Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Underway]

YZT if you are referring to the Turbot war, can you believe it has been 23 years since then.

I think YZT might be referring to the British - Icelandic Cod Wars.  There were three of them running from the 1950's through to the late 70's.  Got rather nasty at points with Iceland finally threatening to leave NATO...

 

[YZT580]

I was referring to both actually.  I didn't realise that so much time had gone by but it doesn't change the significance of the shot across the bows in defence of our sovereignty.  So there is a good reason to have a weapons station and the same reason can be applied to having the presence of the AOPS itself instead of an enhanced coast guard presence. We need the navy.

 

[NavyShooter]

Having been aboard one of the ships that featured centrally in the Turbot War as it was going on, it was, in my opinion, a good thing that we had more than a constabulary level of armament.

 

[Stoker]

So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?

 

[Swampbuggy]

So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?

If only...Or at least the Phalanxes?

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.

The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.

None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.

 

[YZT580]

Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

Was it the Navy or the budget that caused the design to be changed?

 

[Stoker]

Isn't the real problem here that the Government (or at least the previous Government of the Day) wants a full time presence in the North to act as a combination of Gate Guard, SAR station and Lighthouse and neither the Navy nor the Coast Guard want the duty?

The original concept called for vessels that could operate at the ice-edge year round and follow it as it advanced and retreated, securing the navigable waters from surface incursions.  Relocation to ports was for service purposes.

The RCN modified the concept and mooted the prospect of the ships being taken off their primary beat and reassigned to the Caribbean - an area where the threat picture is different than the Arctic.

There is a case to be made that the AOPS is better as a Coast Guard asset but the Coast Guard doesn't want it, especially if it is armed and may be called to go in harm's way.

The problem has even resurrected calls for the RCMP to take over the vessels - but I am guessing they don't want them either.

None of which addresses the real problem - none of the experts (Sailors, Coast Guards or Mounties) get to decide policy but they sure seem to be able to defy policy.

The original concept also called for a armed ice breaker. Not even the CCG operates in the Arctic all year round. They will be used in many other places than the Arctic and Caribbean as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round" 

But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Rumour has it that ISL is becoming so efficient that they will have an 18 month gap in their production schedule before the CSCs happen.  ISL is apparently keen to fill the gap.  I can't help but wonder if they couldn't find time to complete all 8 of the originally planned vessels, and if their increased efficiency is translating into decreased costs.

As for foreign sales --- perhaps the Government could swap some AOPS and a Diefenbaker to the USCG in exchange for a consideration in the US Frigate program.

For general interest - see the attached

 

[Stoker]

I agree that "not even the Coast Guard operates in the Arctic all year round" 

But doesn't that rather go to my point?  Didn't the Government want, and intend to supply, a year round presence?  The issue of whether or not the best Course of Action is or was  vessels crunching ice in the dark in January or merely following the ice edge and open channels year round is, like most other things, a legitimate matter for debate.  But my understanding was and is that the Government want a permanent presence in navigable waters.

To be honest I don't know if the government thought that crunching ice all year round was even possible. I don't see the point of having a 365 day presence patrolling up there with all the AOPS as we have no ice free ports in the Arctic and really nothing moves up there of significance. A continuous presence during the navigation season certainly so the RCN doesn't like to see any ships underemployed so they will be deployed to other areas. AOPS and the Caribbean seems a good fit.

 

[Underway]

So we have at four 76mm guns from the 280's plus most likely a few spares, spare parts , expertise and probably lots of 76mm ammo. Why don't we just install these on the Harry DeWolf and put the 25mm guns destined for the Harry DeWolf on the Kingston Class?

I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.

That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.

 

[Stoker]

I suspect that manning issues nerfed that idea.  You add weapons like that to Kingston then you need to add WEng Armament Techss to the crew.  Same thing for a 76mm on the AOPS.  Bigger weapons require more WEng Techs.  76mm also requires a proper fire control system, which is again more expensive, requires cooling, power, magazine space, is a through deck weapon and requires again more WEng Techs. More WEng Techs means that you might need a CSE and MSE aboard instead of just a single NTO.  All these knock on effects with staff and design for what in retrospect is minimal increase in effectiveness for the job they are required to do.

That being said they have lots of space aboard for growth.  Perhaps different sensors and armament are in their future.  From what I can tell the RCN just wants to get the ships, see what they can do, how they handle, and evaluate their potential before the good idea fairy comes to visit.  I think that's a valid low risk approach at this point.

I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge. The crew was only 18 and included a weapon tech. If the Danes can do it why not us? As for the AOPS its not like they don't have the bunks.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Danish 76s were originally installed in the Flyvefisken Patrol Boats (320 tonnes light, 450 tonnes deep, 54 m long with a crew of 19 to 29).

The Stanflex Containers, which mounted the 76s amongst other things, were 3.5 by 3 by 2.5 metres (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft × 8.2 ft).

Here's my favourite picture.  ;D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel

 

[Stoker]

The bottom part of the 76mm on EJNAR MIKKELSEN. They were very accommodating in regards to me taking photos

This station can operate the 76mm

 

[Swampbuggy]

I think I would’ve preferred to see the 76’s on the CPF’s that were upgraded with enhanced command and control capabilities. Then, the 57’s could have been divested to the AOPS and then 25’s to the MCDVS etc...

 

[jollyjacktar]

The Stanflex Containers, which mounted the 76s amongst other things, were 3.5 by 3 by 2.5 metres (11.5 ft × 9.8 ft × 8.2 ft).

Here's my favourite picture.  ;D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel

Who's that?  Theodore Tugboat doing his National Service? 

 

[blacktriangle]

That looks like a Liberal Canadian Surface Combatant. 1 Billion CAD a pop and useless as tits on a bull.

 

[Stoker]

That looks like a Liberal Canadian Surface Combatant. 1 Billion CAD a pop and useless as tits on a bull.

Really :facepalm:

 

[Underway]

I noticed on the Danish KNUD RASMUSSEN  EJNAR MIKKELSEN Arctic patrol ship had a 76mm and the only fire control was a manually sighted station on the bridge. The crew was only 18 and included a weapon tech. If the Danes can do it why not us? As for the AOPS its not like they don't have the bunks.

A manually sighted 76mm??  Whaaaa?  That just seems like such a waste for a beautiful dual purpose gun.  Your photos were very revealing.  Those 76's seem to only hold their ready use ammo, as it didn't seem like there was a magazine elevator.  Short and sharp engagements only, with limited reload ability, like the MCDV 40's were. 

As for crewing Chief Stoker you know better then most here that the RCN won't do anything with such a small crew given the missions and required watches.  That would force the CO to stand a bridge watch like those dirty Coast Guard Captains, the Watch Officers to stand 1 in 3 for eight hour watches and everything on the ship to be super automated.