Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
Might have to sweeten the pot with some sort of trade stuff to reduce the costs for them.
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,288
- Points
- 1,140
Colin P said:
Lamb for Ships?
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 150
- Points
- 580
I think having just one international order would be a huge win for the whole strategy and would be seen as a justification for it all. Would be rich if they ordered it with a larger offensive/defensive suite too...
Long term, might make AOPS attractive to some South American countries too, build a reputation as a competitive shipbuilder again.
Long term, might make AOPS attractive to some South American countries too, build a reputation as a competitive shipbuilder again.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
Czech_pivo said:
Sounds good for me. Although most of their lamb goes to China now, so NZ might want some tech transfers or similar.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
Plan for launching the first ship is October, with a hopefully in service date of summer 2019
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
First in class, stuff happens, not that far off though. It will be nice to see a new navy ship, even if basically unarmed.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
yes their Twitter still says Sept and it seems AOP #2 is coming along https://youtu.be/xWFVbh0xJio
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 150
- Points
- 580
Colin P said:
How would you arm them? Can you even uparm them? What would be your ideal defensive/offensive suites?
What was the deciding factor behind not using a 57/76mm main gun?
- Reaction score
- 721
- Points
- 1,160
LoboCanada said:
Not cost and we currently have the 76mm mounts in stock from the 280s and a pile of shells for them I would imagine. A risk assessment was done and the statement of requirements for a non combatant doesn't call for that large of a gun. There's plenty of room to up arm them with the associated engineering.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
LoboCanada said:
Costs most likely, then they use reasons to justify it. I would place a 76/57mm on the bow, 35mm either side, build a hardpoint for a small missile system with electrical, heatshields, etc so they can be easily fitted. Power conduits and mounting point for a future laser system. Some self defense systems, radars, chaff dispensers, decoys. This would make them tough enough to forestall to many engagements and some ability to exert presence. These ships are going to be around for the next 30 years and I predict a lot of instability and conflicts, which we will get dragged into and god knows where.
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 150
- Points
- 580
Colin P said:
Sounds impressive. As a compromise, what about SEARAM in place of a gun, and additional small arms?
Swampbuggy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 530
I think the 57 bofors from the CPF is a nice fit. Once they start being replaced by CSC, it’d be nice to see the 57 and maybe even the PHALANX drop down to the DEWOLF class. At least then there would be a better air defence suite and more range to reach out and touch somebody.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
For all we know these ship might end up off the coast of Yemen supporting a UN peacekeeping mission, or helping to hunt pirates off of west/east Africa, Indonesia. Part of a fleet pushing into the South China sea. Dealing with a escorted Chinese drillship in the Arctic, patrolling the coast of Venezuela to keep arms out of a civil war, did I miss any?
- Reaction score
- 4,669
- Points
- 1,040
LoboCanada said:
Role. It's a Patrol Ship, not a combatant. The thing is defined by the navy as a "Noncombatant" same as the MCDV's. It's no more heavily armed then the River class patrol boats the Royal Navy is using for fisheries and domestic operations, though it size is significant (given its range and icebreaking capability).
Money. A 57mm is a multi-purpose gun but mainly for air defence. The AOPS would need a change in sensors and combat management systems in order to properly use it to its potential (air search radar, fire control radar, IFF, chillers to cool the systems, more personnel to operate it/maintain it). 76mm has a larger footprint but the other systems are similarly sized. Having a spare 76mm is only a small part of the cost at this point for a ship redesign.
Doesn't mean it can't be done in the future. I expect once the ships are on the water and their capabilities are looked at there will be a number of interesting additions to them that we might not be able to forsee.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,339
- Points
- 1,160
Yea until it’s caught in a conflict. Why are we building large displacement patrol vessels that aren’t apparently a warship, but are gray and very lightly armed and will be a legitimate target? Our opponents won’t care what we class it as, they be happy that we fail to give it any teeth, because sinking it or capturing it and crew will be easy. If we don’t adequately arm them, they should never be allowed to sail outside our coastal waters.
LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.
LoboCanada As for a SEARAM, I think the benefit as I understand them is that they have the ability to self target, so they would provide a better defense against AS missiles. However they are pricy and to give it a clear field of fire, it likely have to be higher up meaning a weight penalty at height that will have to be contended with for stability reasons. Not sure if the practise is to keep 1-2 reloads near the weapon or do they cart all that ammo up each time? If you keep it lower, less weight issue, but you might require 2 systems for the same coverage, which going by the way we spend money on weapon systems means ain’t ever going to happen. I would not be surprised if they dragged up a gun from HMCS Rainbow to save money.
