# Naval Icebreakers



## Kirkhill

> I'd like the navy to have its own icebreaker that way we would not have to go through the red tape of using CCG assets. Give it a light gun armament, 2 embarked helicopters and light crago capacity and we could help supply the northern communites while conducting patrols.



Waaay back in November of 2004 Ex-Dragoon posted the above comment.  I don't know if this is what he was thinking about at the time but the Conservatives' proposal for 3 icebreakers got me looking for what's available.  This is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard - a 6500 tonne ice-breaking patrol vessel with a Bofors 57, a pair of NH90s, *1a1 ice-breaking (1 m) and an open water speed of 17 knots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV_Svalbard
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html
http://www.marinetalk.com/articles_HTML/DNV00955403IN.html

Combines ice-breaking, with sovereignty presence, observation post, FARP for helicopters and possibly a hotel for Northern Troops on exercise as well as a transport vessel for over-snow vehicles.

PS that monitor for fire-fighting might also come in useful when dealing with Norwegian and Danish trawlers.


----------



## gnplummer421

I think fully equipped Icebreakers are an excellent asset for our Country. Combined with our subs (when they are all operational) it should be an adequate presence for our Northern area. Initially I did not key in on that part of the Defence platforms but it did become one of the reasons why I voted for them (Conservative)


----------



## mjohnston39

if you can read Norwegian:

http://www.skipsrevyen.no/batomtaler/6-01/1054.html

80M USD W/O helos and radar...

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mange Tak. ;D


----------



## gnplummer421

I took a look at that Norwegian link...nice looking ship. Would that be the type we would employ. I tried to figure out how much 574 or so million krone is. What is that in Cdn Dollars. Sounds like a lot, which probably means we won't see them. We will probably get the old Italian/german/canadian/multipurpose tug and we won't trial it because the price is right and all the politicians got a piece of the pie....oops there I go again...ranting....ohmmmm happy place....happy place.


----------



## mjohnston39

It works out to be about 100M CDN...

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill

At the price they are pretty reasonable.  Crewing isn't bad either, if I haven't garbled the translation to much it looks as if it carries a complement of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a helidet of 4 and room for an additional 75 passengers.  

The hangar is supposed to hold 2 NH-90s although they are only operating one Lynx until the NH-90s come into service.

She can navigate through one-year? (maybe multi-year?) ice of up to 1 meter but can punch through compacted ice up to 4 meters thick.  She is rated Det Norske Veritas Polar 10 class,  their highest rating.  Interestingly Langsten is as sister company to Kvaerner, both divisions of Aker.  IIRC Kvaerner built the Coast Guard vessel Leonard J. Cowley in Vancouver.  Ice Breakers in Vancouver, Transports in St. John's and AORs at Davie?  Not a bad election ploy and new kit into the bargain?


----------



## mjohnston39

Aker Marine (Masa Marine) designed the Leonard J. Cowley, the ship was built by West Coast Manly Shipyards Ltd. (whoever they are now I'm not too sure...). 

Mike


----------



## gnplummer421

100 million apiece, that actually doesn't sound too bad, so 300 million, plus add-ons and maintenance, still not bad. Let's see if the Conservatives stick to their promise, and hope they can get enough support to push it through parliament. I'm hoping Canadians have voiced a strong enough opinion about it that most MP's will make it a go....keeping fingers crossed.

Gplummer421


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the correction Mike.


----------



## mjohnston39

I think the conservative quoted something like 2B for 3 icebreakers and the deep water Arctic port, If the project does go through I would think that the ships the navy would get would be more substantial than the Norwegian vessel, even if built in Canada???

Mike


----------



## Kirkhill

OK.  Here's my best attempt at a translation of Mainer's article.  Some blanks but hopefully no major confusion of numbers and capabilities.

She is an ice-breaker, a tow-vessel, a fire-fighter, a pollution containment vessel, a heli-platform, a refuelling station, a transport for up to 75 passengers and two helicopters, a surveillance vessel and a command ship for fisheries protection, search and rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.   Provided with an NBC citadel and an operations center it sounds like.  

6300 tonnes, 103 m by 19 m with a 6 m draft and, if I understand correctly good for 1 m ice going forwards and 4 m ice in reverse.

Crew of 20 plus 28 and 4 in the helidet.

Price 101 MCAD

From other articles it appears she also has a 57mm deck gun.



> K/V “Svalbard”
> 
> -	Coast Guard Ship From Langsten
> 
> The new pride of the Navy, K/V “Svalbard” was taken over from Langsten AS on the 15th of December (2001?). The Coast Guard Ship is the Navy’s only ice-breaker and the largest vessel in the whole force.  This is Langsten’s build number 182.  The ship cost 575 millioner kroner (101 MCAD as of 24 Jan 2006).
> 
> 
> …..Minister of Defence Kristin Krohn Devold, with …. Kjell Inge Rokke and other dignitaries ringside.  (Rokke owns Aker which in turn owns Langsten).  It has taken eight years to realise this vessel, from when the project was begun at SFK in August 1993 to this day. So this was a big day, to have the ship handed over.  In 1993 it was intended that the new Coast Guard Vessel should be ready in 1997, but suddenly in 1995 production was stopped. That was a lack of money.  Then the force planning guidance de-prioritized the ship and from 1996 until 1998 it was uncertain if the ship would be completed at all.  But in 1999 it was put back into the plan again, and in December of that year contracts were let with Langsten.  Langsten has a solid tradition of building modern marine vessels. Amongst others the spy ship “Marjata” was built here.
> 
> The hull of “Svalbard” was built by Tangen Yards.  It is built in special steel and comprises at least 50,000 pieces and 40 sections.  By the 17th of February (2000?) the hull was launched and towed to Tomrefjorden in Romsdal, where Langsten finished the vessel.
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” is a gigantic vessel with a displacement of some 6300 tonnes, a length of 103 meters and a breadth of over 19 meters making it the Navy’s largest for the foreseeable future.
> 
> …….
> 
> The Coast Guard
> 
> ……
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” is classified as a Polar 10 Icebreaker by DNV (Det Norske Veritas), the highest polar ice class defined in DNV’s regulations and the most powerful icebreaker ever built in Norway.  The vessel is specially built for sailing in ice infested waters, and be able to operate in multi-year (year old?) polar ice with a thickness of up to one meter.  The northern Barents Sea, especially in winter time, will be the vessel’s primary area of operation.  The ship can also break ice ridges, back up and “screw guard (?)” about four metes deep.  (Not clear on this – may have to do with the azipod drive and the ability of similarly designed, double-ended ice-breaking tankers, to turn around and drive through ice backwards).
> 
> The vessel has also a De-Ice class notation, being equipped with an anti-icing system with a capacity of 1500 kW.  She has got 17 km of heating cable in all outside decks and the front of the boat to this purpose.  This prevents icing which can be a great problem in arctic (operations?).
> 
> K/V “Svalbard” has a helicopter deck and hangar and will have a helicopter on board when the vessel is out on patrol.  In the hangar there is room for two helicopters. The advantage of helicopters is that they can operate freely and relatively far from the vessel.  In addition to supervision and control of the fishery violations the helicopter is a really important resource for search, rescue and assistance.
> 
> The ship will bring to the Coast Guard many useful capabilities including ice-breaker, towing vessel and helicopter platform.  The vessel has really good capacity in search and rescue and can carry through “clean-up” (?) of polluted environments in the extremity (?)  (might also just mean that it can continue to operate in a very harsh environment).
> 
> Dimensions
> 
> Length overall		103.7 m
> Length post to post		  89.0 m
> Greatest width 		  19.1 m
> Draught (KVL)		    6.5 m
> 
> Tank capacity is about 500 tonnes of fuel oil and 200 tonnes of fresh water.  That is enough for 127 persons.
> 
> Class: DNV *1A1, Icebreaker Polar 10, RPS, F-A, E0, HELDK-SH, De-Ice, FiFi1.
> 
> Machinery
> 
> The ship is diesel-electric with a power plant of four Bergen Diesel BRG-8 engines, producing around 13,020 kW altogether.  Propulsion is provided by two Azipods, each of 5000 kW, which are classified Icebreaker Polar 10.  In addition ABB “provided” (?) a conventional Azipod of about 15 MW power output to obtain this classification.  RPS in the class notation means that the ship has “redundant propulsion separated”.
> 
> 
> The vessel is also outfitted with a Brunvoll bow-thruster (?). Harbour power generation consists of a Volvo Penta diesel engine of 1071 kW which drives a Stamford generator of 1339 kVa.  The pumping system is from Ing. Per Gjerdrum AS, the separators from Westfalia and the compressors from Sperre.  Heat exchangers are manufactured by APV and supplied by AS Norco Oslo.
> 
> Engine room isolation is by R&M Industries AS and the ventilation is by ABB Miljo.  …. is from Pyro and tank monitoring systems by ABB.  The engine room is fire-protected with the Argonite system from Heien-Larssen and an alarm system from Autronica.
> 
> Deck
> 
> The ship is notably outfitted with a helicopter deck and a hangar with room for two helicopters.  Also installed onboard is a helifuel-system, with outfitting for refuelling of each helicopter together with other types, both on the heli-deck and in the air.  The vessel can therefore function as a mobile platform at sea (and re-provisioning island?) for military and other helicopters on operations that would otherwise not be possible.  The advanced foam monitor system on the heli-deck is supplied by Heien-Larssen, but the Fi-Fi system is from Kvaerner Eureka.  The heli-deck is also equipped with gyro-stabilised in-flight reference system (light) and contour lighting,  “virtually making manning free operations (?)”.  Flight Centre has also been instrumented with a datalink to the Norwegian Meteorolgical Institute to supply weather reports.
> 
> The deck gear, including hatches, deck machinery such as anchor, vessel and towing winches are supplied by Hydrakraft.  The anchor and….is from Erling Haug, windows and light ports from Marine Aluminium, water tight doors from Winell and fire doors from Nor-Pro.  Davits from MOB-baten.  Deck and Navigation lights?  are from Tranberg, searchlight? From Norselight.  The ship is instrumented by a system from International Maling.
> 
> Interior and Miscellaneous.
> 
> The vessel is for a crew of 20 officers and 28 other ranks, with a four-man helidet. In addition the the ship has accommodation for more than 75 persons.
> 
> The interior is held “secure” as there is a gas citadel / over-pressure ventilation system where all incoming ship’s air will be scrubbed for radio-active, bacteriological and chemical contamination.
> 
> Interior work spaces are outfitted by R&M Industries.  TeamTech supplied the incinerator and Evac vacuum toilet system.  Electro-technicals consultant was Skan-El, but ABB Installations AS supplied the electric installation.  E0-system is the ABB Advant Station 500 series.
> 
> The electronic outfit was installed by Electronicon AS.  The outfit includes advanced instrumentation with air and surface radar, colour-, black/white and IR cameras, sonar …. for over and under water communication.  The system has the capability to record, store and present all this information real-time and time-delay (?), with “intention” (?) of documenting and evaluating incidents.  This gives the vessel a good capacity in the role of Command Vessel in large operations in connection with rescue, pollution and sovereignty operations.


----------



## Blue Max

There was a very interesting Discovery episode on working in extreme icy conditions. The best part of the show ( I thought ) was the explenation as to why the Finn's are the leaders in icebreaker technology today. 

Through much R&D the Finn's have come up with at present the best combination for an icebreaker, a AZIPOD drive housed in a ship that actually drives backwards through the ice. The ship in the show was a new double hulled tanker (not sure the name) but it was most impressive in that it had no trouble at all, without the help of a true icebreaker, thus was far more economical to operate.

This site is not exactly about the show but it does go into Finnish icebreaker/ship design technology...

http://www.hightechfinland.com/2004/newmaterialsprocess/kvaerner.html

*From Azipod® to double-acting ship*
Combining the advantages of electric propulsion with superb manoeuvrability, very low noise and vibration levels, and valuable savings in machinery space, Azipod drives represent a major step forward in ship propulsion – whether in the ice packs of the North- East Passage or the balmy waters of the Caribbean. The Azipod has also provided the inspiration for a totally new concept – the double-acting ship, a concept for which Masa-Yards has been awarded patents in a number of countries, including the U.S. and Russia.

Traditionally, when designing a bow, a ship designer has always had to balance the conflicting needs of good open water and icebreaking performance. If he focuses too much on good icebreaking capability, he pays a price in poor open water performance and bad sea-keeping properties, and vice versa.

The emergence of pod drives has changed all that, however. A fully rotating pod gives the designer a unique possibility to design the bow to be good in open water and the stern to be good at breaking ice.

The bow design of Masa-Yards’ doubleacting tanker (DAT) concept incorporates experience built up with conventional vessels, and is an efficient, ice-strengthened structure that is capable of turning in open water performance some 10-15% better than that of a conventional ice-breaking bow.

A DAT vessel enters a ridge field at slow or moderate speed, and lets its pulling propeller chew up the ridge and slowly pull the vessel through, without any need for ramming.

The first DAT cargo vessels fitted with Azipods – the Natura and the Tempera, two Masa-Yards-designed, 106,000 dwt tankers equipped with single 16 MW pods – were commissioned in 2003.

*Azipod propulsion enters its third generation*
http://www.hightechfinland.com/2004/newmaterialsprocess/abbazipod.html


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.scandoil.com/moxie/news/company_news/aker-yards-merges-kvaerne.shtml



> Aker Yards merges Kvaerner Masa-Yards and Aker Finnyards, the new company will be named Aker Finnyards
> Posted Wednesday, September 8, 2004
> 
> E-mail this page    Printer-friendly page
> 
> Aker Yards Group announced today that it will merge its two shipyards in Finland, Kvaerner Masa-Yards Inc and Aker Finnyards Inc. The new company will be named Aker Finnyards. The Aker Finnyards name describes Aker Yards shipyard activities in Finland. The new, operative organisation will take effect on January 1, 2005.
> 
> 
> Masa-Yards will acquire Aker Finnyards share capital and change its name into Aker Finnyards. In connection with the acquisition, the present Aker Finnyards will change its name into Aker Finnyards Rauma and function as a subsidiary to Aker Finnyards until next year, when the subsidiary will be merged with Aker Finnyards.



This conglomerate company is responsible for the double-acting tankers you alluded to, the Svalbard mentioned above, the Cowley of the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as OPVs for the Irish, New Zealand and other Navies

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_types.html


----------



## mjohnston39

IIRC the double acting tanker runs about 90M USD, there was a program on Discovery Channel about it and the azipod technology and how well it works in ice, pretty interesting stuff. Also this is an interesting read on the future of the Arctic and potential economic gains from the melting ice cap...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/healthscience/web.1010arctic.complete.php

Mike.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Waaay back in November of 2004 Ex-Dragoon posted the above comment.  I don't know if this is what he was thinking about at the time but the Conservatives' proposal for 3 icebreakers got me looking for what's available.  This is the Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard - a 6500 tonne ice-breaking patrol vessel with a Bofors 57, a pair of NH90s, *1a1 ice-breaking (1 m) and an open water speed of 17 knots.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV_Svalbard
> http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html
> http://www.marinetalk.com/articles_HTML/DNV00955403IN.html
> 
> Combines ice-breaking, with sovereignty presence, observation post, FARP for helicopters and possibly a hotel for Northern Troops on exercise as well as a transport vessel for over-snow vehicles.
> 
> PS that monitor for fire-fighting might also come in useful when dealing with Norwegian and Danish trawlers.



Hmm wonder where my consultation cheque is?


----------



## Kirkhill

Submit your request to Kjell Rokke ex-Dragoon.  If the boats are built it'll likely be his yards that get the commission.....besides he's got lots of cash and loves sailors.


----------



## mjohnston39

On a side note, the Americans don't seem to like Harper's plans for the North. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I gonna guess that Canadian public support for his naval icebreakers will now skyrocket...

Mike.


----------



## Kirkhill

Mainer:

Their nattering about it over here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39008.0.html


----------



## Lineman

G'day to all
Just observing from the "outside" but I had a couple of questions regarding the proposed icebreakers. Could an "AOR" capacity for the Subs be incorporated into the design to increase deployment time? If they did have this capacity would operating the Victoria class in our northern or at least the more northern coastal waters be possible?


----------



## Armymatters

Lineman said:
			
		

> G'day to all
> Just observing from the "outside" but I had a couple of questions regarding the proposed icebreakers. Could an "AOR" capacity for the Subs be incorporated into the design to increase deployment time? If they did have this capacity would operating the Victoria class in our northern or at least the more northern coastal waters be possible?



If your talking about making the icebreakers into a submarine tender, there hasn't been much of a need for submarine tender in many navies. The USN only has 2 submarine tenders, and both were built in the early 1970's, and plans are to retire them without replacement. With the increased size and automation of modern submarines, tenders are no longer as necessary as they once were. A modern convential submarine (say the German Type 212 submarine) can last for 4 months out at sea, with a crew of 27.


----------



## Navy_Blue

In a few decades the north will be open year round.  PM Harper although I don't agree with all his views made a point this week to remind our friends to the south who the north west passage belongs too.  Bravo Zulu Mr Harper!!!

Our IceBreakers would keep the passage open on off years and through the winter months and give us patrol capability.  I think they should start thinking about what we're gonna charge people to use this route.  If it is more cost effective than Panama we have a money maker there.

I wouldn't want to deploy up there for months at a time tho.  No good ports, restrictions on Booze when you do get ashore.  Not for me.  Keep up with the NATO's.  In every weekend to party with the Dutch woohoo!!  Best trip ever!!

I've said it before.  These new ships will not happen over night.  Unless they want to cross the harbour in Halifax and paint an old red and white tub grey we wont see these for awhile.    no one knows who these new toys will go too either.  CCG could get the mandate to have armed ships??  Not really likely but you never know.


----------



## Armymatters

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> In a few decades the north will be open year round.  PM Harper although I don't agree with all his views made a point this week to remind our friends to the south who the north west passage belongs too.  Bravo Zulu Mr Harper!!!
> 
> Our IceBreakers would keep the passage open on off years and through the winter months and give us patrol capability.  I think they should start thinking about what we're gonna charge people to use this route.  If it is more cost effective than Panama we have a money maker there.
> 
> I wouldn't want to deploy up there for months at a time tho.  No good ports, restrictions on Booze when you do get ashore.  Not for me.  Keep up with the NATO's.  In every weekend to party with the Dutch woohoo!!  Best trip ever!!
> 
> I've said it before.  These new ships will not happen over night.  Unless they want to cross the harbour in Halifax and paint an old red and white tub grey we wont see these for awhile.    no one knows who these new toys will go too either.  CCG could get the mandate to have armed ships??  Not really likely but you never know.



I think the CCG icebreakers should be pretty easy to modify, if you don't push it with equipment. Stuff like a pair of Mk 38 Mod 0 mountings for a pair of M242 Bushmasters on the stern of CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, plus a Bofors 40mm on the bow, and 4 pintle-mounted Browning M2's should suffice, while with CCGS Terry Fox, a Bofors 57mm cannon on the bow (or the Bofors 40mm, whatever is available), and a Bofors 40mm on the stern, plus a couple of M2 mounts on the sides. Some minor deck strengthing will be required, and the helicopters should be replaced with the Westland Lynx, which will be fitted with a Pintle-mounted C6. That should tide over until the new fully naval icebreakers arrive as promised by Harper.

Edit: How about installing the Rheinmetall RMK30 autocannon? The cannon is supposed to be recoiless. The manufacturer's website (in German) is here:
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/product.php?lang=3&fid=1112


----------



## Navy_Blue

Most of that gear when you add it up and talk labour for installation; would cost more than the CCG ship is worth.  I've been on the CCGS Henry Larson.  Its a big ship we used it as an AOR.  Not really any good places to mount guns.  You could put 50cals on the bridge wings and the Foc'sle.  Lower foc'sle kinda filled with boats and crains.  The high forward part would block your Arcs for a 57mm.  Really with this Idea just starting out; 50cals are all you need.  Cheap fix too.  Combine that with patrol aircraft, and the ability to send and F-18 to the area from cold lake or bag town you could deal with stuff for now.  

Now who's mandate does it all fall under?  Do we arm the CCG or does the Navy take the roll?  CCG wouldn't hand over they're big ships for this unless we're gonna take over some of there task till the ships can be replaced.  CCG personnel can be train up on how to fire a 50cal cheap and easy.  We consider them non military and it would take an act of Parliament to change that.  They don't even have the ships to keep Cherchill open longer they move there assets out of Hudson Bay in December.

If the Navy by some act of god were to get there hands on a ship like the Larson it would be an Ideal size not to big not to small. Add a better radar and some 50cals all you need in the short term.  You could go real old school and put the same 40mm the MCDV has up high on the Foc'sle.  An elevated gun shield and mount (above deck equipment).  Could maybe put one aft too below the flight deck? Cheap, easy to fabricate and quick too.

Heres the Larson; twice as wide as a CFP, all fuel, water and engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Henry_Larsen

Cheers


----------



## Armymatters

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Most of that gear when you add it up and talk labour for installation; would cost more than the CCG ship is worth.  I've been on the CCGS Henry Larson.  Its a big ship we used it as an AOR.  Not really any good places to mount guns.  You could put 50cals on the bridge wings and the Foc'sle.  Lower foc'sle kinda filled with boats and crains.  The high forward part would block your Arcs for a 57mm.  Really with this Idea just starting out; 50cals are all you need.  Cheap fix too.  Combine that with patrol aircraft, and the ability to send and F-18 to the area from cold lake or bag town you could deal with stuff for now.
> 
> Now who's mandate does it all fall under?  Do we arm the CCG or does the Navy take the roll?  CCG wouldn't hand over they're big ships for this unless we're gonna take over some of there task till the ships can be replaced.  CCG personnel can be train up on how to fire a 50cal cheap and easy.  We consider them non military and it would take an act of Parliament to change that.  They don't even have the ships to keep Cherchill open longer they move there assets out of Hudson Bay in December.
> 
> If the Navy by some act of god were to get there hands on a ship like the Larson it would be an Ideal size not to big not to small. Add a better radar and some 50cals all you need in the short term.  You could go real old school and put the same 40mm the MCDV has up high on the Foc'sle.  An elevated gun shield and mount (above deck equipment).  Could maybe put one aft too below the flight deck? Cheap, easy to fabricate and quick too.
> 
> Heres the Larson; twice as wide as a CFP, all fuel, water and engines.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Henry_Larsen
> 
> Cheers



I was thinking of using the larger Heavy Gulf Icebreaker's (the ones I have mentioned), especially CCGS Terry Fox, as she is a newer icebreaker, and has lower foc'sle, and a cleared stern deck. Basically, anything left in the naval weapons stockpile that can fit will be put on the CCGS icebreakers, so we can arm them on the cheap.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Basically, anything left in the naval weapons stockpile that can fit will be put on the CCGS icebreakers, so we can arm them on the cheap.



What naval weapons stockpile? If we are lucky we might have some extra barrels for the weapons we already have in service. If we are going to rearm/arm old/new icebreakers then lets be realistic. If we put a 57mm (like the CPFs) use then we would have to install a FC Radar. Some of the Nes OPs here might know of a version of the 57mm that is crewed but right now we would have to get a different system. Next point...why would we want to continuously use WW2 era 40mm? Lets be smart and buy new. We don't need big guns on a ship that will use to keep the seaways clear of ice beyond a light armament. The RN uses a crew served 20mm Oerlikon on most of their ships, something like that would be ideal, or we could go the Bushmaster route as was pointed out before. The icebreakers would be an _auxiliary_ not a warship. There is a difference.
   If we want a dedicated class of ice strengthened warship up there then we will have to either buy or build new.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Interesting article about modifying the CCGS Amundsen:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-harper1-2sb.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?



No, you modify it right now, and keep it until the 3 others get into service.


----------



## Navy_Blue

First off CCG can't spare the ships its got.  They would miss even one of the big ones (they only have 2).  I suggested 40mm and 50cals because they are available and cheap and could still put holes in things.  Considering all they would be used for in warning shots while the CO calls in the big guns (CF-18 and Patrol aircraft).  In this fantasy world stealing a CCG ship would be short term only.  3 new ships would be a 10 to 15 year endeavor.  We would have the capabilities we want when a new purpose build ship is in the water.  Fitting out the Terry fox with shinny kit won't happen.  If you wanted to be really cheap arm the CCGS's with 50's and leave the Navy out of the whole show.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Its an interesting idea but the ship is approaching 30 years old...why modify and then have to start from scratch within 5 years?



If the Peruvians can keep and modify a 53 year old cruiser till now, it can be done to a icebreaker. Ships can still float for a long time. It is a matter of how economical it is to keep them in service. Arming the CCGS ships with guns for now can be done without breaking the wallet, while you purchase new ships to upgrade capabilities or to add capabilities.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Considering it was kept around so long more for pretige then anything else I don't hold much stock in that. 30-40 yrs max for a ship.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Hello??? What you are not getting is the CCG does not ewant to be armed!


----------



## Navy_Blue

They don't want to be armed but it would make more sense.  Speaking in our fantasy world only.  Do they have small arms on board?? (pistol or a few shotguns)  50cals are not a big step up.  Politically it allows the gov to say we have armed icebreakers in the north.  Most of our public would believe that.  Its amazing how many people I've meet say "we have a navy???"  

Its not a question of gear or guns or cost in modifying a CCG ship.  The coast guard thinks its stretched now.   Churchill wants to stay open longer in the year and the CCG says its impossible bc they don't have the ships to stay in Hudson Bay past December.  They can't spare the ships to simply patrol the north.  

It all come down to a waiting game in getting new programs approved.  An expensive long term program could become an election issue like the EH101.  If the tory's don't keep things in balance they will be out sooner than later.  I just hope they can pull things like this together soon.


----------



## Armymatters

And to think that an ex-CCG icebreaker was on sale on eBay when they were yapping that they didn't have enough icebreakers...  
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/05/icebreaker050805.html


----------



## STONEY

Did you ever think that the reason the ship was on sale on e-bay was not because they didn't want it  but that they don't have the money to run it.  Secondly not all ice-breakers are created equal most of them are only usefull in only light ice conditions. Even the most powerfull icebreakers in the Canadian Coast Guard sometimes can't manage to get an icebreaking ferry (the largest and most powerfull in the world)into North Sydney N.S. let alone operate in the Arctic in anything except summer. The Svalbard type as suggested by Kirkill would be next to useless in the Canadian arctic as they only can handle 1 metre of ice. The Polar 8 Class icebreaker that was being designed (later cancelled) the last time politicians went through an arctic sovernity exercise could steam continuously in 8 metre thick ice and for the Navy to be able to stay in the arctic for anything except summer would require something of that capability. Build them in 5 years give me a break. It took 5 years to do the midlife update on the CCGS Louis S. St.Laurent.


----------



## Kirkhill

You’d know better than I would Stoney.  That is the reason I asked and didn’t propose.

Here’s the Itinerary for the conventionally powered, Wartsila (Finland) built Russian Ice-Breaker Kapitan Khlebnikov.  According to her literature: 
( http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/ships/Kapitan_Khlebnikov_ice_breaker.htm ) she navigates 1.5 m ice at 1 knot and has broken 3 m ice by ramming. Svalbard specs stipulate she can navigate 1 m ice, but doesn’t set a speed, and can break 4 m.

July 22-23 

Intersect Arctic Circle and International Date Line in Bering Straits and head for Point Barrow, the western end of the NW Passage

July 24-26
Herschel Island, MacKenzie Delta, Franklin Bay, Enter Amundsen Gulf

July 27-29
Cross Amundsen Gulf to Holman, Victoria Island then through Dolphin and Union Straits to Johansen Bay and Cambridge Bay.

July30-Aug 1
Western passage through Victoria Strait then up Larsen Sound along the Boothia Peninsula to Bellot Strait between the Peninsula and Somerset Island.  At that point the voyage may progress by way of the east or west coast of Somerset Island into Lancaster Sound.

Aug 2
Prince Leopold Island and Beechey Island at Eastern Entrance to NW Passage.

Aug 3-4 
Return to Resolute to disembark passengers and fly them out to Ottawa.

Total Planned transit time 13-14 days.

http://www.rei.com/adventures/trips/antarctica/arctic_nwpassage.jsp

Perhaps we could find something that could keep up with her.  Or that could operate a little farther north for a little longer than these:  The Thetis frigates from Denmark handle 0.8 m ice while the shrimp trawler (typical of what operates in Baffin Bay)  is 1A* vs *1A1 for the Svalbard.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/thetis/
http://www.maretec.fo/saleslist%20doc/FT257.htm

Do we need to be punching through ice in the dead of winter to proclaim sovereignty or do we just need to be able to operate up there for a longer season than any other vessels while controlling access to the NW Passage?  If we are there longer than the cruise ships, trawlers and tankers, and the competition's frigates,  aren’t we already ahead of the curve?  And if we post gate guards at the entrances to the passage do we need to be able to drive through them in all seasons?   Finally, it seems to me that a platform located at the Eastern Edge of Lancaster Sound flying a couple of Cormorants could supply SAR, Patrol and Boarding services over most of the Arctic Archipelago given the range of the Cormorants although Resolute would probably do just as well.

As to why we need to be concerned about the area, this article is one among many http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1127-03.htm

Cheers, 

BTW and FWIW I agree with you on lack of funding.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Its amazing how many people I've meet say "we have a navy???"



Oh yes it is amazing. When I tell people that I want to go in the army, they allways say something like:
''Huh, you will get killed, they will send you in Irak''
And then I say: ''The Canadian Army does not send troops in Irak.''
The person says: ''We don't have any army.''
Another responds: ''It is not that we don't have any army, it's that we are the only country which gets its soldiers killed even if we are not at war.''
The first person says: ''Relly? I didn't know that some of our army soldiers were killed recently.''
So the second person replies: ''Yes this guy from the submarine the other day.''


----------



## Navy_Blue

I think Kirk hill has it right.  Gate guards (with good to very good ice capability) and Air assets.  The only issue I c with gate guards is other peoples subs we should know what is on the go under water too.  That is were the listening post come in I guess.   

The quickest way to do all this is to let the coast guard try and stretch its assets and take this job for the time being.  2 billion $$$ on a deep water port on a dead end Island is not money well spent.  You could buy two ships and pay for fuel to run them out of Halifax and still have change for a coffee after 2 years.

This can all be done cheap and effective.  Eyes are more important than brute strength in this case I think.  

I'm beginning to think this will be the most important challenge to our claim on territory since 1812.  It wont come to blows but I think it will be nasty.


----------



## STONEY

One must keep in mind some history here. Studies for a true polar icebreaker were started as early as 1971. In 1973 the Coast Guard requested Canadian and foreign companies with proven expertise to design a Class 7 icebreaker(one capable of continuous progress at 3 knots in 7 ft thick ice). By the time designs were completed in 1975 the world had experienced its first oil crisis so it was decided to look into a nuclear powered Class 10 and the design of such a powerplant was subsequently completed but then Cabinet directed that a less expensive conventionally powered Arctic Class 8 vessel be constructed. So design work was began again with a new design ready by 1985.
In 1987 the government announced that a Polar 8 icebreaker would be designed and built at Versatile Pacific Shipyards in B.C. to be delivered in 1992. In 1990 before the keel was layed the whole program was again cancelled as a government cost reduction. Needless to say the effect on people who had worked for 20 years or more on the project can be imagined. The polar 8 would have been by far the most powerful icebreaker in the world. Displacement would have been 39,000 tonnes and power 107,000 shaft horsepower and would have carried 13,000 tonnes of diesel and 875 tonnes of aviation fuel. So you see  we have been there before , announcements by government are cheap i'll believe it when construction is actually underway.


----------



## Kirkhill

Fair 'nuff Stoney.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

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.


----------



## Armymatters

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...


----------



## Kirkhill

Point heard Ex-dragoon.


----------



## Kirkhill

> 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...



Just out of curiosity Armymatters - did you read the opening posts on this thread?

Cheers.


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity Armymatters - did you read the opening posts on this thread?
> 
> Cheers.



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).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

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.


----------



## Armymatters

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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.



I acutally study Strategic studies and history, so I study foreign policy and defense policy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

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.


----------



## TAS278

Sure it does. Yarrrrrr matey. Thar she blows


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## Navy_Blue

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???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Very valuable input Colin.


----------



## STONEY

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

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.


----------



## ChopperHead

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## ChopperHead

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)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ok you will have to explain how a hovercraft manages to break ice. Correct me if I am wrong but hovercraft ride a cushion of air trapped in their plenum....besides I thought all the CCG hovercraft were based out west and used for navaid and rescue missions.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok you will have to explain how a hovercraft manages to break ice. Correct me if I am wrong but hovercraft ride a cushion of air trapped in their plenum....besides I thought all the CCG hovercraft were based out west and used for navaid and rescue missions.



They produce a wave (similar to the bow wave from a ship).  They approach the ice over open water and ride up onto it, causing the wave to undermine the ice -- a bit like a torpedo displacing the water from under the hull of a ship.  I understand that it's only effective on first-year ice.


----------



## ChopperHead

basically Ice is not solid, it has millions of tiny little holes in it anyway when the hovercraft goes over the ice it disterbes the water beneath the ice and cause a sort of wave and the ice breaks. you can do this at very fast speeds.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks guys that makes sense.


----------



## Torlyn

Lt, when you say it's only good on first year ice, is that becaue 2nd year ice is thicker, or because the ice itself has an increased density and won't transmit the wave anymore?  Just curious.  Wish I still had the Discovery channel...  

T


----------



## ChopperHead

the ice doesnt tranmit the wave. the ice has nothing to do with it. it's the water under the ice where the wave is. second year ice would just be thicker.

which what Im wondering if a large Hovercraft could do it. the ones the coast gaurd use are relativly small. 4 man crew I think.


----------



## Neill McKay

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> which what Im wondering if a large Hovercraft could do it. the ones the coast gaurd use are relativly small. 4 man crew I think.



Here's a link to the Coast Guard fleet list.  The hovercraft are at the bottom.  There are two in Quebec and two in BC.  (I don't think the ones in BC do a lot of icebreaking...)

http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/main_e.htm


----------



## ChopperHead

ya I was right. 4 man crew. those are awefully small. I think they just use them on the saint lawrence sea way.

Still I wonder if one say 5 times as large would be able to tackle thicker ocean ice. 
Im not an engineer or Nautical in anyway so I have no idea. Just something to consider though. 

It's not written in stone that we have to approach icebreaking in the convential means. Im sure that if we gave some funds to R&D they could probably come up with something viable. Maybe a giant ice melting laser for instance lol  ;D


----------



## Neill McKay

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> ya I was right. 4 man crew. those are awefully small. I think they just use them on the saint lawrence sea way.
> 
> Still I wonder if one say 5 times as large would be able to tackle thicker ocean ice.
> Im not an engineer or Nautical in anyway so I have no idea. Just something to consider though.



Sometimes an outside perspective helps to solve a problem -- people who do something for a living can sometimes get into a limited mindset and forget to think "outside of the box".

Speaking very generally, it isn't always possible to scale machinery up.  It could be possible to build a hovercraft, say, one and a half times the size of the current ones, but it might become impracticable to go beyond a certain size because the size of the required engine might become unreasonable (for example).  Another hindrance to breaking heavier ice by hovercraft might be that the ice would close up before the ships could get through (since the hovercraft would be zipping along many miles ahead of the ships it was escorting).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG uses the AP1 –88 hovercraft in two different sizes each craft has two lift engines and two thrust engines. The larger 400 class will carry a fully loaded pumper truck.

The hovercraft creates a depression in the surface of the water and will create it’s owns bow wave up to around 15-20 kts after which the hovercraft can break through the wave and become a truly “dynamically operated craft”, we call it “hump speed”. It is this effect that is used for breaking the ice, the craft stays just below hump speed, creating a significant bow wave, the wave travels under the ice both lifting the ice and removing support from it and the weight of the craft contributes to the cracking process. This is used to prevent ice jams in the rivers back east, but I seem to remember that the effect is limited to a certain thickness and would have to be new ice. Hovercraft can not operate in an area with heavy ice ridges. But Hovercraft do benefit from scaling up as they can carry significantly more weight, but the limiting factor is your ability to jack it up to do skirt repairs.

The drawback of this effect is called “shallow water effect” where the bow wave becomes significantly higher in shallow water and will prevent the hovercraft from breaching it’s own wave. This effect was more prevalent in the older, smaller SRN6 hovercraft with one engine and if you watched them you would notice that the pilot will climb up onto the beach to pick up speed before crossing into the water. Hovercraft will actually go faster over land, ice than water, but the SRN6 was limited to 30kts (max speed when new was 60kts) over land in case of engine failure  I spent most of my time in SRN6 hovercraft and the AP1-88 came in just as I changed jobs.

The Royal Marines use the Griffion, about the size of a SRN6

By the way real men drive SRN^’s the AP1-88 are for pussies!!!  ;D ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin:

Could you comment about the use of air bubblers on conventional icebreakers,  and also about the use of the Azipod propellers on these double-ended ice-breaking tankers?  I believe in both cases the idea is to undermine the ice, just as the hovercraft does, weakening its supports so that it is more inclined to break.  Were these technologies available in the 1980's when the Polar 8 Class icebreaker (8 feet or 2.2 m?) was proposed?  Do they make a given ship more capable now?  I note that the Polar 8 was budgeted at about 450 MCAD in 1980s dollars while the Norwegian and US boats designed to work in ice about half that thick seem to be more in the 100 MCAD current dollars range.

Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don’t know anything about the azipods and ice, but the purpose of the bubblers built into the hull is to reduce friction between the hull and the ice, allowing the vessel to maintain momentum. I think the first version of this came from Finland. Some countries have also used “ice breaking” barges that strapped onto the front of a regular ship.

Here in Canada we use “bubbler systems” which are plastic pipe strung underwater which air is pumped into and then bubbles up through holes to hit the ice above, this helps corrode the ice and slows the forming of ice. This is normally done to keep ferry routes open, I think the longest is in Williston lake and is over 4 km long. 

The last time I looked at cost, the money we spent on the “Louie” could have built a new breaker in Finland, I did see a model of the Polar 8, it had a SRN6 hovercraft on davits on the Starboard side I think. Tried to find a picture, but no luck so far. I did see the only “real part” of the Polar 8, a chunk of hardened steel that sat in the back 40 of the hovercraft base approx 4-5” thick that was used for testing.


 A couple of interesting links

http://www.dieselduck.ca/library/articles/russian.htm

http://www.looksmarteurope.com/p/articles/mi_qa3760/is_200210/ai_n9130313

http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/crysys/education/photogallery/photogallery_edu_e.cfm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Labrador_(AW_50)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard:  

















General Characteristics 
Displacement: 6500 tonnes 
Length: 103.7 m (340.2 overall 
89 m (292 ft) waterline

Beam: 19.1 m (62.6 ft) 
Height: 8.3 m (27.2 ft) 
Draft: 6.5 m (21.3 ft) 
Power: 4 x 3390 kW BRG-8 diesel generators 
Propulsion: 2 x 5 MW Azipod electric motors 
Speed: 17.5 kn 
Range:  ? 
Complement:  ? 
Aircraft: Capacity for two helicopters; 
one Lynx carried initially, NH90 from 2007

Radar: EADS TRS-3D /16 ES with IFF 
Gun: Bofors 57mm, 12.7mm 
Cost: 575 million NOK* (80 million USD)*, radar and helicopter not included 

Importantly, how is it the Norwegians were able to build a single vessel for $80 million and as soon as we start talking about building (3) in series that suddenly the base price is $400 million per vessel?  Are our defence contractors just picking out numbers they think they can get away, or is the $400 million a combination of life cycle costs, radars and helicopters?


Matthew.  

Note:  Reference Information gathered at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV_Svalbard


----------



## Armymatters

What can of ice can she handle?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Up to 1 meter....although if that's not enough, if were ordering (3), you could probably get that specification bumped.


M.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

Here you go Matt.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Importantly, how is it the Norwegians were able to build a single vessel for $80 million and as soon as we start talking about building (3) in series that suddenly the base price is $400 million per vessel?  Are our defence contractors just picking out numbers they think they can get away, or is the $400 million a combination of life cycle costs, radars and helicopters?



We tend to thru-life cost our kit up front.  In other words, we try to figure out how much in training, spare parts and infrastructure HMCS XXX is going to cost us for the next twenty years.  

I seem to recall from a post by Duey (who spent a tour in NDHQ trying to buy helicopters) that a quick rule of thumb for a twenty-year thru life cost on an item is to triple it's original cost.  Therefore, $80 million USD, converted to Cdn and mulitiplied by 3 is getting awfully close to $400 million...

I apologize to Duey in advance if I have misquoted him...

Cheers


----------



## GAP

Keep any vehicle, etc for 20 years, use & abuse a bunch, and you probably realistically looking at 3x the original cost. Sounds about right


----------



## GAP

A not too original thought, but when capital purchases like this are made for major components, are the total funds allocated (eg: 1.2 billion for 3 icebreakers even though original cost is 80+ million x 3 in allocating for 20 year lifespan) and the changes/repairs/upgrades done out of that money? Or each time there has to be major work done, they have to go through the budget system to allocate specific funding, then wait for approval?

I guess what I am getting at, does the government generally give them the basic units and then make the department chase the $$ for future projected work?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

This is getting a bit out of my lane, but my understanding (from OPDPs, way back when...) of defence spending is as follows:

Program X is budgetted at $1 billion for the next twent years.  You get a portion of that this FY to pay the contractor as they deliver your kit and build your infrastructure. This money would be delivered to DND in the Captial expenditure portion of the defence budget. Follow on years (as the equipment is used in service) is handled through the O+M portion of the budget.  The problem of course is that each FY is a standalone unit and money allocated for that year has to be used that year.  If not enough money is given to DND overall (pretty common occurence), the O+M budget usually gets shorted. 
At the beginning of the project, some smart guy figured out the to keep Program X going for 20 years, you need to spend $10 million/years in spare parts and overhauls (just rectally extracted those numbers for argument sake).  Because money is in short supply, the O+M budget gets divided up as far as it can go.  Your project only gets 5 million dollars.  You do the best you can...the kit gets run down and misses overhauls and updates...it costs even more money than budgeted now...death spiral begins...

Cheers!


----------



## GAP

That's what I was afraid of..thanks


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html
> 
> Here you go Matt.



Doh!  

I have no idea how I managed to miss that thread....


Matt.    :blotto:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

now all one happy topic


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Blackshirt

Norwegian Coast Guard Vessel Svalbard

Nice looking ship, I notice that the bow anchor winches are enclosed and the ship has clean lines, certainly reduces maintenance issues. 1m of ice would make it approx class 2+ icebreaker, which is what the CCG smaller breakers are. 

Seems like a lot of ship for such a small armament, I would expect it to carry something a bit more substantial.. A add on Ship to ship and ship to air missile system seems to make sense, along with a Phalanx style self defence weapon.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

For a naval icebreaker i don't think you need SSMs(perhaps fitted for but not with) and SAMs...maybe a larger caliber gun (76mm), a PDSM (recycled Sea Sparrows when the CPFs have all of theirs replaced by ESSM). I would personally think they would be more viable if used as a patrol/transport vessel. It should have some sort of troop lift capability, some sealift and IMO 2-3 helicopters. When there is no ice to break during the warmer months, they can be used to deliver supplies to the northern communities and for scientific research.


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm with Ex-Dragoon on this.

I think the real value of the ice-breakers would be as a floating platform, a relocatable base if you prefer.  It's not as if a battle in the ice is going to materialize rapidly.  The closing speed of two ice-breakers would make Nelson's fleet closing speed of 4 knots look like sprint.  As well the airspace overhead is likely to be benign at worst,  at best the Air Force is likely to supply cover and advance warning.

Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well I agree that it makes sense to be a floating base, a gun only ship will be at a distinct disadvantage against a vessel armed with missiles, The gun should be mounted and I also agree that 76mm should be the minumun. However the vessels should be designed to be quickly fitted with additional armment.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well I agree that it makes sense to be a floating base, a gun only ship will be at a distinct disadvantage against a vessel armed with missiles, The gun should be mounted and I also agree that 76mm should be the minumun. However the vessels should be designed to be quickly fitted with additional armment.



If you want a ship to be both a transport and a combat platform you will loose a lot of capability on either role. You want it to be more so of a combat platform then it will have rudimentary sealift and troop lift. If you want it to be a transport then you will see at best self defence weaponry. What Kirkhill and I propose I believe would suit Canada's needs more realistically and economically is the longrun.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> For a naval icebreaker i don't think you need SSMs(perhaps fitted for but not with) and SAMs...maybe a larger caliber gun (76mm), a PDSM (recycled Sea Sparrows when the CPFs have all of theirs replaced by ESSM). I would personally think they would be more viable if used as a patrol/transport vessel. It should have some sort of troop lift capability, some sealift and IMO 2-3 helicopters. When there is no ice to break during the warmer months, they can be used to deliver supplies to the northern communities and for scientific research.



Would you include an anti-submarine capability?


Matt.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Would you include an anti-submarine capability?
> 
> 
> Matt.



Nope,,,because as I alluded to in previous posts I believe this type of vessel will best serve us as a transport/patrol vessel. 

I think a problem is you guys are seeing it as warship where I see it more useful as an auxillary.


----------



## Kirkhill

> I... I see it more useful as an auxillary.



I agree.


----------



## Bert

The distinction between warship and auxillary is a good point.  There is little use
in making it a warship without the ability of providing effective air, land, and sea 
assets to support the vessel in a range of armed scenarios.  However, the arctic is
a massive area.  Assuming a number of vessels would be sheduled for routine 
maintenance, crew rotation, and be docked at port, how many ice-breakers are 
required to actively patrol the area as well as respond to incursions in reasonable 
time? 

This has been threaded before... 

Given the nature of government expeditures, would this not be better managed by 
the CG if the vessel lies in an auxillary/SAR/general role?  Not to rehash the CG
idea again, but if military ice-breakers cannot provide reasonable coverage 
and response in the north, it is not just as well to leave it to a civilian agency?


----------



## ringo

IMO the CG should operate these vessels, so what if they have a gun, train CG personnel to use it.
Defence budget does not need the strin of funding icebreakers which could be used in Gulf of St. Lawrence 
and as OPV's on east coast during Arctic winter.
Icebreakers should be designed to embark submarine rescue vehicle, and a pair of Cyclone helo's.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Problem is the coast guard doesn't want guns and they're budget is just as strained as ours.  

Looking in the current affairs section it looks like the Fed are just realizing what all this is going to cost.  Its sad really.  Shouldn't be able to make a promise that is based on assumptions and best wishes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG icebreakers are already busy and generally overtasked. There is no experience or will to take on armed interventions (to say nothing of the crews fitness level). To fulfill the farther flung sovereignty patrols and mandates, we will need to see an increase in both naval and CCG resources that are designed to operate in the region, it’s part of Canada and part of the military responsibility. It would be a cluster-f**k if they gave the navy a Polar 8 tomorrow with not enough crew and no experience operating up there.

As I said, lease a small breaker, borrow a 40mm and some MG's stick them on the deck, paint the ship grey, hire some CCG officers with ice experience, use the mix of Reg force officers, section heads, with mostly reservist deckhands and head North, gain experience, make mistakes, write the book and then expand the mission. We can operate a icebreaker 24hrs a day with 45 people or less, navy guys do longer deployments, so over the summer open water season you could do it with less than a 100 people and half of those are reservists. It would also give the naval reservists a mission to train for.


----------



## Bert

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm with Ex-Dragoon on this.I think the real value of the ice-breakers would be as a floating platform, a relocatable base if you prefer.  It's not as if a battle in the ice is going to materialize rapidly.  The closing speed of two ice-breakers would make Nelson's fleet closing speed of 4 knots look like sprint.  As well the airspace overhead is likely to be benign at worst,  at best the Air Force is likely to supply cover and advance warning.
> Cheers.



In this scenario, would you speculate having one or two of these vessels in the arctic (east and west) at all times or 
patrol through a partial year only?  If the government wanted to research areas of sub-surface activity or
monitor a larger area, then expanded radar, sonar and sensing acquisition technologies should be included 
in the design.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bert: I am as much informed about ice-breakers as I am about Balloons - so take this for what it is worth.   

My first inclination, with 3 ice-breakers would be to try to finish up the navigation season with one in Tuktoyuktuk/Invuvik area, one in Iqaluit and one in Halifax on refit.

As the ice opens up Halifax moves north to Baffin to join Iqaluit in open water patrols. As ice conditions improve Tuk moves east with shipping, Halifax moves west withs a shipping, both swap roles at Resolute or thereabouts and Halifax moves to Tuk.  Once in Tuk it patrols Beaufort sea.  

As the ice closes in, the vessel that was at Tuk winters at Iqaluit. The freshly refitted vessel stays in Tuk/Inuvik.  The vessel that was in Iqaluit the previous winter heads for Halifax for refit.

Repeat cycle as required.

Crews can be swapped on station.  Just as ColinP suggests - 2 or even 3 crews permanently assigned to each vessel.

Roles for the vessel:

Role 1 - show the flag, literally.  If the vessels did nothing else other than steam up and down the waters then they would be worth buying.  As noted previously with respect to land patrols and marching borders, their mere presence indicates that we believe we have a right to be there.

Role 2 - convince others that we alone have the right to determine who comes through those waters and under what conditions.  The primary concern is civilians fishing, hunting, prospecting and polluting.  To convince them all that is required is a "pop gun".  Because the Northwest Passage is through the ice it has more of the characteristics of a canal or a river than a shipping lane.  .......

My mistress's sweet dulcet tones call me away.... more to follow.

Wait out.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

OK, back for the moment.

As I was saying the Passage is more like a canal with clearly defined entrances/exits and few opportunities for vessels to do anything other than transit the passage.  This makes it easier to confront and monitor transient traffic.   Because most of the traffic of interest is civil then, in addition to the pop-gun, a boarding party and a helicopter or two would come in useful.

The vessel itself can operate as a "hotel" for troops, a C&C centre for ops, a facility for transporting troops in small boats for small scale amphibious ops, fire-fighting, tow vessel, rescue coordination, many other non-combat but critical roles.

I don't think it needs sensors, at least sub surface.  For starters breaking ice is noisy.  The ice is likely to damage hull mounted sensors and towing sensors through ice-infested waters would be a significant challenge.  The C&C centre should be able to receive and interpret data from remote sensors and the vessel could probably be equipped with UUVs and UAVs to assist in ops.

The ice will also likely keep the vessel to a slow pace so the vessel itself is not likely to be able to prosecute a sub-surface contact in any event.  The best it can do is place itself in a choke point and act as a launch and re-arming/refuelling station for ASW helicopters.

Also, I don't really see these vessels as Ice-BREAKERS in the sense of a Coast Guard vessel.  A Coast Guard Breaker is equivalent to a D9 Cat to bust trail.  These vessels need to be rugged enough to follow the Cat and not worry about the occasional stump/ice-floe left in its wake.

The Coast Guard still needs it Class 8/D9 Cat.

Cheers.

Edit: Further to the notion of canal/D9/blazing trail...if the Coast Guard were to guarantee a cleared route each season then perhaps traffic could be legitimately convoyed through in packets with the Navy providing "security" in the broadest sense of the word (the same sense as the RCMP and the OPP on the highways).  Civil traffic would seem likely to follow the cleared route.

If other Navies cared to challenge our right to act in waters we declare sovereign then we have got bigger problems than worrying about the weapons fit on the platforms we put up there.  On the other hand, it seems to me any threat would be so slow in developing and have so much difficulty extricating itself in a timely fashion that CF-18s from Cold Lake or Bagotville, or even CP-140s from Greenwood and Comox, could be usefully brought on station.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just thinking out loud, but the more I think about this, the more I think the bigger piece of the puzzle is actually political.

First, you need the kit, so build the heavy armed Ice Breakers with light weapons load-out as per Ex-Dragoon - QUICKLY.

Second, the Parliament needs to pass legislation declaring the Northwest Passage an environmentally-protected zone and set requirements for all ships passing through.  

Specifically:
i)  They must be escorted by one of our Ice Breakers as the lead ship - without exception or be subject to seizure and fine.
ii)  They must have double hulls.
iii)  They must carry proof of insurance that should they have an accident, they're covered for clean-up costs.  

In short, buying our icebreakers is far less important that declaring the rules of conduct for all other nations with the assets in place to enforce those rules of conduct.

Of note, I think that such a role sounds more like a Coast Guard Role than a Navy role, although I think adding a Harpoon-equiped Cyclone to the helicopter detachment (perhaps with 2 more transport versions of the same helicopter) would seem a good investment in deterrence.

I should add, that because I do consider the United States a key ally and someone we need to get on-board with this, that we offer a blanket exemption for nuclear submarine traffic so long as their Artic transits are part of North American Security Patrols and registered with the follow-on to NORAD, however only at the highest security clearance levels.


Thoughts?

_Matthew._


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Pssssst Matthew, Harpoons are only embarked on fixed winged aircraft so far, maybe Penguins ASMs....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Well then we obviously need larger rotary-winged aircraft, don't we?


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

IMO, I do not think ice breakers should be at the top of our procurement list.  I would put new helicopters and an amphibious assault ship ahead of it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> [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/quote]
> 
> If it was a bad ice year, would it not keep everyone else out as well?
> 
> For me, this ice breaker debate is about showing that Canada has both the will and the capacity to act in the Ocean waters north of 60.  We don't need a Aegis class cruiser strapped to an ice breaking hull to do it.  Just something carrying a reasonable, yet light armament (57mm or 76mm gun) that is, more importantly, capable of being a floating base.  We don't even need to operate regularily in the winter up there- no one else in their right mind would!  We just need the capability to go their in the worst weather, should we need to.
> 
> I like Blackshirt's idea of declaring the rules to the game, ahead of the game starting...


----------



## Kirkhill

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.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pssssst Matthew, Harpoons are only embarked on fixed winged aircraft so far, maybe Penguins ASMs....


 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.


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 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.



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.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

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.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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.


----------



## mjohnston39

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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

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.   ???


----------



## Colin Parkinson

mjohnston39 said:
			
		

> 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



No, most of the CCG fleet is class 2, the bigger ones class 4


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

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


----------



## newfin

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?


----------



## newfin

Sorry.  Here's the link.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/05/13/arctic-patrol.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

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.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

excellent news, it's aout time we put some money where are mouth is regarding the north.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

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.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

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".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

bubbling systems reduce the friction and HP needed, but ice is tough and brute force will be needed until we have a cheap death ray!


----------



## Kirkhill

The Svalbard and its double-acting, Azipod equipped brethren from the Kvaerner Yards use their propellers like augers to chew their way into ice ridges while backing into the ridge.  The Svalbard can handle ridges up to 4 m thick this way.  It doesn't use its weight like the Louis St-Laurent or the Healy.  It virtually drills through the ice.

http://www.sname.org/sections/texas/Meetings/2007/Feb/Potential%20Use%20of%20Ice%20Class%20Carriers.pdf


Edited to add presentation on Azipods - Beware - converted Powerpoint presentation.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.akerarctic.fi/publications/pdf/Poac99XOblique.pdf

And there is this idea - an assymetrical breaker that goes through the ice beam-on so that a small breaker can punch a path for a big ship.

But as the article says itself:

"For the initial creative phase it was the intention to forget all limitations, but in the end some restrictions cannot be avoided: *breaking thick ice requires brute force and power, and mass*, Azipod propulsion provides ideal means for producing these, and the Law of Archimedes must be obeyed."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem with using your props is that anything other than new ice is really strong, and a Canadian icebreaker had it's hull ripped open and the US Polar Star sheared a blade off of it's prop both from hitting old ice. River ice and open water multi-year ice are to different things.


----------

