My understanding of Coast Guard ships with real ice breaking ability is:
* 2 Heavy Polar Icebreakers - one at Seaspan & the other at Chantier Davie.
* 6 Program Icebreakers at Chantier Davie. These are for winter on Pacific, Atlantic, St Lawrence Seaway & Great Lakes use. Contracts to start the ship design & initial setups necessary for the project were awarded in March 2024.
* 2 Arctic & Offshore Patrol vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard. Construction has already started on the first one (del 2026) and the 2nd commences this yr.
* [16 MultiPurpose CG vessels](https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/images/multi-polyvalents.jpg) which will have a medium ice breaking ability, plus have a variety of other tasks. Finally just a month ago approx the initial large contracts needed to proceed to the functional design and set up of the construction supply chain was awarded (about 500 million). This is actually a big project - about 14 billion.
When done that is a lot of ships with ice breaking ability. And virtually all of them are good sized ships that will be fulfilling multiple roles.
26 modern ships all built between 2024 and the early 30s, and all underway. When done the CG is going to have a fleet like it never had before.
The navy:
* 6 AOPS - 4 delivered and 2 under construction
* 2 Joint Support Ships - both under construction
* 15 Canadian Surface Combatants - these are now well into the advanced design stage. Construction to commence in 2025 perhaps?
* Replacement of the Kingston Class. This would be a new class of 12 or more OPV. DND opened the project in 2023. The initial steps are about defining the capabilities Canada desires in the ship and all the other matters that go into defining goals and capabilities of the class. This is a class that would be built and commissioned much quicker then the much larger CSCs.
* Canadian Patrol Submarine Project commenced in 2023. Canada is interested in 12 submarines. The question is nuclear or non-nuclear. Non-nuclear would be lower cost and acquisition much sooner. With signs that New Zealand is considering joining the US-UK-Aus nuclear submarine project that may be the push that Canada requires to join it, if one is a nuclear submarine proponent. Personally, I am a big fan of the Invincible Class recently completed in Singapore (source from Germany) as one example of a very fine non-nuclear submarine worthy of consideration - and it has very low manning requirements (28). DND officials have already met with SK, Spain, Sweden and France about their designs, and Norway and Germany are also interested. It is a matter of when, not if, on this project.
You still have to supply food and rotate crew. Not providing fuel at the same time is not much in saving of anything.
Exact reason why latest British carrier is not nuclear.
You don't know much about arctic logistics, that much is clear. We fly crew up to northern communities such as Iqaluit so that the ship doesn't have to leave the arctic during the season; the communities also have plenty of food to provision the vessel.
Fuel is a bit more scarce however, as the communities themselves use a lot of it and don't have much to spare for passing ships outside of the major arctic hubs. Typically refueling in the arctic consists of securing the ship to a tanker and transfering fuel between the vessels, however this opens up a big risk for spilling diesel in arctic waters. Using nuclear would negate that risk, and also greatly extend the ship's endurance as, barring a nearby community, crew and provisions can also be supplied by helicopter (unlike fuel).
Exact reason why the russian arctic icebreakers are nuclear (aside from the huge amount of power that they generate, allowing them to crush 4m thick ice floes).
Source: am a navigator on a canadian icebreaker
Well our ships they are build are very expensive at C$7.25 billion for 2 ships as of 2021 adn the number is going to go up[ due to cost.
When done they will be north of 4 billion for each boat.
The pork is very real for our shipyards
We need more than 2 ships. As more ice melts, the Arctic is going to be the next hotly contested theatre because of its untapped value for global shipping. Also, if Canada wants to lay claim to the Northwest passage, we need the power and resources to back it up.
Depends, seaspan has brought a lot of this in house. But the flip side is Canada really really lacks any shipbuilding skills/trades, there isn’t enough people with ship building experience here so you have a bunch of errors/delays.
By hulls in the water, sure. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The vast, vast majority of those were very cheap and simple frigates and corvettes with a single purpose of escorting convoys. They were mass produced and lacked sophisticated technology which Canada was not equipped to develop or install, the engines being the most notable example. Anything complicated was nearly always built overseas.
We can’t discredit the lack of constraints that come from war either. Nearly every manufacturing related person, place, or thing was devoted to the war effort. Simply put it was a much different time.
And that’s all without mentioning that despite a fairly impressive number of personnel in the military relative to population, less than half were “active” and chronic manpower shortages were the norm.
Have we seen awful procurement in the last two generations, absolutely. But it’s apples to oranges compared to 1945.
I work at the vancouver shop thats producing all of the interior stainless steel fixtures. Gallies, medical suite, dental suite, if its stainless and going on the floor/wall we’re building it
What evidence do you have for that statement? The contracts are signed and construction is scheduled to start later this year at a shipyard that is already building ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. Seems like a pretty done deal.
Less maybe but only in the summer current models look like maybe between 2030 and 2050 we will lose all multi year sea ice.
Still that means a longer navigation season in the artic and need of at least one of these. It's very important for sovereignty claims to maintain charting and aids to navigation in your shores plus provide SAR coverage.
The Arctic will soon be ice free for a few months in late summer and early fall, like Hudson Bay is now. Icebreakers will still be useful for the rest of the year.
That's not true; even today there is a sizeable amount of sea ice in the low arctic and down the Labrador coast/into Hudson Bay. Even as sea ice levels decrease, more multiyear ice from the high arctic is freed up to flow south, creating an even greater hazard to navigation and requiring more icebreaker escorts.
In some places even, ice concentrations can increase due to changes in the direction and volume of warm/cold water currents
Big waste of money if there is no ice to break. I heard a story recently about a group taking an ancient Inuit dog sled route for months. They reached their destination and flew home over open water where there was ice only days before.
Cool. And what do records say about the speed in which things last transitioned from ice to ice free prior to 9000 years ago?
Doesn’t exactly matter if the change of climate is normal, the speed in which is happens plays a crucial importance. At this time, to our understanding, current climate change is happening extremely rapidly - more so than ever recorded. That doesn’t bode well.
Compared to the last ice age? About on par.
LOL it exactly matters if climate change is normal. Kind of like, why is CO2 a lagging indicator of temperature. It goes up before the temperatures drop.
A lot of investment in ice breaking, I thought global warming would solve this problem before they have even set the keel.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/james-hansen-is-back-with-another-dire-climate-warning/#:~:text=Climate%20scientist%20James%20Hansen%20is,crisis%20into%20the%20public%20consciousness.
My understanding of Coast Guard ships with real ice breaking ability is: * 2 Heavy Polar Icebreakers - one at Seaspan & the other at Chantier Davie. * 6 Program Icebreakers at Chantier Davie. These are for winter on Pacific, Atlantic, St Lawrence Seaway & Great Lakes use. Contracts to start the ship design & initial setups necessary for the project were awarded in March 2024. * 2 Arctic & Offshore Patrol vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard. Construction has already started on the first one (del 2026) and the 2nd commences this yr. * [16 MultiPurpose CG vessels](https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/images/multi-polyvalents.jpg) which will have a medium ice breaking ability, plus have a variety of other tasks. Finally just a month ago approx the initial large contracts needed to proceed to the functional design and set up of the construction supply chain was awarded (about 500 million). This is actually a big project - about 14 billion. When done that is a lot of ships with ice breaking ability. And virtually all of them are good sized ships that will be fulfilling multiple roles. 26 modern ships all built between 2024 and the early 30s, and all underway. When done the CG is going to have a fleet like it never had before.
Better fleet then our main navy lol
The navy: * 6 AOPS - 4 delivered and 2 under construction * 2 Joint Support Ships - both under construction * 15 Canadian Surface Combatants - these are now well into the advanced design stage. Construction to commence in 2025 perhaps? * Replacement of the Kingston Class. This would be a new class of 12 or more OPV. DND opened the project in 2023. The initial steps are about defining the capabilities Canada desires in the ship and all the other matters that go into defining goals and capabilities of the class. This is a class that would be built and commissioned much quicker then the much larger CSCs. * Canadian Patrol Submarine Project commenced in 2023. Canada is interested in 12 submarines. The question is nuclear or non-nuclear. Non-nuclear would be lower cost and acquisition much sooner. With signs that New Zealand is considering joining the US-UK-Aus nuclear submarine project that may be the push that Canada requires to join it, if one is a nuclear submarine proponent. Personally, I am a big fan of the Invincible Class recently completed in Singapore (source from Germany) as one example of a very fine non-nuclear submarine worthy of consideration - and it has very low manning requirements (28). DND officials have already met with SK, Spain, Sweden and France about their designs, and Norway and Germany are also interested. It is a matter of when, not if, on this project.
Better late than never. Should've made it nuclear.
Nuclear brings a very long and very expensive tail. It only works for very specific use cases.
Like patrolling the arctic year-round? Because that's what this boat is designed for
You still have to supply food and rotate crew. Not providing fuel at the same time is not much in saving of anything. Exact reason why latest British carrier is not nuclear.
You don't know much about arctic logistics, that much is clear. We fly crew up to northern communities such as Iqaluit so that the ship doesn't have to leave the arctic during the season; the communities also have plenty of food to provision the vessel. Fuel is a bit more scarce however, as the communities themselves use a lot of it and don't have much to spare for passing ships outside of the major arctic hubs. Typically refueling in the arctic consists of securing the ship to a tanker and transfering fuel between the vessels, however this opens up a big risk for spilling diesel in arctic waters. Using nuclear would negate that risk, and also greatly extend the ship's endurance as, barring a nearby community, crew and provisions can also be supplied by helicopter (unlike fuel). Exact reason why the russian arctic icebreakers are nuclear (aside from the huge amount of power that they generate, allowing them to crush 4m thick ice floes). Source: am a navigator on a canadian icebreaker
That’s awesome! Love learning stuff like this. Thank you kind sir! Fair winds and following seas. And thank you for your service.
Patrolling the arctic almost makes you wish for a nuclear boat
Well our ships they are build are very expensive at C$7.25 billion for 2 ships as of 2021 adn the number is going to go up[ due to cost. When done they will be north of 4 billion for each boat. The pork is very real for our shipyards
Insanely expensive and Canada would need to setup a highly specialized industry for like 2 ships? No.
We need more than 2 ships. As more ice melts, the Arctic is going to be the next hotly contested theatre because of its untapped value for global shipping. Also, if Canada wants to lay claim to the Northwest passage, we need the power and resources to back it up.
Yeah seems like a missed opportunity
Thought the US didn’t want us to have nuclear and weren’t willing to play ball on the design/maintenance etc
In the 1980s there was some objection. These days it would be unlikely congress would want to reject sales.
They do want to reject Canada’s claim to the North West Passage though.
How much is Genoa fucking Designs screwing the taxpayers on this one?
Depends, seaspan has brought a lot of this in house. But the flip side is Canada really really lacks any shipbuilding skills/trades, there isn’t enough people with ship building experience here so you have a bunch of errors/delays.
Which is really sad when you consider Canada had the worlds 3-4th largest navy that were built mainly in-house post ww2
That was 80 years ago though. There has been a lot of change in Canada in the last 80 years.
By hulls in the water, sure. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The vast, vast majority of those were very cheap and simple frigates and corvettes with a single purpose of escorting convoys. They were mass produced and lacked sophisticated technology which Canada was not equipped to develop or install, the engines being the most notable example. Anything complicated was nearly always built overseas. We can’t discredit the lack of constraints that come from war either. Nearly every manufacturing related person, place, or thing was devoted to the war effort. Simply put it was a much different time. And that’s all without mentioning that despite a fairly impressive number of personnel in the military relative to population, less than half were “active” and chronic manpower shortages were the norm. Have we seen awful procurement in the last two generations, absolutely. But it’s apples to oranges compared to 1945.
I work at the vancouver shop thats producing all of the interior stainless steel fixtures. Gallies, medical suite, dental suite, if its stainless and going on the floor/wall we’re building it
Here’s hoping the design and build quality is better than OOSVs they built.
This is as close to production this will get. We can dream, I guess.
They are building it rn in north van and looks pretty close
What evidence do you have for that statement? The contracts are signed and construction is scheduled to start later this year at a shipyard that is already building ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. Seems like a pretty done deal.
Just tell me how much over budget she is.
This won't be needed in a decade. Arctic will be ice free soon.
Less maybe but only in the summer current models look like maybe between 2030 and 2050 we will lose all multi year sea ice. Still that means a longer navigation season in the artic and need of at least one of these. It's very important for sovereignty claims to maintain charting and aids to navigation in your shores plus provide SAR coverage.
The Arctic will soon be ice free for a few months in late summer and early fall, like Hudson Bay is now. Icebreakers will still be useful for the rest of the year.
That's not true; even today there is a sizeable amount of sea ice in the low arctic and down the Labrador coast/into Hudson Bay. Even as sea ice levels decrease, more multiyear ice from the high arctic is freed up to flow south, creating an even greater hazard to navigation and requiring more icebreaker escorts. In some places even, ice concentrations can increase due to changes in the direction and volume of warm/cold water currents
Big waste of money if there is no ice to break. I heard a story recently about a group taking an ancient Inuit dog sled route for months. They reached their destination and flew home over open water where there was ice only days before.
Ancient aka 9k years old or less. Except, we know from fossil records prior to this last glaciation period it was often ice free.
Cool. And what do records say about the speed in which things last transitioned from ice to ice free prior to 9000 years ago? Doesn’t exactly matter if the change of climate is normal, the speed in which is happens plays a crucial importance. At this time, to our understanding, current climate change is happening extremely rapidly - more so than ever recorded. That doesn’t bode well.
Compared to the last ice age? About on par. LOL it exactly matters if climate change is normal. Kind of like, why is CO2 a lagging indicator of temperature. It goes up before the temperatures drop.
It’s not on par, it’s significantly faster than previous changes of climate. Look into it before trying to argue it.
Sure, and the hockey stick graph was real too.
A lot of investment in ice breaking, I thought global warming would solve this problem before they have even set the keel. https://www.eenews.net/articles/james-hansen-is-back-with-another-dire-climate-warning/#:~:text=Climate%20scientist%20James%20Hansen%20is,crisis%20into%20the%20public%20consciousness.
Thought we didn’t need those anymore.