• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,475
Points
1,040
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,079
Points
1,160
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:
Why do we need a 4* CDS?
Why does JAG need to be a 1*?

Why do some equate rank with qty of subordinates?

So what then should be the associated min-max of subordinates for each rank? (Given that it seems command authority should be blanket equalized to how many subordinates a unit/Ship commander has?)

Perhaps mistakenly I had understood appointment rank to be associated with scope of responsibilities, as inflated as Canada may be argued to be relative to other Western militaries (of course based on absolute size, not relative position within a national-level security regime).

Dare one ask why a land force unit perpetually undermanned and with minimal influence on its own be commanded by anyone above the rank of Major?

🤔

Regards
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:
Not enough warships for all the ranks to be able to command?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
148
Points
680
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:
For a diesel electric ship they are surprisingly sophisticated. I suspect it has to do with the tonnage of the ship. Realistically a LCdr CO, with LT(N) XO and CPO2 Coxn could easily sail this vessel.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
523
Points
1,040
For a diesel electric ship they are surprisingly sophisticated. I suspect it has to do with the tonnage of the ship. Realistically a LCdr CO, with LT(N) XO and CPO2 Coxn could easily sail this vessel.
Experience maybe, given that they are icebreaking? Not sure if the trend of them doing ride alongs with CCG will continue, but with the prep it's really just a time thing and where the people on the CO list sit for promotion. The ship is also operating with a helo onboard and doing some other big ship things so the rank seems reasonable given the scope of the responsibilities.

On the flip side the 280s used to have four ringers doing a second tour as COs, so it's all pretty arbitrary anyway. Maybe once we figure out what we are doing with them we can relook at the rank.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,582
Points
1,060
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:

Because after you fire the Commander for some spurious reason you’ll still have a 2 1/2 ringer that can command the ship :)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
680
Points
1,010
Army guy here: why does a ship with a complement of 60 - 85 need a Commander as skipper and a Lieutenant-Commander as an executive officer? That's less than the average rifle company and it's not like the AOPS are super sophisticated warships.

:unsure:
MCDV's have LCdr's as CO's. It's done generally just before they are posted to a Major Warship (Frigate) as an XO and is part of their command development stream.

An AOPS tonnage, range, cost, admin, and mission sets currently require a Commander who has done an XO tour on board a frigate (and soon an AOPS itself). There is also the risk right now of ice navigation. The RCN is still learning the ropes so to speak and until there is a good amount of ice experience they de-risk with the seagoing experience of a Commander (and bringing an ice experienced CCG officer onboard).

There is also the potential of an airdet embarked which generally comes with a Major or LCol. Tough to have the CO of the ship being outranked by the Airdet CO. The relationship can get awkward enough when you have squadron commanders coming out and flying off the deck. Flight ops may be the deciding factor for having a Cdr.

I'm sure one day there may be LCdr CO's and LtN) XO's.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,475
Points
1,040
MCDV's have LCdr's as CO's. It's done generally just before they are posted to a Major Warship (Frigate) as an XO and is part of their command development stream.

An AOPS tonnage, range, cost, admin, and mission sets currently require a Commander who has done an XO tour on board a frigate (and soon an AOPS itself). There is also the risk right now of ice navigation. The RCN is still learning the ropes so to speak and until there is a good amount of ice experience they de-risk with the seagoing experience of a Commander (and bringing an ice experienced CCG officer onboard).

There is also the potential of an airdet embarked which generally comes with a Major or LCol. Tough to have the CO of the ship being outranked by the Airdet CO. The relationship can get awkward enough when you have squadron commanders coming out and flying off the deck. Flight ops may be the deciding factor for having a Cdr.

I'm sure one day there may be LCdr CO's and LtN) XO's.
Okay, I can buy into that. Just looked up the AOPS and Frigate again and see that while a bit shorter, the AOPS displaces around thirty percent more tonnage and is twice the length and six times the displacement of the MCDV. That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.

Of course now that gets me to wondering why we didn't hang a few more weapon systems on her. :giggle:

🍻
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
680
Points
1,010
Okay, I can buy into that. Just looked up the AOPS and Frigate again and see that while a bit shorter, the AOPS displaces around thirty percent more tonnage and is twice the length and six times the displacement of the MCDV. That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.

Of course now that gets me to wondering why we didn't hang a few more weapon systems on her. :giggle:

🍻
Yes they are very chonky (as my kids would say!).

She has a specific job, she's basically a recce asset (in army terms). Don't fight, get info.

Patrol and Recognize Maritime Picture compilation up to and including ice and near-ice waters. Carry other government departments to do science, sovereignty, and law enforcement tasks in areas where they can't get to normally. Deploy light army assets onto the ice or amphib them onto the Arctic archipelago.

That's the CONOPs. If the shooting starts then they call the frigates and airforce in. AOPS are our only (aside from Rangers) persistent active surveillance asset for the arctic for 6+ months of the year.

Also weapon changes significantly change the costs, crewing and space available onboard for those other tasks. I have no issues with the ship as is.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
When the Halifax's start self-divesting and the Gap for the first CSC gets bigger, I suspect these ships are going to be doing far more than anticipated and they might regret going cheap on armament , combat suite and self defense systems. But then that is the Canadian way. Other than that issue I think they are going to be great ships.
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
34
Points
280
I'll be curious to see how much quicker the process is to have BROOKE go from delivery to commission, than it was with HDW. At least I assume it should take less time...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
Even the time from launch to the crew taking over is shorter if I recall correctly, plus being the 2nd ship, she have less issues than the HDW and most of the remaining ones identified and fixes being worked on already. Along with the crew having a chance to work on HDW, it's going to go much faster.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
Okay, I can buy into that. (...) That makes her a lot bigger than I thought. I'd originally imagined that because of her length that her displacement would come in between the two.
The reinforced hull to deal with the ice may have misled you.
A typical non-Arctic of-shore patrol vessel of similar dimensions (length and beam) as the AOPS would displace half or even one third than the AOPS. Steel is cheap but its cost is weight, hence displacement to keep floating. The diesel-electric propulsion also adds in more weight than a classical diesel one.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
680
Points
1,010
The reinforced hull to deal with the ice may have misled you.
A typical non-Arctic of-shore patrol vessel of similar dimensions (length and beam) as the AOPS would displace half or even one third than the AOPS. Steel is cheap but its cost is weight, hence displacement to keep floating. The diesel-electric propulsion also adds in more weight than a classical diesel one.
Her beam and height are quite... robust. Her 1 deck is higher from the waterline than a frigate. There is plenty of icebreaking in her hullform, which would never have those dimensions if she wasn't breaking ice. There is definitely more than just steel thickness that makes her heavier. But I totally get what you are driving at. A similar length OPV would have a narrower beam and a lower superstructure as well.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
680
Points
1,010
When the Halifax's start self-divesting and the Gap for the first CSC gets bigger, I suspect these ships are going to be doing far more than anticipated and they might regret going cheap on armament , combat suite and self defense systems. But then that is the Canadian way. Other than that issue I think they are going to be great ships.
Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's? Not really. They have a role, do their role. I don't think there will ever be regret choosing the armament. It was designed exactly like it is without anything cheap about it. If there is regret it will be not getting CSC going sooner.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,432
Points
940
Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's? Not really. They have a role, do their role. I don't think there will ever be regret choosing the armament. It was designed exactly like it is without anything cheap about it. If there is regret it will be not getting CSC going sooner.
The debate about the LAV and their role is ongoing. I would much prefer that the AOP's was better protected or least built with adding that on if needed. Canadians make a lot of excuses/reasons about taking the cheap road and it almost always bites us in the long term. I certainly agree with you that the CSC should have happened a decade ago. If we build the CSC as planned, it will likely be one of the best ships of the type out there, which will be very nice. You and I are not likely to agree on the equipping of the AOP's. Personally I hope I am wrong and you are right, but time and events will tell.
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
153
Points
430
Do we regret not up gunning (some would say overgunning) the LAV's like Bradley's?
Absolutely elements of the army regret not putting an ATGM capability on the LAV. M113 TUA and LAV TUA were divested as “not needed for Afghanistan” and now we have units tasked to deter Russians without a modern ATGM capability. If we had bought LAV3 with Bradley turrets instead, with their TOW missiles, then we might be in a better place now for the more modern war type missions we are currently receiving.

Similarly, the AOPS is well suited for domestic and constabulary type roles, and so long as that’s all the RCN is tasking them with, they’ll be fine. But if they ever receive a NATO, DPRK or a China-related task, these new ships may not be able to contribute much. And they will be much more expensive in terms of both money and personnel than the MCDVs.
 
Top