- Reaction score
- 14,765
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think we designed them to the "sweet spot". I rather have all the infrastructure for that stuff built in, rather than trying to adhoc it later.
Ships should be armed according to their designated roles, feature creep is a very real concern and what combat value you can fundamentally get out of a ship not designed for it is limited. What exactly is a "proper defensive suite and armaments"? I could see AOPS getting upgraded with a new cannon like the 30mm dual purpose system for CSC, remote weapon station machine guns and perhaps some limited EW suites against unmanned systems however, I don't particularly see the need for anymore than that. Once you start getting involved with decoys, ECM, missiles, torpedoes, larger guns, etc, you start requiring additional crew, additional space, additional funds, additional weight, etc. Return on investment capability wise is not there in my opinion.
At the end of the day, trying to turn AOPS into something it is explicitly not designed to do is a waste of time and resources.
Looking at everything from the perspective of a shooting conflict surely skews the value of a ship that is not designed to operate as a combatant. Navy's require a variety of platforms, not all of them are well suited to wartime operations or peacetime operations.
AOPS are great in that they provide a platform that is cheaper to run than a CPF but far more seaworthy and capable of a variety of missions versus an MCDV. They have great boat handling facilities, ample space for embarked forces, cargo space aboard, the ability to onload/offload cargo themselves, a great operational range and aviation facilities for future developments. Besides their designed role as a Northern capable OPV, there is great value in these ships for operations like drug interdiction, providing support to government agencies like the RCMP/DFO/CCG for their duties domestically, humanitarian assistance, security in regions like Africa, etc.
Just like how a CPF is a poor ship for many peacetime duties, AOPS is a poor ship for many wartime duties. That does not mean there is not a place within the RCN for either platform.
If the 'ball dropped' and we were in the thick of it, would they even leave the pier?
I don't think shooting wars are actually a navy's core job. Constabulary roles, and presence are the historical primary roles of navies.So basically we're saying the same thing. A great platform for everything but the core job of a Navy which is a shooting war.
Great training and sea days platform. You can 'show the flag' with it. Sure bring on some RCMP/NTOG ect.
But don't expect much more from it.
It's ok to open about their limitations.
Problem with Navy's is that when they are working their best they don't ever shoot. They just exist. When a Navy is working properly their effects are the lack of shooting, lack of drama. Army's have obvious kinetic effects and territory taken or defended when they are in use.I don't think shooting wars are actually a navy's core job. Constabulary roles, and presence are the historical primary roles of navies.
We obsess over combat capabilities because they are easily measured metrics. Ship X has 20 AAW missiles, 8x ASuW missiles, and a big gun is easy to talk about.
A big grey boat with lots of small arms, and a 25mm gun making bad actors rethink being bad is not so easily measured.
You have summed up the reason that the navy is the senior service... In modern days the air force is much the same. They serve a daily roll, even when they aren't putting "warheads on foreheads".Problem with Navy's is that when they are working their best they don't ever shoot. They just exist. When a Navy is working properly their effects are the lack of shooting, lack of drama. Army's have obvious kinetic effects and territory taken or defended when they are in use.
Problem with Navy's is that when they are working their best they don't ever shoot. They just exist. When a Navy is working properly their effects are the lack of shooting, lack of drama. Army's have obvious kinetic effects and territory taken or defended when they are in use.
But in that same vein, a Carrier Strike Group can make larger bad actors rethink their life choices, that don’t care about a small boat with some small guns.I don't think shooting wars are actually a navy's core job. Constabulary roles, and presence are the historical primary roles of navies.
We obsess over combat capabilities because they are easily measured metrics. Ship X has 20 AAW missiles, 8x ASuW missiles, and a big gun is easy to talk about.
A big grey boat with lots of small arms, and a 25mm gun making bad actors rethink being bad is not so easily measured.
If the 'ball dropped' and we were in the thick of it, would they even leave the pier?
How long into a full out war would we have no choice? A limited number of ships suggests that all will be pressed into service. For example what would be the expected attrition rate of the Halifax class engaging China over Taiwan?Woe be the government that sends them into harms way.
They do however care about a rain of DS-16 missles coming down on that same Carrier strike group.But in that same vein, a Carrier Strike Group can make larger bad actors rethink their life choices, that don’t care about a small boat with some small guns.
See OGBD's post just above ...But in that same vein, a Carrier Strike Group can make larger bad actors rethink their life choices, that don’t care about a small boat with some small guns.
100% agree and that's why we have ships like the MCDV's and AOPS in addition to the Halifax-Class and subs. However, I think it's also fair to say that the likelihood of open conflict between major powers slides along a scale through time and the weighting between combatant and non-combatant capabilities should slide along that scale as well so the Navy is well prepared for the possible roles it may be asked to take.I don't think shooting wars are actually a navy's core job. Constabulary roles, and presence are the historical primary roles of navies.
We obsess over combat capabilities because they are easily measured metrics. Ship X has 20 AAW missiles, 8x ASuW missiles, and a big gun is easy to talk about.
A big grey boat with lots of small arms, and a 25mm gun making bad actors rethink being bad is not so easily measured.
It should noted that famous Flower class Corvettes were supposed to Coastal patrol vessels. And that's all they were supposed to do . They were the inshore equivalent to the Sloop and later Frigates.How long into a full out war would we have no choice? A limited number of ships suggests that all will be pressed into service. For example what would be the expected attrition rate of the Halifax class engaging China over Taiwan?
DE systems take an ass ton of energy, while that demand may decrease somewhat in the future - from my understanding the AB’s that he fielded the lasers required most of their generators to be full out - and even then they where somewhat limited. Not sure what smaller ships power plants would offer for lasers.I would have preferred a 76mm upfront and the 30mm covering the aft. Coupled with sensors to accommodate that range and some self defense systems. The 76 would give significantly more reach, especially for protection of any shore parties and would magnify the presence effect. Not to mention it would increase the ships abilty to protect itself from many of the emerging threats like sea and air drones.
In a decade or so I expect that lasers will have improved enough to be worth equipping the vessels with increased capability to engage some of these threats. By that time most of the CFP's will be in limp mode, the first CSC will be going through trials and the AOP's will be the primary workhorses of the fleet, along with the two JSS and a few MCDV's
You might be able to store enough energy in a form of capacitors to fire a couple of shots and recharge. But you are right the infrastructure for them belies their small size of the actual engagement unit.DE systems take an ass ton of energy, while that demand may decrease somewhat in the future - from my understanding the AB’s that he fielded the lasers required most of their generators to be full out - and even then they where somewhat limited. Not sure what smaller ships power plants would offer for lasers.
I’ve often wondered if the DGLN concept may be reinvigorated by the potential to use the nuclear plans for energy weapons.
There is a version of the Oto Melera 76mm, the Sovraponte, that can be mounted flat on a deck with no penetration. It was originally designed to be installed on aircraft hangars.I would have preferred a 76mm upfront and the 30mm covering the aft. Coupled with sensors to accommodate that range and some self defense systems. The 76 would give significantly more reach, especially for protection of any shore parties and would magnify the presence effect. Not to mention it would increase the ships abilty to protect itself from many of the emerging threats like sea and air drones.