WesWorld

This is spun off from my musings resulting from the British thread here about a joint Antarctic program. There was some discussion about France and others buying and converting the Filipino Orca class ships to be used for a multinational Antarctic expedition. I wanted to cover my thoughts from the French perspective.

The goal of French Antarctic exploration is primarily to add to the understanding of the Antarctic continent's geography, biology, and climatology. Following the 1935 loss of the original Pourqui Pas? and the great French explorer Charcot, as well as the development of more firmly-claimed territories, French Antarctic efforts declined somewhat until the formation of ARC in 1937. There was a short heyday as ARC formed and got busy; and the French participated in several of the dramatic episodes of those founding years. For example, the French pilot Antoine de Saint-Exupéry piloted the first international flight to Antarctica, and the French were the first to fly an aircraft over the South Pole.

Generally, France and Atlantis provide 2/3rds of the funding for ARC, with Chile providing 1/6th and other international organizations finishing off the rest. ARC regularly counts on three icebreaking expedition ships at the present time: Atlantis's large Adventure, the midsized Chilean Ignacy Domeyko, and the smaller Vanguardia, a large former sealer. France's small oceanic ships Pourqui Pas? Le Suroit have both made irregular calls to the French Antarctic Territories, and they helped establish Charcot Base in 1938. France has been interested in adding their own dedicated expedition ship, but I've never allocated much in the way of budget for it. However, when we decided to make 1946 an International Geophysical Year, I did budget some to add a few relevant projects.

In regards to making an offer on one or more of the Orcas, I have some reservations. The Orcas were laid down in the late 1920s, and have presumably seen some hard work over the intervening decade. In sim terms, they have a steadiness and stability which is so low as to concern me: and both of those traits are something I feel would be desirable in an Antarctic ship. In addition, even though there's a very high hull strength, there's no explicit information that the ships are icebreaking-capable: neither armoured belt/TDS or miscellaneous weight assigned for the purpose. In short, even though I might be able to buy a ship for cheap (say, 1000 tons, bidding 25% on the GFE), I'd feel constrained to push for a major refit - more stability, steadiness, and explicit icebreaking capability. I don't think I can accomplish that for less than a 50% refit, which translates into a price tag of at least 10,000 tons over my purchase cost.

I've previously evaluated a number of different alternatives for an icebreaking expedition ship, all of which focused on emulating period ships. For purposes of clarity, I'll call them Astrolabe, Géographe, and Naturaliste. Astrolabe is based off the American Wind-class icebreaker: give or take, it's 4,400 tons light displacement, and has 2,300 tons of miscellaneous weight. Far less than the Orcas, but on a new, dedicated purpose-built hull. Géographe is about half that size: a sort of icebreaking super-trawler. Finally, Naturaliste is based off a modernized variant of the USCGC Northland. My design trims off a lot of fat, and I got the light displacement down to about 1,000 tons.

There's a fourth alternative in the Sans Reproche class aviso-frigate, a 1,400t light patrol ship designed as a floatplane tender. Although it's also in use by Indochina, I intended the French version to serve out of Djibouti or French Guiana as a patrol ship - and if it ends up in Djibouti, its patrol area includes the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, including Kerguelen and other areas. I have a third ship planned for 1944; and I could rework the miscellaneous weight slightly in order to make it ice-strengthened.

Given the budget and my perception of needs, I think even a Wind-class icebreaker would probably be a bit excessive for my budget, though not outside the question. I think my preference thus boils down to either the ice-strengthened Sans Reproche (a multi-mission design already being tested) or the Naturaliste (a small but economical mission ship, probably more appropriate for this era instead of the massive 1970s-sized ships other countries use).

[SIZE=3]Astrolabe-class, French Icebreaker laid down 1944[/SIZE]
Based on USN Wind-class icebreaker.

Displacement:
4,394 t light; 4,523 t standard; 5,844 t normal; 6,900 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
305.31 ft / 295.28 ft x 59.06 ft x 21.33 ft (normal load)
93.06 m / 90.00 m x 18.00 m x 6.50 m

Armament:
4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 6.61lbs / 3.00kg shells, 1944 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
4 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 27 lbs / 12 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 750

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 167.32 ft / 51.00 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
Ends: 1.97" / 50 mm 111.52 ft / 33.99 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m
16.44 ft / 5.01 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 87 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 167.32 ft / 51.00 m 22.97 ft / 7.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm
2nd: 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 3 shafts, 4,328 shp / 3,228 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,377 tons

Complement:
333 - 434

Cost:
£1.159 million / $4.634 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 4 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 709 tons, 12.1 %
- Belts: 539 tons, 9.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 168 tons, 2.9 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 111 tons, 1.9 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,271 tons, 21.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,449 tons, 24.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,300 tons, 39.4 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10,746 lbs / 4,874 Kg = 1,901.7 x 2.2 " / 57 mm shells or 3.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.06
Metacentric height 2.5 ft / 0.8 m
Roll period: 15.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 46 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Stern: 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Average freeboard: 14.80 ft / 4.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 76.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 96.1 %
Waterplane Area: 12,169 Square feet or 1,131 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 179 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 69 lbs/sq ft or 337 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 2.52
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[SIZE=3]Géographe, French Icebreaker laid down 1943[/SIZE]

Displacement:
1,982 t light; 2,081 t standard; 4,495 t normal; 6,426 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
301.91 ft / 295.28 ft x 59.06 ft x 16.40 ft (normal load)
92.02 m / 90.00 m x 18.00 m x 5.00 m

Armament:
2 - 3.94" / 100 mm guns (1x2 guns), 35.27lbs / 16.00kg shells, 1943 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in a deck mount with hoist
on centreline forward
4 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns (2x2 guns), 6.61lbs / 3.00kg shells, 1943 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 97 lbs / 44 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 150

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Ends: Unarmoured

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.97" / 50 mm 147.64 ft / 45.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm

- Conning tower: 0.59" / 15 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 3 shafts, 7,591 shp / 5,663 Kw = 18.00 kts
Range 32,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,345 tons

Complement:
273 - 356

Cost:
£0.703 million / $2.811 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 13 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 182 tons, 4.0 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 176 tons, 3.9 %
- Armament: 2 tons, 0.0 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 3 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 196 tons, 4.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,092 tons, 24.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,513 tons, 55.9 %
Miscellaneous weights: 500 tons, 11.1 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,861 lbs / 8,102 Kg = 585.4 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 6.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.73
Metacentric height 5.6 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 10.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.59

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.18 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Forecastle (35 %): 19.03 ft / 5.80 m (10.50 ft / 3.20 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 10.50 ft / 3.20 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.50 ft / 3.20 m
- Stern: 10.50 ft / 3.20 m
- Average freeboard: 13.48 ft / 4.11 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 45.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 89.1 %
Waterplane Area: 12,169 Square feet or 1,131 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 383 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 64 lbs/sq ft or 315 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.92
- Longitudinal: 2.11
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is cramped
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

[SIZE=3]Naturaliste, French Antarctic Ship laid down 1944[/SIZE]
Based on USCGC Northland.

Displacement:
1,150 t light; 1,192 t standard; 1,541 t normal; 1,820 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
221.25 ft / 213.25 ft x 39.37 ft x 11.15 ft (normal load)
67.44 m / 65.00 m x 12.00 m x 3.40 m

Armament:
2 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns in single mounts, 6.61lbs / 3.00kg shells, 1944 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 14 lbs / 6 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 138.62 ft / 42.25 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: 1.18" / 30 mm 32.81 ft / 10.00 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
41.83 ft / 12.75 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 138.62 ft / 42.25 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm
2nd: 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 2,150 shp / 1,604 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 628 tons

Complement:
122 - 159

Cost:
£0.331 million / $1.323 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 186 tons, 12.0 %
- Belts: 105 tons, 6.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 79 tons, 5.2 %
- Armament: 1 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 55 tons, 3.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 457 tons, 29.7 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 391 tons, 25.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 450 tons, 29.2 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
3,990 lbs / 1,810 Kg = 706.1 x 2.2 " / 57 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.17
Metacentric height 1.7 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 12.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 75 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.75

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.576
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.60 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 43
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
- Mid (50 %): 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 10.66 ft / 3.25 m
- Stern: 11.48 ft / 3.50 m
- Average freeboard: 11.58 ft / 3.53 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 101.4 %
Waterplane Area: 6,003 Square feet or 558 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 203 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 52 lbs/sq ft or 252 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.03
- Longitudinal: 2.81
- Overall: 1.14
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is adequate
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

I'd agree with your assessment of the Orcas.

You've got some low freeboards in this bunch. I wouldn't want to be on the deck of Naturaliste in bad weather...

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
I'd agree with your assessment of the Orcas.

You've got some low freeboards in this bunch. I wouldn't want to be on the deck of Naturaliste in bad weather...

Mm, I can see that. I suppose I looked at the seakeeping and figured it was good enough, though I think that seakeeping figure is more a result of the low max speed. I'll have another go-over and see if I can improve the design.

Let's try this. I deepened the draft a bit and raised the freeboard as much as I could without cutting into the performance of the ship.

Quoted

[SIZE=3]Naturaliste II, French Antarctic Ship laid down 1944[/SIZE]

Displacement:
1,225 t light; 1,270 t standard; 1,629 t normal; 1,917 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
221.68 ft / 213.25 ft x 39.37 ft x 11.81 ft (normal load)
67.57 m / 65.00 m x 12.00 m x 3.60 m

Armament:
2 - 2.24" / 57.0 mm guns in single mounts, 6.61lbs / 3.00kg shells, 1944 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns in single mounts, 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1944 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships
Weight of broadside 14 lbs / 6 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 1,500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 138.62 ft / 42.25 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Ends: 1.18" / 30 mm 32.81 ft / 10.00 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
41.83 ft / 12.75 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 138.62 ft / 42.25 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.59" / 15 mm 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm
2nd: 0.20" / 5 mm 0.20" / 5 mm -

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 2,219 shp / 1,655 Kw = 15.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 647 tons

Complement:
127 - 166

Cost:
£0.350 million / $1.401 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 1 tons, 0.1 %
Armour: 186 tons, 11.4 %
- Belts: 105 tons, 6.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 79 tons, 4.9 %
- Armament: 1 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 57 tons, 3.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 531 tons, 32.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 404 tons, 24.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 450 tons, 27.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
5,207 lbs / 2,362 Kg = 921.5 x 2.2 " / 57 mm shells or 2.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.13
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 13.3 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.02
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.575
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.42 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 14.60 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 21.33 ft / 6.50 m
- Forecastle (25 %): 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Mid (50 %): 14.76 ft / 4.50 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 15.58 ft / 4.75 m
- Stern: 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 16.65 ft / 5.08 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 89.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 141.1 %
Waterplane Area: 5,998 Square feet or 557 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 214 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 49 lbs/sq ft or 241 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.88
- Longitudinal: 6.48
- Overall: 1.07
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

Notes on the armor suite:
- the 30mm main and end belt represents icebreaking hull
- 30mm TDS represents double internal hull

I have to agree that the Orcas are not a very good design for a research ship - if for no other reason that they are so large.

Looking back through the archives, the design was simmed by Swamphen, with the inspiration of the OTL Japanese whale factory ships Tonan Maru No.2 and Nissin Maru. As oilers they would make more sense. It's been speculated that they might have been built with conversion in mind - but that's only guesswork at this stage.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I have to agree that the Orcas are not a very good design for a research ship - if for no other reason that they are so large.

Looking back through the archives, the design was simmed by Swamphen, with the inspiration of the OTL Japanese whale factory ships Tonan Maru No.2 and Nissin Maru. As oilers they would make more sense. It's been speculated that they might have been built with conversion in mind - but that's only guesswork at this stage.

I'm in contact with him fairly regularly; I can ask tonight, probably, if it'd help.

Quoted

Originally posted by Valles

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
I have to agree that the Orcas are not a very good design for a research ship - if for no other reason that they are so large.

Looking back through the archives, the design was simmed by Swamphen, with the inspiration of the OTL Japanese whale factory ships Tonan Maru No.2 and Nissin Maru. As oilers they would make more sense. It's been speculated that they might have been built with conversion in mind - but that's only guesswork at this stage.

I'm in contact with him fairly regularly; I can ask tonight, probably, if it'd help.

Thanks! Any insight would be useful at this point.

If Canada didn't already have more than enough arctic territory to muck about in and generally maintain sovereignty over, they'd probably contribute more to antarctic research. But we do, so there is no official Canadian interest in the Antarctic, besides friendly advice and occasional technical support to our Commonwealth allies and their endeavors.

That being said, the RCN operates two large Polar Navigation ships that were constructed to be the workhorses of establishing and maintaining routes through the arctic in support of the Northwest Passage, as well as more routine scientific, military, and other outposts in the region. They are less likely to be made available for Antarctic work soley due to their busy schedules, but the Dominion of Canada is willing to entertain anyone with requests or propositions on the matter.

The RCMP also operates 8 smaller Polar 5 type icebreakers, based loosely on the OTL Wind-class (of which one ended up in Canada), with some supporting the larger ships in the arctic, but most simply performing routine icebreaking work closer to home. These ships would be more likely to be made available to requests for support of antarctic operations, if anyone is interested.

THOU HAST SUMMONED THE SWAMPHEN.

*cough* *cough* Geez, whoda thunk Ry'leth was full of so much slime...

Anyway! Orcas. It's been a looooong LOOONG time since I've thought about ye olde Filipino boom-boom ships; unfortunatly my Spring* stuff is two computers dead and I seem not to have mentioned whatever eeeeevil schemes *twirls mustasche* I had planned for these ships...

However! I think my memory is telling me that the intent of these floating penguin farms was that they were, when the sudden but inevitable betrayals came about, to be acquired by Admiral de la Vega & Co. and turned into seaplane tenders; hence why they don't have icebreaking armor or other "antarctic proofed" stuff. (Making them very vulnerable to the penguins when Rico coughs up a LAW...)

I agree the Orca's aren't suitable.

A set of interesting designs. Astrolabe makes an interesting comparison to the Argentine Piedra Buena which is slightly bigger (though her role is patrol and transport for winter months). She could be made available for an expedition.

The Naturaliste II looks the best of the bunch. A assume France wants alternative missions for these ships in wartime given the armament. I know most existing WW Antarctic ships are armed (why has never been fully explained) and the British Scotts have a full 4.7in suite for some bizarre reason (I figure the guns on my ships are non-operational in peacetime). Should all Antarctic research ships be outside Naval control and under some other government body? (The Scotts are prefixed RSS and therefore not RN vessels nor RFA so why they are armed is even weirder as that would require RN crews in wartime.
I might play about with an ice-strengthened HMS Challenger design which should roughly equal the Naturaliste II.

EDIT: You might add more stability to these ships given the accumulation of ice possible topside. I've made 1.20 stability my absolute minimum, my own arbitrary figure but stability should be as high as possible.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen

However! I think my memory is telling me that the intent of these floating penguin farms was that they were, when the sudden but inevitable betrayals came about, to be acquired by Admiral de la Vega & Co. and turned into seaplane tenders; hence why they don't have icebreaking armor or other "antarctic proofed" stuff. (Making them very vulnerable to the penguins when Rico coughs up a LAW...)

Seaplane tenders? That's an interesting idea. Certainly more sensible than Antarctic research vessels.

Unfortunately, the Philippine Navy doesn't have much use for seaplane tenders of such size given its present strategic posture. Maybe someone else does.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I know most existing WW Antarctic ships are armed (why has never been fully explained)

I can't speak for Antarctic ships, as they started being armed before I started playing. Nonsuch and Sir John Franklin are armed because they are RCN Auxilliaries, and one of their mandates is defending Canadian sovereignty in the arctic.

If the vessels are commissioned warships, I can understand their being armed. Even the Kriegsmarine's sail training ships carry a pair of 20mm flak guns for self-defense, though they would be of limited use against anything larger than a pirate-manned motor vedette.

National honor and national sovereignty rather require that naval vessels be armed, otherwise you end up with the ignominy of the loss of the USS Pueblo.