- Reaction score
- 1,690
- Points
- 1,260
Really? Then what armament do they now have? I can’t find anything on the net talking about new armament, everything still refers to the 40+yrs Bofors on them.Chief Stoker said:
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,690
- Points
- 1,260
So they now have less armament than before? Not being a naval guy, why does one remove arms altogether instead of replacing/improving them?Chief Stoker said:
- Reaction score
- 5,548
- Points
- 1,040
Czech_pivo said:
What do they need more than a 50 cal for. They go 8 knots regularly, and the most combat type thing they have ever done is embark US coast guard to stop drug runners. Which they do rather well. Really the 40mm bofors was a museum piece with no gyro stabilization or anything.
Dimsum said:
What happened to the 50 cal RWS that was mounted on the bow of (I want to say) Glace Bay. It was there two months ago. Are the rest not being mounted?
- Reaction score
- 1,581
- Points
- 1,160
Raytheon is supposedly supplying 58 Modified Typhoon RWS complete systems to the RCN. I would imagine the Halifax class will eat up at least 48, the rest I am assuming for the mythical JSS. Perhaps a few Kingston could be sporting these for a few years if the RCN saw a value in that. On the other other hand, removing the H2 from the Halifax might be an opportunity to add a few more H2 to a few of the MCDV.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-03-18-Raytheon-Canada-Limited-chosen-to-enhance-Royal-Canadian-Navy-crew-safety
deck space is a little short, but would it have been nice to see the Mk38 Mod 2 similar to the HdW class fitted to at least some of the MCDV. Are there enough weapons techs to support this:
2 x NRWS and 1 Mk38 Mod 2 on a Kingston class (+ 2x H2 .50 cal)
This would give reserve crews experience with these weps and system prior to serving on AOPS and potentially generating more bodies trained to maintain and use the systems.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-03-18-Raytheon-Canada-Limited-chosen-to-enhance-Royal-Canadian-Navy-crew-safety
deck space is a little short, but would it have been nice to see the Mk38 Mod 2 similar to the HdW class fitted to at least some of the MCDV. Are there enough weapons techs to support this:
2 x NRWS and 1 Mk38 Mod 2 on a Kingston class (+ 2x H2 .50 cal)
This would give reserve crews experience with these weps and system prior to serving on AOPS and potentially generating more bodies trained to maintain and use the systems.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,993
- Points
- 1,010
Just to close the conversation on the weapons suite of the MCDV: They are (back to being) primarily mine warfare vessels. And the primary use of weapons on mine warfare vessels is to dispose of mines floated to the surface by either sinking them or blowing them up from a distance. The only time in the RCN's history this wasn't so was when the Algerines were up-weaponized haphazardly during WWII so they could act as ASW escorts in Local Escort Forces. So a couple of .50 cals is sufficient for that task and any secondary constabulary duties that may befall the MCDVs.
Now, back to AOPS: Did anybody notice that, when attending the laying ceremony for the third HDW, the Minister of Procurement (not, of Defence) indicated that Ottawa could be open to acquiring a seventh AOPS to help cover the gap between AOPS and CSC.
Now we have to remember that ISL supposedly has a fixed $$ envelope contract to build five, or if they can manage it six, AOPS. They have until 7 months after the first AOPS is delivered to indicate if they will be able to build 5 or 6 for that fixed price. Obviously, if they can only manage 5, the gap between the AOPS and CSC will be greater. Would that mean (based on the minister's comment) that we would then spend a further huge amount of money for up to two AOPS that the RCN never asked for and (in all truth were imposed on the RCN at the whim of a PM [Harper] without any strategic thought behind the move) has no strategic or tactical use for?
Meanwhile, that same government refuses to procure the leasing of a second iAOR that the RCN needs and wants NOW! to cover a clearly existing HUGE (to quote the President) gap in the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. They do so on the very dubious excuse that the RCN allegedly indicated it has no need for four AORs*. This is the weakest of excuses as the iAOR are leased and whenever the new Protecteur class vessels are both completed, you can return one or both iAOR to their rightful owners, so that at no time are there more than three AOR in the Navy's hands.
*: The excuse that the Navy does not want or need four AOR's is actually historically incorrect: In 1965, after the Navy had completed it's analysis of the operations of the PROVIDER, the RCN indicated to the government of the day that it needed and would need permanently to have four such vessels to cover it's strategic/tactical afloat logistics needs. The next two were budgeted for - and then unification happened and the RCN managed - barely - to salvage those two (which became the original PROTECTEUR class). But the RCN has always indicated that the proper and ultimate number should be four, even though it made do with three only as a matter of necessity in view of the low defence priority of the governments. This hasn't changed and four AOR is still the strategically/tactically appropriate number for Canada, so that one can be made available at sea and at all times on each coast.
Now, back to AOPS: Did anybody notice that, when attending the laying ceremony for the third HDW, the Minister of Procurement (not, of Defence) indicated that Ottawa could be open to acquiring a seventh AOPS to help cover the gap between AOPS and CSC.
Now we have to remember that ISL supposedly has a fixed $$ envelope contract to build five, or if they can manage it six, AOPS. They have until 7 months after the first AOPS is delivered to indicate if they will be able to build 5 or 6 for that fixed price. Obviously, if they can only manage 5, the gap between the AOPS and CSC will be greater. Would that mean (based on the minister's comment) that we would then spend a further huge amount of money for up to two AOPS that the RCN never asked for and (in all truth were imposed on the RCN at the whim of a PM [Harper] without any strategic thought behind the move) has no strategic or tactical use for?
Meanwhile, that same government refuses to procure the leasing of a second iAOR that the RCN needs and wants NOW! to cover a clearly existing HUGE (to quote the President) gap in the strategic/tactical needs of the Navy. They do so on the very dubious excuse that the RCN allegedly indicated it has no need for four AORs*. This is the weakest of excuses as the iAOR are leased and whenever the new Protecteur class vessels are both completed, you can return one or both iAOR to their rightful owners, so that at no time are there more than three AOR in the Navy's hands.
*: The excuse that the Navy does not want or need four AOR's is actually historically incorrect: In 1965, after the Navy had completed it's analysis of the operations of the PROVIDER, the RCN indicated to the government of the day that it needed and would need permanently to have four such vessels to cover it's strategic/tactical afloat logistics needs. The next two were budgeted for - and then unification happened and the RCN managed - barely - to salvage those two (which became the original PROTECTEUR class). But the RCN has always indicated that the proper and ultimate number should be four, even though it made do with three only as a matter of necessity in view of the low defence priority of the governments. This hasn't changed and four AOR is still the strategically/tactically appropriate number for Canada, so that one can be made available at sea and at all times on each coast.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,965
- Points
- 1,160
I love how we have been conditioned to accepting downgrades. Replacing the 40mm with a RWS .50cal, is a downgrade no matter how much icing we put on it. The fact that we are to effing cheap to properly arm our ships is deplorable. Were the Kingstons mine hunting off the coast of Africa? Considering what we ask of these ships and the people, the minimum would have been a RWS mounted 35mm, 2 .50cals and some sort of defense system. Our opponents are not going to play fair or nice. Basically they are a nice target for a multiple small vessel attack.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,993
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 1,690
- Points
- 1,260
Colin P said:
Who'd win off the coast of Africa - a couple of fast boats filled with determined thugs (looking to ransom the crew) armed with AK47s, PKs and some RPG's vs a 15kn Kingston with a pair of 50's?
The Russians are arming their new Arctic patrol ships substantially better than we are and you can bet that they won't be tasked with patrolling the Caribbean on anti-narco missions or off the coast of Africa. Their job is to patrol the arctic and they will have the armament to do it.
- Reaction score
- 5,548
- Points
- 1,040
Czech_pivo said:
I'll take the Kingston every time every day of the week against that threat. "Thugs" are never determined against an armed foe. That's why they are thugs. If you are going to count AK47's then I guess the MCDV should count the multiple C7 and C9's that are onboard. And of course the most important things the mass and maneuver of the ship and the professionalism of the crew. This is why we have Intelligence, if there was a true threat we would send a CPF.
Colin P said:
Not those 40mm. Take it from someone who holds the Weapons Directing Officer qual on the Bofors and the .50 cal. That 40mm was the McBeth gun. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing. The only thing it was good for was hitting our own deck (which happened), killing a nasty floating tomato or a helicopter in hover. All jobs the .50 cal can do really well. I can't even think of a time where the 40mm was even used for true warning shots (perhaps it has...). The .50 cal is far more flexible of a weapons system and just better all round for everything the MCDV does.
Also what do we ask of the people onboard an MCDV to do? It has never needed a 40mm or a 35mm of any sort.
The AOPS is going to take over a lot of the MCDV roles in the future. So perhaps the MCDV will go back to more domestic, route survey and minehunting operations.
That said given the option of a 25mm similar to the AOPS I would take it in a heartbeat but who's going to do arming, repair and maint on the thing? The MCDV's only carry a single WEng Tech for Nav and Comms systems. They aren't going to include an Armament Tech as well. The navy is experimenting with reducing crew on MCDV's not increasing crew. Tough decisions here.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Underway said:
And, most likely the MCDV or CPF could call in friends to help on the surface and/or in the air and those friends would include people with nice scopes and good aim. 8)
- Reaction score
- 5,548
- Points
- 1,040
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Yah a mess all round and I completely agree with the 4 AOR requirement, though not with the iAOR rush to procure. If you want 4 AOR then expand the build for a 3rd proper one or wait until the experiment with the Asterix shows positive results.
The original Conservative plane was for 6-8 AOPS so I suppose we are back to the future. I'm pretty sure that Irving will find a way to make a 6th AOPS with the current contract structure. The way I understand the contract is that Irving gets a guaranteed profit per ship. Any money left over from the contract that isn't used doesn't get paid out to the shipbuilder. It's not like Irving was handed $3.5 billion and told to make 5 or 6 ships with that amount and keep the change. It's more like we have a budget of $3.5 billion. Build 5 or 6 ships within that budget. For every ship built we cut you $50 million. You build 5 you get $250 million, you build 6 you get $300 million. No idea if its a flat amount or an escalator of profit. If an escalator there is even more incentive to get that 6th ship built. (note: not experienced with contracts so I may be mistaken).
If they can only get the 5th ship built then the 6th should suffice for the gap years. Certain bids for the CSC (the Alion one in particular) are easy to implement (ie pre-existing 3D CAD plans etc...) with minimal changes or delay. Therefore they can be implemented right away and eliminate that gap. Only thing is long lead item orders from suppliers such as engines which can cause delays and of course government (in)decision time.
- Reaction score
- 1,690
- Points
- 1,260
Dimsum said:
Well they got rid of the 40mm, so that’s got to count for 2 persons right there.
Czech_pivo said:
You need more than two people to operate the 40mm. It basically is a Second World War system hauled out of storage and used by the army starting in the eaarly-seventies to defend the airfields at Lahr and Baden, and then mounted on the ships. BTW, I fired it.
- Reaction score
- 1,581
- Points
- 1,160
SR2 being the 2 watch system? 7/5/5/7?
