Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 543070 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 469,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,954
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1575 on: November 05, 2018, 08:16:14 »
But, it is the right and duty of the government of the day to decide strategic priorities, no matter what the most senior officials, diplomats, scholars and the naval and military leaders might recommend.

But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.

Remember, "Yes, Minister" is not merely a documentary, but also an instructional film, lacking only obese bearded uniformed personnel  (smelling of 8 hour old cannabis smoke) to accurately represent NDHQ.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 569,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,299
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1576 on: November 05, 2018, 09:07:04 »
But they also need to follow-up once those priorities are set, lest institutional Colonel Blimps knowingly stay the course and deliberately undermine the direction they've been given.
To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity... or inertia.

Just look at the rapid changes since Strong, Secure, Engaged:  Canada's Defence Policy  was released to great fanfare and governmental self-congratulations.

                :crickets:  (OK, not including beards or pot)
It should now be obvious that running a country is NOT an entry-level job.  [Yes, it applies to both sides of our border]

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 469,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,954
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1577 on: November 05, 2018, 09:51:17 »
I don't think Hanlon posits an either/or; sometimes it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1578 on: November 05, 2018, 22:31:16 »
Patrol vessels sailing under the White Ensign.

HMS Protector (Chartered DNV ICE-05 Ice Patrol Ship) - Displacing 5000 T, LOA 89m, 15 kts, Crew of 88, helideck, 2x Miniguns, 4x GPMG, 12 Pax

HMS Tyne, Severn and Mersey (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 1700 T, LOA 79.5m, 20 kts, Crew of 30, no helideck, 1x 20mm, 2x GPMG, 20 Troops

HMS Clyde (OPV-H (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 81.5m, 21 kts, Crew of 36, helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 5x GPMG, 110 Troops

HMS Forth, Medway, Trent (+2) (OPV (Fisheries)) - Displacing 2000 T, LOA 90.5m, 25 kts, Crew of 58 (39 at sea, 19 on shore - rotating), helideck, 1x 30mm, 2x Miniguns, 2x GPMG, 50 Troops

RN also sails 17x 20m Archer patrol boats of 54 T - two of which are fitted for not with 1x 20mm and 3x GPMG

As well it mans 2x 16m Scimitar patrol boats of 24 T - fitted with 2x GPMG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-prepares-for-future-uk-fishery-patrols
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar-class_patrol_vessel

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.
It does not appear to be particularly under-manned, under-armed, under-equipped, particularly slow or un-prepared for activity in the ice.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,693
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1579 on: November 06, 2018, 11:20:50 »
The River Class is more comparable to the MCDV. The OPV have triggered the same debate here and this blog argues that a redesign of the next batch closer to naval standards is worthwhile https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2016/06/thoughts-batch-2-river-class/#


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1580 on: November 06, 2018, 14:48:41 »
Meanwhile, on the cost front.

HMS Protector - Ice Patrol Ship

Quote
From April 2011, she was chartered to the Royal Navy[8] for three years as a temporary replacement for the ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, and was renamed HMS Protector.[13][14] The annual cost of the charter was £8.7m. In September 2013 the British Ministry of Defence purchased the ship outright from GC Rieber Shipping, for £51 million.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Protector_(A173)

HMS Tyne Severn and Mersey - Fisheries OPV

Quote
initially chartered (or leased) the ships under a five-year, £60 million contract from the builder VT.[2] As part of the contract, VT would be responsible for all maintenance and support during the charter period. This contract was renewed in January 2007 for another five years at £52 million.[2] However, in September 2012, instead of renewing the contract again, it was announced by the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond that the Ministry of Defence had purchased the vessels for £39 million.

Quote
"The average running cost... of [the] River class is £20 million... These figures, based on the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence in 2009–10, include maintenance, safety certification, military upgrades, manpower, inventory, satellite communication, fuel costs and depreciation."[11]

HMS Clyde - Fisheries OPV(H)

Cost Unknown

HMS Forth Medway Trent - Fisheries OPV Batch 2

Quote
On 6 November 2013 it was announced that the Royal Navy had signed an Agreement in Principle to build three new offshore patrol vessels, based on the River-class design, at a fixed price of £348 million including spares and support.[17

HMS Tamar Spey - Fisheries OPV Batch 2.1

Quote
A £287m order, for two new ships and support for all five Batch 2 ships, was announced on 8 December 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

The points to be made are that:

Naval duties include constabulary duties.
Constabulary duties do not require warfighting vessels.
Constabulary vessels can be acquired cheaply.
Money saved is better applied elsewhere.

Yes, the OPVs are closer in execution to the MCDVs - but are apparently sufficient for both North and South Atlantic patrols despite being cheap and requiring minimal manpower.

And the Protector is close in execution to the NoCGV Svalbard - neither of which cost anything like the Harry de Wolf to acquire.

It makes no sense to build nothing but battleships on the grounds that only battleships are unsinkable. 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 44,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,276
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1581 on: November 06, 2018, 20:45:48 »
6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.
Living the lean life

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1582 on: November 07, 2018, 01:23:08 »
6 new ships is better than 0 new ships. I’m confident that at some point the RCN will find a way to kit them out with excellent gear to perform a stellar job.  They do not have to be battleships to perform a valuable naval task - I refer back to the ELINT/SIGINT example.

Agreed.  Across the board.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 227,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,972
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1583 on: November 07, 2018, 01:51:39 »
What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?

And what are the chances it will be employed like Moma's, etc...personally I think we are too much of a "risk adverse" military lead by a risk adverse government to do things like that...
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1584 on: November 07, 2018, 02:07:42 »
What are the realistic chances of it being outfitted for the E/SIGNIT mission though?

Probably about as likely as the RCAF getting something like an RJ or EP-3.  :nod:

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 227,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,972
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1585 on: November 07, 2018, 07:08:51 »
My thoughts exactly.  We'll rely on 'others' for those services...
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,703
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1586 on: November 07, 2018, 09:13:42 »
Chris, I must take partial exception with some of your recent positions:

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.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,693
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1587 on: November 07, 2018, 10:22:37 »
One reason why I would arm the CCG big ships, to support law enforcement (DFO,EC & RCMP) in their duties. Two .50cals per ship. Arming them, teaching them how to use it, ongoing training and developing ROE's for the Ships officers to command their use would not be very expensive. The one place the AOP's would excel over the CCG in these roles is in boarding parties. Training and maintaining those skills sets is expensive and require a mindset that you will not find on the CCG vessels. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,693
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1588 on: November 07, 2018, 10:26:01 »
and when the AOP's take part in D-day 2.0, this will be what our guys going into Sword and Juno in


Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1589 on: November 07, 2018, 11:49:54 »
With respect OGBD

The RN's origins go back to Fisheries Protection and EEZs.  Back to the days when real wealth was measured in salt, herring and cod.

Quote
The Fishery Protection Squadron is the oldest squadron of the Royal Navy and can be traced back to 1481,[3] although some sources, including the Royal Navy, date it to 1379.[4][5] Even before an organised navy was established, the herring fishermen in Great Yarmouth fought skirmishes with foreign fishermen, who would be hanged as pirates from the gallows at Cross Sands if caught.[6]

Early history

During the reign of Edward IV and the Wars of the Roses, English fishermen were beginning to fish in the waters around Iceland, and the King ordered that minimal protection be provided by and paid for by levies from the fishing industry.[6] Richard III and Henry VII continued this, but occasionally this protection was not enough: 1,200 English herring fishermen were killed in a single action by Flemish warships, and likewise the Scots often had difficulties with Dutch fishermen.[6] Because of these and other incidents, by the 16th century it was clear that an organised force was required. A petition was put forward to the Lord High Admiral for a small bark or two.[6] As a result, the first Fishery Protection ship was commissioned for an annual fee to the Admiralty of £100, paid for by the fishermen of Yarmouth. It took the form of a wafting ship (wafting meaning 'to convey safely' or 'to convoy'), which patrolled the North Sea fishing grounds during the herring season.[6]

This ship was eventually replaced in 1659 by a dedicated fishery protection ship for Yarmouth, with a crew of 25 and an armament of "swords, half-pikes, muskets and an ample supply of large stones".[6] In the 18th century a similar arrangement was brokered by Scottish fishermen from George III, also for an annual payment of £100. This amount is still paid today, although as a token gesture.[6] Samuel Pepys was connected with Fishery Protection: he received an annual honorarium for efforts to gain similar protection on behalf of English fishermen.[6]

Lord Nelson, before he became famous, captained HMS Albemarle in 1781 as part of the Fishery Protection Squadron in North America, capturing the U.S. fishing schooner Harmony off the coast of Cape Cod. He took it in tow, with the master of the schooner acting as pilot for both ships for the unfamiliar shores around Boston Harbor.[7] Once the ships were safe, he allowed the schooner to continue unimpeded, saying to the master, "You have rendered us a very essential service, and it is not the custom of English seamen to be ungrateful. In the name, therefore, and with the approbation of the officers of this ship, I return your schooner and with it this certificate of your good conduct. Farewell, and may God bless you."[7] The certificate of good conduct protected the schooner from capture by a British ship. In return, the master gave a present to Nelson of "four sheep, some poultry, and a quantity of vegetables",[7] which Nelson ordered to be shared amongst the sick.[7] Even today, on Trafalgar Day, the flag officer shaves with the same cut-throat razor used by Nelson while he commanded Albermarle.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishery_Protection_Squadron#History

Of course, back in those days merchant ships, including fishing boats, and merchants, went about their business armed.  Not like today at all.


Another constabulary duty the RN found itself doing was confronting slavery - initially in home waters

Quote
... the corsairs plundered British shipping pretty much at will, taking no fewer than 466 vessels between 1609 and 1616, and 27 more vessels from near Plymouth in 1625.[31] Also, printed lists from London in 1682 states of 160 British ships captured by Algerians between 1677 and 1680. Considering what the number of sailors who were taken with each ship was likely to have been, these examples translate into a probable 7,000 to 9,000 able-bodied British men and women taken into slavery in those years.

On 20 June 1631, in an event known as the Sack of Baltimore, the village of Baltimore in County Cork, Ireland was attacked by Algerian pirates from the North African Barbary Coast. The pirates killed two villagers and captured almost the whole population of over 100 people, who were put in irons and taken to a life of slavery in North Africa.

Villagers along the south coast of England petitioned the king to protect them from abduction by Barbary pirates. Item 20 of The Grand Remonstrance,[32] a list of grievances against Charles I and presented to him in 1641, contains the following complaint about Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Empire abducting English people into slavery:

And although all this was taken upon pretense of guarding the seas, yet a new unheard-of tax of ship-money was devised, and upon the same pretense, by both which there was charged upon the subject near £700,000 some years, and yet the merchants have been left so naked to the violence of the Turkish pirates, that many great ships of value and thousands of His Majesty's subjects have been taken by them, and do still remain in miserable slavery.

In fact the whole of the English civil wars were predicated on the need to raise money to provide for an adequate fleet to ensure that Britons "never shall be slaves".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain 
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 227,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,972
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1590 on: November 07, 2018, 18:03:53 »

Interestingly enough, the one place the RCN acts in a constabulary function is outside of Canada, under an American mandate: OP CARIBE.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the USCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 18:53:27 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1591 on: November 07, 2018, 18:41:23 »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 'arrests' etc done by the ASCG and/or countries of Central America (depending on where the intercept is).  I believe even USN ships carry teams of Coasties who do the actual "law enforcement" stuff...

“Canada has been a longstanding partner in our international task force, which has the mission of detecting and monitoring illicit activities in what we call the transit zone, which is the area north of the South American continent, both in the Caribbean and in the eastern Pacific,” said RAdm Tomney.

He added, “The mission of this international task force is not actual law enforcement, but it is to support law enforcement. That support comes in the form of detecting and monitoring illicit activity, using all source information. Once we have awareness of an illegal event, we monitor that event until a law enforcement group can get on-scene.”

He stated that similar to several other nations, Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) ships cannot directly be engaged in law enforcement. Through the partnership with the USCG, which is a multi-agency organization that is a law enforcement agency in addition to being one of the five armed services of the United States, the USCG puts the LEDETs on board various ships. “When they get on-scene with a suspect vessel, the LEDET is the one that goes on board to carry out the law enforcement mission.”
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1592 on: November 07, 2018, 18:47:55 »
If we sent an AOPS to Op CARIBBE, would we likely send a Cyclone with it?


Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1593 on: November 07, 2018, 18:51:54 »
If we sent an AOPS to Op CARIBBE, would we likely send a Cyclone with it?

I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1594 on: November 07, 2018, 18:58:12 »
How the Royal Navy manages its Fisheries Patrols

https://www.forces.net/news/navy/meet-royal-navys-fishery-protection-squadron

Boarding, checking licences, catches and net mesh size are all part of the job - under contract to the civilian Marine Management Organization
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 227,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,972
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1595 on: November 07, 2018, 19:03:34 »
I know there is only so many helos to go around, but I would say probably, it can embark one and be useful to the mission.

I think "useful" is understating it   ;D   

I'd like to see a 2 tail LRP Det go with ships and Cyclones...JIATF would likely be significantly impressed with the capability.
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1596 on: November 07, 2018, 19:12:33 »
Thanks for the insight Chief.

Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.







Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 227,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,972
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1597 on: November 07, 2018, 19:17:14 »
Yup, I've done CARIBBE and would really enjoy working there in a Canadian Joint TF;  LRP/MH Co-op with a surface force?  Nice.

Same could be said about operating up north. 
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,007
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,060
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1598 on: November 07, 2018, 19:17:23 »
Thanks for the insight Chief.

Thinking of CARIBBE, it probably wouldn't hurt to fit the ship with a cryptologic capability. So it would be nice if 2-3 were at least "fitted for". With that and a helo, they'd be pretty capable. Add LRP into the mix as EITS said, and the AOPS/Helo and Aurora could play off each other quite well I'd think.

They do have a cryptographic capability right to JIATF-South, all our ships do.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline reverse_engineer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Re: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
« Reply #1599 on: November 07, 2018, 19:19:53 »
Sorry - I'm talking about the ship having its own embarked capabilities.