Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

If I didn't I should have.

Every Navy ship should be armed - some much more than others - but at a minimum a self defence capability that should encompass potential threats.

Every navy ship should be equipped properly to do its task. If it's not a fighting task then it doesn't need weapons. Particularly when said weapons get in the way of it doing its task properly.

 

[KevinB]

Every navy ship should be equipped properly to do its task. If it's not a fighting task then it doesn't need weapons. Particularly when said weapons get in the way of it doing its task properly.

Clear it was given the wrong task then

In all seriousness - what task would weapons get in the way of that the RCN would undertake?

 

[Underway]

Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs. More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.

AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO. And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.

Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines. Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.

 

[KevinB]

Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs. More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.

Okay I see your point there.

AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO. And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.

AOR is a fleet support ship?

Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines. Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.

What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew? Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?

 

[AmmoTech90]

What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew? Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?

That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at. Also, as it's a barge with very limited sea handling, we aren't going to give any engineer units anything but school buses to move around in even when not hooked up to a Leopard.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Removing small arms from the equation (50 cal and below in size) Minehunters and AORs. More crew, more complications, and removal from their main task.

AORs don't need weapons, they need more space for bullets and beans and every weapon on them takes multiple operators and techs away from the fighting warships IMHO. And tons of fuel/parts, while increasing costs.

Minesweepers don't need weapons, they need remote vehicles to detect, locate and eliminate mines. Every weapon on them takes away operators and techs from the fighting warships and removes space/weight to load and operate these vehicles/equipment.

That is a sign that your trades are under strength, I suspect that every ship is going to have to contribute to their own defense in the next few conflicts. We don't have enough ships to escort every AOR as they go back and forth to resupply to support a sustained operation. there are weapon and self defense systems coming on line that were not available even a few years ago. I expect to see on AOR's, laser based weapons for self defense. Potentially UAV to attack small craft or autonomously hunt subs or attempt to suppress their activities.

 

[dimsum]

What if you got rid of the middleman - and had a combatant vessel be able to use remote vehicles to deal with mines?
How much more of a burden would that be on the ship/crew? Could you have a MineHunter "Barge" that is towed by a combatant vessel to do MineHunter stuff with RPV's etc - and cut loose if need be?

I'd hate to be in a FFG/DDG purposely going into a potential minefield.

 

[KevinB]

That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at. Also, as it's a barge with very limited sea handling, we aren't going to give any engineer units anything but school buses to move around in even when not hooked up to a Leopard.

Okay just was curious

I'd hate to be in a FFG/DDG purposely going into a potential minefield.

I'd hate to be anyone in anything doing that...
UAV/RPV work from a far would be my goal.

 

[AirDet]

I would say it responds to the identified requirements as per the concept of use.

Namely, to deter, disable, and soften an uncooperative vessel prior to a boarding supported by the embarked air det.

Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.

 

[Stoker]

Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.

So the hundreds of MK 38 mounts at sea today on ships in 15 navies are a useless toy? Sorry I disagree.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.

Soft-Sided Vehicle? Doesn't that describe pretty much every bridge ever? It certainly describes most civvy bridges and pilot houses I have seen.

 

[Underway]

Then they failed. A 25mm isn't going to soften anything other than a soft sided vehicle.. We would be better off removing this useless toy. I get the reply that this isn't a frigate and you're right. However, all warships need to be able to defend themselves.

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think a 25mm is a toy suitable for killing soft sided vehicles. 50 cals kill soft sided vehicles.

When have you seen a civilian ship recently that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 or higher? There isn't one.

When have you seen a modern military ship that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 our higher? There isn't one (though NATO armoured magazines and hangars for carriers may be).

Having fired a 25mm from a LAV (in training) and having seen what it can do to armored targets (in training) as well as buildings (not in training) and the soft people inside of those buildings (not in training) I have no doubt it will have no issues dealing with whatever targets that an AOPS is likely to come across. Targets such as illegal fishermen, polluters, drug runners, refugee ships, and various others. For that matter, a 50 cal has proven its more than good enough for the same in the 25ish years the MCDVs were doing the same job..

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That would be like having a Leopard tow a trailer with a engineer section behind it and cut it loose when it realizes it isn't facing obstacles or when it get shot at.

Well. Now someone in NDHQ will read this and “surprise!!!”, guess what new role the PRes Engr Sqn’s are going to be gifted in 2022??

 

[Maxman1]

You must be really glad I am not the CRCN
I'd have folks out welding weapons everywhere - that life boat -- yeah mount a C6 to it.

 

[KevinB]

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think a 25mm is a toy suitable for killing soft sided vehicles. 50 cals kill soft sided vehicles.

When have you seen a civilian ship recently that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 or higher? There isn't one.

When have you seen a modern military ship that is armored to STANAG 4569 level 5 our higher? There isn't one (though NATO armoured magazines and hangars for carriers may be).

Having fired a 25mm from a LAV (in training) and having seen what it can do to armored targets (in training) as well as buildings (not in training) and the soft people inside of those buildings (not in training) I have no doubt it will have no issues dealing with whatever targets that an AOPS is likely to come across. Targets such as illegal fishermen, polluters, drug runners, refugee ships, and various others. For that matter, a 50 cal has proven its more than good enough for the same in the 25ish years the MCDVs were doing the same job..

25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...

While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.

 

[AirDet]

I did

The tankers had two CWIS. Originally they had and AD turret with twin guns and a missile deck for ManPADS. I'm not saying the AOPS and AORs should be armed like a frigate. I'm just saying they operate often by themselves. As such they need to be able to protect themselves. CIWS at a minimum should be part of all our ships.

 

[Good2Golf]

25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...

While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.

Hence why they’re ancillary close in self-protection on Ticonderoga, Nimitz, Ford, OHP, etc…….

 

[Good2Golf]

The tankers had two CWIS. Originally they had and AD turret with twin guns and a missile deck for ManPADS. I'm not saying the AOPS and AORs should be armed like a frigate. I'm just saying they operate often by themselves. As such they need to be able to protect themselves. CIWS at a minimum should be part of all our ships.

Why not the seacan 16-pack of ESSM?

 

[AirDet]

25mm Training Practice Tracer will go through a Leo1 turret - most parts of a T-54/55 turret.
AP or HEI are much more effective on actual real world targets...

While it wouldn't be my choice for a primary armament - it will easily deal with anything that isn't a major surface combatant.

Actually, you've made my point. This weapon is more suitable on and APC/LAV/etc not a warship. It can't be used for missile defense, nor would it provide any form of intimidation for another ship.

I'm not a naval tactician but I was an armorer. Therefore I look at weapons systems pragmatically. This system has zero compatibility to the design concept of this ship. We'd be better off just removing it.

 

[AirDet]

Why not the seacan 16-pack of ESSM?

The Danish have a great system whereby you can change out the weapon system for the mission, StanFlex. The systems StanFlex - Wikipedia can include 76mm, AD missile kits, etc. Personally, I think we would've been better off incorporating this feature into the AOPS rather than that pop gun it came with.