New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Halifax Tar]

What's the point of having a "warship" if it can't go to war? Guns, torpedoes etc.....

I dunno. I am not a proponent of having big grey floaty things that can't throw or take a punch.

Arm the hell out them...

I firmly agree.

 

[suffolkowner]

They didn't say armed. They said Navy. And they didn't say icebreaking warship. I'm not excluding that possiblity (as if you want to fight with the Russians you need guns) but there is a distinct possibility that "armed" may not reach any further than the JSS armament (with CIWS and 50 cals).

IF we're looking at submarines and more ships in the arctic for longer or year round than I can see a through line to an RCN icebreaker. I'm thinking more of a Russian style deep sea tug, to provide all the logistical and repair support for RCN ships that get into a tight spot up north.

Bunkering, workshops, chinook landing pad, hospital, sub rescue capability. Maybe more personnel carrying and deployment capability. An A-JSS for the home game.

Not saying this is a good idea or its a critical requirement, NSS II is likely in the brainstorming phase to a certain extent and I expect the crazy whiteboard ideas are leaking out.

I see this as a good sign, particularly as they are thinking about NSS II, and are going to try and deliver on that continuous build philosophy. Be willing to take some creative risk here as this moment in history requires some bigger swings.

so the RCN just wants a PC2 icebreaker under their control?

 

[Czech_pivo]

so the RCN just wants a PC2 icebreaker under their control?

Could you make a sub recovery ship that has a PC2 classification? Do the Russians have anything similar?

 

[Rainbow1910]

What's the point of having a "warship" if it can't go to war? Guns, torpedoes etc.....

Arm the hell out them...

Because “warship” is just a designation given to ships operated by navies generally, not something that denotes being a combatant.

 

[PrairieFella]

Could you make a sub recovery ship that has a PC2 classification? Do the Russians have anything similar?

Doesn't seem like it. From what I could find they mainly operate the Kashtan-class salvage ship as submarine tenders. 8 ships of the class. It appears there are some one-offs but I can't find any specifics. I'd be a cool concept for us to explore, heavy icebreaker/submarine tender+rescue ship.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Could you make a sub recovery ship that has a PC2 classification? Do the Russians have anything similar?

There is nothing stopping you from making an icebreaker able to operate as a submarine recovery ship, given sufficient equipment put aboard. These utility roles aren’t especially difficult for icebreakers to undertake, given how they are large and somewhat spacious vessels in the first place.

I would point out that we don’t need a PC2 icebreaker for submarine support, something like AOPS polar rating would be entirely sufficient given how our submarines won’t be operating in the high North throughout the winter or under thick ice.

 

[suffolkowner]

Because “warship” is just a designation given to ships operated by navies generally, not something that denotes being a combatant.

always seems backwards

so the question becomes should the RCN be operating warships that arent combatants?
Or whats the proper ratio/"need"

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is nothing stopping you from making an icebreaker able to operate as a submarine recovery ship, given sufficient equipment put aboard. These utility roles aren’t especially difficult for icebreakers to undertake, given how they are large and somewhat spacious vessels in the first place.

I would point out that we don’t need a PC2 icebreaker for submarine support, something like AOPS polar rating would be entirely sufficient given how our submarines won’t be operating in the high North throughout the winter or under thick ice.

Would there be any benefit of building something less than a PC2 but more than a AOPS in terms of icebreaking capabilities - say a PC3?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because “warship” is just a designation given to ships operated by navies generally, not something that denotes being a combatant.

You're off the mark.

The definition of warship is:

Naval ships designed primarily for naval warfare

Google Search{google:instantExtendedEnabledParameter}ie=UTF-8

 

[suffolkowner]

You're off the mark.

The definition of warship is:

Naval ships designed primarily for naval warfare

Google Search{google:instantExtendedEnabledParameter}ie=UTF-8

so AOPS = combatant not warship
Halifax = combatant and warship

 

[Underway]

You're off the mark.

The definition of warship is:

Naval ships designed primarily for naval warfare

Google Search{google:instantExtendedEnabledParameter}ie=UTF-8

And yet JSS are warships, because they directly support naval combatants in the hot zone. The definitions are flexible to a certain extent.

Not disagreeing with you, armed icebreaker is an interesting concept.

---

Of note Carney just announced in Halifax today a commitment to all 15 RCD's, and more heavy icebreakers. Friend of mine said that it was "support for the navy's plan for heavy icebreakers". I haven't seen the exact text so I'll rely on others to research that.

 

[Underway]

so AOPS = combatant not warship
Halifax = combatant and warship

Canada uses combatant and non-combatant. AOPS really isn't a warship, its a constabulary vessel that does military operations.

 

[Halifax Tar]

so AOPS = noncombatant not warship
Halifax = combatant and warship

@Underway JSS are not warships they are AORs Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment

JSS = noncombatant not warship = Auxiliary

AOPs = noncombatant not warship = Constabulary

CPFs = Combatant and Warship

RCD = Combatant and Warship

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not disagreeing with you, armed icebreaker is an interesting concept.

Sounds like a well armed, slow moving, vulnerable target to me.

 

[Underway]

JSS = noncombatant not warship = Auxiliary

But but but...

Its the WARTANKER!!!

Sounds like a well armed, slow moving, vulnerable target to me.

Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

The mock-up of the Japan's future AEGIS System Equipped Vessel (ASEV), a large destroyer was showcased at IDEX 2025.

www.navalnews.com

Unless it's something like this! Speed is not its defence... lol

In all seriousness a big F-off icebreaker doing a similar job to this, giving arctic BMD is an interesting concept. Or at least carrying a well heeled sensor package to augment airforce assets in NORAD. I don't see either, but I'm pushing envelopes and buttons here. Outside the box thinking may be coming down the line.

 

[Maxman1]

Would there be any benefit of building something less than a PC2 but more than a AOPS in terms of icebreaking capabilities - say a PC3?

Probably not. PC5 is probably more than enough. And we're building two Polar Class icebreakers, so if a sub is stuck somewhere that's too much for a PC5 ship, we can always send one of those in first to clear the way.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But but but...

Its the WARTANKER!!!

Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News

The mock-up of the Japan's future AEGIS System Equipped Vessel (ASEV), a large destroyer was showcased at IDEX 2025.

www.navalnews.com

Unless it's something like this! Speed is not its defence... lol

In all seriousness a big F-off icebreaker doing a similar job to this, giving arctic BMD is an interesting concept. Or at least carrying a well heeled sensor package to augment airforce assets in NORAD. I don't see either, but I'm pushing envelopes and buttons here. Outside the box thinking may be coming down the line.

I mean we built an Artic Offshore Patrol Vessel and the sent it to the Caribbean. What's in a name anyways, right ?

Battle-tanker of the Gulf Wars comes to mind lol.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I mean we built an Artic Offshore Patrol Vessel and the sent it to the Caribbean. What's in a name anyways, right ?

Battle-tanker of the Gulf Wars comes to mind lol.

Hence the “offshore” monicker lol, it’s a balanced design that isn’t suited simple for the Arctic and that was intended.

 

[Kirkhill]

What's the point of having a "warship" if it can't go to war? Guns, torpedoes etc.....

Arm the hell out them...

With respect but didn't our old Deuce and a Halfs "go to war"?

My bigger concern is sending people to sea unnecessarily.

We have trouble recruiting and retaining. I want to use those volunteers as sparingly as possible, and put as few of them in harms way as necessary.

How big a platform does a platform have to be to have a useful mix of weapons AND a useful range? Once that is decided how few sailors do I absolutely have to put on board?

 

[Kirkhill]

250 tons with a complement of 19 to 26

Hamina-class missile boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rauma-class missile boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

640 tons with a complement of 43

Visby-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These are what I will call "All-Aspect" vessels - the weapons may be short range but they cover the air, surface and sub-surface domains. The ships are designed for a fast sprint away from the dock and return following conclusion of an engagement and not for sustained patrols so they effectively only have one shift on board.

My point is that a vessel does not have to be big to be a, what can we call it, a multi-domain asset?

It does need to be big to carry enough fuel to range long distances and sprint at high speeds. And to survive high sea states.

But does it need a large, "traditional" Canadian crew? I know the LCS experience will get thrown in my face but other ships have found successful work arounds and that was before the current level of technology.

...

I still think the best security against drowning is to sail in the company of another ship.