Naval Icebreakers

[Armymatters]

G'day to all
Just observing from the "outside" but I had a couple of questions regarding the proposed icebreakers. Could an "AOR" capacity for the Subs be incorporated into the design to increase deployment time? If they did have this capacity would operating the Victoria class in our northern or at least the more northern coastal waters be possible?

If your talking about making the icebreakers into a submarine tender, there hasn't been much of a need for submarine tender in many navies. The USN only has 2 submarine tenders, and both were built in the early 1970's, and plans are to retire them without replacement. With the increased size and automation of modern submarines, tenders are no longer as necessary as they once were. A modern convential submarine (say the German Type 212 submarine) can last for 4 months out at sea, with a crew of 27.

 

[Navy_Blue]

In a few decades the north will be open year round.  PM Harper although I don't agree with all his views made a point this week to remind our friends to the south who the north west passage belongs too.  Bravo Zulu Mr Harper!!!

Our IceBreakers would keep the passage open on off years and through the winter months and give us patrol capability.  I think they should start thinking about what we're gonna charge people to use this route.  If it is more cost effective than Panama we have a money maker there.

I wouldn't want to deploy up there for months at a time tho.  No good ports, restrictions on Booze when you do get ashore.  Not for me.  Keep up with the NATO's.  In every weekend to party with the Dutch woohoo!!  Best trip ever!!

I've said it before.  These new ships will not happen over night.  Unless they want to cross the harbour in Halifax and paint an old red and white tub grey we wont see these for awhile.    no one knows who these new toys will go too either.  CCG could get the mandate to have armed ships??  Not really likely but you never know.

 

[Armymatters]

In a few decades the north will be open year round.  PM Harper although I don't agree with all his views made a point this week to remind our friends to the south who the north west passage belongs too.  Bravo Zulu Mr Harper!!!

Our IceBreakers would keep the passage open on off years and through the winter months and give us patrol capability.  I think they should start thinking about what we're gonna charge people to use this route.  If it is more cost effective than Panama we have a money maker there.

I wouldn't want to deploy up there for months at a time tho.  No good ports, restrictions on Booze when you do get ashore.  Not for me.  Keep up with the NATO's.  In every weekend to party with the Dutch woohoo!!  Best trip ever!!

I've said it before.  These new ships will not happen over night.  Unless they want to cross the harbour in Halifax and paint an old red and white tub grey we wont see these for awhile.    no one knows who these new toys will go too either.  CCG could get the mandate to have armed ships??  Not really likely but you never know.

I think the CCG icebreakers should be pretty easy to modify, if you don't push it with equipment. Stuff like a pair of Mk 38 Mod 0 mountings for a pair of M242 Bushmasters on the stern of CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, plus a Bofors 40mm on the bow, and 4 pintle-mounted Browning M2's should suffice, while with CCGS Terry Fox, a Bofors 57mm cannon on the bow (or the Bofors 40mm, whatever is available), and a Bofors 40mm on the stern, plus a couple of M2 mounts on the sides. Some minor deck strengthing will be required, and the helicopters should be replaced with the Westland Lynx, which will be fitted with a Pintle-mounted C6. That should tide over until the new fully naval icebreakers arrive as promised by Harper.

Edit: How about installing the Rheinmetall RMK30 autocannon? The cannon is supposed to be recoiless. The manufacturer's website (in German) is here:
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/product.php?lang=3&fid=1112

 

[Navy_Blue]

Most of that gear when you add it up and talk labour for installation; would cost more than the CCG ship is worth.  I've been on the CCGS Henry Larson.  Its a big ship we used it as an AOR.  Not really any good places to mount guns.  You could put 50cals on the bridge wings and the Foc'sle.  Lower foc'sle kinda filled with boats and crains.  The high forward part would block your Arcs for a 57mm.  Really with this Idea just starting out; 50cals are all you need.  Cheap fix too.  Combine that with patrol aircraft, and the ability to send and F-18 to the area from cold lake or bag town you could deal with stuff for now. 

Now who's mandate does it all fall under?  Do we arm the CCG or does the Navy take the roll?  CCG wouldn't hand over they're big ships for this unless we're gonna take over some of there task till the ships can be replaced.  CCG personnel can be train up on how to fire a 50cal cheap and easy.  We consider them non military and it would take an act of Parliament to change that.  They don't even have the ships to keep Cherchill open longer they move there assets out of Hudson Bay in December.

If the Navy by some act of god were to get there hands on a ship like the Larson it would be an Ideal size not to big not to small. Add a better radar and some 50cals all you need in the short term.  You could go real old school and put the same 40mm the MCDV has up high on the Foc'sle.  An elevated gun shield and mount (above deck equipment).  Could maybe put one aft too below the flight deck? Cheap, easy to fabricate and quick too.

Heres the Larson; twice as wide as a CFP, all fuel, water and engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Henry_Larsen

Cheers

 

[Armymatters]

Most of that gear when you add it up and talk labour for installation; would cost more than the CCG ship is worth.  I've been on the CCGS Henry Larson.  Its a big ship we used it as an AOR.  Not really any good places to mount guns.  You could put 50cals on the bridge wings and the Foc'sle.  Lower foc'sle kinda filled with boats and crains.  The high forward part would block your Arcs for a 57mm.  Really with this Idea just starting out; 50cals are all you need.  Cheap fix too.  Combine that with patrol aircraft, and the ability to send and F-18 to the area from cold lake or bag town you could deal with stuff for now. 

Now who's mandate does it all fall under?  Do we arm the CCG or does the Navy take the roll?  CCG wouldn't hand over they're big ships for this unless we're gonna take over some of there task till the ships can be replaced.  CCG personnel can be train up on how to fire a 50cal cheap and easy.  We consider them non military and it would take an act of Parliament to change that.  They don't even have the ships to keep Cherchill open longer they move there assets out of Hudson Bay in December.

If the Navy by some act of god were to get there hands on a ship like the Larson it would be an Ideal size not to big not to small. Add a better radar and some 50cals all you need in the short term.  You could go real old school and put the same 40mm the MCDV has up high on the Foc'sle.  An elevated gun shield and mount (above deck equipment).  Could maybe put one aft too below the flight deck? Cheap, easy to fabricate and quick too.

Heres the Larson; twice as wide as a CFP, all fuel, water and engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Henry_Larsen

Cheers

I was thinking of using the larger Heavy Gulf Icebreaker's (the ones I have mentioned), especially CCGS Terry Fox, as she is a newer icebreaker, and has lower foc'sle, and a cleared stern deck. Basically, anything left in the naval weapons stockpile that can fit will be put on the CCGS icebreakers, so we can arm them on the cheap.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Basically, anything left in the naval weapons stockpile that can fit will be put on the CCGS icebreakers, so we can arm them on the cheap.

What naval weapons stockpile? If we are lucky we might have some extra barrels for the weapons we already have in service. If we are going to rearm/arm old/new icebreakers then lets be realistic. If we put a 57mm (like the CPFs) use then we would have to install a FC Radar. Some of the Nes OPs here might know of a version of the 57mm that is crewed but right now we would have to get a different system. Next point...why would we want to continuously use WW2 era 40mm? Lets be smart and buy new. We don't need big guns on a ship that will use to keep the seaways clear of ice beyond a light armament. The RN uses a crew served 20mm Oerlikon on most of their ships, something like that would be ideal, or we could go the Bushmaster route as was pointed out before. The icebreakers would be an auxiliary not a warship. There is a difference.
  If we want a dedicated class of ice strengthened warship up there then we will have to either buy or build new.

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

Interesting article about modifying the CCGS Amundsen:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-harper1-2sb.htm 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?

No, you modify it right now, and keep it until the 3 others get into service.

 

[Navy_Blue]

First off CCG can't spare the ships its got.  They would miss even one of the big ones (they only have 2).  I suggested 40mm and 50cals because they are available and cheap and could still put holes in things.  Considering all they would be used for in warning shots while the CO calls in the big guns (CF-18 and Patrol aircraft).  In this fantasy world stealing a CCG ship would be short term only.  3 new ships would be a 10 to 15 year endeavor.  We would have the capabilities we want when a new purpose build ship is in the water.  Fitting out the Terry fox with shinny kit won't happen.  If you wanted to be really cheap arm the CCGS's with 50's and leave the Navy out of the whole show.

 

[Armymatters]

Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?

If the Peruvians can keep and modify a 53 year old cruiser till now, it can be done to a icebreaker. Ships can still float for a long time. It is a matter of how economical it is to keep them in service. Arming the CCGS ships with guns for now can be done without breaking the wallet, while you purchase new ships to upgrade capabilities or to add capabilities.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Considering it was kept around so long more for pretige then anything else I don't hold much stock in that. 30-40 yrs max for a ship.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hello??? What you are not getting is the CCG does not ewant to be armed!

 

[Navy_Blue]

They don't want to be armed but it would make more sense.  Speaking in our fantasy world only.  Do they have small arms on board?? (pistol or a few shotguns)  50cals are not a big step up.  Politically it allows the gov to say we have armed icebreakers in the north.  Most of our public would believe that.  Its amazing how many people I've meet say "we have a navy???" 

Its not a question of gear or guns or cost in modifying a CCG ship.  The coast guard thinks its stretched now.  Churchill wants to stay open longer in the year and the CCG says its impossible bc they don't have the ships to stay in Hudson Bay past December.  They can't spare the ships to simply patrol the north. 

It all come down to a waiting game in getting new programs approved.  An expensive long term program could become an election issue like the EH101.  If the tory's don't keep things in balance they will be out sooner than later.  I just hope they can pull things like this together soon.

 

[Armymatters]

And to think that an ex-CCG icebreaker was on sale on eBay when they were yapping that they didn't have enough icebreakers... 
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/05/icebreaker050805.html

 

[STONEY]

Did you ever think that the reason the ship was on sale on e-bay was not because they didn't want it  but that they don't have the money to run it.  Secondly not all ice-breakers are created equal most of them are only usefull in only light ice conditions. Even the most powerfull icebreakers in the Canadian Coast Guard sometimes can't manage to get an icebreaking ferry (the largest and most powerfull in the world)into North Sydney N.S. let alone operate in the Arctic in anything except summer. The Svalbard type as suggested by Kirkill would be next to useless in the Canadian arctic as they only can handle 1 metre of ice. The Polar 8 Class icebreaker that was being designed (later cancelled) the last time politicians went through an arctic sovernity exercise could steam continuously in 8 metre thick ice and for the Navy to be able to stay in the arctic for anything except summer would require something of that capability. Build them in 5 years give me a break. It took 5 years to do the midlife update on the CCGS Louis S. St.Laurent.

 

[Kirkhill]

You’d know better than I would Stoney.  That is the reason I asked and didn’t propose.

Here’s the Itinerary for the conventionally powered, Wartsila (Finland) built Russian Ice-Breaker Kapitan Khlebnikov.  According to her literature:
( http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/ships/Kapitan_Khlebnikov_ice_breaker.htm ) she navigates 1.5 m ice at 1 knot and has broken 3 m ice by ramming. Svalbard specs stipulate she can navigate 1 m ice, but doesn’t set a speed, and can break 4 m.

July 22-23

Intersect Arctic Circle and International Date Line in Bering Straits and head for Point Barrow, the western end of the NW Passage

July 24-26
Herschel Island, MacKenzie Delta, Franklin Bay, Enter Amundsen Gulf

July 27-29
Cross Amundsen Gulf to Holman, Victoria Island then through Dolphin and Union Straits to Johansen Bay and Cambridge Bay.

July30-Aug 1
Western passage through Victoria Strait then up Larsen Sound along the Boothia Peninsula to Bellot Strait between the Peninsula and Somerset Island.  At that point the voyage may progress by way of the east or west coast of Somerset Island into Lancaster Sound.

Aug 2
Prince Leopold Island and Beechey Island at Eastern Entrance to NW Passage.

Aug 3-4
Return to Resolute to disembark passengers and fly them out to Ottawa.

Total Planned transit time 13-14 days.

http://www.rei.com/adventures/trips/antarctica/arctic_nwpassage.jsp

Perhaps we could find something that could keep up with her.  Or that could operate a little farther north for a little longer than these:  The Thetis frigates from Denmark handle 0.8 m ice while the shrimp trawler (typical of what operates in Baffin Bay)  is 1A* vs *1A1 for the Svalbard.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/thetis/
http://www.maretec.fo/saleslist%20doc/FT257.htm

Do we need to be punching through ice in the dead of winter to proclaim sovereignty or do we just need to be able to operate up there for a longer season than any other vessels while controlling access to the NW Passage?  If we are there longer than the cruise ships, trawlers and tankers, and the competition's frigates,  aren’t we already ahead of the curve?  And if we post gate guards at the entrances to the passage do we need to be able to drive through them in all seasons?   Finally, it seems to me that a platform located at the Eastern Edge of Lancaster Sound flying a couple of Cormorants could supply SAR, Patrol and Boarding services over most of the Arctic Archipelago given the range of the Cormorants although Resolute would probably do just as well.

As to why we need to be concerned about the area, this article is one among many http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1127-03.htm

Cheers,

BTW and FWIW I agree with you on lack of funding. 

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

Its amazing how many people I've meet say "we have a navy???" 

Oh yes it is amazing. When I tell people that I want to go in the army, they allways say something like:
''Huh, you will get killed, they will send you in Irak''
And then I say: ''The Canadian Army does not send troops in Irak.''
The person says: ''We don't have any army.''
Another responds: ''It is not that we don't have any army, it's that we are the only country which gets its soldiers killed even if we are not at war.''
The first person says: ''Relly? I didn't know that some of our army soldiers were killed recently.''
So the second person replies: ''Yes this guy from the submarine the other day.''

 

[Navy_Blue]

I think Kirk hill has it right.  Gate guards (with good to very good ice capability) and Air assets.  The only issue I c with gate guards is other peoples subs we should know what is on the go under water too.  That is were the listening post come in I guess. 

The quickest way to do all this is to let the coast guard try and stretch its assets and take this job for the time being.  2 billion $$$ on a deep water port on a dead end Island is not money well spent.  You could buy two ships and pay for fuel to run them out of Halifax and still have change for a coffee after 2 years.

This can all be done cheap and effective.  Eyes are more important than brute strength in this case I think. 

I'm beginning to think this will be the most important challenge to our claim on territory since 1812.  It wont come to blows but I think it will be nasty.

 

[STONEY]

One must keep in mind some history here. Studies for a true polar icebreaker were started as early as 1971. In 1973 the Coast Guard requested Canadian and foreign companies with proven expertise to design a Class 7 icebreaker(one capable of continuous progress at 3 knots in 7 ft thick ice). By the time designs were completed in 1975 the world had experienced its first oil crisis so it was decided to look into a nuclear powered Class 10 and the design of such a powerplant was subsequently completed but then Cabinet directed that a less expensive conventionally powered Arctic Class 8 vessel be constructed. So design work was began again with a new design ready by 1985.
In 1987 the government announced that a Polar 8 icebreaker would be designed and built at Versatile Pacific Shipyards in B.C. to be delivered in 1992. In 1990 before the keel was layed the whole program was again cancelled as a government cost reduction. Needless to say the effect on people who had worked for 20 years or more on the project can be imagined. The polar 8 would have been by far the most powerful icebreaker in the world. Displacement would have been 39,000 tonnes and power 107,000 shaft horsepower and would have carried 13,000 tonnes of diesel and 875 tonnes of aviation fuel. So you see  we have been there before , announcements by government are cheap i'll believe it when construction is actually underway.