Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[drunknsubmrnr]

What kind of missiles? And for what purpose?

As far as I know, we have 3 types of naval in service, and I'm not sure any of them make sense for a minor warship.

 

[Navy_Blue]

As we have already talked about we are talking about a ship that is some where between a CPF and a MCDV.  Anything with a hanger and enough space for several Sea Cans will be medium to large.  Now I'm not sure but this could be about the size of a an effective Litoral Combat ship capable of operating in the our climate.  If you take into account the cooling required to operate in the Gulf or the Caribian we would have 6 - 8 very capable warships.  Why build 6 to 8 hulls and not try and account for all the possible tasks it could be given in at least the next 5 to 10 years.  We don't like Swiss army knife ships but an armed capable warship is a good tool.  These things are like the Quest with guns.

:warstory:

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I just want to throw this out there....

I was kicking it around the other night and I asked myself "Why not transfer the entire avionics/weapons/communications kit that's already functioning in the Iroquois-class directly into these new hulls?"  To me, the components are already paid for, integrated and should be able to be dropped as a modular solution directly into the new-builds (the only additional tie-in required being propulsion/steering/etc.).

The Svalbard has enough weight to carry the load at 6,100 tonnes vs 5,100 tonnes for the Iroquois.

In essence it provides an immediate armed (deterrent) solution by simply re-using components we already have....and as a bonus to making the vessel exponentially more capable, would require limited retraining for those who operate in the Command and Communications Rooms.....and on top of that if anyone says anything about "escalation" we can just say we're being efficient by re-using old kit.

In particular, if we kept the stripped components from the Huron, we could actually start a daisy-chain of production & retirement on a 1-for-1 basis with the Iroquois class crews being transferred to the new OPV's as they're constructed.

Anyone?



Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Because OPVs are not Area Defence Destroyers/Flagships. They do totally different things, there is a total different mindset and role.

I don't know Ex.  You're in the services and I'm not, but this sounds a lot like a previous argument in which I was once told in response to my statement pre-Afghanistan deployment that we should be hardening all our vehicles as it was my belief the enemy would always try to target the weakest link in order to maximize casualties: [paraphrasing] "Well, we only need a light-skinned vehicles because of how we plan on deploying them....and besides the costs of uparmouring the supply train are huge both in terms of up-front costs, and then operating costs due to additional fuel consumption and maintenance." [/paraphrasing]

Bottom Line:  Based on history, I think it's prudent to always overbuild than underbuild any assets we procure....


Matthew. 

 

[hugh19]

Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Harpoon would be nice but may be to big for the smaller vessel, a anti-ship missile would be my choice, I suspect AD would less of an issue and might be addressed with some counter measures, maingun and Manpads if the likely need arose.

I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage. A naval ship of any type is a fighting ship, whether it fights defensively or offensively. Building a platform that not suitable armed to exert a robust presence in such a remote and contested area is a true waste of money. In the game we are playing presence is everything, having a ship that can exert it’s influence in it’s operating area will be key in the next 20 years.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sounds like you are comparing apples to oranges. By your arguement the army should build a tank/APC/SP gun/ supply truck. Which is what you are saying. Area Air defnce and C&C are not rols for a patrol vessel and require different set of kit. As well a lot of the electronics on the 280 is aging quickly.

What?  You have a real problem comprehending analogies don't you?

The point was that procuring based on a best case scenario of how you think something is going to be deployed can often leave you with equipment incapable of dealing with heightened threat environment.  As such, it's prudent to procure based on the higher threat environment from the outset, and if it ends up being overkill for 90% of its useful life then so be it.

I think the proverb goes "It's better to have and not need it, then need it and not have it."


Matthew. 

 

[dimsum]

It sounds good in theory, but try explaining that to the general public.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.

If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

There's no way the TRUMP gear could be made to fit into a Svalbard. It barely fits in a TRUMP, and they have a lot of problems from fitting too much into too small of a hull. A Svalbard would be far worse.

If we fitted the boats out for the highest threat environment they were likely to operate in, we'd end up with one or two. Not enough to meet their most likely tasking.

To your second point, I understand the argument and IF we were talking about buying all new systems (let's say new build SPY-1F with ESSM, etc) then I'd agree with you.  But we're not.  We're talking about taking an existing set of paid for systems and instead of throwing them out, we migrate them to new hulls.

To your first point, the Svalbard is actually larger, is it not?  Shorter in length yes, but it's wider with a deeper draft and more than 15% heavier.


Matthew. 

 

[Neill McKay]

I suspect these vessels will spend a fair time patrolling alone or in pairs, so they could not relay on other vessels to protect them. Being in the Arctic means that there will likely be no reinforcements, if push came to shove the presence of a heavily armed vessel would likely encourage people to calm down, a poorly armed vessel could easily find itself at a disadvantage and unable to engage or disengage.

I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the Estai) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

I think that the abilities of the crews of the a/ops need to be considered too.  Generally, it is sounding like reservists will make up a significant portion of the crew.  Systems need to be simple enough that they can be learned and understood over a relatively short period of time.  Taking the latest and greatest systems might only place a higher manning burden on the reg force, when simpler systems might allow greater access to the manpower of the reserves.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here is my own personal catalog of options.... The fleet of the Royal Danish Navy.  Lots of interesting and innovative options, including arctic patrol vessels that operate landing craft and helicopters.  I love the "mothership" concept.

As to the Svalbard, check this link and the accompanying discussion.

The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.

The two helicopters that the Svalbard can operate are NH-90s.  The NH-90s are 9 tonne class helicopters. Link.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess the $64,000 question is what sort of enemy is this vessel expected to be able to engage?  My take on the performance specs is it's aimed at being able to deter unarmed vessels (along the lines of the Estai) rather than being expected to slug it out with warships.  I don't think that's not an unreasonable capability for a patrol ship.

2 types spring to mind, escorted exploration ship with a stare down between the two naval ships, the one that brings the smallest punch loses the fight, regardless of no shots being fired.

The other would a Q ship run by terrorists or a rogue nation mostly likely equipped with a anti-ship missile and mines.

 

[Kirkhill]

Presumably the Terr Q ship would not be operating with an accompanying Terr Aircraft Carrier.  Meanwhile the AOPS is operating under CF-18/CP-140 air cover. 

If the AOPS determines that they have encountered a suspicious or prosecutable contact it can always drop back and shadow until air support shows up.

As to foreign nations supplying air support for their surface effort - that would leave the US (everything in their inventory), the Russians (Tu-95 perhaps), maybe the Chinese (in the future), and possibly the Danes (operating out of Greenland).  We would would be well positioned against everybody except the Americans.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So we are giving the terrorists a navy now?? oh boy.....

Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance. When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Matthew, while I am a big supporter of multirole plaforms myself, when you start to overcram different compoments and systems into a hull then you will suffer a great loss of effectiveness and I have no doubt that is so overcomplicated with different systems would end up spending most of its time alongside due to maintenance.

Dunno about spending time alongside. The ships usually just sail with the systems deadlined. Especially the TRUMPs...the spare parts budget was slashed in the early 90's, leading to a lack of spares. By the time the budgets were restored, the parts were no longer made. Coupled with failure predictions that were err..."excessively optimistic" it would be insane to reuse that gear on another class.

On top of that, the systems involved are so large that the ship would have to be redesigned around them, and a lot of parts would have to be remade to fit into even a redesigned ship. ie piping, waveguides etc

When you start mating working systems from different platforms together funny things that are not so funny tend to happen. Leave the A/OPs in the constabulary role where they are meant to be.

I agree. There's no requirement for all that gear on a glorified OPV.

 

[NCRCrow]

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Flyvefisken_Class(1989).htm

ASUW=Harpoon

ASW= yes

MIO=76mm OTO Melara (we have training and parts)

AWW=ESSM/76mm (which we have parts for both ESSM/Gun)

Proven= yes

Capable OTHT Radar= yes

Multi-role= yes

This what type of ship Canada should be looking at.

Reserves manning this platform.......I don't think so

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Agree they are awesome little platforms, however could it handle conditions in the North? Is it ice capable? Their big downfall I think is they don't operate helo and I think any ship you send up there should have that option.