Naval Icebreakers
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Kirkhill said:http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html
Here you go Matt.
Doh!
I have no idea how I managed to miss that thread....
Matt. :blotto:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
now all one happy topic 
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,899
- Points
- 1,160
Blackshirt
Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard
Nice looking ship, I notice that the bow anchor winches are enclosed and the ship has clean lines, certainly reduces maintenance issues. 1m of ice would make it approx class 2+ icebreaker, which is what the CCG smaller breakers are.
Seems like a lot of ship for such a small armament, I would expect it to carry something a bit more substantial.. A add on Ship to ship and ship to air missile system seems to make sense, along with a Phalanx style self defence weapon.
Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard
Nice looking ship, I notice that the bow anchor winches are enclosed and the ship has clean lines, certainly reduces maintenance issues. 1m of ice would make it approx class 2+ icebreaker, which is what the CCG smaller breakers are.
Seems like a lot of ship for such a small armament, I would expect it to carry something a bit more substantial.. A add on Ship to ship and ship to air missile system seems to make sense, along with a Phalanx style self defence weapon.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
For a naval icebreaker i don't think you need SSMs(perhaps fitted for but not with) and SAMs...maybe a larger caliber gun (76mm), a PDSM (recycled Sea Sparrows when the CPFs have all of theirs replaced by ESSM). I would personally think they would be more viable if used as a patrol/transport vessel. It should have some sort of troop lift capability, some sealift and IMO 2-3 helicopters. When there is no ice to break during the warmer months, they can be used to deliver supplies to the northern communities and for scientific research.
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
I'm with Ex-Dragoon on this.
I think the real value of the ice-breakers would be as a floating platform, a relocatable base if you prefer. It's not as if a battle in the ice is going to materialize rapidly. The closing speed of two ice-breakers would make Nelson's fleet closing speed of 4 knots look like sprint. As well the airspace overhead is likely to be benign at worst, at best the Air Force is likely to supply cover and advance warning.
Cheers.
I think the real value of the ice-breakers would be as a floating platform, a relocatable base if you prefer. It's not as if a battle in the ice is going to materialize rapidly. The closing speed of two ice-breakers would make Nelson's fleet closing speed of 4 knots look like sprint. As well the airspace overhead is likely to be benign at worst, at best the Air Force is likely to supply cover and advance warning.
Cheers.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,899
- Points
- 1,160
Well I agree that it makes sense to be a floating base, a gun only ship will be at a distinct disadvantage against a vessel armed with missiles, The gun should be mounted and I also agree that 76mm should be the minumun. However the vessels should be designed to be quickly fitted with additional armment.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Colin P said:
If you want a ship to be both a transport and a combat platform you will loose a lot of capability on either role. You want it to be more so of a combat platform then it will have rudimentary sealift and troop lift. If you want it to be a transport then you will see at best self defence weaponry. What Kirkhill and I propose I believe would suit Canada's needs more realistically and economically is the longrun.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Ex-Dragoon said:
Would you include an anti-submarine capability?
Matt.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Nope,,,because as I alluded to in previous posts I believe this type of vessel will best serve us as a transport/patrol vessel.
I think a problem is you guys are seeing it as warship where I see it more useful as an auxillary.
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
The distinction between warship and auxillary is a good point. There is little use
in making it a warship without the ability of providing effective air, land, and sea
assets to support the vessel in a range of armed scenarios. However, the arctic is
a massive area. Assuming a number of vessels would be sheduled for routine
maintenance, crew rotation, and be docked at port, how many ice-breakers are
required to actively patrol the area as well as respond to incursions in reasonable
time?
This has been threaded before...
Given the nature of government expeditures, would this not be better managed by
the CG if the vessel lies in an auxillary/SAR/general role? Not to rehash the CG
idea again, but if military ice-breakers cannot provide reasonable coverage
and response in the north, it is not just as well to leave it to a civilian agency?
in making it a warship without the ability of providing effective air, land, and sea
assets to support the vessel in a range of armed scenarios. However, the arctic is
a massive area. Assuming a number of vessels would be sheduled for routine
maintenance, crew rotation, and be docked at port, how many ice-breakers are
required to actively patrol the area as well as respond to incursions in reasonable
time?
This has been threaded before...
Given the nature of government expeditures, would this not be better managed by
the CG if the vessel lies in an auxillary/SAR/general role? Not to rehash the CG
idea again, but if military ice-breakers cannot provide reasonable coverage
and response in the north, it is not just as well to leave it to a civilian agency?
IMO the CG should operate these vessels, so what if they have a gun, train CG personnel to use it.
Defence budget does not need the strin of funding icebreakers which could be used in Gulf of St. Lawrence
and as OPV's on east coast during Arctic winter.
Icebreakers should be designed to embark submarine rescue vehicle, and a pair of Cyclone helo's.
Defence budget does not need the strin of funding icebreakers which could be used in Gulf of St. Lawrence
and as OPV's on east coast during Arctic winter.
Icebreakers should be designed to embark submarine rescue vehicle, and a pair of Cyclone helo's.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Problem is the coast guard doesn't want guns and they're budget is just as strained as ours.
Looking in the current affairs section it looks like the Fed are just realizing what all this is going to cost. Its sad really. Shouldn't be able to make a promise that is based on assumptions and best wishes.
Looking in the current affairs section it looks like the Fed are just realizing what all this is going to cost. Its sad really. Shouldn't be able to make a promise that is based on assumptions and best wishes.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,899
- Points
- 1,160
The CCG icebreakers are already busy and generally overtasked. There is no experience or will to take on armed interventions (to say nothing of the crews fitness level). To fulfill the farther flung sovereignty patrols and mandates, we will need to see an increase in both naval and CCG resources that are designed to operate in the region, it’s part of Canada and part of the military responsibility. It would be a cluster-f**k if they gave the navy a Polar 8 tomorrow with not enough crew and no experience operating up there.
As I said, lease a small breaker, borrow a 40mm and some MG's stick them on the deck, paint the ship grey, hire some CCG officers with ice experience, use the mix of Reg force officers, section heads, with mostly reservist deckhands and head North, gain experience, make mistakes, write the book and then expand the mission. We can operate a icebreaker 24hrs a day with 45 people or less, navy guys do longer deployments, so over the summer open water season you could do it with less than a 100 people and half of those are reservists. It would also give the naval reservists a mission to train for.
As I said, lease a small breaker, borrow a 40mm and some MG's stick them on the deck, paint the ship grey, hire some CCG officers with ice experience, use the mix of Reg force officers, section heads, with mostly reservist deckhands and head North, gain experience, make mistakes, write the book and then expand the mission. We can operate a icebreaker 24hrs a day with 45 people or less, navy guys do longer deployments, so over the summer open water season you could do it with less than a 100 people and half of those are reservists. It would also give the naval reservists a mission to train for.
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
Kirkhill said:
In this scenario, would you speculate having one or two of these vessels in the arctic (east and west) at all times or
patrol through a partial year only? If the government wanted to research areas of sub-surface activity or
monitor a larger area, then expanded radar, sonar and sensing acquisition technologies should be included
in the design.
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
Bert: I am as much informed about ice-breakers as I am about Balloons - so take this for what it is worth. 
My first inclination, with 3 ice-breakers would be to try to finish up the navigation season with one in Tuktoyuktuk/Invuvik area, one in Iqaluit and one in Halifax on refit.
As the ice opens up Halifax moves north to Baffin to join Iqaluit in open water patrols. As ice conditions improve Tuk moves east with shipping, Halifax moves west withs a shipping, both swap roles at Resolute or thereabouts and Halifax moves to Tuk. Once in Tuk it patrols Beaufort sea.
As the ice closes in, the vessel that was at Tuk winters at Iqaluit. The freshly refitted vessel stays in Tuk/Inuvik. The vessel that was in Iqaluit the previous winter heads for Halifax for refit.
Repeat cycle as required.
Crews can be swapped on station. Just as ColinP suggests - 2 or even 3 crews permanently assigned to each vessel.
Roles for the vessel:
Role 1 - show the flag, literally. If the vessels did nothing else other than steam up and down the waters then they would be worth buying. As noted previously with respect to land patrols and marching borders, their mere presence indicates that we believe we have a right to be there.
Role 2 - convince others that we alone have the right to determine who comes through those waters and under what conditions. The primary concern is civilians fishing, hunting, prospecting and polluting. To convince them all that is required is a "pop gun". Because the Northwest Passage is through the ice it has more of the characteristics of a canal or a river than a shipping lane. .......
My mistress's sweet dulcet tones call me away.... more to follow.
Wait out. ;D
My first inclination, with 3 ice-breakers would be to try to finish up the navigation season with one in Tuktoyuktuk/Invuvik area, one in Iqaluit and one in Halifax on refit.
As the ice opens up Halifax moves north to Baffin to join Iqaluit in open water patrols. As ice conditions improve Tuk moves east with shipping, Halifax moves west withs a shipping, both swap roles at Resolute or thereabouts and Halifax moves to Tuk. Once in Tuk it patrols Beaufort sea.
As the ice closes in, the vessel that was at Tuk winters at Iqaluit. The freshly refitted vessel stays in Tuk/Inuvik. The vessel that was in Iqaluit the previous winter heads for Halifax for refit.
Repeat cycle as required.
Crews can be swapped on station. Just as ColinP suggests - 2 or even 3 crews permanently assigned to each vessel.
Roles for the vessel:
Role 1 - show the flag, literally. If the vessels did nothing else other than steam up and down the waters then they would be worth buying. As noted previously with respect to land patrols and marching borders, their mere presence indicates that we believe we have a right to be there.
Role 2 - convince others that we alone have the right to determine who comes through those waters and under what conditions. The primary concern is civilians fishing, hunting, prospecting and polluting. To convince them all that is required is a "pop gun". Because the Northwest Passage is through the ice it has more of the characteristics of a canal or a river than a shipping lane. .......
My mistress's sweet dulcet tones call me away.... more to follow.
Wait out. ;D
- Reaction score
- 8,290
- Points
- 1,160
OK, back for the moment.
As I was saying the Passage is more like a canal with clearly defined entrances/exits and few opportunities for vessels to do anything other than transit the passage. This makes it easier to confront and monitor transient traffic. Because most of the traffic of interest is civil then, in addition to the pop-gun, a boarding party and a helicopter or two would come in useful.
The vessel itself can operate as a "hotel" for troops, a C&C centre for ops, a facility for transporting troops in small boats for small scale amphibious ops, fire-fighting, tow vessel, rescue coordination, many other non-combat but critical roles.
I don't think it needs sensors, at least sub surface. For starters breaking ice is noisy. The ice is likely to damage hull mounted sensors and towing sensors through ice-infested waters would be a significant challenge. The C&C centre should be able to receive and interpret data from remote sensors and the vessel could probably be equipped with UUVs and UAVs to assist in ops.
The ice will also likely keep the vessel to a slow pace so the vessel itself is not likely to be able to prosecute a sub-surface contact in any event. The best it can do is place itself in a choke point and act as a launch and re-arming/refuelling station for ASW helicopters.
Also, I don't really see these vessels as Ice-BREAKERS in the sense of a Coast Guard vessel. A Coast Guard Breaker is equivalent to a D9 Cat to bust trail. These vessels need to be rugged enough to follow the Cat and not worry about the occasional stump/ice-floe left in its wake.
The Coast Guard still needs it Class 8/D9 Cat.
Cheers.
Edit: Further to the notion of canal/D9/blazing trail...if the Coast Guard were to guarantee a cleared route each season then perhaps traffic could be legitimately convoyed through in packets with the Navy providing "security" in the broadest sense of the word (the same sense as the RCMP and the OPP on the highways). Civil traffic would seem likely to follow the cleared route.
If other Navies cared to challenge our right to act in waters we declare sovereign then we have got bigger problems than worrying about the weapons fit on the platforms we put up there. On the other hand, it seems to me any threat would be so slow in developing and have so much difficulty extricating itself in a timely fashion that CF-18s from Cold Lake or Bagotville, or even CP-140s from Greenwood and Comox, could be usefully brought on station.
As I was saying the Passage is more like a canal with clearly defined entrances/exits and few opportunities for vessels to do anything other than transit the passage. This makes it easier to confront and monitor transient traffic. Because most of the traffic of interest is civil then, in addition to the pop-gun, a boarding party and a helicopter or two would come in useful.
The vessel itself can operate as a "hotel" for troops, a C&C centre for ops, a facility for transporting troops in small boats for small scale amphibious ops, fire-fighting, tow vessel, rescue coordination, many other non-combat but critical roles.
I don't think it needs sensors, at least sub surface. For starters breaking ice is noisy. The ice is likely to damage hull mounted sensors and towing sensors through ice-infested waters would be a significant challenge. The C&C centre should be able to receive and interpret data from remote sensors and the vessel could probably be equipped with UUVs and UAVs to assist in ops.
The ice will also likely keep the vessel to a slow pace so the vessel itself is not likely to be able to prosecute a sub-surface contact in any event. The best it can do is place itself in a choke point and act as a launch and re-arming/refuelling station for ASW helicopters.
Also, I don't really see these vessels as Ice-BREAKERS in the sense of a Coast Guard vessel. A Coast Guard Breaker is equivalent to a D9 Cat to bust trail. These vessels need to be rugged enough to follow the Cat and not worry about the occasional stump/ice-floe left in its wake.
The Coast Guard still needs it Class 8/D9 Cat.
Cheers.
Edit: Further to the notion of canal/D9/blazing trail...if the Coast Guard were to guarantee a cleared route each season then perhaps traffic could be legitimately convoyed through in packets with the Navy providing "security" in the broadest sense of the word (the same sense as the RCMP and the OPP on the highways). Civil traffic would seem likely to follow the cleared route.
If other Navies cared to challenge our right to act in waters we declare sovereign then we have got bigger problems than worrying about the weapons fit on the platforms we put up there. On the other hand, it seems to me any threat would be so slow in developing and have so much difficulty extricating itself in a timely fashion that CF-18s from Cold Lake or Bagotville, or even CP-140s from Greenwood and Comox, could be usefully brought on station.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Just thinking out loud, but the more I think about this, the more I think the bigger piece of the puzzle is actually political.
First, you need the kit, so build the heavy armed Ice Breakers with light weapons load-out as per Ex-Dragoon - QUICKLY.
Second, the Parliament needs to pass legislation declaring the Northwest Passage an environmentally-protected zone and set requirements for all ships passing through.
Specifically:
i) They must be escorted by one of our Ice Breakers as the lead ship - without exception or be subject to seizure and fine.
ii) They must have double hulls.
iii) They must carry proof of insurance that should they have an accident, they're covered for clean-up costs.
In short, buying our icebreakers is far less important that declaring the rules of conduct for all other nations with the assets in place to enforce those rules of conduct.
Of note, I think that such a role sounds more like a Coast Guard Role than a Navy role, although I think adding a Harpoon-equiped Cyclone to the helicopter detachment (perhaps with 2 more transport versions of the same helicopter) would seem a good investment in deterrence.
I should add, that because I do consider the United States a key ally and someone we need to get on-board with this, that we offer a blanket exemption for nuclear submarine traffic so long as their Artic transits are part of North American Security Patrols and registered with the follow-on to NORAD, however only at the highest security clearance levels.
Thoughts?
Matthew.
First, you need the kit, so build the heavy armed Ice Breakers with light weapons load-out as per Ex-Dragoon - QUICKLY.
Second, the Parliament needs to pass legislation declaring the Northwest Passage an environmentally-protected zone and set requirements for all ships passing through.
Specifically:
i) They must be escorted by one of our Ice Breakers as the lead ship - without exception or be subject to seizure and fine.
ii) They must have double hulls.
iii) They must carry proof of insurance that should they have an accident, they're covered for clean-up costs.
In short, buying our icebreakers is far less important that declaring the rules of conduct for all other nations with the assets in place to enforce those rules of conduct.
Of note, I think that such a role sounds more like a Coast Guard Role than a Navy role, although I think adding a Harpoon-equiped Cyclone to the helicopter detachment (perhaps with 2 more transport versions of the same helicopter) would seem a good investment in deterrence.
I should add, that because I do consider the United States a key ally and someone we need to get on-board with this, that we offer a blanket exemption for nuclear submarine traffic so long as their Artic transits are part of North American Security Patrols and registered with the follow-on to NORAD, however only at the highest security clearance levels.
Thoughts?
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Pssssst Matthew, Harpoons are only embarked on fixed winged aircraft so far, maybe Penguins ASMs....
