What a lot of people need to understand is that the Canadian coast guard arnt armed, so that particular capacity falls to the Canadian military. The AOPS are not warships, they are comparable to the US armed coast guard cutters. That's being said the main weapon of the AOPS isnt the gun, its the helicopter. The ship can carry a cyclone which has full ASW capability, including the ability to carry torpedo's and harpoon missiles. The Harry dewolf CAN do anti-ship warfare, it just does it in a way where the ship itself isnt directly threatened. Another strength of the ship is the sheer utility options of it. It has a crew compliment of 65, but accommodation for almost 90, it also has a huge vehicle bay and a 20T crane for launching landing boats. If necessary, the AOPS could be used as a type of landing ship. The modular payloads on the quarter decks are nuts. One of the modules is a towed array ASW sonar, and im sure there's other modules they they have plans for which would add other combat capability, but they don't want to spoil the surprise on. Hell, if they had a fuel tank as a modular payload, together with the massive crane it could probably refuel other ships at sea. It would also be really cool if they somehow were able to integrate one of those Mk 48 VLS modules from the Halifax class frigate as a modular payload on the quarter deck, but that's just a dream :P With those cranes at the back they could even get away with just one module and independently reload it at sea.
Thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this monumental deployment on which my son was a crew member (on his very first sail!) Thanks so much for sharing.
Needs a main gun with greater range. Wouldn't hurt a SAM system and two more heavy MGs aft in two remote turrets. This is an expensive arctic vessel that deserves a better suite of self defense tools. If it's top speed is only 17 knots,(plus puts to sea w/o a chopper) perhaps it should be, "as prickly as a porcupine." I am.of the opinion this captive audience was coached to NOT bring up its pathetic armaments.
243,000 kms of coastline to patrol. The Canadian picture of a patrol vessel should be different than say France's or Spain's idea of a patrol vessel. It's only logical. Ours should be more independent. Read, superior armaments of defence. Example a CIWS to augment what is presently sports. And more heavy machine guns that can be fired from below icy deck. I guess it doesn't bother you that someone's navy nephew might very well have to manhandle an M2 Browning at minus 35, eighty miles off Thule in December? There's a thing called technology. Crews should not expect to freeze themselves to a circa 1939 HMG pedestal mount! Warship, patrol vessel. Who cares what we call it. To ISIS, China or Russia, its a grey vessel target. Act accordingly. What I.purpose here is not over the top. And remember this fact: now retired Adm. Norman was not impressed by its meager armament suite either.
It's not a warship, it was built to assert Canada's claim on the north west passage and maintain a presence in the north, the only reason it even has a main gun is that it will be used in anti piracy and anti drug smuggler roles as a secondary mission, i read that one was sent down to Florida to help the U.S with drug smugglers. Mind you it makes no fucking sense to send a ice breaker to the south but it is what it is.
@@SpruceMoose-iv8un When at war your enemy doesn't avoid shooting patrol and logistics ships because you say it's not a warship. Any and all targets doing work for our Navy will be fair game as has been the case in literally every single modern war since ww1. Or have you forgotten the fifty eight merchant vessels and 14 warships lost in ww2? Canada should not be making vessels with the idea that they will not have to defend themselves against hostile powers with capable modern equipment. You don't get to pick and choose what your enemy attacks or where, or when. If we ever do end up in a hot war against the likes of China, or Russia which is in the realm of possibility within this century. These ships will be useless, even in the northern patrol role. As it can't defend against a single modern ship, sub or air based threat.
@@Joe3pops it's an icebreaker, which are slow. It's designed for as a domestic patrol vessel. Never has either been deployed to the Middle East. That's what frigates are for.
@@jenniferbardot8791 Speed boats are literally the only thing this ship can defend against. And what's it patrolling for? It's radar only sees out to 15nml's and 6000ft. So not hostile aircraft or smuggling by aircraft. And it certainly at this time is incapable of hunting submarines, so it clearly isn't for patrolling our waters for hostile actors or sneaky spy vessels. It only goes 17 knots at top speed meaning it gets out ran by most the ships in the north, so it's poor at that as well. It can also barely call itself an ice breaker with a horrible polar rating of 5, which happens to be less capability then the ship they based it off of. And only allows it to break first year ice up to 3.9ft thick. It's barely an ice breaker. This ship is a logistics vessel. I don't care what they call it. It's main role, and the vast majority of it's capability are in logistics. Like bringing supplies to northern communities. Doing scientific and technological research like mapping the ocean floor. Or bringing teams of researchers and staff to areas they wouldn't normally have access. It's role as a patrol boat is so clearly second nature to the overall design I'm surprised they kept the name. It certainly isn't a combat vessel, as its design has zero defensive capabilities to defend against any modern threat. It's piss poor at being a patrol ship. And it's good at bringing people and stuff around the arctic. It's a logistics ship they didn't want to name a logistics ship because they were worried Canadians might have a bit of a hard time with spending Billions on giant, slow, and unarmed ships for northern logistics work for northern communities that add zero GDP or production to Canada. While are navy's combat capability finds itself stuck with 1960's level armament in ships that can barely stay afloat.
You would be correct. The only thing this ship is capable of defending against would be a hostile speed boat. It's a logistics vessel, they want to call a patrol vessel to not get Canadians angry at how much they spent on these things.
Smugglers intercepted was mentioned in the talk so it's right sized for patrolling. It would be silly to lob multi million dollar missiles at small smugglers 😂
@@b1laxson Ah yes because smugglers are what will threaten these ships in a time of war... If we ever go to war it will be, anti ship cruise missiles, torpedo's as well as air and water based drones that threaten it. In a time of war these things are giant coffins. As a logistics vessel with a part time in patrolling these aren't horrible. But as a war ship which we inevitably will use these for because Canada all ways makes due with what we have on hand. It's an absolute failure. Ask Russia how it's black fleet is doing, then ask how could this class of ship defend against a single one of the attacks that sunk their vessels. The answer is it can't.
@@b1laxson I wasn't aware we had a large smuggling issue in our northern waters. Oh ya we don't. The name is Arctic off shore patrol vessel. One more time. Arctic off shore patrol vessel. So since we don't have smuggling issues in our northern Arctic waters what are these patrolling for? Wouldn't be china or Russia, you know Navy's that have cruise missiles submarines and air forces. That are currently and will in the future make strategic plays in the Arctic? Nah why would we build ships to defend against actual threats. Instead we get these slow under armed logistics ships they call patrol vessels. Only in Canada would we build new Arctic ships then send them anywhere else but the Arctic. Classic Canadian forces behavior. No wonder no one joins. What a lost organization.
What a lot of people need to understand is that the Canadian coast guard arnt armed, so that particular capacity falls to the Canadian military. The AOPS are not warships, they are comparable to the US armed coast guard cutters.
That's being said the main weapon of the AOPS isnt the gun, its the helicopter. The ship can carry a cyclone which has full ASW capability, including the ability to carry torpedo's and harpoon missiles. The Harry dewolf CAN do anti-ship warfare, it just does it in a way where the ship itself isnt directly threatened.
Another strength of the ship is the sheer utility options of it. It has a crew compliment of 65, but accommodation for almost 90, it also has a huge vehicle bay and a 20T crane for launching landing boats. If necessary, the AOPS could be used as a type of landing ship.
The modular payloads on the quarter decks are nuts. One of the modules is a towed array ASW sonar, and im sure there's other modules they they have plans for which would add other combat capability, but they don't want to spoil the surprise on. Hell, if they had a fuel tank as a modular payload, together with the massive crane it could probably refuel other ships at sea.
It would also be really cool if they somehow were able to integrate one of those Mk 48 VLS modules from the Halifax class frigate as a modular payload on the quarter deck, but that's just a dream :P
With those cranes at the back they could even get away with just one module and independently reload it at sea.
Thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this monumental deployment on which my son was a crew member (on his very first sail!) Thanks so much for sharing.
How often do you need air conditioning in the high arctic?
Needs a main gun with greater range. Wouldn't hurt a SAM system and two more heavy MGs aft in two remote turrets.
This is an expensive arctic vessel that deserves a better suite of self defense tools. If it's top speed is only 17 knots,(plus puts to sea w/o a chopper) perhaps it should be,
"as prickly as a porcupine."
I am.of the opinion this captive audience was coached to NOT bring up its pathetic armaments.
It's whole purpose is more of a constabulary role rather than sinking ships. It was not envisioned to be what you are describing.
243,000 kms of coastline to patrol. The Canadian picture of a patrol vessel should be different than say France's or Spain's idea of a patrol vessel. It's only logical. Ours should be more independent. Read, superior armaments of defence. Example a CIWS to augment what is presently sports. And more heavy machine guns that can be fired from below icy deck. I guess it doesn't bother you that someone's navy nephew might very well have to manhandle an M2 Browning at minus 35, eighty miles off Thule in December? There's a thing called technology. Crews should not expect to freeze themselves to a circa 1939 HMG pedestal mount!
Warship, patrol vessel. Who cares what we call it. To ISIS, China or Russia, its a grey vessel target. Act accordingly. What I.purpose here is not over the top. And remember this fact: now retired Adm. Norman was not impressed by its meager armament suite either.
It's not a warship, it was built to assert Canada's claim on the north west passage and maintain a presence in the north, the only reason it even has a main gun is that it will be used in anti piracy and anti drug smuggler roles as a secondary mission, i read that one was sent down to Florida to help the U.S with drug smugglers. Mind you it makes no fucking sense to send a ice breaker to the south but it is what it is.
Too many bros think they know things after playing World of Warships.
@@SpruceMoose-iv8un When at war your enemy doesn't avoid shooting patrol and logistics ships because you say it's not a warship. Any and all targets doing work for our Navy will be fair game as has been the case in literally every single modern war since ww1. Or have you forgotten the fifty eight merchant vessels and 14 warships lost in ww2? Canada should not be making vessels with the idea that they will not have to defend themselves against hostile powers with capable modern equipment. You don't get to pick and choose what your enemy attacks or where, or when. If we ever do end up in a hot war against the likes of China, or Russia which is in the realm of possibility within this century. These ships will be useless, even in the northern patrol role. As it can't defend against a single modern ship, sub or air based threat.
What a joke this ship can't even defend it self from Somalia pirates.
Last I heard there are no Somali pirates in the Arctic.
@jenniferbardot8791 last I heard NATO is a globally operating alliance. In this briefing there is discussion utilizing it off African coasts.
@@Joe3pops Break out the Lee Enfield's
@@Joe3pops it's an icebreaker, which are slow. It's designed for as a domestic patrol vessel. Never has either been deployed to the Middle East. That's what frigates are for.
@@jenniferbardot8791 Speed boats are literally the only thing this ship can defend against. And what's it patrolling for? It's radar only sees out to 15nml's and 6000ft. So not hostile aircraft or smuggling by aircraft. And it certainly at this time is incapable of hunting submarines, so it clearly isn't for patrolling our waters for hostile actors or sneaky spy vessels. It only goes 17 knots at top speed meaning it gets out ran by most the ships in the north, so it's poor at that as well. It can also barely call itself an ice breaker with a horrible polar rating of 5, which happens to be less capability then the ship they based it off of. And only allows it to break first year ice up to 3.9ft thick. It's barely an ice breaker.
This ship is a logistics vessel. I don't care what they call it. It's main role, and the vast majority of it's capability are in logistics. Like bringing supplies to northern communities. Doing scientific and technological research like mapping the ocean floor. Or bringing teams of researchers and staff to areas they wouldn't normally have access. It's role as a patrol boat is so clearly second nature to the overall design I'm surprised they kept the name.
It certainly isn't a combat vessel, as its design has zero defensive capabilities to defend against any modern threat. It's piss poor at being a patrol ship. And it's good at bringing people and stuff around the arctic. It's a logistics ship they didn't want to name a logistics ship because they were worried Canadians might have a bit of a hard time with spending Billions on giant, slow, and unarmed ships for northern logistics work for northern communities that add zero GDP or production to Canada. While are navy's combat capability finds itself stuck with 1960's level armament in ships that can barely stay afloat.
The point I was trying to make is that the ship is poorly armed.
You would be correct. The only thing this ship is capable of defending against would be a hostile speed boat. It's a logistics vessel, they want to call a patrol vessel to not get Canadians angry at how much they spent on these things.
Smugglers intercepted was mentioned in the talk so it's right sized for patrolling. It would be silly to lob multi million dollar missiles at small smugglers 😂
@@b1laxson Ah yes because smugglers are what will threaten these ships in a time of war... If we ever go to war it will be, anti ship cruise missiles, torpedo's as well as air and water based drones that threaten it. In a time of war these things are giant coffins.
As a logistics vessel with a part time in patrolling these aren't horrible. But as a war ship which we inevitably will use these for because Canada all ways makes due with what we have on hand. It's an absolute failure.
Ask Russia how it's black fleet is doing, then ask how could this class of ship defend against a single one of the attacks that sunk their vessels. The answer is it can't.
@@b1laxson I wasn't aware we had a large smuggling issue in our northern waters. Oh ya we don't. The name is Arctic off shore patrol vessel. One more time. Arctic off shore patrol vessel. So since we don't have smuggling issues in our northern Arctic waters what are these patrolling for? Wouldn't be china or Russia, you know Navy's that have cruise missiles submarines and air forces. That are currently and will in the future make strategic plays in the Arctic? Nah why would we build ships to defend against actual threats. Instead we get these slow under armed logistics ships they call patrol vessels.
Only in Canada would we build new Arctic ships then send them anywhere else but the Arctic. Classic Canadian forces behavior. No wonder no one joins. What a lost organization.
@@canadianguy1955 don't have a large smuggling problem? your joking rite ,, stop liveing online go out side and find out