# Ottawa proceeds with plan to build Arctic patrol ships



## Monsoon (14 May 2007)

Wow - this came seemingly out of nowhere:

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2007)

How so? The Harper government stated it wanted APVs for the Navy, now its acting upon it. Why is it a surprise?


----------



## safeboy43 (14 May 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> How so? The Harper government stated it wanted APVs for the Navy, now its acting upon it. Why is it a surprise?


Because all of our previous governments would still be talking about it 20 years later!


----------



## Exarecr (14 May 2007)

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


----------



## stfx_monty (14 May 2007)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2007)

Exarecr: Gaining the ability to put ships into the Arctic is not a waste of tax payer money, unless you are one of those that believe if its not green its not worth buying?

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


----------



## NCS_Eng (14 May 2007)

stfx_monty said:
			
		

> From a shipbuilding point of view this has the possibility to be a really great purchase if done right. If they time it right, they could use this class as the interim vessels needed to get the JSS shipyard through to the SCSC class, thus eliminating our shipbuilding problem in Canada.
> 
> From an operational point of view, however, I question how valuable this is. I think we need to capability, but only if combined with CCG icebreakers (I never liked armed icebreakers). If we only build these and not icebreakers, then we aren't any better off in my opinion. I also wonder if this class will be capable of deployment overseas, or if they will simply be the vessel that covers the area between the Kingstons and the Halifax class.
> 
> ...



We shall see.

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

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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

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


Matthew.   

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2007)

Why not just go for one caliber of gun and buy 57 mm for them, that way we will have one standard weapon across the board?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

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

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


Matthew.


----------



## Exarecr (14 May 2007)

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2007)

Personally Matthew it makes more sense to me to use weapon systems that we have current and standardize them vice introducing new ones.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 May 2007)

Nah...you know how those promises turn out Kirkhill. lol


----------



## NCS_Eng (14 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nah...you know how those promises turn out Kirkhill. lol



Only too well mate.  Cheers.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 May 2007)

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


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 May 2007)

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



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


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2007)

For more information on how Icebreaking technology has advanced since Joe Clark offered up his Class 8 breaker (8 foot = 2.6m?) follow this link:

kurs.hials.no/kpm/content/download/9073/139841/file/AkerArctic_MikkoNiini.pdf

It addresses double acting vessels with azipods and in particular the Svalbard Icebreaker.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 May 2007)

With that new technology, it looks like the next gen will be significantly more capable than I was expecting given the size of the vessels.

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


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 May 2007)

As long as the ships get built, within budget, delivered ontime and without a lot of faults then who cares where it is built?


----------



## newfin (6 Jul 2007)

Can West is speculating that the PM is going to announce the governments intention to go ahead with these ships on Monday at CFB Esquimalt.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b42ab4fa-3905-43df-9b26-431c2a95ac10

Hope so.  But like In Hoc Signo I am getting impatient with announcements and no sign of any construction.  I still do not understand why it takes years and years and years just to get to the construction stage for any project.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Sep 2007)

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070913/SHIPS13/national/national/nationalTheNationHeadline/11/11/33/


*New Arctic patrol ships not expected to have sonar *  
 By MURRAY BREWSTER  Canadian PressThursday, September 13, 2007 – Page A5 OTTAWA
 -- Canada's new Arctic patrol ships will likely lack sonar capability, forcing them to use other methods to detect submarine threats in northern waters, a project official said yesterday."They will not have the ability to detect submarines," Captain Ron Lloyd, a senior navy planner, said in an interview with The Canadian Press.Both the operation and even the installation of sonar equipment on the new warships may prove to be impractical, he said."You're talking about a ship that's going to run up onto ice and all of the noise that ice makes and still be able to detect submarines," said Capt. Lloyd, who is the former commander of the frigate HMCS Charlottetown."From our perspective we have not examined that as a potential [capability] for this platform."The warships, announced with fanfare this summer, are a pillar in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan to defend the Arctic against intruders and environmental damage.The navy is in the early stages of identifying the design and equipment for the ships, which are expected to cost $7.4-billion to build and maintain over their 25-year lifespan.The Defence Department hasn't settled on how many ships it will build, and the first one isn't expected to be delivered until 2013.Earlier this year a leaked draft copy of the Conservative defence strategy called for six ships, but the formal announcement in July said there could be as many as eight vessels that would also patrol the country's Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.Defence expert Dan Middlemiss said the purpose of the Arctic ships was to make sure "we know what's going on in our backyard."Leaving out sonar would be acceptable as long as "you've got something else that does that job for you," he said.In the last election, the Tories' defence platform promised a network of underwater listening posts in the Arctic. But the leaked defence strategy said only that the military would "investigate options" to develop such a system.American and Russian nuclear-powered submarines, the only type of boats capable of sustained operations under the ice, have been known to lurk in Canada's Arctic.The last incident occurred in 2005 when a U.S. submarine took a short cut to the North Pole, not notifying Ottawa until after the fact.Helicopters, which are slated to deploy with the new ships as needed, could also fulfill an anti-submarine role depending on the weather, said Prof. Middlemiss, who teaches at Dalhousie University's centre for foreign policy studies.Hunting nuclear-powered submarines is something that's usually best left to other submarines, navy experts say.Capt. Lloyd said the big advantage of the new patrol ships is that they will give the navy the ability to operate in all of the country's oceans, pending conditions, for the first time in many years.Since the Conservatives have put so much emphasis on defending the Arctic, Prof. Middlemiss said, Canadians will be expecting concrete surveillance measures."There are real military reasons for taking care of our own backyard a bit better and more convincingly than we've tried to do," he said in an interview from Halifax.In the past, Canada has experimented with underwater listening devices and even planned to buy $100-million worth of them in the late 1980s, but all of the proposals were dropped mostly because of the cost.The patrol ship program is a step down from the Conservative election promise to build three armed, heavy icebreaking ships.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2008)

A modified version of this might be an option for the AOPVs:

From the StrategyPage:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20080208.aspx
German Peacekeeping Warship
February 8, 2008: After six years of planning and construction, the German Navy received the first of its 1,800 ton K130 ocean going corvettes. These will replace S143/148 class coastal patrol boats, which were designed for combat along the Baltic Coast. The K130s are designed for moving long distances to support peacekeeping missions, or any other type of mission NATO might have outside of Europe. 
  
The K130 design is based on  design designated MEKO-A100 frigate. The K130s can remain at sea for seven days without replenishment,  and 21 days if they receive some resupply via helicopter. The K130s are still basically coast defense ships, but they are also built for long ocean voyages, and are able to proceed at 25-30 kilometers an hour in heavy seas. Top speed is 46 kilometers an hour. 
  
The crew of 65 operates a highly automated ship. Actually, crew size can be as small as fifty. Armament consists of a 76mm gun, two 27mm autocannons, two 21 cell Rolling Airframe Missile systems (for missile defense) and four RBS-15 anti-ship missiles. There is a helicopter pad, but only for landing and refueling helicopters. The ships can carry a small helicopter, and eventually the navy would like to have a pair of UAVs in the future.  Four more K130s are being built, and the navy would like to have at least a dozen of them.


----------

