Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Kirkhill]

Nearly every other nation's CG has a LE role at minimum - but in hindsight - a RCMP Maritime Div would probably make more sense.

I think the CCG does have an LE role. Subject to limitations.

Become a fishery officer

Discover the challenging, adventurous and rewarding world of being a fishery officer. Help us enforce regulations, protect fishery resources and fish habitat through land, sea and air patrols, and contribute to fishery awareness education.

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

It also supports the RCMP in LE

Marine Security Enforcement Teams

Marine Security Enforcement Teams

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

 

[Good2Golf]

P-8 and MQ-9B enter the chat

…as do Houthi rebels…

 

[Czech_pivo]

The CCG and USCG provide very different services.

I think the name of the CCG should be changed as it causes confusion.

Copy the Australia's - rename the CCG the 'Canadian Maritime Safety Authority'

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Those defences necessary to defend the coasts. Conceivably a mix of artillery assets mounted on ships belonging to the RCN, artillery assets launched from fixed and mobile platforms belonging to the army and artillery assets mounted on aircraft belonging to the RCAF.

The only currently viable coastal defences we have are those belonging to the RCN and those belonging to the RCAF. I would argue that the the RCAF is the only viable player given that its fleet generally plays at home while the RCN plays away.

The artillery assets in common to the RCN, RCAF and Army are bullets, shells, bombs and rockets with an assortment of guidance systems ranging from the non-existent to 1m CEP.

Externally powered munitions, like bullets, shells and bombs, have limited range, poor accuracy and demand complex launching systems. Self-powered munitions, like ballistic rockets, jet powered cruise missiles, UAVs, Loitering Attack Munitions and Precision Guided Munitions are often platform independent and can be launched from aircraft, ships, barges, submarines, trucks, trains and concrete pads. Many of them can skip the complexity associated with aircraft and airfields, cruisers, carriers and submarines by virtue of their range or the availability of a simple long range booster UAV that can be strapped on.

The AOPS and MCDVs can be protected by anti-air and anti-ship missiles, as well as bullets, delivered by RCAF F18s and F35s. Conceivably they could also be protected by CP-140s and P8s as well as RPAS if they were fitted to carry and launch munitions currently in Canadian inventory or planned. Those same munitions could also be delivered from terrestrial launchers, presumably under the control of the Canadian Army.
Making those launchers available for home, or coastal defence, covering the approaches currently covered by F18s, C130s and CH-149s, would release the RCN for distant waters missions in support of foreign affairs and national diplomacy.

The AOPS is more likely to spend time observing than it does attacking or defending. If it can maintain a stand-off by virtue of its own fleet of UxVs or by UxVs operated by partners in the patrol zone then the question becomes how quickly can a suitable munition be supplied from shore to eliminate an identified threat. Sea going threats take days to cover the same distance that an aircraft, crewed or uncrewed, can cover in hours.

I would say that based on current realities then the main gun of the AOPS might be upgraded to manage a primary C-UAS role with surface engagement being a secondary task.

OK. I am not a navy type, but I will try here.

AOPS is for presence and surveillance, but I don't think it is meant as the recce function for strike assets. The armament it has allows it to perform the OPS function on missions like Op CARIBBE. In our Arctic it performs presence and surveillance, demonstrating that we are there. It is not a recce asset looking for enemy amphibious task groups that will then get struck by other assets. There are other assets for detecting such groups (MPA among them), should we actually be worried about amphibious strike groups approaching the shores of North America.

 

[dimsum]

OK. I am not a navy type, but I will try here.

AOPS is for presence and surveillance, but I don't think it is meant as the recce function for strike assets. The armament it has allows it to perform the OPS function on missions like Op CARIBBE. In our Arctic it performs presence and surveillance, demonstrating that we are there. It is not a recce asset looking for enemy amphibious task groups that will then get struck by other assets. There are other assets for detecting such groups (MPA among them), should we actually be worried about amphibious strike groups approaching the shores of North America.

Pretty much yes.

If they’re surface forces, satellites would likely be detecting them first.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The AOP's are important to our Sovereignty needs in the Arctic, they certainly give the RCN the abilty to go further north, go earlier and stay later than ever before. Their primary taskings as I see it our, Presence patrols, SAR and joint exercises with other departments and other Northern governments.

Our main threat to our sovereignty are the US, China and Russia. We have already dealt with pesky Danes and their demands for Danewhiskey. so that front should be quiet for a long time. The US vs Canada will be a political/diplomatic solution (Agreeing to disagree politely).

I don't see the Chinese or Russians acting singularly, but in concert. As I mentioned the Russians have the capability to place and sustain a civilian (in matching Arctic camo) presence on the edge of our archipelago almost at anytime of the year. This will be accompanied by heavy diplomatic assaults on Canada's Arctic claims. If we have a similar government as we have now, it's likley they will be paralyzed and unsure of what to do. giving our opponents time to build their presence and round up support at the UN to challenge our claims.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some interesting design issues around making Arctic class icebreakers

 

[suffolkowner]

Constabulary function is an add on to the RCN and it doesnt seem likely that we will see a change in the CCG. Come a SHTF situation Im sure the AOPS will get add on capabilities and will be useful for patrol and surveillance close to home

 

[Underway]

OK. I am not a navy type, but I will try here.

AOPS is for presence and surveillance, but I don't think it is meant as the recce function for strike assets. The armament it has allows it to perform the OPS function on missions like Op CARIBBE. In our Arctic it performs presence and surveillance, demonstrating that we are there. It is not a recce asset looking for enemy amphibious task groups that will then get struck by other assets. There are other assets for detecting such groups (MPA among them), should we actually be worried about amphibious strike groups approaching the shores of North America.

It's not a recce asset because navy's don't do recce (but that's another thread)! But you are completely right in that for AOPS function its weapons are completely in line for its job.

So if the CCG actually was a true CG...

Coast Guards in the world do environmental protection, fisheries, aids to navigation, law enforcement and search and rescue generally but a lot of countries split those duties up into different organizations (Australias search and rescue is privatized for example).

The duties of dealing with law enforcement on the water can be variously distributed through multiple agencies depending on which country you are from. Some use police forces, (Germany), some use border services (Australia), some are a subset of the navy (Italy), some are paramilitry on their own (Greece), some use all of these (France!) and there are various applications in between all of these depending on their needs and history.

 

[Underway]

Constabulary function is an add on to the RCN and it doesnt seem likely that we will see a change in the CCG. Come a SHTF situation Im sure the AOPS will get add on capabilities and will be useful for patrol and surveillance close to home

It's not an add on. Its a core mission. The RCN was created to be constabulatory. Its been the only mission we've had that hasn't changed in the entire history of the force.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's not an add on. Its a core mission. The RCN was created to be constabulatory. Its been the only mission we've had that hasn't changed in the entire history of the force.

but only because the CCG is limited?

I dont think it would be a big deal to others if there were more sharp pointy ships

 

[Underway]

but only because the CCG is limited?

I dont think it would be a big deal to others if there were more sharp pointy ships

Because (and I'm going to shout in itallics here to try and get the point to everyone on the thread, its not a personal attack),

ITS NOT THE COAST GUARDS $*&@ING JOB!!!!

Does the road repair crew do law enforcement? How about the fire department? What about the road/bridge engineering and inspectors? Or the ditch cleaning crew, snow plow operator or paramedic,? Those people are the land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Police Departments do law enforcement on land. In the maritime case that's either Border Services, Fisheries Enforcement Officers or RCMP transported or supported by the RCN/CCG because we have the vehicles to get them there.

For presence the friggin Postal Service is good enough for Canada in the arctic on land, so the CCG just sailing around providing government services is enough for a legal claim. Should law enforcement or shooting of some sort be required call the law or the military. Not the snow plow crew.

If someone wants to argue that Canada needs a paramilitary Coast Guard then take a look at the snow plow guy and ask if he wants a gun and ticket book to enforce speed limits. That's basically what you're asking to happen.

 

[Baz]

It's not a recce asset because navy's don't do recce (but that's another thread)! But you are completely right in that for AOPS function its weapons are completely in line for its job.

I think they do, but the terminology is used different.

I don't know how this is online, but here it is anyway, ATP-1, Chapter 6, Section 2 (Picture Compilation and Scouting), Figure 6-1, page 6-8, Scouting Description. Scouting is broken down into Surveillance, which has a bunch of stuff, and Reconnaissance, which points directly down into Identification under Surveillance.

I've been known on more than one occasion when terms such as C4ISR and ISR and ISTAR (and I was in the ISTAR branch at SHAPE) are used, including by senior civilians, at GDMS-C, and to GOFOs, to ask "what exactly do you mean by that?" The O-6 ISRD for Odyssey Dawn was particularly unimpressed.

However, my point was those terms get thrown around a lot without meaning behind them. At NATO AGS IO, as the surveillance officer, sitting next to the intelligence officer, I put up a poster that said, basically:

• intelligence: blah, blah, blah (not useful here)
• surveillance: from surveil meaning over watch. Watching "something" to see if something important happens
• reconnaissance: from recognition. Identifying something you've observed to the level required for the Commander to take appropriate action

Armies and Navies have been doing these activities ever since they've been organized as such, with the goal of providing the Commander sufficient warning and information to make good decisions. The proliferation of many terms (many which meant very specific things for the development of C2, but have been marketed to high heaven), nor the creation of complex processes and systems, doesn't change those basic activities.

 

[dapaterson]

If someone wants to argue that Canada needs a paramilitary Coast Guard then take a look at the snow plow guy and ask if he wants a gun and ticket book to enforce speed limits. That's basically what you're asking to happen.

I live in Ottawa. That might be an improvement over a chunk of the Ottawa Police Service.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Because (and I'm going to shout in itallics here to try and get the point to everyone on the thread, its not a personal attack),

ITS NOT THE COAST GUARDS $*&@ING JOB!!!!

Does the road repair crew do law enforcement? How about the fire department? What about the road/bridge engineering and inspectors? Or the ditch cleaning crew, snow plow operator or paramedic,? Those people are the land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Police Departments do law enforcement on land. In the maritime case that's either Border Services, Fisheries Enforcement Officers or RCMP transported or supported by the RCN/CCG because we have the vehicles to get them there.

For presence the friggin Postal Service is good enough for Canada in the arctic on land, so the CCG just sailing around providing government services is enough for a legal claim. Should law enforcement or shooting of some sort be required call the law or the military. Not the snow plow crew.

If someone wants to argue that Canada needs a paramilitary Coast Guard then take a look at the snow plow guy and ask if he wants a gun and ticket book to enforce speed limits. That's basically what you're asking to happen.

Well, you don’t have to yell….

 

[childs56]

It is not unheard of a Coast Guard ship or boat to have DFO, RCMP or other federal/ Provincial Agency on board to assist with investigations, etc.
I Know the Coast Guard is a Union low risk security force. But to give them the AOPS, add a Military det to assist in running UAV (Surface and sub surface) and provide security would not be a bad idea.
The Coast Guard provides a much needed eyes and ears on the coast lines. We could tailor missions to suit them and vice versa. I know in the past The Military and Coast Guard have shared services for under water survey and surface surveillance. This might be a way to boost some needed co-operative funding to get things protected better.

 

[childs56]

Because (and I'm going to shout in itallics here to try and get the point to everyone on the thread, its not a personal attack),

ITS NOT THE COAST GUARDS $*&@ING JOB!!!!

Does the road repair crew do law enforcement? How about the fire department? What about the road/bridge engineering and inspectors? Or the ditch cleaning crew, snow plow operator or paramedic,? Those people are the land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Police Departments do law enforcement on land. In the maritime case that's either Border Services, Fisheries Enforcement Officers or RCMP transported or supported by the RCN/CCG because we have the vehicles to get them there.

For presence the friggin Postal Service is good enough for Canada in the arctic on land, so the CCG just sailing around providing government services is enough for a legal claim. Should law enforcement or shooting of some sort be required call the law or the military. Not the snow plow crew.

If someone wants to argue that Canada needs a paramilitary Coast Guard then take a look at the snow plow guy and ask if he wants a gun and ticket book to enforce speed limits. That's basically what you're asking to happen.

But if the Coast Guard is doing lets say a northern survey patrol and happen upon a unfriendly ship, it would be nice if they had more then a shiny red boat and a flare gun to dissuade any unfriendly intentions.

 

[suffolkowner]

Because (and I'm going to shout in itallics here to try and get the point to everyone on the thread, its not a personal attack),

ITS NOT THE COAST GUARDS $*&@ING JOB!!!!

Does the road repair crew do law enforcement? How about the fire department? What about the road/bridge engineering and inspectors? Or the ditch cleaning crew, snow plow operator or paramedic,? Those people are the land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Police Departments do law enforcement on land. In the maritime case that's either Border Services, Fisheries Enforcement Officers or RCMP transported or supported by the RCN/CCG because we have the vehicles to get them there.

For presence the friggin Postal Service is good enough for Canada in the arctic on land, so the CCG just sailing around providing government services is enough for a legal claim. Should law enforcement or shooting of some sort be required call the law or the military. Not the snow plow crew.

If someone wants to argue that Canada needs a paramilitary Coast Guard then take a look at the snow plow guy and ask if he wants a gun and ticket book to enforce speed limits. That's basically what you're asking to happen.

Well thats a matter of definition isnt it? And does the CCG not already do law enforcement as indicated in many places on many of the threads at least as a platform provider as you yourself noted?

Seems like people are arguing that it should be the CCG's job and not the RCN

I wonder if how we do it is normal or the US model or some other?

 

[Lumber]

It's not a recce asset because navy's don't do recce (but that's another thread)! But you are completely right in that for AOPS function its weapons are completely in line for its job.

Yes they do; it's called scouting.

Edit: just noticed @Baz beat me to it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yep. Don't know how many "scout and return" I've done on the east coast while on sovpats before the days of the recognized maritime picture (and pre internet/satcom days), but it was a lot of them. Anything we caught even at the edge of radar detection got "visited".