• 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

If what we went through in the last 10 days says anything its that these AOPs are most defiantly not a warship.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines a warship thusly:

“For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”

By this definition an AOPS is definitely a warship. A non-combatant warship, perhaps, but still legally a warship.
 
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines a warship thusly:

“For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”

By this definition an AOPS is definitely a warship. A non-combatant warship, perhaps, but still legally a warship.

Call it what you like... I know my own experience.
 
Do tell!!!

I mean, they are packing it in for the sniffles. Or so I read today lol

All I will say on here is what I was told to tell my family.

HMCS Charlottetown is being tasked with an RDS tasking that the current RDS is incapable of undertaking.

The RDS at that time was HMCS Margaret Brooke.

The tasking has since been turned off. Thank god.

I saw on the news HDW had an outbreak of COVID.
 
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines a warship thusly:

“For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.”

By this definition an AOPS is definitely a warship. A non-combatant warship, perhaps, but still legally a warship.

Again, my ignorance, besides the definition above, isn't AOPS also armed with the BAE 25mm Mk 38 machine gun system that features a highly accurate gun targeting and surveillance system, as well as the M242 Cannon. Doesn't this make it a warship although it isn't built to conventional navy milspecs? Doesn't this make it a warship? If it isn't then shouldn't the Canadian Coast Guard be responsible for all the tasks assigned to AOPS class of ships and crew them?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass.
 
Again, my ignorance, besides the definition above, isn't AOPS also armed with the BAE 25mm Mk 38 machine gun system that features a highly accurate gun targeting and surveillance system, as well as the M242 Cannon. Doesn't this make it a warship although it isn't built to conventional navy milspecs? Doesn't this make it a warship? If it isn't then shouldn't the Canadian Coast Guard be responsible for all the tasks assigned to AOPS class of ships and crew them?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass.
Well Asterix although civilian owned, the new JSS, AOPS, Kingston Class are also Non-Combatants. All of which are built on commercial standards, I'm pretty sure JSS has some commercial standards. All RCN ships to one extent or another are armed either by Small arms, 50 Cals, 25mm, 57mm or missile systems. Canadian CG are not armed and don't have the mandate of an armed force, AOPS are and that's the distinction. Change the mandate of the CG and train and arm them and then yes they can take over all tasks of AOPS. Is that ever going to happen more than likely not.
 
There is a difference between the legal definition of a "warship" for the purpose of the Law of the Sea or for the purpose of the Law of Armed Conflicts and what makes a naval vessel a "combatant" vs "non-combatant" for our own internal operations purposes.

When interacting with civilian vessels in any waters, it is appropriate to identify yourself as "Canadian warship MARGARET BROOKE" or "Canadian warship MONCTON", even as "Canadian warship ORCA", but not "Canadian warship ASTERIX" as it is under the command of a merchant mariner and does not fly the Canadian white ensign. The proper way for ASTERIX to identify itself should be "Canadian naval vessel ASTERIX".

This said, the non-combatants are simply not supposed to be put in combat situations above constabulary level work.
 
Canadian warship ORIOLE enters the chat.
waterworld GIF
 
Technically, for the purposes of the laws I mentioned above, ORIOLE is a "warship". As such she is entitled to all the various immunities associated with a warship under those laws and should they be captured in wartime, all aboard would be considered P.O.W under the Geneva Conventions.
 
Canadian warship ORIOLE enters the chat.
When Oriole calls into traffic they call in as HMCS Oriole, sometimes traffic responds with Warship Oriole. Its a non combatant for sure and has small arms so yes I would say its a warship as all RCN ships are.
 
A few years ago, if I recall correctly, the RCN, itself, classified the AOPs as a "constabulary vessel." Maybe the Coast Guard has the right (unarmed) roles, now, and the "old" RCMP Marine Division needs to be reformed ... I know, I know, crewing and everything, but if they really are "constabulary vessels" then maybe they should belong to a constabulary force.
 

Attachments

  • 399248231_853786866754431_7982573052444055814_n.jpg
    399248231_853786866754431_7982573052444055814_n.jpg
    197.5 KB · Views: 5
A few years ago, if I recall correctly, the RCN, itself, classified the AOPs as a "constabulary vessel." Maybe the Coast Guard has the right (unarmed) roles, now, and the "old" RCMP Marine Division needs to be reformed ... I know, I know, crewing and everything, but if they really are "constabulary vessels" then maybe they should belong to a constabulary force.

But how about if they have Constables aboard a Government of Canada ship with Government of Canada sailors with the Constable calling out the destinations and the tasks?

An RCN/RCNR ship with the RCMP as OGD.
 
A few years ago, if I recall correctly, the RCN, itself, classified the AOPs as a "constabulary vessel." Maybe the Coast Guard has the right (unarmed) roles, now, and the "old" RCMP Marine Division needs to be reformed ... I know, I know, crewing and everything, but if they really are "constabulary vessels" then maybe they should belong to a constabulary force.
Well they can do constabulary work as the CCG can't. They are well set up for staging boarding teams and hosting OGD. Even if the CCG changed themselves to a constabulary force, we would still be using AOPS in the Arctic and elsewhere.
 
I'd like to point out that the Coast Guard does have some ships assigned to do constabulary work: Some of the mid-shore patrol vessels are assigned to carry RCMP officers on law enforcement taskings and as a result, carry two different government ID plates. The Coast Guard one and the RCMP one.

347145_635399886430917683.png-l.jpg;w=800.jpg
 
I'd like to point out that the Coast Guard does have some ships assigned to do constabulary work: Some of the mid-shore patrol vessels are assigned to carry RCMP officers on law enforcement taskings and as a result, carry two different government ID plates. The Coast Guard one and the RCMP one.

View attachment 81402
Ah yes but how many Sea days do they contribute?
 
28 Layday cycle, so the ship will be in a SAR zone and likley spend most of that patrol tied up or at anchor. They be oncall 24/7 unless down with mechanical issues .

So is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Should they be on patrol, and possibly not be in the area needed, or secured and ready to respond?
 
Back
Top