Author Topic: Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS  (Read 442760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline N. McKay

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 11,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,255
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2007, 19:14:54 »
Why not roll the Coast Guard into the navy and share resources/shore facilities?They have some really nice training facilities that we can make use of training new personnel.

It was considered several years ago and rejected; but the DFO fisheries patrol fleet was merged into the CCG.  Some of the reasons presumably were that CCG members are cheaper to train than naval personnel (e.g. apart from officers, the Coast Guard doesn't take people off the street and train them from the ground up to be sailors -- Coast Guard ratings join with experience elsewhere.)  CF training costs a fortune.

Skill sets are another issue: why train all of the deck officers in the considerable number of Coast Guard ships in the strictly naval subjects when most of those skillsets aren't required in Coast Guard operations?

Also, the working conditions are radically different.  A person can join the Coast Guard as an officer and stay a seagoing officer until retirement if he wants to, while a reg. force naval officer will get his sea postings, but with staff jobs ashore mixed in (and more and more of them as he goes on).  My usual comment on the subject goes along the lines and merging the Coast Guard with the navy would be something like merging the fire department with the police -- different roles, different culture, different working conditions -- it's not much of a stretch to say that all they have in common is that they work in ships and wear blue shirts.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2007, 19:19:43 »
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2007, 19:29:35 by Ex-Dragoon »
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2007, 23:00:04 »
Easier for the Navy to gain the new capability then merging the CCG in with the Navy

Face it whether or not you agree with the Navy getting these ships, Ottawa has deemed it necessary to bolster our presence (read naval) in the Arctic. Canadians have been demanding that for years and what better way then have a the grey blue hull of a new Canadian ice strengthened corvette/OPV? The CCG is unlikely ever to be armed to enforce our claims and our borders, you need the Armed Forces to do that.

I agree with you that we need to bolster our presence in the arctic. I'm heading there in the near future as part of OP NANOOK. The ship i'm on presently has limited ice capability so we'll certainly have to watch ourselves. I think its great that i'll have the chance to sail on one of the new ice strengthened corvettes, I actually am hoping to get a posting to the project staff of these ships once the manning for them is announced.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2007, 23:36:40 by Stoker »
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2007, 20:52:51 »
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline FinClk

  • Scallywag
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 487
  • Ahoy, the chocalate chip kind.
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #54 on: July 16, 2007, 07:50:01 »
So what does everyone think of the deep water port the military wants to build up north? Where do you think it will be built? and I wonder how it will be staffed? Any thoughts?
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.

Online Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 739,037
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,872
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2007, 15:18:37 »
Going for Resolutte Bay due to its central locality on the Northwest Passage. I've wondered about staffing myself  and after reading varies articles on the matter do not believe there will be any large complement (at least not at the onset). Reason being that the article I read (which I can't find anymore) stated the ships would be based in Halifax & Victoria, and only proceed north while on patrol - which minimizes staffing requirements. And, as someone else mentioned, the ships would only be patrolling during the warmer months of the year, allowing for the manning to be done via temporary duty/attach posting instead of full time. However, who is to stay they would not use the facility to effect any type of Arctic Training with the other 2 services?

I fear that until more info is officially released (such as Canada First Defence Plan) it will be mostly left to speculation.

I would say Churchill because of the existing infrastructure, airstrip and access to rail would be a better choice. The ships could also get some 2nd line maintenance and fuel there as well. The ships would be based in Halifax and Victoria.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2007, 16:12:45 »
An interesting perspective....in which he highlights my biggest concern with our to-be-procured "ice-hardened ships".


Matthew.     :salute:

Quote
The true North may be strong, but the plan to protect it is feeble
By PETER WILSON 
Former director of informatics and communications, Nunavut Planning Commission
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 – Page A17

Stephen Harper touted his announcement last week of $3.1-billion worth of patrol ships for the Arctic as a declaration of sovereignty, and it is. But it's a declaration of sovereignty by Ottawa over the people who have lived in Canada's Arctic for thousands of years, not a declaration of our sovereignty to other nations.

The federal government plans to spend billions of dollars to create jobs in southern Canada by building patrol vessels for the North. When they're ready, around 2014, the "slushbreakers" won't actually be capable of operating in the Arctic year-round; they'll have to retreat to the South when it gets too cold for them up North. So midwinter would be a good time for other nations such as the U.S. or Russia to visit, because they have the capability to cruise through or under Canadian Arctic waters in any season and there'll be plenty of mooring space available at our new northern port.

When it's too cold for Canada's new ships to operate, we'll rely on "monitoring" the Arctic, using satellite images, interpreted by experts in the South, like some kind of video game. At least we won't get cold.

This is an embarrassment. There are many important things that only Canada can do in its Arctic - all of them assert sovereignty. And we can do them right now, for very little money.

Monitor and report on the Arctic environment.

Nunavut, a territory so big it would be the 14th-largest country on Earth, has no environmental monitoring program (despite the 14-year-old Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that calls for one). A pan-Arctic environmental monitoring and reporting program would tell the world that Canada understands and cares about its Arctic environment.

Provide better wildlife management.

We can only guess at the population of the two great herds of caribou in the North. The good news is that, after 13 years, the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board has cobbled together donations of cash and jet fuel from provincial and territorial governments, an environmental group, and industry - enough to conduct a survey of one of the two herds this summer. Surveying one herd every 13 years is a national disgrace.

Create a realistic search and rescue operation.

With commercial aircraft crisscrossing the Canadian Arctic, it's unacceptable to base Arctic search and rescue in Trenton, Ont. Trenton is closer to Quito, Ecuador, than it is to our military base at Alert. A northern-based search and rescue operation is a declaration of sovereignty and a service Canadians will increasingly need as northern development increases.

Let Northern people manage northern resources.

Nunavut doesn't have the talented people required to manage its lands and resources. Scientific and survey methods, satellite images, aerial photographs and geographic information systems are the modern tools of land and resource management. Add skills in these areas to the traditional knowledge of northerners and Canada will benefit from the type of responsible land use envisioned in northern land claims agreements.

Improve regulatory efficiency.

The North is rich in diamonds, gold, uranium, oil and gas, base metals, and much more, but mining companies complain that access is difficult because of the complicated regulatory environment. A national program that provided online map staking and a one-window Internet-based land-use application system would go a long way toward showing the world that we are administering our resources fairly and efficiently.

So, here's the plan. For a tiny fraction of what taxpayers will spend on Mr. Harper's patrol vessels, the federal government could operate a northern-based Arctic aerial monitoring program. Inuit and other northern residents could be trained to fly Canadian-built bush planes from community bases across the Arctic, from Labrador to Yukon. These small northern-based teams could provide regular, low cost, sovereignty patrols, general environmental monitoring, ice patrols, land-use permit inspections and enforcement, search and rescue, aerial photography and wildlife surveys.

There's a plethora of groups, governments and industries that need these services. Such a program would reduce duplication, provide the services and information required to manage resources and assert sovereignty over our North. It would increase the efficiency of access to land by resource developers, and provide training and employment for northerners. The entire plan could be set up and operated for less than 5 per cent of the cost of the patrol vessels announced last week.

The only catch: We might get cold in the winter.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070717/COARCTIC17/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/



IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,207
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2007, 16:32:49 »
Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways. 

International offshore boundaries are also still not settled, nor use of seabed resources.  But these will settled on the basis of customary and treaty international law, not the patrolling of vessels.   The situation in the waterways we consider "domestic" (and practically everyone else disagrees) will also eventually be settled under international law; being able to maintain a presence there at most times (which only new CCG icebreakers could do) might help our case but is not likely to be determinative.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline N. McKay

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 11,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,255
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #58 on: July 17, 2007, 22:11:17 »
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 17,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 444
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #59 on: July 17, 2007, 22:25:27 »
I would like to see the encounter between a foreign icebreaker and a hypothetical Canadian one while each is making its way through the heaviest ice it can handle in the dead of winter.  Is there any realistic possibility of any sort of tactical manoeuvring, or would it only be a matter two lumbering ships bumping along at a few knots, sort of like one turtle chasing another?
For some strange reason I have a vision of Hippos dancing?
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline Greymatters

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2007, 11:50:30 »
Mr Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about.  Other than Hans Island there is no claim to, or territorial dispute over, any of our Arctic land.  So most of what he's writing about is completely irrelevant to "Arctic sovereignty" which is only in question with respect to waterways.  

I think he is refering to the is recent challenge here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=464921
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=41c21a5a-d645-4108-b5ce-2df30551470e&k=15448

Now, I couldnt find it on the net, but the original news story showed the Russian arctic claim reaching into Canada's northern islands based on continental shelf projections.  Nearly every map Ive seen since then has different claim areas.  Its uncertain at this time just how much land the Russians are attempting to lay claim to.

Offline WarmAndVertical

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 59
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2007, 17:58:43 »
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away

"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work." ...Condi Rice (and me, on the next TEWT I attend!!!)

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,207
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #62 on: August 13, 2007, 16:49:23 »
This makes sense to me--and then the patrol ships could be redesigned to be much more capable vessels, to replace or supplement the MCDVs, without a serious icebreaking capability

New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=852819

Quote
While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.

In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.

Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:

• Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.

• Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.

• Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.

• Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.

• Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)

• The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.

The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.

New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers...

Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #63 on: August 14, 2007, 00:55:49 »
I think it remains an absolutely insane place to invest scarce $ as long as the Coast Guard demands to continue to remain an unarmed service. 

Sovereignty isn't only being there....it's demonstrating an ability to defend said area.  Spending $600 million on an unarmed unionized vessel versus $1 billion on an armed military vessel is apples & oranges in terms of your ROI. 

In case no one else has noticed, the Russians are really ratcheting things up with their long-range bomber flights and all indications are they are only going to get more, rather than less aggressive in coming years.  To plan on things remaining as per status quo has never been wise.  The trend unfortunately is for increased tension and as such putting unarmed vessels into that environment (if the union drivers will even agree to go which sadly is something that needs to be considered if tension levels do ramp up) borders upon negligence.


Matthew.    ???
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #64 on: August 14, 2007, 12:14:34 »
Agree Matthew(lol thats a wierd occurence :D )Personally I think if a ship will be used in the law enforcement role or perform any naval mission it should be armed. The CCG should drop any sort of enforcement from their mandate totally.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline cameron

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 393
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #65 on: August 15, 2007, 11:46:23 »
I too have to agree completely with Matthew.  At a time when Russia is ratcheting up tensions, in the Arctic and elsewhere, an unarmed icebreaker would be  unrealistic and inadequate for defending Canada's arctic sovereignty.  As far as i'm concerned as long as the Coast Guard refuses to take up a more aggressive mandate then guarding Canada's arctic should rest squarely with the navy.

I should also point out that a few months ago I started a thread expressing my concerns that the war in Afghanistan, as completely justified as it is, seemed to giving some of our leaders tunnel vision and our navy was being neglected.  Let's hope the very loud and threatening growls being made by the Russian bear will be a wake up call to them.

Also while the new Arctic/Offshore patrol ships and FELEX program for the Canadian Navy are welcome news, much more needs to be done if Canada is to have a credible naval deterrent to any designs the Russians and others have on her arctic territory.  I argued in another recent thread that it takes too long for new ships to be brought to the fleet.  I see no good reason why Canada couldn't be at the same stage of progress as Australia right now when it comes to acquiring a next generation frigate/destroyer.  In fact it would have made sense for Canada to cooperate with the Aussies on their AAW destroyer (each party of course tailoring a ship to meet their unique needs), this would give the Canadian Navy a capability it needs (and which it needs now more than ever) much sooner at much less cost, we still have too long a wait for the SCSC to become a reality (if it isn't axed before that happens). 

Canada also needs a credible submarine deterrent.  I'm not talking about nuclear subs here, as we all know a good diesel boat is a significant threat to even the most powerful destroyer, cruiser or aircraft carrier.  In the face of Russia's advances in the arctic Canada needs subs THAT ACTUALLY WORK.  Having a boat with great capabilities on paper is no help. 

Last of all let me repeat a point that i've belaboured before, when making budget cuts politicians (and some military leaders) need to seek expert advice and analyse the long term picture, not just current threats.  Just a few years ago the possibility of a showdown between Canada and Russia in the arctic would have been scoffed at by many.  And just a few months ago many were arguing that the only likely battleground the CF would find themselves engaged on is in Kandahar.   Just because on the 15th of August 2006 there doesn't seem to be any apparent adversary that would challenge the Canadian Navy or Air Force in Canadian territorial waters or airspace doesn't mean that will be the case on 15th August 2007.
"All men dream: but not equally.  Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible."

Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence of Arabia

Online STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 193
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #66 on: August 15, 2007, 14:55:57 »
1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.

2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

3. You are really dreaming if you actually think any Arctic disputes would ever be decided by anything other than international tribunals.

4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required

5. Just what would Navy icebreakers do in the Arctic besides steaming around in circles boring their crews to death. The Coast Guard has many essential jobs it does in the Arctic , in fact usually more than it has ships for that just can't practially be done by the Navy.

6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.

7. Remember when the Navy had a ice breaker , HMCS Labrador it was fitted for but not with weapons and after a very short period the Navy realised it really didn't need it and gave it to the Coast guard who used it for a further 30 odd years. You may want a Navy icebreaker but i doubt very much the Navy agrees with you. Now the Coast Guard is a different story , they would really like to have some new Heavy Icebreakers if the Government would give them the money to operate them. Canada's present largest icebreaker spends a great deal of time alongside because the Coast Guard doesn't have the funds to operate it as much as it would like. As a matter of fact the ship along with the only other large icebreaker is due to move to another region of the country because the government has sold its old operating base along with 2 other Coast Guard bases in the Maritimes.  So in a few years the Maritimes went from 5 large icebreakers to 0 and the rest of the fleet wasn't spared either. For the Gov. to pretend interest in the arctic again ( its happened before but fades after a couple years) it has a funny way of showing it.

Cheers

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,207
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #67 on: August 15, 2007, 15:18:37 »
Stoney: Exactly.  And as I have pointed out several times at various topics, CCG vessels do carry armed RCMP when necessary--now regularly on the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes--and presumably could act as a platform for CF personnel and their weapons (including mounting machine guns) if that was considered necessary.

The idea that our Navy, even if capable, would engage in a shoot-out with the Russians or Americans (or Danes) in the Arctic is simply silly.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #68 on: August 15, 2007, 16:01:17 »
I am glad your crystal ball is better then mine but to totally discount we won't be muscled out of the Arctic by the Russians or anyone else borders on stupidity. We need to prepare for the worse case scenario just in case the fit hits the shan. If we don't, we up the chance we lose people. Who knows in the future who will also decide they want a claim in the resources of the Arctic, you just cannot dismiss the possibility so cavalierly.

As for only small armed equipped ships in the Arctic, last I checked the Thetis class carried a 76mm.

One of the Zoomies will verify this but I think the CP140s lost their capability for fire missiles a long time ago...
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 16:05:43 by Ex-Dragoon »
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,354
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #69 on: August 15, 2007, 17:35:08 »
Stoney and Mark:

The Danes are armed with guns so as to "out-gun" trawlers from Spain, Portugal, Iceland, the US, Russia, Norway and Canada. 

Their sailors get "bored silly" cruising in circles defending Denmark's right to lay claim to Lomontsov Ridge and Hans Island, just as their soldiers get bored silly doing Sirius Patrols of the Coast of Greenland.  They do it because they can and it works when laying claim in court.  (It'll be a heck of a thing if the Danes prove that the Lomontsov Ridge CONNECTS Greenland to Russia.  Will Denmark lay claim to Russia?)

Most sovereignty patrols are boring - as are most night-watchman's jobs.  That doesn't mean they don't have to be done.

Cruising in circles to support fisheries and anti-smuggling operations in the Open Water EEZ or the High Seas is also boring.  They also need to be done.

I don't care if these vessels WERE bought to:

"...spend the bulk of there (sic) time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments."

Or that:

"They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters."

As you say:

"... given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened."

As I have said, the primary advantage of them is that they are "platforms/tin-cans/tupper-ware containers" with motors and flags manned by people who EXPECT to have to close on people shooting at them - and here I am talking about criminals and terrorists armed, potentially, with weapons that could include ATGMs or even SSMs. 

It seems reasonable that if this platform can supply 80% of Gordon O'Connor's "Canada First" Intent AND 80% of what the Navy wanted for an OPV that was both domestically effective and deployable AND would free up the CPFs for overseas deployments then it justifies itself as a useful buy.

You are right.  It is silly to envisage the Louis St-Laurent trading shots with the Healey.  It'd be worse than Fontenoy or Trafalgar - a 4 MPH approach speed and no room to manoeuvre. Just sit there and slug it out.  Tain't gonna hoppen.

Besides the Americans aren't bothered about meeting our Navy in the North.  They are bothered about NOT meeting our navy in the North and having the place open to the use of other, less friendly individuals.  And they have already demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq a willingness to "mow the neighbour's lawn" if the neighbour isn't taking care of it to their satisfaction.

BY ALL MEANS (sorry for the caps) buy new, heavier, unarmed breakers to maintain the CIVIL infrastructure up north - clearing industrial sites and navigable routes.  By all means they should have helicopter platforms and hotels on board.  And, by all means, make sure there is an RCMP/DFO det on board to enforce the laws.

However we all seem to be forgetting the "Reach Back Principle".  Properly applied it means the "night watchman" doesn't need to be armed.  He can reach back for assistance from an armed policeman on patrol in the area.  If the policeman can't get the job done he reaches back for an infantry platoon.  If that doesn't work time to call up a LAV Company, then an Armoured Battle Group, then Air Support, etc (mix and match to suit your tastes).

All of which supports your contention that the Breakers don't need to be armed.

It also supports the need for the NAVY to be able to operate in your vicinity.  If it can't patrol in your Area of Operations, if it can't deliver heavy weapons to your Area of Operations then, when you "reach back" there will be no one there to hand you the support you need.

As to the Navy not being able to operate in your Area of Operations I would suggest that you figure out how to help them get up to speed fast.

Their lack of experience is a result of both lack of appropriate kit and lack of interest.  Interest now seems to be there and kit seems to be coming.

And, once again, I hope that you get your heavy, unarmed, ice-breakers.  There's work for them. 

There is also work for the A/OPVs that is separate from your requirements.

Cheers.





« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 17:40:08 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #70 on: August 15, 2007, 23:09:19 »
I'm just wanted to address two key points you raised:

1. The Coast Guard has more experience in operating in the Arctic in one year than the Navy has in the last 25 years. When the Navy has ventured north it has had to rely on the Coast Guard to keep it refueled. It will take many years for the Navy to develope the Knowhow to operate safetly there.

Which is why DND hires the senior people who do know the area like the back of their hands as trainers/advisors and you disseminate that knowledge

Capability does not need to be, and should not be stove-piped, nor ever used as an excuse not to re-allocate responsibilities.

2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

I think pre-emptively abandoning military dominance over an area we're supposedly laying sovereign claim to, only invites others to bully us in that region, which in turn heightens, not reduces the likelihood of future conflict.


Matthew.    :salute:
« Last Edit: August 15, 2007, 23:17:05 by Cdn Blackshirt »
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,207
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2007, 15:56:13 »
The Economist assesses Arctic realities (good map):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012
Quote
...
 For all the historic resonance of Russia's flag-planting foray, the current dash to the Arctic is not—or at any rate, not yet—a simple race to create “facts on the ground” which can then be consolidated, and if necessary defended, by military power. It has more to do with the establishment of legal arguments, which have to be shored up by scientific data.

All the parties with a claim to a slice of the Arctic are intensely conscious of the terms of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is supposed to regulate almost all human uses of the high seas, from fishing to mining. Under the convention, governments can lay claim to an economic zone up to 200 nautical miles (370km) from their coast—or further, if they can prove that the area in question is an extension of their own continental shelf. Precisely such a claim is made by Russia with respect to the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches from the Russian coast to Greenland. And this week's Scandinavian expedition may lend support to a claim by Denmark that the ridge is connected to Greenland, which is under Danish sovereignty. “There are things suggesting that Denmark could be given the North Pole,” as the country's science minister, Helge Sander, eagerly puts it. The Canadians, for their part, say the ridge could be an extension of their own Ellesmere Island.

Such a cacophony of arguments could keep lawyers and geographers busy for decades. So why the hurry? Because any country that wants to make a claim under the Law of the Sea must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia's deadline is 2009. Canada must set out its case by 2013, and Denmark by 2014.

As for the United States, it respects the convention in practice but has not ratified it, because some senators fear a loss of American sovereignty. The bodies created by the convention—the International Seabed Authority, and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea—worry conservative American groups like the Heritage Foundation which fear global bureaucracies.

These objections may soon be overcome: the Bush administration, along with moderate Republican senators like Richard Lugar now want to sign up to the convention and start making America's case.

But between setting out a claim under the Law of the Sea and enjoying the fruits of ownership there is a long route to be trodden. An agency called the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf decides on the merits of the case, but it has no powers of enforcement. A ruling may lead to counter-claims by other countries. In the end, bilateral talks may be needed; they can last for decades. There have been calls, over the years, for a more sensible way of dividing up the Arctic—but as the prizes look more tantalising, setting rules for the game will probably get even harder...

 Take the Northwest Passage, to which the newly proclaimed Canadian port of Nanisivik marks the eastern entrance. At the moment, this route through the Canadian archipelago is navigable at best for a brief summer spell. (Sovereignty over the passage is one of the Arctic's many unresolved issues: Canada claims it, but the United States says the waters are international  [as does just about everybody else].) In theory, a complete opening of the Northwest Passage can shave 2,500 miles off a journey from Europe to Asia. But Lawson Brigham of the United States Arctic Research Commission, based in Alaska, is not convinced the financial gains will be dramatic. “Has anybody done the economics?” the former coastguard captain asks. In fact, he and fellow researchers from the Arctic Council are doing some sums at the moment; they will complete their assessment of global warming's impact on shipping next year.

Despite the appearance of a free-for-all, governments and scientists still co-operate over the Arctic; often there is no choice. In the Danish expedition that set sail this week, the Swedish ice-breaker is being led northwards by a larger Russian one, the 50 Years of Victory. And, despite a Canadian-Danish tiff over tiny Hans Island, the Canadians will help the Danes by providing some data on the ridge...

Mark
Ottawa


Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,354
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #72 on: August 16, 2007, 16:28:44 »
The Economist assesses Arctic realities (good map):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660012
Mark
Ottawa



And all as it should be....

That doesn't prevent us arming police officers in low crime areas.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Not_So_Arty_Newbie

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 698
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #73 on: August 16, 2007, 16:31:32 »
2. None of any countries ships that operate in the Arctic are armed (except for small arms). Why do we need to arm our icebreakers , to start an arms race we could never win..

I really don't think that Rusky submarine only had a flag onboard, cash strapped as they are I'm pretty sure they had torpedos.

4. Don't you think it would be more practical to arm the Aurora with other than torpodoes , then it could be used anywhere rather than just the Arctic , also  CF-18's could be one site in area if required
The Aurora doesn't operate solely in the arctic, they are a Martime Patrol Aircraft, and being an ex sailor who's never visited the Arctic, I've worked with more than a few in my time.

6. I hope you realize that the new Artctic patrol ships will spend the bulk of there time on fisheries,drug & coastal patrol in the south freeing up the CPF'S for foreign deployments. They were a pr ploy , easier to sell to the public than the new Corvettes the Navy wanted for home waters. And given our climate it only made sense to make them ice strengthened.

What? and the CPF's and 280's dont spend a signifigant amount of time doing just that now.

I understand the CCG wants icebreakers at any cost but our sovereingty is being challanged for the first time since 1812, and I'm sorry no offence meant to the RCMP but a handful of pistols will do not good against a russion sub, even as a detterent. It's a grander version of why police carry pistols, not to shoot bad guys with, but to make bad guys think twice about shooting in the first place.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,207
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Arctic / Offshore Patrol Ships
« Reply #74 on: August 16, 2007, 16:38:39 »
ArtyNewbie: What about the Fenian Raids of 1866?
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3030166.html

Not to mention U-boats in the St. Lawrence during WW II.
http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-mob-gol-e.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.