Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Halifax Tar]

Non-RCN person here, but the AOPS strikes me as a useful ship. The RCN is an important aspect of maintaining our arctic sovereignty. I was working on the Arctic file for the Army, and one way to view our arctic is indeed as an archipelago. All the services have an important role to play and that is one reason why we have Joint Task Force North (JTFN). Ships and aircraft are the main methods of operational movement, and the AOPS design is quite good for that. Op NANOOK has four related activities, one of which is RCN-focused. Op NANOOK TUUGAALIK demonstrates the RCN's capability to maintain presence and surveillance in the arctic, and the AOPS have begun to be incorporated into that. The assets of our allies are also incorporated into the NANOOK series.

The AOPS can, though, patrol our arctic archipelago for more time of the year than was possible before the introduction of the class to the RCN. Having a bigger gun or a missile suite would not materially contribute to fulfilling the role of the ship. Capabilities that increase the surveillance and presence reach of the ship, though, would likely be worthwhile investments.

Anyhoo.

Very solid post.

Perhaps a better suite of sub surface sensors and sonar type stuff would be beneficial.

But then again sure you can find them, and then what ?

 

[dimsum]

Very solid post.

Perhaps a better suite of sub surface sensors and sonar type stuff would be beneficial.

But then again sure you can find them, and then what ?

P-8 and MQ-9B enter the chat

 

[Halifax Tar]

P-8 and MQ-9B enter the chat

I like it!

 

[KevinB]

P-8 and MQ-9B enter the chat

USN SSN’s too

Non-RCN person here, but the AOPS strikes me as a useful ship. The RCN is an important aspect of maintaining our arctic sovereignty. I was working on the Arctic file for the Army, and one way to view our arctic is indeed as an archipelago. All the services have an important role to play and that is one reason why we have Joint Task Force North (JTFN). Ships and aircraft are the main methods of operational movement, and the AOPS design is quite good for that. Op NANOOK has four related activities, one of which is RCN-focused. Op NANOOK TUUGAALIK demonstrates the RCN's capability to maintain presence and surveillance in the arctic, and the AOPS have begun to be incorporated into that. The assets of our allies are also incorporated into the NANOOK series.

The AOPS can, though, patrol our arctic archipelago for more time of the year than was possible before the introduction of the class to the RCN. Having a bigger gun or a missile suite would not materially contribute to fulfilling the role of the ship. Capabilities that increase the surveillance and presence reach of the ship, though, would likely be worthwhile investments.

Anyhoo.

I don’t disagree with any of that, but would it be different if the CCG had them?

The $ for them if crewed by the CCG could still count to defense spending, but the PY’s wouldn’t be lost - mainly as from what I see from the outside is you can crew around 4-5 of the CPF’s and the CSC has more crew requirements than the CPF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

CCG has no real connection to the DND, so the money would not count, unless you fundamental alter the CCG role and mandate. Plus they have recruiting challenges as well.

 

[KevinB]

CCG has no real connection to the DND, so the money would not count, unless you fundamental alter the CCG role and mandate. Plus they have recruiting challenges as well.

Showing the flag and constabulary roles count for others budgets. It doesn’t have to be a DND entity.

 

[Maxman1]

CCG has no real connection to the DND, so the money would not count, unless you fundamental alter the CCG role and mandate. Plus they have recruiting challenges as well.

So you're saying we should count it anyway to make it seem like we're spending more on defense.

 

[YZT580]

So you're saying we should count it anyway to make it seem like we're spending more on defense.

smoke and mirrors. We need to actually spend money on the forces not just appear to spend money on the forces. Every aspect of DND is lacking in support and stuck in a make-do mode. Don't give Ow an excuse to bail out of our needs and their obligations

 

[Halifax Tar]

The CCG and USCG provide very different services.

I think the name of the CCG should be changed as it causes confusion.

 

[FJAG]

So you're saying we should count it anyway to make it seem like we're spending more on defense.

Actually the NATO guidelines include paramilitary force like a gendarmerie and coast guards. This from the NATO website.

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

It's arguable as to whether any of our civilian federal agencies are considered covered as structured. But French gendarmerie and Italian carabinieri are counted and the US Coast Guard is a part of their armed services and their vessels carry weapons and some are significant. Machine guns are prevalent and to an extent, 25mm and even 75mm are mounted on the larger cutters.

It's a matter of how you structure and use the force.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Very solid post.

Perhaps a better suite of sub surface sensors and sonar type stuff would be beneficial.

But then again sure you can find them, and then what ?

I don't think they would be sub-hunting, but it could be useful to be able to tell if someone has been somewhere doing something on our seabed/in our EEZ? That could be one application of a UUV in a AOPS role, not to mention recovery operations etc.

UAS would extend the surveillance radius, and having the Cyclone being able to operate from the AOPS is part of the DPU. I only have one sail on a CPF, but adding a Cyclone Det would certainly be an increase in the ship's complement. I am not sure about UAS and UUV in terms of additional personnel.

To me, it is good to have those surveillance capabilities and then be seen to be employing them in our Arctic. The AOPS is somewhat of an economy of effort, but it is also further developing a capability. I think it is a good thing that the RCN will have six AOPS. A single 25mm, two machineguns and any small arms used by the crew may not sound like much, but for the expected threat profile it strikes me as suitable without overkill. As you note in a later post, the CCG and USCG are different services. I believe that the CCG AOPS will not be armed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CCG and USCG provide very different services.

I think the name of the CCG should be changed as it causes confusion.

It used to be called the "Department of Transport, Marine Services"

 

[Halifax Tar]

It used to be called the "Department of Transport, Marine Services"

That makes way more sense.

 

[Blackadder1916]

As an outsider looking in, given the # of vessels the RCN has, I question having non combatant ships, other than supply vessels.

There are plenty of minimally armed (or unarmed) "warships" in the US inventory who perform some of the same roles as the AOPS. It's just that they are in the USCG rather than the USN.

Showing the flag and constabulary roles count for others budgets. It doesn’t have to be a DND entity.

Actually, it does. Those "constabulary" roles extend past the territorial waters of Canada. So who can legally stop and board (visit) an unflagged vessel or a flagged vessel on the high seas, or after having broken the law in Canadian territorial waters had left and "hot pursuit" is required.
According to the LOSC, "warship" is the term used.

Article 110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

Article 111
Right of hot pursuit
5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

And a warship is defined, not by its size or armament, but by who commands it and who crews it.

Article 29
Definition of warships

For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.

 

[KevinB]

There are plenty of minimally armed (or unarmed) "warships" in the US inventory who perform some of the same roles as the AOPS. It's just that they are in the USCG rather than the USN.

Agreed

Actually, it does. Those "constabulary" roles extend past the territorial waters of Canada. So who can legally stop and board (visit) an unflagged vessel or a flagged vessel on the high seas, or after having broken the law in Canadian territorial waters had left and "hot pursuit" is required.
According to the LOSC, "warship" is the term used.



And a warship is defined, not by its size or armament, but by who commands it and who crews it.

So if the CCG actually was a true CG...

 

[quadrapiper]

Showing the flag and constabulary roles count for others budgets. It doesn’t have to be a DND entity.

If "we" were going to fund constabulary functions through a non-naval agency, why not the actual constabulary? Don't add another head to the CCG NAVAID/science/fisheries/SAR/etcetera and so on hydra, just (if there is a coherent reason for something punchy, seagoing, and not naval) bulk out the RCMP's marine presence. Would be less awkward than trying to add LEO work beyond current practice to the CCG, if "expand and fund the navy to do it" didn't turn out to be a better option.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Agreed

So if the CCG actually was a true CG...

There you go again, trying to define the Canadian use of organizational terminology by comparing to US experience. The Canadian Coast Guard is not the only "civilian" CG agency. The United Kingdom's, HM Coastguard being one.

HM Coastguard UK | To search, to rescue, to save

HM Coastguard is the UK’s national maritime emergency service. We're available to help those in distress around our coast 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

hmcoastguard.uk

 

[KevinB]

There you go again, trying to define the Canadian use of organizational terminology by comparing to US experience. The Canadian Coast Guard is not the only "civilian" CG agency. The United Kingdom's, HM Coastguard being one.

HM Coastguard UK | To search, to rescue, to save

HM Coastguard is the UK’s national maritime emergency service. We're available to help those in distress around our coast 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

hmcoastguard.uk

Nearly every other nation's CG has a LE role at minimum - but in hindsight - a RCMP Maritime Div would probably make more sense.

 

[quadrapiper]

Nearly every other nation's CG has a LE role at minimum - but in hindsight - a RCMP Maritime Div would probably make more sense.

For the "overlap" parts, easy to add a non-RCMP person who knows about fish or whatever to the crew if there's utility.

 

[Kirkhill]

What coastal defenses?

Those defences necessary to defend the coasts. Conceivably a mix of artillery assets mounted on ships belonging to the RCN, artillery assets launched from fixed and mobile platforms belonging to the army and artillery assets mounted on aircraft belonging to the RCAF.

The only currently viable coastal defences we have are those belonging to the RCN and those belonging to the RCAF. I would argue that the the RCAF is the only viable player given that its fleet generally plays at home while the RCN plays away.

The artillery assets in common to the RCN, RCAF and Army are bullets, shells, bombs and rockets with an assortment of guidance systems ranging from the non-existent to 1m CEP.

Externally powered munitions, like bullets, shells and bombs, have limited range, poor accuracy and demand complex launching systems. Self-powered munitions, like ballistic rockets, jet powered cruise missiles, UAVs, Loitering Attack Munitions and Precision Guided Munitions are often platform independent and can be launched from aircraft, ships, barges, submarines, trucks, trains and concrete pads. Many of them can skip the complexity associated with aircraft and airfields, cruisers, carriers and submarines by virtue of their range or the availability of a simple long range booster UAV that can be strapped on.

The AOPS and MCDVs can be protected by anti-air and anti-ship missiles, as well as bullets, delivered by RCAF F18s and F35s. Conceivably they could also be protected by CP-140s and P8s as well as RPAS if they were fitted to carry and launch munitions currently in Canadian inventory or planned. Those same munitions could also be delivered from terrestrial launchers, presumably under the control of the Canadian Army.
Making those launchers available for home, or coastal defence, covering the approaches currently covered by F18s, C130s and CH-149s, would release the RCN for distant waters missions in support of foreign affairs and national diplomacy.

The AOPS is more likely to spend time observing than it does attacking or defending. If it can maintain a stand-off by virtue of its own fleet of UxVs or by UxVs operated by partners in the patrol zone then the question becomes how quickly can a suitable munition be supplied from shore to eliminate an identified threat. Sea going threats take days to cover the same distance that an aircraft, crewed or uncrewed, can cover in hours.

I would say that based on current realities then the main gun of the AOPS might be upgraded to manage a primary C-UAS role with surface engagement being a secondary task.