Chris, I must take partial exception with some of your recent positions:
Chris Pook said:
The AOPS appears to be conforming to the traditions of the White Ensign.
It will be performing a task the RN undertakes in home waters.
I suggest the above is incorrect.
If there is a "small" or "patrol" boat tradition under the White Ensign, it is that of the MGB's and MTB's of WWII, culminating in the post war Gay class of MTB's.
The UK vessels you mention don't carry out "constabulary" duties - save one specific aspect for political reasons.
Starting with the small ones:
The Scimitar's are the Gibraltar
defence force, not water police force.
The Archer's are dedicated to the University Officers training scheme for the RNR - they are training vessels, just like our old YAG's and PB's were. For those who don't know, we use to have a gaggle of PB's comprising the six old West coast minesweepers and about nine old RCMP patrol vessels operated by the naval reserve. While designated as Patrol Boats, they did nothing other than training.
As for the "River" class, many issues arise: First, they are the only ones, generally with
one specific "constabulary" duty: Fisheries Act enforcement. The Act specifically enables the RN and assigns the enforcement function to it. This is not the case in Canada and RCN officers have no powers whatsoever to enforce the fisheries law in Canadian waters. In the RN, of course, this power was inherited for historical reasons: The Cod wars of the late 50's and early 60's. Seeing fully armed RN frigates being used to push around little Icelandic fisheries protection vessels did not look good for the UK and created a lot of flak, so it was decided to acquire more "reasonable" looking vessels for enforcement but with keeping the role within the military as clear sign that the UK considered this a defence matter. The Fisheries squadron was born - originally with the Island class vessels, followed by the Castle class and then the Rivers.
HMS Clyde, however, is a different animal. She was commissioned to become the Falkland protection vessel until a larger one could be acquired. In that role, she took over from the then reassigned Castle class vessels. These, however, and I include the current "patrol" vessel HMS Protector, are not constabulary. They are "trip-wire" ships out to make a political statement related directly to the defence of the realm. While neither party ever declared war over the Falklands during the Falkland war, neither party renounced its claim either when they renewed diplomatic relations. In fact, Argentina has even ensconced its claim in its Constitution. So the Falkland Patrol vessels have the sole duty of being in the way of any Argentinian military action so as to require any attempt to automatically become a declaration of war under international law. Argentina wants to avoid that as was demonstrated when their submarine that went missing a few years ago clearly changed course to avoid entering UK waters. The presence of the RN in the Falkland works.
And BTW, Tamar and Spey were purchased principally to keep BAE's shipyard busy while waiting for the Type 26 construction to begin. Sounds familiar?
Thus, The RN does not carry out constabulary duties with its "patrol" vessels, save and except fisheries enforcement, assigned to the RN by an Act of Parliament.
What is the situation in Canada?
Simple: As a naval officer, I have absolutely no constabulary powers whatsoever. I can no more arrest someone in Canadian waters or act to enforce the law than a PPCLI officer can police the streets of Edmonton. There are no Act of parliament that give the RCN any powers to act in a constabulary fashion. There are MOU's that exist with various department whereby they can ask for support under various circumstances, but we are then acting under those departments power and only to the limited extent provided by the MOU. This support is usually limited to
transportation: We "drive" fisheries officers and RCMP officers in some places to carry out their duties for given number of hours every year (though, as for the RCMP, this number has gone down since the Coast Guard acquired the mid-shore vessel in part for that purpose).
Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.
So your little ditty, is incorrect - we do not have :
Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere.
You may wonder, then, why the RCN was interested in acquiring OPV's at all. It would be, in order:
1) To provide visible
military presence along the Coast;
2) assist in the compilation of the maritime picture;
3) provide junior command positions to develop leader, such as CO, XO, CERA, COXN's;
4) training platforms;
5) and, platforms for cheaper provision of support to other departments as required.
The whole humbly submitted.
