The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

[Ex-Dragoon]

(we've boarded Danish vessels in the past)

Out of curiousity when?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Arctic Sovereignty is essential for Canada
However an Army Det would do little good
The Americans want to use the north as a passage for maritime commerce
Kinda like a Northern Panama.
The North is the Navy's primary concern, the Army cant do much against ships dozens of miles out to sea.
It is also a well documented fact that USN SSN regularly do under ice transits, which is why strong pressure was put on the grits to halt a Canadian SSN project by the yanks .
Additionaly Denmark is making noise over Hans Island ( a 2 km sq. rock)
Once again only Warships are capable of defending that land (we've boarded Danish vessels in the past)
The only time the army could be needed is in an invasion of Greenland  

So what we need for the North is not a base, but a Navy capable of getting up there.

"The King's law only extends as far as the King's muskets"That is as true today as was back in the 17th century when that phrase was first uttered.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I don't recall Kim Campbell ever mentioning SSNs...

  It was Mulronys government he ordered them.....Kimmy didn't have a government she was just holding the tiller for a few months as the ship went down.

  I'm getting visions of "Ice Station Zebra".....Lets face it no army can fight on the high arctic, any one that does is domed to failure. The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade  and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice. The army's job in that is only to provide recce assets to monitor and fix in place if needed but not to defeat. The strategy for the Arctic has been and should continue to be Navy and air patrols with recce assets capable of maneuver anywhere in the high arctic. Yellow Knife and Goosebay coupled with Bagotville and Cold lake solve this issue less the Navy. The Navy need arctic war ships which they do not have, a Cdn war ship has too thin a skin to fight up there thus the Nuc subs and armed ice breakers. The navy can solve this issue from its current bases they just need the kit.

 

[gnplummer421]

I like the idea of our Nortern Rangers looking after things up there.It's their home and they know how to survive. I hear they are pretty good shots too. I think we have lot of aboriginal folks up there who could use a decent paying job. Place the main headquarters of this unit near the deep water port, and with detached companies of Rangers throughout the region - 5000 sounds about right (thoughts?) Give them some nice snowmobiles that can hold enough stuff to live for a week. They could also respond to area domestic disputes in support of the Lawmen. It would inspire the young people as well, something to strive for. They would have a unique "Northern Command" patch on their shoulders along with trade and rank badges. Those who perform above and beyond the call of duty would get a medal unique to the Forces.  Maybe I'm getting carried away, but do you think this would be good?

Gnplummer

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

It was Mulronys government he ordered them

Yes but it was specified the last Conservative government ordered them, might be just sematics but she was the last PC PM in power, even if holding the reigns for several months. And no they were never iordered, Perrin Beatty presented them as an option. No contracts were ever signed.

 

[Jungle]

If we want a permanent Army presence in the Arctic, maybe we should look at the Aussie example of RMAF Butterworth. They have a small permanent cadre in Malaysia, supporting Army sub-units on 3 months rotations.
See here: http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/info_on/bases/butterworth/history.htm
We could do the same, have a small cadre on a permanent installation, and rotate Army sub-units for sovereignty presence and Arctic training. In the same vein, the armed ice breakers could be built with the capacity to transport an Infantry Platoon, and land them anywhere in the Arctic.
The LIBs/ Para Coys should also train in Para insertions up there, in support of Cdn Arctic sovereingty.

 

[Journeyman]

The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade  and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice.

I've just gone through B-GL-300-001/FP-000 Operational Level Doctrine for the Candian Army,
B-GL-300-002/FP-000 Land Force Tactical Doctrine and
B-GG-302-002/FP-001 Specific Operations, Vol 2: Arctic and Sub-Arctic Operations...

....your posting has no basis in published doctrine  (<--- that sounded so much more polite than "bull shite"    )

 

[3rd Horseman]

Ex Dragoon - The government never changed just the leader

Journeyman (edit out jungle insertcorrect name) - don't think you will find any defense plans for any Canadian operation in any of those books.

Gunplum - good point on the Rangers but placing troops in Inuit towns would be too disruptive. Staging regs out of Yellowknife I would suggest is a better option, after all it is the Arctic and up there you have nothing but time even during an invasion.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

no counter point to Journeyman?

 

[3rd Horseman]

CFL  point 2 was the counter I put Jungle in by mistake it was meant for Journeyman edit correction thanks

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

seen

 

[Journeyman]

Journeyman...don't think you will find any defense plans for any Canadian operation in any of those books.

Ah, when you said

  The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice.

...I thought you meant....well, doctrine.

Defence plans and doctrine are closely linked; doctrine spells out how you conceptualize conflict, and intend to fight.

Granted, two doctrinal works cited ( Land Force Tactical Doctrine and Arctic and Sub-Arctic Operations ) do lean more towards Tactics, Techniques and Procedures than conceptual defence plans.

But if the overarching plan is to not contest someone setting up camp on our territory, then there would be reference to that within B-GL-300-001/FP-000 Operational Level Doctrine for the Canadian Army.  If your plan was being considered, there would be a chapter on "Piqueting Shivering Enemy - Absent Logistic Support," which would inform such an option within the unpublished defence plans. The absence of anything even remotely resembling your statement within our doctrine suggests your strategy is based much more upon "Ice Station Zebra" than on any understanding of how the CF considers, trains, or fights war.

[less polite response, still not saying "BS"  ;D ]

 

[Bert]

I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a
tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit
is probably the best site available. Any comments?

In my opinion, the senior NCOs you are referring to make a good point.  It would be hard
to find personnel to go North for extended periods as a posting.  If families go North, its
hard to find good schooling, the social environment is much different, shopping is limited
and the cost of living is expensive.  For singles, its just as difficult.  People from the South
that live in the North accomodate and adapt to the environment.  There is the difficulty of
mass military personnel living and working with a small civilian centre.  If you're interested,
check out APTN on the TV and watch a few Inuit Broadcasting Corp (IBC) and TNI programs
from Nunavut and northern Quebec to get a context.

Iqaluit is a good site in terms of a staging area and air operations.  Not so good for the navy.
There are no port or deep water facilities in Iqaluit.  Large vessels cannot move close to
town due to shallow water and powerful tides.  The ice edge in winter would smash anything.
Most of the water areas around the islands are shallow.  Most activity of interest to Canadian
soverignty takes place or originates outside of the islands in the Beaufort Sea, the Davis Strait,
and the Arctic Ocean.  Usually far from populated arctic centres in the lower arctic.

Some posts talk of ice breakers, armed vessels, troops, the rangers, possible locations of army
and navy resources in the North.  Its interesting to speculate on this in a tactical realm, however,
without a broader strategic and political context, it doesn't mean anything.  A few ice breakers
will not solve territorial incursions and may even make a nice slow moving noisey target.  Scenarios the
government may see are international corporates like fishing or natural resources, limited
air and naval incursions, small border disputes, to speculative large or full scale military invasions.
Each has a political, civilian, intelligence gathering, military, and diplomatic component that will
tailor the type of resources (and thus the response) the government will actually situate in the
North.  The new government, dispite ambiguous news releases, has not been specific about their
intentions.

 

[OLD F of S]

  Bert we managed Inuvik and Aklavik for many years you and your family just adapt to the conditions.



                        Regards OLD F of S

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think that if we establish some sort of permanent presence up in the North be it icebreakers or not, it would go a long way to indicating to the world we take our sovereignty seriously.

 

[Armymatters]

Well, we can close up to half of the 24 Canadian Forces bases across Canada without degrading the overall effectiveness of the force, according to the Auditor General... so close the 12 bases, and take the savings from closing those bases and invest it in the Tory Arctic base, and investment in new hardware (like new tanks or new supply ships)... that should resolve funding the presence up north quite nicely.
In fact, read this editorial:
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_Boostingdefence.htm

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

And is the AG a military expert?

 

[3rd Horseman]

I said:
"The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut their supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice."

Journeyman -  I challenge you to sum up your view of our tactics to fight an invasion in the high arctic in one short sentence.

3rd Horseman
Advanced Winter Warfare Instructor
1CMBG LO to the central arctic 86-89
Canadian Ranger

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well, we can close up to half of the 24 Canadian Forces bases across Canada without degrading the overall effectiveness of the force, according to the Auditor General... so close the 12 bases, and take the savings from closing those bases and invest it in the Tory Arctic base, and investment in new hardware (like new tanks or new supply ships)... that should resolve funding the presence up north quite nicely.
In fact, read this editorial:
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_Boostingdefence.htm

So .......

Which ones do we close?
Which units do we move where?
At what cost?
What new infrastructure will we need to build?
At what cost?
How many service members and families will we have to move?
At what cost?

What savings will actually result?
And, after paying for the national shuffle, when exactly will the savings be realized that could then be put to building an arctic base?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Armymatters... you are living up to your tag of armchair general quite aptly because while you might know the military through books you don't know the military at all.