40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Can any of our Canadian readers advise when the final AOPS for Canada is due to be completed?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
This actually isn't correct. NATO operates anywhere it's collective defence article 5 requires it to. Article 5 was first invoked after 9/11 and since then was also invoked to deal with the situation in Syria. If a conflict erupted between the US and China, under the terms of the treaty, it would be invoked again.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess it depends on which AOPS is the final build, the Fredrick Rolette (5) or the Robert Hampton Gray (6). I haven't seen confirmation on the Gray yet (might have missed it). Currently the DeWolf just launched, Brooke and Bernays are under construction and the Hall will be shortly. At this rate, the Rolette should be starting sometime in late 2019 so if no sixth ship is ordered the program should be done in late 2020. This will be a problem for Irving as the CSC start won't happen by then so the pressure will be on the GoC to order the Gray in order to keep the yard active. I would like to think the ship cost for a sixth ship should be much better than the DeWolf but that remains to be seen.
These NATO deployments are to counter the threat of terrorism and secure the West’s oil supply (in basic terms). They are not a hot war against a peer opponent so there is time and space for NATO forces to sustain the effort without risk.
I stand by what I wrote about NATO’s primary function and theatre of operation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I haven't seen confirmation for the sixth AOPS yet. Have I missed that announcement? It may well happen just to keep Irving's workforce in place until the CSC starts. AOPS seven and eight, doubtful even with a 35% cost reduction. If the CSC is seriously delayed perhaps a seventh AOPS will happen (with a possible loss of frigate 15)
It will be interesting to see the final figures for DeWolf. Certainly building a Svalbard today would be approaching $200 million US. I really can't see Irving getting near that even on a ninth ship for export. Concerning the CMS 330, isn't this a lite version of what is planned for the CSC?
Possible I suppose but SK does have a huge ship building industry and they do build their own warships and now even subs. I keep on thinking about those RN Tide class AORs and then read about the JSS horror show so I am reasonably certain they could do a license build with little trouble.
I wasn't suggesting that a US icebreaker would be built in a Canadian yard. Gawd forbid, Trump would have an apoplectic fit and all the Congress critters would be screaming for blood. But they could be looking at the near finished product to assess it as part of the replacement process.
The last schedule published by Irving has AOPS 6 being handed over to the RCN in Q1 of 2022, so that would indicate completion in early Q4 of 2021. Apparently the second and third ship are coming along quicker than anticipated, if rumours can be believed, so this information may no longer be accurate.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Have you seen actual confirmation a six ship will be built? My understanding is "if the budget allows" meaning Irving had to make significant cost savings on the later builds to allow for the 6th ship. If the progress on AOPS rate of build has improved as you suggest then the GoC may be forced to build the Gray regardless of whether Irving gets the cost down or not. Irving absolutely needs a hot workforce ready for the CSC start.
Hi John, that announcement is rumoured to be happening this Fall. You are absolutely correct that they need to build the 6th ship (and possibly even a seventh) in order to keep their staff occupied until CSC1. The question everyone is asking is if they can build 6 ships within the current budget envelope, or are the taxpayers going to be asked to pony up more money. Nothing is ever easy in Canadian procurement projects. However, the cost of having the line go idle, losing trained staff, and having to essentially start from scratch again in my mind justifies any additional costs for ship 6 if it means we can start building CSC quickly.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Nope. NATO can operate anywhere.
NATO members are pledged to defend against, & respond to, attacks on the territory, ships or aircraft of members in Europe. the Mediterranean, the North Atlantic, & North America. If an attack originates outside that area, or is supported from outside it, NATO can respond appropriately.
The operation in Afghanistan began as a response to the support by the Taliban for Al Qaeda when it attacked the WTC & Pentagon.
I believe this picture may be the genesis of the rumour that NZ is looking at this ship (your Chief of the Navy, RAdm John Holland, visiting Irving shipyard this past May):
He also seems to be a fairly enthusiastic re-tweeter of RCN news about AOPS: Chief of Navy NZ (@YoursAye_NZ) | Twitter
He also seems to be a fairly enthusiastic re-tweeter of RCN news about AOPS: Chief of Navy NZ (@YoursAye_NZ) | Twitter
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I really would like to see Irving being able to offer an add-on AOPS at a competitive price to NZ. Who knows, if Canada does go with the T26, if Irving has their build process shipshape then perhaps a CDN T26 is in NZ's future. For NZ to consider a T26 capability frigate I guess the geopolitical situation would have to be tanking, not an unreasonable possibility.
Unfortunately I don't think NZ would be likely to go with the type 26 ... but if it did I wonder if they would go with one of the off the shelf versions or specify their own design modifications.
At the moment it would seem that the British version would be most suitable but I haven't really seen any specs on the version being offered to Canada.
Of course it is quite possible that any NZ ship would not require any MK41 launchers.
Here is a picture of the CSC T26 variant on offer. It differs from the UK and Australian variants in significant ways, not the least of which is the high Canadian content. All three variants have different radar systems as well. All we know for sure is the CSC variant has a 5 inch gun, two 30mm "secondary" guns, SeaRAM, an enlarged hangar, at least 32 mk41 VLS tubes (possibly 40 in the air defense variant, of which Canada needs at least 3 to replace our now retired destroyers), and a bank of SSMs (possibly NSM). It is not clear what radar is being offered, though APAR block 2 would be a good guess. It will not be cheap, but if built as described, will be quite capable. At this juncture it looks like a 15-16 ship build, to be done in three batches. Batch 1 (3-4 ships) would be the AAW variant, batch 2 (6 ships) the GP variant, and batch 3 (5-6 ships) the last batch of the GP variant, which will likely be built with improvements over the first two batches.First ship should cut steel in 2022, and the last ship is expected to be delivered in 2040.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Though they look similar, the RCN AOPS is not the same as the VARD 7-100-ICE. They do share the same design DNA, however. The RCN AOPS is longer (103.6m vs. 98), heavier (6615 tonnes vs 6400), has an enlarged hangar, has shortened bridge wings, and has a higher ice-rated bow (PC 4 vs PC 5). There are other minor internal and external structural differences as well. I don't think the VARD design has the fin stabilizers either, but I could be wrong on that point. The GoC bought the plans for the Svalbard, and used them as the basis for what became the VARD 7-100 ICE (and then AOPS), but the reality is there is very little of Svalbard left in either design. AOPS is basically an enhanced version of the VARD design, but both would probably serve NZ well, given the VARD ship will transit ice up to 1m in thickness, with AOPS rated for 1.2m.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Given its role as a non combatant the "Big Harry D" as I have heard her called already would offer a multi purpose platform for the RNZN and the NZG. The first two mega blocks of the future Margaret Brooke are due out of the assembly hall anytime.
If NZ is the rumoured interested country I wonder if #5 or #6 could go to NZ and #7 and possibly #8 go to the CCGS as OPVs here on the east coast. I really feel that additional hulls will be cheaper than allowing the work crew to be dispersed. We have two very large LNG export facilities in the planning stages here in Nova Scotia. The demands for skilled trades will be enormous around the time of any gap. The federal government and Irving cannot risk loosing these workers to these two very probable mega projects.
If NZ is the rumoured interested country I wonder if #5 or #6 could go to NZ and #7 and possibly #8 go to the CCGS as OPVs here on the east coast. I really feel that additional hulls will be cheaper than allowing the work crew to be dispersed. We have two very large LNG export facilities in the planning stages here in Nova Scotia. The demands for skilled trades will be enormous around the time of any gap. The federal government and Irving cannot risk loosing these workers to these two very probable mega projects.