- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Well then we obviously need larger rotary-winged aircraft, don't we?
Matthew. ;D
Matthew. ;D
Naval Icebreakers
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,130
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill you’re not to far off the mark
However no need to winter in the Arctic, the coast guard normally pulls out at the end of the season, a couple of years ago we did leave one vessel up there, but it was basically trapped in the ice until spring. Require manning and fuel for that time period and then generally needs to come down for a refit in spring.
If you are going to build a dedicated Naval icebreaker, it must have a dedicated gun turret on it and some MG’s, however to ensure that it remains viable in all situations you want to ensure that you can up gun it with Ship to ship missiles and it’s own missile defence. It can have some ASW capability, but mainly rely on helo’s (keep in mind that helicopter use in the arctic is fraught with dangers, every CCG ship has a active transponder so the helo can find the ship again) Also make sure the ship is capable of employing passive and active mines. Keep the mines in stock, if people become to pushy with us, we can tell them that we will mine the approaches. If you look at our various potential adversaries, they have a history of using missiles and arming a merchant ship with missiles is not out of the question.
Also even before the latest “weather crisis” a good chunk of the NW passage can be free of ice for a good part of the season. I would like to see in addition to some naval icebreakers, two seasonal ice-strengthened patrol boats in the 120’ range. One based in the West and one in the East, the vessels can be hauled in the winter, the same way that ATL used to with their boats. The crews would be reservists from the North, arm each with a 25-40mm gun and a couple of MGs. These vessels can patrol the smaller passages, provide SAR coverage and faster response times than the icebreakers. They will also provide much needed employment up North. The downside of these vessels would be loss of coverage if a major component breaks and they would be limited if it is a bad ice year.
However no need to winter in the Arctic, the coast guard normally pulls out at the end of the season, a couple of years ago we did leave one vessel up there, but it was basically trapped in the ice until spring. Require manning and fuel for that time period and then generally needs to come down for a refit in spring.
If you are going to build a dedicated Naval icebreaker, it must have a dedicated gun turret on it and some MG’s, however to ensure that it remains viable in all situations you want to ensure that you can up gun it with Ship to ship missiles and it’s own missile defence. It can have some ASW capability, but mainly rely on helo’s (keep in mind that helicopter use in the arctic is fraught with dangers, every CCG ship has a active transponder so the helo can find the ship again) Also make sure the ship is capable of employing passive and active mines. Keep the mines in stock, if people become to pushy with us, we can tell them that we will mine the approaches. If you look at our various potential adversaries, they have a history of using missiles and arming a merchant ship with missiles is not out of the question.
Also even before the latest “weather crisis” a good chunk of the NW passage can be free of ice for a good part of the season. I would like to see in addition to some naval icebreakers, two seasonal ice-strengthened patrol boats in the 120’ range. One based in the West and one in the East, the vessels can be hauled in the winter, the same way that ATL used to with their boats. The crews would be reservists from the North, arm each with a 25-40mm gun and a couple of MGs. These vessels can patrol the smaller passages, provide SAR coverage and faster response times than the icebreakers. They will also provide much needed employment up North. The downside of these vessels would be loss of coverage if a major component breaks and they would be limited if it is a bad ice year.
- Reaction score
- 16,310
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 7,938
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P:
Thanks for the pluses. I think what we are both leaning towards (Blackshirt and SKT too) is some sort of FLEX platform that can be upgraded to handle various roles but at base requires a good comms suite, good IRSTA capabilities, helicopter support facilities, accomodations and transportation for a permanently embarked platoon sized force and surge for a company sized force as well as enough "firepower" to indicate to civilians that the government is serious. Other weapons might be embarkable on a mission basis.
On the other hand, if this is true : http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42518.0/topicseen.html (Soviets flying the Arctic) perhaps a permanent point defence system might not be a bad thing.
Thanks for the pluses. I think what we are both leaning towards (Blackshirt and SKT too) is some sort of FLEX platform that can be upgraded to handle various roles but at base requires a good comms suite, good IRSTA capabilities, helicopter support facilities, accomodations and transportation for a permanently embarked platoon sized force and surge for a company sized force as well as enough "firepower" to indicate to civilians that the government is serious. Other weapons might be embarkable on a mission basis.
On the other hand, if this is true : http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42518.0/topicseen.html (Soviets flying the Arctic) perhaps a permanent point defence system might not be a bad thing.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,489
- Points
- 960
Mind you both the Egyptians and the Brazilians mount Exocet on SeaKings and at one point I seem to recall the EH 101 offering the ability to carry and fire Harpoons.Ex-Dragoon said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Kirkhill said:
I think that we can just install a pair of Stinger missiles launchers on the icebreaker (as seen here: http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/Weapons/Missiler/StingerLV.htm) and call it a day.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I just had an unusual thought. What about mounting an ADATS turret with all the displays, etc. in the command & control area?
We do have a couple of surplus turrets, do we not?
Matthew.
We do have a couple of surplus turrets, do we not?
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
To further this thought, if you did mount an ADATS turret on an elevated platform (like Svalbard) you would immediately have your high-resolution FLIR sensor and high-resolution TV feed (and whatever the other optical sensor the ADATS includes - I believe there are 3 different units) integrated as well....
Matthew.
Matthew.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,130
- Points
- 1,160
The ADAT’s may not be designed to withstand salt water, extreme cold and the type of motion found on a vessel.
Lots of decent modular weapon systems out there, I see the Phalanx is being replaced by 30mm guns and a Raytheon missile system that sits on the same base. The Phalanx is fairly cheap and gives some defence against missiles.
It would seem the issue is sliding off the table already in order to pay for the transport aircraft. However leasing an existing small icebreaker would be a good first step, build up the mission and capability plus it would not break the bank. It could also use a pool of reservists that to my knowledge is not being overexploited at this moment.
Regarding heavy ice years, depending on the ice, it may restrict non breakers, but not icebreaker. We are also at a disadvantage because the big Russian icebreakers can go through ice twice as thick and twice as fast as any Canadian or US icebreaker.
Lots of decent modular weapon systems out there, I see the Phalanx is being replaced by 30mm guns and a Raytheon missile system that sits on the same base. The Phalanx is fairly cheap and gives some defence against missiles.
It would seem the issue is sliding off the table already in order to pay for the transport aircraft. However leasing an existing small icebreaker would be a good first step, build up the mission and capability plus it would not break the bank. It could also use a pool of reservists that to my knowledge is not being overexploited at this moment.
Regarding heavy ice years, depending on the ice, it may restrict non breakers, but not icebreaker. We are also at a disadvantage because the big Russian icebreakers can go through ice twice as thick and twice as fast as any Canadian or US icebreaker.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
IIRC Oerlikon offered a naval version of ADATS at one point in time, I don't know if it included the sensors etc. I also have a question, would it be entirely necessary for these proposed icebreakers to be equivalent to the Polar 8, with the thinning and shrinking of the ice cap perhaps it would be possible to use ships with a lower spec.
Mike
Mike
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I believe Oerlikon did development on a naval version (Sprint), so maybe some of those issues have already been resolved.
A better option that now jumps to mind is mounting a single sea-RAM launcher on an elevated deck platform.
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055726.pdf#search='searam'
Once again, it's got built in optics (FLIR), but because it is already salt-water tested, requires only an electricity and water hook-up from the base ship and was designed from the outset with control stations for Command & Control Centre, it's probably an exponentially fit.
Thoughts?
Matthew. ???
A better option that now jumps to mind is mounting a single sea-RAM launcher on an elevated deck platform.
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055726.pdf#search='searam'
Once again, it's got built in optics (FLIR), but because it is already salt-water tested, requires only an electricity and water hook-up from the base ship and was designed from the outset with control stations for Command & Control Centre, it's probably an exponentially fit.
Thoughts?
Matthew. ???
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,130
- Points
- 1,160
mjohnston39 said:
No, most of the CCG fleet is class 2, the bigger ones class 4
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
If the icebreaker project goes ahead for the Navy, I think the Navy would be wise to buy a few more Sirius' for these ships. It would add to the capability of these ships.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42589.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42589.0.html
Looks like the CP/CBC is reporting that 6 Svalbard type vessels have been approved by Cabinet and are awaiting the PM's final approval. However, delivery is a long way off. If the in service date of 2015 is true then how can a promise for anything that far out be taken seriously?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I'm glad they're at least getting the ball rolling....
Maybe if we all pray we'll see a domestic shipbuilding program that will start with these and then transition in the Single Class Surface Combatant....
Matthew.
Maybe if we all pray we'll see a domestic shipbuilding program that will start with these and then transition in the Single Class Surface Combatant....
Matthew.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,130
- Points
- 1,160
excellent news, it's aout time we put some money where are mouth is regarding the north.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Cdn Blackshirt said:I'm glad they're at least getting the ball rolling....
Maybe if we all pray we'll see a domestic shipbuilding program that will start with these and then transition in the Single Class Surface Combatant....
Matthew.
Would be better if we started with the SCSC now as the 280s are not going to last too much longer contrary to popular belief.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Apologies for the revival of a quiet topic but it seemed more appropriate then starting a new topic
Is there any other means of icebreaking other then "brute force". Ultrasonics or such?
I was just sort of wondering about minimum size of a arctic capable warship (ignoring for the moment operating range considerations) that could still icebreak and if it could be reduced by use of "advanced ice-breaking technologies".
Is there any other means of icebreaking other then "brute force". Ultrasonics or such?
I was just sort of wondering about minimum size of a arctic capable warship (ignoring for the moment operating range considerations) that could still icebreak and if it could be reduced by use of "advanced ice-breaking technologies".
