Vigilance Offshore Patrol Vessel

[@sammydsouza4379]

Simply direct purchase 12 units of the New Japanese Navy OPV at US $ 66 million per unit. 12 Ships for less than 1 CSC cost. Have them built for , but not with , room for 16 VLS. Canada gets 12 ships in 16 months at a fraction of the cost it would incur if it makes this a BUY Canada project. Not everything has to be built here. We are still gearing up for the Type 26 Construction. The CSC is a great ship - if it is in the water now - 10 years from now, it will need to add more VLS . 25 years from now , about the time the fleet will be finalized and launched, it will already be obsolete. Canada needs to rationalize what it can, and should build and what it can get off- the- shelf at a better price and within a more realistic time frame.

[@djsmith2871]

Canada is simply incapable of doing any of this. Type 26 will finally arrive mostly obsolete. Hell the UK will be retiring theirs by the time we can build one.

[@theloniousm4337]

A couple things. Buy Canada is less about value and more about industrial capacity, especially shipbuilding. Early WWII there was a desperate need for merlin engines and lancaster bombers but early on Canada lacked the skilled labour force and industrial base to produce them. National Shipbuilding Strategy is intended to develop our industrial base and keep it developed through planned scheduled work. As it is Seaspan had to import skilled metal fabricators from Japan to teach us how to heat bend metal for ship hulls which is a pretty basic skill in shipbuilding but we had none. If there is any kind of large military action in the future the transport/trade lines will be the first to go and getting replacement hulls/ships from East Asia will be difficult and we will have to build our own. Second. We can get a basic ship hull and probably engines for $66 million a unit but it is all the sensors and equipment inside war ships that cost the money. You can build an OPV with space for lots of VLS tubes but unless there is radar to target the missiles they won't hit anything. The radar to make the missiles operable will be a couple hundred $million without the missiles. So a VLS capable ship for $66 million isn't possible.

[@Selfdefencenoob]

I think OP is still right about the ships being obsolete by the time they hit the water. Major players plan to have autonomous fleets moving into 2030 and we're just figuring out that having a drone onboard to see over the visible horizon is helpful. I hadn't considered the value of exercising our shipbuilding capacity/logistics before , that was good to read , but I think all you did was explain the value that lies within the problems we face... the solution still needs to be discussed. We need faster project completion and lowered costs to taxpayers - Harper enforced lawsuits against companies that couldn't meet project deadlines, we have no teeth at all right now to make our shipyards deliver.

[@AndreSCAG]

Should we not get a patrol ship more akin to a small corvette with for example 4 cell mk 41 VLS with quad packed ESSM, 57mm Gun, and 2x Dual canister anti ship cruise missiles. coupled with an aegis combat system this would allow for these ships to be equipped and not only defend itself but to augment the surface combat action groups if required and/or provide enough stand-off offensive and defensive capabilities to cover lower priority areas in a anti access area denial scenario. I think this is reasonable enough to keep the ship small and nimble enough to accomplish a mine sweeping role while not being nearly completely defenseless in this great power/ near-peer threat environment we now face. Keeping the flight deck and hangars in order to accomodate unmanned rotary wing vehicle to fulfill its reconaissance role would obviously be required. These are the same systems lacking in the AOPV design. Considering the details above this would also incentivise the naval reserve personnel to be proud and confident in the vessels they are most likely to be serving on which would also enable personnel retention. On top of showing both our 5 eyes and NATO partners that canada is serious about defense at least within the naval domaine. The weapon system that appear to be displayed , which either looks like a 25mm chain gun or a .50 Cal RWS, is what i would expect to be acceptable for a Patrol Boat such as the orca class patrol vessel. What do you think?

[@justinleon3509]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada-class_corvette i know this had been proposed. what do you think?

[@agnosticatheist7529]

It'll have a 76mm main gun, 2 x 12.7mm stabilized guns, 16 x surface-to-surface missile bays, 8 x ship-to-ship launchers, 2 x Ram systems, plus side bays that can put add-on firepower modules in them. Such as torpedoes, rocket systems, drones boats or subs, and more which can be easily switched out as needed. More than likely the hangar will be retractable to handle larger aircraft, too.

[@cmac9029]

⁠@@agnosticatheist7529Not necessarily. This is a concept, not an official offering. My money is on the RCN going for the 57mm and phalanx combo, plus the other things you list. That’s if they win the competition too, whenever it is launched. If you want proof to distinguish between what their media says to what is actually ordered and built, just look at the Dewolf class. Vard’s site said 2x25mm, 2x12.7mm, and phalanx before they were built. Now it shows what they were actually done with.

[@robertopiedimonte2078]

lovely, but will cost just two, three hundreds milions less then a destroyer, consider USCG Legend cutter last price is 750 milions for nothing while a Costellation will cost around 1 billion. An OPV is not a warship so no AEGIS along no missiles and no ASW with sonars, just a 76 mm with Dart ammunition for anti-air against few (4?) or less antiship vampires, airplane, helicopters and Vulcano ammunition for up to 20 nm antiship role plus fire support, navigation radars, one small modern air-search (50/100 nm), light/medium helicopter, only diesel engine at maximum a hundred milions a piece in order to have enough ships for sea and homeland security. If someone wants battleships build and pay for destroyers...

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

But it's a patrol vessel designed for constabulary duties like fisheries patrol,vessel boarding,SAR and Undersea infrastructure monitoring. It only needs a 25-40mm main armament and probably 2-4 12.7mm HMGs as secondary armament. It you want a big gun missile and advanced radar equipped vessel you may aswell build a corvette or light frigate rather than putting such armaments and sensors on a mercantile spec OPV.

[@oldguy3525]

This is no corvette, but for what we need, it is ideal, as long as it has a top speed of 25 knots and not some lame 15 knots like our last coastal patrol ships. Put a 30-40mm auto gun on it and a couple of 50cal stations.Keep the helicopter pad to land a griphen and drones on and I'll be happy. Just do not ruin it by taking away any capabilities such as minesweeper packages, towed array and small diameter torpedo for anti sub duties.

[@cmac9029]

My bet is it’ll have a 57mm from the Halifax class (retired by the time this program starts likely), and 🤞 a phalanx. Two .50 cals seems pretty likely, given it’s AOPS counterpart has them, but I sure as hell hope they don’t go with the 25mm like those. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good weapon, but not as a main armament on a fairly large vessel.

[@Joe3pops]

Yes. Canadian choice of 25mm Bushmaster is lame & unprecedented amongst the arctic nations. Could use a 20 CIWS Phalanx too. All that costly gear on board: beach landing vessel, two semi-rigid boats, two MRI machines and accommodate one helicopter. The math doesn't compute one varmint cannon and two WW2 machine guns. Needs badly another bangstick aft and two twin C6 MGs aft. God forbid one asks for a missile launcher!

[@jeffbaine4094]

Is this to replace the Kingston Class patrol vessels

[@Jolly1-1]

I sure hope so

[@DaneRavienus]

Getting Artic Patrol vibes... Very underwhelming despite being such a large ship. PLEASE put some actual anti-shipping capabilities on this thing.

[@user-xf2ye8pi2e]

Let's get crews for the AOPVS

[@justinleon3509]

shouldnt we pursue a design which supports a helicopter?

[@mclovin4974]

Yes, helicopter will provide additional capabilities like search & rescue and anti-submarine warfare

[@justinleon3509]

would this ship have ice breaking capabilities or no?@@mclovin4974

[@djsmith2871]

That would require buying a fleet of helicopters that can fit on it. We can't even maintain the helos we have.

[@mrtitanium427]

We may live to see the downside of relying on uavs as a solution for force projection and recon

[@joskarbeltre5724]

Dominican Republic Navy is looking this

[@dna6882]

Nice video but music really doesn't suit and detracts from what is otherwise an enjoyable and well made piece of content.

[@guderian7795]

I would rather see Canada acquire the Samuel Beckett Class OPV as it is so much more capable than what is being presented here.

[@politicallyincorrect4452]

The scaling makes no sense at all. Was this made by a toddler in MS paint?

[@hobmaniac]

So you just drop the helicopter on top of the boat stored in there or what? Lamo get a better artist.

[@markblondeau1143]

I think the port 'hangar' door leads to the second level of the multifunction space... If you zoom in on the interior of the multifunction space as the model rotates you can clearly see the inside of the hangar door at the upper inboard side of the aft bulkhead. This would allow an upper level Cube system container to have access to the flight deck. I'm extrapolating but I think the stbd 'hangar' door likely leads to a dedicated small hangar (think of a space sufficient for a CU-176 Gargoyle).

[@acebrandon3522]

Ship is somewhat OK but lacks the firepower to project offensive or defensive measures. A wuss coastal POV. Daddy disapproves.

[@Trimtank]

Just a waste of money. Like the MCDV's with no offensive weapons or even a defencive umbrella for missle defence or even aircraft defence. We should be looking at a supplement for the Halifax class and to provide support and defence with the new AOR's.

[@DeeEight]

The MCDVs were built to be minesweepers, sonar exploration vessels and replace training vessels. They were not meant to be patrol ships, which is why they were lightly armed. They have long endurance due to their size and relatively small complement and they're fast enough for their role (and as fast in fact as a WW2 flower class corvette, which was similar displacement).

[@Trimtank]

@@DeeEight The endurance of the MCDV is just around 2 weeks. Pretty short period. Being classed as a minesweeper with a steel hull is just bonkers. Plus, comparing it to being as capable as a WWII vessel in the 21 century does not bring a positive view. They were slow and poor seamanship capabilitys in high seas. They were never meant to travel long distances in poor weather.

[@DeeEight]

@@Trimtank They're patterned after the Royal navy's River-class minesweepers which were also built to a commercial hull design, were about 30 feet shorter but similar displacement, also had steel hulls, also were originally armed with a 40mm/L60 Bofors same as the Kingstons, and of similar speed. As to the endurance, its officially 18 days with a full compliment but fewer on board and the provisions last longer. The 5,000 nm range is based on a speed of 8 knots, which is 625 hours continuous cruising, which is 26 days. Also not sure why you keep referring to the Kingstons as "they were". They're not retired. They're still in active service. And they're not strictly minesweepers. They're Maritime Coastal Defense Vessels. Minesweeping and Minehunting is only one of their possible uses. But steel hull minesweepers are not bonkers. maybe to someone of limited intelligence like yourself, but not to naval shipbuilders.