• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
467
Points
980
Sure any lightly armed ship will be a "sitting duck" in a threat area unless they're well protected. I deployed to Africa twice in the Kingston Class and I can assure you we weren't in danger. There is always what ifs and yes HDW with its 25mm will be doing Caribs and Op Projections when fully operational. Based on my experience the RCN will not be sending these ships to the Gulf or anywhere like that. Of course I know you and Parkinson know better and if they don't get attacked you guys will probably say we got lucky...lets agree to disagree.
It's not that I know better. Your own posting above gives you more credibility about the Navy then I will ever have. His point is that he is concerned about the AOPS ability to defend itself. I share those concerns, especially with future asymmetric attacks.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
Canada has long and colourful history of sending people into a fight poorly equipped. I don't pretend to "know better" but I do read a lot and try to make myself aware of what has happened, what may happen and what we are doing about it. Had Canada started with a lot more money to spend on ships, you can bet the armament would have been greater.
I suspect two reasons played a role in the current setup. One, Canadians are cheap bastards and we were already paying premium dollar to have these ships built here to our standards, so something had to be cut. The other is that from what I hear the senior brass were not enamoured with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
I also point to the Kingstons who should be getting the same gun that is on the AOP's, but as always we are to bloody cheap to a fault. it's always better to go to a potentiel fight expecting the worse and then not having to use it, than the other way around.

I am glad you won your bet, I hope it involved beers.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Canada has long and colourful history of sending people into a fight poorly equipped. I don't pretend to "know better" but I do read a lot and try to make myself aware of what has happened, what may happen and what we are doing about it. Had Canada started with a lot more money to spend on ships, you can bet the armament would have been greater.
I suspect two reasons played a role in the current setup. One, Canadians are cheap bastards and we were already paying premium dollar to have these ships built here to our standards, so something had to be cut. The other is that from what I hear the senior brass were not enamoured with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy.
I also point to the Kingstons who should be getting the same gun that is on the AOP's, but as always we are to bloody cheap to a fault. it's always better to go to a potentiel fight expecting the worse and then not having to use it, than the other way around.

I am glad you won your bet, I hope it involved beers.
Yes you must read a lot based on some of your "informed" opinions I see on social media. Being informed doesn't make you a naval expert by any means and of course all the rumors you "heard" all adds up to someone who don't have a clue about these ships, why they were armed in this manner and what they will be doing. Stop the speculation, easy target comments and drum banging and stay in your lanes of what you actually know.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
My current "lane" is a concerned taxpayer who feels we taken a good design and handicapped it. Plus my experience with working with the Canadian government tells me that we will always take the cheap way out if possible. Basically your getting annoyed that I am concerned about our ships being properly equipped? If I and others like me followed your suggestions, then there would be even less pressure on the government to support the military. I would be careful for what you wish for.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
My current "lane" is a concerned taxpayer who feels we taken a good design and handicapped it. Plus my experience with working with the Canadian government tells me that we will always take the cheap way out if possible. Basically your getting annoyed that I am concerned about our ships being properly equipped? If I and others like me followed your suggestions, then there would be even less pressure on the government to support the military. I would be careful for what you wish for.
No just pointing out that most of what you say is sheer speculation based on rumor's that you heard concerning these ships, what they'll be doing and where they'll be used. Couple that with your threat assessments to the RCN and statements of future doom for our ships and sailors based on your opinions. Concerned taxpayer? Really?:cool:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
So it's a rumour that the ships are only equipped with MG and 25mm gun? It's a rumour that we sent the Kingstons to Africa? Yes it is speculation that the AOP's will go with or instead of the Kingstons, but it's a fair speculation. Africa is a evolving situation with many potentiel threats and we are a legitimate target in the eyes of those groups. the question is do you want to be an easy target or a hard target? Intelligence and threat assessments are only so reliable.
As for the Arctic, I don't doubt for a minute that China would set up a "research station" in Arctic areas claimed by Canada, if they felt they can get away with it. Just ask Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines about China respect for other claims.
If I was asking to put 16" guns on the AOP's then yes I would be foolish. But what I have suggested is in line with what other nations are doing with their OPV's. I guess they perceive the world differently?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
So it's a rumour that the ships are only equipped with MG and 25mm gun? It's a rumour that we sent the Kingstons to Africa? Yes it is speculation that the AOP's will go with or instead of the Kingstons, but it's a fair speculation. Africa is a evolving situation with many potentiel threats and we are a legitimate target in the eyes of those groups. the question is do you want to be an easy target or a hard target? Intelligence and threat assessments are only so reliable.
As for the Arctic, I don't doubt for a minute that China would set up a "research station" in Arctic areas claimed by Canada, if they felt they can get away with it. Just ask Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines about China respect for other claims.
If I was asking to put 16" guns on the AOP's then yes I would be foolish. But what I have suggested is in line with what other nations are doing with their OPV's. I guess they perceive the world differently?
Rumour's and speculation like " I hear the senior brass were not enamored with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy" Perhaps is true, perhaps its not, but you are speculating Joe tax payer.

What is your preoccupation and problem with send the Kingston Class to Africa anyways? They're there to train other African navies are not doing anti piracy patrols. They'll actually done pretty well for themselves over there. Since they been going absolutely no problems and I have real world experience in this and based on historical data not a pirate target. Yep non state actions could very well make it a bad day for us and any other ship over there even heavily armed. Again more than likely will never happen and we assume the risk when we go to those areas, part of being in the Navy, can you comprehend that? We do take our role there seriously and have measures in place for piracy's activity if we encounter it. You don't need to speculate on the AOPS going to Africa because the RCN has made that very clear in what they release publicly that they will be going and doing the same engagement and training to African nations the Kingston Class was doing.
I'm not going to touch your China turning the Arctic into the south China sea comments because frankly its not the South China Sea. A larger gun in this day and age doesn't make a difference and the 25mm seems to work for other classes of ships doing exactly what the AOPS will be doing. You need to accept the fact that there ships will never have missiles and more than likely a larger gun and move on.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
The bit about the brass as I recall was from this forum. As for speculation about politicians neutering programs, for something that is nowhere near as capable, I been privy to enough stuff over the years in the PS to know that is always a concern. So I take that as a highly likely possibility.
I respect the opinions and experience you have and listen to them, but we are not just talking now or the near future, we are talking about the lifetime of these ships. Why reduce their capabilities when things are getting more complex? From what I have read here and elsewhere a gun system like the 57mm would give the AOP's a much better chance to defend itself from loitering munitions and suicide drones if required and now is the time to advocate that as there are still ships under construction where the mounts and supporting infrastructure can be built in. I realize it also means enhancing the Combat Suite to support the extended capabilities of that gun system. 57mm and up means programable fuzes and more throw weight than a 25mm can ever hope to. i think the 25mm and it's mount appears to be a great system, which is why i like to see it put onto the Kingstons and the system move to the aft arc for the AOP's. That would reduce the training and munitions burdens on the RCN.

As to China, they have declared themselves a "near Arctic nation" and built quite capable icebreakers. It's very likely that as they either fish out other regions or are pushed out, they be sending their fishing militias into our arctic waters and contesting our claims. Under their current leadership anything is possible. I really like the AOP's and think they were long overdue. but I will continue to advocate the one area I think we have failed and there are reasonable and not overly costly/complex solutions to resolve it.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
164
Points
630
Rumour's and speculation like " I hear the senior brass were not enamored with the idea of naval icebreakers in the first place and likley rightly feared that making these ships a bit to capable, would potentially water down the argument for the full CSC package in the eyes of the politicians and bean counters. I can't say this fear is unjustified, defending the CSC program must suck up huge amounts of time, money and energy" Perhaps is true, perhaps its not, but you are speculating Joe tax payer.

What is your preoccupation and problem with send the Kingston Class to Africa anyways? They're there to train other African navies are not doing anti piracy patrols. They'll actually done pretty well for themselves over there. Since they been going absolutely no problems and I have real world experience in this and based on historical data not a pirate target. Yep non state actions could very well make it a bad day for us and any other ship over there even heavily armed. Again more than likely will never happen and we assume the risk when we go to those areas, part of being in the Navy, can you comprehend that? We do take our role there seriously and have measures in place for piracy's activity if we encounter it. You don't need to speculate on the AOPS going to Africa because the RCN has made that very clear in what they release publicly that they will be going and doing the same engagement and training to African nations the Kingston Class was doing.
I'm not going to touch your China turning the Arctic into the south China sea comments because frankly its not the South China Sea. A larger gun in this day and age doesn't make a difference and the 25mm seems to work for other classes of ships doing exactly what the AOPS will be doing. You need to accept the fact that there ships will never have missiles and more than likely a larger gun and move on.
What was the reasoning behind putting a 25mm on it, versus the 57mm on the original design?

Just genuinely curious. What is mostly a cost issue?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
What was the reasoning behind putting a 25mm on it, versus the 57mm on the original design?

Just genuinely curious. What is mostly a cost issue?
The earliest presentation I saw for the ship is one dated 2011.

It said:

"AOPS is a naval ship but is not considered a combatant. The AOPS has a small caliber gun for sovereignty enforcement, two machine guns, and weapons lockers."

So Canada decided on what gun it was to be armed with over a decade before the first one was built. Except for the hull form this ship is very different that the Norwegian Arctic Patrol ship its being based on. If the RCN announced that the intent was a 57mm and overtime it dropped its requirement to a 25mm then I would agree that it was a cost cutting measure. It seems to me that the original design intent was a 25mm. If the ship was to have a 57mm, then how much more would the ship cost? Can't see it costing that much more.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
CBH99
Wiki says the idea for the ships were announced by the PM in 2006, with plans firming up in 2007, 2008 a contract was let to start preparing technical specifications. To find out the discussions as to the general "wants and needs" you might try an ATIP, however I suspect the foundation documents are likely covered under Cabinet confidence and not subject to the ATI Act.

From CASR, you can see some of the evolution of thought behind the ships Iqaluit Port - Deep-Water Port - Armed Icebreakers - CASR In Detail - Canadian American Strategic Review - Canadian Defence Planning - Nanisivik Port

and backgrounder from 2007 DND/CF | Backgrounder | Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships

and a TSOR from that period that mentions between 20-40mm, although the artwork on the link shows the Bofor turret. Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships - AOPS - Armed Naval Icebreakers - Offshore Patrol Vessels - Statement of Operational Requirement - TSOR - CASR Documents - Arctic Sovereignty - Canadian Shipbuilding - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
530
Colin

The RN is sending it's OPVs to establish Forward Presence all over the world. Individual hulls operating independently with a single 20-30 mm gun and a couple of GPMGs.

And an embarked troop of Marines.

Just sayin
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
460
Points
880
I saw that and I recall they plan on replacing some of them with Type 31's as they come on line. Interesting the crewing arrangements they plan on having. I wonder if the RCN will trial something like that with the AOP's, leaving the ships up North throughout the spring/summer months and rotating the crews through? Similar to the CCG schedule.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
530
I saw that and I recall they plan on replacing some of them with Type 31's as they come on line. Interesting the crewing arrangements they plan on having. I wonder if the RCN will trial something like that with the AOP's, leaving the ships up North throughout the spring/summer months and rotating the crews through? Similar to the CCG schedule.
I believe the USN is doing much the same with the LCS hulls. And Norway did the Two out Three Divisions afloat in the Svalbard.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
68
Points
530
I believe the USN is doing much the same with the LCS hulls. And Norway did the Two out Three Divisions afloat in the Svalbard.
The RCN has done chew changes before in the Arctic as proof of concept in regards to the Kingston Class and could be easily accomplished at the Arctic fueling depot. The plan as it stands the AOPS assigned to the Arctic will stay there the entire time and for now no crew changes planned.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
530
For information purposes only. Some slides from the 2008 Industry Day on the notional design requirements.

1618756325510.png
1618756369077.png
1618756436754.png
1618756460376.png
1618756499205.png
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
397
Points
880
That's an awesome-looking ship. I'd add another big gun to the rear of the ship, some gun placements (4) on the top of the bridge and top deck, and mortars. Because Ice Pirates.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
530
1618759076864.png

Arguably transporter of the Commonwealth's most valuable cargo - The Royal Yacht Britannia. Not a deck-mount to be found. In fact such mounts would be counter-productive in the Forward Presence role. It would indicate that the seas were not safe.

"The government argued that the cost was justified by its role in foreign policy and promoting British interests abroad, particularly through conferences held by British Invisibles, formerly the Committee on Invisible Exports. It was estimated by the Overseas Trade Board that events held on board the yacht helped raise £3 billion for HM Treasury between 1991 and 1995 alone.[13]"
 
Top