Canada goes for Arctic patrol vessel purchase

The Canadian government is close to approving the acquisition of six Arctic patrol vessels for a cost of approximately CAD1.8 billion (US1.6 billion).

According to a Canadian press report, the priorities and planning committee of the cabinet has recommended the purchase and has forwarded the plan to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for approval.

During the 2005-06 election campaign, the Conservatives promised to acquire three armed heavy icebreakers to patrol Canada's northern waters, but the navy has resisted the move, pushing for more flexible, and less expensive options.

The option approved by the cabinet committee is believed to be similar to the Royal Norwegian Navy's Svalbard class: 6,300 ton vessels, reinforced for ice operations, with a flight deck for a medium-sized helicopter, and equipped with a Bofors 57 mm gun. Opting for arctic patrol vessels over armed icebreakers will be less of a drain on navy resources, plus the ships would not be limited to a single role. When the ships are unable to operate in the north, retired Canadian Forces lieutenant commander Doug Thomas, a consultant at the Maritime Warfare Centre, suggested that they "would be invaluable in performing offshore SAR [search-and-rescue] and patrol missions off the coasts of British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces".

Although the patrol vessels will give the navy an added capability, the service's priority - replacing its Iroquois-class C2 destroyers - needs to be addressed. The irony of the navy scuttling an Iroquois-class destroyer in a live fire exercise, when replacement platforms are not even on the horizon, was not lost on naval officers in Ottawa.

The Arctic occupies a higher priority for the Conservative government, which is concerned that its claims to sovereignty are not sufficiently backed by a military presence. There are concerns that global warming could eventually open the Northwest Passage to year-round ship traffic and Canada's claims to the region's resources could be challenged. Canada already has boundary disputes with the US and Denmark and is in disagreement with the US and the EU over control of shipping in the Northwest Passage.

The procurement process for the six Arctic patrol vessels is expected to involve a two-year definition phase, while the first ship is due to be operational no earlier than 2015.

Six 6300 tonne ships armed with a 57mm bofors and a flightdeck for 1.8 billion?

ROTFL

Must stop laughing.............................. need to breath.................

I stole it from Janes..... I wonder if it's the same at that Polar12 Mulroney promised us a few decade ago.?

I have heard rumblings lately about ships along these lines. But 1.8 billion for 6 6300 tonnes ships? No way in hell you would get two down the slips for 1.8 billion. The minute you stick a 57mm or 76mm on the bows you create a whole new level of complexity wrt fire control, damage control and command and control. Weapons like those are not fired over "iron" sights ( I know you know this Mario, just for the edifcation of others ). A 220 round a minute 57mm bofors will require at least one fire control radar and at least one search radar to find targets to pass off to the FC Radar to direct the Bofors.

It might seem simple to drop a gun on the front of a ship but the complexities are immense. There is a reason that the plans for a Halifax class frigate, when printed out, would not fit in a box car.

I'm all in favour of at least *something* being done to show the flag up in the north and this is progress. However, once these ships come down the ways you'll be stuck with them for 50 years. It would be better to see Canada develop an icebreaking destroyer - which is what is really needed for near-future service in the Northwest Passage. And it's better to spend the money now than later.

Also, a thick hulled icebreaking destroyer would be naturally resistant to modern anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.

These are betwixt and between. No one is even sure who will operate them. If they do put weapon systems on them, then the Navy has got to take them with all that entails. The CG has zero experience with weapon systems and do not have the unlimitied liability those of us in the Forces have signed on for. It takes years to learn how to properly operate a weapon system like the 57mm. To go at it with no previous experience? Shudder.

As for the tanks? I guess I am the only one who understood that a purchase price and maintenace contract were going to be two different things. They goofed not making that clear from the get go. The Air Force was much smarter, ensuring that everyone knew from the get go the price of the C-17, Chinooks etc included 20 year maintenace contracts. If the Army can get away with 650 million in maintenance on 100 tanks for 20 years they got a hell of a deal. $330,000 a hull per year? Hell I went through that much for a single sonar in spare parts in one week.

Edited for content. I had 200 tanks vise 100 originally.

The problem with nuclear subs Derby is that we would be in the same situation as I described for the Coast Guard. Taking on the training to get up to speed on safely running a nuc plant is not to be taken lightly. New trades would need to be created and trained from the ground up. That means no "institutional" knowledge. Then there is the whole mess of creating at least one entirely new Naval Base (Halifax does not allow Nucs past Shearwater). Over coming NIMBY etc etc.

They are a great solution but not a realistic one.

Personally, this makes no sense to me. Instead of building a few big icebreakers, which would allow us to maintain a year round presence in the Arctic, we're going to build 6300 tonne 'patrol vessels' so we can crusie around the Arctic in the summer and maybe part of the fall, relegating these giants ships to SAR duty the rest of the year? Isn't that like using a Halifax/Iroquois for SAR work?

Saying that these ships will be mulit-purpose is a sham. It's like saying that our tanks can be used as ambulances if need be. Sure you could use for that purpose, but there are far better choices available than that.

I agree with the problem of cost/complexity of the state-of-the-art 57mm Bofors.

Years back the Brits, built some offshore fisheries vessels, which attracted a loud media critique---the brits simply mounted one 40mm L/70 Bofors....locally controlled. The criticism was the ships were too lightly armed but most smugglers etc will not argue with the 40mm Bofors. The Brit vessels have been very successful in their role, freeing up frigates for other more appropriate duties.

Indeed, it is not the selection of the gun---it is the selection of the "weapon system".

Mounting of 1 modern 57mm Bofors entails much of the cost of the CCC expense of a major warship---for 1 stupid pop-gun......realistically a hood ornament.

The american experience with their M1 tank is that 60% of the cost is the electronics/fire-control.
40% of the cost of the Abrams is on mundane matters like hull, suspension, powertrain, gun---that minor stuff.

An ice-reinforced destroyer is not economically feasable.

An embarked helo opens all sorts of broad spectrum, extremely flexible, easily updated options for recon, offence or defence--over the horizon. The cost of an armed helo will curl your hair.

Basically in the arctic patrol role a WW2 Bofor is just as good a hood ornament as a obscenely expensive modern weapon system. Realistically, that would be the major function of the gunarmament of such a ship---a hood ornament.

:roll: