New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Spencer100]

It can’t, but if you are looking for clarity or truth from this government…

It already is. To even get the 1.4% number. They even include some RCMP. Because many of the European nations do to. Italy with the Carbinieri and France with the Gendarmerie.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

S100: In France, the Gendarmerie is part of the military: It is the military police, as are the CRS (Corps Republicain de Securite).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is interesting. A 3-way pact between Canada, Finland, and the US to build icebreakers.

Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Polar Partnership “ICE Pact” Alongside Finland and Canada | The White House

Today, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Finland announced their intent to create the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact, which is a trilateral arrangement to collaborate on the production of polar icebreakers and other capabilities, alongside United States’ allies and...

www.whitehouse.gov

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-us-finland-icebreakers-1.7260460

Really not sure how well this is going to work with the protectionisms in both Canada and the US built into National Ship building programs. Sharing of Knowledge, tests and certain technologies might happen.

 

[Underway]

Not really. You have drop-deck trailers, dump trucks, cube trucks, tow trucks, etc. etc. They are all trucks and trailers. We have the same in the military but we call them Heavy Logistics Vehicles Wheeled, Medium Logistics Vehicle Wheeled, Tank Transporters, Wreckers, etc. They are still just truck and trailers, but we name them after the function they carry.

"Icebreaker" is the same. It is not an indicator of the capacity of the vessel to break through ice. It is an indication of function. Unlike the Coast Guard ones, the AOPS are not there to keep navigation channels open, or to rescue merchant ships stuck in ice, or escort other ships through ice, or generally provide assistance to commercial traffic. Those are the functions of the Coast Guard fleet, thus they are called icebreakers. The GoC has specifically advised commercial shipping that the AOPS will not, repeat, not do that for them in the North and therefore, not to call on them for such purpose. That is why the are not "icebreakers" even though they could act as such.

I was more taking a shot at those who thought that AOPS ice capability was to "thin" then anything else. I am aware of the labeling concerns but its good to get a review of ship classification every once in a while, particularly as there are lots of people who read things here that may not know.

 

[suffolkowner]

So far, there will be two ships in the Polar Class icebreaker, one, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker, built at Seaspan, the other built at Davie. Maybe they will build more for Finland and the US.

Finlands like the no 1 builder of icebreakers, im sure the yard will keep going just under new management

There are multiple icebreakers being built/refirbished in Canada right now. Vancouver, Davie and Irving.

Funny how AOPS is a "slushbreaker" with 2m of ice but these Davie ships (line below) are designed for 1.5m and are specifically called out as icebreakers (of which 6 are being built for CCG).
Program Icebreakers

Also if you go to this link https://www.davie.ca/uploads/pdfs/2022-11-04-nic-en.pdf you'll see Davie is building a Polar Class Icebreaker (and the rest of their builds)

if the new PC4/5 AOPS can break 2m , the new PC 3 are going to be able to do the same

PC3=Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions, which is probably accounts for almost all the ice covered areas in the Arctic

would Seaspan be able to fit another Polar class into its build schedule?

do we need another, Id rather see more mediums

 

[Underway]

do we need another, Id rather see more mediums

I'd rather see a third JSS (Provider) but I'm very biased. Interestingly if there is an MCDV replacement there is a good chance that it will be built by Seaspan given the timelines involved here.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'd rather see a third JSS (Provider) but I'm very biased. Interestingly if there is an MCDV replacement there is a good chance that it will be built by Seaspan given the timelines involved here.

I would too. Im just questioning the need for a another heavy. No work for Davie?

 

[YZT580]

Finlands like the no 1 builder of icebreakers, im sure the yard will keep going just under new management

if the new PC4/5 AOPS can break 2m , the new PC 3 are going to be able to do the same

PC3=Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions, which is probably accounts for almost all the ice covered areas in the Arctic




do we need another, Id rather see more mediums

thinking off-shore customer not domestic

 

[dapaterson]

Canadian shipyards feel no impetus to be on time or on budget. Their principal goal seems to be to fill the offshore accounts of their owners.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Finlands like the no 1 builder of icebreakers, im sure the yard will keep going just under new management

if the new PC4/5 AOPS can break 2m , the new PC 3 are going to be able to do the same

PC3=Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions, which is probably accounts for almost all the ice covered areas in the Arctic




do we need another, Id rather see more mediums

We are getting 3 different classes of icebreakers (4 if you count the AOPS,)

Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy - Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC Services - PSPC

Information about large vessel shipbuilding projects including both combat and non-combat vessels.

www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'd rather see a third JSS (Provider) but I'm very biased. Interestingly if there is an MCDV replacement there is a good chance that it will be built by Seaspan given the timelines involved here.

We really need 3 JSS, even if one is always in refit during normal times.

 

[Underway]

We really need 3 JSS, even if one is always in refit during normal times.

I think once the Seaspan gets into the multirole ship build there is probably an opportunity to also build a third JSS. The timeframe would work out for the retirement of Asterix.

 

[dapaterson]

I think once the Seaspan gets into the multirole ship build there is probably an opportunity to also build a third JSS. The timeframe would work out for the retirement of Asterix.

I would rather see two more, where LL from initial employment of the first of class can be applied. As well, by then some of the SSK requirements may be known - would it be possible for JSS 3&4 to have limited ability to support the SSK fleet?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think a dedicated sub tender would be better. Some localized defense systems, accommodations for the sub's off watch crew when along side, workshops, torpedo magazine, diver support systems, protective barriers, helicopter landing pad, cranes and floating dock section the sub(s) can moor to.
Even if the sub crew can't go ashore, they can get off the sub, buy stuff from the Tenders canteen, watch movies and exercise in comfort and communicate to home.

 

[Maxman1]

I wonder if we could call it Shearwater or if that would conflict with the base.

HMS Shearwater (1900) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YZT580]

I think a dedicated sub tender would be better. Some localized defense systems, accommodations for the sub's off watch crew when along side, workshops, torpedo magazine, diver support systems, protective barriers, helicopter landing pad, cranes and floating dock section the sub(s) can moor to.
Even if the sub crew can't go ashore, they can get off the sub, buy stuff from the Tenders canteen, watch movies and exercise in comfort and communicate to home.

then you need two of them. More of a re-purposed civilian ship than a warship by the sounds of it with basic anti-air

 

[SeaKingTacco]

then you need two of them. More of a re-purposed civilian ship than a warship by the sounds of it with basic anti-air

Repurposed off shore supply vessel?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Repurposed off shore supply vessel?

I thought of that, but they lack extra accommodation, unless you add it. You also have to convert the mud tanks into fuel storage and magazines. Plus they don't have large holds.

 

[Underway]

I think a dedicated sub tender would be better. Some localized defense systems, accommodations for the sub's off watch crew when along side, workshops, torpedo magazine, diver support systems, protective barriers, helicopter landing pad, cranes and floating dock section the sub(s) can moor to.
Even if the sub crew can't go ashore, they can get off the sub, buy stuff from the Tenders canteen, watch movies and exercise in comfort and communicate to home.

I read this initially and thought "what are we the Russians now?" Russia uses large seagoing tugs/tenders because they don't have allies ports all over the place that they can use. Unlike Canada we can go just about anywhere and see a friendly face or at least one that is friendly when we pay them.

But my second thought was... Arctic. Long way to friendly ports. Sub tender/ sub rescue ship is not a bad idea, its worth a look and some research I suspect.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I read this initially and thought "what are we the Russians now?" Russia uses large seagoing tugs/tenders because they don't have allies ports all over the place that they can use. Unlike Canada we can go just about anywhere and see a friendly face or at least one that is friendly when we pay them.

But my second thought was... Arctic. Long way to friendly ports. Sub tender/ sub rescue ship is not a bad idea, its worth a look and some research I suspect.

If we bought 9 subs, then it's worth it. If we have 4 subs again, then I suspect a AOP's could do 70% of the job in a crunch.