New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Rainbow1910]

It would appear that the USA is taking the threat of foreign ships in their waters extremely serious, that they are taking measures to field them as quickly as possible. They recently converted the Aiviq for Coast guard duties after we turned it down. Using an old car analogy; they’re shifting from first to overdrive while we just shifted into 3rd.

It is something to consider that the US is far behind nations like Canada regarding the icebreaker fleets at their disposal, so it checks out for them to take measures to fix this long overdue gaping hole in their fleet.

Outside of their dedicated littoral and Great Lakes fleets, the USCG only has 3 operational icebreakers of any note and that includes the recently purchased USCGC Storis.

Compare this to Canada who has:

• 2 Heavy Icebreakers
• 7 Medium Icebreakers
• 7 Light Icebreakers
• 6 Arctic and Offshore Patrol ships

Our fleet is in significantly better shape than our US counterparts, and all of our domestic shipyards are either in the process of building more vessels or will be transitioning into building icebreakers in the future. The US was obviously willing to offshore a significant amount of vessels abroad to get them faster, something that isn't politically tenable to the Canadian public, politicians or to the established National Shipbuilding Strategy.

From his post:
"My primary critique here is that they are poorly armed. They need to be at least wired for SeaRAM and at least four ASCM. That 25mm should be 57mm or 76mm."

Buddy has watched The Bedford Incident a few too many times, methinks.

Always makes me immediately question peoples credibility when they start calling for these large, fat and slow icebreakers to be armed like combatants. Fighting in the Arctic is a good way for all hands to be fished out of the water stiff at a later date.

 

[Nvlgzr]

From his post:
"My primary critique here is that they are poorly armed. They need to be at least wired for SeaRAM and at least four ASCM. That 25mm should be 57mm or 76mm."

Buddy has watched The Bedford Incident a few too many times, methinks.

Years ago on this blog there were similar complaints about the AOPS. I would have argued for the 57mm only so that there was commonality with Halifax class but I understand that the mk38 is suitable for constabulary duties plus reduced maintenance and ordnance cost.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It is something to consider that the US is far behind nations like Canada regarding the icebreaker fleets at their disposal, so it checks out for them to take measures to fix this long overdue gaping hole in their fleet.

Outside of their dedicated littoral and Great Lakes fleets, the USCG only has 3 operational icebreakers of any note and that includes the recently purchased USCGC Storis.

Compare this to Canada who has:

• 2 Heavy Icebreakers
• 7 Medium Icebreakers
• 7 Light Icebreakers
• 6 Arctic and Offshore Patrol ships

Our fleet is in significantly better shape than our US counterparts, and all of our domestic shipyards are either in the process of building more vessels or will be transitioning into building icebreakers in the future. The US was obviously willing to offshore a significant amount of vessels abroad to get them faster, something that isn't politically tenable to the Canadian public, politicians or to the established National Shipbuilding Strategy.


Always makes me immediately question peoples credibility when they start calling for these large, fat and slow icebreakers to be armed like combatants. Fighting in the Arctic is a good way for all hands to be fished out of the water stiff at a later date.

Do your numbers above include CCGS that are dedicated to the Great Lakes in the winter? If so, I would suggest that they need to be removed from that count the same way you removed US ships operating in the Great Lakes.

Also, I would suggest that our numbers dedicated to the Great Lakes over the winter is woefully under resourced and that we overly rely on the US ships to pick up our slack. There are a number of recent articles where the USCG is calling out Canada's inadequate icebreaking resources located on the Great Lakes during the winter months.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Do your numbers above include CCGS that are dedicated to the Great Lakes in the winter? If so, I would suggest that they need to be removed from that count the same way you removed US ships operating in the Great Lakes.

Also, I would suggest that our numbers dedicated to the Great Lakes over the winter is woefully under resourced and that we overly rely on the US ships to pick up our slack. There are a number of recent articles where the USCG is calling out Canada's inadequate icebreaking resources located on the Great Lakes during the winter months.

My numbers include the Martha L. Black-class which while they do work on the Lakes, are much larger than any USCG counterpart vessels and are also extensively used in the Atlantic while also having been sent to the Arctic before as well.

Much of the USCG Lakes fleet is made up of smaller ice strengthened buoy tenders that have much less capability than our own, larger vessels. They have something like 30~ of these ships all together, but they don't have the use cases outside the lakes that we require. Canada has up to 16 Multi-Purpose Icebreakers on order with Seaspan, alongside 6 Mid-shore multi-mission vessels (TBD yard) for coastal lakes work and 6 large Program icebreakers (Davie) as well. There isn't any plans for buy a bunch of smaller vessels like the US does, so they can respectfully pound sand on their complaints.

 

[Underway]

It would appear that the USA is taking the threat of foreign ships in their waters extremely serious, that they are taking measures to field them as quickly as possible. They recently converted the Aiviq for Coast guard duties after we turned it down. Using an old car analogy; they’re shifting from first to overdrive while we just shifted into 3rd

Aiviq is a piece of garbage and was highly criticized in the US, and by icebreaking experts for them making the purchase. It's desperation mode for them in picking it up.

Canada is building 2 heavy icebreakers right now, which are much heavier than the MPI's the US is building. Thei US MPI is the same design for our Multi Purpose Icebreakers. We'll be getting 16 (IIRC), they are looking at 6.

Davie is putting into play multiple refurbished icebreakers AND we have AOPS which is ice capable.

Using a car analogy they just slammed on the gas at the starting line while we are ahead by a two laps. If you look at icebreaking build capability and in service capability, Canada is behind Finland/Russia and then only Russia respectively. We'll catch Finland and Russia very soon once Seaspan hits the MPI's (after JSS2 and the Polar classes are built)

 

[Underway]

From his post:
"My primary critique here is that they are poorly armed. They need to be at least wired for SeaRAM and at least four ASCM. That 25mm should be 57mm or 76mm."

Buddy has watched The Bedford Incident a few too many times, methinks.

I follow that guy on substack as well. He's blowhard who doesn't see anything past his own narrow experience. Still some good stuff on there every once in a while.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My numbers include the Martha L. Black-class which while they do work on the Lakes, are much larger than any USCG counterpart vessels and are also extensively used in the Atlantic while also having been sent to the Arctic before as well.

Much of the USCG Lakes fleet is made up of smaller ice strengthened buoy tenders that have much less capability than our own, larger vessels. They have something like 30~ of these ships all together, but they don't have the use cases outside the lakes that we require. Canada has up to 16 Multi-Purpose Icebreakers on order with Seaspan, alongside 6 Mid-shore multi-mission vessels (TBD yard) for coastal lakes work and 6 large Program icebreakers (Davie) as well. There isn't any plans for buy a bunch of smaller vessels like the US does, so they can respectfully pound sand on their complaints.

How many CCGS do we maintain west of the Welland Canal once it closes? How many does the USCG?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Do your numbers above include CCGS that are dedicated to the Great Lakes in the winter? If so, I would suggest that they need to be removed from that count the same way you removed US ships operating in the Great Lakes.

Also, I would suggest that our numbers dedicated to the Great Lakes over the winter is woefully under resourced and that we overly rely on the US ships to pick up our slack. There are a number of recent articles where the USCG is calling out Canada's inadequate icebreaking resources located on the Great Lakes during the winter months.

I think you have that backwards, last year the USCG had to ask Canada to send a real icebreaker to free a freighter in the Great Lakes, as none of their ice-strengthened tugs could free her. Canada also uses two hovercraft for icebreaking as well. Good for breaking up ice jams in river mouths that threaten flooding of villages along the St Lawrence.

 

[suffolkowner]

Aiviq is a piece of garbage and was highly criticized in the US, and by icebreaking experts for them making the purchase. It's desperation mode for them in picking it up.

Canada is building 2 heavy icebreakers right now, which are much heavier than the MPI's the US is building. Thei US MPI is the same design for our Multi Purpose Icebreakers. We'll be getting 16 (IIRC), they are looking at 6.

Davie is putting into play multiple refurbished icebreakers AND we have AOPS which is ice capable.

Using a car analogy they just slammed on the gas at the starting line while we are ahead by a two laps. If you look at icebreaking build capability and in service capability, Canada is behind Finland/Russia and then only Russia respectively. We'll catch Finland and Russia very soon once Seaspan hits the MPI's (after JSS2 and the Polar classes are built)

Was the Aiviq still considered a piece of garbage after its Australian warmup?

 

[suffolkowner]

An old article on the state of Great Lakes icebreaking

Great Lakes Icebreaking

U.S.-Flag Great Lakes Fleet

lcaships.com

"There needs to be a second heavy icebreaker at least as capable as the USCGC Mackinaw in the Great Lakes, both for system resiliency and to meet the needs of commerce. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) must also develop a realistic priority system for icebreaking and better manage their existing resources to replace the current floundering process."
"During three of the past six years, USCG has been unable to keep Great Lakes waterways consistently open to commercial navigation when ice challenges commercial vessel traffic."
"In 1979, USCG operated 14 icebreakers on the Great Lakes. Now it’s nine. The ability of USCG to break ice has weakened as larger, more capable ships were replaced by smaller, less capable icebreakers. Not only is this smaller fleet required to break ice, they are also charged with buoy tending which often requires them to be removed from icebreaking duties when their services are still needed in the ice."
Last year the two Canadian Great Lakes icebreakers spent less than six hours in shared waters when they escorted a vessel departing a Canadian port. They spent no time in U.S. ports. In contrast, U.S. icebreakers dedicated more than 130 hours breaking ice in Canadian harbors and covered virtually all of the icebreaking in the shared waters.
"The Canadian Coast Guard provides two icebreakers to support nearly 90 Canadian-flag vessels. The USCG provides nine icebreakers to support over 50 U.S-flag vessels."

Currently I think the CCG has or plans on having three icebreakers on the Great Lakes

CCGS Griffon CCG Base Prescott
CCGS Samuel Risley CCG Base Parry Sound
CCGS Judy La Marsh CCG Base Prescott

enough?

Add the USCG Mackinaw plus the 8 icebreaking tugs

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Sorry, but only American with their love of hyperbolae would call the USCG Mackinaw a "heavy" icebreaker. It's a light icebreaker by all accounts.

 

[Czech_pivo]

An old article on the state of Great Lakes icebreaking

Great Lakes Icebreaking

U.S.-Flag Great Lakes Fleet

lcaships.com

"There needs to be a second heavy icebreaker at least as capable as the USCGC Mackinaw in the Great Lakes, both for system resiliency and to meet the needs of commerce. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) must also develop a realistic priority system for icebreaking and better manage their existing resources to replace the current floundering process."
"During three of the past six years, USCG has been unable to keep Great Lakes waterways consistently open to commercial navigation when ice challenges commercial vessel traffic."
"In 1979, USCG operated 14 icebreakers on the Great Lakes. Now it’s nine. The ability of USCG to break ice has weakened as larger, more capable ships were replaced by smaller, less capable icebreakers. Not only is this smaller fleet required to break ice, they are also charged with buoy tending which often requires them to be removed from icebreaking duties when their services are still needed in the ice."
Last year the two Canadian Great Lakes icebreakers spent less than six hours in shared waters when they escorted a vessel departing a Canadian port. They spent no time in U.S. ports. In contrast, U.S. icebreakers dedicated more than 130 hours breaking ice in Canadian harbors and covered virtually all of the icebreaking in the shared waters.
"The Canadian Coast Guard provides two icebreakers to support nearly 90 Canadian-flag vessels. The USCG provides nine icebreakers to support over 50 U.S-flag vessels."

Currently I think the CCG has or plans on having three icebreakers on the Great Lakes

CCGS Griffon CCG Base Prescott
CCGS Samuel Risley CCG Base Parry Sound
CCGS Judy La Marsh CCG Base Prescott

enough?

Add the USCG Mackinaw plus the 8 icebreaking tugs

Those at Prescott are unable to go through the Welland Canal once it closes and are stuck on Lake Ontario/St Lawrence onto it opens sometime in March/April.

That means that there is only 1 ship for Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, as well as the Detroit River, St Mary River and the Straits of Mackinac.

 

[suffolkowner]

Those at Prescott are unable to go through the Welland Canal once it closes and are stuck on Lake Ontario/St Lawrence onto it opens sometime in March/April.

That means that there is only 1 ship for Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior, as well as the Detroit River, St Mary River and the Straits of Mackinac.

Lake Superior would be on its own once the Soo locks close too

 

[Czech_pivo]

Lake Superior would be on its own once the Soo locks close too

So does that mean we station no ships on L Superior? Do the Americans? Are they responsible for all ice breaking on L Superior?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From Wiki: the Mackinaw can continuously proceed through fresh water ice up to 32 inches (81 cm) thick at 3 knots or 14 inches (36 cm) at 10 knots. She can also break smooth, continuous ice up to 42 inches (110 cm) thick by rising on top of it and crushing it with the weight of her bow.

It's certainly not bad, but you are correct it's not a heavy icebreaker

 

[suffolkowner]

So does that mean we station no ships on L Superior? Do the Americans? Are they responsible for all ice breaking on L Superior?

The USCGC Mackinaw is out of Cheboygan so looks like nothing major in Superior

 

[Kirkhill]

From his post:
"My primary critique here is that they are poorly armed. They need to be at least wired for SeaRAM and at least four ASCM. That 25mm should be 57mm or 76mm."

Buddy has watched The Bedford Incident a few too many times, methinks.

It seems to me
I've heard that song before
Such an old familiar song....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

From Wiki: the Mackinaw can continuously proceed through fresh water ice up to 32 inches (81 cm) thick at 3 knots or 14 inches (36 cm) at 10 knots. She can also break smooth, continuous ice up to 42 inches (110 cm) thick by rising on top of it and crushing it with the weight of her bow.

It's certainly not bad, but you are correct it's not a heavy icebreaker

Well, the Old Canadian Arctic ice Class system (1, 1A, 2 and then all the way to 10) had classes 1 to 3 (meaning capable of breaking a 1 to 3 feet of ice respectively at a continuous 3 Kts) as light ice breakers (which includes the Mackinaw), then classes 4 to 6 (breaking 4 to 6 feet at continuous 3 Kts) as medium icebreakers and 7 to 10 (breaking 7 to 10 feet of ice at a continuous 3 Kts) as heavy ice breakers.

Regardless of the various classifications existing out there, I always thought that the Canadian method was one of the clearest and most straightforward one to apply in order to compare ships with one another.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well, the Old Canadian Arctic ice Class system (1, 1A, 2 and then all the way to 10) had classes 1 to 3 (meaning capable of breaking a 1 to 3 feet of ice respectively at a continuous 3 Kts) as light ice breakers (which includes the Mackinaw), then classes 4 to 6 (breaking 4 to 6 feet at continuous 3 Kts) as medium icebreakers and 7 to 10 (breaking 7 to 10 feet of ice at a continuous 3 Kts) as heavy ice breakers.

Regardless of the various classifications existing out there, I always thought that the Canadian method was one of the clearest and most straightforward one to apply in order to compare ships with one another.

I think the Polar Class does similar, keeping in mind it's built around the conditions in the Polar regions.

 

[quadrapiper]

Sorry, but only American with their love of hyperbolae would call the USCG Mackinaw a "heavy" icebreaker. It's a light icebreaker by all accounts.

Wonder if the USCG classification system is antiquated.