Naval Icebreakers
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,353
- Points
- 1,160
I wonder if we couldn't do something like the Kiwis with their Multi-Role Vessel. It is roughly the same size as the Svalbard (131m and 8870 tonnes vs 104m and 6300 tonnes) and is designed for EEZ patrol as other duties. The Norwegians reckon they can use the Svalbard as a Command and Control vessel. The Kiwis are using theirs as a transport vessel.
The Tories seem to be suggesting (again a lack of detail) that the 3 JSS are to be replaced with 3 AORs, 2 Tpts and these 3 icebreakers. I wonder if the ice-breakers might not be most of value if they were configured like the Kiwi Ship to be a combat team transport and like the Norwegians a C and C boat. Then they might be used for "gate-guards" on the NW passage in the Summer and also be available for foreign service as a C and C platform for a shore based task force.
This might free up the JSS project from the multi-use and arctic requirements and perhaps allow for 3 dedicated AORs and a pair of very simple transports for handling the bulk of a deployable force.
Net result 3 AORs, 2 Tpts (not LPDs just tpts) and 3 ice-breaking C and C boats with a limited transport capability that could conduct EEZ patrols in the arctic.
Just meandering here...
Cheers.
The Tories seem to be suggesting (again a lack of detail) that the 3 JSS are to be replaced with 3 AORs, 2 Tpts and these 3 icebreakers. I wonder if the ice-breakers might not be most of value if they were configured like the Kiwi Ship to be a combat team transport and like the Norwegians a C and C boat. Then they might be used for "gate-guards" on the NW passage in the Summer and also be available for foreign service as a C and C platform for a shore based task force.
This might free up the JSS project from the multi-use and arctic requirements and perhaps allow for 3 dedicated AORs and a pair of very simple transports for handling the bulk of a deployable force.
Net result 3 AORs, 2 Tpts (not LPDs just tpts) and 3 ice-breaking C and C boats with a limited transport capability that could conduct EEZ patrols in the arctic.
Just meandering here...
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
The only problem with configuring them for Command and Control is if they are deployed when we need them up North (as we will likely have one in DD) that will onluy leave one available for Arctic Ops. Configure it as an Arctic Transport with limited C&C capability for deployment up North and then I think you have the makings of a useful work horse for MARNOR.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I would have to agree with the Tories that building a dedicated AOR is better than the JSS. I would also have to agree that a dedicated transport be acquired. A quick survey of some of the AOR reveals that some are converted commerical tankers (hinting that a dedicated military design may not be necessary and a civilian design converted for CF use may be appropriate and cheaper). Examples can be found in the Royal Navy; Appleleaf class fleet oilers are converted civilian tankers (in fact, one of them were converted during construction). Other allied nations are also purchasing new AOR's; the Germans for example are building the Berlin class (Type 702) AOR's, which are similar in size and capabilites to the current Protecteur class AOR's we have, while having a smaller crew. The Germans have already built two, and are planning to build two more.
With a transport vessel, ships from commerical designs can be purchased as civilian spec vessels are cheaper to acquire if the circumstances of their planned usage does not place them directly in harms way, hence ships like the Norsky class RO-RO carrier are appropriate (in fact, the Norksy is totally appropriate as it has 2600 square metres of vehicle space, and JSS is asking for a ship that has 2500 square metres of lane space). I am pretty certain that our NATO allies are more than willing to have us latch onto their procurement, as it helps to reduce their per unit and support costs.
With icebreakers, I haven't actually found any icebreaker that is a underway project (i.e. one in development or construction, or just launched). So it looks like we might have to design these Tory icebreakers domestically...
With a transport vessel, ships from commerical designs can be purchased as civilian spec vessels are cheaper to acquire if the circumstances of their planned usage does not place them directly in harms way, hence ships like the Norsky class RO-RO carrier are appropriate (in fact, the Norksy is totally appropriate as it has 2600 square metres of vehicle space, and JSS is asking for a ship that has 2500 square metres of lane space). I am pretty certain that our NATO allies are more than willing to have us latch onto their procurement, as it helps to reduce their per unit and support costs.
With icebreakers, I haven't actually found any icebreaker that is a underway project (i.e. one in development or construction, or just launched). So it looks like we might have to design these Tory icebreakers domestically...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Kirkhill said:
I have, but I have been trying to find other industry projects that are similar, and henceforth, not having any luck. And my copy of Janes Naval Warship recognition guide that I have on hand dates from 1999, so Svalbard isn't in it (it may be in the 2003 guide, but I only loaned that one, as I am getting this year's version).
- Reaction score
- 4,854
- Points
- 1,060
Armymatters,
Do you really know anything about this, or just what you've read. Do you have any sort of nautical background, other than small pleasure craft? Or military background, to decipher our needs, from practical experience and not just from what you heard your Militia buds say? Just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. Quoting web links and pasting verbage doesn't make an expert, or buy entry to a discussion. You've been posting lot's of info here and in other threads, but if you've only Googled and read stuff, it doesn't carry much weight, whether it's good or not.
Do you really know anything about this, or just what you've read. Do you have any sort of nautical background, other than small pleasure craft? Or military background, to decipher our needs, from practical experience and not just from what you heard your Militia buds say? Just cause it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. Quoting web links and pasting verbage doesn't make an expert, or buy entry to a discussion. You've been posting lot's of info here and in other threads, but if you've only Googled and read stuff, it doesn't carry much weight, whether it's good or not.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
recceguy said:
I acutally study Strategic studies and history, so I study foreign policy and defense policy.
- Reaction score
- 4,854
- Points
- 1,060
So everything you've got, has come from reading and maybe lectures at school, not hard actual experience. I read Moby Dick, but it doesn't make me a Sea Captain, aaaaarrrggh.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,234
- Points
- 1,160
Having had the pleasure of doing both army time and Coast Guard time, I have given this a bit of thought. (breaking ice is a lot of fun, unless you are off watch and trying to sleep)
First of all the navy is not ready to man an ice breaker, working in the arctic is quite different than open water. Presently I don’t think the navy has any deck officers trained to sail in Northern waters. This can be rectified though. The navy should send a number of officers onboard CCG to learn Arctic operations, there are lots of lessons to be learned and you can’t learn them all from books. Another benefit will be to build links between the 2 services and pass information back and forth. We could start this program this year, with very little additional costs.
Next step would be for the navy to lease a Icebreaker and train on it, the use of reservist for crew and regular/reserve deck officers will ease the manpower crunch. This could be done in 2007 or 2008, by the time the navy gets it’s on icebreaker, they will be on their way to knowing how to use it. Ensure that a senior CCG captain is onboard as an ice pilot. Ice has a way of humbling people, the CCGS Camsull had her hull opened up by ice (3” hardened steel) and the Polar Star/Sea lost her propeller to the ice. (sheared a blade off)
Arming the CCG
The Coast Guard is a merchant service, it’s ships and crews are in no way military. Presently the only firepower carried are bolt action hunting rifles.
To arm the CCG you must define the role it will play. I see the larger ships being equipped with 2x .50cals with a weapon station on each side of the ship, I figured this could be done for approx. $50,000 per ship (weapons, spares, training ammo, mount , clothing and bridge to gun comms). A military instructor could do on board weapons training during the regular crew cycle, it would take 2 cycles to train both crews. Weapons could be serviced by the Naval personal at the shipyards.
The purpose of these MG’s would be to support police or military boarding parties. It would be to expensive and difficult to train up CCG boarding parties, plus lots of resistance from within the CCG. (You should have seen the battles to get the rescue specialist and rescue diver programs funded).
Once the above is started also equip each vessel with a few shotguns, pistols and keep the bolt action rifle but with a scope. Ask for volunteers to take firearm training, use this core to build up the enforcement arm of the CCG.
Design all new ships to have hardpoints, almost all small to medium naval weapons come in a modular form and could be easily retrofitted. It will take approx. 10 years to change the culture in the CCG to accept being armed and being aggressive, it like asking a firefighter to give up their hose and take up a gun.
First of all the navy is not ready to man an ice breaker, working in the arctic is quite different than open water. Presently I don’t think the navy has any deck officers trained to sail in Northern waters. This can be rectified though. The navy should send a number of officers onboard CCG to learn Arctic operations, there are lots of lessons to be learned and you can’t learn them all from books. Another benefit will be to build links between the 2 services and pass information back and forth. We could start this program this year, with very little additional costs.
Next step would be for the navy to lease a Icebreaker and train on it, the use of reservist for crew and regular/reserve deck officers will ease the manpower crunch. This could be done in 2007 or 2008, by the time the navy gets it’s on icebreaker, they will be on their way to knowing how to use it. Ensure that a senior CCG captain is onboard as an ice pilot. Ice has a way of humbling people, the CCGS Camsull had her hull opened up by ice (3” hardened steel) and the Polar Star/Sea lost her propeller to the ice. (sheared a blade off)
Arming the CCG
The Coast Guard is a merchant service, it’s ships and crews are in no way military. Presently the only firepower carried are bolt action hunting rifles.
To arm the CCG you must define the role it will play. I see the larger ships being equipped with 2x .50cals with a weapon station on each side of the ship, I figured this could be done for approx. $50,000 per ship (weapons, spares, training ammo, mount , clothing and bridge to gun comms). A military instructor could do on board weapons training during the regular crew cycle, it would take 2 cycles to train both crews. Weapons could be serviced by the Naval personal at the shipyards.
The purpose of these MG’s would be to support police or military boarding parties. It would be to expensive and difficult to train up CCG boarding parties, plus lots of resistance from within the CCG. (You should have seen the battles to get the rescue specialist and rescue diver programs funded).
Once the above is started also equip each vessel with a few shotguns, pistols and keep the bolt action rifle but with a scope. Ask for volunteers to take firearm training, use this core to build up the enforcement arm of the CCG.
Design all new ships to have hardpoints, almost all small to medium naval weapons come in a modular form and could be easily retrofitted. It will take approx. 10 years to change the culture in the CCG to accept being armed and being aggressive, it like asking a firefighter to give up their hose and take up a gun.
- Reaction score
- 7,353
- Points
- 1,160
Interesting stuff Colin.
Further to your comments about integrating a civvy coast guard with a military presence - could that work on a permanent basis?
EG - You talk about supplying a military/police boarding party on board a civilian commanded vessel with guns to support the boarding party. Would a civilian skipper be willing to put his civilian crew at risk if the target decided to shoot back?
If that risk is accepted and the vessel is outfitted on lines similar to Svalbard and the type of Arctic Transport Ex-Dragoon and I were commenting on would the Coast Guard be willing to man the vessels as a combination work boat / gate guard and platform for launching military operations?
Also, another possibility, you mention preparing the boat to accept drop-in weapons systems. Could it work if each of the vessels also had, in addition to the two civvy crews, one or two Naval Reserve crews that could take over the vessel when it was armed? The could, oerhaps, conduct seamanship training with the Coasties at sea and weapons training on shore with the modularized weapons.
Cheers.
Further to your comments about integrating a civvy coast guard with a military presence - could that work on a permanent basis?
EG - You talk about supplying a military/police boarding party on board a civilian commanded vessel with guns to support the boarding party. Would a civilian skipper be willing to put his civilian crew at risk if the target decided to shoot back?
If that risk is accepted and the vessel is outfitted on lines similar to Svalbard and the type of Arctic Transport Ex-Dragoon and I were commenting on would the Coast Guard be willing to man the vessels as a combination work boat / gate guard and platform for launching military operations?
Also, another possibility, you mention preparing the boat to accept drop-in weapons systems. Could it work if each of the vessels also had, in addition to the two civvy crews, one or two Naval Reserve crews that could take over the vessel when it was armed? The could, oerhaps, conduct seamanship training with the Coasties at sea and weapons training on shore with the modularized weapons.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Colin P laid it out just about right.
But the mandate would have to change to make the kind of changes we're talking. There would have to be a motion in Parliament to do it too. You have to consider how the union would take it too.
$50,000 is low ball for mounting the equipment IE 2x50 cal and comms, try $500,000 per ship once you count in Mags and technical studies the ship yard would do prior too the fit (I wont go there again :threat
.
The Navy would definitely have to start an exchange program and should consider it soon. Res would be Ideal for this work, especially if they get a proper rotaion going. With or with out ice breakers the Navy will be operating in the Arctic circle more and more.
Crossing the line for the Arctic circle can be chilly.
There is already a organization to start interoperation between Navy and CCG. Is the CCG not involved in Joint Force Atlantic???
But the mandate would have to change to make the kind of changes we're talking. There would have to be a motion in Parliament to do it too. You have to consider how the union would take it too.
$50,000 is low ball for mounting the equipment IE 2x50 cal and comms, try $500,000 per ship once you count in Mags and technical studies the ship yard would do prior too the fit (I wont go there again :threat
. The Navy would definitely have to start an exchange program and should consider it soon. Res would be Ideal for this work, especially if they get a proper rotaion going. With or with out ice breakers the Navy will be operating in the Arctic circle more and more.
Crossing the line for the Arctic circle can be chilly.
There is already a organization to start interoperation between Navy and CCG. Is the CCG not involved in Joint Force Atlantic???
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Very valuable input Colin.
I thought i'd tell you a little story that sort of illustrates the suttle difference betweem military & civie thinking. A couple of yeary ago the brand new U.S. Coast guard icebreaker Healy was in Halifax before heading for Alaska via the NW passage. Being very proud of their new vessel they invited Canadian Coast Guard people to an open house. The USCG offered to take some Canadian CG along for the trip through Canadian waters. They especially wanted one of our ice interpertation specialists to help with the trip. When i spoke to some of the people coming back from the tour i asked if they if any of them would go and in no uncertain terms, told me, no way. The Reason given was the USCG has military manning and living quarters and the civilian Canadians refused to live in such conditions . They are used to having a private room & bath a lounge with easy chairs and couches , a dining room to eat in thats not crowded etc. You see military vessels usually have 4 to 5 times the number of crew that civie vessels do and with a lot less amenities. So i think if some Navy people went along for Experience it would be like going on a cruise ship . Just for your info Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers have 2 complete crews so thay change around every 30 days . When a ship deploys to the Arctic it stays there for 4 months or so and they fly in a new crew every 30 days or so and fly the old crew out. Unlike Navy vessels which normally fuel every few days ships like CCGS Louis S. ST.Laurent have an endurance of over 20,000 miles and can stay at sea for over 200 days. In the summer of 1997 the CCGS Des Groseilliers went to the Arctic and it did not return to Quebec until 4 Nov. 1998 well over a year later . Of course a lot of that time was spent frozen in the ice drifting doing scientific work and she was resupplied by light a/c landing on the ice.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,234
- Points
- 1,160
Stony
Is bang on in his comments about the difference in ship accommodation, mind you I served on the R class cutter and had a bunk that would have made a submariner queasy (the pipes for the head ran alongside, so I had intimate knowledge of every flush! ) and it was 5” from my nose to the deckhead.
Some CCG ships did adopt a 2 month rotation cycle and a few ships from Newfoundland and the ones based in Tuk did a 6 month cycle.
I to have worked with the US CCG, you will be amazed how young they are, I really felt old, the average age is 20 years and for the Canadian Guard it is 30. :-[
Navy-blue
I believe you are right that there is a number of contacts already at different levels and focusing on different issues. I am not privy to what is going on in Ottawa or the East Coast.
Crossing the line means a trip to Neptune’s court and a nice diet of fish eyeballs and Iceworms! :-X
Kirkhill
You have hit squarely on the problems that will crop up and will not be resolved until the mandate is changed. Last year I predicted that the CCG would be armed within 6 years or sooner if something bad happened. I guess we will see if I am right. I think it will happen as CCG ships are often the only government presence in thousands of miles. The drawback would be that they might be treated differently if they needed to travel to foreign ports.
The concept of having military crews onboard merchant seaman to man weapons actually dates back to the convoys of WWII. It could work, but would be a major cost in salary dollars. The ships do have enough bunk space to take on more people, but it would be boring duty as 95% of the ship time would be on none enforcement duty.
As far as the crews supporting a armed mission, I think it will depend on the union and on the individual. I think the CCG needs to ask for volunteers to take further training and be given a “danger pay”. One should realize that almost every innovative program in the CCG has come from the bottom up, despite the resistance from management. The guys who trained me where instrumental in starting the “Rescue Specialist” program and I was one of the first batch of “Rescue divers” both programs were started by the small boat stations personal on the West Coast. There are other programs that started because the guy in the field was fed up with not being able to do their job.
I am hoping the new government will give the CCG management strict marching orders and timetables requiring them to preparing for a changing role.
Is bang on in his comments about the difference in ship accommodation, mind you I served on the R class cutter and had a bunk that would have made a submariner queasy (the pipes for the head ran alongside, so I had intimate knowledge of every flush!
) and it was 5” from my nose to the deckhead. Some CCG ships did adopt a 2 month rotation cycle and a few ships from Newfoundland and the ones based in Tuk did a 6 month cycle.
I to have worked with the US CCG, you will be amazed how young they are, I really felt old, the average age is 20 years and for the Canadian Guard it is 30. :-[
Navy-blue
I believe you are right that there is a number of contacts already at different levels and focusing on different issues. I am not privy to what is going on in Ottawa or the East Coast.
Crossing the line means a trip to Neptune’s court and a nice diet of fish eyeballs and Iceworms! :-X
Kirkhill
You have hit squarely on the problems that will crop up and will not be resolved until the mandate is changed. Last year I predicted that the CCG would be armed within 6 years or sooner if something bad happened. I guess we will see if I am right. I think it will happen as CCG ships are often the only government presence in thousands of miles. The drawback would be that they might be treated differently if they needed to travel to foreign ports.
The concept of having military crews onboard merchant seaman to man weapons actually dates back to the convoys of WWII. It could work, but would be a major cost in salary dollars. The ships do have enough bunk space to take on more people, but it would be boring duty as 95% of the ship time would be on none enforcement duty.
As far as the crews supporting a armed mission, I think it will depend on the union and on the individual. I think the CCG needs to ask for volunteers to take further training and be given a “danger pay”. One should realize that almost every innovative program in the CCG has come from the bottom up, despite the resistance from management. The guys who trained me where instrumental in starting the “Rescue Specialist” program and I was one of the first batch of “Rescue divers” both programs were started by the small boat stations personal on the West Coast. There are other programs that started because the guy in the field was fed up with not being able to do their job.
I am hoping the new government will give the CCG management strict marching orders and timetables requiring them to preparing for a changing role.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think we should adopt a more American style coast guard. that would put less pressure on our already undermanned and underfunded navy. I'm sure the government might be alittle less ressitent to dropping some more funding to increase and arm the coast guard. as it is a civi operation and canadian citizens would also support it.
Also I don't think there would be a problem finding people who are prepared to risk their lives as long as there is good pay and benifits etc look at crap fishermen, they do one of the most dangers civi jobs around. why? cause they get paid good.
Also I don't think there would be a problem finding people who are prepared to risk their lives as long as there is good pay and benifits etc look at crap fishermen, they do one of the most dangers civi jobs around. why? cause they get paid good.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,234
- Points
- 1,160
A lot of the guys in the CCG were fisherman, caused a bit of a problem when we went to Fisheries from Transport. You have to remember there are Guards within Guards in the US. The hard pointy end is one small part of the job.
The CCG still has to look after the following Ice breaking, Marine aids and navigation, radio and rescue service and oil spill response. If you want the Guard to be armed then it will need further resources. Presently most SAR sectors only have one vessel each operating in a huge area, the tasking centres are loath to task them with non-SAR duties that take them away from the centre of their zone.
The CCG still has to look after the following Ice breaking, Marine aids and navigation, radio and rescue service and oil spill response. If you want the Guard to be armed then it will need further resources. Presently most SAR sectors only have one vessel each operating in a huge area, the tasking centres are loath to task them with non-SAR duties that take them away from the centre of their zone.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
thats why I was saying the government might be more apt to provide more funding for the Coast Guard as apposed to the Military.
I think the coast guard needs to be expanded anyway. and thats just to do what it is already doing never mind tacking on more things. While it would cost more to make the Coast guard capable of something similar to the American CG in the long run I think it would be the best bet.
on another note. I know that the CG uses hovercraft to break ice with and they are extremly effective and a thousand times faster then conventional Icebreakers and dont require a large crew. I don't know how thick of ice they use them on but never the less would a large Hovercraft ice breaker be a feasable option? less crew, less time spent at sea = less cost = 8)
I think the coast guard needs to be expanded anyway. and thats just to do what it is already doing never mind tacking on more things. While it would cost more to make the Coast guard capable of something similar to the American CG in the long run I think it would be the best bet.
on another note. I know that the CG uses hovercraft to break ice with and they are extremly effective and a thousand times faster then conventional Icebreakers and dont require a large crew. I don't know how thick of ice they use them on but never the less would a large Hovercraft ice breaker be a feasable option? less crew, less time spent at sea = less cost = 8)
