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

Ottawa proceeds with plan to build Arctic patrol ships

Monsoon

Sr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
Wow - this came seemingly out of nowhere:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070513.warctic0513/BNStory/National/home
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
How so? The Harper government stated it wanted APVs for the Navy, now its acting upon it. Why is it a surprise?
 

safeboy43

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ex-Dragoon said:
How so? The Harper government stated it wanted APVs for the Navy, now its acting upon it. Why is it a surprise?
Because all of our previous governments would still be talking about it 20 years later!  ;)
 

Exarecr

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
  Lets see now. Should take the Government another twenty years to pick a port of choice to build the ships. Another ten years to install nonlethal, be nice to people weapons that are not to scary,( NDP will probably be in power by then),and then another five years to crew the ship. The crew must reflect to the decimal point the multicultural aspects of this new Northern Fleet. 51% Female, 78% white,and the rest divided between the other cultures. Every one will have to speak every language represented by the crew and of course national colours and uniforms should also reflect the crews differences. By the time this aspect of crew training is completed,and the ship sets out the place will have already frozen over again do to the next ice age. Talk about a waste of tax payer dollars.
 

stfx_monty

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
From a shipbuilding point of view this has the possibility to be a really great purchase if done right. If they time it right, they could use this class as the interim vessels needed to get the JSS shipyard through to the SCSC class, thus eliminating our shipbuilding problem in Canada.

From an operational point of view, however, I question how valuable this is. I think we need to capability, but only if combined with CCG icebreakers (I never liked armed icebreakers). If we only build these and not icebreakers, then we aren't any better off in my opinion. I also wonder if this class will be capable of deployment overseas, or if they will simply be the vessel that covers the area between the Kingstons and the Halifax class.

There are the obvious manpower issues that also go along with this.

That being said, certainly a good day for the Navy.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Exarecr: Gaining the ability to put ships into the Arctic is not a waste of tax payer money, unless you are one of those that believe if its not green its not worth buying?

monty: I don't see the purpose on why they would bother deploying an APV overseas. Afterall there is not much call for ice strengthened hulls in the Arabian Gulf.
 

NCS_Eng

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stfx_monty said:
From a shipbuilding point of view this has the possibility to be a really great purchase if done right. If they time it right, they could use this class as the interim vessels needed to get the JSS shipyard through to the SCSC class, thus eliminating our shipbuilding problem in Canada.

From an operational point of view, however, I question how valuable this is. I think we need to capability, but only if combined with CCG icebreakers (I never liked armed icebreakers). If we only build these and not icebreakers, then we aren't any better off in my opinion. I also wonder if this class will be capable of deployment overseas, or if they will simply be the vessel that covers the area between the Kingstons and the Halifax class.

There are the obvious manpower issues that also go along with this.

That being said, certainly a good day for the Navy.

We shall see.

We already have tons of paper ships in the navy (3 JSS, 18+ SCSC and not to metion 12 paper Felix'ed Frigates). What we really need is to start turning some of them (namely the JSS for starters) into actual ships. I agree that it would make good sense to use these new patrol ships to "bridge" the gap between the JSS and SCSC, but there is no guarantee that whatever contractor/shipyard wins the JSS contract will also win APV contract. Furthermore in our procurement system there is no method to ensure that happens.

I can't help but wonder what the manning level will be as well.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
I'm not sure if I wouldn't rather have (3) large armed ice breakers than (6) smaller ice-hardened corvettes, primarily because I really think I'd like to see us start acting as a gatekeeper and escorting all vessels going through the Northwest Passage sooner, rather than later.


Matthew.   :salute:

P.S.  By armed, I mean take the turrets off the 280's as they are retired and probably add SEARAM as a standalone CIWS.  
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Why not just go for one caliber of gun and buy 57 mm for them, that way we will have one standard weapon across the board?
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
I would have to pull out my sliderule and figure out over 20 years which is more expensive:
1)  Buying new turrets in order to standardize ammunition.
2)  Reusing existing turrets (from the 280's) and keep a different ammunition type in inventory.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but that's how I'd come to the decision....


Matthew.  :salute:
 

Exarecr

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey EX-Dragoon, I will take absoloutly every bullet blank and tank and any other sdrapes the government relunctedly throws the Militarys way. This is jusst a pressure release after gallillion years of waiting for everything. Cheers !
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Personally Matthew it makes more sense to me to use weapon systems that we have current and standardize them vice introducing new ones.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
526
Points
1,060
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

For those interested here is the discussion on the "Naval Icebreakers" with a whole lot of commentary about the Svalbard class.

For NCS_Eng:  if the Canadian Navy follows the manning of the Norwegians then the ship carries 48 crew, a 4-man helidet and room for 75 other passengers.

By the way Ex-D, any sign of your consultation fee yet?  ;)
 

NCS_Eng

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cdn Blackshirt said:
P.S.  By armed, I mean take the turrets off the 280's as they are retired and probably add SEARAM as a standalone CIWS.  

Not a huge fan of the 57mm (from a maintenance/reliability standpoint), but you do not want to put 20 year old weapon systems on your new patrol craft. A 48-man crew does not leave a lot of room for maintainers.

I rather a new 57mm mount than an old 76mm... or even better a new OM 76mm Compact. Any money saved re-using the mounts will be lost in the ever-increasing maintence costs to keep a 20 year old weapon in service.

 

IN HOC SIGNO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It is a good day for announcements anyway....but I lived through the announcement of the 12 nuclear subs too and the last conservative icebreaker announcement. I sure would like to see some keels laid down starting with an advanced start time on the JSS.
I personally think that all our ships should have ice capability as we are a nation with three oceans and to enforce our sovereignty we need to be capable of sailing in all three and showing that we mean business.
 

I_am_John_Galt

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Let's not lose sight of the REAL story here: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/14/ice-breaker.html


Tories may scrap plan for new icebreakers
::)
Last Updated: Monday, May 14, 2007 | 6:39 PM ET
CBC News

The Conservative government appears set to break a campaign promise to purchase three heavy, armed icebreakers for the Canadian Forces to defend Arctic sovereignty.

The $3-billion promise was made during the last election campaign. It was a centrepiece of the Conservatives' defence plan, part of their platform to, as the party put it, "Stand Up for Arctic Sovereignty."


Instead, the cabinet is considering a plan to buy six smaller ice-protected vessels instead of icebreakers.

The icebreakers are three huge and heavy ships, capable of plowing through thick sea ice well into the winter.

The six smaller boats proposed by the military appear to be less ice-capable, but much less expensive, as well.

"Much of the ice is starting to melt and the shipping season in the Arctic is getting longer and longer," said Pierre LeBlanc, the former commander of Canadian Forces in the North. "But nevertheless we should have a capability to operate in our Arctic waters all year round."

Leblanc says naval patrols would still need an icebreaker escort to get around.

"If you have an armed icebreaker, then you only need one ship to go there. If you have a less capable ship that needs to be escorted by an icebreaker, then you end up deploying two ships to do the same job."

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the smaller ships now under government consideration are a long way from what the Conservatives had promised.

"If, in fact, we're talking about six — sounds like frigates to me — it's not something that's going to patrol the Arctic, if that's what we're looking for."


Neither Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor nor officials from his department would comment on the proposed purchase Monday.

A spokeswoman for O'Connor said cabinet has yet to decide which ships to buy.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
With that new technology, it looks like the next gen will be significantly more capable than I was expecting given the size of the vessels.

My only hope now is Harper will fast-track contracting and get two ship building births up and running in the east, pronto.  Well not in Newfoundland.  Danny Boy deserves a quick kick in the nads instead.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Top