Shipbuilding contracts

[On Guard for Thee]

The F-18 would require an escort too, in even more situations, so don't feel too special. Back to the ships.

Somebody should tell the RCAF that, they seem to have sent 6 of them to the ME all by their lonesomes. Back to the ships.

[Argus]

Exactly. To add, the meme of "slushbreaker" is exactly that.............The Harry DeWolf class will be given a Polar ice rating of 5, outside of the Russians (of which nobody know how many of their nuclear icebreakers are actually operational or safe), of the other three Arctic nations (Canada, United States and Denmark) there are currently only 9 icebreakers in Government service with a Polar rating 5 or better,

Then why promise icebreakers? What are these things for anyway? They won't even be able to get through the ice except in summer, and even then not all that far to the north, and as to the rest of their duties, well, they're slower than a fishing boat. Canada could use coastal patrol craft, but these aren't them.

[Argus]

Sure.

$288 million bucks to design a class of ships based on a Norwegian ship whose design Canada already bought for $5 million. All to produce what will almost certainly only ever be 4 vessels.

Do you have any idea of the distances involved in our coastlines?

I know neither coast is more than 6,000km long and ships can be refueled at more than one location.

And no, the LCS can't run rings around them,

47 knots vs 17 knots.

as first, the LCS has not the range, nor seakeeping ability to operate in the same environment as the Harry DeWolf class will, but lets say they did, they can't operate in river ice, let alone first year arctic ice.........

I'm not suggesting they would be racing up and down in the Arctic, but then neither will the De Wolf class, which won't be able to go near the north except in high summer, maybe. They'd certainly do a better job as offshore coastal patrol vessels down where we actually have a coastline with ocean traffic, though.

I mean, what are these four ships going to be doing most of the time? They're clearly not going to be up north. There's very little up there and they can only travel in light ice conditions. So most of their time will be spent further south. Am I wrong here?

There is a reason the USN will no longer produce the current LCS class, choosing instead to salvage the program by building larger versions that would survive in a North Atlantic/Pacific storm, and can actually deploy where needed, due in part to increased range and endurance........

This comment is pretty odd since I'm speaking about the new class anyway.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Argus

[Smallc]

They most certainly are ice breakers. As D2.0 already pointed out, there are only a handful (literally) of more capable vessels in NATO. We'll have an arctic leet rivalled by pretty much no one.

Also, these ships will carry helicopters and interception craft, so they don't need to be all that fast themselves (it's hard to make a fast icebreaker). They'll also introduce amphibious capability to the Canadian Forces and bring back the command and control lost with the retirement of the destroyers. They'll be useful in everything from costal patrol to disaster relief.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Smallc

[Argus]

They most certainly are ice breakers. As D2.0 already pointed out, there are only a handful (literally) of more capable vessels in NATO. We'll have an arctic leet rivalled by pretty much no one.

As far as I know, almost nobody's navy has icebreakers. Even the US navy, which has the polar Star type, don't arm them. They're icebreakers, not warships. What's the point of having an icebreaker slash warship? It can barely move if it's in the ice and would be a sitting duck for aircraft or submarines. The rest of the time it's a slow, substandard patrol vessel.

[Smallc]

As far as I know, almost nobody's navy has icebreakers. Even the US navy, which has the polar Star type, don't arm them. They're icebreakers, not warships. What's the point of having an icebreaker slash warship? It can barely move if it's in the ice and would be a sitting duck for aircraft or submarines. The rest of the time it's a slow, substandard patrol vessel.

It's a patrol vessel that will be more capable than most anywhere in the world. In terms of weaponry, it's only armed with a 25MM cannon for constabulary duties. It isn't intended to be a warship.

Also, I added more to my post above.

[bush_cheney2004]

As far as I know, almost nobody's navy has icebreakers. Even the US navy, which has the polar Star type, don't arm them.

The US Navy does not operate heavy icebreakers....that would be the U.S. Coast Guard. Russia, Sweden, Germany, U.K. and several other nations all have icebreakers.

[Argus]

It's a patrol vessel that will be more capable than most anywhere in the world. In terms of weaponry, it's only armed with a 25MM cannon for constabulary duties. It isn't intended to be a warship.

Also, I added more to my post above.

If it's not intended to be a warship then it shouldn't be given to the navy. It should be a coast guard vessel. As for command and control, given the top speed of 17 knots its slower than a fishing boat or a freighter so I don't know how these things could be used in any sort of fleet exercise.

As a comparison, the Royal navy has ordered three offshore patrol vessels which seem comparable aside from the icebreaking capacity. The cost of the three will be about one sixth the cost of the four we're building http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/90m-offshore-patrol-vessel-opv/

Now I'm all for building here what we can, but not at three or four or five times the cost of having someone else build them, frankly.

[Argus]

The US Navy does not operate heavy icebreakers.

And why is that, do you think?

[bush_cheney2004]

And why is that, do you think?

Because it is a Coast Guard mission. US Navy subs can transit under the ice.

[The_Squid]

This government has been a complete embarrassment in terms of procurement for the military. The ice breakers are just one in a long list of debacles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/

[Smallc]

Every government has failed at this.

[Argus]

Every government has failed at this.

An NDP government would not likely run into many issues since they wouldn't be buying anything.

A Liberal government would be buying blankets, as I understand it.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Then why promise icebreakers? What are these things for anyway? They won't even be able to get through the ice except in summer, and even then not all that far to the north, and as to the rest of their duties, well, they're slower than a fishing boat. Canada could use coastal patrol craft, but these aren't them.

They didn't promise the DeWolf class to be icebreakers, as they are building a large icebreaker for the Coast Guard, but the Harry DeWolf class, as I already said, have an equal or better ice rating to all but two of our current icebreakers, including the very medium icebreakers that our Coast Guard provides ice breaking services to commercial shipping in the Arctic sailing months...........

As to their purpose, as defined by the RCN, to act as long range offshore patrol vessels on all three of our coasts, in addition to enabling greater support to the military and other Government agencies in the Arctic..............As to their speed versus a fishing boat, that is negated easily:

[Derek 2.0]

$288 million bucks to design a class of ships based on a Norwegian ship whose design Canada already bought for $5 million. All to produce what will almost certainly only ever be 4 vessels.

You're repeating incorrect media talking points...........first, Canada didn't "buy the design" of the vessel off the shelf, we purchased the design of the (ice breaking) hull form used on a successful line of modern civilian icebreakers........The rest of the cost is associated with designing the entire vessel to military (not civilian) standards, using an already designed hull form........the cost of the electronic and communication gear aboard the vessels will likely cost more than the entire build of a civilian icebreaker of equal size........

I know neither coast is more than 6,000km long and ships can be refueled at more than one location.

Canada's cumulative coast line is over 200 000 kms........care to guess how many Canadian ports stock jet fuel?

47 knots vs 17 knots.

47 knots in sprints, not sustained and no where close to that in the North Atlantic or North Pacific, the LCS's sustained speed is closer to the AOPS, and less in any type of weather.

Of course, the DeWolf's Cyclone will have a sustained speed of over 125 knots, and nearly 1/6th the range of the LCS in one flight........

I'm not suggesting they would be racing up and down in the Arctic, but then neither will the De Wolf class, which won't be able to go near the north except in high summer, maybe. They'd certainly do a better job as offshore coastal patrol vessels down where we actually have a coastline with ocean traffic, though.

There is no question the DeWolf will be able to operate in the Arctic sailing season........the "high summer" sees Northern Communities supplied by barges towed by conventional tugs.....in late Spring through early Fall, the Canadian Coast Guard uses (3) icebreakers, to support Northern shipping, with the same ice rating (Polar 5) as the DeWolf class............

And no, the LCS wouldn't make better offshore patrol vessels, as demonstrated by their current service with the USN, in which they can only be fully utilized in calm seas, like the Persian Gulf, Caribbean, Med and the South China sea..........your LCS would be hard pressed to operate as intended off our coastlines from September to April.

I mean, what are these four ships going to be doing most of the time? They're clearly not going to be up north. There's very little up there and they can only travel in light ice conditions. So most of their time will be spent further south. Am I wrong here?

They will go up North, and be more capable than the current Kingston class that does the like........likewise, due to their sheer size, they will also be more capable off both our Pacific and Atlantic coasts year round, more so then the current Kingston class, or our Coast Guard's Hero class, and miles ahead of the Littoral Combat Ship..........

You understand what Littoral means right?

This comment is pretty odd since I'm speaking about the new class anyway.

Then why did you cite the current LCS-Freedom Class?

Both LCS classes will cease production in the short-term in favor of a larger, frigate sized vessel ...........I fail to see why you feel Canada needs a heavily armed, AEGIS equipped, corvette/frigate sized vessels, that is not suitable to patrol off our coasts, to fend off polluters, fishery violators, smugglers and provide SAR services.........The United States Coast Guard doesn't even have a requirement for such a beast..........

What you're suggesting is akin to replacing the RCMP's Crown Victoria's with a Bradly IFV, when a Tahoe is all that is needed, well still improving greatly on capability over what it is replacing........

[Derek 2.0]

If it's not intended to be a warship then it shouldn't be given to the navy. It should be a coast guard vessel.

Why? Our Navy very much so provides a constabulary role (since its inception) to our maritime security, far more then the unionized Canadian Coast Guard........The DeWolf class will be a vast improvement over the Kingston class for domestic requirements, well also not being a costly waste of resources, as it is when we use a frigate or destroyer to "combat" fishing boats and drug smugglers off our coasts.......

In addition, purpose built Arctic vessels will give our a navy a capability that isn't shared by any other, from sole presence in the Arctic, to supporting ongoing and future military and government operations in our far North........

As a comparison, the Royal navy has ordered three offshore patrol vessels which seem comparable aside from the icebreaking capacity. The cost of the three will be about one sixth the cost of the four we're building http://www.naval-tec...rol-vessel-opv/

Comparable? The new RN Rivers will be 1/3rd the size of the DeWolf class, have a reduced range and endurance, and won't be able to support and sustain a helicopter, nor have the C&C facilities that will allow the vessels to support multi sized sea, air and on land operations........and of course, as you pointed out, won't be able to operate in the ice.

[Derek 2.0]

This government has been a complete embarrassment in terms of procurement for the military. The ice breakers are just one in a long list of debacles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/

Neat story, too bad Byers didn't actually address anything factual.........like the Americans consulting with Canadians on Arctic technology...

[On Guard for Thee]

This government has been a complete embarrassment in terms of procurement for the military. The ice breakers are just one in a long list of debacles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/

At least it seems like the curret gov. has backed away fro the F 35. Maybe there's hope.

[nerve]

It could have been worse. Look at it this way, Canada's Navy fleet doesn't have much of a purpose. The only credible threats are either half way around the world with brown water fleets OR China, Russia or South American Countries such as Brazil. I can't imagine India "invading" Canada. For that matter theonly two countries China and Russia, happen to have missile systems that can destroy Air Craft Carriers, and they could sink any ship Canada can build for much less than it took to build. So what is left that it is essentially for domestic operations, or supply of US or EU fleets. Canada is sorely equiped to deal with Russia - and depends on the US for this. Canada is in denile that it will have a negligible Navy and manned Air Force as the years tick by, the sad fact is that both these are "obsolete" and outdated. Canada would be better off persuing a nuclear deterent, and putting its resources into a Merchant Marine that can be modularly upgraded with US technological systems or Canadian made systems. Canada is not a military power and a complex thinking it is is very dangerous. It should just be sending a big fat check to NATO at about 5% GDP and ask them what they should by because Canada is totally dependant on its NATO allies for anything but overthrowing third world countries without an airforce. Lets be serious those activities are totally not required and have resulted in perhaps more harm than good for global security, but that is a guessing game.

Its what the Navy wanted though, so we can leave it at that.

Canada appears totally dead in the water when it comes to its military as being able to cope with real potential enemies who just happen to have "defensive" militaries - China and Russia.

Canada's Navy is essentially in the Black and Baltic bear in mind though Russia has an arctic though, but it also has missiles that can sink Canada's fleet. Without support ships it is dead in the water. But it lets Canada's leadership think they can play the game, and the money goes to the right people, but hell it could be worse. They know their role and what they need. Canada should just set the 5% GDP send it to the military / NATO and let them decide, shirts and arm chair generals shouldn't be making these calls.

Canada should be encouraging its ship builders, for example LNG ships to suppy Europe if applicable or other ports. Having tankers than can double as supply ships would be double beneficial. Having a Commericial purpose would be great, like a Swiss Guard. Loan out the ships on contract for maritime security. These "free jobs" is just bad economic policy. Rent naval ships as part of an insurance policy for shipping, get commercial shipping to fill demand. Just building boats to eat up marine oil and wages, is just bad fiscal policy.

Edited July 22, 2015 by nerve

[Smallc]

Canada's frigates and F-18s are probably in better condition than most of what Russia has. Russia has a lot more military might, but it means little this far from home.

[nerve]

2 days is a long time for some but without the US and its EU allies Canada would be in peril over what it has been up to with Russia. Dont fixate on Russia, China is growing rapidly in its navy it has mulitple aircraft carriers...

it still ain't the US but if you look at the budget it is working with it is doing way more bang for buck.

Russia is trying, it has a much more aggressive military program than Canada currently, including plans for landing ships - although not as big as the Mistrals that were plundered from it. SPEAKING OF WHICH, if Russia actually let them be sold there is a a quick fix but wait Canada can't afford it right but Russia can?

Russia is operating a fleet in the Gulf of Mexico as we speak.

Edited July 22, 2015 by nerve

[Derek 2.0]

It could have been worse. Look at it this way, Canada's Navy fleet doesn't have much of a purpose.

The Royal Canadian Navy's sole purpose, for over 100 years, is to act as an extension to the foreign policies of the Government of Canada.

Canada's Navy is essentially in the Black and Baltic bear in mind though Russia has an arctic though, but it also has missiles that can sink Canada's fleet.

The Russians also had missiles that "could sink NATO's fleets" through the 70s and 80s.........though they did then pose a threat, the reality then was that outside the use of nuclear warheads, the Soviets would have expended nearly their entire Naval Aviation Regiments to maybe sink one USN Carrier Battle Group........The Russians and Chinese today aren't a fraction of what the former Soviet Union was.......

Without support ships it is dead in the water

We will be building two new AORs, well looking at introducing an interim type and are currently leasing two of our allies support ships.....

[Derek 2.0]

2 days is a long time for some but without the US and its EU allies Canada would be in peril over what it has been up to with Russia. Dont fixate on Russia, China is growing rapidly in its navy it has mulitple aircraft carriers...

Due to the Chinese's navies lack of viable ASW assets, the Chinese have multiple targets......

[Derek 2.0]

Canada's frigates and F-18s are probably in better condition than most of what Russia has. Russia has a lot more military might, but it means little this far from home.

The Russian battle group centered around their sole aircraft carrier, when it sorties every few years, deploy's with a large oceangoing tug.......

[nerve]

The Royal Canadian Navy's sole purpose, for over 100 years, is to act as an extension to the foreign policies of the Government of Canada.

The Russians also had missiles that "could sink NATO's fleets" through the 70s and 80s.........though they did then pose a threat, the reality then was that outside the use of nuclear warheads, the Soviets would have expended nearly their entire Naval Aviation Regiments to maybe sink one USN Carrier Battle Group........The Russians and Chinese today aren't a fraction of what the former Soviet Union was.......

We will be building two new AORs, well looking at introducing an interim type and are currently leasing two of our allies support ships.....

I can't say I agree Derek. The Canadian Navy isn't about GC's foreign policies - it is about NATO, UN, and Partisan objectives.

Sorry but China and Russia, are way more of a threat today than the USSR has been since the 1970's. Where once we had one Khans empire, now we have Ghengis' Empire. The technology today is way more advance, and Russia and China are developing and deploying systems that make Canada's obsolete military technology - or the USSRs for that matter comparing an Acheulean blade to a musket.

Will be is saying it isn't done.