Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[KevinB]

Please no. The crew of ~60- could not and would not be able to handle that much crap stapled to the ship, not to mention a ship with a bunch of weapons and garbage sensors is the same usefulness in a fight as the current AOPS, it just is double the cost (and likely double the crew). It's a patrol boat. Want to fight a war, call a warship.

AOPS is a utility vehicle not a tank.

So a Coast Guard vessel -- got it.

 

[T700]

Canada has repeatedly sent equipment into areas it was never intended to go. First Gulf War none of the ships were ready without massive upgrades, Cougar AVGP(Tank trainer) Bosnia and Somalia, LSVW(with Armour kit?) Bosnia and Afghanistan, Iltis,
MCDV initially was not to cross North Atlantic Ocean or chase pirates.
Better to show up with something and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Minimal standard should be last resort.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I said before, your enemies get a vote and may not be nice enough to inform you of when hostilities commence. My preference has been a better self defence suite, using the same gun it has to cover the aft arc and either a 57mm or 76 if stability allows up forward. Improved combat suite to utilize the greater range and detect threats. Some counter measures equipment. Plus having the magazine capacity. I would have been happy if they had designed the vessel for this and just fitted the vessel with the 25mm for now. At least up arming it would be easy.
As our CFP's start to fail, you can bet these ships will be sent further than anticipated and various bad actors are growing their capabilities. If 60 people on a new ship that size with shore support can not maintain that level of equipment, then we are doing things very, very wrong.

You know we must be doing something wrong in terms of training our leaders. This argument comes around again and again. We can't do such and such because somebody won't use it properly and people will die. Ships, tanks, planes, atvs, jeeps, infantry battalions....

 

[Kirkhill]

So a Coast Guard vessel -- got it.

Yes a Coast Guard vessel. Yes a utility vessel. Yes a Command, Control, Co-Ordination, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance vessel. Yes a logistics hub. Yes an emergency response facility. Yes a police station.

Not a bad investment in my opinion. If some one starts hauling through the arctic at walking pace, intent on attacking an AOPS the ancient CF18s are only 4 hours away. The enemy will have advanced 16 miles from their initial point of observation.

And again, yes it is a Coast Guard vessel, in the US sense. Because to put a gun on a ship in Canada we have to make it a Navy ship. Our Coast Guard doesn't want that job.

 

[Czech_pivo]

As I said before, your enemies get a vote and may not be nice enough to inform you of when hostilities commence. My preference has been a better self defence suite, using the same gun it has to cover the aft arc and either a 57mm or 76 if stability allows up forward. Improved combat suite to utilize the greater range and detect threats. Some counter measures equipment. Plus having the magazine capacity. I would have been happy if they had designed the vessel for this and just fitted the vessel with the 25mm for now. At least up arming it would be easy.
As our CFP's start to fail, you can bet these ships will be sent further than anticipated and various bad actors are growing their capabilities. If 60 people on a new ship that size with shore support can not maintain that level of equipment, then we are doing things very, very wrong.

Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.

 

[dimsum]

Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.

Probably the required changes needed to get ammo up to the gun. I suspect the 57mm infrastructure goes down a few decks, when the 25mm probably doesn't.

 

[Stoker]

Why not to recycle the 57’s from the Halifax’s to the AOPS when the time comes? Much easier to reach out and touch someone with a 57 when your top speed is only 17knts.

Why would we? We had 5 or 6 76mm's and a mound of shells left over from the 280's that could had been installed while they were building the ships. We returned them for credit. I suspect the same for the 57's.

 

[KevinB]

Why would we? We had 5 or 6 76mm's and a mound of shells left over from the 280's that could had been installed while they were building the ships. We returned them for credit. I suspect the same for the 57's.

I'm legitimately curious as to why a 25mm cannon was chosen - with a 2-3km max range - when a handheld missile can outrange you fairly easily.

To me EVERY RCN ship should be a warship - as that is what a Navy generally does.

 

[Stoker]

I'm legitimately curious as to why a 25mm cannon was chosen - with a 2-3km max range - when a handheld missile can outrange you fairly easily.

To me EVERY RCN ship should be a warship - as that is what a Navy generally does.

Probably because they are extensively used world wide on patrol ships and we have the ammo more than likely.

To you I guess but the reality is that all navies have ships that are armed lightly or sometimes not armed at all. AOPS is not built like a warship regardless of what you place on it for weapons and a big gun is not going to make frig all difference in my opinion as someone actually in the RCN when dealing with a armed warship.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 57mm as I understand it has an excellent rate of fire, fuzes that can be set while in the gun, giving it excellent ability to deal with drones, loitering munitions and small boats. I feel the 76mm would give even better reach, has many of the same benefits of the 57mm and would allow significant shore support for landing parties. However the 57mm has the benefit of being the same gun on the CFP's making training and certification easier. I like to see the same 25mm and mount on the AOP's, CFP's and Kingstons, again making ammunition, parts, training and certification easier in the fleet.

 

[T700]

Probably because they are extensively used world wide on patrol ships and we have the ammo more than likely.

To you I guess but the reality is that all navies have ships that are armed lightly or sometimes not armed at all. AOPS is not built like a warship regardless of what you place on it for weapons and a big gun is not going to make frig all difference in my opinion as someone actually in the RCN when dealing with a armed warship.

When you go into the forest full of angry animals that think you are part of their diet do you want a 22 pistol or a 12 gauge. Those ships will be used for more than the Arctic Patrols. It’s the Canadian Way.

 

[Stoker]

When you go into the forest full of angry animals that think you are part of their diet do you want a 22 pistol or a 12 gauge. Those ships will be used for more than the Arctic Patrols. It’s the Canadian Way.

Most of my career I have been sailing in Kingston Class ships with a couple of .50 Cals, been to Europe off Russia, West Africa, Op Caribe's and the Arctic more times than most on this message board. Guess what? we were fine. The hilarious part of this is that the ones it seems to be loosing the most sleep over this are not in the Navy, I sleep fine.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People, organisations, leaders, politicians and militaries get complacent, because things have not changed in a long while. But things are changing and staying ahead of the curve is always hard and takes effort. The Army in Afghanistan learned the hard way not to fall into a routine, because people identify the patterns and exploit them. From my reading it's what happened to the Israel Corvette, they became complacent because they felt there was no threat. Outside of Canadian and friendly waters your ship is a big juicy propaganda target for someone.

 

[Stoker]

People, organisations, leaders, politicians and militaries get complacent, because things have not changed in a long while. But things are changing and staying ahead of the curve is always hard and takes effort. The Army in Afghanistan learned the hard way not to fall into a routine, because people identify the patterns and exploit them. From my reading it's what happened to the Israel Corvette, they became complacent because they felt there was no threat. Outside of Canadian and friendly waters your ship is a big juicy propaganda target for someone.

Yes I heard that from you before, noted. I still sleep fine.

 

[T700]

Most of my career I have been sailing in Kingston Class ships with a couple of .50 Cals, been to Europe off Russia, West Africa, Op Caribe's and the Arctic more times than most on this message board. Guess what? we were fine. The hilarious part of this is that the ones it seems to be loosing the most sleep over this are not in the Navy, I sleep fine.

Not loosing sleep but I have been out gunned and so have others on this forum. I think a catastrophic failure will happen at some point. It’s always a matter of time… Maybe it’s a good thing others don’t want to see it happen again.

 

[Stoker]

Not loosing sleep but I have been out gunned and so have others on this forum. I think a catastrophic failure will happen at some point. It’s always a matter of time… Maybe it’s a good thing others don’t want to see it happen again.

Been doing it for 32 years no issues and I doubt we will ever have any. The ships are appropriately armed to the current missions including the Arctic, Africa, the Caribbean. If those missions evolve overtime and the risk increases I would suspect equipment would be updated or added just like another ship. You know we just didn't throw a 25mm on the ship and say frig it right?

 

[T700]

Been doing it for 32 years no issues and I doubt we will ever have any. The ships are appropriately armed to the current missions including the Arctic, Africa, the Caribbean. If those missions evolve overtime and the risk increases I would suspect equipment would be updated or added just like another ship. You know we just didn't throw a 25mm on the ship and say frig it right?

Hmm. AOR forward gun, MCDV weapon?
Minimum standard works until it doesn’t. Just my opinion and experience

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes I heard that from you before, noted. I still sleep fine.

and as I said before, I dearly hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

[Stoker]

Hmm. AOR forward gun, MCDV weapon?
Minimum standard works until it doesn’t. Just my opinion and experience

The AOR 3" 50 was put there solely to claim warship status going through the Panama Canal, the 40mm on the MCDV was for mine destruction when we did minesweeping. Both there for a reason.

 

[T700]

The AOR 3" 50 was put there solely to claim warship status going through the Panama Canal, the 40mm on the MCDV was for mine destruction when we did minesweeping. Both there for a reason.