Fuck it, only 3 nations have these babies and there's only three classes,So Have a thread on em
>>64302046
>>64302049
>>64302058
>>643020463?
>>64302062Apparently these Canadian ones have almost no guns on them whatsoever
>>64302068Yeah, Canada has 6 Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessels Norway has 1 Nordkapp-class icebreaker patrol ship NoCGV Svalbardand Russia has 1 Project 23550 patrol ship
>>64302068oh sorry Canada has 6 but only 5 active
>>64302082
>>64302075
>>64302095
>>64302098
>>64302089I get that a patrol vessel doesn't exactly need proper surface combatant grade firepower, but what do they suppose they will do if they run into an aircraft, sub, infiltration team, or hostile ship? That loadout might be useful against pirates (that don't exist in the Arctic) but that's about it. They should've had a small VLS block or deck space for a containerized launcher to carry like 1-2 anti-ship missiles and ESSMs. The option to carry sonar too. The only way this would be acceptable at all is if these ships are stocked with handheld ATGMs, MANPADS, and small arms.
>>64302191So only the project 23550 carries missiles of any kindRight now these are just support role ships helping keep ice traffic in place essentially and guarding ships...Also essentially all ships would just run into each other. Canada has the numbers advantage just not the guns
>>64302191Well actually the Norwegian boat carries a missile
>>64302211
>>64302191Tho to be fair...its not like a lot of other military expeditions happen in the artic
>>64302191They're intended to be modular, so in theory they could be armed with containerized launchers.
>>64302263Yup
>>64302046>IcebreakerWhat did you just say?
>>64303694I said it
>>64302191Modern ships don't do anything but act as targets for subs and planes.
>>6430207125mm on the front and a couple .50s on the sides(?)
>>64304059Uh yeah
>>64302046Does the knuckles Rasmussen class not count? It is listed as having icebreaker duties.
>>64304521Knud Rasmussen class.
>>64302089Yeah it’s a bit controversial up here even more so because the AVOPs are sent to other missions such as the south China sea.
>>64304521Maybe I didn't see it listed
>>64304525Post it
>>64302062>pssst! Any of you kids interested in some seal meat?
>>64304521Im 50/50 if i should count it since it has the ability but isn't 100% designed for it
>>64305771Seems like it is Polar Class 6, which is officially not a True IceBreaker™.
>>64302062Imagine a watch, on a clear night, in that little tower. No light pollution, only infinite star fields and northern lights.
>>64302075So US and Chinese Coast Guard icebreakers don't count?
>>64302046>Solar Minimum>Solar Minimum>Late Soviets bragging about planting 'climate science' to technologically and economically retard non-developing nations>Russia-- dozens>USA only just ordering a lot
>>64305834Imagine having to needle gun all that rust off the bow
>>64305892Fuck that. I'll blast it though.
>>64302058Sure has a lot of windows >>64302211fwiw Simbad is basically just manpads on a stick. There's nothing saying the RCN couldn't just bring along a few regular manpads and have a sailor launch it from the flight deck as stuff by >>64302191
>>64305827Yeah because it can only break 80cm of ice we cant fully count it
>>64305971Hey man the night sky is beautiful out thereAnd fair. I guess because no ones dumb enough to start a conflict in the artic everyone just makes these ships to look coolIdk why canada has so many
>>64305881What does this mean
>>64305857They don't count due to their low tonnage and they're not specifically designed for thisThese ships all have tonnages from 20,000 to 30,000, as large as some destroyers
>>64304614As far as I know they haven't sent any to the indo Pacific, they're normally tasked to OP Caribbe chasing Narcos if they're not up north. They've taken on the some of what the MCDVs were doing.>>64306060A fleet of six means you can always have at least two ships available for the arctic. Only one or two hulls means you'll have gaps in readiness.
>>64302216>>64302199>>64302263It's worth noting that the missiles on the 23550 are just containerized launchers, the blue boxes in pic related, which is something both the Svalbard and the Harry DeWolfs could rig up fairly easily if needed.
Detailed tour of the DeWolf class: https://youtu.be/-juisJYu3-4
>>64306190Oh neatI like the design of this one But yeah I wonder if other countries will do that.
>>64306220The dewolfe doesn't seem as big as i thought huh
>>64306235How big is it versus the other 2?
>>64306236They look quite big and chunky because of the covered foredeck, and to be clear, they're not small ships, they're 340ft long and displace 6600t.
>>64306243They're all within 300 tons of displacement, Svalbard and DeWolf are both 340ft, the 23550 is 375ft
>>64306254DayumChunky
>>64306261HMCS Robert Hampton Gray which is the newest and final RCN AOPV is also the coolest one.
>>64306260Neat thats coolThanks anon
Ach, mein Freund, look at these pathetic Canucks up there in their frozen igloo empire, trembling like leaves in a Wehrmacht parade because they're scared stiff of their own shadows in uniform! The weaklings in Ottawa, those sniveling liberal bureaucrats led by that onions-boy Trudeau or whatever spineless successor they've got by '25, they're slashing the military budget left and right—hundreds of millions gutted from operations, travel, infrastructure, even contractor fat cats getting the boot. Why? Because deep down, they know a real army, a disciplined force with teeth and fire in its belly, could turn on their corrupt, multicultural cesspool of a government and march right into Parliament Hill, heil-flaming the whole rotten lotIt's classic, ja? The Führer warned us about this—nations that fear their soldiers more than their enemies deserve to crumble. They're "reallocating" funds to woke nonsense like recruitment drives for rainbow warriors and cyber fluff, all while NATO's howling for 2% of GDP and the Yanks are pounding the table. But nah, Canada's too busy cowering, cutting $1.3 billion just to "modernize" without actually building anything that shoots straight. They're defunding the Wehr-macht of the North because one whiff of real power, and poof—coup d'état! The Mounties would be goose-stepping instead of sipping maple syrup.If only they had a leader with balls of Krupp steel, they'd arm up and purge the traitors. But nein, they're dooming themselves to irrelevance, a laughingstock for the true Aryan nations rising elsewhere. Sieg—er, I mean, stay vigilant, kamerad! The weak fall first.
They're also building two for the coast guard
>>64306323Neat
>>64306321Woah buddy, take'r easy why don't ya.
>>64306063Schizophrenia
>>64302191I guess the Cyclones they carry can launch 2 torpedoes in a pinch but I have no earthly fucking idea why they deleted the 57mm and tacked on a bushmaster of all god damn things. We're getting naval strike missiles with the river class so I'm sure they could find some but if hull to bolt a box launcher to (although I'm sure we'd find a way to make it cost like 2 billion dollars for some fucking reason)
>>64302046Icebreakers are obsolete due to global warming.
>>64306261Weight is how you break thick ice. You don't just plow through it, you ride the ship up on top of the ice sheet basically and the weight of the hull breaks it downwards and to the side.
>>64307156Global warming makes icebreakers more useful. If arctic ocean passages are opening up, then there's more reason for traffic to pass through there, which requires icebreakers.
>>64306323>>64306346the coast guard are also supposed to be getting a 26,000 ton class 2 icebreaker and a similar 23,000 ton version.
>>64307217Neat
>>64307114Structurally I think it has to do with the enclosed foredeck, it's completely hollow underneath the gun bushmaster. The Bushmaster has no deck penetration, the while the 57mm has a shell hoist straight into the magazine. Also the Bushmaster actually is completely adequate for the mission, despite what everyone says.
>>64307114>>64308197As far as an upgunned design goes, I would've preferred a 35mm millenium gun over the 57mm for these ships since they can pull double duty as a capable ciws.https://youtu.be/PwXqL_aAOR8
>>64307156Icebreakers are far more important now than ever
>>64307178Huh
>>64310141https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itwR_YQEgwU
>>64302049cozy
I don't get why the tiny Canadian boats count when the coast guard ice breakers for the PRC and the USA don't. I guess it is a standard armament thing, because the dewolf class has a 25mm bushmaster while the polar class only have .50s?
>>64308197Enclosing the deck shouldn't require altering the structure underneath the gun mount. It's the space around it that's enclosed. But it would make sense if they wanted to use the space normally occupied by the gun machinery and magazines for something else.
>>64306281the cute little trident is borrowed from the HMS Formidable, the carrier Hampton Gray the man was flying out of.
USCG Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program was expected to cost $3.2B for 3 ships in 2021, with the first ship costing about $1.3B. As of 2025 it's estimated to cost $2.4B for 1 of the 3 ships. With no estimate for the other 2 yet ( but likely in the ~$1.5-2B/each range). Turns out icebreakers are hard.
>>64310837The US will count when the PSCs get commissioned since they've got two 30mm gun turrets.They're also being built for (but not with) VLS cells.
>>64311092Icebreakers are massive shipsThe biggest ones weigh more than most aircraft carriers and are nuclear powered
>>64311136
>>64310944The gun is a full deck higher on the DeWolf than the Svalbard, and the cable deck is a big hollow two storey cavern underneath the gun mount. The top photo is looking aft in the Harry D's cable deck, taken from the the black platform with the flag in the lower, the door behind the two chain winches goes into the magazine, the big cooler looking things in front of life rings on the back wall correspond to the large rectangular door that's just above and forward of the 3rd digit in the hull number.
>>64311151This kind of shows what I mean.
>>64311136Calm down, they're big but they're not that big.Even small aircraft carriers are ~30,000-45,000tons.Cavour class: 30,000 tons with 1 in serviceTrieste class: 38,000 tons with 1 in serviceJuan Carlos I: 27,000 tons with 1 in serviceIzumo-class: 27,000 tons with 2 in serviceVikrant class: 45,000 tons with 1 in serviceKiev class: 45,000 tons with 1 in serviceCharles de Gaulle: 42,500 tons with 1 in serviceQueen Elizabeth class: ~80,000 tons with 2 in serviceType 001: 61,000 tons with 1 in serviceType 002: 70,000 tons with 1 in serviceType 003: ~85,000 tons with 1 in serviceNimtiz class: 100,000-105,000 tons with 10 in service (soon to be 9)Gerald R. Ford class: ~100,000 tons with 1 in service (soon to be 2)Which means the Project 22220 is only heavier than 4 aircraft carriers with 19 more being heavier.And I could've included the two non-supercarriers the US operates, the Wasp-class and the America-class both of which clock in above 40,000 tons, with 9 of them currently in service.
>>64311151>>64311178Actually upon closer inspection of the video, it would probably be no issue to refit an ammunition hoist.
>>64311151It's making more sense now. Thanks AutismoLeaf
>>64311200Damn you are autistic Good work anon
>>64311200Actually the project 10510 currently under construction is 69,700 tonesMaking it larger than 8 of those
>>64311535>project 10510If it ever finishes construction.The program is already largely seen as a failure, they already announced they're cutting the order from 3 ships down to just 1, and it has been delayed from 2027 to 2030+, and when they announced they'd be going from 3 to 1, they also announced they were building two more of the Project 22220 ships. So unless this ship gets built relatively on time (by 2030-32) and it ends up being the PERFECT ship, it's unlikely they'll ever build any additional ships of the class. And there is still a chance it never finishes being built.
>>64311583Hey the other icebreakers have been builtI dont see why not
>>64311604Because they're significantly smaller.
>>64311583Also the engines have been builtIt'll be delayed but I don't see why it won't be finished So can i count it as a technicality anon?>>64311604
>>64311633Fair Tho a 70,000 ton icebreaker sounds cool so A man can dream anon.A man can dream of an icebreaker aircraft carrier
>>64311635in the event of project cancellation, the reactors are one of the easiest things to put towards other uses.They've already discussed using the smaller RITM-200 reactors for floating power stations, and could easily repurpose the RITM-400 for that purpose.Not to mention russia has a documented history of abandoning major naval programs.Remember Kuznetsov? It was supposed to be undergoing refit/repairs for the last 8 years until it was abandoned a few months ago.
>>64311677I said let an autistic man dream anonEither way if they make it cool, if not, we still get more icebreakers So its a win either way
Didn't Canada buy a Danish design, decontent it, and build it at 10x the price per ship or something like that?
>>64313983Norwegian design, and sort of yes. It was heavily redesigned at a cost of like $300m though I wouldn't necessarily call it de-contented, aside from a smaller gun it seems to actually be a more capable vessel than the svalbard. It's about a $6.5billion lifetime program cost (construction, operating costs, spares, etc. for a 25 year service life) for 6 Navy ships and 2 coast guard ships. Still a shitshow, but not quite as egregious as most people think.
>>64306066>not specifically designed for thisUSCG has the Healy, Polar Star, and Polar Sea. All are designed from the keel up for Antarctic icebreaking. Or were you referring to not designed for patrol duties?
>>64314298>All are designed from the keel up for Antarctic icebreakingNo, they're designed for POLAR ice breaking.Meaning arctic AND antarctic.
>>64311639>icebreaker aircraft carrierwould it have to have a three deck setup?Top deck for landing, second deck enclosed for takeoff and prep (planes catapult launch out the rear to keep the bow reinforced and enclosed), third deck hangar bay?
>>64311639a fully fucking retarded idea.1. There's nowhere on earth that a carrier would need to go that is covered by ice2. An icebreaking carrier in the ice still cannot manoeuvre worth a fuck, making even more of a sitting duck.3. So your carrier can go through the ice. Great. None of the battleground can meaning you can only adequately screen the thing from behind. From the front you're bent over and spread wider than than the wives of every sailor on board. 4. If despite all that you wanted to display your retardation for all the world to see and send a carrier into the ice, you'd just have it follow a real icebreaker.
>>64302062>i wonder who could be behind this berg
>>64315183For a full size aircraft carrier? Yeah it's retarded, though you could possibly argue that a much smaller dedicated ice breaking drone carrier would be somewhat useful for Canada, since there's a distinct lack of airfields in the Canadian High North, and fixed wing UAS are really good at persistent wide area surveillance. You would essentially be looking at the bastard love child of a Harry DeWolf and the NRP D João II.
>>64315661again, there's no need. nobody lives up there and the airbases are already where people do live.the only conceivable threat coming over the pole is long range bombers so if anything putting your fighter aircraft up north only gives you less time to react after the early warning stations do their work.
>>64315779You wouldn't using it for fighters, or to intercept bombers, you would be using it for maritime surveillance.
>>64305971>There's nothing saying the RCN couldn't just bring along a few regular manpadsCanada does not possess a MANPAD system.
>>64316062RBS70 NG deliveries recently started, Canada now has a MANPADS system for the first time in a long time.https://canadianarmytoday.com/the-multi-phased-approach-to-air-defence/
>>64315799
>>64306138that first shot is cool as fuck
>>64316687LEWD
