Thanks Colin P for your input----I was a bit shocked after my post when I saw how thirsty the LCAC are. Can you provide an approximate figure for fuel consumption for the AP1-88 used by CCG? The reason that I am attracted to hovercraft is that they could be used when the ocean is completely iced over. What would you think of the AP1-88 in a militarized version?
Forces may ice ships
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
I would have to ask around for the consumption, but I seem to remember approx 60 gallons an hour (4 Cat diesels)
They would certainly outlast the Griffions in use by the Brit RM, I was there when we were looking for replacements of our SRN 6's, there was several possibilities, but most were not up to the task. The AP1-88 is the smallest hovercraft to my knowledge designed to take "green-water" impacts (solid waves) Its construction and propulsion systems are fairly simple and can carry approx 70 people or troops. However a Hovercraft does have a significant noise signature, which would reduce the element of surprise, but would give you great flexibility. It's all about tradeoffs and if they balance out in your tactical favour.
The SRN, 4,6's, AP1-88, all Russian and US military hovercraft use a heavy duty skirt design with high and low pressure areas, imagine a large tube around the outside with replaceable "fingers" attached, a keel bag, 2 horizontal bags and 2 bags at the stern that trap the air into 4 areas reducing the shifting of the "Centre of Pressure"
They would certainly outlast the Griffions in use by the Brit RM, I was there when we were looking for replacements of our SRN 6's, there was several possibilities, but most were not up to the task. The AP1-88 is the smallest hovercraft to my knowledge designed to take "green-water" impacts (solid waves) Its construction and propulsion systems are fairly simple and can carry approx 70 people or troops. However a Hovercraft does have a significant noise signature, which would reduce the element of surprise, but would give you great flexibility. It's all about tradeoffs and if they balance out in your tactical favour.
The SRN, 4,6's, AP1-88, all Russian and US military hovercraft use a heavy duty skirt design with high and low pressure areas, imagine a large tube around the outside with replaceable "fingers" attached, a keel bag, 2 horizontal bags and 2 bags at the stern that trap the air into 4 areas reducing the shifting of the "Centre of Pressure"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
big icebrekaers with limited use at huge cost- don't build
small boats in the artic- i this is feasable, build
hovercrafts- a watched a show on the british(i think may have been scandinavian) hovercrafts being used in the artic, very impressive
allowing any one to control the entances to the NW passage let alone come any where near it- unthinkable :threat: :rage:
you can call me paranoid but we should keep our allies at arms lenghth when it comes to the artic, think about how many of them formally reconize that we own the artic
U.S.- Nope
Euroupe-Nope
*China-nope
* Russa-nope *dont think the're allies
You look at it this way very few countries recgonize our claim to the artic and in my oppinion they should be kept as far away as possible...at gunpoint... behind a wall... with attack dogs... and an alarm system... with one of those cool sirens.
mod note....ease up on the smilies. No one will take a post like that seriously.
small boats in the artic- i this is feasable, build
hovercrafts- a watched a show on the british(i think may have been scandinavian) hovercrafts being used in the artic, very impressive
allowing any one to control the entances to the NW passage let alone come any where near it- unthinkable :threat: :rage:
you can call me paranoid but we should keep our allies at arms lenghth when it comes to the artic, think about how many of them formally reconize that we own the artic
U.S.- Nope
Euroupe-Nope
*China-nope
* Russa-nope *dont think the're allies
You look at it this way very few countries recgonize our claim to the artic and in my oppinion they should be kept as far away as possible...at gunpoint... behind a wall... with attack dogs... and an alarm system... with one of those cool sirens.
mod note....ease up on the smilies. No one will take a post like that seriously.
There's no serious question about whether we own the islands of our high Arctic archipelago (Hans island being an insignificant exception) - the issue is whether we control the seas around them, and most particularly the passage through them. The US in particular maintains that the NWP (now officially redsignated "Canadian Internal Waters" in a bit of newspeak) is an international strait, and customary international law is more likely to end up on their side than ours.
For now we can get away with claiming the NWP as internal waters is due to its lack of use. An international strait is considered a body of water between two high seas that is useful for navigation and has experienced regular traffic. The first clause is true, the second currenly only holds for icebreakers and ice strengthened vessels, and then only for a couple of months of the year, but is expected to change. The third clause is the basis for where we stand. Currently traffic through the passage is minimal, and almost all ships request our permission before making the transit, and usually recieve significant aid from the CCG in the process. However once the ice clears enough for regular traffic and ships routinely start transiting without asking our permission, then our claim starts getting very shaky - unless we have the means and the will to enforce it.
Personally, if the ice clears, I can't see us being able to hold onto this position without a compromize. In my opinion we'll probably end up settling for some sort of navigation agreement where ships freely use the Passage, but must adhere to certain rules while doing so. That would be smart of them, since even an "ice free" passage will still have plenty of navigational hazards, and risk averse merchants won't want to forgoe any help we might be able to offer just to thumb their nose at Canadian maritime claims.
For now we can get away with claiming the NWP as internal waters is due to its lack of use. An international strait is considered a body of water between two high seas that is useful for navigation and has experienced regular traffic. The first clause is true, the second currenly only holds for icebreakers and ice strengthened vessels, and then only for a couple of months of the year, but is expected to change. The third clause is the basis for where we stand. Currently traffic through the passage is minimal, and almost all ships request our permission before making the transit, and usually recieve significant aid from the CCG in the process. However once the ice clears enough for regular traffic and ships routinely start transiting without asking our permission, then our claim starts getting very shaky - unless we have the means and the will to enforce it.
Personally, if the ice clears, I can't see us being able to hold onto this position without a compromize. In my opinion we'll probably end up settling for some sort of navigation agreement where ships freely use the Passage, but must adhere to certain rules while doing so. That would be smart of them, since even an "ice free" passage will still have plenty of navigational hazards, and risk averse merchants won't want to forgoe any help we might be able to offer just to thumb their nose at Canadian maritime claims.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Further to T.I.M.'s point of a compromise.
Everyday many American and international vessels violate our sovereign territory and we let them do it. The only difference between the vessels currently using our territory and the ones that might use the NWP is that the current ones go by air. Aircraft regularly transit Canada's sovereign airspace en route from London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc to Seattle and Minneapolis. They recognize our sovereignty. They get right of innocent passage and a guaranteed pick up in the event of an emergency. They also get an "armed escort" if the circumstances warrant it.
As well USAF aircraft can transit Canadian Airspace - presumably with notification.
If the issue is just transit rights then Canada and the US can haggle out something there. As T.I.M. also points out, with the exception of Hans Island, nobody contests our right to the stuff that sticks out of the water.
The big question is access to sea-bed resources. That is new ground - literally, as there is no history of exploitation or common use on which to base ownership rights. And there we are up against not just the Americans and the Russians and Danes (possibly the Norwegians) that are our neighbours but also other players. What would we do about a Nigerian registered company that started mining Hydrates 200 miles of our Northern coast?
The Americans had a big problem in the Bering Sea over fishing rights in an area called the "Doughnut Hole". In most of the Bering Sea the water was claimed by Russia or the US. Because of the way the boundaries were set however there was one small location where the boundaries didn't match creating an area of the High Seas in the middle of the territorial waters. Efforts to control and regulate the fish catch in the Bering by both the Russians and the Americans were frustrated by Chinese and Polish trawlers fishing the Hole and disregarding quotas.
Those are the types of issues that need to dealt with - along with making it clear to the Americans that we can look after our own approaches and that we will be a good neighbour and let them pass through provided they let us know what, where and when.
Everyday many American and international vessels violate our sovereign territory and we let them do it. The only difference between the vessels currently using our territory and the ones that might use the NWP is that the current ones go by air. Aircraft regularly transit Canada's sovereign airspace en route from London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc to Seattle and Minneapolis. They recognize our sovereignty. They get right of innocent passage and a guaranteed pick up in the event of an emergency. They also get an "armed escort" if the circumstances warrant it.
As well USAF aircraft can transit Canadian Airspace - presumably with notification.
If the issue is just transit rights then Canada and the US can haggle out something there. As T.I.M. also points out, with the exception of Hans Island, nobody contests our right to the stuff that sticks out of the water.
The big question is access to sea-bed resources. That is new ground - literally, as there is no history of exploitation or common use on which to base ownership rights. And there we are up against not just the Americans and the Russians and Danes (possibly the Norwegians) that are our neighbours but also other players. What would we do about a Nigerian registered company that started mining Hydrates 200 miles of our Northern coast?
The Americans had a big problem in the Bering Sea over fishing rights in an area called the "Doughnut Hole". In most of the Bering Sea the water was claimed by Russia or the US. Because of the way the boundaries were set however there was one small location where the boundaries didn't match creating an area of the High Seas in the middle of the territorial waters. Efforts to control and regulate the fish catch in the Bering by both the Russians and the Americans were frustrated by Chinese and Polish trawlers fishing the Hole and disregarding quotas.
Those are the types of issues that need to dealt with - along with making it clear to the Americans that we can look after our own approaches and that we will be a good neighbour and let them pass through provided they let us know what, where and when.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Excuse me if I'm wrong but I've been reading on wikipedia about the U.N.'s law of the sea. My understanding of the treaty is this. 12 miles from the baseline of a nations coast are territorial waters, and the twelve miles after that are a contiguous zone where a nation may enforce it's laws but doesn't own the water. Now Territorial waters belong solely to one nation and that nation is free to set any laws it wishes to. But through strategic straits vessels have the right of innocent passage. And to top it off a nations exclusive economic zone extends 200 miles from a nations coastal baseline unless it conflicts with another nations economic zone. After looking at google earth and playing connect the dots with the measuring tools it is my understanding that there is no route through the Arctic that wouldn't pass through our territorial waters. And the whole of the area would belong to our exclusive economic zone. So as long as we control the islands in The Arctic then by U.N. law we directly own a lot of the water, can enforce our laws in most of the water, and have economic control over all the water.
Could some please tell me if this is correct.
And about the oiganal topic, how much would some smaller effective vessels cost compared to the 300 mil. to 700mil. for an ice breaker mentioned in the Globe and Mail Article posted by MarkOttawa?
Could some please tell me if this is correct.
And about the oiganal topic, how much would some smaller effective vessels cost compared to the 300 mil. to 700mil. for an ice breaker mentioned in the Globe and Mail Article posted by MarkOttawa?
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html
Some suggested reading Warspite - a 6000 tonne ice-resistant patrol vessel like the Svalbard can be had for something between 50 and 100 MUSD.
12 miles is territorial.
200 miles is the EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone)
New rules will extend the EEZ rules out to the edge of the Continental Shelf - whatever that is, wherever it is and how its defined. That is the reason for the sudden hydrographical interest up North - the Russians seem to be determined to prove that our archipelago is part of their Continental Shelf (I jest but the Lermontsov Ridge stretches a long way).
And places like the Straits of Dover, Gibraltar and Molucca qualify as Strategic Straits with territorial claims overlapping.
Some suggested reading Warspite - a 6000 tonne ice-resistant patrol vessel like the Svalbard can be had for something between 50 and 100 MUSD.
12 miles is territorial.
200 miles is the EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone)
New rules will extend the EEZ rules out to the edge of the Continental Shelf - whatever that is, wherever it is and how its defined. That is the reason for the sudden hydrographical interest up North - the Russians seem to be determined to prove that our archipelago is part of their Continental Shelf (I jest but the Lermontsov Ridge stretches a long way).
And places like the Straits of Dover, Gibraltar and Molucca qualify as Strategic Straits with territorial claims overlapping.
Dale Denton
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 151
- Points
- 580
S_Baker made a good point earlier. Couldn't we add the Danish to NORAD? NORAD is adding maritime security to its responsabilities, and since the arctic is being patroled by us and the Danes couldnt we save some money too? If the Danes report anything odd in up there couldn't they tell us and we all send ships, aircraft...etc (and visa-versa). If we are all ally's doing the same thing then why not just combine our forces for the greater good? All I can see is positive things from adding the Danish into NORAD, what are your thoughts?
What if we combine/integrate the coast guard with the RCMP fleet so that they could patrol the Arctic for the navy? They could combine their budgets and fleets to take arctic sovreignty off the navy's back, just buy a couple more icebreakers for them. Wouldn't having 2 fleets (Navy/CCG) make co-operation and communication more efficient than having 3 (Navy/CCG/RCMP)? It could save money too couldn't it?
What if we combine/integrate the coast guard with the RCMP fleet so that they could patrol the Arctic for the navy? They could combine their budgets and fleets to take arctic sovreignty off the navy's back, just buy a couple more icebreakers for them. Wouldn't having 2 fleets (Navy/CCG) make co-operation and communication more efficient than having 3 (Navy/CCG/RCMP)? It could save money too couldn't it?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
If someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I did look) I apologize.
One of the most significant manifestations of our lack of control over the Arctic is the presence of US, Russian, and other nuclear submarines under the icecap. These will be next to impossible to control with icebreakers anyway, and I doubt satellites can help (don't have a shooter capability, after all).
The only real solution is a nuclear submarine, like the Mulroney gov't recognized in the 80's. The problem's still the same, isn't it (except for the Soviet threat)? If we had just two, that would probably be enough to provide an effective demonstration of sovereignty - AND a way to enforce it (which, as stated above, icebreakers, sats can't do).
I know the US wouldn't look highly on us developing that capability - they didn't in the 80's. Maybe the French could help. They've got a 2600-ton displacement nuclear class called the Rubis...
Maybe one of our resident Navy guys could comment.
One of the most significant manifestations of our lack of control over the Arctic is the presence of US, Russian, and other nuclear submarines under the icecap. These will be next to impossible to control with icebreakers anyway, and I doubt satellites can help (don't have a shooter capability, after all).
The only real solution is a nuclear submarine, like the Mulroney gov't recognized in the 80's. The problem's still the same, isn't it (except for the Soviet threat)? If we had just two, that would probably be enough to provide an effective demonstration of sovereignty - AND a way to enforce it (which, as stated above, icebreakers, sats can't do).
I know the US wouldn't look highly on us developing that capability - they didn't in the 80's. Maybe the French could help. They've got a 2600-ton displacement nuclear class called the Rubis...
Maybe one of our resident Navy guys could comment.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
Guardian said:
Of course we can always say: "Prove it that your subs are up there" then they will have to release classified information on their sub movements and I not sure if covert transits by submerged submarines could be taken as legit means of challenging sovereignty.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Not to mention a concept that I have advanced before - planting CAPTOR mines at the entrances and exits to the Internal Waters. But instead of equipping them with explosive warheads have them equipped with a noisemaker that attaches to the hull and invites the offending vessel to report to a Canadian port to have the device removed. Make it something like those car alarms / home alarms that disturb my sleep at 3 o'clock on a Sunday morning and just have it squawk continually until a Canadian with a key switches it off. Aside from reducing the ability of the sub to skulk I can't imagine that the crew would be right thrilled with the racket.
In the event of a military situation the original CAPTOR "noisemakers" might be deployed.
The issue is about controlling access to the Internal Waters of the Passage. It is not as if there is unfettered movement in all the Internal waters. There are a limited number of passages that a sub can take submerged due to depth of water and depth of ice.
Policing "land claims" on the Continental Shelf under the ice will be another matter entirely and there some subs might be useful.
In the event of a military situation the original CAPTOR "noisemakers" might be deployed.
The issue is about controlling access to the Internal Waters of the Passage. It is not as if there is unfettered movement in all the Internal waters. There are a limited number of passages that a sub can take submerged due to depth of water and depth of ice.
Policing "land claims" on the Continental Shelf under the ice will be another matter entirely and there some subs might be useful.
If the Navy wants to expand its operational capabilities, instead of wasting tax payers money on Navy Ice Breakers, spend the money on Aircraft Carriers. Everyone knows the operational advantage and capabilities of these war machines. Also, with global warming happening faster than predicted, I really do not think ice in the northern seas, is really going to be an issue in the next couple of decades. The Ice Breakers that we currently have are doing the job just fine, add an Aircraft Carrier to this fleet, the northern seas, will be well protected. 
:soldier:
:soldier:
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
Guardian said:
I was thinking that more that other peoples claims against our sovereignty based on passage by submerged submarine would be less a legal challenge than that of a surface ship.
- Reaction score
- 2,086
- Points
- 1,160
patton said:add an Aircraft Carrier to this fleet, the northern seas, will be well protected.
where an ice chopper is not a helicopter.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,934
- Points
- 1,160
whiskey601 said:
I am sure the USN would be happy to spend several billion to develop a ice breaking helicopter.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I disagree. For the simple fact we just don't have the arctic we might have to patrol but other water ways and harbours that get jammed with ice. Luckily Halifax and Esquilmalt are ice free but in the event we need to deploy a naval force to an ice jammed area, are you really going to rely on the CCG to do that? Gawd I hope not by the time talks finished it might be too late. Besides, you could also use the platform for patrol, scientific research and give it some sort of sealift capability. One use naval platforms do not make a lot of sense in this day and age.
Oh pulease!!! :
Lets be realistic and get something we actually need. There are whole threads on aircraft carriers here. Please look at them. But I will spell it out for you. Lets start with getting our subs working or new ones; how about getting our new AORs(JSS) actually built so we can replenish our fleet and that of our allies; start on replacing the CPFs and 280s now so we will have a decent surface warfare combatant(something with a land attack capabilty). The new name of the game coming on line these days is expeditionary warfare which is Gen Hillier's BHS (whether that is an LHA/LPD etc) this is a lot more useful to our allies then a carrier. Not saying it should not have a VSTOL fighter capability but that is a nice to have not a necessity. As an Arctic nation not being able to get to a good portion of your country part of the year seems almost like we are asking for trouble. We have a duty in keeping that area safe and having ships capable of operating in ice. What does a carrier do for us? Right now all it would do is drain money needlessly. Training, infrastructure, doctrine it all adds up.Similar threads
- Article
