SeaKingTacco
I like the idea of the icebreakers. Its just from my point of view, the role of military icebreaking in the
arctic has no tactical advantage. Its better left to the Coast Guard and civilian applications.
An icebreaker with heavy armament, helo and troop capability, and relatively self sustaining would
be a large and slow moving. If Canada procured icebreakers, then they would be cycled out of docks.
Given the size, scope, and nature of the arctic, one or two icebreakers isn't much.
Heres a few problems:
1. Icebreakers get through the ice but are slow moving;
2. Icebreakers and northern operations require supply and any kind convoy/escort near
or associated with the icebreaker would also be slow;
3. Canada could support only a few icebreakers;
4. Nice noisy targets and easy to track by enemy subs, aircraft and sats;
5. The enemy would have interests in northern Canadian operations and likely have
accurate intelligence on Canadian military responses and activities;
6. Scenario isn't likely to include vast amounts of enemy troops or equipment
(enemy build-ups and convoys would be extremely noticeable) and
may be similar to the Falklands war, blockade, or small scale occupation;
7. During the winter season especially, the icebreakers would not have adequate
escort other than CF-18s, and air surveillance.
8. NORAD and NATO agreements would provide overwhelming assistance.
9. Air Force and Army assets are more mobile than Naval vessels.
In the arctic, unless theres a target the enemy wants to get at and Canada has
some kind of warning, an icebreaker cannot provide a tactical advantage of getting
to the zone without becoming a target itself.
The best Canada can do with resources it has is to maintain visibility of the North, to
know what there. Sats watch the choke points, air surveillance specific for air and sea
area coverage, air readiness for interception, mobilization plans for scenarios and fast
reponsiveness, passives to listen here and there, do I mention subs?, and intelligence
gathering to know who may wish to infringe on Canadian interests in the North.
Perhaps in a scenario where Canada knows country X may wish to infringe on northern
interests in the future, then an icebreaker may be useful as part of an advanced deterrent
response. The nature of the ice would still play havoc on supply and escort vessels.
I guess if the Coast Guard becomes active in this kind of role then they may be classed
as a combatant and thats not good either.
Interesting subject. Time for a beer.