- Reaction score
- 2,286
- Points
- 1,160
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 17,806
- Points
- 1,010
I try to stay well away from that shit, nowadays.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,962
- Points
- 1,260
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,402
- Points
- 1,160
Not to mention if your using a UAS, you are transmitting, but with a helicopter you don't always have to.
- Reaction score
- 6,145
- Points
- 1,260
True, but there are ECM resistant modes which alleviate some (man? most?) of the risks.
- Reaction score
- 6,336
- Points
- 1,090
JSS from day one considered flight safety, down to the external airlock and hatch night lighting to be green lighting instead of red (so it doesn't mess up NVG's). The anal retentiveness of the Civilian IC and Pilots attached to the PMO would have made any Airforce Sea Trainer or Flight Safety representative shed (safe) tears of bureaucratic joy.
AOPS as I say all the time is the George Costanza project. All their instincts were wrong and we should do the exact opposite.
- Reaction score
- 19,950
- Points
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 17,806
- Points
- 1,010
The bird is almost a nod to a Corsair.
I’ll allow it.
(Lol)
I’ll allow it.
(Lol)
- Reaction score
- 573
- Points
- 810
ASROC may be better for much of that mission.
I think crewed uncrewed pairing is the way to go. dipping sonars can be unmanned, but small platforms. Buoy delivery and comms relay should be expendable, as should EO/IR investigation (ie small UAVs deployed from A size chutes are catapulted from surface units. Long endurance radar, ESM support, and comms relay (esp Link-16) should be recoverable UAV ( a mix of sea and shore based).
Crewed should be on scene command and control, and full spectrum sensor (but maybe no dipping sonar). Add on littoral maneuver (get the radar up on conformal arrays on the fuselage please), SAR, weapons delivery (including air to surfce to saturate), special ops support, and HDS...
This is one of the reasons I'm not in favour of the 60R unless we get more capable decks. It can't do both the medium lift and C2 roles, and we don't have space at sea for both the 60R and 60S (and certainly can't add the V-22 to the mix, nor the Chinook). We got lucky to have the tail ramp on Cyclone, we should try to keep it.
As an aside, I spoke to a seniour MH type last week in front of the Bonnie model, who had very recently spoke to a seniour naval person about RCN Maritime Air. The topic of Canada bringing back a light carrier came up (not realistically, just in passing). I passed on that I have little confidence in the RCN's current ability to operate such a ship (they have no corporate experience in the concept of prioritizing air operations), nor the RCAFs ability to provide Maritime warriors.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,664
- Points
- 960
A light carrier would be a nice thing to have . It would even be necessary for a lot of naval operations .
However it's never going to happen in my lifetime I suspect.
The lineup for who who would joyfully strangle that baby in its bed include,
1. The Government of Canada
2. The RCAF
3. The Canadian Army
4. The RCN
And not necessarily in that order, and the Navy's reasons will not just be because of budgetary constraints or manning issues although those will be the ones most mentioned.
However it's never going to happen in my lifetime I suspect.
The lineup for who who would joyfully strangle that baby in its bed include,
1. The Government of Canada
2. The RCAF
3. The Canadian Army
4. The RCN
And not necessarily in that order, and the Navy's reasons will not just be because of budgetary constraints or manning issues although those will be the ones most mentioned.
- Reaction score
- 19,950
- Points
- 1,280
12 Wing really missed out on an opportunity to get the name of RHG instead…
- Reaction score
- 1,777
- Points
- 1,060
lots of nice to have but all of NATO is short on escorts and supply ships and the UK just got rid of more. Seems shortsighted
- Reaction score
- 19,950
- Points
- 1,280
Hmm…sounds like a great niche to fill…
- Reaction score
- 6,336
- Points
- 1,090
Man all these AOPs crests are winners. Well done to whomever was point on these.HMCS Robert Hampton Gray
www.gg.ca
There isn’t, but the crest does look pretty nice.
View attachment 90019
- Reaction score
- 6,336
- Points
- 1,090
I know. We wouldn't be far wrong just building a pile of escorts and AORs. No extras needed. The big change coming from historical requirements is the addition of more submarines.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,066
- Points
- 810
I'm personally more concerned regarding our own sovereignty and the very important role that submarines play in that, versus splashing around in the Atlantic with escorts larping as the WWII era RCN. We aren't the only player in NATO, they shouldn't forget that.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,066
- Points
- 810
It's a bit of a shame we never ended up with the CSC being Tribal class III, I'd really like to see how the old crests get reimagined.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,017
- Points
- 760
But if that brings us the most favour with our allies and meets our interests, why wouldn't we go escort and supply heavy? You don't need carriers to patrol the arctic even if we were able to crew them. Heavy frigates/destroyers, supply ships and Arctic-capable patrol ships are what we need for that I'd say, the submarines are gravy that further our interests. I don't agree with Liberals on much but credit where credit is due, it was good policy to start looking into subs.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1,066
- Points
- 810
Ultimately Canada needs to put our own interests first especially as it relates to our domestic sovereign territory. Regardless of how much favour we have with our allies, they aren't going to come running to plug our own shortcomings we are having around Canada itself. Submarines are seemingly a very important aspect of this, more so than throwing additional funds or effort into escorts for NATO potentially at the expense of other programs.
- Reaction score
- 573
- Points
- 810
Being immersed in historic RCN Naval Air I'm biased, but... I don't think you can operate a carrier without having a Fleet Air Arm or Naval Air Branch or whatever you call it. It depends a focus and unity of effort we wouldn't be able to muster.
I agree that we need to focus on the escorts and support ships first, but it does no good to talk about air power, even "just" manned rotary wing and UAV without support as well (which, by the way, we understood with Protecteur and Preserver, which had second line aviation support). There is no real plan for this in the RCN right now. The reason why a more capable deck is important (not a full carrier or amphib, but maybe a "real" JSS with more than one spot and more than a hangar to park them) is because concentration of air power makes it more effective. Here's a picture of 12419 being replaced on Athabaskan with a new helo from Protecteur in the '70s. It's about depth.
So proper aviation facilites at sea are not "nice to haves" if you want have supportable aviation.
Sarcastically, it's a good thing that Germany's Joint Support Ship project also failed to deliver an actual JSS (though they do have 3 Berlin AORs and 2 Rohn AORs, being replaced by two Type 707, plus 6 tenders)... if the German's took at sea airpower seriousy we would be the odd man out in the G-7, but at least we have one like minded ally!
Similar threads
