A great write up, with some real food for thought.
I would love to understand what the justification for the HNLMS Karel Doorman was, why did it get built? What role does it fill in the Dutch Navy? I understand how adding PC 2 or 3 would make AMB a unique to Canada platform, but I feel like we should be looking more at how the Karel worked out as well. Things that can be improved on, or maybe left out.
I also hope it gets built, and on the Navies preferred timeline, not an aspirational date in the late 2040s or 2050s. While it's important to plan that far out, it's hard to get excited for it, and I always worry that, if we can justify it, we will probably need the capability sooner rather than later, and we will end up regretting it taking so long at some point. Plus, if we wait too long, we run the risk of spending alot money solving a problem that might look dramatically different by the time we actually deploy the solution.
Wow, I was shocked to see the proposed timeline for this. Much sooner is much better. If we wanted to keep 2 in the arctic at all times, how many would be required to be built? The case for it seems to be solid, but are even relocatable bases like this functionally obsolete with unmanned and manned aircraft able to take out one of these with a rocket or 2? The current mess in the SoH would make it seem that even aircraft carriers are afraid of drones.
I think Noah said they wanted 2 so they could rotate them out of the arctic, with only one staying on station, if required.
And just like an aircraft carrier, if they were ever in an active theatre, they would be accompanied by several escort vessels that would provide more serious anti air for protection from drones, etc. that might even justify an all up AAW version of the RCD that people keep suggesting, but is hard to justify with under current operational models! And while drones are a bigger threat noe, they don't render carriers obsolete, and probably never will. The AMB should have plenty of UAVs imof it's own, and the ability to deploy drone based CUAV in serious numbers too.
Agreed, and if they need to pull into an arctic community it could provide emergency power. But the SMRs are a lot larger than the reactors on a Ford-class carrier due to using lower grade uranium and the systems to support it would take a lot of space away from other requirements like HADR, RoRO or hangar space.
The range, power, and endurance requirements all scream "nuke!", so that is where this should start. Don't bolt it in, build the ship around it. That will make all the following designs easier to work up.
I agree that PC 4 is the range we should be looking at and to have it share as much of the machinery from other CCG/RCN ships as possible. I am a fan of welldecks and having dedicated landing craft that can land heavy equipment like bulldozers and such.
Also food, fuel and water making are all important elements. Along with the Chinook capability. Perhaps a hanger for smaller helicopters that can be permanently attached to the ship.
I think you need to move away from the idea of 'landing craft' and on to the concept of hovercraft, wrt moving troops and equipment. Landing craft are so passe'. :))
Hovercraft also have the advantage of being able to cope with icy water much better than a traditional landing craft or S2S Connector. There's a reason CCG pulls out the Hovercraft in the Seaway & elsewhere in the springtime.
"When you hear a name like Arctic Mobile Base, I'm sure a lot of ideas go through your head."
Yes. Imperial AT-ATs. End of discussion. :)
I am more a fan of Spider Walkers. I feel they would be much more intimidating.
Fair point, and probably harder to knock over.
A great write up, with some real food for thought.
I would love to understand what the justification for the HNLMS Karel Doorman was, why did it get built? What role does it fill in the Dutch Navy? I understand how adding PC 2 or 3 would make AMB a unique to Canada platform, but I feel like we should be looking more at how the Karel worked out as well. Things that can be improved on, or maybe left out.
I also hope it gets built, and on the Navies preferred timeline, not an aspirational date in the late 2040s or 2050s. While it's important to plan that far out, it's hard to get excited for it, and I always worry that, if we can justify it, we will probably need the capability sooner rather than later, and we will end up regretting it taking so long at some point. Plus, if we wait too long, we run the risk of spending alot money solving a problem that might look dramatically different by the time we actually deploy the solution.
Wow, I was shocked to see the proposed timeline for this. Much sooner is much better. If we wanted to keep 2 in the arctic at all times, how many would be required to be built? The case for it seems to be solid, but are even relocatable bases like this functionally obsolete with unmanned and manned aircraft able to take out one of these with a rocket or 2? The current mess in the SoH would make it seem that even aircraft carriers are afraid of drones.
I think Noah said they wanted 2 so they could rotate them out of the arctic, with only one staying on station, if required.
And just like an aircraft carrier, if they were ever in an active theatre, they would be accompanied by several escort vessels that would provide more serious anti air for protection from drones, etc. that might even justify an all up AAW version of the RCD that people keep suggesting, but is hard to justify with under current operational models! And while drones are a bigger threat noe, they don't render carriers obsolete, and probably never will. The AMB should have plenty of UAVs imof it's own, and the ability to deploy drone based CUAV in serious numbers too.
"When you hear a name like Arctic Mobile Base, I'm sure a lot of ideas go through your head."
I keep picturing a Canadianized S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier...
Polar Class Zero , able to operate over any thickness of ice.
Would seem like the idea vessel for a big nuclear reactor.
Agreed, and if they need to pull into an arctic community it could provide emergency power. But the SMRs are a lot larger than the reactors on a Ford-class carrier due to using lower grade uranium and the systems to support it would take a lot of space away from other requirements like HADR, RoRO or hangar space.
The range, power, and endurance requirements all scream "nuke!", so that is where this should start. Don't bolt it in, build the ship around it. That will make all the following designs easier to work up.
I agree that PC 4 is the range we should be looking at and to have it share as much of the machinery from other CCG/RCN ships as possible. I am a fan of welldecks and having dedicated landing craft that can land heavy equipment like bulldozers and such.
Also food, fuel and water making are all important elements. Along with the Chinook capability. Perhaps a hanger for smaller helicopters that can be permanently attached to the ship.
I think you need to move away from the idea of 'landing craft' and on to the concept of hovercraft, wrt moving troops and equipment. Landing craft are so passe'. :))
Hovercraft also have the advantage of being able to cope with icy water much better than a traditional landing craft or S2S Connector. There's a reason CCG pulls out the Hovercraft in the Seaway & elsewhere in the springtime.
So disappointed it wasnt something inflatable.
I think its a great concept and much needed. I am very interested to see what designs come out from this in the next few years.