Forces may ice ships

[Dale Denton]

Couldn't we combine the RCMP and the CC G's fleets to the navy? That would save time talking between them and also it could be easier to communicate as well couldn't it? Also if you give all the money spent on building/upkeep of both fleets to the Navy couldn't that solve some funding issues? I have no basis for my claims, but to me it seems logical (I have no experience on the subject, but does it seem sound to you?)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The RCMP uses 5 fast patrol catamarans that would be useful for inshore ops, the CCG has some OPVs and icebreakers we could use but then those crews would have to be retrained to think and breathe navy. Most CCG members have no interest in becoming an armed service like the USCG (also previously discussed).

 

[MarkOttawa]

Just give the Coast Guard the new icebreakers it needs and they can do the sovereignty job.

Arctic icebreakers aging, new ones to cost billions: Coast Guard
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/10/02/icebreakers-new.html

Billions of dollars will be needed to replace Canada's aging fleet of Arctic icebreakers within the next decade, Canadian Coast Guard official Gary Sidock told CBC News.

Many of the seven icebreakers and three river-class vessels that ply northern waters from late June to early October are near retirement, said Sidock, who is the acting director general, fleet, for the Canadian Coast Guard in Ottawa...

Depending on the model, the vessels can cost as much as $500 million and take up to 10 years to build, so Canada should get its order in soon, said Sidock.

"Perhaps not immediately, but fairly shortly," he said. "The ice-breaking fleet will have to be replaced and that can be a phased replacement. That is absolutely very much on our minds."..

Canada has one heavy icebreaker, the Louis St. Laurent, along with four intermediate ships. It has one light icebreaker, one dedicated science icebreaker and three river-class vessels...

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Why the CCG should get the vessels:

Arctic sovereignty's trapped in a policy ice jam
By ROB HUEBERT, Globe and Mail, August 17, 2006 (full text not online; Dr Huebert is Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, U. of Calgary)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060817.wxconorth17%2FBNStory%2FspecialComment%2Fhome&ord=6365276&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

The Coast Guard has expertise in manning and operating icebreakers, which have proved to be the best presence in the North...

...The Coast Guard will soon need to replace its icebreaking fleet: Canada's most powerful icebreaker was built in 1969, and its three medium icebreakers were built between 1978 and 1982...

Complicating the picture is the government's decision to make National Defence the main department to develop the capital program necessary to protect Arctic sovereignty. It is the DND that is to build three new icebreakers. While its operation of the HMCS Labrador in the mid-1950s showed it can do this, the navy is reluctant to embrace this proposed new task. It knows that by acquiring this new capability, it must surrender some other existing one. It also knows it will need to spend considerable resources to train its personal in skills the Coast Guard already has...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[cplcaldwell]

It is the DND that is to build three new icebreakers.

Sorry did I miss something here? Seems to me the Govt has said it want to protect Arctic sovereignty and DND has a role in that.

Not sure that means the DND will build Ice Breakers. This issue still very much in the balance, no?

Does this mean that the replacements to CCGS Louis St Laurent and CCGS Terry Fox will not work the St Lawrence system? Concentrating on Davis Strait instead. ???

Maybe it's just me but I think Mr Huebert (of the esteemed G&M :-X) is taking a bit of a leap here....

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark, you are determined to keep me battling on this one. 

By all means replace the Coasties' Ice-Breakers.  Somebody has to clear the snow from the highway.  And certainly building, and maintaining, and charging tolls for the use of said highway contributes to asserting sovereignty.

But I still want something that the Navy can use to operate up there with out worrying too much about tearing a hole in the hull, that can carry a few guys with rifles and that can land a helicopter.

Seeing as how Norway and New Zealand have managed to build vessels of that type for about 80 MCAD apiece then I don't see it as a major drain on the treasury.

We are not talking about chasing ships through the ice with ice breakers - at the rate those vessels advance dismounted troops could catch up to them running over the ice.

Our next class of patrol vessels should be larger, ice-strengthened and heli-capable.  Build to civ/mil standards like DNV and possibly even lease them for domestic duty the way the Brits are with their patrol vessels.  You break'em,  you buy'em.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: Indeed  >.  The point is that the Conservative campaign promise to acquire armed naval icebreakers was an ill-thought out piece of electioneering.  In international legal terms there is no need for Naval vessels to assert sovereignty.  Civilian vessels of the government serve the purpose equally well (that is why the Mulroney govenment promised--but never delivered--a Polar 8 vessel for the CCG).  CCG  icebreakers carry helicopters and, if ordered, can carry people with rifles.  Other CCG vessels already carry armed Fishery Officers and sometimes the RCMP.

There is also the important ice-breaking role itself in the north (and the east, and the St. Lawrence); give the CCG the new vessels it needs and let them do the sovereignty business.

Now if a case in defence terms exists for ice-strengthened Naval vessels--sovereignty assertion aside--fine.  Your patrol vessel suggestion sounds good, if affordable.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[cplcaldwell]

that is why the Mulroney govenment promised--but never delivered--a Polar 8 vessel for the CCG

... and eight to twelve SSN's for MarCom...

 

[MarkOttawa]

cplcaldwell: True, but a rather silly way to do it; frankly I think the sovereignty role was a talking point basically cooked up to try and garner support--from a public horrified by the very word "nuclear"--for the acquisition of vessels the Navy wanted.  Rather like defending the current sub fleet by saying they can usefully help in fisheries enforcement.

Ships that are unseen serve no legal sovereignty purpose.  Polar 8 was a much better idea from that standpoint.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

The point is that the Conservative campaign promise to acquire armed naval icebreakers was an ill-thought out piece of electioneering.

I am going to go round this again, jus' 'cause.  To most folks, a vessel that can navigate through ice is an ice breaker.  The Norwegian's certainly feel that their Svalbard is an ice breaker despite it having been decided by the experts on this site that it is too light to be an icebreaker.  On the other hand there is apparently some sympathy for the notion it would make a useful northern patrol vessel.

As to the issue of carrying rifles and helicopters, I think Colin P has successfully, and repeatedly, argued that there would be labour issues (akin to those being experienced over arming the Border Guards), if the Coast Guard were to be employed on armed intercepts.

Further, wrt the Polar 8,  that was for a single vessel class.  Numerous times people have argued the inadvisability of only purchasing a single vessel, primarily on the grounds that it likely to be unavailable when you need it.  If there was a classic case of electioneering symbology that would be it.

Cheers sir. 

 

[cplcaldwell]

cplcaldwell: True, but a rather silly way to do it; frankly I think the sovereignty role was a talking point basically cooked up to try and garner support--...--for the acquisition of vessels the Navy wanted.

Yup.

Okay now, I hate doing this because it always turns into one of those silly digressions on kit. But I think Kirkhill is trying to make a point about Svalbard and her sisters.....

Are we talking about USCG WAGB (Polar breaker) for Marcom? Or are we talking about a sort of MRAV (a high endurance lightly armed patroller/multi role)for MarCom?

The article seems to say that CCG needs a WAGB (or similar) and DND has to buy it. What Kirkhill seems to be saying is "whoppee for the CCG, maybe MarCom needs an ice strenghtened MRAV..."

Do you concur?

<edited to clarify obtuse STANAG's>

 

[MarkOttawa]

Kirkhill: My post did not say arm CCG personnel; I know there are major issues there.  I just pointed out that CCG vessels already act as platforms for armed Fishery Officers and RCMP members doing armed intercepts.  I doubt there would be great difficulty in carrying people with rifles.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/1995/hq-ac29_e.htm

March 9, 1995

OTTAWA-Fishery Officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and an RCMP emergency response team boarded and seized a Spanish fishing vessel, the ESTAI, after warning shots were fired, Brian Tobin, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced today.

The arrest and seizure of the vessel took place in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean east of Newfoundland at 4:52 p.m. (Ottawa time), following a lengthy pursuit after an initial boarding attempt was unsuccessful.

The ESTAI was fishing on the Nose of the Grand Banks when it was intercepted by the DFO patrol vessel CAPE ROGER , and is believed to have conducted its fishing activities contrary to Canadian law. The CAPE ROGER was assisted by the DFO patrol vessel LEONARD J. COWLEY and the Canadian Coast Guard vessel SIR WILFRED GRENFELL.

All other Spanish fishing vessels have now left the Nose of the Grand Banks.

A boarding party consisting of Fishery Officers from the DFO patrol vessel CAPE ROGER initially attempted a boarding of the ESTAI at 12:50 p.m. this afternoon. The crew of the 65-metre fishing vessel resisted the boarding and proceeded to flee, after cutting loose its fishing gear, worth approximately $80,000. Further efforts to board were hampered by poor weather conditions.

DFO officials are now investigating what charges will be laid under the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

DFO vessels are now CCG vessels (the fleets having been amalgamated) and CCG vessels would perform the same mission in future.

More:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010344

...Last Thursday, a department of fisheries and oceans patrol vessel carrying a team of RCMP and fisheries officers cut through the icy water towards the Spanish vessel Estai. When the first boarding attempt failed, the Spanish crew cut their nets and fled. For four hours, the two vessels played hide-and-seek in the banks of thick North Atlantic fog. The chase ended when the Canadian ship fired a burst of machine-gun fire across the Estai’s bow [my emphasis]. Then, the seized boat was turned towards St. John’s, where the skipper faces charges under Canadian fisheries conservation laws and the crew will likely be flown home.

Cheers  ,

cplcaldwell:

What Kirkhill seems to be saying is "whoppee for the CCG, maybe MarCom needs an ice strenghtened MRAV..."

I concur  .

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am going to go round this again, jus' 'cause.  To most folks, a vessel that can navigate through ice is an ice breaker.  The Norwegian's certainly feel that their Svalbard is an ice breaker despite it having been decided by the experts on this site that it is too light to be an icebreaker.  On the other hand there is apparently some sympathy for the notion it would make a useful northern patrol vessel.

As to the issue of carrying rifles and helicopters, I think Colin P has successfully, and repeatedly, argued that there would be labour issues (akin to those being experienced over arming the Border Guards), if the Coast Guard were to be employed on armed intercepts.

Further, wrt the Polar 8,  that was for a single vessel class.  Numerous times people have argued the inadvisability of only purchasing a single vessel, primarily on the grounds that it likely to be unavailable when you need it.  If there was a classic case of electioneering symbology that would be it.

Cheers sir. 

Svalbard was either ice-strengthen or a "light" icebreaker, plus some are designed for rivers, vs ocean, thinking that all icebreakers are the same is like calling a Warrior/Bradely a tank because it has a turret, gun & tracks.

Actually putting light weapon systems up to 35mm on our existing ships would be fairly easy, but as mentioned the real issue is a sea change in management/ employees.

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark, as you point out, at the time of the Estai incident DFO was separate from the Coast Guard.  You are correct that the DFO has had an armed intercept role (even if it was just pistols).  I also understand that that is a point of contention when it comes to mixing the two "cultures".  Ice Breakers came from the Department of Transport.

Frankly, as stipulated previously, I care a whit not what the vessel is called.  And as I have alse previously stated I am not even overly bothered by who operates the things.  I just want to make sure that when we build and maintain our "superhighway across the arctic" that we have traffic cops that can operate alongside the snow plows.

The other thing that bothers me is the constant tendency on the part of those that wish to find reasons not to take a course of action to inflate the cost of the project.  1 billion in 1980 dollars for a Polar 8 versus 240 MCAD in 2005 dollars for 3 Svalbard/Kiwi MRV type vessels.  I would rather do something than nothing, no matter what the limitations might be.

By the way - I am sure that there are those that could argue the legal usefulness of subs on sovereignty assertion.  

And Colin I take your point about nomenclature but I also accept that to most folks our LAVs are still "Tanks".  Actually Svalbard is about the same as the Terry Fox IIRC - 1 meter forwards, 4 meters using a bump and grind advance.