• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
355
Points
880
Lumber said:
And against an Ak-100, I definitely don't want just a 25mm...

But practice, if Russians are going to start putting f***ing Sizzlers on "patrol" ice-breakers, then there really is no need to go anything higher than a 25mm, because the 25mm will have one purpose, and one purpose only: to disable the engines on a merchant vessel that won't heave to.

Yah, the Russian equivalent of the Harpoon.  That's quite the firepower on an arctic specific vessel.  What kind of threats are they expecting or is this a case of getting ahead and staying ahead?  Is this a case of defending Murmansk or Baltic ports in the winter?  Or is this a force projection strategy?  Perhaps they will assist in defending Russian boomers from the surface?

It's not like their neighbours would have anything remotely equivalent to this type of firepower for ice covered waters (on the surface).
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
I'm hoping that any of those ships could taken out by a CF18 if necessary. But, whatever the Russian plans are for the Arctic, they clearly feel the need to be defensive about it,  and when doing "badass" things, those ships will likely operate under significant top cover. Certainly would not want to antagonize them.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Yeah, we're not going to win an arms race.

We might win the economic race, as I still see a lot of evidence that Russia is on the path to bankruptcy...again.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
658
Points
910
I think the Russians see each naval ship as a warship and will use it as such when required, again it's mindset.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
658
Points
910
Endurance's withdrawal from Antarctic patrol without replacement was perceived in Britain [3][4] as having encouraged the Argentinian invasion. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged it as a factor (Main entry Events leading to the Falklands War).

It was the withdrawal that sent the message that triggered the events
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
172
Points
760
The first level of the force continuum....a visible armed presence.

Doesn't have to be WELL armed (that's a benefit though!) but the knowledge that there's someone official around with a gun in case things go bump in the night tends to be a deterrent.

Is a 25mm enough?  Is a police officer's 9mm enough? 

The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough. 

Would it be nice to have something with a bit more horsepower under the hood?  Yeah, but is an extra 51mm going to make that much difference? 

NS
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
MASS and perhaps a little bit of Elbit ESM/ECCM might be a worthy addition to the class. At least a few more tools in the box. Might not be able to out gun an opponent, but at least screw around the opfor fire control systems, and fling some chaff in the air.
 

winnipegoo7

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Colin P said:
Endurance's withdrawal from Antarctic patrol without replacement was perceived in Britain [3][4] as having encouraged the Argentinian invasion. The subsequent Franks Report acknowledged it as a factor (Main entry Events leading to the Falklands War).

It was the withdrawal that sent the message that triggered the events

The Endurance was not withdrawn before the war, it was only planned to be withdrawn due to a RN fleet reduction. She was very active during the war. Perhaps had the Endurance been better armed it could have done more during the war, maybe preventing the invasion (probably not) or at the very least been capable of defending herself.

My point is that a WARship might end up in a war, so perhaps it should be armed accordingly.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
38
Points
530
NavyShooter said:
The first level of the force continuum....a visible armed presence.

Doesn't have to be WELL armed (that's a benefit though!) but the knowledge that there's someone official around with a gun in case things go bump in the night tends to be a deterrent.

Is a 25mm enough?  Is a police officer's 9mm enough? 

The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough. 

Would it be nice to have something with a bit more horsepower under the hood?  Yeah, but is an extra 51mm going to make that much difference? 

NS

IMO, the extra 51mm does make a significant difference, and the extra 75mm (for the AK-100)  or even 102mm (for a 5") would make an even bigger difference! Why? Because these naval guns provide a much wider array of capabilities that the 25mm does not possess.

The 25mm is going to be very good at defending against small, fast movers, and it is more than sufficient as a deterrent against unarmed vessels, such as illegal fisherman or merchies who refuse to heave-to. In order for it to be effective in naval combat, you need to be in fist-shaking range of the other vessel!

With a 76mm (or greater) you have extended range and an NGS capability. Planning on landing some troops on an active island? Think again, because I'm about to bombard them with 5" HE rounds. In arctic ice, will your ship even be able to manoeuvre in order to close into 25mm range? Have no fear! My Ak-100 will hit them from outside the ice sheet! (maybe...)

This is why sticking Sizzlers on their patrol ships is even more menacing: it provides even greater range and lethality. Even though their patrol boats lack any AA or Anti-ASM capability (chaff, jammers, or point defence missiles), they're mere presence can be huge deterrence, because you don't know when an SS-N-27 is going to pop-up over the horizon and ruin your AOPs day.

Do I think we need (or can) get in an arms race with the Russians and start putting ASMs on our AOPs? Absolutely not; but I do think we should posses a minimum level of capability across of wider spectrum of warfare areas.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
259
Points
880
E.R. Campbell said:
If it is a ship for a, primarily, constabulary role and not at all well suited for a "warship that is designed to go into harms way," then should it not be manned by constabulary people?

inkster.jpg
orig-mediaitemid22496-9267.jpg


I know the RCMP Marine Division of old ...

   
PV%20Wood.jpg


          ... equipped with "hand me down" warships, was sold off and its duties reassigned, but maybe, if the Arctic waters will become navigable, we want it back.

Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
NavyShooter said:
....

The knowledge that a fighter-plane, or someone with ESSM's and Harpoons can show up in reasonably short order in support can make it enough. 

...

Or an F18 with Harpoons and AIM-120s?  Or even a CP-140 with Harpoons?

Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.

 

MMSS

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Halifax Tar said:
Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything

According to this site it's the Patrol Vessel Wood.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Halifax Tar said:
Slight derail.  ERC, what ship is in the bottom pic ?  I have been googling RCMP Marine Div and cant find anything

Wouldn't be more accurate to say, the "old" RCMP Marine Div.  ;D
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
355
Points
880
Chris Pook said:
Or an F18 with Harpoons and AIM-120s?  Or even a CP-140 with Harpoons?

Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.

Neither.  I'm not sure what the cost would be to give them that capability or if there are specific Harpoons that are air launched that would have to be bought.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
MMSS said:
According to this site it's the Patrol Vessel Wood.

Yikes! http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/Historical_Data.pdf

"The vast majority of the large vessels over 100 feet were sold to the Department of Transport by 1970. The 180 ft
RCMP “Wood” had its name changed to the CCG “Daring” and served for many more years. She was later sold
privately and in September 1987 was seized and the crew arrested in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala for smuggling 2375
kilograms of cocaine destined for Columbia having been flown out from Columbia. This was a sad end to a prized
Canadian vessel. "
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
36
Points
480
whiskey601 said:
Yikes! http://members.shaw.ca/rcmpwcmd/Historical_Data.pdf

"The vast majority of the large vessels over 100 feet were sold to the Department of Transport by 1970. The 180 ft
RCMP “Wood” had its name changed to the CCG “Daring” and served for many more years. She was later sold
privately and in September 1987 was seized and the crew arrested in Puerto Barrios, Guatemala for smuggling 2375
kilograms of cocaine destined for Columbia having been flown out from Columbia. This was a sad end to a prized
Canadian vessel. "

Flashback to The Ship That Died of Shame.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
27
Points
430
Chris Pook said:
Are either the CF-18 or the CP-140 cleared for Harpoons in Canadian service?  To my understanding they are not and that never made any sense to me.
The aircraft airframes and hard points/weapons bays are capable but not cleared for AGM-84, if there are spcial fittings we probably do not stock them, and to the extent there are any additional required acquisition, guidance and related combat systems, they were not procured. The APG/73 radar theoretically could guide the missile for some distance, but the range of the missile is beyond the doppler range of the radar. Although the AGM84  is multi mode, it can receive terminal guidance to the target. Always better than firing blind...

I have not seen a Harpoon dropped from the bay of a P3, but I have seen one fired off a wing hardpoint on a P3.
The F18/F can load out with 4 AGM 84 and one underbelly fuel tank, and 2 AIM9X (wingtips).     

There is also no current RCAF doctrine for using a long range ALCM like this one. 
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
73
Points
330
Lumber said:
IMO, the extra 51mm does make a significant difference, and the extra 75mm (for the AK-100)  or even 102mm (for a 5") would make an even bigger difference! Why? Because these naval guns provide a much wider array of capabilities that the 25mm does not possess.

The 25mm is going to be very good at defending against small, fast movers, and it is more than sufficient as a deterrent against unarmed vessels, such as illegal fisherman or merchies who refuse to heave-to. In order for it to be effective in naval combat, you need to be in fist-shaking range of the other vessel!

With a 76mm (or greater) you have extended range and an NGS capability. Planning on landing some troops on an active island? Think again, because I'm about to bombard them with 5" HE rounds. In arctic ice, will your ship even be able to manoeuvre in order to close into 25mm range? Have no fear! My Ak-100 will hit them from outside the ice sheet! (maybe...)

Do I think we need (or can) get in an arms race with the Russians and start putting ASMs on our AOPs? Absolutely not; but I do think we should posses a minimum level of capability across of wider spectrum of warfare areas.

Interesting point, but we lack a significant capability to conduct NGS on our major warships now. Why would we waste time and money on a capability so low on our priority list that we don't equip our frontline warships to do it properly? Why would we equip an arctic patrol boat for naval engagements like Jutland or the hunt for Bismarck when again our frontline warships aren't equipped with a gun suited to that type of engagement?

Sure a big gun would be cool, and look awesome when we shoot a hammerhead or two on WUPS but it really doesn't add useful and efficient capability to a patrol boat.

As to landing troops opposed on an island in the arctic, it isn’t happening via the water if it ever happens at all. Airborne/airmobile forces would be faster, better supported and less likely to have to deal with pesky Russian patrol boats and their big guns.
 
Top