• 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

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
154
Points
680
whiskey601 said:
The APG/73 radar theoretically could guide the missile for some distance, but the range of the missile is beyond the doppler range of the radar. Although the AGM84  is multi mode, it can receive terminal guidance to the target. Always better than firing blind...

We wouldn't need the APG/73 to "guide" a Harpoon. Harpoon have on-board active radars, inertial guidance and GPS. All you need to do is program into them the location of where the target ship should be, and off the missile goes. It will look for the target when it gets there; until then it is going to skim along the water, hidden below the radar horizon until a few second before it's radar to turn it's seeker head on.

In order to acquire the location of the target, we don't even need our CF-18s to have positive contact with the target on their organic sensors; as long as someone in the Link has them on like an Aurora, or maybe even an American AWACS, then the target data can be transmitted to the CF-18s.

Essentially, we just need the F-18s to be a delivery platforms for ASMs that can get to a given location fast.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
880
The Aurora can do it all. The actual airframe is the P-3 Orion's and any hard point available for the Orion can be quickly and easily acquired and installed on our Aurora's. Similarly, the Harpoon missile set for air launch is easy to acquire. And as indicated by Lumber, the Harpoon is a "aim-in-general-direction-fire-and-forget" missile.

Anyone who is willing to go back in these forums will see that I have been saying for years (if not decades) that the best anti-ship defence in the Arctic is Auroras with white ones under their wings.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,167
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The Aurora can do it all. The actual airframe is the P-3 Orion's and any hard point available for the Orion can be quickly and easily acquired and installed on our Aurora's. Similarly, the Harpoon missile set for air launch is easy to acquire. And as indicated by Lumber, the Harpoon is a "aim-in-general-direction-fire-and-forget" missile.

Anyone who is willing to go back in these forums will see that I have been saying for years (if not decades) that the best anti-ship defence in the Arctic is Auroras with white ones under their wings.

And if they run out then the CF-18s can hustle replacement rounds up north in a few hours.  The target won't have moved far making 3 knots through the ice.

I seem to remember back in the 90's the government making a big thing about treating Comox and Goose Bay or Gander as FOLs for the CF-18s to take on the anti-shipping role.  It surprised me then, and still surprises me, that the extent of the effort seemed to be to overflying ships and trying to toss dumb bombs on the deck when Harpoons were already in the inventory. 

And wouldn't another Harpoon variant be compatible with the subs?  And seeing as how this is the AOPS thread - there has to be deck space somewhere on a ship that size to bolt on a couple of boxes of Harpoons if the situation warranted.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
880
Other than the four little flats on the bridge deck level, you can pretty well strap a couple of quad-packs anywhere else on deck! Quick: Just like they did with TERRA NOVA and RESTIGOUCHE for Gulf War I.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Yes, I know the Harpoon is a fire and forget missile (more better described as Automatic Target Acquisition):

From http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html (open source)
"The latest (2002) upgrade of the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER is the SLAM-ER ATA (Automatic Target Acquisition). This missile can be launched in the general direction of the target and will automatically select a target by comparing the stored reference image with the IIR seeker image without the need for operator intervention. However, the operator can take over control of the missile at any time in the mission, thereby retaining the capabilities of the basic SLAM-ER. (Note: this implies the operator has real time tracking information of the missile). The ATA system was released to the Fleet in 2002, and existing AGM-84H/K missiles will eventually be upgraded.
In January 2008, the U.S. Navy awarded Boeing an SDD (System Design and Development) contract for the AGM-84M Harpoon Block III. The Block III upgrade includes the major Block II features like the GPS/INS guidance and a new seeker, and adds a two-way datalink. The datalink makes it possible to update the targeting information after launch and actively control the missile at all points of the mission. The Navy plans to acquire Block III upgrade kits for 850 Harpoon missiles, with IOC planned for 2011. The RGM-84M is the ship-launched variant of the Block III missile."

The point I was making was that the missile itself out -ranges the CF-18's radar, but initial target information from the APG/73 could provide inputs from the operator if targets of opportunity are to be engaged rather than pre-planned/pre-programmed launches/strikes.  After the missile is launched, it can of course find its way with precision however with newer versions the operator can take control of the missile if necessary. I'm not sure a single seat CF-18 pilot would want to do that (with all the other simultaneous tasks ongoing) but certainly an Aurora or other similar aircraft would, especially if a volley is fired by multiple aircraft and there are moving targets or an abort is required.     

From Janes:
"A modification of the existing AGM-84D Harpoon Block 1C missile, the Block II+ weapon is being developed as a rapid-capability enhancement for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for introduction in late fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017). Block II+ introduces a GPS guidance kit, a new datalink interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option, and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures to confer the Harpoon weapon with the ability to receive in-flight updates that improve the targeting and engagement of moving maritime targets."

(It's my understanding that the in-flight updates and changes to acquire new targets or re-attack (missed, obscured or moved targets?) need not be sent to the missile in flight by the original launch platform but can be sent or directed from another platform.) 
 

ringo

Member
Reaction score
4
Points
180
New Zealand is looking for an ice strengthened vessel to patrol the Southern ocean seems a perfect fit for a De Wolfe class vessel.
Canada should make an attractive offer, even if it means allowing NZ the first built hull, these are the kinds of things that need to be done or at least attempted if national shipbuilding program is to succeed.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,167
Points
1,060
Generally agree ringo - but if I was a kiwi I wouldn't be overly appreciative of getting the "prototype" unit.  They have already been down that road with the "Canterbury".

I'd be wanting Hull 3.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
http://shipsforcanada.ca/

Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.
 

Cronicbny

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
230
jmt18325 said:
http://shipsforcanada.ca/

Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.

It's all a good news story for the future fleet! But, I dare ask, where will we find the future people to crew them? Bah - a piddling concern, I know.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
165
Points
710
IN ARDUA NITOR said:
It's all a good news story for the future fleet! But, I dare ask, where will we find the future people to crew them? Bah - a piddling concern, I know.

"Build it, and they will come."

                "Field of Dreams."
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,364
Points
1,060
jmt18325 said:
http://shipsforcanada.ca/

Steel has been cut for the Margaret Brooke.  That makes 4 ships under construction between Irving (the two AOPS) and Seaspan (two OFSV), with a third at Seaspan (the third and final OFSV) to start construction soon.


Seaspan progress http://www.seaspan.com/nss-progress-galleries
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,364
Points
1,060
So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190

 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,223
Points
1,090
Colin P said:
So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190

I know this seems petty, but.............the grammar Nazi in me just had to respond.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Colin P said:
So reading this article about the HMCS Moncton visiting Churchill, makes we wonder does Churchill have any value as a Northern base/staging area for naval/military operations in the North?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/royal-canadian-navy-ship-visit-port-churchill-operation-nanook-1.3752190

Its too far away and no source of fuel available.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,350
Points
1,090
The rail line to the port can address resupply issues,  but not geography.
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,032
Points
940
Chief Stoker said:
Its too far away and no source of fuel available.
Seems like a blithely dismissive response.

The question was stated regarding "naval/military operations in the North."  How is it that Churchill too far away from the north?  As for fuel, there's an all-season rail line.  The RCAF, Kenn Borek, et al  manage to get aviation fuel at Churchill.

If Canada is going to claim the arctic, perhaps some options beyond throwing up one's hands in defeat should be considered.

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
dapaterson said:
The rail line to the port can address resupply issues,  but not geography.

Moncton requested fuel from the port from 12 different suppliers no one would ship leaving the ship to receive fuel from the Shawinigan. St. John's requested 3 tankers of fuel a number of years ago, only one showed. So the fuel supply in Churchill is unreliable.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Journeyman said:
Seems like a blithely dismissive response.

The question was stated regarding "naval/military operations in the North."  How is it that Churchill too far away from the north?  As for fuel, there's an all-season rail line.  The RCAF, Kenn Borek, et al  manage to get aviation fuel at Churchill.

If Canada is going to claim the arctic, perhaps some options beyond throwing up one's hands in defeat should be considered.

Where we actually operate its closer to go to Nuuk or Thule to get fuel. It a moot point really when we will have a refueling depot in Nanisivik in 2 years.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
430
Points
930
Is Nanisivik open 365 days or does it close in with ice for the winter?  Wondering if, regardless of facilities Churchill might make a good place to winter rather than transiting back to HZ at the end of the season.
 
Top