Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Cloud Cover]

Does the RCAF actually have any dedicated anti shipping weapon capability?
Laser guided bombs, JDAMs, Mavericks are all in inventory and while capable of targeting and damaging/sinking ships none are exactly ideal for the role. How often does the RCAF practice anti shipping missions?

Just because the RCAF is theoretically capable of the mission doesn’t mean that we have actually configured them to do so.

Good question. But I suppose that’s another capability that can’t wildly be disclosed in public. lol.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Weapons without sensors aren't really useful. Weapons and sensors need a combat system and operators to integrate things and do something about it. AOPs doesn't have any of that, and also has no storage for anything larger than small arms. They also have no self defence or evasion, so the only thing really going for it is a ice capable double hull to soak up some of the ass kicking.

I think it's less exaggerating a bit and more wild fantasizing, but I have to think this is political messaging and not that he's getting that much of an unrealistic briefing on what AOPs is or isn't.

Exactly.
No power connections, not even “ad hoc”
No cabling
No room for weapons maintainers
No sensors
Not fitted for any of that.
Not enough speed to maneuver
Nothing but nut, which is exactly what they were designed for.

Had he said the opposite, he could have made a very strong case for a very powerful patrol corvette to station at the approaches.

Further, for years everybody has been downplaying any expectation the AOPs could perform any sort of meaningful combat role. Now the message is “well, it could on an ad hoc basis” and there’s no need for allied assistance due to the immense versatility of this ship. Is there a cut in CSC build or rapid drop in CPF numbers in the future? Both?

Interesting times for the RCN.

 

[Underway]

Exactly.
No power connections, not even “ad hoc”
No cabling
No room for weapons maintainers
No sensors
Not fitted for any of that.
Not enough speed to maneuver
Nothing but nut, which is exactly what they were designed for.

Had he said the opposite, he could have made a very strong case for a very powerful patrol corvette to station at the approaches.

Further, for years everybody has been downplaying any expectation the AOPs could perform any sort of meaningful combat role. Now the message is “well, it could on an ad hoc basis” and there’s no need for allied assistance due to the immense versatility of this ship. Is there a cut in CSC build or rapid drop in CPF numbers in the future? Both?

Interesting times for the RCN.

AOPS could work for anti-shipping. It's manouverability comes from its ability to go places other ships can't go, like in ice where its radar signature will be lost in the overall picture.

Bolt on ASW is perfectly acceptable in a pinch and you don't need onboard sensors for that. You just need another asset to tell you where the target is and then program the flight profile into the missiles. And away they go. I see the CQ-9B Guardians telling AOPS where the enemy is, and then you can set up your strike using normal comms if you needed to.

If I were to design an AOPS anti shipping package I would look at something like a deck launched RBS 15 Mk IV. Anything that extends the range as far as possible. So you can hit them well away from their own salvo range or detection range.

 

[Cloud Cover]

But we don’t have any RBS 15 Mk IV, and there is no plan to have any. And nobody has a spare one kicking around and besides that we “don’t need the help of Allies”.

Maybe we should contract the Houthi’s.

 

[Fabius]

Good question. But I suppose that’s another capability that can’t wildly be disclosed in public. lol.

True but deterrence sometimes needs to be overtly demonstrated. A Sink Ex with simultaneous impact of sea, air and land launched anti shipping missiles has a message that can’t be replicated by top secret undisclosed systems.

 

[GR66]

I think your Universal Translators are broken:

Canada’s top sailor says he’s confident our navy can stop Russia or China if they send ships through the strategically vital Northwest Passage without asking for permission. = I think the chances of the Russian or Chinese navies trying to force their way past the USN/USAF to squeeze through the extremely shallow and constricted Northwest Passage are virtually zero

 

[Furniture]

True but deterrence sometimes needs to be overtly demonstrated. A Sink Ex with simultaneous impact of sea, air and land launched anti shipping missiles has a message that can’t be replicated by top secret undisclosed systems.

We do that at RIMPAC on occasion, this year VAN demonstrated it's MASS system and fired ESSMs.

Exactly.
No power connections, not even “ad hoc”
No cabling
No room for weapons maintainers
No sensors
Not fitted for any of that.
Not enough speed to maneuver
Nothing but nut, which is exactly what they were designed for.

Had he said the opposite, he could have made a very strong case for a very powerful patrol corvette to station at the approaches.

Further, for years everybody has been downplaying any expectation the AOPs could perform any sort of meaningful combat role. Now the message is “well, it could on an ad hoc basis” and there’s no need for allied assistance due to the immense versatility of this ship. Is there a cut in CSC build or rapid drop in CPF numbers in the future? Both?

Interesting times for the RCN.

Again, the CRCN said that Canada can defend it's arctic waters, he didn't say we had to do it in the middle of an ice field using an AOPV...

Ad hoc could be MANPADs, ATGMs, containerized weapon systems, etc... It may come as a surprise to some, but if we can't put a CPF somewhere, the Russians and Chinese can't put a SAG there either. Ad hoc also doesn't necessarily mean "tomorrow", it could mean buying/borrowing systems from others. Doing it without allies in this case I suspect was meant to convey doing it without other nations having to put platforms there to do the work, but lets not let context or nuance get in the way of a good "AOPVs suck, and so does the CAF" rant.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Exactly.
No power connections, not even “ad hoc”
No cabling
No room for weapons maintainers
No sensors
Not fitted for any of that.
Not enough speed to maneuver
Nothing but nut, which is exactly what they were designed for.

Had he said the opposite, he could have made a very strong case for a very powerful patrol corvette to station at the approaches.

Further, for years everybody has been downplaying any expectation the AOPs could perform any sort of meaningful combat role. Now the message is “well, it could on an ad hoc basis” and there’s no need for allied assistance due to the immense versatility of this ship. Is there a cut in CSC build or rapid drop in CPF numbers in the future? Both?

Interesting times for the RCN.

The 'P' in AOPS clearly stands for 'Peacekeeping'

 

[Fabius]

We do that at RIMPAC on occasion, this year VAN demonstrated it's MASS system and fired ESSMs.

Of course the RCN frigates have participated in a number, but has the RCAF participated in one with its CF18s or CP 140s engaging from stand-off distance?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

AOPS could work for anti-shipping. It's manouverability comes from its ability to go places other ships can't go, like in ice where its radar signature will be lost in the overall picture.

Bolt on ASW is perfectly acceptable in a pinch and you don't need onboard sensors for that. You just need another asset to tell you where the target is and then program the flight profile into the missiles. And away they go. I see the CQ-9B Guardians telling AOPS where the enemy is, and then you can set up your strike using normal comms if you needed to.

If I were to design an AOPS anti shipping package I would look at something like a deck launched RBS 15 Mk IV. Anything that extends the range as far as possible. So you can hit them well away from their own salvo range or detection range.

Ummm….if the CQ-9B can see it, why not just strike it with it’s weapons?

 

[Furniture]

Of course the RCN frigates have participated in a number, but has the RCAF participated in one with its CF18s or CP 140s engaging from stand-off distance?

I know the RCAF has participated in the past, but I'm not sure when the last time was.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What about shore batteries (Guns and/or Missiles) to help bolster our Artic defence ?

You could even do some remote, no ?

 

[Underway]

Ummm….if the CQ-9B can see it, why not just strike it with it’s weapons?

Well I was just using CQ-9B as an example of an external asset that can provide targeting information.

I was about to post that CQ-9B's don't carry that kind of ranged anti-ship missiles (as late as of 2023) but then I remembered RIMPAC this last year.

General Atomics Displays MQ-9B's New Anti-Ship Role

www.navyleaders.com

Brand new capability that was tested.

I don't think its on the systems to be integrated into the CQ-9 Guardian though. Not sure if that would be a software or hardward (or both) upgrade.
I'm a big LRASM fan, wish there was a surface rail launched version instead of vertical launch.

 

[FSTO]

Of course the RCN frigates have participated in a number, but has the RCAF participated in one with its CF18s or CP 140s engaging from stand-off distance?

CP 140 were fitted for but not with Harpoon capability

 

[Fabius]

Well I was just using CQ-9B as an example of an external asset that can provide targeting information.

I was about to post that CQ-9B's don't carry that kind of ranged anti-ship missiles (as late as of 2023) but then I remembered RIMPAC this last year.

General Atomics Displays MQ-9B's New Anti-Ship Role

www.navyleaders.com

Brand new capability that was tested.

I don't think its on the systems to be integrated into the CQ-9 Guardian though. Not sure if that would be a software or hardward (or both) upgrade.
I'm a big LRASM fan, wish there was a surface rail launched version instead of vertical launch.

Isn’t that article stating that it supported LRASM targeting not carriage and launch?

CP 140 were fitted for but not with Harpoon capability

I was aware of that although I thought that capability completely disappeared after the wing upgrades. Either way it’s a theoretical capability that would not help to support any ship or ISR asset with actual strike capability in the Arctic.

The new P8s however, assuming they are straight off the shelf and we purchase the LRASM to go with them. Same if we purchased NSM for the F35s

 

[Underway]

Isn’t that article stating that it supported LRASM targeting not carriage and launch?

wipes egg off face... yep you are correct.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Double post again.

 

[Cloud Cover]

“We wouldn’t need the allies to come to our aid. We could deal with it ourselves,” said Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee.

“We have the capacity to deploy our ships up there right now to stop them.”

I’ve wondered if this implies the USN for some reason was instructed to stand down.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What about shore batteries (Guns and/or Missiles) to help bolster our Artic defence ?

You could even do some remote, no ?

We could give them the 40mm Bofors........

That being said missiles would be an effective way to bolster our defenses. But you need infrastructure to do that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile the USCG is doing what it can to get some more ice breaking capability. Personally we should offer to build them a naval AOP's, with no design changes, other than the ordering of longer lead items, I suspect it could be built without impacting the River Class schedule.

Coast Guard Inks Deal to Acquire ‘Aiviq’ As Vessel Arrives in Tampa Dry Dock to Begin Conversion

The U.S. Coast Guard has closed on the $125m fixed-price deal to acquire and convert icebreaking supply ship Aiviq from Offshore Surface Vessels LLC, part of Edison Chouest Offshore (ECO).

gcaptain.com