By David Prior, 25 October 2023
Given China's and Russia's increasing interest in the Arctic [see https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2023/10/putin-tells-xi-we-will-connect-kola-bay-persian-gulf], polar maritime security vessels (PMSVs) staffed by Arctic Rangers make more sense every day, especially if the RCN crews them with Indigenous officers and crew. These vessels, and smaller versions for the Rangers, represent a great way to integrate Arctic communities with the RCN if they are crewed and operated by Indigenous northern residents as much as possible. PMSVs should spend their entire service lives in the North, not huddled together year-round under the Macdonald Bridge in Halifax. A floating drydock in the North would handle maintenance requiring haul-out and would create skilled northern jobs. It's also a useful feature in the advent of marine accidents in shipping and fishing or for military operations (repairing damage quickly etc). For more on this type of vessel see http://www.spilltechnology.com/
25 thoughts on “A Polar Maritime Security Vessel”
Not this again. Such a large ship cannot be reasonably be operated locally or sustained by Canadian Rangers or the RCN in the Arctic nor is their job to clean up oil spills with this untested technology. Not to mention there is no docking facilities in the Arctic that could even berth these unbuilt ships let alone maintain them. Do you have any idea the logistics it would take to maintain such ships in the Arctic?
A more reasonable proposal would be certain communities operating the CB 90 Assault craft originally developed for the Swedish Navy and operated by 10 countries. Using a rail system they could be launched and recovered in a prefabricated steel building on the shoreline where the craft would be stored and maintained when not in use. AOPS could be used to transport units that need 3rd line maintenance back to Halifax. Canadian Rangers could certainly support this along with the creation of small naval reserve units in local communities. Leave the spill response to the CCG.
The patrol vessel for the Rangers will have the same footprint as the R/V William Kennedy https://www.arcticfocus.org/about/vessels-and-labs/rv-william-kennedy/ . Is the R/V William Kennedy too large for the Arctic? The Rangers 20m LOA Polar Multifunctional Security Vessel (PMSV) can be beached on many suitable beaches without need of a rail system and a steel building. It will utilize inflatable rollers (the same kind used to launch 200m LOA ships) and it is designed not to fall over. It is also designed to overwinter without a shelter. Its exterior resembles a smooth steel building, not an assembly of fragile gear like a CB 90, which is designed more like a southern Fuel-Guzzling speedboat decked out with a multitude of fragile attachments (which are prone to icing when underway in bad weather). How will the CB 90 perform at high speed in 10/10 ice pack? The Ranger’s Polar Class PMSV will right at home, sipping fuel for many months before needing more, servicing the Arctic every day of the year for its entire service life. A 100m LOA PMSV for the RCN is the same approximate size as the current AOPS, which appear to be suitable for the Arctic.
It’s true that building a hub in the Arctic, likely centred on a floating drydock, will be a challenge. The artificial islands built in the Arctic to use as massive offshore oil drilling platforms fifty years ago were also a challenge; a challenge that was easily and successfully met. Then there are the huge mines, railways and shipping terminals currently in the Arctic. Arctic logistics work fine today. Anyway, the Canadian Arctic needs much more infrastructure. I’m sure Canadians can figure out the details. A number of large Canadian shipyards already operate in quite severe winter conditions. They adapt to the cold and winter storms by working on the interior of the vessels in the winter and painting the exterior in the summer. It’s all doable.
As for leaving the oil spills to the CCG, that has never worked effectively anywhere, much less in the Arctic. CCG helped clean up BP’s DWH oil spill in 2010 in the balmy waters of the summertime Gulf of Mexico. They and their fellow experts only recovered 3% of BP’s spilled oil: https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/oilspill/20121211005728/http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf pie chart page 168. Success can only be achieved by deploying new and innovative oil spill technology that has zero resemblance to the 50-year-old status quo. According to CCG, PMSVs, large and small, will incorporate the first truly innovative oil spill technology in 50 years. They are correct. Oil spill capable vessels, utilizing modern oil spill technology and operated by northern residents (Rangers etc), are the only way to protect the North. This approach to oil spill mitigation also supports Ottawa’s efforts to engage Indigenous communities in Canada’s wider economy. The oil spill technology in the PMSVs has been demonstrated, and proven, worldwide in the most prestigious testing facilities, including in China by the Chinese Coast Guard (using bunker C Heavy Fuel Oil)) and at Ohmsett: https://ohmsett.bsee.gov/ http://www.spilltechnology.com/videos/Ohmsett_EST_12m.mp4 . The performance was outstandingly better than the status quo. Saudi Aramco even helped design a 20m oil vessel tailored for their needs that utilized this modern oil spill technology that is designed for the Arctic.
The USCG knows what is going on with Arctic oil spill mitigation: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/adm-zukunft-we-are-not-ready-for-arctic-oil-spills . On December 7, 2022, A hearing took place in Washington: House Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation hearing on the “U.S. Coast Guard’s Leadership on Arctic Safety, Security, and Environmental Responsibility. This committee was advised to build and deploy new Arctic security vessels capable of performing many tasks, including oil spill mitigation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKITrB1j5Mg minute 1:18:40 . Protecting the Arctic needs new security vessels with new technologies and capabilities, crewed increasingly by Indigenous residents of the North.
You can’t be serious that you are comparing a ex crab trawler that can do 10 knots on a good day with a fiberglass hull and a 4M draught to the 20 knot CB 90 with a 0.8M draught? Have you ever seen what the Arctic tidal range and beaches are like? Do you know what happens to these beaches in the winter with massive ice hummocks being driven up on the beach, what do think is going to happen to these beached boats? There’s a reason why these type boats are absent from Arctic beaches and that’s their 4M draughts!
The CB 90 is a security boat and used by Nordic nations such as Denmark and Finland among others in the Arctic and they know a bit about operating in the Arctic. They are not designed to be in the ice and this is about a security boat that can be used in the summer shipping season and be more importantly cost effective. You seem to be trying to compare and link your never to be built giant monstrosities to a proven security boat that will be used locally by Arctic rangers and local naval reserves who live and breathe small boats. Large scale spill response is the domain of the CCG and whatever technology they want to employ. Security in the ice is AOPV.
The steel building will also double to house the ranger’s local detachment and be able to house an Arctic company of soldiers and sailors that will deploy during the summer period or in heightened times in the winter. It will have a garage that you can maintain ATVs, side by sides, skidoos, boats for the rangers. The building will have a cafeteria, galley, cold room, rec room, modern satellite comms, emergency generator, fuel tanks that will be filled during the annual sealift where supplies to sustain the operations each year. During the off season a maintenance team will deploy to each site much like maintaining DEW line sites to carry out 2nd line maintenance on the CB 90s and mentor local rangers for 1st and 2nd line maintenance.
A few observations. You seem to counter these discussions with links to articles about technology that was used in benign conditions and never adopted large scale. I also wouldn’t be so quick to add your association with the Chinese CG as a plus given they may be a potential adversary in the Arctic in the future. I think your article was more to promote your ideas than to really provide VIABLE solutions to whatever you’re trying to do. The fact according to your website that nothing has really happened in a practical sense since 2012 is very telling. If you really want to sell this idea and be credible then sit down with CCG and RCN experts on ship operations and ship building and discuss what is practical, cost effective and quick to build. The Arctic is a region with a very small window of construction, nightmare logistics and a harsher climate than anything you can imagine in the south.
Thank you!!!
I’m not comparing an ex-crab trawler with a 4m draught that can do 10 kts on a good day to a 40 kt CB 90 with an 0.8m draught. I am comparing a 20m PMSV with a 3m draught that, driven by its icebreaking hull form and high thrust propellers, can do approximately 15 kts on a good day and 3-5 kts on a bad day with considerable pancake ice present on the water, to the CB 90 that can do 0 kts on a bad day with such ice present on the water. The CB 90 has to be coddled like a speedboat, which it is, an armed speedboat that is a good choice for Scandinavian duties but extremely limited in Canada’s Arctic. Being able to visit the Arctic for a few summer months does not make it an “Arctic” vessel. Nordic nations know a bit about operating in the Arctic in the summertime, when the Arctic is no different than the Great Lakes in the summertime. Small sailboats can transit the Arctic these days, and many do each year. The 20m PMSV can handle the Arctic in the summer, likely has mobility in spring and fall, and can function as a crewed, stationary military outpost the rest of the year, whether beached or moored in the ice (like the explorers and the whalers did for hundreds of years in their wooden boats and in icing conditions far more severe). The eastern Arctic, with significant tidal range, may offer better sites for beaching than the western Arctic with almost none, but in either case, the PMSV is not dependent on a 3-4m tidal range for beaching. Pneumatic rollers offer flexibility on location. There are also harbours. Pangnirtung can accommodate cargo ships, and residential houses are built essentially on the beach. Clearly no massive ice hummocks there. Ottawa is building new small craft harbours at Clyde River and Arctic Bay. These may supply safe winter havens for a few 20m PMSVs, either moored in the ice or onshore. Only a few such havens are needed for a fleet of 20m PMSVs. At any rate, the Arctic is a large place with an immense and convoluted coastline. If we look hard enough, winter sites are likely available for small vessels with 3m draught that can also take the hard when the tide goes out.
Large scale Arctic oil spill response is currently the domain of the CCG, unfortunately. I explained why this is unfortunate in my previous comment. To protect the Arctic and its residents, this has to change, fast. This is CCG technology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIwReiRA3GM . Contact me via my website and I’ll explain, in great factual detail, why change is needed. Briefly, CCG has never been able to recover marine oil spills, anywhere, so they plan on using Corexit dispersant and in-situ burning throughout the Arctic to make the spilled “go away”. In-situ burning produces vast clouds of black soot, black soot is responsible for 30% of Arctic warming. https://arctic-council.org/about/task-expert/egbcm/ . It’s a bad oil spill tool.
CCG also plans on using Corexit and other dispersants throughout the Arctic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RYTNJsD_YI&feature=youtu.be OSRL plane minute 5:20 .
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-15/html/sor-dors108-eng.php#archived . Corexit is also a bad oil spill tool. Both bad tools can be seen in action here http://spilltechnology.com/ltdaccess/506179351.mp4 . It would be unwise for my company to sit down with CCG for guidance. Our goal is to protect the Arctic, not wreck it with CCG’s oil spill tools. As for learning about what is practical, cost effective and quick to build, I don’t know where I would find that knowledge. There is no indication that it exists. I know that the $6M cost of our 20m LOA, 130 tonne PMSV is very cost effective compared to the $2.9M cost of the 16m LOA, 13 tonne CB 90. Our PMSV is twice the price but is 10X the size. Now that’s value for money!
Only large and small PMSVs, operated and crewed as much as possible by northern residents, can protect the Arctic from oil spills. CCG has had 50 years to get it right, there has been zero progress during that time, so they clearly never will. You say that security in the ice is APOV, but APOVs can’t operate in all Arctic ice, which is why they live in Halifax most of the year. Obviously, APOVs are not security in all Arctic ice, only in some ice. Also, they cannot offer much security with their minimal armaments. APOVs are valuable patrol and research vessels, but they are not security vessels. Frigates and submarines are security vessels, but only part-time in the Arctic. Part-time Arctic security is like a part-time fire department, relying on equipment and training part of the time and blind luck the rest of the time.
Your very expensive, centralized steel building complex, an easy target to attack, is not necessary with PMSVs because each PMSV will be equipped with all the amenities you list. Also, PMSVs are not pre-targeted sitting ducks. Military campaigns do not need, and do not rely on, steel buildings nearby. They bring their own encampments.
Your observations on oil spills and related technology betray a lack of familiarity with the topic. I have invested 20 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars overcoming the resistance to change (our biggest problem) that underlies the current failure of all marine/Arctic oil spill mitigation. You say that “The fact according to your website that nothing has really happened in a practical sense since 2012 is very telling”. Indeed, it tells a lot about resistance to change in the world of oil spill mitigation.
It’s true that I do not have Arctic experience. My only northern experience is the southern Labrador coast in January, fifty years ago when temperatures were colder. Nevertheless, Arctic projects do get successfully completed by people who have no Arctic experience. For example, all shipbuilding is done in southern Canada, including the building of ships destined for the Arctic. Our PMSVs are not steel buildings that need to be constructed in the Arctic.
Your concerns about the Chinese Coast Guard are unfounded. For one thing, they are already using PMSV tactics in the South China Sea: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/philippines-say-chinese-ship-rammed-vessels-in-disputed-waters#:~:text=MANILA%2C%20Philippines%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94,the%20disputed%20South%20China%20Sea. China already knows how to deal with AOPVs in the Arctic without firing a shot. Just like a PMSV will.
Where do I start. I have been to the Arctic numerous times and have firsthand knowledge of most villages up there. Northern Labrador while cold and Arctic like is not the Arctic. The only place currently that has berthing facilities is Iqaluit, the RCN’s fueling depot at Nanisivik and that’s it. To get any supplies in they must use sealift, where barges are shuttled back and forth from the large cargo ships in the nearest deep water anchorage, the tide goes out and the barge is unloaded – rinse and repeat. There are a few docks that owned by private mines for resource shipment.
The reason why there is such a lack of infrastructure is that the building season is incredibly limited as everything must be brought in by ship from the south so it’s incredibly expensive. A few villages have small boat basins built such as Pangnirtung to operate small boats and the occasional long liner. In Pangnirtung they have extreme tides there and an extremely rocky coast, I know because I’ve been there. These small boat facilities are limited in size and depth, and I doubt there will be room for your 20M “PMSV” concept, and in fact you already alluded to this. It’s true that there are few suitable areas for your “PMSV” concept but you’re willing to have them anchored somewhere stuck in ice or pulled up on some beach overwintering and hoping nothing happens. Plenty of explorers have overwintered and they didn’t exactly make out ok. Lessons learned right?
Have you operated with the CB 90 in the Arctic and seen firsthand what it can do? I have. I find it difficult to dismiss 10 countries, including Nordic countries, that use it. Have you been in one in the Arctic? I have. A 3M draught is still too much draft to be effective in most of the villages and communities. It’s true that the CB 90 cannot operate in ice but to be honest I haven’t claimed that and I haven’t claimed that ship is better that a ice going ship but different tools for different jobs. It’s a warfighter craft to expand the capabilities of the Arctic Rangers and expand the maritime picture in the Arctic.
The whole idea of the insulated steel building is to support the Arctic Rangers and give them cost effective tools while improving the infrastructure in the communities and military footprint and logistical support in time of crisis. Most communities use the insulated steel building as an option as it’s an easy thing to build, heat and maintain. It’s also cost effective which is a relative term in the Arctic. This is not about fortifying the Arctic with gigantic ramming ships that may or may not work and I suspect is wholly illegal under maritime law. Did I mention these logistical hubs will support the rangers and have an area to store their ATVs, boats and Skidoos? Just because the Chinese Coast guard is apparently doing it, we should too? We shouldn’t be using the antics of the Chinese government as a standard we want to emulate.
The Arctic is littered with the wreckage on the beaches and at the bottom of the mistaken belief that wintering in the Arctic is a good idea aboard ships let alone large steel boxes. It wasn’t a sound idea in the 1800’s and it is certainly not now.
It seems telling that you think the CCG is wrong in what they do, and the Chinese Coast Guard is right. All of this seems to be about you trying to discredit current spill technology and sell what you have invested in, doesn’t seem to be working and industry is not buying. That being said the biggest issue I have with your proposal is not your technology per se, although never proven in actual Arctic conditions, but the fact that you are piggybacking it on some sort of ship you envision run by the RCN and Canadian Rangers. It would be better to leave the naval issues and warfare to the RCN.
Good morning Arctic,
Thank you for saying what needed to be said, and so well!!!!
Have you thought of writing a Making Waves article in the CNR on your CB 90 idea? I would be very interested to learn more about it.
Ubique.
Les
This is for Arctic Guy: You point out that Labrador is not the Arctic. While true enough, the Arctic is warming rapidly and becoming more like Labrador. Your focus is on the past, often the distant past when shipwrecks were common everywhere in the world. You do not talk about what’s possible in the future. For example, the lesson we learned from all those shipwrecks is not to send wooden ships to the Arctic anymore. Instead, we now send Polar Class steel ships, some of which operate year-round in the Arctic. Teekay Corporation is a major ship operator who sent an unescorted tanker across the Arctic in 2018. Granted, the NW Passage is more challenging but, as stated before, it’s warming rapidly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZkD9TFXrdU . The Arctic you refer to is gone forever. You point out the lack of infrastructure and challenging logistics in the Arctic. Everybody knows that this deficiency must be corrected by more investment, especially now that China has declared itself to be an Arctic nation and Russia is rapidly militarizing the Arctic. If they can do it, Canada can do it, and must do it. Most importantly, Canada has done it, 50 years ago when the Arctic was far more challenging. Before the Terry Fox was a CCG icebreaker, it was an oil company icebreaker in the Beaufort Sea. If Texas oil companies can manage to operate in the Arctic, the RCN and the Rangers certainly can. The American tanker Manhattan transited the NW Passage in 1969 and did not sink because it was made of steel. PMSVs of any size will be made of steel. How many modern ice-class steel vessels have been demolished by Arctic ice?
The CB 90 is an excellent patrol vessel that can enhance Arctic security for 3-4 months per year. That’s not good enough. In fact, CB 90s are useless considering that Russia and China will be operating year-round. Why invest in something that is non-functional most of the time. In the Arctic, high speed is no substitute for endurance and survivability. CB 90s are very expensive, fragile fuel-guzzlers (logistics again). Cost and logistics appear to be your main concern so why promote CB 90s when PMSVs meet your requirements? Unlike CB 90s, PMSVs are thrifty and efficient, not to mention extremely durable and multifunctional and vastly more powerful.
The Chinese have discovered that illegally ramming ships is an effective strategy. When they are bearing down on Canadian ships, will they be deterred by bringing to their attention the rule book? Will we threaten to sue them if they don’t stop? Even nice people break the rules when it comes to hostile engagements https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/08/britain-and-iceland-cod-war-escalates-1976 The best strategy is to be realistic by being bigger, tougher and more powerful. PMSVs are an expression of that for close quarters action. Being a victim-in-the-right is cold comfort, and is no way to provide security to Canada’s Arctic. You say: “It seems telling that you think the CCG is wrong in what they do, and the Chinese Coast Guard is right.” . You are incorrect on both counts because you are linking apples and oranges (oil spills and hostile actions). For the record, I think they are both wrong and I have the facts to back up my opinion, including some facts which you are not aware of because I am an oil spill expert, and an innovator. I am happy to share them with you via my website.
Regarding my piggybacking oil spill technology on an armed vessel, watch this Washington USCG Subcommittee hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKITrB1j5Mg minute 1:18:54. It’s the future in the Arctic and, with PMSVs, Canada has an opportunity to lead the pack.
Yes my focus is on the past and in my opinion we need to learn from the lessons of the past to plan for the future. Yes the Arctic is warming with less ice year after year. By your thinking why do we even need ice breaking “PMSVs” when the ice is going away. Seems to me that the CB 90s will be of more use, less maintenance, less personnel. You are comparing the “gas guzzling” CB90’s with what a “PMSV” will burn, are they electric? By the time the government builds them and I’m going out on a limb here saying IF they will build them you’ll be long retired. You seem to be using the Chinese and Russian “threat” as an argument to have unproven ships in the Arctic doing something the Royal Canadian Navy won’t touch with a 10ft boathook. By the way, China declared themselves a “near” Arctic nation which gives them no rights in the Arctic other than any other nation by international law is allowed them.
Yes Manhattan was a steel ship that went through the passage. Yes she didn’t sink but did you know that she avoided heavy ice and was supported by no less than 5 ice breakers through her transit and carried a symbolic one barrel of oil through the passage. So yes a great achievement but I wonder if the company was scared of a oil spill?
You also talk about Chinese ships bearing down on us to ram us. Needless to say if it ever came to that we would have air power and surface combatants explaining the law of the seas to them. This is not on the other side of the world in China’s backyard and even Russia these days is not the bear that we all feared, it’s looking a little shabby these days.
Arctic ice is thinning, and shrinking in area, but it is not going away completely. Hostilities are still a real possibility on ice-covered Arctic waters, especially since the ice is thinning. Thinning ice still requires icebreaking capability.
CB 90s are thoroughbred race horses, not military workhorses like PMSVs, although even workhorses can show surprising agility. CB 90s are built for speed, so are lightly built and equipped with jet drives (which are fragile appendages). They are likely high maintenance compared to PMSVs, especially in shallow, poorly-charted waters filled with various forms of floating ice and uncharted shoals. PMSVs are fuel-efficient because they utilize catamaran hull forms, which have more favourable beam/length ratios, and they travel below hull speed. CB 90s utilize planing hulls which require vastly more power to operate at their potential, which is far above hull speed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfpXFKKKl4Q.
The Manhattan was indeed just a test run and it’s no surprise that icebreakers were required in 1969. PMSVs will also need to be escorted by an icebreaker when the ice is too thick, and so will AOPS. PMSVs will need icebreakers to help clean up oil spills if the ice needs to be “prepared” first (well-broken”). I expect the Manhattan owners were terrified of oil spills, and so they should have been with the world watching. “The most significant threat from ships to the Arctic marine environment is the release of oil through accidental or illegal discharge.” Arctic Council’s Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report page 5. Ship accidents are inevitable because of human error. https://pottersweal.com/2012/12/06/final-report-grounding-of-mv-oliva-on-nightin/ . As for ramming incidents, the time for a non-aggressive policing incident to change to a ramming incident takes only minutes since the element of surprise is key to the maneuver. How long will it take for Canadian or American aircraft to arrive, assuming that flying conditions even allow flight? What will the aircraft do when they arrive? They have zero capability of applying a measured response the way a PMSV can. In addition, as our fighter jets fly to the scene, Russian or Chinese fighters will also be flying to the scene. Of more concern, while Russia may not be the military threat that we once feared, they own almost all the icebreakers, which are built for ramming and are pretty tough to sink even with lethal force. Meanwhile, Canada’s surface combatants will be berthed for the winter in Halifax and Esquimalt.
The question regarding legal Chinese rights in the Arctic is whether China will respect them or just throw away the rule book. I think we know the answer to that by now. That is why PMSVs, with their measured response capability, up to and including overwhelming force, are essential.
Again, the CB 90 concept is not for going through ice and the fact they are operated in the Arctic already by multiple Nordic countries should be enough proof they are suitable for Arctic waters in the summer navigation season. Now you’re saying your PMSV concept could be miliary workhorses even though they don’t exist but the CB 90 certainly does and could be implemented immediately. Uncharted shoals? Would a jet drive CB 90 with 0.8M draft run aground more than a PMSV with a 4M draft or greater?
AOPS doesn’t need icebreaker support and hasn’t so far even though they transited the NW passage. It’s not a year-round Arctic Patrol ship. Everything you say is based on the belief that Russia and China are going to invade the Arctic. The likelihood of that happening is remote and that’s why we exercise with Nordic partners and NATO in the Arctic for collective defence. Sorry I have to say this, but your PMSV ideas are not credible and not viable.
While it’s true that CB 90s are suitable for Arctic operations in summer, that is not good enough to justify deploying them. It doesn’t matter that they are readily deployable if they only offer part-time security. The world’s security landscape is rapidly changing and the Arctic is readily changing. Rapid change demands new thinking and new solutions. By definition, these innovations are not sitting on a shelf somewhere. Of course PMSVs don’t exist; they are new.
It’s also true that AOPVs operating in the summer, when there is no ice, don’t need icebreakers, but they will if they try to operate in the other months. The Arctic is famous for ice-covered waters during those other months. Canada needs Arctic security vessels that can operate all year, particularly since threats to our Arctic security operate all year. Exercising with our Nordic partners and NATO in the summer does not change the fact that nobody is home the rest of the year, except for all those Russian and Chinese militarized icebreakers. Of course they are not going to invade Canada’s Arctic like Russia is invading Ukraine and China is invading its neighbours. Nevertheless, they are hostile nations and need to be policed year-round, not just in the summertime. The US government is miles ahead of Canada on facing this need. They are today discussing building new security vessels with all the capabilities unique to PMSVs. They are not discussing utilizing CB 90s for this important Arctic task.
So, you now agree that the CB 90 is suitable for operations in the summer, that’s good. Of course, that’s one method available. The Canadian Rangers as well patrol using snow machines on the Arctic ice in the winter and as you say they are our eyes and ears and have the skills to do that and of course they teach these skills to the Army among other tasks. The winters are so harsh in the Arctic even the CCG doesn’t send ships, only in the spring usually. Are you suggesting that your PMSV can traverse the ice in the dead of winter because you previously stated that they would be hauled up on the beach or left land locked in the ice?
AOPV’s operate in a predetermined season based on ice conditions but have successfully operated in the Arctic in Feb and that’s how they are designed. As mentioned before the CCG operate outside those months but don’t deploy in winter because the amount of traffic is pretty much nonexistent. You would need Polar one ice breakers for that and even then, it’s dicey and PMSV’s are not going to cut it.
As for your comments regarding “militarized” ice breakers, well for starters except for the Chinese who sent an ice breaker in parts of the Arctic as is their right for freedom of navigation and research several times pretty much nonexistent. Russia which has a large amount of Arctic territory, population centers and resource development require a large fleet of ice breakers to maintain the northern sea route which is normal. They are building three Arctic Patrol ships that are heavily armed but not operation yet. Are you suggesting that these ships will invade the Canadian Arctic”)
The US on the other hand operate some very old heavy ice breakers that has had a lot of problems over the last few years with major break downs and fires. They are building several polar security ice breakers, and we are building two Class 2 ice breakers. The CCG own way more ice breakers than the US so I fail to see where we are behind. The CB 90 concept doesn’t replace AOPS or the CCG in patrolling the Arctic.
While snow machines are widely used, climate change is making sea ice more unreliable and treacherous. 20m PMSVs can help bridge the gap as the ice transitions from weak to strong and back to weak. In suitably weak ice, 20m PMSVs can transit on their own; other wise they will need an icebreaker escort to enable mobility. The most likely reason for needing mobility during freeze-up is to respond to an oil spill. Oil spill response of any kind needs icebreaker assistance if serious ice is present, unless of course one just performs chemical air strikes (which is the intention of the oil spill experts) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RYTNJsD_YI&feature=youtu.be .
NATO is very concerned about Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. There is now a concept called “Low Impact Shipping Corridors” which are narrowly delineated shipping channels throughout the Arctic which law-abiding ships travel on https://www.espg.ca/ . Polar ships from hostile nations may travel on the other Arctic waters; these are the waters that need a year-round NATO presence. This Subcommittee meeting in Washington also discusses the issue (6) Hearing on “U.S. Coast Guard’s Leadership on Arctic Safety, Security, and Environmental Responsi…” – YouTube . If NATO is right, then Canada should have more year-round presence throughout the Arctic, particularly in light of rapidly thinning sea ice. PMSVs, large and small, with the help of icebreakers on occasion, can assist with that. Seasonal CB 90s cannot.
To Arctic Guy: You raise several important issues, including vessel design and warfighter craft. Regarding design, you refer to my PMSVs as “large steel boxes” and to CB 90s as “….a warfighter craft to expand the capabilities of the Arctic Rangers and expand the maritime picture in the Arctic.” (for 3 months every year, or until the fuel supply runs out; they are gas-guzzlers). Both observations are true. PMSVs are essentially defensively armed cargo vessels, excellent for logistics, endurance, very remote deployments, crew comfort and survivability. Think of the story of the tortoise and the hare. Who won? Virtually every cargo vessel at sea is a floating box, pointed at one end. They excel at logistics and endurance, and are often very hard to sink without using a torpedo (which may be tricky to use in pack ice). Many modern naval vessels adapt the features of a box by eliminating open decks, nooks and crannies. The Type 26 frigates are far more streamlined (boxy) than the Halifax-class frigates. Also, logistics-purposed naval ships are boxy https://www.stengg.com/media/bkzpogwc/prdt-factsheet-lpd-htms-angthong.pdf#_blank . Great Lakes fishing tugs are floating boxes; they fish in the winter, operating in freezing spray https://www.harveyhadland.com/pics047.htm. Finally, the RCMP’s St Roch had boxy features amidships which enhanced its ability to successfully overwinter in the Arctic. A boxy exterior also protects against missile strikes, as the current war in Ukraine demonstrates. Even flimsy exterior surfaces detonate missiles before they penetrate too far.
CB 90s are superb warfighter craft. However, they have almost zero logistical benefits, and zero endurance in the Arctic. Most importantly, CB 90s are warfighter vessels and the Canadian Rangers do not want to engage in warfare. They want to be “eyes and ears”, not soldiers and sailors deploying lethal force that kills people. CB 90s do not respect Indigenous culture in the Arctic.
I think you’re reading too much into “large steel box” comments. All ships are essentially a steel box. But the way you talk makes it sound like it’s just that easy to build something and put it in the Arctic. You clearly know more about ship building and damage control survivability than me with your boxy exterior protection against missile strikes comments:).
Do you know what the Canadian Rangers do? including them being part of the Army reserve? Have you operated with the Canadian Rangers? Do you know what the naval reserves do? I guessed you missed that part about regular force soldiers along with elements of the naval reserves and Canadian Rangers operating the CB 90’s. And we should note that the Indigenous population serves Canada every single day in the North.
The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that layers of protection is very effective, even if the outer lay is minimal. It’s still enough to disrupt the incoming strike dynamics and lessen the damage to the underlying structure. I can send you a detailed description of a PMSV which explores these finer points. You need more information to make a sound judgement.
A good source of information on the Rangers is this document: https://www.academia.edu/97685370/The_Canadian_Armed_Forces_Eyes_Ears_and_Voice_in_Remote_Regions_Selected_Writings_on_the_Canadian_Rangers
On page 148 it says this: “Local reactions to these calls for militarization varied, but the core debate revolved around training for combat and interdiction. “I didn’t become a Canadian Ranger to go fight in combat,” Master Corporal Warren Esau of Sachs Harbour explained. “I’d have a big problem if they decided to do something like this … I’d rather be out shooting caribou and geese, not humans. It’s not what I want to be doing as a Ranger.” Sergeant Jonah Nakimayak of Paulatuk, a Ranger since 1988, said that he would quit if the military foisted combat training on the Rangers.”
It sounds like the Rangers are not interested in going along for the ride in a CB 90 heading into battle. A PMSV is more in line with Ranger thinking.
No one is calling on the rangers to be war fighters and I never suggested that although they should be supported better with better equipment thus the CB 90 concept. As always, they are there to provide local expertise and knowledge to regular CAF members, act as guides and conduct sovereignty patrols. No one is expecting them to become war fighters. The quote you made was in response to calls to militarize the force, although many rangers are ex regular service members and have that training and in fact rangers often train with CAF small arms. What better way to act as a guide in a CB 90 with a squad of regular force members? The CB 90 can come in different versions including SAR and would not necessarily be armed except for small arms that the regular force carry. The CB 90 concept is to support sovereignty patrols and improve the maritime picture. It’s not there to war fight. I would also say that the CB 90 is far more stealthy than the PMSV concept, talk about a large target. I’ll also go out on a limb and say while some may not want to fire their rifles in anger, many probably would (although discouraged). I had many conversations with members of the Canadian Rangers, and they are proud of their service to Canada. Keep in mind that not all members of the Canadian Rangers are indigenous either.
So just to let you know one of my primary duties in the RCN was one of Damage Control and Firefighting, Engineering, structures , stability and ship construction. I have a pretty good grasp on what happens to ships that sustain damage. Honestly the more and more I look at your PMSV concept it appears just to be cannon fodder and the unlucky personnel to be in them are sitting ducks. I know, I know you will state how these ships have all kinds of countermeasures and innovation to prevent them from being badly damaged because that’s what is happening in the Ukraine. When you stated that the rangers are not wanting to be sailing into battle in a CB 90, I would ask would they want to sail into harm’s way in a PMSV?
It’s more likely that a CB 90 with its 1m draught will hit underwater obstacles than a 20m PMSV with its 3m draught. Assuming both vessels are equipped with forward-looking sonar and steaming at cruising speed (20 kts for the CB 90 and 12 kts for the PMSV) in relatively shallow water that averages 10m deep, both vessels will detect a steeply rising obstacle when it is approximately 80m ahead (8X water depth). The CB 90’s crew, travelling at 10 metres per second, have 8 seconds to stop the vessel. That is very little time to detect, understand, make a decision, and react, even for a crew that is fully alert and rested. The PMSV will be travelling 6 metres per second so the operator has 13 seconds, which helps. There is also a possibility that the obstacle will fail to be detected before impact. Both vessels can stop very quickly, in theory, but we should assume that both vessels will collide with the obstacle and that the obstacle is a rocky outcropping on the seafloor. This is where speed really works against the CB 90. The force of impact increases with the square of the increase in speed (F-mv/2t). In both cases, the vessels will come to an immediate halt, but the force of the impact will be much greater for the CB 90. This impact will cause serious damage to a fragile CB 90 but tolerable damage to a PMSV, which is built for icebreaking.
In a full-speed scenario, perhaps reacting to a hostile situation or a dire SAR mission, the damage to the CB 90 becomes catastrophic. For the PMSV, the impact force increases 60% but for the CB 90, the already high impact force increases 400%. The CB 90 will certainly be disabled and may even sink. Crew inside the CB 90 may be injured or killed from impact. The lighter the vessel, the faster the deceleration, and the CB 90 is 10X lighter than the PMSV. For the PMSV, the dents will be larger and the hull may be breached but the down flooding will be contained by the extensive bulkhead system throughout the hulls and by the massive pumping capacity related to the oil recovery system.
You say “The more and more I look at your PMSV…” but, in fact, you have never looked at it. Everything you think about my PMSV is a product of your imagination and your previous Arctic experience (which has no relationship to the future Arctic). That’s a poor foundation for coming to strong conclusions. As for the likelihood of Rangers choosing PMSVs or CB 90s, it likely depends on how long the patrols last and the season of the year. CB 90s are strictly fair weather speed boats, not floating bases like PMSVs which will be safe and relatively comfortable at any time of year and in any seas.
Sorry I’m going to have to discount what you’re saying. Do you really think operating a large speedboat in the Arctic is some sort of death sentence? The 0.8-meter draft and jet drives are tailor made to land personnel and cargo to the beach in shallow drafts. The 3M draft boat that you proposed wouldn’t get near a beach. For one you would be stupid to operate in areas at speed where there are no charts. Boats have depth sounders to prevent that from happening and the Canadian Rangers with their local knowledge know where these areas of danger are. Thus, the reason why they act as guides. Even if the rangers didn’t have the CB 90 but a say an aluminum landing craft of the sort that AOPS is using it still would be the same. The fact that you are saying that your PMSV won’t sink if it has a grounding and collision, is wishful thinking. If anything the CB 90 concept makes perfect sense in your future Arctic where there is a greater reason to operate such boats.
I note the Arctic council, which Canada is a permanent member of. I believe you mentioned China being a member, but they actually declared themselves “a near arctic state” and they have been granted “observer status” along with 38 countries like France, South Korea and Britain. The Arctic council also have had ongoing different projects for safe and responsible use of the Arctic. One of these projects is called the Arctic Oil Spill Research and Development Initiative and Canada so happens to be a permanent member of it, and they do R and D and meetings with oil spill researchers on emerging oil spill technology. Are you part of this given that your own website and your writings here say that your spill technology is superior to everything out there in the Arctic? If not why?
Transiting Arctic sea ice is always treacherous and you must a healthy respect for it. snow machine use by the Canadian Rangers is not going away despite the warming trend. You need to understand that the Rangers also transit areas on land where your concept ships can’t go. CB 90’s is just one more tool for them to use. Remember when I said the primary users are the regular forces within the areas they operate in summer thus leveraging their local knowledge. What you’re describing is the domain of ice breakers of the CCG. Like it or not that’s what we’re going to be using and they won’t need a ice breaker escort as they are busy enough with escorting commercial traffic. In fact I would say that your concept as is will rely heavily on ice breaker support in the real world. Like previously mentioned your spill technology, as much as you say is superior to conventional spill response, is not what they are going to be using.
While there are concerns about the Russians or Chinese, except for sending an ice breaker through international waters in the Arctic there is a very low probability of anything affecting our security. Unless we build Polar Class 1 militarized ice breakers that can travel in the Arctic 365, the Arctic won’t have a year round ice breaker presence and even the Russians do not have that capability currently. We have the Rangers, AOPS, a refueling station, airfields that can operate fighters, annual deployments to the Arctic of RCN and US and Danish assets and satellite monitoring that will have to do for now. We’ll be fine.
To: Arctic Guy
In your last comment (on November 11, 2023), you asked a question…”If not why”:
“One of these projects is called the Arctic Oil Spill Research and Development Initiative and Canada so happens to be a permanent member of it, and they do R and D and meetings with oil spill researchers on emerging oil spill technology. Are you part of this given that your own website and your writings here say that your spill technology is superior to everything out there in the Arctic? If not why?” In this comment, I will answer your question.
It’s true that the 20m PMSV cannot approach a beach in a routine manner. That is why it carries an aluminum workboat in its aft heated hangar. For example Silver Dolphin Bow Rider – Fab-Tech . You are right to say that it would be stupid to operate at high speed in areas where there are no charts. Ninety percent of Arctic waters are uncharted. I have already explained why depth sounders and forward-looking sonars cannot eliminate the risk of high-speed travel. The weak link is nearly always human error and human fatigue. Slow/medium speed, heavily constructed PMSVs can safely operate in those waters. They will suffer some damage in 8-12 kt collisions with the bottom but they will not likely be incapacitated. They are already designed for serious impacts with ice. Most ships operating in the Arctic are slow/medium speed vessels. 20m PMSVs allow patrols in very remote regions of the Arctic, and in colder months. They can comfortably travel 24 hours per day, and in bad weather. Their large size is more practical in many situations, and they complement the existing speedboats. 20m PMSVs are, in some ways, like smaller versions of the current AOPS and they cost less than 2% as much as the AOPS. Their endurance can be several months.
You mention the Arctic Council Oil Spill Research and Development Initiative and ask if my company, Northern Spill Technology Inc (NST), belongs to it. The answer is “no” because NST is in the business of cleaning up marine and Arctic oil spills, which means removing the spilled oil from the water and ice. The Arctic Council Oil Spill Research and Development Initiative is in the business of injecting the oil into the water and onto the ice (poisoning the environment). They pay lip service to the failed oil spill tools of floating booms and little skimmers but the only tools they are truly interested in are chemical dispersants and in-situ burning, both of which can be seen here https://spilltechnology.com/ltdaccess/506179351.mp4 and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51ieM7h7ykM and here https://eppr.org/projects/cosrva/ . It’s worth noting that in-situ burning accelerates Arctic warming https://arctic-council.org/about/task-expert/egbcm/ . Their working group is EPPR eppr – EPPR . This is an example of their work Circumpolar Oil Spill Response Viability Analysis; Technical Report (arctic-council.org) . The Abstract says: “The purpose of this circumpolar Arctic response viability analysis is to better understand the potential for different oil spill response systems to operate in the Arctic marine environment”. The world has known for 50 years what the potential of their ideas are in the Arctic; the potential is zero, and always will be zero. BP’s DWH oil spill in the summertime Gulf of Mexico in 2010 confirmed this (see the pie chart on page 168 of this link: https://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/oilspill/20121211005728/http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf ). More information can be seen at this link https://www.spilltechnology.com/library.html . The only way to understand what is going on is to do your own research into the issues; all the above links will be a good start (bearing in mind that they barely scratch the surface). I can provide much more information to readers who are interested. The best place to start is with this recent video from DFO-CCG’s Senior Scientist for oil spills: https://www.spilltechnology.com/A%20Brief%20Analysis_REV4.pdf .
I had a couple of my Nav Arc colleagues look at some of your comments in regards to some of your performance claims of your PMSV concept. They think you’re grossly overstating its capabilities to be perfectly blunt. Your 20M concept craft is now going to launch a second craft to get in to the beach and you picked essentially a speedboat with conventional outboard motors, no significant cargo capacity, no jet drives, no landing ramp, no shelter etc. You also mentioned a heated hangar? Your 65ft ice capable boat that you claim is “designed for serious impacts with ice” and then go to the extreme north and have the endurance for two months in fuel, and I assume food, supplies etc. No offence, your 20M concept craft is certainly NOT like a smaller version of AOPS. You see where I’m going with this right?
I also took your advice and did some research. When I did a internet search for northern spill technology but your company name also associates with “extreme spill technology”. It says you have offices in Halifax and Beijing China, it also comes up and says “Some users are reporting that this business does not exist. Please help verify the information”. Checking the physical address on Queen Street in Halifax which lists two different mailing addresses and on your website you have a postal post box address. Do you actually have offices currently or is just a website and a mail drop? How many boats with your spill technology has Wally Jackson produced in China?
The small aluminum speedboat with outboards is typical of what Canadian Rangers use for patrolling. It’s not meant to be a landing craft, nor is a 20m PMSV meant to be a 100M PMSV, which is 50X larger. It’s easy to add some enclosures; many similar small boats have such features. A 20m PMSV has modern, fully automated oil spill recovery technology so it only needs a crew of 4 persons. It is extremely fuel-efficient, both for steaming and interior heating. Supplies are not a problem. Did I say “extreme north”? That would be the North Pole. A 20m PMSV is similar to AOPS inasmuch they are both low-speed, lightly armed patrol vessels with some ice capability.
My technology began with a company called Extreme Spill Technology Inc (EST) that did business in China as well as the rest of the world. Danny Williams, ex-Premier of NL, is a shareholder in EST. NST was created specifically to develop our technology for ice-covered northern waters, both fresh and salt, and Arctic waters. NST is no longer operating in China, for obvious reasons, and its only address can be seen on our website today http://www.spilltechnology.com.
Headquarters_ Northern Spill Technology
P.O. Box 8342, RPO CSC
Halifax NS B3K 5M1
Canada
The China experience was very valuable to EST and NST (ignorance is not bliss). Both EST and NST were not, and are not, shipbuilders so they never needed factories. They just needed computers. Both companies commissioned the building of demonstration vessels (look in the NST website “Library”). Both companies develop and prove innovative oil spill mitigation technology. The problem with Google is that it never updates anything so will display outdated, decades old information. It’s very confusing, and up to the reader to try and figure out what they are looking at, with no reference points or history to assist. Unreliable at best.
You’ll be fine, snug in the south, but the people and wildlife who live in the Arctic won’t be. Complacency is not a viable strategy for the future, or even the present, but don’t take my word for it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKITrB1j5Mg . The USCG Subcommittee in Washington is being advised that they need Arctic security vessels which have the same unique capabilities as my PMSVs, unique capabilities which go far beyond the capabilities of AOPS, frigates and CB 90s. While it’s true that CB 90s are just one more tool for Rangers to use, PMSVs are also just one more tool for the Rangers to use, a superior and more practical tool that can dramatically expand the Rangers’ effectiveness and safety. Take note that CB 90s are not being recommended to the USCG Subcommittee; PMSV-type vessels are. Also note that the USCG is light-years ahead of CCG in terms of understanding reality in the Arctic https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/adm-zukunft-we-are-not-ready-for-arctic-oil-spills . Do you disagree with Admiral Zukunft? Admiral Zukunft agrees with me. His message 6 years ago has been my message for almost 20 years. At one time Canada had an opportunity to lead in the Arctic on this important issue.
Ice-class PMSVs are not designed to replace CCG icebreakers; PMSVs are uniquely designed to replace CCG failure at protecting the environment and northern communities from oil spills. Polar Class 5 PMSVs have limited icebreaking capability so they do not, likely for 99.99% of the time, need CCG icebreaker assistance. CCG icebreakers are too busy escorting commercial traffic. However, an oil spill emergency in the Arctic, a hopefully rare event, takes priority over commerce so if CCG icebreakers are required to get oil-spill-capable PMSVs to the oil spill site, CCG will be ordered to do it. That will be CCG’s only role in an oil spill because that is the only oil spill task that CCG is capable of doing. Their 50-year track record makes that clear to anybody who has bothered to investigate. If you wish to begin your own investigation, my Broadside Forum pieces plus these two Canadian Naval Review articles are a good start, even though they are just the tip of a massive, global iceberg: https://www.navalreview.ca/2022/12/the-case-for-a-polar-multifunctional-security-vessel/ and https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol7_4.pdf page 10 . You are correct when you say that my technology is not what CCG will be using; Indigenous communities and governments will very likely be using my technology and be responsible for all marine/Arctic oil spill mitigation in Canada. Anybody who has done their own extensive research on oil spill mitigation will understand why. Anybody who has not is not equipped to understand the reality of it all, so cannot contribute useful comment on the issue.
Canada does not need “Polar Class 1 militarized ice breakers that can travel in the Arctic 365”. Canada only needs 100m length overall (LOA) PMSVs that are essentially armed ice-class cargo vessels, not astronomically-priced AOPS and frigates. PMSVs can remain on station most of the year and serve as “eyes and ears” in the most remote locations, even when iced in, and can also engage in some useful research at the same time. If the PMSVs are called upon to respond to a mid-winter event (oil spill, intrusion by hostile players, logistics, evacuation etc.), CCG icebreakers can escort them to where they are needed. They are thrifty, practical and comprehensive; and provide an opportunity to engage Indigenous northern residents with the RCN, ideally as crew at all levels of command. While it’s true that “Rangers, AOPS, a refueling station, airfields that can operate fighters, annual deployments to the Arctic of RCN and US and Danish assets and satellite monitoring” will have to do for now, Canada needs more Arctic presence than that for a future which is going to be radically different from, and more dangerous than, the past.