Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs)

[GR66]

AOPS fundamentally was not designed with these sort of bolt on defensive systems in mind, making any real kind of retrofitting difficult.

Which is unfortunate that there was not enough foresight in the design process to consider the possibility of such a potential future requirement in light of the obviously growing global tensions. Let's hope that the same mistake isn't made with the Kingston-Class replacements.

 

[Furniture]

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.

You tailor ship deployments to the threats you are realistically going to encounter. If there is an AD threat, you send a platform that has the capability to deal with it.

Having a capability that isn't turned on/monitored in the event of a complete surprise attack isn't going to help anyone. As an example, USS Cole had/has the weapons to easily take out a small boat coming at it, but they didn't have the Int to justify standing up those sorts of FP measures, so the small boat caught them by surprise.

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.

That's a warship...

I'd much rather see the money spent buying a purpose built warship for those dangerous taskings, leaving the APOVs for what they were intended to do.

 

[Furniture]

Which is unfortunate that there was not enough foresight in the design process to consider the possibility of such a potential future requirement in light of the obviously growing global tensions. Let's hope that the same mistake isn't made with the Kingston-Class replacements.

It's not a matter of foresight, it's a matter of intended use. The AOPVs were not intended to be warships.

 

[Blackadder1916]

It's not a matter of foresight, it's a matter of intended use. The AOPVs were not intended to be warships.

It might be a point of pedantry but, if one accepts the definition of "warship" according to UNCLOS (and Canada is a signatory), then they are warships. It is founded not on armaments but on who owns it, who is in command and who crews it.

Article 29
Definition of warships
For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.

They may have been designed and intended for purpose other than being a major combatant, but that is immaterial. And if AOPVs and MCDVs are not warships, what exactly are the "minor warships" in Canada's "Minor Warships and Auxiliary Vessels fleet"

Government of Canada awards contract for Minor Warships and Auxiliary Vessels in-service support for Canadian Armed Forces - Canada.ca

Through the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the Government of Canada is ensuring that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the ships they need to carry out their important work.

www.canada.ca

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit, the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, announced that the Government of Canada has awarded a $450-million contract to Thales Canada Inc., in a joint venture with Thales Australia Limited, to provide in-service support for the CAF Minor Warships and Auxiliary Vessels (MWAV) fleet for 5 years, with options to extend the contract for up to 19 years. This contract will begin in July 2023.

The CAF MWAV fleet comprises approximately 100 vessels from 24 different classes, including the Kingston class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels, Orca-class training vessels, tugs, dive tenders, research vessels, range vessels, and auxiliary support barges and vessels. This contract is essential for ensuring the CAF fleet remains operationally fit and includes the flexibility to increase or reduce the number of vessels serviced in response to changing operational needs.

 

[Furniture]

It might be a point of pedantry but, if one accepts the definition of "warship" according to UNCLOS (and Canada is a signatory), then they are warships. It is founded not on armaments but on who owns it, who is in command and who crews it.

For the purposes of that convention they are warships... Fortunately we aren't required to use that particular definition when discussing RCN ships in an RCN design and employment context. The RCN calls them patrol vessels, hence the change from APOS to AOPV.

 

[KevinB]

For the purposes of that convention they are warships... Fortunately we aren't required to use that particular definition when discussing RCN ships in an RCN design and employment context. The RCN calls them patrol vessels, hence the change from APOS to AOPV.

Well IF you had a larger Navy I think you could say that. But given the size of the RCN, and the fact the GoC doesn’t seem to understand that little fact, it would suggest to me that all of the RCN ships should have some sort of combatant capability and most importantly layered self defense capabilities.

 

[GK .Dundas]

For the purposes of that convention they are warships... Fortunately we aren't required to use that particular definition when discussing RCN ships in an RCN design and employment context. The RCN calls them patrol vessels, hence the change from APOS to AOPV.

I just hope that any potential adversary is as understanding.
Personally I suspect that they'll just view it an easy kill.
I wonder if successive governments have bothered to consider what the public will say if one of the class should happen in spite of I'm sure is the their peaceful intentions and deep desire to spread love and the Canadian way wherever they may sail manages to get itself sunk.
Ahh... We're Canadian and everybody loves us .
I'm sure no body out would well ...harsh our mellow in such a nasty and violent manner

 

[Furniture]

Well IF you had a larger Navy I think you could say that. But given the size of the RCN, and the fact the GoC doesn’t seem to understand that little fact, it would suggest to me that all of the RCN ships should have some sort of combatant capability and most importantly layered self defense capabilities.

Sure, if we built them to be combatants that would maek sense. The AOPVs weren't made to be combatants, just sticking weapons on them no make them a real warship than sticking an MG on a MSVS makes it an IFV. What it might do though is give someone the idea that they can send it forward into a dangerous area because it has a gun...

There is a lot more that goes into making a ship a warship than just sensors and weapons. HMCS Max Bernays had to go back alongside during RIMPAC not because we were in danger, but because the propulsion systems don't have back-ups that warships do.

I just hope that any potential adversary is as understanding.
Personally I suspect that they'll just view it an easy kill.
I wonder if successive governments have bothered to consider what the public will say if one of the class should happen in spite of I'm sure is the their peaceful intentions and deep desire to spread love and the Canadian way wherever they may sail manages to get itself sunk.
Ahh... We're Canadian and everybody loves us .
I'm sure no body out would well ...harsh our mellow in such a nasty and violent manner

It's not about hope, it's about employing your ships in appropriate roles/theaters.

This sort of thinking is like thinking all CAF land vehicles need to be LAV6 variants, because despite a deep desire to spread peace and love soldiers might die if someone shoots at their MSVS/LUVW.

Just because it's painted grey does not mean it's intended to go into combat, just like not all green army vehicles are intended to be at the front of a combat team attack.

 

[KevinB]

Sure, if we built them to be combatants that would maek sense. The AOPVs weren't made to be combatants, just sticking weapons on them no make them a real warship than sticking an MG on a MSVS makes it an IFV. What it might do though is give someone the idea that they can send it forward into a dangerous area because it has a gun...

There is a lot more that goes into making a ship a warship than just sensors and weapons. HMCS Max Bernays had to go back alongside during RIMPAC not because we were in danger, but because the propulsion systems don't have back-ups that warships do.


It's not about hope, it's about employing your ships in appropriate roles/theaters.

This sort of thinking is like thinking all CAF land vehicles need to be LAV6 variants, because despite a deep desire to spread peace and love soldiers might die if someone shoots at their MSVS/LUVW.

Just because it's painted grey does not mean it's intended to go into combat, just like not all green army vehicles are intended to be at the front of a combat team attack.

A better analogy to the AOPS is the LAV6. Everyone loves us we don’t need a heavy tracked IFV that deals death in the form of ATGM’s and nasty cannon…

I’m not suggesting the AOPS is a combatant, but some sort of Close Protection system would be wise.

 

[Furniture]

I’m not suggesting the AOPS is a combatant, but some sort of Close Protection system would be wise.

I'm sure someone is looking at it, but there are so many other things to fix on them first I'm sure it's pretty far down the priority list.

 

[Underway]

I'm sure someone is looking at it, but there are so many other things to fix on them first I'm sure it's pretty far down the priority list.

I wish there was a 100% emoji I could push. This is spot on

 

[Czech_pivo]

It's not a matter of foresight, it's a matter of intended use. The AOPVs were not intended to be warships.

I understand that was the original and current intent, but given the massive rise in drones over the last 24-30 months, would there not be a reason to look at a CIWS to be added to them?