31 Comments
User's avatar
Maple Chaos's avatar

I think we need to start taking about a Arctic focused MOB for the RCN in St. John's. Put all the arctic capable ships there.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

It's basically St. John or bust by this point, unless we start renting space in Nuuk lololol

Expand full comment
Thatch's avatar

Maybe not directly in St. John's, there are many significant and strategic historic future homes that would be perfect to host the future RCN and CCG joint operations base, and not to mention submarines. The province of Newfoundland has a major historic ties and sh*ton of street cred for supporting military capability naval and air.. Not to mention a population demographic and workforce that would and could actually support. Gets my vote 1000 times. Besides.. you might as well invite article nations in for joint investment into the infrastructure, and really have allied capability. Just do it. Start investing now.

Expand full comment
YYC Jenn's avatar
8dEdited

Great article. I always thought the two ice-reinforced Mistral-class ships built for Russia were the sweet spot for an Arctic-capable logistics platform. Weird they ended up in Egypt an extremely warm region. I'm skeptical of ships that try and do to much. How tough would it be to build one or two JSS with an ice-rated hull (a la FedNav Style) and maybe strike a deal for a couple of Mistrals? That being said I like the idea of an ice-capable Karel Doorman-type of ship in RCN service. It's sexy and well just GLAAMorous.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

I'll have to ask Seaspan lol. Any sort of redesign to achieve a resonable Polar class like discussed would be extremely difficult. There are things you could do to strengthen the ships to Ice. You could add stuff like an Ice belt but that'll take you so far. You can't change the hull form! If we are talking the PC 2/3 territory you're absolutely starting fresh. No question. The JSS are actually Ice Strengthened for summer operations, but this is minor.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

I'd really be interested to know what the Seaspan offering is, what it looks like and how it compares to G-LAM.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

I know it exists, however I have zero information about what such a concept could be. Truthfully you could do a lot of things! Theres also others, like Vard and Serco, who in the event this gets approval could likely also draft up designs.

Issue then is who the bloody hell builds them?

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

Does anyone know the ice classification was for this two mistrals? Just asking if they would have even been anywhere near the Ice capability for our intentions.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

They never received a proper designation. There were actually several modifications made to ensure they could operate in the Russian Arctic, such as electric heating grids installed under the helicopter landing spots and the well deck door being fully enclosed, however they were never true 'Arctic' vessels as we would imagine.

You're looking at something likely along the lines of an ARC4 or such rating. Far below what the Vice-Admiral is considering. You can only strengthen a design so much!

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

I find it hard to believe they could design a PC-2 class amphibious assault ship that could also have a required sustainable speed of 18 to 20 knots in open ocean Pacific/Atlantic. Maybe they should look to a PC-3 or 4 that can operate in the Arctic region for 80% of the time the wish so they can maintain the multi ocean capabilities they also desire. IMO.

Expand full comment
Con's avatar

Adding some LCAC’s to the well decks would be an awesome capability. Able to deliver 70+tons over ice and tundra

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Again, its easy to understand why the Navy is so keen on this idea, even ignoring the traditional assault capability we often associate.

Expand full comment
Con's avatar

Makes you wonder whether the CH53K starts to make sense on a vessel like that. As much as I like the 47s it is notoriously difficult to manage once you embark it on a ship.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Maybe, although I feel it would be one of those way down the line and very hotly debated additions. Everyone wants to try and shrink the number of fleets around if possible!

Expand full comment
Hansard Files's avatar

The piece nails it: CBC catching up on the navy's polar-capable amphibious assault ship idea, floated by Vice-Admiral Topshee. It's a smart fit for Arctic logistics gaps, like limited ports and the need for independent HADR. But it's still early days. Our North, Strong and Free, the renewed defence policy, sticks to two Joint Support Ships under construction, with sea-to-shore barges for limited amphibious reach. No firm commitment yet to a dedicated polar-class vessel. Trade-offs ahead on ice rating versus global flexibility. Worth watching as spending ramps up.

Expand full comment
Larry Viveash's avatar

The GLAAM checks alot of boxes for the RCN. I can see it's capability being welcome in the north. It would form the centerpiece of OP Nannook and could relieve the RCAF of much of the burden of OP Boxtop. It would also provide arctic refueling for both RCN and CCG vessels (submarines too?)when operating in the north. Support for global CAF operations could include special forces, unscrewed mothership, sealift and humanitarian missions. Yes RAS capabilities are more limited than the Protecteur class, but most missions only Support several RCN combatants. With limited hulls it provides the RCN numerous capabilities.

Expand full comment
Matthew Brown's avatar

My vote is PC4, C&C, hospital, with emphasized RO/RO capabilities with cranes & RAS. The cranes can deploy barges to have the RO of places with no infrastructure. Amphibious not needed. Also lots of Helicopter & UAS capability. An ugly Trieste.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

There's a healthy argument for what exactly this vessel would look like. GLAAM is what people flock to because it exists and is known, however it isnt the only possibility. It depends a lot on what capabilities you prioritize and what you want. We don't know exactly what the navy is prioritizing.

Expand full comment
Matthew Brown's avatar

You’re right. I work with software & am always preaching about requirements leading capabilities. So, here are my requirements for what it’s worth:

Command & control: able to embark flag officer command with all that entails. Able to synthesize information from space, surface & undersea for a clear tactical/strategic picture.

Hospital capabilities: able to act as hospital ship as needed.

Large flight deck. Able to support 10+ large helicopters. Able to have service/maintenance bays for two.

UAS: dedicated UAS facilities for transport, maintenance & C&C. Drone mothership for airborne, surface & subsurface drones.

Ice rating: PC4 to be able to go into the attic on a seasonal basis unescorted. Able to go into arctic on year round basis with a dedicated ice breaker. Able to support military asset’s ashore on a seasonal & emergency basis.

RAS: able to perform RAS as a backup role to the JSS

Expand full comment
Thatch's avatar

Good start for sure. Mission vignettes next. :)

Expand full comment
P Fraser's avatar

Orcas running around “like angry little spiders”. Love it!

Expand full comment
Bob Miller's avatar

Lots to unpack….had to go back and look at the Karl Doorman & then the GLAAM info. I think I would certainly support one or two….no they aren’t Mistral class but the more i think about it the more i think we need something appropriate to go up North & support getting material & fuel up to those advanced arctic communities & potential bases. I am reasonably sure a cheaper commercial ro-ro won’t do that..especially is we start supporting rcaf aircraft (awacs) & facilities up there. Though tied go this needs to be a conversation on what helicopters/aircraf/drones Canada needs…..including a cyclone replacement.

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

A lot depends on what you want. The navy clearly doesn't want just a Ro/Ro. They want a C2 platform, a logistica platform, and something capable of effectively doing HADR independently of any existing infrastructure. A movile base is an ample term. What exactly does that look like? I'm sure we could get lots of answers. GLAAM gots a lot of that out the gate, maybe a bit too much capability depending on who you ask, but it certainly had the idea.

RAS would be one I'd be interested in asking deeper about. That's an interesting albeit potentially difficult capability to have on such a vessel.

Expand full comment
Derrin Urban's avatar

Great write-up Noah. After reading, I get the feeling that the only way forward is 4 JSS and 2 purpose built ships for the arctic. Polar class to be determined, with RAS, hopital and all the functionality talked about by yourself and others. With CCG and AOPS they would not have to ever act alone. All having ice breaking abilities allows them to operate and support together. The one design for all scenarios will never work. We need dedicated Pacific/Atlantic/NATO ships and Arctic or near Arctic ships.

Expand full comment
Brett McDermitt's avatar

Do you know they you're insane?

Expand full comment
Edward Marek's avatar

I can’t understand why Canada would want an amphibious assault ship. Where is Canada going to conduct an amphibious assault?

Expand full comment
Réjean Grenier's avatar

I was aboard HMCS Protecteur as a journalist during the buildup to the Kuwait in 1990.

Expand full comment
RAY MCMULLEN's avatar

Until I see an understanding in Ottawa that we can afford a robust navy that serves our needs I remain skeptical that any of our needs will be met.

Expand full comment
serghiy's avatar

…this is sound really fucking horrible… if it’ll come to that we are ALL FUCKED and not because of the weapons

Expand full comment
Tom Hamilton's avatar

Who in Hell would the woke Canadian armed forces ever assault? ETs?

Expand full comment