- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 330
I read on the LM site that the ExLS can also be fitted with RAM blk2.Maybe replacing those 6 cells, in the Vigilance, with a 11- cell Sea-Ram mount would be an option.
I read on the LM site that the ExLS can also be fitted with RAM blk2.Maybe replacing those 6 cells, in the Vigilance, with a 11- cell Sea-Ram mount would be an option.
CDR: "You have mentioned that the Navy has needed to prioritize the Halifax-class over the MCDVs. Is that still the case and what does that mean for the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV's)?"
VAdm Topshee: "I think what it means is we need to get out of the old ship business as quickly as we can. You may have seen some remarks by the Minister a couple of weeks ago where he says he's waiting for me to deliver a recommendation with respect to the future of the MCDVs. When you look at that class, the reality is that they were designed to last 25 to 30 years. We're at that window and they have been absolutely fantastic.
They've got a new lease on life right now with the off-board systems and technology that we've got for Mine Counter-Measures. In fact, I'm really proud of the fact that HMCS Shawinigan and Glace Bay are deployed right now with the Standing NATO Maritime countermeasures group in Europe, so it's fantastic to see that that platform can still be relevant today. But when you step back, and you look at what it is, a Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel is effectively an offshore support vessel. It's the type of vessel that is used routinely around the world to support the offshore industry. It is something that, if we really needed to get more of them, we can do so quite quickly. They're not heavily armed nor are they designed to survive a massive conflict.
MCDVs have a couple of machine guns and some sophisticated communications systems. We can replicate that quite quickly, and we're really confident in the offboard systems. I think our number one question is whether or not we need to be out of the MCDV business? Should we make sure that we are transitioning to the future fleet, that we are embracing autonomy, uncrewed systems, remotely operated things, and all sorts of other systems that can go on to vessels of opportunity that are not necessarily part of the Navy fleet."
To clarify what I'm suggesting...I'm not proposing and "armed ice-breaker" or anything as large as the 125m OSK design (which would be more of a Halifax replacement than a Kingston replacement).IF the MCDV replacement ends up being more of a Corvette-type ship rather than a more traditional OPV, then might a concept similar OSK's proposed Arctic Frigate replacement for Denmark's Thetis-Class make sense?
Arctic frigate - modern engineering designed for extreme Northern operations
Danish naval architects OSK Design unveils latest concept for an Arctic frigate - modern engineering designed for extreme Northern operations.www.oskdesign.com
Canada, the US and Finland have agreed to form an "ICE Pact" to boost the production of icebreakers in the three countries with the objective of deterring Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Far North.
Canada to work with Finland, U.S. on 'Ice Pact' to build icebreakers
OTTAWA - Canada has signed a trilateral agreement with Finland and the U.S. to boost the production of icebreakers in an effort to safeguard the Arctic and Antarctic regions.www.thecanadianpressnews.ca
A vessel along these lines would fit nicely with the announced industrial strategy. It would give us an armed complement to the AOPS that has at least a limited level of in-ice capability. It would also have the added bonus of being a capability that the USN does not have which would make it a valued complement to existing allied capabilities.
Polar Class | Ice descriptions in Polar Class rules | Corresponding ice thickness |
PC 1 | year-round operation in all polar waters | Not defined |
PC 2 | Year-round operation in moderate multi-year ice conditions | Up to 3.0 m (9.8 ft) or more |
PC 3 | Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions | Up to 2.5 m (8.2 ft) and sometimes more |
PC 4 | Year-round operation in thick first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions | Over 120 cm (3.9 ft) |
PC 5 | Year-round operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions | 70 to 120 cm (2.3 to 3.9 ft) |
PC 6 | Summer/autumn operation in medium first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions | 70 to 120 cm (2.3 to 3.9 ft) |
PC 7 | Summer/autumn operation in thin first-year ice which may include old ice inclusions | 30 to 70 cm (0.98 to 2.30 ft) |
Along that line, but smaller...more in the 70-90m range likely with a UAV vs a helicopter (can a UAV perform ice reconnaissance?)Sounds like the Finnish Pajama class corvette, which is strengthened to Finnish Class 1A, equivalent to Polar Class 7.
So long as the class was designed right from the start to have a level of ice strengthening. I seem to remember the OTAGO class having a lot of trouble with stability and losing capability because of adding ice strengthening on a design that didn’t have it from the beginning.Along that line, but smaller...more in the 70-90m range likely with a UAV vs a helicopter (can a UAV perform ice reconnaissance?)