Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Swampbuggy]

I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?

 

[Stoker]

I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?

When I say the ship has a CBRN citadel I though you meant the Danish. The AOPS do not.

 

[Swampbuggy]

When I say the ship has a CBRN citadel I though you meant the Danish. The AOPS do not.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Underway]

It's gray and it navy, sooner or later it will be sent somewhere where the risk is much higher. The world is also going to be a much different place and different crisis. One of those crisis might be on our doorstep. You also assume your political master will listen to reason, they may not. Canadian governments have a long history of sending troops and sailors unprepared/under equipped into harms way. Much better to walk softly with a big stick, then to wandering around with a popgun on a frigate sized vessel.

You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them. 

It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I didn’t think so. Ok, so even though both ships are built more to civilian standards, the AOPS does have a more robust capability to survive, if need be. So, is it fair to say that, if the government ever does decide to send it someplace scary, the armament could be upgraded and the ship itself already has some higher survivability built in?

Aside from the ship itself, you also need a certain number of bodies to keep fighting through battle damage.  Combatants with minimal crews were deliberate decisions knowing that the ship would have very little ability to recover or stay in the fight, so they focused on a cheap build with a good sensor package for offense.  Kind of like a power puncher with a glass jaw.

Still have enough crew to fight a single incident to stay safe at sea, and lots of fitted systems etc, but it's a big slow target, so even if you bolted a bunch of stuff on it wouldn't be effective against actual warships.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Aside from the ship itself, you also need a certain number of bodies to keep fighting through battle damage.  Combatants with minimal crews were deliberate decisions knowing that the ship would have very little ability to recover or stay in the fight, so they focused on a cheap build with a good sensor package for offense.  Kind of like a power puncher with a glass jaw.

Still have enough crew to fight a single incident to stay safe at sea, and lots of fitted systems etc, but it's a big slow target, so even if you bolted a bunch of stuff on it wouldn't be effective against actual warships.

That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations. And I guess that a CBRN citadel (it’s a moot point anyway, since the Chief clarified it doesn’t have one) doesn’t really tell the whole tale about the ship’s capability to survive, as you say. Though, I wasn’t really thinking ship on ship confrontation, so much. It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise.

Its not everything I hoped for in a new patrol ship, but I’m excited all the same. It will be a new and appreciated tool in the RCN box. I just have to drill through to myself that it isn’t anything more than it was designed to be.

 

[Stoker]

That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations. And I guess that a CBRN citadel (it’s a moot point anyway, since the Chief clarified it doesn’t have one) doesn’t really tell the whole tale about the ship’s capability to survive, as you say. Though, I wasn’t really thinking ship on ship confrontation, so much. It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise.

Its not everything I hoped for in a new patrol ship, but I’m excited all the same. It will be a new and appreciated tool in the RCN box. I just have to drill through to myself that it isn’t anything more than it was designed to be.

At work we are looking at the DC component right now and tailoring a program for them most likely along the lines of how a Kingston Class operates for DC.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That’s a great point. And I’m not sure how much you could really augment the ship’s company, though I have heard there is a lot of space on board to deal with evolving situations.

More crew is a lot more than just adding a few bunks; you need a lot more storage for food, water, garbage, etc. Bigger wastewater treatment, bigger galleys, more lifeboats and all kinds of other equipment concerns. Plus you need the trained sailors to fill those rolls, and they are already in short supply.

It's not impossible, but it's a big change, and a completely different role than what they are being built for.  We should let them do what they are designed to do well, and let the frigates keep doing the combatant work.

 

[Swampbuggy]

More crew is a lot more than just adding a few bunks; you need a lot more storage for food, water, garbage, etc. Bigger wastewater treatment, bigger galleys, more lifeboats and all kinds of other equipment concerns. Plus you need the trained sailors to fill those rolls, and they are already in short supply.

It's not impossible, but it's a big change, and a completely different role than what they are being built for.  We should let them do what they are designed to do well, and let the frigates keep doing the combatant work.

I’m sure that’s true. More people means more resources to manage/obtain/cost etc. As to the manpower being in short supply, does it all start with a lack of people flowing through the recruitment centres or is it training for specific trades? Or both, maybe? I remember when I looked into enlisting in the early 90’s, I believe they asked for your top three choices of where you wanted to serve. In those days, it was unlikely to get a place in the RCN, as I recall. Everything seemed geared towards the Army, as far as funneling recruitment. I think I’d be more inclined, were I in charge, to beef up
numbers in the Navy these days. Canada seems to make a much better impression on the world when it comes to contributing at sea than on land. I’m not trying to diminish what the Army or Air Force has done in Afghanistan or the training roles elsewhere, but they certainly have had their moments of controversy as to their effectiveness. But the Navy takes Canada with them to foreign shores and is far better at making instant impact in times of disaster response and international coalitions for security, IMHO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them. 

It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.

We will be using what we have, the RN used merchant ships and cruise ships to conduct the Falklands operation. Also the AOP's will be operating alone in the arctic, they may be the point vessel in a confrontation there.

 

[Dale Denton]

You may not realize it but you are advocating this exact thing.  Warships go into combat.  AOPS ships with their slow speed (and possible limited maneuverability) and limited damage control capability (due to smaller crew all things being equal) are not designed to go into a proper naval war environment no matter what fancy armament or sensors you strap on them. 

It would be a greater risk to arm them heavily and then send them on more dangerous missions.  Better to keep them lightly armed and doing the job they were intended to do.

You are right, but the enemy may not give us that option. A lightly armed vessel alone in the arctic is not much use.

Biggest point is the presumption that the gov't will only use these ships for what they were built for. They will, over time, be used for  tasks that were not envisioned to be doing at launch. I.E adding Phalanx to the Iroquois before sailing to the Gulf.

The RCN (if not already) should push for the most capability on each platform, as how often will they be built new ships? Might as well ask for the most capability as they may not get any replacements in sight 20 years after we launch them.

 

[dapaterson]

As long as the enemy is in MCDVs, the AOPS have a fighting chance.

 

[STONEY]

As a point of interest saw Harry today completely covered by tarps probably for a fresh coat of paint getting ready for launching.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yes, bottom paint has to be applied within a certain timeframe before launching, otherwise loses effectiveness. I am assuming the RCN mainly uses ablative type anti-foulings? 

 

[Gorgo]

Sweet!  Hopefully, they'll be ahead of schedule this time!

 

[Underway]

Seems HMCS Harry De Wolfe will be launched Saturday.  At least according to this blogger.  I would love to go watch.  Perhaps from the Dartmouth side might get a better view.

https://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2018/09/harry-dewolf-almost.html

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It’s still air defence that I find myself worrying about. I suppose you could always lay in a store of MANPADS to augment that lack of capability, if the need were to arise.

I wouldn't myself consider MANPADs on their own a true air defence system;  their range is not very significant, especially considering the range of most modern anti-ship weapons such as the air-launch version of the KH-35.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which is more effect in AD mode?

MANPADS or the SR76/62?

76/62 SUPER RAPID
Share
76/62 SUPER RAPID
The 76/62 Super Rapid (SR) Gun Mount is a light weight, rapid-fire naval gun providing unrivalled performance and flexibility in any air defence and anti surface role, particularly in anti-missile role.

Capability for very effective engagement of shore based targets is also provided for unique multi-role performance.

The 76/62 SR is suitable for installation on ships of any type and class, including small naval units.
Interface to a large variety of ship's Combat Management System and/or FCS/EOS is provided, according to digital as well as analogical standard, including open architecture.
The Firing rate can be selected from single shot to firing 120 rds/min.

In operational condition the tactical time is less than 3 seconds and the standard deviation at firing is less than 0.3 mrad, thus providing excellent accuracy.

The 76/62 SR (together with the 76/62 Compact) is the only medium caliber naval gun available in the capable of sustained fire, which is a fundamental requirement in any scenario involving the simultaneous engagement of multiple maneuvering target, as requested by the emerging asymmetric warfare scenarios.

Automatic loading is provided through a revolving magazine and rapid reloading is easily undertaken even during firing action by two ammunition handlers.

Standard supply includes the new Digital Control Console (DCC) capitalizing the digital technology to increase the functions available to the operator and to the maintainers.
The 76/62 SR is ready for operating the 3AP Multifunction Programmable Fuse.
The in service and new 76/62 SR,  have the necessary flexibility for being fitted with optional:

Integral Stealth Shield to reduce the total RCS of the ship
Muzzle Velocity Radar to update the FCS of eventual deviations from range table values
Multi Feeding Device for the automatic handling, selection and feeding of any type of ammunition loaded
STRALES system – a guidance system for the  DART guided projectile.

http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/76-62-super-rapid
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/67176536/body_OTO_76_62_SR_LQ_mm08727_.pdf
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66959012/body_STRALES_2013_1.pdf
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66959907/body_vulcano_76_2016.pdf

8 km Anti Air with the guided DART projectile at up to 120 rounds per minute
OR
40 km Surface to Surface with the guided Volcano projectile at up to 120 rounds per minute

With 89 ready rounds that can be a selectable mix of up to 20 types of projectiles.

I'm pretty sure that our old 76s are not the same as the new 76s but the old ammunition is compatible.

 

[Swampbuggy]

see Below

 

[Swampbuggy]

I'm pretty sure that our old 76s are not the same as the new 76s but the old ammunition is compatible.

Sorry, Chris, I’ve had a quote setback. What I was going to post was a question regarding feasibility of sending  our old 76’s back to OTO MELARA to be rebuilt, and possibly updated to the newer mod? I think that was done with our 57 BOFORS at Kongsberg during the FELEX project, IIRC.