Continental Defence Corvette

[oldcpu]

If you wanted to, the AOPS can already operate both ISTAR and LUCAS drones, and since you don't usually carry a helicopter, you can stow quite a few in the hangar. After that, it becomes a matter of numbers, not improved coverage. Do you need one hundred LUCAS if you only expect to meet one or two enemy icebreakers? And how many ISTAR drones do you need to maintain coverage?

How many drones does one need?

I guess that depends on the definition of the threat? Are the UAVs only for surveillance? Are they to be suicide drones? If the later, then likely the more that are carried the better. Is an ISTAR drone the appropriate drone if a warship has a full up UVX functionality? It may not be. or it may be.

I don't know the answers here. But the questions are there, I believe. One needs to ascertain what threat(s) one wants a warship to deal with, and then work backward to come up with a design? Designing a ship backward to only launch ISTAR and LUCAS dones may ... or may not be the optimal approach.

 

[Kirkhill]

In your opinion if we had an AOPS-sized drone carrier supporting normal AOPS patrolling that are capable of launching and guiding LUCAS-style drones or ISTAR drones that could be beneficial to navy operations, especially in the North?

As @Oldgateboatdriver sez...

The AOPS is a drone carrier. All it lacks are the drones. It has hangar space, deck space, a flight deck and a couple of cranes.

It can launch and recover a 13,000 kg CH-148, or at least it can by design, and it has a 20 tonne crane back aft. That allows for some pretty hefty UxVs - air, surface and subsurface. In fact it could also launch UGVs in place of the pickup and ATVs.

 

[Kirkhill]

This 5600 km subsonic jet drone weighs in at 2700 kg or about a quarter of a Cyclone, can be stored in a 40 foot container and launches from a trailer... costs less than a Tomahawk and can carry a handful of missiles, UAVs or LMs.

XQ-58 Valkyrie | Kratos

A stealthy, runway-flexible, autonomous or AI-driven, high-performance-to-cost unmanned aerial vehicle with modular open mission systems architecture.

www.kratosdefense.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1184585304960917506

This Containerized Launcher For The XQ-58A Valkyrie Combat Drone Could Be A Game Changer

The system would be air, rail, road, or sea transportable, allowing for long-range, hard-hitting drone swarms to make unpredictable attacks.

www.twz.com

 

[Kirkhill]

In the spirit of making do until the Rivers and subs get here I was wondering how much could be accomplished by a pair of Halifaxes patrolling with an AOPS as a UXV mothership.

Especially if operating under an umbrella of MQ-9B, CP-140/P8, CF-18 and with a supply chain from shore supported by the CH-147, CH-148 and CH-149.

Not to mention my latest hobbyhorse, the HIMARS-PrSM combination. Nor the array of long endurance UXVs at sea supplying situational awareness.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Plan B motherhip.

AGR expands offshore vessel fleet - Splash247

AGR has bolstered its offshore marine spread with the addition of the multipurpose support vessel Aquaman II, as the consultancy looks to strengthen its position in the North Sea plug and abandonment and decommissioning market. The Oslo-based company said the vessel will support growing activity...

splash247.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Our bigger issue, in the short term is not so much platforms as munitions.

 

[Swampbuggy]

When I look at the Portuguese NRP D. João II class UVX, I note it is is 107.6 meters in length. It is a small but quite possibly very capable for its size UVX. Then I took a look at the Harry deWolf class, which is 103.6 meters. They are both around 7,000 tons displacement.

Presumeably for any Canadian UVX, it would be very beneficial to be Arctic waters capable (to the same extent as the Harry deWolf class). Granted - that is a bit of a requirement stretch by me .... Still .... if I may follow up on that ... I think in naval architecture, the "golden rule" is that it is almost always more expensive to engineer ice-strengthening from a warm-water hull (converting NRP D. João II ) to make arctic capable, than it is to engineer complex topsides (such as seen on NRP D. João II class) onto an existing ice-hardened hull (Harry de-Wolf) .

ie. If the RCN wanted to go for a UVX that has limited arctic water capability, modification (perhaps with 5 to 10 meter of hull stretch) of a Harry deWolf design, replacing the upper deck to look similar to a D. João II class UVX could be a less expensive way to go.

At first blush I think that may look strange, but I believe its expensive to modify an existing hull design to be arctic capable.

Still, these ships at 7,000 tons are small.

Ideally, so to provide better protection against inclimate arctic weather it is beneficial to be able to maintain and store UAVs in a lower deck which likely means an elevator. But if only one elevator, then that risks a single point of failure. Putting two elevators in a 7,000 to 10,000 ton UVX may not be feasible in terms of too much space consumed by elevator machinery in the hanger deck (ie the deck below the flight deck). Possibly a work around would be one elevator (aft), with midships an 'emegency crane hatch' where a crane could lift up the UAV if the elevator had a failue. The Harry de-Wolf class has a large crane although if a redesign to a UVX was to be considered the crane would possibly require minor relocation to be consistent with the entire upper deck redesign to be closer to a NRP D. João II class UVX.

Obviously massive speculatioin by me.

If you were going the adapt to purpose route with a baseline ice hardened/strengthened hull and you wanted space for elevators/storage/whatever, you could get all that essentially in an UMIAK type arctic freighter. The weakness here is in redundancy, with one propulsion plant, shaft and prop. Still, the idea of a repurposed Arctic cargo vessel as some sort of support or drone carrier vessel up north isn’t maybe any crazier than gutting and refitting a bulk carrier to be an AOR.