- Reaction score
- 1,916
- Points
- 1,260
Glad to hear that is the initial line of thinking, hopefully it holds true going forward.
Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)
- Thread starter x-grunt
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,435
- Points
- 1,260
Good.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,183
- Points
- 1,160
One of the original specs that is apparently being de-scoped from the River-Class destroyers due to AEGIS integration issues is the Safran NGDS decoy launcher (the Nulka decoy launcher being planned instead). Interestingly the NGDS has recently been modified to be able to launch Mistral-3 surface to air missiles in addition to various decoy-type munitions. The launcher would be able to carry up to 8 x missiles which can be easily reloaded at sea. Safran is also working on a "Cube" modular version of the launcher that would allow the NGDS to be installed/removed easily depending on the mission requirements of a ship equipped with the "Cube" system (including OSK's proposed Arctic Frigate design).
www.navalnews.com
Might the NGDS be a good option for the Multi-mission Corvette (or even the AOPS)? The system is capable of deploying a wide variety of different munition types:
Safran Turns NGDS Decoy Launcher into CIWS with Mistral Missiles - Naval News
Safran is working on a new development of its NGDS trainable decoy launcher which would turn it into a Mistral missile launcher / CIWS...
www.navalnews.com
Might the NGDS be a good option for the Multi-mission Corvette (or even the AOPS)? The system is capable of deploying a wide variety of different munition types:
Kind of the ideal "Swiss Army Knife" type of multi-purpose launcher that @Kirkhill is so fond of. Would provide the Corvette (or the AOPS) with a great deal of flexibility in the types of launchers it would have ready depending on the threat environment it is facing with the ability to rapidly change the load while underway if the threat environment changes.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
One of the original specs that is apparently being de-scoped from the River-Class destroyers due to AEGIS integration issues is the Safran NGDS decoy launcher (the Nulka decoy launcher being planned instead). Interestingly the NGDS has recently been modified to be able to launch Mistral-3 surface to air missiles in addition to various decoy-type munitions. The launcher would be able to carry up to 8 x missiles which can be easily reloaded at sea. Safran is also working on a "Cube" modular version of the launcher that would allow the NGDS to be installed/removed easily depending on the mission requirements of a ship equipped with the "Cube" system (including OSK's proposed Arctic Frigate design).
Safran Turns NGDS Decoy Launcher into CIWS with Mistral Missiles - Naval News
Safran is working on a new development of its NGDS trainable decoy launcher which would turn it into a Mistral missile launcher / CIWS...
Might the NGDS be a good option for the Multi-mission Corvette (or even the AOPS)? The system is capable of deploying a wide variety of different munition types:
Kind of the ideal "Swiss Army Knife" type of multi-purpose launcher that @Kirkhill is so fond of. Would provide the Corvette (or the AOPS) with a great deal of flexibility in the types of launchers it would have ready depending on the threat environment it is facing with the ability to rapidly change the load while underway if the threat environment changes.
Related - the Chemring Centurion Multi-Role Trainable Naval Launcher
Associated with Raytheon
Raytheon completes first live-fire test of CENTURION launcher | DefenceTalk
Raytheon and Chemring Group have fired a Javelin missile from the multirole CENTURION launcher during testing at the Defence Training Estate on Salisbury Plain in England. "We're bringing an entirely new dimension to ship self-defense by providing a sea-based, inside-the-horizon platform...
www.defencetalk.com
Bolt on to the AOPS - 2 to 4 on the upper decks.
- Reaction score
- 6,742
- Points
- 1,140
Bolting missiles to an AOPV isn't going to help much, the ship is not equipped with the sensors required to make use of them. Adding missiles and a new sensor suit makes it an entirely different ship, with an entirely different role.Related - the Chemring Centurion Multi-Role Trainable Naval Launcher
Associated with Raytheon
Raytheon completes first live-fire test of CENTURION launcher | DefenceTalk
Raytheon and Chemring Group have fired a Javelin missile from the multirole CENTURION launcher during testing at the Defence Training Estate on Salisbury Plain in England. "We're bringing an entirely new dimension to ship self-defense by providing a sea-based, inside-the-horizon platform...www.defencetalk.com
Bolt on to the AOPS - 2 to 4 on the upper decks.
The AOPV is not a warship, just like a MSVS is not an IFV. Each platform has it's own role, and trying to mix them is just going to result in dead sailors or soldiers.
- Reaction score
- 2,487
- Points
- 1,190
Slow and fat with the radar cross section of the Hoover Dam. The best thing they could do for the AOPSs is to paint a red cross on the side of them.
- Reaction score
- 6,742
- Points
- 1,140
For what they are intended to do, the size is great. They are an extremely comfortable platform to sail in, and they have lots of space to carry people and things.
Trying to make them a sleek greyhound of death is a fools errand.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,183
- Points
- 1,160
Curious...the AOPS is equipped with the Scanter 6002 radar linked to CMS 330. If I'm reading the interwebs correctly, Terma (the Scanter 6002 OEM) supports the C-Guard decoy launch system which according to Terma "C-Guard is a round agnostic system that can launch any anti-missile or anti-torpedo round, with a diameter of 130mm or less, regardless of manufacturer. This makes the system very flexible and attractive to all navies worldwide."
So if the sensors on the AOPS are capable of supporting a decoy launch system then wouldn't that be a positive option for a non-combatant naval vessel that may be deployed to an area where there is the possibility of kinetic threats being present? And if that's the case wouldn't having the option of having active as well as passive counter-measures available be a plus?
I'm not suggesting that the AOPS be turned into a "sleek greyhound of death", but wouldn't equipping the AOPS with a countermeasure system not make sense? And if we're seriously looking at replacing the Kingston-Class with a Multi-Mission Corvette type of vessel then wouldn't a similar system not make sense as well?
Again, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that AOPS be turned into a major combatant, but there definitely seems to be a tendency of some people to be determined to keep the AOPS as toothless and defenceless as possible in a World that is increasingly dangerous.
- Reaction score
- 6,742
- Points
- 1,140
Having had a quick look at the Wikipedia page for the APOV, and the Scanter 6002 radar's information on a couple of pages I have two points to consider.
1. The Wikipedia page for the AOPV's isn't 100% accurate. I won't delve into details, as I don't want to accidentally get into OPSEC stuff.
2. The Scanter 6002 radar seems to come in a few varieties, based on the antenna and I'm sure other bits. Based on my experience sailing in an AOPV, they don't have the full spectrum of capabilities the radar system can theoretically have.
The AOPVs are patrol vessels. You don't send them to dangerous parts of the world. I'd rather see the money people want to spend on arming the AOPVs go into keeping the CPFs in better shape, and getting purpose build small warships in the water.
- Reaction score
- 17,188
- Points
- 1,010
Helping help control?
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,183
- Points
- 1,160
I'm absolutely in no position to argue the specific capabilities of Scanter beyond the shiny brochure OS info available on the interwebs so I will gladly concede points 1 & 2 above.
I will however comment on the highlighted portion above. The AOPS are RCN ships. The GOC uses the RCN to exercise our sovereignty within our territorial waters as well as to support our foreign policy in non-territorial waters. We wouldn't be sending RCN ships to do these tasks if there wasn't at least the tacit understanding that there was some sort of potential threat to either our sovereignty or national interests in the areas we deploy them. There should be no expectation that where we deploy our naval vessels that there is absolutely zero risk involved. I don't think it's a huge stretch to suggest that ships we are deploying on overseas operations be equipped with at least a minimal defensive capability. Again, we're not talking putting VLS launchers on a constabulary vessel...we're talking about a defensive counter-measure launcher that also happens to have the capability to deploy kinetic as well as non-kinetic defensive munitions.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
Adding those launchers is not going to make the AOPV into a warship. But in a world of pirates and low level threats an ability to deploy some defences, the occasional bit of smoke and chaff, flares and illumination and perhaps, on occasion the odd missile or UAV, might not go amiss.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear of merchantmen in troubled waters resorting to appliances of the sort.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,981
- Points
- 1,160
Plus the options for non-state actors to reach out and touch you have expanded greatly and in a short time. Even the "Low risk area" we go to in the Caribbean and West Africa, have some very un-nice people lurking about, and they talk to other un-nice people about ways and means to hurt the West. So a big grey floaty thing is just a nice juicy target to aim for and with suicide drones (marine and aerial) they can reach much further now than they could with with RPG's and ATGM's.
I know I get "Intelligence will dictate what we do". Intelligence plays a important and vital role, but it is always imperfect. Just ask the Israelis about their intelligence failures on Oct 7th or in 1973.
I know I get "Intelligence will dictate what we do". Intelligence plays a important and vital role, but it is always imperfect. Just ask the Israelis about their intelligence failures on Oct 7th or in 1973.
- Reaction score
- 6,051
- Points
- 1,090
Typing type type on my phoney phone... lol
- Reaction score
- 2,487
- Points
- 1,190
Did you mean "helo" control?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,010
I assumed as much. Autocorrect doesn't like the word "helo" and if you're not paying attention, will gladly change it for help or hello.
Obviously, autocorrect hasn't served in the military.
Obviously, autocorrect hasn't served in the military.
- Reaction score
- 18,939
- Points
- 1,280
Obviously. It doesn’t allow swear words in multiple languages.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 963
- Points
- 810
Alongside the concerns about the Scanter 6002 sets currently fitted even being suited to the task of fitting these sorts of systems, I have a few other questions.
1.) Where are these various missiles, decoys, smoke grenades, etc going to be stored? AOPS isn't a vessel designed with sizable munitions magazines aboard, I don't need to tell people here that you can't just be stuffing explosives and pyrotechnics into random lockers or dumping them into gangways. That space taken up is going to eat into capability elsewhere.
2.) Who is going to operate and maintain these systems? Are you going to need additional personnel aboard for operation and upkeep of the launchers alongside their munitions? Can the personnel already aboard do this work? Is it going to take away from their other duties?
3.) Will whatever fitted aboard actually work within the Arctic? It doesn't make sense to fit equipment that doesn't work for our purposes. Many things look great on paper but in practice, don't work well. Look at the RWS systems fitted as trials to the MCDV's, they looked great on paper but were not carried into service due to cost and reliability issues from what I can recall.
4.) Where are the launchers going to be placed on AOPS? Keep in mind the CENTURION launcher apparently is 2m wide and weighs over 1 ton. Look at the image below and look for any reasonable positions to place even one of these launchers, let alone multiple. AOPS's upper works is covered with antennas and communication equipment, I legitimately don't see anywhere to start placing launchers they won't require changing the setup of equipment already fitted. There needs to be worthwhile firing angles to be able to protect the ship and not potentially damage yourself by firing.
AOPS fundamentally was not designed with these sort of bolt on defensive systems in mind, making any real kind of retrofitting difficult.
Similar threads
