Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If the 'ball dropped' and we were in the thick of it, would they even leave the pier?

Woe be the government that sends them into harms way.

 

[Furniture]

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.

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.

 

[Underway]

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.

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.

 

[Furniture]

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.

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".

 

[Maxman1]

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.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yep!

As First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Staveley once put it: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them."

 

[KevinB]

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.

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.

 

[suffolkowner]

If the 'ball dropped' and we were in the thick of it, would they even leave the pier?

Woe be the government that sends them into harms way.

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?

 

[Stoker]

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.

They do however care about a rain of DS-16 missles coming down on that same Carrier strike group.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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 ...

 

[GR66]

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.

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 (and I think many others on this site) would suggest that we're in a time where unfortunately the risk of war is much higher than it has been in very many decades. In reality we are already in a proxy war with Russia. The risk of open conflict with China over Taiwan is also increasing significantly as they quickly build up their military power while facing down a looming demographic crisis that may force them to act sooner than later if they wish to maximize their hopes of succeeding.

This is why I think more focus needs to be put on increasing combat capabilities for the RCN. Look around the World and you see that countries like the US, UK, Sweden, Poland, Australia, Japan and South Korea are all scrambling to increase their naval combat power in case war does break out.

 

[GK .Dundas]

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?

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.
The were completely unsuited for open ocean work but they were all we and the British had .
And at the start of hostilities we didn't have no where close to enough of them.
Some people have used the argument that even planning to up arm these vessels is waste since they aren't going to see combat. What happens if they're wrong ?
I hope those people are actually right but when you get right down to it they're not designed to exist much less survive in a war zone.
And given the both prior history and the current World situation I'm a bit concerned.

 

[Underway]

M113 (big metal box on tracks) in Ukraine doesn't need a turret to have a role, it can do things for specific jobs like armoured ambulance, or supply runs.

What effect would an AOPS bring? Does an AOPS need to be invincible or up armed to bring that effect? Just by being a platform at sea it provides MkI eyeballs, radar picture, comms and information to add to the Maritime Picture. And it does that because the crew onboard are RCN and know how to properly collect, collate and present/communicate that data. They have a flight deck, so can carry an aircraft of somesort which also likely expands an effect.

The AOPS is an M113. Its basically a big box that floats. Its got space for extra crew. Its got power. There is going to be a role for something like that if the balloon goes up.

People asking for AOPS to upgun are asking the ship to provide a warfighting role that its not designed for. It can contribute quite a bit without being upgunned in specific roles and perhaps with specialized equipment. Just a list of brainstorm examples here:

• ECM/ESM platform
• Mine countermeasures platform
• UXV platfom (USV, UAV, UUV are all possible)
• Dive Platform
• Special Forces Platform
• Towed Array Sonar Sensor (TRAPS has been trialed on AOPS)
• Minelayer

All those ideas could be or are valuable in different circumstances. The idea that with just "putting stuff in the box" a single ship could do all those tasks at various times. And those tasks are usually done under the protective umbrella of other assets or where the threat is low.

---

Honestly I don't think a lot of modern platforms "survive" in a modern conflict. You just need to survive long enough to make whatever effect you bring to the battlespace be worth it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

 

[KevinB]

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

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.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm glad we have the AOPS. It's giving our folks a new platform with good creature comforts to get sea days on.

I just hope that when the ball drops, because I think it's coming, we employ them properly and dont spend sailors and naval officers lives in situations they were woefully under equipped for.

@Underway is also correct, I don't expect most our forces that are currently afloat to be around at the end of the conflict. Our (Us and our Allies) ability to churn out cheap effective ships will be paramount.

 

[Maxman1]

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.

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.

It has 76 rounds ready to fire, which presumably need to be reloaded by hand as there is no below-deck magazine.