New design Destroyer for Artic

[moonbeamsts]

Greetings
I was amused by potential resource grab by Russia on the north pole. What would be a design for a destroyer to operate in near/free ice conditions?
JAM ex sonarmen subs

 

[Avimimus]

The way things are looking it'll likely be a permanent transition to nearly completely ice free waters. The exception would be some coastal areas (probably in the eastern Canadian Arctic archipelago). So it might not require special designs.

Just the extinction of some of the fisheries and most of the mammal population...

 

[swampyankee]

It will probably take a few years for the Arctic to be ice-free year-round. What's frightening is that we're currently at 400ppm atmospheric CO2 and the temperatures are significantly lower than the historical data (we've got reliable atmospheric composition data going back at least 80,000 years, and reliable temperature data going back several million. If you doubt, 18O levels in fossils is a function of temperature.

 

[sferrin]

The way things are looking it'll likely be a permanent transition to nearly completely ice free waters. The exception would be some coastal areas (probably in the eastern Canadian Arctic archipelago). So it might not require special designs.

Just the extinction of some of the fisheries and most of the mammal population...

Extinction? Well that's never happened before. :

 

[TomS]

Attempting to drag this back onto something resembling the topic, a warship for the Arctic probably woudn't be much different from a conventional warship, except that you would probably want an ice-hardened hull (as in the Danish Thetis class patrol ships) and possibly variable-depth sonar in preference to a longer towed array. Bow sonars may have to give way to older-style hull sonars for additional ice protection.

You might also want to reconsider podded propulsors, which are used in icebreakers. But they have a bunch of problems in terms of signature and shock hardening for military applications.

 

[kaiserbill]

Seeing as the entire thread was started with a politically based dig/opinion, followed by personal conjecture of what a project "might" look like, shouldn't this be in The Bar, or Military subsections in the General area?
All this is going to do is bring out a host of highly personalised opinions that are going to be pushed forwards as facts. It's happening already.


I thought this section was about actual Naval Projects, so unless there is design precedent to replace or an official stated requirement........ ???

 

[TomS]

Fair point. I had thought of suggesting that we move it to Theoretical and Speculative projects or some such. I'll ping the moderator now.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks..makes more sense.
From my limited understanding of naval matters, the Soviets never really made any distinction between it's Northern Fleet (which deals with the Arctic region) and any of it's other fleets with regards to the design of surface combat vessels like destroyers and cruisers. And so it is also with Russia...a brief look at the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet shows the same vessel types.
I stand under correction though.


Also, I don't think there is any official specification or requirement out there for surface destroyers/cruisers that are specific to the Arctic, design wise.
I know that a new class of 3 massive nuclear powered icebreakers (Project 22220) are busy being built at present for Russia, for operation in the arctic region. These will be the largest nuclear powered ice breakers yet.
Also, the coastguard/border guard are getting new vessels capable of "ice operations", like the Project 22100 Okean class OPV, but these aren't naval vessels.

 

[TomS]

It's true that the Soviet Northern Fleet wasn't really differently equipped, but they never really expected them to operate in the Artic per se. The Northern fleet surface assets would sail from Arctic ports (possibly with the aid of ice breakers) but were supposed to actually operate in the North Atlantic where there might be a lot of spray and ice buildup, but not a lot of actual drift ice and certainly no pack ice. If you actually were preparing for surface combat oprations to take place in the marginal ice zone, for example, you probably would have to rethink your ship designs a bit, along the lines I described.

Now, it might be that areas like the MIZ just are more natural operating environments for submarines (AIP or nuclear in particular) and surface ships don't make much sense there at all.

 

[swampyankee]

Leaving aside the politics, at least as much as is possible when dealing with issues of government behavior, TomS probably has the main point: reinforce the hull, especially the plating, to minimize ice damage. I'm rather impressed that the USN is planning for an ice-free Arctic (see http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/11/25/timing-the-opening-of-a-new-maritime-crossroad-the-arctic/) (at least part of the year; note that "ice-free" does not necessarily mean no ice; it means that the ice is not a serious impediment to navigation).

And, of course, use submarines. Always a good choice for controlling the sea.

 

[sferrin]

And, of course, use submarines. Always a good choice for controlling the sea.

During a war, yes. During "peace", not so much.