Great Lakes Cities

[galleyfox]

Also farewell to the S/V Denis Sullivan

Tall ship S/V Denis Sullivan is leaving Milwaukee after being sold to Boston-based World Ocean School

After more than two years of sitting idle, the S/V Denis Sullivan will sail once again in October. But when the tall ship leaves its dock at Discovery World, it will be sailing to a new permanent home on the East Coast.

Discovery World has sold the vessel to World Ocean School, a nonprofit based in Boston that will operate the ship year-round, according to Discovery World President and CEO Bryan Wunar.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/trave...l/10388104002/

[WhipperSnapper]

Constellation Class is a good looking ship. The size would be a destroyer in other navies.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Constellation Class is a good looking ship. The size would be a destroyer in other navies.

depends on the navy. though frigates are typically a bit smaller/less capable than destroyers, the line between them is quite blurry from navy to navy.

the constellation class design is based on the french/italian FREMM frigate.

the italian version of FREMM has a full-load displacement of 6,600 tons and is classified by the italian navy as a "frigate", while the slightly longer constellation class will have a full-load displacement of 7,200 tons.

additionally, while the constellation class will be FAR more capable than the LCS ships they will replace, they will still be smaller/less capable than the arleigh burke class destroyers that make up the backbone of the US navy's surface ship fleet.

the constellation class are smaller than the AB IIA class (7,200 tons vs. 9,300 tons), have a smaller gun (57mm vs. 127mm), and have smaller VLS missile battery (32 cells vs. 96 cells).

but it's still pretty damn wild that they are gonna build these impressive warships in wisconsin, over 700 miles inland from the atlantic ocean.

[mrnyc]

ohio navy shipyard proposal devil is in the details --
not so much lordstown for parts repairs consolidation, but the lorain yard if it was to be solely for sub repairs --



AEROSPACE & DEFENSE

Navy Shipyard Proposal For 2 Ohio Towns Needs Revision

Craig HooperSenior Contributor
I evaluate national security threats and propose solutions.
Mar 15, 2022,08:46am EDT


***

Bartlett Maritime Corporation, founded a month after this author called for a new public shipyard in DefenseOne, entered the public eye earlier this year, openly urging the Navy to accept their unsolicited proposal for a new naval maintenance “depot” in the village of Lordstown and a good-sized naval shipyard at the town of Lorain, on the banks of Lake Erie.

The audacious proposal, crafted by Ed Bartlett, a long-time enlisted submariner and a crew of other well-connected submarine veterans, hits on a lot of sympathetic notes for ardent navalists. The current set of four publicly-owned Navy shipyards could use supplementation, and America can benefit from additional facilities to maintain a current fleet of 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and 68 submarines.


much more here:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craigho...h=69772b803322



====


and on the positive side --



Those behind the effort to bring Navy submarine repair facilities to Ohio hopeful to be under contract soon

Posted at 5:25 PM, Aug 08, 2022 and last updated 5:25 PM, Aug 08, 2022

LORAIN, Ohio — Good news from the Bartlett Maritime Corporation, the group behind the project to bring major submarine repair facilities to Lorain and Lordstown. Company officials met last week at the Pentagon with senior Navy leadership to discuss the status of their proposal.

“We're hopeful that we'll be under contract before too long to do the preliminary planning for the two new facilities we proposed,” said company founder, chairman and CEO Ed Bartlett. “One in Lorain to support building equipment to be installed in new ships and one in Lordstown to support maintenance of equipment in existing ships.”


more:
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/...-contract-soon

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

depends on the navy. though frigates are typically a bit smaller/less capable than destroyers, the line between them is quite blurry from navy to navy.

the constellation class design is based on the french/italian FREMM frigate.

the italian version of FREMM has a full-load displacement of 6,600 tons and is classified by the italian navy as a "frigate", while the slightly longer constellation class will have a full-load displacement of 7,200 tons.

additionally, while the constellation class will be FAR more capable than the LCS ships they will replace, they will still be smaller/less capable than the arleigh burke class destroyers that make up the backbone of the US navy's surface ship fleet.

the constellation class are smaller than the AB IIA class (7,200 tons vs. 9,300 tons), have a smaller gun (57mm vs. 127mm), and have smaller VLS missile battery (32 cells vs. 96 cells).

but it's still pretty damn wild that they are gonna build these impressive warships in wisconsin, over 700 miles inland from the atlantic ocean.

damn. i was just looking at the rendering and thinking, "That's a big ass frigate". Appreciate all the info.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

damn. i was just looking at the rendering and thinking, "That's a big ass frigate". Appreciate all the info.

by global standards, it certainly qualifies as a "big ass frigate", as it would be classified as a destroyer in a lot of other navies, as you said.

i was just pointing out that the line between them is very blurry these days.

france and italy co-developed the FREMM ships for their respective navies. the italian navy classifies its FREMM ships as "frigates", while the french navy classifies its FREMM ships as "destroyers".

go figure.

[Chisouthside]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

by global standards, it certainly qualifies as a "big ass frigate", as it would be classified as a destroyer in a lot of other navies, as you said.

i was just pointing out that the line between them is very blurry these days.

france and italy co-developed the FREMM ships for their respective navies. the italian navy classifies its FREMM ships as "frigates", while the french navy classifies its FREMM ships as "destroyers".

go figure.

It's almost the size of the British type 45 destroyer and is supposed to carry more advanced anti ship missiles too. Gonna try to get a peek in a year or two when its launched.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

It's almost the size of the British type 45 destroyer and is supposed to carry more advanced anti ship missiles too.

yes, in addition to the 32 cell VLS in the forward deck, the design also calls for 4 quad canister launchers (16 total missiles) mounted mid-ship for an over the horizon anti-ship missile, likely the Naval Strike Missile.

that will bridge some of the missile capability gap with the arleigh burkes and their total of 96 VLS cells.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

by global standards, it certainly qualifies as a "big ass frigate", as it would be classified as a destroyer in a lot of other navies, as you said.

i was just pointing out that the line between them is very blurry these days.

france and italy co-developed the FREMM ships for their respective navies. the italian navy classifies its FREMM ships as "frigates", while the french navy classifies its FREMM ships as "destroyers".

go figure.

Of course. There's no set definition accepted by all navies. And, American aircraft and amphibious assault ship are large by global standards too. Of course, there's the littoral combat ship class that are closer in size and cost to frigates than corvettes and built with the defensive capabilities of patrol ships.

[Docere]

https://www.tvo.org/article/the-grea...-focus-ontario

https://www.tvo.org/article/the-grea...-in-focus-erie

https://www.tvo.org/article/the-grea...in-focus-huron

https://www.tvo.org/article/the-grea...focus-michigan

https://www.tvo.org/article/the-grea...focus-superior

[suburbanite]

I've seen the two Great Lakes cruise ships come and go a few times from my place when I've been in Toronto this summer. This is the first time I've seen them both here at the same time. I imagine the Octantis is gearing up to switch to it's Antarctic route now that summer is over here.

[Steely Dan]

^ great shot!

and as the 2022 great lakes cruise season starts winding down, 2023 looks like it will be even busier.

Viking just christened Octantis's sister ship, Viking Polaris, and will be bringing her to the great lakes next summer along with Viking Octantis.

and Happag-Lloyd will be bringing Hanseatic Inspiration back to the great lakes next summer as well after several years of covid hiatus.

together with the 8 ships that cruised the lakes this summer, that will make for a fleet of 10 cruise ships (from 7 different operators) visiting our inland freshwater seas next summer!


vessel (company) -------------------- length - tonnage - #pax

1. Viking Octantis (Viking) ---------------- 673' -- 30,150 -- 378
2. Viking Polaris (Viking) ------------------ 673' -- 30,150 -- 378
3. Hanseatic Inspiration (Happag-Lloyd) - 455' -- 15,650 -- 230
4. Hamburg (Plantours) ------------------- 473' -- 15,070 -- 420
5. Le Bellot - (Ponant) --------------------- 431' -- 10,000 -- 184
6. Le Dumont-d'Urville - (Ponant) --------- 431' -- 10,000 -- 184
7. Ocean Explorer (Vantage) --------------- 343' --- 8,230 -- 162
8. Pearl Mist (Pearl Seas) ------------------- 325' --- 5,110 -- 210
9. Ocean Navigator (American Queen) ----- 300' --- 4,950 -- 202
10. Ocean Voyager (American Queen) ------ 300' --- 4,950 -- 202



passenger shipping on the great lakes hasn't been this busy since the glory days of the old passenger steamers back in the late 19th/early 20th century.

[Kngkyle]

I get the issue with docking at Navy Pier, but a big feature of the new Viking ships is the ease at which it can launch tenders. So why can't they just park it outside of the breakwater and ferry people to Navy Pier? At least as a temporary solution. Seems better (for their itineraries) than just skipping Chicago all together.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I get the issue with docking at Navy Pier, but a big feature of the new Viking ships is the ease at which it can launch tenders. So why can't they just park it outside of the breakwater and ferry people to Navy Pier? At least as a temporary solution. Seems better (for their itineraries) than just skipping Chicago all together.

If Chicago is to be the terminus of the trip, it needs to be accommodate the ability to resupply the ship. I guess they could do a stop in Chicago and still finish in Milwaukee but I feel like most international travelers will probably be flying out of Chicago anyway and can spend a few days there after making the short trip from Milwaukee.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I get the issue with docking at Navy Pier, but a big feature of the new Viking ships is the ease at which it can launch tenders. So why can't they just park it outside of the breakwater and ferry people to Navy Pier? At least as a temporary solution. Seems better (for their itineraries) than just skipping Chicago all together.

…That would be very exciting for passengers with full luggage.

Milwaukee to Chicago is just too easy a land connection, and they don’t lose a full day (of revenue) motoring to the Calumet for resupply.

It’s a 90 min coach ride from downtown Milwaukee to Navy Pier. Every cruise company worth their salt could arrange that connection upside down in their sleep.

https://youtu.be/2yfmJ-c0j7E

[Kngkyle]

Obviously in such a scenario Chicago would have to be a stop along the way not a point of embarkation/disembarkation (that would likely remain Milwaukee). And of course a cruise company can arrange a before or after excursion to Chicago on a bus. That isn't remotely the same experience as parking offshore with the skyline view and taking a 10-minute ferry.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Obviously in such a scenario Chicago would have to be a stop along the way not a point of embarkation/disembarkation. And of course a cruise company can arrange an before or after excursion to Chicago on a bus. That isn't remotely the same experience as parking offshore with the skyline view and ferrying in.

Of course not.

But time and reliability are money for a cruise ship.

Imagine Viking spends a full day going from Milwaukee to Chicago, and the weather is too bad to launch the tender boats, and then they have to spend another full day returning to Milwaukee.

That’s a lot of furious passengers, and in the long run those extra days are a few weeks of extra revenue. Might as well just pay to dredge Navy Pier themselves before tenders and backtracking. Would save more money.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Of course not.

But time and reliability are money for a cruise ship.

Imagine Viking spends a full day going from Milwaukee to Chicago, and the weather is too bad to launch the tender boats, and then they have to spend another full day returning to Milwaukee.

That’s a lot of furious passengers, and in the long run those extra days are a few weeks of extra revenue. Might as well just pay to dredge Navy Pier themselves before tenders and backtracking. Would save more money.

This is not how it would play out at all from a timing standpoint since we're not talking about MKE-CHI-MKE two-day cruise here, but I'll rest my case as obviously Viking agrees with your stance. I remain unconvinced.

[Steely Dan]

there is little doubt that Viking would LOVE to be able to get their large ships into navy pier (and chicago in general).

the problem is paying for it.

they don't wanna do it.

and it's hard to make an argument that it's in the city's financial interest to do so.

at least for now. perhaps if GL cruising continues to become more of a thing going forward, maybe there's a tipping point in there somewhere?

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

there is little doubt that Viking would LOVE to be able to get their large ships into navy pier (and chicago in general).

the problem is paying for it.

they don't wanna do it.

and it's hard to make an argument that it's in the city's financial interest to do so.

at least for now. perhaps if GL cruising continues to become more of a thing going forward, maybe there's a tipping point in there somewhere?

The city needs to find a way to sell the dredging of the harbor to the Army Corps of Engineers. Flood prevention climate change something something.

More realistically the city could come to terms with Viking on a x-year deal where the docking fees would recoup the upfront cost of dredging. Viking probably isn't interested in such a long-term commitment for now since they're still early in this Great Lakes experiment.