Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"Much closer" is a very relative thing. COTS systems like that one typically may filter GNSS signals from somewhere between 20 to 40 db noise - at most.
Raytheon UK has a MOTS solution that supposedly runs up to 120 db, but on that scale we're talking systems bigger than that Class I drone.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@shadow99 The Sun Tzu Ping fa is taught in every military academy in the western world. I have a copy in my bookshelf which I picked up during my first year at university many years ago. Our friends in Beijing are great readers of Mahon so maybe you should read him as well. They are real disciplines of his. I too have him on my bookshelf.
 

shadow99

New Member
@shadow99 The Sun Tzu Ping fa is taught in every military academy in the western world. I have a copy in my bookshelf which I picked up during my first year at university many years ago. Our friends in Beijing are great readers of Mahon so maybe you should read him as well. They are real disciplines of his. I too have him on my bookshelf.
Thanks ngatimozart to pointing me to Mahon which I haven't read and looks like an awesome read. Should keep me busy for awhile. I believe you have a post on good reading material which I shall visit and also find/dig out my copies of Sun Zsu to refresh my old memory from 40 years ago.
 

shadow99

New Member

Calculus

Well-Known Member

Two Polar Icebreakers are to be built, with one to be built at Seaspans shipyard in Vanvouver and the other at Davie Shipyard according to Canadian Defense Review and that one of them will be completed by 2030.
Constructing 2 will enable Canada to have a year round presence in the Arctic.
Here's the official GoC press release: Polar icebreakers and the National Shipbuilding Strategy - Canada.ca
And another, with a concept sketch: Polar icebreakers - Large vessel shipbuilding projects – Shipbuilding projects to equip the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard – National Shipbuilding Strategy – Sea – Defence and marine procurement – Buying and Selling – PSPC

The decision to build at two separate facilities is purely political. Building two of these though, is great news. (It had long been rumored a second was in the plans.)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Indeed giving Davie a contract is purely political. Having two heavies is a good idea albeit not very cost efficient having two yards involved. Polar 8 never happened and the Diefenbaker was proposed 12 years ago. IMHO, the Polar icecap has a better chance of survival than two heavy icebreakers regardless of which party wins the next election.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
According to this, Seaspan will be building their Polar "concurrently" with the second supply ship, which is due for delivery in 2024. This suggests that at least one of these two new icebreakers will be in the water well before the 2030 dates in the press releases.

 

Vanquish

New Member
I'm happy to see that Canada will construct 2 PC-2 class icebreakers. Building them in separate yards is not efficient though as previously mentioned.

One thing that is puzzling me is which design will be chosen since both Davie and Seaspan are using different design contractors. With Davie using Vard and Seaspan using Genoa Design.

I don't expect that each shipyard will get to use whom they aligned with but rather the government will have to choose which design wins out and then both shipyards would have to build that design. I imagine there is going to be a lot more government lobbying taking place.
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I'm happy to see that Canada will construct 2 PC-2 class icebreakers. Building them in separate yards is not efficient though as previously mentioned.

One thing that is puzzling me is which design will be chosen since both Davie and Seaspan are using different design contractors. With Davie using Vard and Seaspan using Genoa Design.

I don't expect that each shipyard will get to use whom they aligned with but rather the government will have to choose which design wins out and then both shipyards would have to build that design. I imagine there is going to be a lot more government lobbying taking place.
There is an existing design, several years old now, but from what I have heard was recently updated to increase bunkerage (for longer range) and to incorporate newer technology. The original design has been tested by NRC, and thoroughly modelled. I've attached a good description of it for information purposes, as I could not find anything more recent (Courtesy We Represent: | SNAME, and their publication Marine Technology Magazine, October 2014).
 

Attachments

Vanquish

New Member
Thank you Calculus. I'm pleased with the decision to build two PC-2 class icebreakers. I had feeling that Davie was going to get the polar icebreaker contract and leave Seaspan in the cold. I thought to make up for the loss of the polar icebreaker that the Federal Government would kick Seaspan a 3rd AOR. I'm still hopeful that happens mind you and that Seaspan does get a contract to build a 3rd AOR.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
There are some less "intrusive" options on the market and being tested, mostly going in the direction of fire control systems for small arms - from assault rifles up to a 40mm GMG with airburst shells (Kongsberg will sell you a RWS with integrated radar designed specifically for that).


There is no such thing as an anti-jammer. If it's externally guided/piloted this guidance can be jammed. If it retrieves position information from external sources that can be interfered with. If it doesn't use either then with current technology we're no longer talking about Class I UAS.

Sure, "backpack solutions" are vulnerable in that regard, for the sake of mobility. But against an actual integrated cUAS system? No chance. Especially so when we're talking harbour protection for a ship with an actual electronic warfare suite in a port, or a containerized solution with similar-scale capability.
Not to mention the ‘burn through’ power of a ship-based EW system is going to be absolutely dominant compared to whatever ECCM capabilities might be able to be deployed on a small, lightweight drone. If necessary, something like the below products are widely available. The drone threat is over-stated in my opinion. It is a threat, only against those who haven’t bothered thinking of a solution to address it. The ability of drones to withstand counter-measures is negligible.

 

Albedo

Active Member
I'm happy to see that Canada will construct 2 PC-2 class icebreakers. Building them in separate yards is not efficient though as previously mentioned.

One thing that is puzzling me is which design will be chosen since both Davie and Seaspan are using different design contractors. With Davie using Vard and Seaspan using Genoa Design.

I don't expect that each shipyard will get to use whom they aligned with but rather the government will have to choose which design wins out and then both shipyards would have to build that design. I imagine there is going to be a lot more government lobbying taking place.

Genoa Design doesn't seem to design ships from scratch, rather they specialize in 3D modelling and Seaspan uses them to assist in the transfer to production for their National Shipbuilding Strategy projects. As Calculus noted, the Canadian government contracted directly in 2010 with Vard Marine to design the Polar Icebreaker and should be providing the design to the shipyards to build. So the final ships should be the same, but no doubt Seaspan/Genoa Design and Davie/Vard will come up with different build strategies.

Thank you Calculus. I'm pleased with the decision to build two PC-2 class icebreakers. I had feeling that Davie was going to get the polar icebreaker contract and leave Seaspan in the cold. I thought to make up for the loss of the polar icebreaker that the Federal Government would kick Seaspan a 3rd AOR. I'm still hopeful that happens mind you and that Seaspan does get a contract to build a 3rd AOR.
I too am glad the CCG is getting two Polar icebreakers in order to maintain a year-round presence in the Arctic and to make sure the CCGS Terry Fox gets a replacement too. My preference also would have been that Davie got both Polar Icebreakers and Seaspan got a 3rd AOR. But even with a 3rd AOR, Seaspan would have probably been able to claim compensation if they didn't get a Polar Icebreaker since that's what they were originally promised under the NSS and they've already spent money doing preparation for it. So I wouldn't be surprised if money wasted on lost efficiency in splitting the Polar icebreaker build between two shipyards is at least partially offset by not being sued by Seaspan. In terms of production queue juggling, with 2030 being a hard in service date (likely meaning a 2028/2029 delivery date) for at least 1 Polar icebreaker to allow CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent to retire, the best hope for a 3rd AOR is if Davie really is the on time, on budget shipbuilder they've been lobbying as in the last few years and can commit to being the shipyard that provides that 1st Polar icebreaker thereby giving Seaspan the ability to slot the 3rd AOR in after the 2nd AOR allowing serial production and before their Polar icebreaker. Otherwise, the increased cost of building a 3rd AOR after the Polar icebreaker at Seaspan likely makes a 3rd AOR unpalatable.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If the government decided on building a couple of LHDs (HADR and amphibious capability with HADR making the project politically saleable) with SeaSpan as the builder sometime in the future along with a third AOR committed at the same time Davie gets a dual icebreaker contract all parties should be satisfied. A dual build by the same yard will be more efficient and after building three 25k ton AOR ships, SeaSpan would be well prepared to build two LHDs with support from either Spain or Italy’s LHD builders (likely design choices). LHDs should be considered as they would be very useful for domestic HADR should the long overdue big one hit the Pacific Northwest.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Interesting video about one of Canada's "civilian" icebreakers, MV Umiak 1, operated by Fednav for bulk nickel ore transport in Canada's north:

The video is about 44 minutes long, but quite interesting, especially for the "old school" ship drivers amongst you - the MV Uniak 1 does not have bow or stern thrusters, though it does have a variable pitch prop and a big rudder. Still, it's a pretty big ship - 189m long, with a 27m beam, a draught of 11.7m (fully laden), and 32,000 DWT, so no small amount of skill is required to maneuver her. For those of you who want to skip ahead and see some ice bashing, go to around 15:50 in the video.

Note: Since this video was made, two sister ships have been commissioned.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
AOPV (AOPS) 2 (HMCS Margaret Brooke 431) started her builders trials yesterday, and the bow section of AOPV 3 (HMCS Max Bernays 432) was joined to the rest of the ship today at the Irving Shipyard land level construction point in Halifax. HMCS Margaret Brooke will be delivered to the RCN this summer, and HMCS Max Bernays should start her builders trials by December. AOPV 4 is under construction in the Assembly hall, with blocks being moved into the Ultra Hall now for assembly into the mega-blocks, of which there are three. AOPV 5 is set to cut steel imminently. AOPV 1 (HMCS Harry DeWolf 430) meanwhile, is on her warm weather trials in the Caribbean. These ships are designed to operate in temperatures ranging from -50C to +40C, which is no small thing, but until that range is tested, this capability remains theoretical. The cold weather portion was confirmed in February, but weather so far in the Caribbean has not exceeded 30C.

Pictures courtesy Irving Shipbuilding Twitter feed

Picture 1 AOPV 3 (HMCS Max Bernays 432) bow section being moved from the Ultra Hall

AOPV3_Bow Section_2.jpg

Picture 2 AOPV 3 (HMCS Max Bernays 432) bow section being joined to the middle and stern sections at the land level construction point.

AOPV3_Bow Section.jpg
 
Last edited:

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
...
Pictures courtesy Irving Shipbuilding Twitter feed

Picture 1 AOPV 3 (HMCS Max Bernays 432) bow section being moved from the Ultra Hall

View attachment 48210

Picture 2 AOPV 3 (HMCS Max Bernays 432) bow section being joined to the middle and stern sections at the land level construction point.

View attachment 48211
For some reason I can't get the theme song for and images of the "Zero-X" being assembled out of my head
 
Top