Replacing the Subs

[Kirkhill]

How to secure the NWP without SSNs. Might have to re-seed the ground every year after the ice has been through and scoured the channels. But still cheap.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Wait.

You want us to seed the NWP with autonomous weapons that fire on sound signature; have highly classified parts, Otto fuel and no small amount of explosives.

Somehow recover them all every fall. Without get shot by our own torpedos.

Re-seed every spring.

That is your plan for Arctic security?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not to mention what it would do to the North's summer resupply ships, Canadian Coast Guard ships, AOPS and Arctic cruises ships.

That's why it is against international law to mine waterways. You mine someone else's, it is an act of war - you mine your own, then you have an obligation to warn off, close the area to traffic and physically enforce the exclusion, not to mention the obligation to make mine free after the exclusion is completed.

So, by mining the NWP, you make any use of it by anyone, even for proper commercial reasons, impossible

 

[Kirkhill]

Wait.

You want us to seed the NWP with autonomous weapons that fire on sound signature; have highly classified parts, Otto fuel and no small amount of explosives.

Somehow recover them all every fall. Without get shot by our own torpedos.

Re-seed every spring.

That is your plan for Arctic security?

It would tend to discourage movement in the area....

Most of the year the area is covered by ice any way.

What could go wrong?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As I indicated above, sinking your own ships operating up there can be considered a "BIG" thing going wrong.

I guess you want to use a military version of the philosophy of Maimonides: "If you throw stones into a crowd of gentile and accidentally kill the sole Jew in the crowd, it is not murder because the intent was clearly to kill gentiles."

Your version would be "If you sink one of the AOPS, its just an accident because your intent was clearly to get only Chinese vessels."

 

[Kirkhill]

It would tend to discourage movement in the area....

Most of the year the area is covered by ice any way.

What could go wrong?

Actually, I have suggested a modified version of the CAPTOR plan in the past. The CAPTOR, as both @SeaKingTacco and @Oldgateboatdriver know, is less of a mine than it is a torpedo. The difference, in my view is that the mine is lethal on contact and is generally sown in dense fields. The CAPTOR covers a larger area because the torpedo moves to engage the target. A matter of degree.

Actually my preferred solution is to go to the choke points and put tubes from the surface to the clear water below the ice and use the islands as stone submarines. The torpedoes can be inspected, maintained and replaced on land and deployed under water.

And the shipping lanes are clear, until they are not. And CAPTORs can still be part of the plan once hostilities break out. CAPTORS or dormant UUVs.

...

Just saying that there are a lot less expensive ways of securing our claim to the NWP than buying nuclear subs.

....

We're talking about SMRs on another thread, 12x 150 MW reactors (Suffren) applied on the ground in the arctic would not only defend those choke points but also meaningfully contribute to both the quality of life of the locals as well as developing commercial opportunities.

 

[KevinB]

Actually, I have suggested a modified version of the CAPTOR plan in the past. The CAPTOR, as both @SeaKingTacco and @Oldgateboatdriver know, is less of a mine than it is a torpedo. The difference, in my view is that the mine is lethal on contact and is generally sown in dense fields. The CAPTOR covers a larger area because the torpedo moves to engage the target. A matter of degree.

Actually my preferred solution is to go to the choke points and put tubes from the surface to the clear water below the ice and use the islands as stone submarines. The torpedoes can be inspected, maintained and replaced on land and deployed under water.

And the shipping lanes are clear, until they are not. And CAPTORs can still be part of the plan once hostilities break out. CAPTORS or dormant UUVs.

...

Just saying that there are a lot less expensive ways of securing our claim to the NWP than buying nuclear subs.

As long as you don’t care about maiming or killing innocent civilians?

....

We're talking about SMRs on another thread, 12x 150 MW reactors (Suffren) applied on the ground in the arctic would not only defend those choke points but also meaningfully contribute to both the quality of life of the locals as well as developing commercial opportunities.

So just so I am following, to avoid a USN Nuclear reactor, you would get French Nuclear reactors?

 

[Kirkhill]

As long as you don’t care about maiming or killing innocent civilians?



So just so I am following, to avoid a USN Nuclear reactor, you would get French Nuclear reactors?

No...

As usual...

If we are going to spend money on ANY nuclear reactors I would sooner employ them on land. The US/UK do not publish their power outputs. The French do. I am assuming that the laws of physics generally apply and that the size of the power plants are broadly comparable within an order of magnitude.

I would sooner create 12 stone frigates/subs/coastal-forts powered with 12 150MWth SMRs across the arctic and rely on UUVs, offensive and defensive, armed and unarmed, and appropriate sensors to control traffic through the NWP.

....

I referenced the CAPTOR. I note that it is USN weapon system designed to be deployed offensively by air to deny passage, civil and military, through straits and narrow seas.

I merely suggest that if and when the time comes similar tactics can be employed by the defending country. They have alternative lines of communication.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And CAPTORs can still be part of the plan once hostilities break out.

I would say, be careful here: Remember the Athena?

Just saying that there are a lot less expensive ways of securing our claim to the NWP than buying nuclear subs.

Yes. And we currently own five of them. They are called AOPS. Securing our claim to a place in peace time needs presence that is seen.

I merely suggest that if and when the time comes similar tactics can be employed by the defending country. They have alternative lines of communication.

If the defending country be Canada and the defended place the Arctic archipelago, then we don't have alternative lines of communication. The Arctic major resupply just has to go by ship every summer. It is just not possible to deliver that type of cargo and in the amounts required by plane.

 

[YZT580]

I would say, be careful here: Remember the Athena?


Yes. And we currently own five of them. They are called AOPS. Securing our claim to a place in peace time needs presence that is seen.



If the defending country be Canada and the defended place the Arctic archipelago, then we don't have alternative lines of communication. The Arctic major resupply just has to go by ship every summer. It is just not possible to deliver that type of cargo and in the amounts required by plane.

Berlin proved that this doesn't have to be true but that is only when cost absolutely doesn't matter. But the Arctic will, in all likelihood, never be invaded and conquered. It will be taken by developers and miners one valuable find at a time. The AOPS to my mind are there for their presence; they say No Trespassing, Property of the Dominion of Canada better than any piece of paper can

 

[Kirkhill]

I would say, be careful here: Remember the Athena?

I'm afraid not I don't know the Athena. Can you fill me in?

Yes. And we currently own five of them. They are called AOPS. Securing our claim to a place in peace time needs presence that is seen.

And I am a big fan of them. I look forwards to the CCG getting their 16 multi-mission vessels as well. And I hope to see the government invest in ships for NEAS, GNWT, Desgagnes, Marine Atlantic etc.

If the defending country be Canada and the defended place the Arctic archipelago, then we don't have alternative lines of communication. The Arctic major resupply just has to go by ship every summer. It is just not possible to deliver that type of cargo and in the amounts required by plane.

I am hoping that the discussion that is being had over the development corridors can help to address some of those issues. That goes to security and resilience. Nuclear power plants to reduce the oil dependency. Bisecting roads and rails to reduce the distances. And improved airfields and heliports.

We talk about 60 Billion for subs but chafe at 60 Billion for roads, rail and power plants. Both will secure our country.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fednav - www.fednav.com

Fednav excels in navigating the Canadian Arctic, Great Lakes, and St. Lawrence Seaway. With a fleet of 120 dry bulk carriers, we ensure seamless worldwide shipping.

www.fednav.com

January 11, 2018, by Janenne Irene Pung​

The arrival of each new ship tilts the scale for Fednav Limited in owning more of its fleet. In October, the Montreal-based carrier added six bulkers to its current order at Oshima Shipbuilding Company in Japan. Low costs for shipbuilding and a long-term relationship with the shipyard is making additional fleet ownership a reality.

In the late 2000s, Fednav carried about a three-to-one ratio of chartered vs. owned vessels. Today, it's more than reversed.

Because of the company's healthy financial position, it decided to change its business model—to A order and own the bulkers it needs to serve customers.

Since then, there's been a regular rollout of newbuild contracts with Oshima Shipbuilding. Currently, there are 10 ships on order at the shipyard.

A prevailing partnership. Since 2015, Oshima Shipbuilding has delivered 12 Seaway-sized vessels to Fednav. With 10 more on order, the number will total 22 new vessels in six years—all of which are owned by the international carrier. Deliveries have kept an aggressive pace, with:

• Six ships arriving in 2015
• Six more delivering in 2016
• Four more scheduled for 2018
• Six scheduled for delivery between 2019 and 2021

With salties, the expected lifespan is about 25 years. However, two factors are considered when determining when to retire a vessel: 1) whether it's operating safely and efficiently and 2) current customer demand, which can sometimes include the age of the vessels on which their products move.

Each new vessel costs between C$25-27 million to build, adding up to a C$300 million investment in recent years.

Oshima specializes in building bulk-ers, which primarily service the ore, coal, grains and steel industries. Its factory is located in the city of Saiki, formerly known as Oshima. One hundred eighty-eight acres are broken down into four primary areas: fabrication, assembly, painting and advanced assembly. The shipyard, founded in 1973, includes two drydocks and two docks along the outer perimeter.

The shipyard's experience with bulkers allows for the delivery of the 34,500-dead-weight. Great Lakes-capable vessels Fednav uses for regional deliveries. Its affiliate businesses in the machinery, engineering, ship design and iron works sectors help offer varied expertise and timely service. It is a joint venture between Sumitomo Corporation, Sumitomo Heavy Industries and the Daizo Corporation.

The Seaway fleet. Fednav presently has 45 Seaway-sized vessels in its fleet—41 owned and four chartered. This count does not include the 10 ships on order at Oshima. All the ships are ice-class for winter operation. Between newbuilds and having four ships sailing at about 20 years old, the fleet should average 50 vessels.

Fednav International Limited operates the Fednav Atlantic Lakes Line (FALLine), a regular service between Northern Europe and the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system. The service includes 50 to 60 westbound trips per year, with monthly departures from Bremen/Brake on the Weser River and twice monthly departures from Antwerp during the regular season. The committed route moves about a million metric tons of cargo a year to ports like Sorel, Hamilton, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Burns Harbor, Thunder Bay and Duluth.

The cargo includes steel products, machinery and project cargo. The steel products range from bars, beams and billets to coils, pipes, sheets and wired rods. Industrial machinery involves excavators, transformers, dryers, vehicles, yachts and packaged cargo. Box-shaped holds facilitate general cargo handling.

According to Pathy, a strong steel market and economic growth in the U.S. is boosting business for Fednav this season.

As the new ships roll out of the shipyard, they are all equipped with ballast water treatment systems—one of the reasons the vessel design has changed slightly in recent years. Space has been created for the system, which treats ballast water by using filtration and chlorination.

Fednav has been working with JFE Engineering Corporation on installing a system known as BallastAce since 2015. It was the first shipowner to use onboard treatment technology in the system with the arrival of Federal Caribou. The technology follows the regular practice of exchanging ballast water in saltwater in the North Atlantic—creating a two-step approach.

FedNav also operates the similarly sized PC4 bulk freighters Umiak 1, Nunavik 1 and Arvik 1. All built in the same Saiki shipyard. The lakers are built at Tsu. They operate with crews of about 20.

....

I am a big fan of the northern fleet and would like to see it expanded. But I am also a big fan of redundancy and would like to see alternative lines of communication so that these aren't the only means of maintaining our presence up there.

And Quality of Life, demands excess and abundance, not limitations and rationing.

 

[KevinB]

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/20170501%20major%20icebreaker%20chart.pdf?ver=2017-06-08-091723-907

I would say the AOPS aren’t really no trespassing signs.

The closest Canada came to that was the late 1979’s Polar 10 Nuclear Heavy IceBreaker and when it got cancelled then Perrin Beatty’s White Paper in 1987 with the SSN’s and the conventionally powered Polar8 Heavy IceBreakers.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm afraid not I don't know the Athena. Can you fill me in?

Here is the bowdlerized version:

SS Athenia (1922) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, a bit of a repeat of the Lusitania, but without the ship actually being a gun runner (unlike the Lusitania, which was such a ship) and arriving at a time where Hitler had not yet declared unlimited warfare at sea. Thus, it was improper for Lempt to sink her without ascertaining that she was a fair war target (which she was not).

My overall point is, even when hostilities have been declared, it is not always a good thing to have weapons that don't think about what the target that entered their kill zone really is.

 

[suffolkowner]

Wait.

You want us to seed the NWP with autonomous weapons that fire on sound signature; have highly classified parts, Otto fuel and no small amount of explosives.

Somehow recover them all every fall. Without get shot by our own torpedos.

Re-seed every spring.

That is your plan for Arctic security?

stop you had me at autonomous weapons that fire on sound signature. Im sold

 

[lenaitch]

Not to mention what it would do to the North's summer resupply ships, Canadian Coast Guard ships, AOPS and Arctic cruises ships.

That's why it is against international law to mine waterways. You mine someone else's, it is an act of war - you mine your own, then you have an obligation to warn off, close the area to traffic and physically enforce the exclusion, not to mention the obligation to make mine free after the exclusion is completed.

So, by mining the NWP, you make any use of it by anyone, even for proper commercial reasons, impossible

Kinda like the thought experiment of engineering the universal solvent; capable of dissolving anything and everything.

The perfect solution.

What would you store it in?

 

[Stoker]

Here is the bowdlerized version:

SS Athenia (1922) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, a bit of a repeat of the Lusitania, but without the ship actually being a gun runner (unlike the Lusitania, which was such a ship) and arriving at a time where Hitler had not yet declared unlimited warfare at sea. Thus, it was improper for Lempt to sink her without ascertaining that she was a fair war target (which she was not).

My overall point is, even when hostilities have been declared, it is not always a good thing to have weapons that don't think about what the target that entered their kill zone really is.

Lemp went on to command U-110. He was in Command when he sank my Grandfathers ship in 1941 off Iceland.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Lemp went on to command U-110. He was in Command when he sank my Grandfathers ship in 1941 off Iceland.

Sorry to hear that , Stoker.

He was one of their Aces, but that doesn't make losing someone close in a war any easier.

 

[Rainbow1910]

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/Office%20of%20Waterways%20and%20Ocean%20Policy/20170501%20major%20icebreaker%20chart.pdf?ver=2017-06-08-091723-907

I would say the AOPS aren’t really no trespassing signs.

The closest Canada came to that was the late 1979’s Polar 10 Nuclear Heavy IceBreaker and when it got cancelled then Perrin Beatty’s White Paper in 1987 with the SSN’s and the conventionally powered Polar8 Heavy IceBreakers.

They very much are, the difference is that they are designed to operate in the warmer period of the year where there is actual traffic within the Arctic. This discussion was had in the infancy of the AOPS program, it makes little sense to go send heavy icebreakers to go patrol the Arctic during a time where effectively nobody else is present.

 

[Stoker]

Sorry to hear that , Stoker.

He was one of their Aces, but that doesn't make losing someone close in a war any easier.

They all survived thankfully. The British captured U-110 during the action and got the enigma machine and code books off the sub. Sent to Bletchley Park and helped end the war early. A few years ago when transiting to Iceland I asked the CO to transit over the sinking site as tribute to my Grandfather getting off the ship and surviving. Ship went down in something like 20 min and it was off Iceland, can't imagine what he went through.