• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

newfin

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships. 
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
newfin: I can't believe we still have a government that doesn't take the Coast Guard seriously enough ;).

Mark
Ottawa
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
newfin said:
I agree with Mark on the ice-breaking issue.  Leave it with CCG.  They do a great job with it and they are very dedicated.  However, let's get them some new ships for Pete's sake.  But with the feds spending all of this money on ships for the Navy it will make it difficult for the CCG to squeeze out any cash for new capital ships. 

As soon as they're willing to be armed, great.  Until then, I'd be cutting their procurement and roles, and re-assigning to the navy.

You want to be unarmed?  Great, you're in charge of fisheries and buoy's....and minesweeping.

I should add, as a person who has ZERO faith in unions, I'd also be pushing to de-unionize and have the Coast Guard operate as a branch of the armed forces, under the same rules.


Matthew.   :salute:
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
MarkOttawa said:
Ex-Dragoon: Sorry about HMCS Terra Nova; but I believe the actual shooting was done by a DFO vessel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Terra_Nova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

The CCG was under Transport Canada in March 1995.  Shortly thereafter it was transferred to DFO and in 1996/97 the two civilian fleets were merged under the Coast Guard.

I don't think icebreaking operations have ever been seriously dislocated by union actions;  CCG personnel tend to be very devoted to their work.  And I think Navy people would be bored stiff if they took over all icebreaking including in the St. Lawrence.

Maybe we could use water cannon to cause civilian vessels to heave to in the Northwest Passage! ;)

Mark
Ottawa

I never said we did the shooting but you made it sound like there was no naval participation there at all, I was clarifying there was.
 

newfin

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
I'd like to know if anyone has any idea about what is meant by the phrase "support operation ashore via landing craft"?

Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.

I mean, I know what a landing craft is (at least I think I do).  Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well?  Does the Navy envision being able to put soldiers and materiel ashore via an undefended beach, such as are common in the Arctic?  I just can't think of what they have in mind here.

 

R933ex

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons that can launch and retrieve a "landing craft"?  Is this a craft that can carry small vehicles as well as people?  Is it launched by a crane or flooded well? 

Actually the CCG has craft akin to I believe LCVPs that they use to support fuel resupply in the communities they are launched by crane off of ships that are within the same size bracket (I saw a couple of them last year in Nunavut)

As per base resolute right in the center, home of the AWS why not??
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
While a RHIB or Zodiac are not lamding craft by definition we do send large parties ashore in them. I also believe the quasi frigate Absalon class that the Danes use carry LCVPs. You are forgetting that this new class of ship we are looking at will be doing a lot of independent operations and it only makes sense to give it auxiliary craft that it may have to use instead of or in addition to the conventional rhibs and zodiacs we give them today.
 

newfin

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
Thanks Dragoon.  I'll look up the Absalon class to have a look at the LCVP.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Can someone give me an example of a past or present frigate-type vessel of 3,000 tons
that can serve in any icebreaking role and also have substantial naval capabilities?  I still think the displacement of the new vessels must have been misreported.  The Svalbard is about the same length but weighs twice as much.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Stoker said:
Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.

It was considered several years ago and rejected; but the DFO fisheries patrol fleet was merged into the CCG.  Some of the reasons presumably were that CCG members are cheaper to train than naval personnel (e.g. apart from officers, the Coast Guard doesn't take people off the street and train them from the ground up to be sailors -- Coast Guard ratings join with experience elsewhere.)  CF training costs a fortune.

Skill sets are another issue: why train all of the deck officers in the considerable number of Coast Guard ships in the strictly naval subjects when most of those skillsets aren't required in Coast Guard operations?

Also, the working conditions are radically different.  A person can join the Coast Guard as an officer and stay a seagoing officer until retirement if he wants to, while a reg. force naval officer will get his sea postings, but with staff jobs ashore mixed in (and more and more of them as he goes on).  My usual comment on the subject goes along the lines and merging the Coast Guard with the navy would be something like merging the fire department with the police -- different roles, different culture, different working conditions -- it's not much of a stretch to say that all they have in common is that they work in ships and wear blue shirts.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Ex-Dragoon said:
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.

I agree with you that we need to bolster our presence in the arctic. I'm heading there in the near future as part of OP NANOOK. The ship i'm on presently has limited ice capability so we'll certainly have to watch ourselves. I think its great that i'll have the chance to sail on one of the new ice strengthened corvettes, I actually am hoping to get a posting to the project staff of these ships once the manning for them is announced.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
 

PO2FinClk

Full Member
Reaction score
-1
Points
210
Stoker said:
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
PO2FinClk said:
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.

I would say Churchill because of the existing infrastructure, airstrip and access to rail would be a better choice. The ships could also get some 2nd line maintenance and fuel there as well. The ships would be based in Halifax and Victoria.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
An interesting perspective....in which he highlights my biggest concern with our to-be-procured "ice-hardened ships".


Matthew.    :salute:

The true North may be strong, but the plan to protect it is feeble
By PETER WILSON 
Former director of informatics and communications, Nunavut Planning Commission
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 – Page A17

Stephen Harper touted his announcement last week of $3.1-billion worth of patrol ships for the Arctic as a declaration of sovereignty, and it is. But it's a declaration of sovereignty by Ottawa over the people who have lived in Canada's Arctic for thousands of years, not a declaration of our sovereignty to other nations.

The federal government plans to spend billions of dollars to create jobs in southern Canada by building patrol vessels for the North. When they're ready, around 2014, the "slushbreakers" won't actually be capable of operating in the Arctic year-round; they'll have to retreat to the South when it gets too cold for them up North. So midwinter would be a good time for other nations such as the U.S. or Russia to visit, because they have the capability to cruise through or under Canadian Arctic waters in any season and there'll be plenty of mooring space available at our new northern port.

When it's too cold for Canada's new ships to operate, we'll rely on "monitoring" the Arctic, using satellite images, interpreted by experts in the South, like some kind of video game. At least we won't get cold.

This is an embarrassment. There are many important things that only Canada can do in its Arctic - all of them assert sovereignty. And we can do them right now, for very little money.

Monitor and report on the Arctic environment.

Nunavut, a territory so big it would be the 14th-largest country on Earth, has no environmental monitoring program (despite the 14-year-old Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that calls for one). A pan-Arctic environmental monitoring and reporting program would tell the world that Canada understands and cares about its Arctic environment.

Provide better wildlife management.

We can only guess at the population of the two great herds of caribou in the North. The good news is that, after 13 years, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board has cobbled together donations of cash and jet fuel from provincial and territorial governments, an environmental group, and industry - enough to conduct a survey of one of the two herds this summer. Surveying one herd every 13 years is a national disgrace.

Create a realistic search and rescue operation.

With commercial aircraft crisscrossing the Canadian Arctic, it's unacceptable to base Arctic search and rescue in Trenton, Ont. Trenton is closer to Quito, Ecuador, than it is to our military base at Alert. A northern-based search and rescue operation is a declaration of sovereignty and a service Canadians will increasingly need as northern development increases.

Let Northern people manage northern resources.

Nunavut doesn't have the talented people required to manage its lands and resources. Scientific and survey methods, satellite images, aerial photographs and geographic information systems are the modern tools of land and resource management. Add skills in these areas to the traditional knowledge of northerners and Canada will benefit from the type of responsible land use envisioned in northern land claims agreements.

Improve regulatory efficiency.

The North is rich in diamonds, gold, uranium, oil and gas, base metals, and much more, but mining companies complain that access is difficult because of the complicated regulatory environment. A national program that provided online map staking and a one-window Internet-based land-use application system would go a long way toward showing the world that we are administering our resources fairly and efficiently.

So, here's the plan. For a tiny fraction of what taxpayers will spend on Mr. Harper's patrol vessels, the federal government could operate a northern-based Arctic aerial monitoring program. Inuit and other northern residents could be trained to fly Canadian-built bush planes from community bases across the Arctic, from Labrador to Yukon. These small northern-based teams could provide regular, low cost, sovereignty patrols, general environmental monitoring, ice patrols, land-use permit inspections and enforcement, search and rescue, aerial photography and wildlife surveys.

There's a plethora of groups, governments and industries that need these services. Such a program would reduce duplication, provide the services and information required to manage resources and assert sovereignty over our North. It would increase the efficiency of access to land by resource developers, and provide training and employment for northerners. The entire plan could be set up and operated for less than 5 per cent of the cost of the patrol vessels announced last week.

The only catch: We might get cold in the winter.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070717/COARCTIC17/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/

 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways. 

International offshore boundaries are also still not settled, nor use of seabed resources.  But these will settled on the basis of customary and treaty international law, not the patrolling of vessels.  The situation in the waterways we consider "domestic" (and practically everyone else disagrees) will also eventually be settled under international law; being able to maintain a presence there at most times (which only new CCG icebreakers could do) might help our case but is not likely to be determinative.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
351
Points
730
Neill McKay said:
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?
For some strange reason I have a vision of Hippos dancing?
 
Top