Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 525246 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1350 on: August 31, 2018, 13:02:16 »
How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?

What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?

Not cost and we currently have the 76mm mounts in stock from the 280s and a pile of shells for them I would imagine. A risk assessment was done and the statement of requirements for a non combatant doesn't call for that large of a gun. There's plenty of room to up arm them with the associated engineering.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,600
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1351 on: August 31, 2018, 13:24:06 »
How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?

What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?

Costs most likely, then they use reasons to justify it. I would place a 76/57mm on the bow, 35mm either side, build a hardpoint for a small missile system with electrical, heatshields, etc so they can be easily fitted. Power conduits and mounting point for a future laser system. Some self defense systems, radars, chaff dispensers, decoys. This would make them tough enough to forestall to many engagements and some ability to exert presence. These ships are going to be around for the next 30 years and I predict a lot of instability and conflicts, which we will get dragged into and god knows where.   

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1352 on: August 31, 2018, 14:03:23 »
Costs most likely, then they use reasons to justify it. I would place a 76/57mm on the bow, 35mm either side, build a hardpoint for a small missile system with electrical, heatshields, etc so they can be easily fitted. Power conduits and mounting point for a future laser system. Some self defense systems, radars, chaff dispensers, decoys. This would make them tough enough to forestall to many engagements and some ability to exert presence. These ships are going to be around for the next 30 years and I predict a lot of instability and conflicts, which we will get dragged into and god knows where.

Sounds impressive. As a compromise, what about SEARAM in place of a gun, and additional small arms?

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1353 on: August 31, 2018, 14:08:35 »
I think the 57 bofors from the CPF is a nice fit. Once they start being replaced by CSC, it’d be nice to see the 57 and maybe even the PHALANX drop down to the DEWOLF class. At least then there would be a better air defence suite and more range to reach out and touch somebody.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1354 on: August 31, 2018, 14:53:32 »
I think the 57 bofors from the CPF is a nice fit. Once they start being replaced by CSC, it’d be nice to see the 57 and maybe even the PHALANX drop down to the DEWOLF class. At least then there would be a better air defence suite and more range to reach out and touch somebody.

We already have the 76mm in storage to outfit everyone of the Class and ammunition. Buying new 57mm means more money. The Danish Knud Rasmussen has similar 76mm fitted recycled from another class.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,600
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1355 on: August 31, 2018, 14:58:27 »
For all we know these ship might end up off the coast of Yemen supporting a UN peacekeeping mission, or helping to hunt pirates off of west/east Africa, Indonesia. Part of a fleet pushing into the South China sea. Dealing with a escorted Chinese drillship in the Arctic, patrolling the coast of Venezuela to keep arms out of a civil war, did I miss any?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 962
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1356 on: August 31, 2018, 15:14:31 »
How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?

What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?

Role.  It's a Patrol Ship, not a combatant.  The thing is defined by the navy as a "Noncombatant" same as the MCDV's.  It's no more heavily armed then the River class patrol boats the Royal Navy is using for fisheries and domestic operations, though it size is significant (given its range and icebreaking capability). 

Money.  A 57mm is a multi-purpose gun but mainly for air defence.  The AOPS would need a change in sensors and combat management systems in order to properly use it to its potential (air search radar, fire control radar, IFF, chillers to cool the systems, more personnel to operate it/maintain it).  76mm has a larger footprint but the other systems are similarly sized.  Having a spare 76mm is only a small part of the cost at this point for a ship redesign.

Doesn't mean it can't be done in the future.  I expect once the ships are on the water and their capabilities are looked at there will be a number of interesting additions to them that we might not be able to forsee.



Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,600
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1357 on: August 31, 2018, 16:13:30 »

Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.   

LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.   

Offline Ashkan08

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 56
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1358 on: August 31, 2018, 17:08:12 »
Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters. 

I agree.  I was honestly quite confused when I saw how lightly armed the upcoming AOPS are. Based on the weapons it has, it would be vulnerable in anti-piracy missions let alone conventional warfare.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 17:10:53 by Ashkan08 »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1359 on: August 31, 2018, 17:13:01 »
A Canadian Hammer

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Ashkan08

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 56
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1360 on: August 31, 2018, 17:24:50 »
Don't know about you but I personally prefer this.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1361 on: August 31, 2018, 17:28:44 »
I agree.  I was honestly quite confused when I saw how lightly armed the upcoming AOPS are. Based on the weapons it has, it would be vulnerable in anti-piracy missions let alone conventional warfare.

Except it is a non combatant and the weapons, including a helo will be fine for anti piracy or missions such as OP Caribbe.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1362 on: August 31, 2018, 18:54:29 »
We already have the 76mm in storage to outfit everyone of the Class and ammunition. Buying new 57mm means more money. The Danish Knud Rasmussen has similar 76mm fitted recycled from another class.

That’s why I was suggesting the 57 when the RCN is divesting the CPF. We would have ultimately 12 available, I believe, whereas I don’t think we have more than 3 76mm currently. Which means you’d have to purchase another 3 76mm for the class. Besides, the Bofors have just recently been redone as part of the FELEX, so they ought to be on great shape.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1363 on: August 31, 2018, 19:03:03 »

That’s why I was suggesting the 57 when the RCN is divesting the CPF. We would have ultimately 12 available, I believe, whereas I don’t think we have more than 3 76mm currently. Which means you’d have to purchase another 3 76mm for the class. Besides, the Bofors have just recently been redone as part of the FELEX, so they ought to be on great shape.

I checked on the 76mm and we have more than 5. It will be many years before they start to pay off the CPFs
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1364 on: August 31, 2018, 19:12:36 »
I checked on the 76mm and we have more than 5. It will be many years before they start to pay off the CPFs

Really? I had no idea we had more 76mm. I guess there must have been some for training purposes as well as the 3 on the 280’s. I was under the impression that the one off HURON was sent to ALGONQUIN (not 100% sure it was ALGONQUIN), so I didn’t know if we lost one or not. That’s good to know.

As for the 57mm being on the CPF’s  for a long time, I was thinking they may start coming available when the AOPS start into the midlife refit bracket. I’d prefer to see more punch sooner than later, but I guess the analysis has been done. Not too sure I like the preparing for the best and hoping for even better scenario in a warship though. Who knows what will crop up in the future?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1365 on: August 31, 2018, 19:36:29 »
Really? I had no idea we had more 76mm. I guess there must have been some for training purposes as well as the 3 on the 280’s. I was under the impression that the one off HURON was sent to ALGONQUIN (not 100% sure it was ALGONQUIN), so I didn’t know if we lost one or not. That’s good to know.

As for the 57mm being on the CPF’s  for a long time, I was thinking they may start coming available when the AOPS start into the midlife refit bracket. I’d prefer to see more punch sooner than later, but I guess the analysis has been done. Not too sure I like the preparing for the best and hoping for even better scenario in a warship though. Who knows what will crop up in the future?

That's the number I was quoted, figure 4 guns with at least one or two for spares. There's at at least some. As for something cropping up, its being built too Loyd's standards like the Kingston Class, I doubt they will every sent willingly into combat. If it ever needs to be armed then it will be armed.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 32,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 720
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1366 on: August 31, 2018, 19:48:34 »
As for something cropping up, its being built too Loyd's standards like the Kingston Class, I doubt they will every sent willingly into combat. If it ever needs to be armed then it will be armed.

Didn't the UK employ actual civilian vessels in the Falklands War, all the way to the landings at San Carlos? I seem to remember that one of the UK civilian vessels was even struck and sunk by an Exocet hit. If that's what happens to civilian ships in time of war, there's no reason to expect that an actual warship labelled as an HMCS won't ever get shot at. Better to be prepared and equipped for war than having it be a surprise when someone starts taking pot shots at your ship.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1367 on: August 31, 2018, 19:54:48 »
Didn't the UK employ actual civilian vessels in the Falklands War, all the way to the landings at San Carlos? I seem to remember that one of the UK civilian vessels was even struck and sunk by an Exocet hit. If that's what happens to civilian ships in time of war, there's no reason to expect that an actual warship labelled as an HMCS won't ever get shot at. Better to be prepared and equipped for war than having it be a surprise when someone starts taking pot shots at your ship.

The government will disagree with you, not mention we have had lots of lightly armed ships in the RCN.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 20:31:08 by Chief Stoker »
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 273
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1368 on: August 31, 2018, 20:51:20 »
Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.   

LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.


I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,937
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,057
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1369 on: August 31, 2018, 21:04:01 »

I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

The deployment to Africa a risk assessment was conducted to determine the risk of sending the Kingston Class to the gulf of guinea with the armament the ship is equipped with. It was deemed acceptable. I also was part of the team training the ship for the mission, they were fine and had an acceptable level of training. You as a civilian looking in and frankly not in possession of all the facts. Do you really think we would put a crew in harms way, give your head a shake.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 812
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1370 on: September 01, 2018, 05:55:50 »
Agreed with the Chief here guys.

If your actually picturing an AOPS sailing the South China Sea, participating as part of the Task Force - it ain't happening, and nobody plans on it happening.  That's what the fleet of CSC & JSS is for, along with any sub support they may have.

These vessels are large because they are expected to operate in ice, but also contribute to deployments in places such as off the coast of Africa or down in the Caribbean.  The Kingstons already do these operations just fine, and are a far better solution than the USN sending a bloody Burke to do the same job.

If the Kingstons can do these jobs, so can the AOPS. 


All this talk of "If we aren't going to arm them with SeaRAM and a 57mm, and all the fire control radars, etc etc" -- it's not a warship.  It's not designed to be a warship.  It's not fast enough to be a warship even if you slapped a bunch of advanced radars & weapons on it.  IT IS NOT A WARSHIP.  IT WILL NEVER DO WHAT WE EXPECT A HALIFAX OR CSC TO DO.  That's why we aren't building 22 AOPS.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,989
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1371 on: September 01, 2018, 10:02:49 »

I completely agree about putting them thousands of miles from home with barely any armament. I just don’t know how we send the Kingston’s to Africa with only a pair of 50s and some small arms. I can’t help but think of the analogy of bringing a knife to a gun fight.

https://youtu.be/_FZ7gNFYsL8

Maybe this video will change your mind that small arms and .50cals with trained operators are more than enough to deal with pirates?

Btw, the skiff bouncing off the ship was due to the pirate piloting the skiff being shot in the head. 

They made a very big mistake trying to attack and fire upon a ship with armed PMCs on board.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1372 on: September 01, 2018, 10:03:36 »
The 280 76mm fit went from the upperdecks to the keel for basically a whole watertight section(when you include the loading mechanisms and magazines).  That's a big whack of engineering and likely AOPs already has a bunch of stuff there.

AOPS is built to civilian standards, so let's not pretend it would be an effective combatant.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1373 on: September 01, 2018, 10:20:41 »
Agreed with the Chief here guys.

If your actually picturing an AOPS sailing the South China Sea, participating as part of the Task Force - it ain't happening, and nobody plans on it happening.  That's what the fleet of CSC & JSS is for, along with any sub support they may have.

These vessels are large because they are expected to operate in ice, but also contribute to deployments in places such as off the coast of Africa or down in the Caribbean.  The Kingstons already do these operations just fine, and are a far better solution than the USN sending a bloody Burke to do the same job.

If the Kingstons can do these jobs, so can the AOPS. 


All this talk of "If we aren't going to arm them with SeaRAM and a 57mm, and all the fire control radars, etc etc" -- it's not a warship.  It's not designed to be a warship.  It's not fast enough to be a warship even if you slapped a bunch of advanced radars & weapons on it.  IT IS NOT A WARSHIP.  IT WILL NEVER DO WHAT WE EXPECT A HALIFAX OR CSC TO DO.  That's why we aren't building 22 AOPS.

Speaking for myself, I’m not suggesting that it would or should in any way supplant a frigate in role or task. I understand that it is never intended to be a front line combattant in a war zone. That being said, I’m not advocating for a VLS, rail gun etc...But, I do think there’s something to be said for some measure of air defence, at least. The characteristics of the Mk38, particularly its max elevation, make it unsuitable as a true air defence weapon. It’s range is also limited at 2.5 km. That’s why I would have liked the 57. With the right sensor package, it gives you anti-air, anti-missile and anti-surface capability. I know that’s also the case with the 76mm the Chief was talking about, which I’m encouraged to hear is still in stock. I’m not sure if the Scanter package is able to accommodate that task, but I do know it has an air search feature. Realistically, I believe it’s mainly for use in helo operations, though.

It seems as though the weapon suite is essentially focused on being able to force civilian/merchant vessels to heave to when requested. I’m sure it’s quite capable of doing that. It’s just the unexpected that makes me wish for a little more bite.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,600
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1374 on: September 01, 2018, 10:22:03 »
It's gray and it navy, sooner or later it will be sent somewhere where the risk is much higher. The world is also going to be a much different place and different crisis. One of those crisis might be on our doorstep. You also assume your political master will listen to reason, they may not. Canadian governments have a long history of sending troops and sailors unprepared/under equipped into harms way. Much better to walk softly with a big stick, then to wandering around with a popgun on a frigate sized vessel.