quadrapiper
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 557
- Points
- 1,040
I don't get the impression the Russians, who aren't shy about bolting armament to things, have armed their icebreakers to any great extent.
New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,431
- Points
- 1,160
Russia's new combat icebreaker built for Arctic dominance - Asia Times
Russia's new combat icebreaker, known as the Project 23550 Ivan Papanin, has embarked on factory sea trials, signaling Russia’s intensified strategic
asiatimes.com
Edit to add: Nothing really significant...actually similar to many of the suggestions made here for the AOPS...larger main gun and containerized missile capability.
- Reaction score
- 8,782
- Points
- 1,160
Russia's new combat icebreaker built for Arctic dominance - Asia Times
Russia's new combat icebreaker, known as the Project 23550 Ivan Papanin, has embarked on factory sea trials, signaling Russia’s intensified strategic
Edit to add: Nothing really significant...actually similar to many of the suggestions made here for the AOPS...larger main gun and containerized missile capability.
Well....
|
Project 23550 patrol ship - Wikipedia
and the Kalibr missiles ...
3M54E (export anti-ship version): 220 km
3M54E1/3M14E (export anti-ship version): 300 km
3M54K/3M54T: 660 km (domestic anti-ship version, estimate)
3M14K/3M14T: 1,500–2,500 km (domestic land-attack version, estimate)
Not exactly unprepared to manage both the unexpected aerial and surface attack and targets of opportunity. Even if they stick with the 3M54s in the containers and don't graduate to the 3M14s they have significant areas of influence. And are considerably more mobile than a fixed land base.
...
Consider the prospect of one of those based at Nagurskoye, Russia's "Trefoil Base" on Alexandra Land.
It is within sailing distance of Svalbard, the island group Russia shares with Norway and to which it has invited to share facilities for research. An AOPS with a 660 km SSM missile like the 3M54K/3M54T would essentially choke off traffic between the Arctic and the Atlantic at the GIUK Gap.
And those containers on the back deck might contain missiles or they might just contain supplies and research gear for the Russian settlement on Svalbard.
Equally, they might contain the 3M14s in which case the entirety of Scandinavia, the UK as far south as Nottingham, the Faroes, Iceland, the entirety of Greenland, all of the islands of the Canadian Archipelago, the entirety of the North Warning System, Point Barrow and the Pribiloffs, would all be held at risk. Or not.
Last edited:
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,431
- Points
- 1,160
Like I said, nothing substantially different than what many people are suggesting for the AOPS.Well....
[td]Armament[/td]
- 1 × 76.2 mm AK-176MA naval gun[8]
- 4 × 12.7 mm Kord machine guns
- 2 × 30 mm AK-630M CIWS ("Ermak" type)
- 8 × 3M-54 Kalibr missiles ("Arktika" type)
Project 23550 patrol ship - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
and the Kalibr missiles ...
3M54E (export anti-ship version): 220 km
3M54E1/3M14E (export anti-ship version): 300 km
3M54K/3M54T: 660 km (domestic anti-ship version, estimate)
3M14K/3M14T: 1,500–2,500 km (domestic land-attack version, estimate)
Not exactly unprepared to manage both the unexpected aerial and surface attack and targets of opportunity. Even if they stick with the 3M54s in the containers and don't graduate to the 3M14s they have significant areas of influence. And are considerably more mobile than a fixed land base.
...
Consider the prospect of one of those based at Nagurskoye, Russia's "Trefoil Base" on Alexandra Land.
It is within sailing distance of Svalbard, the island group Russia shares with Norway and to which it has invited to share facilities for research. An AOPS with a 660 km SSM missile like the 3M54K/3M54T would essentially choke off traffic between the Arctic and the Atlantic at the GIUK Gap.
And those containers on the back deck might contain missiles or they might just contain supplies and research gear for the Russian settlement on Svalbard.
Equally, they might contain the 3M14s in which case the entirety of Scandinavia, the UK as far south as Nottingham, the Faroes, Iceland, the entirety of Greenland, all of the islands of the Canadian Archipelago, the entirety of the North Warning System, Point Barrow and the Pribiloffs, would all be held at risk. Or not.
The main gun is bigger (76mm) but not likely to get into a gun fight with an enemy naval ship so perhaps upgrading AOPS to the same 30mm Lionfish as the River-Class would be sufficient.
They have 2 x 30mm CIWS and something similar (or a light AD missile launcher) have been suggested for the AOPS as well for C-UAS/AD.
The Kalbr missiles are a containerized version and presumably the AOPS could deploy something similar as well.
The main question I'd have is does it have the sensors required to make it an effective combatant? Having the weapons on board is one thing...effectively using them in combat is another (see the Moskva for reference)
- Reaction score
- 8,782
- Points
- 1,160
I think one of the biggest questions going just now is whether sensors and effectors have to be collocated. Much of the western planning seems to be based on the USN's experience with its Co-Operative Engagement Capability which is morphing over into Integrated Air Missile Defense, Battle Management Systems and Joint All Domain Command and Control as well as Multi Domain Task Forces. The best example, to my mind, is the Typhon battery developed by the USMC and employed by the US Army.
As you know those same launch pods have been employed on the heli-decks of LCS ships and the cargo decks of autonomous OSVs.
Distributed Command and Control and Effects are being demonstrated in Ukraine with their "Uber" system of fire control.
...
In some senses I feel that the modern push has historic parallels in both the West and the East. The East has always centralized control and relied on dispersed effectors that were not as bright as their Western counterparts. Air Defence Fighters were vectored by central control stations with their own radar networks. The Western predecessor was the RAF fighting the Battle of Britain with Spitfires and Hurricanes. The aircraft were dispersed and not particularly intelligent (.... I'll leave the role of the pilot for debate...).
....
For a ship, to my mind, the question is how much control over available weapons does the ship need to manage its own defence? How much can it rely on its sisters in the local Task Force? How much can it rely on the umbrellas of support available from other services operating in its operational area?
It seems to me logical that the Russian AOPS CO will have control over his local, self-defence assets but may be constrained from, or even barred from, employing the missiles he is transporting on his after deck.
...
A Canadian AOPS skipper could have exactly as much control over the missiles on his deck as an RRCA Coastal Artillery, or Air Defence Artillery, commander might have over those under his care.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,565
- Points
- 1,010
First of all, it clearly states that the ships "could" be armed with missiles, not that they would. Second of all, nobody mentioned anything about how they think they can make such missiles work in the Arctic conditions, where equipment fails well before humans.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,204
- Points
- 1,260
Any know if Seaspan has started officially working on the new Polar class ships? I believe that the plan was for them to start prior to the end of last year? Are they tracking to that plan or is it off the rails and official time start is still to be determined.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,204
- Points
- 1,260
To me, this is telling because it shows that the Japanese don't take us serious Allies or as a viable partner to work with in re-capitalizing our navy.
I'm specifically referring to their decision to not be involved in our RFP for 12 submarines. Many on here called out that it was because the Japanese have never really sold/partnered with a third, non-Japanese partner before in naval contracts. Well, it certainly looks like this doesn't apply to the Australians.
The Australian government has shortlisted Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) over Spanish and South Korean contenders to build the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)’s future general purpose frigates.
Australia plans to acquire 11 new general purpose frigates to complement the country’s combat-ready fleet of warships by replacing the eight aging Anzac-class frigates commissioned in the 1990s and early 2000s. Wait, they are increasing their frigates from 8 to 11 - what a novel idea, increasing capabilities in a time of global insecurity.
The first three ships will be built offshore, with the first to be delivered to the RAN in 2029 and enter service in 2030. The remaining eight will be built at Henderson shipyard in Western Australia. - Wait a minute, they will get their first ship only 5yrs from now!
I'm specifically referring to their decision to not be involved in our RFP for 12 submarines. Many on here called out that it was because the Japanese have never really sold/partnered with a third, non-Japanese partner before in naval contracts. Well, it certainly looks like this doesn't apply to the Australians.
Japan, Germany Listed as Finalists for Royal Australian Navy’s Future Frigates
Will Australia strategically choose Tokyo to strengthen bilateral cooperation? Or will it opt for a German-designed frigate that is familiar to the Royal Australian Navy.The Australian government has shortlisted Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) over Spanish and South Korean contenders to build the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)’s future general purpose frigates.
Australia plans to acquire 11 new general purpose frigates to complement the country’s combat-ready fleet of warships by replacing the eight aging Anzac-class frigates commissioned in the 1990s and early 2000s. Wait, they are increasing their frigates from 8 to 11 - what a novel idea, increasing capabilities in a time of global insecurity.
The first three ships will be built offshore, with the first to be delivered to the RAN in 2029 and enter service in 2030. The remaining eight will be built at Henderson shipyard in Western Australia. - Wait a minute, they will get their first ship only 5yrs from now!
Japan, Germany Listed as Finalists for Royal Australian Navy’s Future Frigates
Will Australia strategically choose Tokyo to strengthen bilateral cooperation? Or will it opt for a German-designed frigate that is familiar to the Royal Australian Navy?
thediplomat.com
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,745
- Points
- 1,160
I take it as a bit of both that we are unserious and they are inexperienced. It would make a poor combination.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,077
- Points
- 810
It is one thing to sign on to build a trio of frigates largely off the shelf for a regional partner vs signing on to build double digit numbers of Submarines entirely in your own yards, throwing off your own procurement plans for years.To me, this is telling because it shows that the Japanese don't take us serious Allies or as a viable partner to work with in re-capitalizing our navy.
I'm specifically referring to their decision to not be involved in our RFP for 12 submarines. Many on here called out that it was because the Japanese have never really sold/partnered with a third, non-Japanese partner before in naval contracts. Well, it certainly looks like this doesn't apply to the Australians.
Japan, Germany Listed as Finalists for Royal Australian Navy’s Future Frigates
Will Australia strategically choose Tokyo to strengthen bilateral cooperation? Or will it opt for a German-designed frigate that is familiar to the Royal Australian Navy.
The Australian government has shortlisted Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) over Spanish and South Korean contenders to build the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)’s future general purpose frigates.
Australia plans to acquire 11 new general purpose frigates to complement the country’s combat-ready fleet of warships by replacing the eight aging Anzac-class frigates commissioned in the 1990s and early 2000s. Wait, they are increasing their frigates from 8 to 11 - what a novel idea, increasing capabilities in a time of global insecurity.
The first three ships will be built offshore, with the first to be delivered to the RAN in 2029 and enter service in 2030. The remaining eight will be built at Henderson shipyard in Western Australia. - Wait a minute, they will get their first ship only 5yrs from now!
Japan, Germany Listed as Finalists for Royal Australian Navy’s Future Frigates
Will Australia strategically choose Tokyo to strengthen bilateral cooperation? Or will it opt for a German-designed frigate that is familiar to the Royal Australian Navy?thediplomat.com
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,204
- Points
- 1,260
Clearly the Australians don't see this as a risk or they are more willing to be risk takers.
1) Potentially partner with the Japanese for 11 frigates, with the stated goal of having the first ship available to them in 5yrs.
2) Create a brand new, never before seen, nuclear sub partnership with the US/UK with a novel idea of jointly embedding sailors in both navies for multiple years for training on nuc boats and then the totally audacious idea of building nuc boats eventually in Australia
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,204
- Points
- 1,260
How do we know that building 12 subs for us would throw their procurement plans off?
If that's the argument then us going with the Germ/Nor subs is a non-starter.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,077
- Points
- 810
Japan has a steady procurement pace where new iterative submarine designs are introduced to the fleet, it's laughable to suggest that trying to fulfill a 12 submarine order for a foreign nation with an aggressive delivery schedule wouldn't impact those carefully laid plans. It seems fairly clear that the German/Norwegian submarine program is likely a non-starter given the gigantic orders they are already wrestling with.
- Reaction score
- 1,976
- Points
- 1,060
how does that differ from SK?
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,204
- Points
- 1,260
I think because there are 2 shipyards in play in SK and both have excess capacity that we can utilize, unless Poland beats us to the punch....
- Reaction score
- 1,976
- Points
- 1,060
theres two shipyards in Japan too. Excess capacity maybe not?
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,077
- Points
- 810
The South Koreans are also more than willing to put their domestic programs on the backburner to capture lucrative foreign contracts, Japan not so much.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 12,586
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting article
www.naval-technology.com
Extinction of the classical multi-purpose surface combatant
Large surface combatants performing multiple roles may go extinct, one speaker observed during the Surface Warships conference.
www.naval-technology.com
Similar threads
