Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[M.Dancer]

If the US wanted to invade North Korea, do you think their current level of nuclear armament would completely deter the possibility of any US attack?

Un questionably. Don't count on MAD to work with nations like N Korea. They have the wherewithall to use what ever means to attack any number of targets either in South Korea or Japan. And that blackmail is their deterent.

As for Israel, they, too, only need to deter nations that are right nearby, and so don't need intercontinental delivery systems. However, Israel does have intercontinental capability anyway, as it has its own space launch vehicles (which is more than can be said for Canada). I wouldn't be surprised if Israel has a wide range of nuclear systems ready to go, including MIRVs and ABMs, not just ICBMs. They are pretty serious about defense over there.

You may not be surprised but I bet just about everybody else would be. There is no evidence that Israel's nuclear deterent is anything more than tactical.

Coming back from those examples to Canada, which nations would we need to deter? Is the United States, on the same continent as us, the only country we'd be pointing our nukes at? Or do we perhaps want to have a system that would work against some other countries? If we want a deterrent against nuclear powers on other continents, then our delivery system also needs to be intercontinental. Just having nukes doesn't do anything to prevent an attack if your enemy knows that you can't actually use the nukes against them.

Well, perhaps we don't need a deterent, or if we did, perhaps we can do as was done and still is. Position your deterent in someome else's country.

[geoffrey]

Ok. I missed something and I can't seem to find it.

Who the hell started us on a topic of Canada requiring nukes to ensure our security?

What a ridiculous idea.

[weaponeer]

Weaponeer, I think that to have comparable defense to some of the countries you mention, Canada would need to invest a larger % of the GDP in the military, since we have much more territory to defend, and much of it is sparsely populated and doesn't have existing civilian population centres to incorporate military facilities with. Building stuff from scratch is more expensive, and building and operating stuff in extreme environments (the arctic) is more expensive.

However, I do agree that of the money that we do allocate to the military, much of it could be used more efficiently than it is.

Anyway, I also think that without its own nuclear deterrent, a country can't be a serious military power, especially not when in a dispute with a country that does have nuclear capabilities. If Canada was serious about sovereignty and defense, we'd have a nuclear weapons program. We have plenty of nuclear reactors and the expertise to do it, but the Canadian public wouldn't support it.

Actually, we do not have that much territory to protect. What you say??? We protect the population, the people. There is not need to have thousands of troops and planes to protect every inch of Canada. Like Russia, we have space, we have winter for that.

You need forces that can be moved where they are needed quickly, anywhere in Canada. If they are required up north they should be able to get there, and operaste there. If they are required in the BC mountains, same , they should be able to get there and stay. Thay means we need military land, sea and air transport, we need airpower, the most cost effective defence. You need to train your troops to move and operate in various places.

The biggest threat to Canada in the for of a conventional attack would be from air/sea launched cruise missiles, you need the capability to kill their mother ships before launch....

He who defends everything, defends nothing....

[weaponeer]

Here's some good info....

Backgrounder

Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships

BG–07.023 - July 10, 2007

In the current and future security environment, the Government of Canada must have effective tools for exercising control of Canada’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs, or 200 nautical mile limit) in all three oceans, particularly the Arctic. This Government recognizes that an increased Canadian Forces (CF) presence in the Arctic is essential to achieving our goals in this region, which is critical to our national interest and sense of identity.

Currently, the Canadian Navy can patrol the coastal waters of Canada’s East and West Coasts, but it does not have the capability to effectively patrol all three oceans. The Navy can only operate in northern waters for a short period of time, and only when there is no ice.

While the Navy can effectively patrol our close coastal waters in the Atlantic and Pacific with its Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs), these ships cannot be used effectively out to the limits of Canada’s EEZs. They have limited ability to operate in the open ocean, limited speed, limited capacity to support boarding operations and lack the ability to support a helicopter. The Navy must use its large combatant vessels – destroyers and frigates, which are expensive to operate and already over-tasked - to patrol the open ocean.

To fill this capability gap, the Navy will acquire up to eight Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPS). The estimated cost of acquiring these ships is $3.1 billion, with approximately $4.3 billion provided for operations and maintenance over the 25-year lifespan of the ship.

The multi-purpose, ice-capable offshore patrol ship will enhance Canada’s ability to enforce its right, under international law, to be notified when foreign ships enter Canadian waters. The primary tasks of the A/OPS would be to conduct sea-borne surveillance operations in Canada’s EEZs, including the Arctic; provide cross-governmental situation awareness of activities and events in the regions; and cooperate with other elements of the CF and other federal government departments to assert and enforce Canadian sovereignty, when and where necessary.

These ships will also provide the flexibility for the Navy to operate in both the Arctic and offshore environments, allowing them to be used year-round in a variety of roles, including domestic surveillance, search and rescue and support to other government departments.

The Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship offers the best blend of capabilities in one platform; however, a ship with these capabilities does not currently exist and would have to be designed to meet a series of high-level requirements:

Seakeeping: The A/OPSs must be able to operate independently and effectively in Canada’s EEZs, including such diverse environments as the Canadian Arctic, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Northwest Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. The ship must also be capable of navigating the St. Lawrence River year-round and berthing at Quebec City.

Ice Capability: The hull of the A/OPS must be ice strengthened to operate in medium first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions - old ice that is denser and may strike the hull of the ship. This ice capability is exclusively for the ships’ own mobility, not to provide icebreaking services to other ships.

Endurance/Range: The ship must have the ability to sustain operations for up to four months and must have a range of at least 6,000 nautical miles.

Command and Control: The ship’s electronic equipment must have the ability to ensure safety of navigation and flight, as well as sufficient command, control and communications capability to provide and receive real-time information to and from the CF Common Operating Picture.

Speed: The ship must be able to maintain an economical speed of 14 knots and attain a maximum speed of at least 20 knots.

Armament: The ship must have gun armament to assert Canadian sovereignty.

Boat Operations: The ship’s crew must be able to conduct boat operations in up to sea state four, support operations ashore via landing craft and support naval boarding parties.

Class Life: The ships should remain operational for 25 years.

The ship may also be designed to embark and operate an on-board helicopter, as well as house one flying crew and one maintenance crew.

Procurement Strategy

The two-phased process of procuring the A/OPS will be an innovative, fair and transparent means of guaranteeing the requirements of the CF are met in a timely manner, while ensuring value for Canadians’ tax dollars and maximizing opportunities for Canadian industry. Industrial and regional benefits totalling 100 per cent of the contract value would be sought for the implementation contract.

A project definition phase of 24 months will be needed to develop the functional design, refine the high-level statement of operational requirements (SORs), complete and issue the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the implementation phase of the project and evaluate responses. A competitive process will be used to select a Definition, Engineering, Logistics and Management Support (DELMS) contractor, who will develop the design used to refine the requirements and provide input into the RFP. During this time, consulting engineering contractors will also deliver a functional design for the infrastructure needed to support the A/OPS.

Throughout the project definition phase, industry will be kept engaged and informed of progress and design work. Interest from industry will be sought through a Letter of Interest to allow potential bidders to self-identify, and qualified teams will be invited to comment on the draft project implementation (PI) RFP. The definition phase of the procurement process would end with the release and evaluation of this RFP.

The implementation phase of the process would involve the successful contractor completing a detailed design of the ships, followed by construction and the provision of integrated logistics support, and initial in-service support. Delivery of the first Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship is expected in 2013.

The procurement strategy would conform to the Canadian Shipbuilding Policy Framework, which provides that the federal government will continue to procure, repair and refit vessels in Canada, subject to operational requirements and the continued existence of a competitive domestic marketplace.

This acquisition will create long-term industrial development for Canadians. The Government's policy requires that prime contractors on defence procurements undertake business activities in Canada, usually in an amount equal to the value of the contract they have won. This helps Canadian companies maintain globally competitive operations in the country and effectively support future national security requirements.

The acquisition of these ships will deliver maximum high-quality industrial benefits to Canadians and the Canadian shipbuilding industry is well positioned to play a significant role as this project proceeds.

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if 8 helicopters are inculded in the ticker shock and which helocopters they are musing about.....

[Proud Canuck]

"The federal government will fund the construction of six to eight new Arctic patrol ships to help reassert Canada's sovereignty over the North, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.Harper also said the government will construct a deepwater port somewhere in the Far North, with the location to be announced soon. The port will be used as an operation base for the new patrol vessels.

Sounds like you're gonna get that port you wanted."

1) The six patrol vessels are coastal patrol boats, not ice-breakers.

2) The port will help the economy of the arctic and the rest of Canada.

I wonder how Curious George in Washington feels about this?

Edited July 28, 2007 by Proud Canuck

[weaponeer]

I wonder if 8 helicopters are inculded in the ticker shock and which helocopters they are musing about.....

They would be smaller ships than the Frigates if they are only Patrol Boats. Most likely we would get 6-8 Sea Hawk helos, but I am only guessing....

[jdobbin]

Here is what Greg Weston has to say about the military in the north.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...4481382-sun.php

n early July, Harper announced the government would fund construction of up to eight custom-designed "Polar Class 5 patrol ships" at a cost of $3.1 billion, and the creation of a new deep-water Arctic port to provide refuelling and provisioning for the vessels.

TRAINING CENTRE

A month later, the PM was in Resolute Bay, announcing the community will be home to a new Canadian Forces Arctic Training Centre, and that the Canadian Rangers will be expanded and re-equipped.

"Today's announcements," Harper said at Resolute, "tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic."

Maybe someday. In the meantime, some parts of the Conservative plan and attendant spending splurge haven't exactly attracted deafening applause.

For instance, critics point out Harper and the Conservatives promised during the last election "three new armed naval heavy icebreakers" to help assert Canada's claims over the Northwest Passage.

Instead, the Harper government is now promising what some analysts have dubbed "slushbreakers" -- essentially, reinforced naval patrol vessels with ice-breaking capacity to ply the northern passage in summer only.

Then there is the issue of cost. The history of building and maintaining Canada's existing fleet of actual icebreakers is remarkable primarily for the size of the cost overruns, amply recorded over and over through literally 30 years of auditor-general's reports on government waste and mismanagement.

Finally, there is the not-so-minor issue of training military personnel to man the new Arctic patrol vessels, the Canadian navy having yielded the ice-breaking business to the Coast Guard.

All of which brings us back to the simple question: Why is the government spending $5 billion -- and almost certainly far more than that by the time the planned ships are afloat -- to put military muscle on the northern ice?

One thing is clear, the amount of money being spent to get a northern port in place is going to be far more than what has been revealed so far.