept shows what appears to be a 25mm
Typhoon [6] usually carried by small
patrol boats. If Arctic patrols do not dictate large calibre, why use the Navy instead of the CCG?