The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

[54/102 CEF]

Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.

I think the writer of the first part is closer to the evolving stuff coming out of transformation

 

[LeonTheNeon]

I thought some of you might be interested in this.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14072006/2/national-defence-minister-wants-arctic-port-2007-pledges-arctic-army.html

Defence minister wants arctic port by 2007, pledges arctic army school
Fri Jul 14, 6:04 PM



IQALUIT, Nunavut (CP) - Federal Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he hopes to know by the end of the year where to build an arctic deep-water port.

ADVERTISEMENT
 



O'Connor also says he's considering a winter warfare school at Resolute, Nunavut, and is looking to improve Canada's northern naval capability.


"On the advice of the Nunavut government, we're told there are seven possible locations for a deep-water docking facility," O'Connor told reporters in Iqaluit on Friday at the end of a northern tour.


"Our military staff are going to look at all seven against our requirements. This would be a military-civil facility.


"I'm hoping that by the end of the year we know where it's going to be."


Canada is the only arctic country that doesn't have a deep-water port along its northern coastline.


That not only hampers military operations - the Canadian navy must now refuel in Greenland - it also inhibits Nunavut's economic development.


Ships in the territory's growing fishery have nowhere to land their catch. Arctic cruise lines make frequent inquiries about landing at Nunavut communities, but none has docking facilities.


Currently, ships at Iqaluit are forced to anchor offshore at Frobisher Bay. All cargo - from food to building materials to bulk fuel - must be unloaded onto barges and run up the beach along the shoreline - a long and environmentally hazardous procedure.


"We want to get the port," said Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik, who promised to co-operate with the federal study. "We don't have one. We need one."


The community of Iqaluit has floated port plans of its own, but O'Connor said the proposed facility would be too small to meet military requirements.


O'Connor did praise the proposed Iqaluit site, however. "It looks like a fine location. What we have to look at is how many months of the year can you use it (and) if we had to use it in ice, what problems would that cause?"


Other communities likely to be in the running are Kimmirut on the southern end of Baffin Island, and Arctic Bay on its northern tip. A port at Cambridge Bay on Victoria Island in the central Arctic has also been proposed.


Building an arctic port would deliver on one of the Conservative party's campaign promises from the last election.


O'Connor also repeated pledges for an increased military presence in the Arctic. Surveillance from the air will be increased, he said, as will sovereignty patrols across the ice and tundra.


"I want the navy, the army and air force operating up here so that our airspace, our waters and our land are all under the control of the Canadians so there's no question that if people went through our land, air or water they follow our laws," O'Connor said.


"It's all part of sovereignty."


But O'Connor was cautious when asked about another promise to build three heavy, armed icebreakers.

"Whatever the most effective way is to get the navy operating in the North, we need to go with it," he said. "I'm looking at a range of options - ships that can cross the ice, smaller double-hulled vessels that could go through one-year ice."

He did say new naval vessels would all have some ice capability.

"Any major vessel original to the navy will have to go through first-year ice because we are respecting the fact that we have three oceans."

As part of his trip, O'Connor also visited Resolute, a High Arctic community on Cornwallis Island, where military officials propose a northern warfare school - something that's long been on the army's wish list.

"They are enthusiastic about having an arctic training centre," said O'Connor.

"We had a look at Resolute Bay (Thursday) and the military officers with me will be taking the information back to Ottawa to make a decision."

O'Connor wouldn't estimate the cost of the new facilities or how many military personnel they would bring to the Arctic. Iqaluit's smaller design for a port was estimated to cost about $50 million.


(EDIT: As Big Bad John points out, I misspelled arctic as artic in the title.   I have fixed it.  Thanks for pointing it out.)

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If you don't claim your sovereignty, you lose it.

Kudos to the Conservatives for looking for more than 5 minutes ahead in their planning....


Matthew. 

 

[big bad john]

Perhaps one of the staff could help out on the spelling error in the title.

 

[Guardian]

Just an idea...

If we are serious about reinforcing our sovereignty up north, might it be practical to station some ground forces up there? More than just a training cadre at this proposed arctic warfare school, but actually a "rapid reaction force" of sorts.

This would give some heavier backup to the Rangers and be useful in case of civil disasters up North (i.e., the increasingly-feared prospect of an airliner crash). They would be available most of the year for sovereignty patrols, too. They might even be able to act as an EN force for the school.

Such a force could probably be a reinforced company - sized organization. Let's say a recce platoon, two rifle platoons, a heavy weapons platoon (just in case), a support platoon, an "arctic mobility platoon" (snowmobiles and the like), just for the sake of argument (if someone has a better ORG idea, by all means).

For this force to be of any use, it would have to have a few large, air-to-air refuelable helicopters located with it. The company would be trained airmobile. Put a Buffalo up there as well, and the recce platoon could jump into an area of interest in advance of the rest of the force.

We might even be able to draw most of this force from the reserves, if we trained and rotated them through the tasking like any other op tasking. There have to be some reservists out there who would volunteer for a six-month tour of the Arctic - if given the proper incentives, anyway (the operational tax break? Some special pay arrangement? Even a medal (after all, Alert rates one, and it would be an operational task, I'd think)?

And after a few years of annually rotating a couple hundred reservists through the North, the training and experience gained and thus disseminated might be a general benefit to the Reserves. Best of all, the overtasked Reg Force might only have to provide a training cadre and some specialist positions - positions that would likely have to be resident at this school anyway. (I'm just thinking of the Army side, not the Air component that would be required).

Any thoughts? Or is this totally out to lunch?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Perhaps one of the staff could help out on the spelling error in the title.

Seems to have spelt it the way most people say it.  :'(

 

[Remius]

Guardian: Not a bad idea but maybe a reinforced coy might be a little too ambitious to start.  Maybe an enlarged platoon to begin with.  With reserves being deployed overseas now more than ever and other taskings such as training etc, it might be difficult finding enough reservists to man something like that year round.  Maybe a platoon size on the ground with others on standby able to deploy at a moments notice and integrate?

Don't know really.  But arctic sovereignty is becoming more relevant and Canada needs to make its presence felt.  And it has to be more than just the occasional exercise.

I also applaud the conservatives for taking this seriously.  This is one of the main reasons why I voted for them.

 

[a_majoor]

For more discussion and alternatives to icebreakers, see this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44203.0.html

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Civie Question: "How quickly could you integrate some of the younger Rangers into a number of dispersed active units?"

And for those with far more experience than I will ever have, how would you outfit them?

Thanks in advance,

Matthew. 

P.S.  Are the Griffon's Arctic-capable?

 

[George Wallace]

They don't get integrated, they get attached.  That is a formality; Orders.  They would act more or less as 'Guides' and 'Advisers' to the unit.

They come equiped with what they were issued so there would be no outfitting.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

They don't get integrated, they get attached.  That is a formality; Orders.  They would act more or less as 'Guides' and 'Advisers' to the unit.

They come equiped with what they were issued so there would be no outfitting.

My bad....I must have written that poorly.

What I meant was "If you were to recruit currently trained Rangers to create a new active unit, how long would it take to train them to current active duty standards and if were to become an active unit how would you equip it?  In short, instead of bringing active personnel from other regions of the country, are there overwhelming hurdles to using the Ranger-trained force who know the environment better than anyone as the basis for a new active unit or units?"


Matthew.  ???

 

[orange.paint]

My bad....I must have written that poorly.

What I meant was "If you were to recruit currently trained Rangers to create a new active unit, how long would it take to train them to current active duty standards and if were to become an active unit how would you equip it?  In short, instead of bringing active personnel from other regions of the country, are there overwhelming hurdles to using the Ranger-trained force who know the environment better than anyone as the basis for a new active unit or units?"


Matthew.   ???

Although I agree with your comment on how they know the environment better than anyone else,you have to pause and look at their culture.Having said that what I'm about to say is only a personal view from working with the rangers personally and my father owned a Hudson bay company in great whale river northern Quebec.

The rangers provide a valuable asset to our forces and country,but lets not get them confused with reservist or regular force soldiers.You will find that if a ranger has nothing to gain from an experience he may not show up.He also has a life where hunting and fishing (in some areas)is still important to their communities and culture,therefore you cannot expect him to show up when there is stuff to be done in his family.

My father said they were really hard workers but when they received enough money from his company to get what they wanted to buy,you wouldn't see them again till they needed more.That's not lazy that's a way of life.Having said that I have served alongside one young man from great whale river (our fathers were buddies) and he served 3 years but decided to go back to his family.And one of the best shots I've ever seen I must add.

When I worked with them in raymore ontario they said the only ones who jumped right into the "army way" were city slickers.The ones in the country just didnt quite go that way.

To form a bat allion of Rangers is a silly thought.Not only would it not work due to cultural reasons,it could dramatically affect their way of life and destroy a culture by making them into a workforce.

 

[GAP]

My father said they were really hard workers but when they received enough money from his company to get what they wanted to buy,you wouldn't see them again till they needed more.That's not lazy that's a way of life.Having said that I have served alongside one young man from great whale river (our fathers were buddies) and he served 3 years but decided to go back to his family.And one of the best shots I've ever seen I must add.

Having worked with Inuit and lived in the north also, I can only agree with you. Great people, just not focused the same way we are. Nothing wrong with it, just different.

 

[Missile Man]

I completely agree with Guardian - let's send the Army up there to "defend our sovereignty" and stuff.  Someone needs to maintain vigilance on Hans Island, am I right?  So I vote the Army, and the Rangers, not the Navy.  We will stick to Victoria, Ottawa, and Halifax....

 

[Navy_Blue]

Navy and Air force are really the key assets we need up north.  Keep our Infantry well trained and able to work with rangers and we're good.  No real need to post lots and lots of people up north either.  Logistical service and support and maybe if you want to be really mean and nasty stick the ice breaker crews up north too.  If you think about posting anywhere from 150 to 500+ people north of sixty will be very very costly.  I've been up there with the ship and its another world.  Did I mention that you can only drink at lunch and supper till 11PM the horror!!! If the Coast Guard is smart enough to rotate crews out of more major centers like St John's.  We could rotate our crews up there for a few months on and a few months off.  With a rotation it comes down to Sea Pay only not PLD to cover a 10$ bag of potato's or 15$ for a head of lettuce.

So now it comes down to a Jetty with a Medium sized Warehouse/Maintainance facility with a few billets for Log/Traffic Techs, a Clerk and and some Local technical support.  Just a simple Jetty with an ability to accommodate medium sized freighters and tankers would be priceless to a place like Iqaluit

Now as far as Zoomies go, do we need more air bases than we already have??  Would UAV's and our patrol aircraft not have the range to fly out of Goosebay and Yellowknife to do the job.  Iqaluit would be able to handle a small detachment as well.  Again rotational basis only.

Why make all this more expensive than necessary?? I think you could get the same results without a large influx of personnel and save some money in the long run.

My 2 peanuts. 

 

 

[tempest77]

Deep-water naval port in Arctic in doubt
 
David ********
CanWest News Service


Saturday, February 03, 2007


OTTAWA -- The Canadian army's part-time soldiers are expected to play a greater role in defending the Arctic with as many as 1,000 troops a year training in the region.

But the Harper government appears to be backing off its election promise to build a deep water port in the Arctic, as well as an ambitious plan to build a fleet of armed icebreakers. Instead, according to the government's Canada First Defence Strategy paper, it will construct a forward operating refuelling and berthing site for navy ships and build six Arctic patrol vessels.

The army's reserves will also play a leading role in the North, according to the strategy obtained by CanWest News Service.

"The Canadian Forces will identify selected reserve units for operations in the Arctic - an initiative that will expose up to 1,000 Canadians annually to the challenges and geographic issues associated with operations and life in the Arctic," the document states.

Many of the Arctic initiatives contained in the strategy follow those previously announced by Stephen Harper on the election campaign trail in December 2005 and January 2006. Those include establishing an Arctic warfare training centre, boosting the size of the military's existing Canadian Rangers unit which operates in the North and purchasing a small number of northern utility aircraft.

The government will also place more emphasis on using satellites, aerial drones and Aurora patrol aircraft for surveillance missions in the Arctic, according to the strategy paper.

But the document also appears to back off previous Conservative election promises to construct a deep-water port in the region as well as build a fleet of armed icebreakers. The six Arctic patrol vessels are different from icebreakers and, unlike those types of ships, are not expected to be able to operate in areas with heavy ice.

The government will also establish what it is calling "forward operating locations" in the Arctic which would include a berthing and refuelling facility, according to the strategy paper. Critics, however, say that such a facility is smaller than the deep-water port that was promised.

But Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said in the Commons on Friday no decisions have been made with respect to the future of the Armed Forces. "Everything one reads in newspapers and hears on TV is sheer speculation," O'Connor added.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier also sent out a message Friday to all units regarding the series of articles that have been CanWest newspapers detailing the Canada First policy. He noted the strategy document is under constant revision and has not yet been approved by the government. News reports based on "previous iterations" of the strategy document are speculative and, "in some cases, inaccurate," according to Hillier.

However, navy officers confirm the service is indeed proceeding with a plan to build six Arctic patrol ships and not armed icebreakers.

The Canada First Defence Strategy document, which contains a foreword from O'Connor, states that the government's plan to assert sovereignty over the Arctic, its waterways and resources, is a key policy for the nation. "We are taking these steps because this Government recognizes that a tangible Canadian Forces presence is essential to achieving our goals in a region that is critical to our national interest and sense of identity," it states.

The Arctic constitutes 40 per cent of Canadian territory and the region is growing in importance, according to the strategy document. The strategy also acknowledges that global warming will open new shipping routes in the Arctic and could allow for more commercial activity in the region.

Over the years, the Canadian Forces' ability to operate in the Arctic has declined significantly, the strategy document warns.

But Colin Kenny, the head of the Senate's national security and defence committee, questions the investment of a large portion of the military budget for Arctic activities. "We're not going to solve any Arctic issues by using military force," said Kenny.

"We could put the entire Canadian Forces up there and we still couldn't stop the Russians, the French, the Chinese or the Americans from going through the Northwest Passage," he added.

Kenny said Arctic issues will be decided in part, through diplomacy, as well as through the work of other government agencies and departments.

Political science professor Michael Byers agrees the military only has a small role to play in asserting sovereignty in the Arctic. "The strategy is a movement in the right direction but the main threat (in the Arctic) is not a military one," he said. "The need is to enforce Canadian domestic law any where, any time."

To do that the emphasis should be on providing the Coast Guard with new icebreakers, not the navy with Arctic patrol ships, added Byers, a University of British Columbia professor.

He said, for instance, that establishing a forward operating base for ships to refuel is nothing like the deep-water port promised by Harper. Byers said such a port is a necessity from an economic as well as government point of view.

Doug Bland, a defence analyst at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., is concerned the Arctic initiative will divert scarce financial resources from the Canadian Forces at a time when it needs large amounts of money to rebuild its basic capabilities. Other government departments, particularly the RCMP which has over the decades a strong presence in the North, should take the lead in the Arctic strategy, said Bland.

© CanWest News Service 2007

 

[MarkOttawa]

Jim Travers of the Crvena Zvezda blows it.  Big time:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/177773

...After previously deciding wisely on equipment that would be useful in fighting wars among the people and foolishly on big-ticket items of dubious value, the defence minister is now potentially in the market for everything from tanks to fighter aircraft and Arctic icebreakers.

This appears today in the CanWest story above:

...the Harper government appears to be backing off election promises to build a deep water port in the Arctic and launch a fleet of armed icebreakers.

Instead, according to the government's Canada First Defence Strategy paper, it will construct a forward operating refuelling and berthing site for navy ships and build six Arctic patrol vessels.

Mr Travers refers to our "potentially" buying new fighters. Maybe around 2017, that is. He really should do some research.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/12/canada-signs-f35-production-phase-mou/index.php

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

Having lived & worked in the great white north..... didn't see this as a realistic goal in the 1st place.

 

[JackD]

Well, there's always Churchill.... On the other hand, by the time any new icebreakers - be it Coast Guard or Navy - are purchased, or for that matter ice-strengthened ships. global warming will have changed the parameters some-what...

 

[NCRCrow]

more election chaff.....yawn