Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Security and Emergency Services => Topic started by: mattoigta on March 29, 2004, 20:01:00

Title: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: mattoigta on March 29, 2004, 20:01:00
I was watching the news and on the ticker at the bottom it said that there will be the largest ever CF arctice exercise this summer. Anyone have more info about it?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: bossi on March 29, 2004, 20:28:00
Ask and ye shall receive ...
(plus Peter Worthington‘s riposte ...)

Forces to ‘flex muscles‘ in north
Largest exercise ever ‘sends a message ... that we are here‘
 
 Chris Wattie, National Post (http://www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=1a3d0541-2c01-47cf-9c30-0355a20a272f)
March 27, 2004
 
 
Canada is sending one of its largest warships, a squadron of helicopters and 200 ground troops to the high Arctic this summer in an exercise designed to show the flag -- and a little military muscle -- in the North.

And while the military says the three-week-long exercise, code-named Narwhal, has nothing to do with Denmark‘s claim to a tiny island in the far North, it will be the largest Canadian Forces exercise ever in the Arctic.

"This is a first," Colonel Norris Pettis, commander of the Canadian Forces northern area, said yesterday.

"This is the first time we‘ll have a joint naval, air and land force operating this far north. And it‘s sending a message that this land is important to us ... that we can put troops, and aircraft and ships, on the ground to respond to whatever we might be called upon to deal with.

"It‘s putting a military presence up here ... flexing our muscles."

The patrol frigate HMCS Montreal is to sail sometime in August to the Arctic, where it will be joined by five CH-146 Griffon helicopters and two companies of the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, the largest combined force that has ever operated in the North.

Col. Pettis said such a "robust" military presence in the desolate tundra of Baffin Island will not go unnoticed.

"It sends a message, first of all to the people of the North, secondly to all Canadians and certainly to whatever other countries out there may be watching that we are here and that this place is important to us," he said in a telephone interview from his headquarters in Yellowknife. "This is an attempt to demonstrate that we are here and we are paying attention to what happens in the North."

Meanwhile, Canadian diplomats are considering an offer from the Danish ambassador to negotiate the future of Hans Island, a three-kilometre-long stretch of rock and ice in the Nares Strait between Ellesmere Island and Greenland.

Svend Roed Nielsen, the Danish government‘s top representative in Canada, told the National Post this week that he is willing to start "negotiating" with Canada.

However, he added that his government is not backing down from its claim that the barren and uninhabited island is in Danish territory.

Reynald Doiron, a Foreign Affairs spokesman, said Ottawa is considering a response to the ambassador‘s offer, but added that Canada is not backing down either. "Our position is that the island is ours; their position is that the island is theirs," he said.

"As far as Canada-Danish relations are concerned we have tried to keep this low-key [but] we have agreed to disagree."

Hans Island does not even appear on most maps, but it has become a focus of challenges to Canada‘s sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago, where islands and waterways long claimed as Canadian are facing challenges from foreign governments.

Danish warships showed up off its coast in the summer of 2002. A group of sailors disembarked and reportedly hoisted the Danish flag, actions which Canada considered a violation of its sovereignty.

Dr. Richard Gimblett, a former Canadian navy officer who is now a research fellow with Dalhousie University‘s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, said the upcoming exercise will send a significant message in the North.

"If you‘re laying claim to a piece of land you have to use it -- you have to show that you can go there, stay there and control it," he said. "The Canadian Forces is a good way to help establish that."

However, Dr. Gimblett said that the Canadian navy is limited in what it can do in the North since its front-line warships -- patrol frigates like HMCS Montreal and its Iroquois-class destroyers -- cannot venture into even loosely packed ice in Arctic waters.

"It would be nice if we had ships that could go up there year-round, but we don‘t," he said.

And with global warming making the northwest passage through Canada‘s Arctic navigable for longer stretches every year, he said we will need a naval capability in the North very soon.

"Within 10 or 15 years the passage could be open year-round," he said. "It has the potential to become a super-highway for shipping between Europe and east Asia."

Exercise Narwhal will cost an estimated $5-million and the logistics of transporting and supporting so many soldiers, sailors and airmen to such an isolated area will be formidable, Col. Pettis said.

"It‘s going to be a challenge just getting them here," he said. "It‘s just a few hundred kilometres from Iqaluit, but there aren‘t any roads. So it‘s an achievement just getting them where they‘re supposed to be going."

The exercise will be the "cap stone" in a series of military moves in the North designed to bolster Canada‘s claim over the vast stretches of the uninhabited Arctic, Col. Pettis said.

Canada has launched a five-year plan to increase its military presence throughout its uninhabited Arctic territory, including satellite surveillance and far-reaching patrols of soldiers riding snowmobiles.

A patrol of Canadian Rangers is to leave next week on a long-distance trek to Alert.

++++++

A beaver that roared
Arctic flap just a Grit smoke screen
By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun
Mon, March 29, 2004

 
In the movie Wag the Dog, public attention in the U.S. is diverted by a fake war, with graphics, to enable a lecherous, scandal-ridden president to be re-elected.

A lot of people linked the movie with the Bill Clinton regime, which generated foreign crises to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky.

Something mindful of that seems underway at the National Post, which has been churning controversy about Canadian troops undertaking a five-year campaign to march soldiers to uninhabited regions of our Arctic to establish sovereignty.
   
The central issue is the far northern island of Hans, an ice-bound speck of rock, 3 km long and 1 km wide, situated between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, and claimed by both Canada and Denmark.

Canada has discovered that Danish ships have visited the island, left footprints in the snow and -- horrors -- planted a Danish flag!

By making this a headline story, the Post diverts attention from various Liberal shenanigans and scandals that threaten the continued divine reign of the party, which the National Post endorses.

With overtones of the 1959 Peter Sellers movie, The Mouse That Roared, where a puny, bankrupt country (Grand Fenwick) declared war on the U.S. in order to lose and be rebuilt like Germany after World War II, the dispute over Hans Island has comic qualities.

In short -- who cares?

Hans Island is so insignificant that it doesn‘t appear on some maps. It‘s at the top of Greenland, where there is nothing.

Twenty soldiers, supported by Canadian Rangers (mostly Inuit) plan to snowmobile to Hans from Alert, Canada‘s most northerly weather station.

Hans is some 700 km north of the most northerly Inuit settlement, and 3,000 km north of the nearest Canadian city (Edmonton).

Why bother, one might ask.

Well, it‘s a question of pride and sovereignty.

Remember in the 1970s the shock of learning that Soviet submarines were snooping under our Arctic ice, with the Americans doing the same?

The government wanted to get nuclear subs -- not with nuclear weapons, but nuclear engines, so we could track Soviet subs and inform the CBC if they disturbed our walruses, or something.

The trouble with this dispute with Denmark (which owns Greenland), is that the Danes have better ice-coping ships than we do.

They often visit Hans Island -- in itself suspicious, because only seals go there.

The National Post‘s initial story was followed by one saying the Danish ambassador was not backing down.

This was followed by a headline story: "Forces to ‘flex muscles‘ in the north -- largest exercise ever ‘sends a message ... we are here.‘ "

This "largest exercise ever" consists of one frigate, 200 soldiers and some helicopters. (Judging by how the Liberals have gutted the military, I suppose this is a large force.)

The Post warns that although Canadians outnumber Danes (32 million to 5.4 million) Denmark‘s navy is better equipped than ours. If the dispute gets ugly, "Canada would take a Danish pasting," warns the Post.

Denmark has four icebreakers to Canada‘s none, and five functioning submarines. Canada has four British reject subs that leak when under water.

None of our ships can get past the ice, and our subs daren‘t go under it. Which puts the whole sovereignty load on the Rangers and 20 regulars.

Since this is a symbolic issue of sovereignty, the suggestion of Vancouver‘s David Williams has merit. In a letter to the Post he suggested: "Since Canada wants to reclaim the Arctic and boast our nation‘s visibility ... this represents an opportunity for Adrienne Clarkson (with or without her value-added husband) to take up residency on Hans Island."

What a splendid idea!

If not Queen Adrienne, how about Alfonso Gagliano, who used to be our ambassador to Denmark before Paul Martin and his past caught up with him?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Spr.Earl on March 29, 2004, 21:15:00
Bugger the expense,let‘s just send the Militia on a 2yr Op. and occupy the rock,at least every one will come back Cold Weather qualified and we will have gained more land.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: logau on March 29, 2004, 22:24:00
I am currently signed up for this ex. Get me out of the cube farm and all the hostess twinky wrappers that they say is the centre of DND.

Seriously will keep my eyes and ears open but if I tell you anything I may have to _ill you.  :)  I am such a joker. Now - lets followup by all the things that _ill would lead to.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Spr.Earl on March 29, 2004, 23:01:00
I‘ll go but being from the West us lot are SOL.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: aspiring officer on March 29, 2004, 23:20:00
Wow, i hope this escalates into a full scale war so that i would have my piece when i join up, lol.
But seriously, how can we take this. If someone stole my pen or something, i would defend it. If we let the Danes take that no-where Island, its gonna tell everyone that we are weak.
Its true, this isnt about a small speck of land in the ice, its about RESPECT. The Danes better show some respect, And we better tell them that. Or else they‘d start planting flags on Newfoundland!!!
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Tommy on March 30, 2004, 00:17:00
Oh God.... we‘re starting a war with Denmark????


this is really just too funny... yes, on one level i can see the issue behind the danes taking the island... but on the other hand.. its a giant rock covered in ice.. unless they know something we dont, it seems as if its pretty useless...

and i really have my doubt that this is testing the water for a full scale invasion of canada.. their military probabbly wouldnt be able to take out ours.. though i dont know the figures i have a feeling we have more troops, Reg and Reserve, then they do. and besides.. they wouldnt have enough people in their whole country to occupy a land mass as big as canada.

sounds to me like Mr Martin is trying to sweep the sponsorship scandal under the rug....
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 30, 2004, 00:21:00
If they claimed this island would that give them any extended fishing rights?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: corporal-cam on March 30, 2004, 01:31:00
Quote
Originally posted by Bruce Monkhouse:
[qb] If they claimed this island would that give them any extended fishing rights? [/qb]
Never thought of that, I think it would since all countries get a 20km restricted zone (people must ask permission to enter by sea or air) and they would get a 360 km Offshore economic zone which would give them the right to fish that area, so that would give them quiet an advantage. It‘s bad enough with spain stealing our fish we don‘t need the danish guys doing it too. On a different note didn‘t we liberate denmark single handly in ww2 (and then have the brits take credit for it) ? Of course the sad thing is, thanks to the liberals we‘d probally lose a war with Denmark, unless our citizens would all go south and buy m16s from walmarts in the US and come fight (I know I would). I think we should fight (diplomaticly) for this island since we keep getting challeneged in the north by other countries claiming rights to it. (like the americans who went trhough the North West Passage without permission in 1986, *******s...). Even if there is nothing really up ther in the form of money there‘s alot more in national pride and sovergity)
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Bill Smy on March 30, 2004, 01:37:00
NDHQ is probably now trying to finalize the mission statement. This is important because it will dictate what the soldiers will take with them. In this case, I suspect they will need tape recorders hooked up to loud speaker systems, a supply of flag poles and Canadian flags. Then, every morning it would be possible to have a flag raising ceremony, cum music. Heaven forbid we should take rifles (but if we do, do we take ball or blank?)
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: wongskc on March 30, 2004, 01:38:00
Quote
Originally posted by corporal-cam:
[qb]Even if there is nothing really up ther in the form of money there‘s alot more in national pride and sovergity) [/qb]
When was the last time you‘ve seen national pride and a concern for soverignty on our streets?  :mad:   The general public would rather let them have the rock instead of causing a fuss.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: corporal-cam on March 30, 2004, 01:43:00
Quote
Originally posted by wongskc:
[qb]  
Quote
Originally posted by corporal-cam:
[qb]Even if there is nothing really up ther in the form of money there‘s alot more in national pride and sovergity) [/qb]
When was the last time you‘ve seen national pride and a concern for soverignty on our streets?   :mad:    The general public would rather let them have the rock instead of causing a fuss. [/qb]
I dunno, we kids are more patriotic than we get credit for. If I had copyrighted "Canada kicks ***"   or a similar t shirt phrase I woudl be one rich 15 year old. And since in 3 years we‘ll be the voters maybe we‘ll have a little more patriotic suport, but then again we aren‘t the ones paying taxes for it are we?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Spr.Earl on March 30, 2004, 01:56:00
Quote
Originally posted by Bruce Monkhouse:
[qb] If they claimed this island would that give them any extended fishing rights? [/qb]
Hey Bruce having sailed on Danish Ship‘s and still remember some of their weakness‘,I‘ll just pay them off with some AAlborg Aquavit and some dried fish and few choice words and save us all bundle.  ;)
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: clasper on March 30, 2004, 05:38:00
And the jokes just write themselves...

Alfonso Gagliano- sponsorship mastermind, and bumbling ambassador to Denmark- two scapegoats in one!

It‘s not about fishing rights, it‘s about the oil, man!  It‘s all a big conspiracy.  The Danish Oil & Gas Company (DONG) (I didn‘t make up that name- honest  ;)  ) has discovered the world‘s largest reserves from their secret base in Greenland, and despite being thousands of kilometers from the nearest pipeline, will bring that oil to market.  The subsequent economic collapse of the North American oil production business will bring governments to their knees!  :blotto:  

And for the complete wingnut conspiracy theorists- Health Canada is behind the whole thing.  Realizing that Candians are too obese, they‘ve begun making up stories to reduce danish sales.  Unfortunately, the consumption of other pastries has increased to compensate...
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: ErorZ on March 30, 2004, 08:26:00
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=215fa54b-20df-442f-8bad-bc2e1a40243f  

"The National Post has highlighted the dispute between Canada and Denmark over the tiny, desolate, ice-bound island as one of four international boundary disputes prompting concerns over the nation‘s ability to maintain sovereignty of its vast northern region."

Anyone know what the other 3 land claims are and by whom ?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: mattoigta on March 30, 2004, 11:10:00
ErorZ, our other disputes are with the Americans at the Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Machias Seal Island and North Rock
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 30, 2004, 14:03:00
Gee why doesn‘t that surprise me S_Baker.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 30, 2004, 14:04:00
IIRC there is a dispute with the Russians regarding the Arctic shelf as well.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: aspiring officer on March 30, 2004, 16:20:00
Ok, i‘m taking up a group of mercenaries to represent Canada up to Hans Island, who‘s whth me?
If u cant go because of work, or wife and kids, u can send donations in the form of warm clothing, rations, ammo, your coworkers, and your wife and kids instead, lol  :D  

PS. send lots of flags. Canadian preferred,   ;)
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Jungle on March 30, 2004, 18:44:00
It will more-than-likely end like the mid-80s fish-war with Spain: we‘ll let them have it because we can‘t do anything about it...
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on March 30, 2004, 19:28:00
Being on the HMCS Terra Nova when the Estai was arrested I dispute that Canada did nothing...it was the 90s BTW.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Jungle on March 30, 2004, 20:46:00
No, I‘m talking about the first one, in ‘85... I remember Mulroney was in Vancouver and asked, in a press conference  "What do you expect me to do, go to war against Spain ? We have no Navy to send to war..."
Then there was talk about the fact that Spain had an aircraft carrier and other stuff we didn‘t... That was the driving factor behind the Defence white paper of 1987.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Bill Smy on March 30, 2004, 21:05:00
Early news reports stated that the ground troops to be committed to this exercise were to come from 2 RCR, but the grapevine states that the call has gone out to the militia for augmentation as 2 RCR cannot meet the requirement.

Is it not time to demand some truth from DND? If this exercise is to be manned by the militia, why not say so?

Colonel Pettis states that, "This is a first". Perhaps in composition of the deployment, but I recall that sovereignty exercises in the Arctic were called New Viking, and were primarily militia, and we were proud of it.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Stakhanov on March 31, 2004, 05:46:00
Was looking up a few articles on this dispute, and found this one.  This seems to illustrate best the problems Canada could face if we just backed down over this "useless rock".
 http://www.naval.ca/article/Heubert/The_Return_of_the_Vikings.html
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Slim on March 31, 2004, 06:17:00
So now, after years of neglect, the government has Canadian sovreighty challengedand has little to answer the call with...Disgusting!
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Scott937 on April 01, 2004, 06:13:00
Bill,
SOVOPs in the Arctic have been conducted for years by regular force units augmented by the reserve force in some situations. Having the 2RCR augmented by the militia is not surprising but the exercise and op cannot be organized by the militia, the do not have the staff to put together a large scale exercise. SOVOPs were on a Coy level or smaller and practiced skills require to operate in extreme cold arctic conditions. It is a first, if it is a joint exercise and they are praticing war fighting skill. I think the clue that this maybe the objective, is the season that this is to be conducted - summer.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Jungle on April 01, 2004, 06:47:00
Quote
Originally posted by Scott937:
[qb] SOVOPs were on a Coy level or smaller and practiced skills require to operate in extreme cold arctic conditions. It is a first, if it is a joint exercise and they are praticing war fighting skill. I think the clue that this maybe the objective, is the season that this is to be conducted - summer. [/qb]
The CAR conducted a number of Defence Of Canada scenarios. These ex‘s were CDO-group to Battle-group level, and practiced warfighting skills. I was in one on eastern Baffin Island (facing Greenland), at a place called Cape Dyer, in Feb 87. We jumped into a valley, then attacked and secured a radar station on a mountain top.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Scott937 on April 01, 2004, 10:36:00
Jungle, I stand corrected, excellent info. That must have been a cold jump, was it the entire Battle Group...
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Jungle on April 01, 2004, 13:04:00
That particular one was a Battle-group ex. It involved 3 CDO, Recce PL and other elements of the CAR in Cape Dyer. The Airborne Armour element and other elements from the Airborne Battle-Group were deployed in Frobisher Bay (now Iqaluit) and other locations.
The jump in Cape Dyer occurred at first light, following a 6-hour flight from Trenton. The last 2 hours of that flight were dedicated to in-flight dressing, which was a nightmare... gotta love that !!!  ;)  
The temp was around -60c, but the winds were low.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: xenomfba on April 01, 2004, 16:17:00
Uh. A naval war with Denmark would be absurd. Their Navy is better equipped than ours? Where is this guy getting his facts? They have four frigates that have no torpedos, no anti-aircraft capability, no anti-ship missiles and a complement of only 60 sailors. Compare that with our 12 frigates, each equipped with 4 torpedo tubes, 16 seasparrow anti-aircraft missile tubes, 8 harpoon anti-ship missile tubes, 20mm Phalanx CIWS and a complement of 225 sailors. I‘m sure the Danish Navy‘s ability to break through ice is really impressive when we‘re raining harpoon missiles on them from 125 km away.

Uh-oh, they‘re sending their 70 F-16s after us? Good thing our 4 air-defence destroyers are there, firing missiles at the approaching aircraft while they‘re still over 150 km away. Oh no, they invaded Canada with their 51 Leopard II tanks? Good thing we mothballed all our Leopard C2s -- with no tanks to shoot at, the Danish tanks are sitting ducks for aircraft and infantry carried anti-tank systems.

We don‘t spend a lot on our military, but the Danes spend even less -- about 30% of what we spend. Your money is on them? Yeah. OK. They need it.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 16:58:00
Ummmm xenomfba I think you also need to get your facts straight as well before you get critical:

The Royal Danish Navy has 4 SSK(1 of which is aip equipped), 7 frigates (3 of which have Harpoons and Seasparrow--4 are ice capable), 27 patrol craft of various types including 14 that can be equipped with up to 8 harpoons, 4 minewarfare units, and 9 auxillaries of various sorts. If they deployed their entire navy at us thats over 152 harpoon SSMs that could be fired at us compared to our 96. Hmmmm not good odds. Also a point for you to consider we now have 3 air defence destroyers as HMCS Huron will not be coming back in service. Also we have one CPF (HMCS Toronto) in the Gulf. On the east coast we have 2 280s, 7 Halifax class frigates and 2 unready submarines. On the west coast we have 1 280 ,5 CPFs and one submarine. The east coast AOR is in refit. Getting the picture yet?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Garry on April 01, 2004, 17:05:00
S_Baker,

Re: standing by. Yes, I believe you would. This reminds me a lot of the Falkland campaign, and the US was a very loyal ally of Britain. Tough to say, but this would be one to stay away from... for all of us!
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 01, 2004, 17:47:00
I have bad news for ya ex dragoon. All those danish patrol boats are designed for the nice calm baltic. They are design for very short amounts of time at sea and would not survive the atlantic.

 Plus some of there ships will be in refit as will ours at any one time.

Also don‘t forget we would have freindly air cover and they wouldn‘t. Sorry the Danish fleet would sink.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 01, 2004, 17:50:00
They wouldn‘t even have to invade, just bloody our nose. Likely event would be the Danes claiming the Island and announcing they are sending a team to build a base there and fanfare of sending one ship on the TV. Canada responds by sending one ship up there, (if the Danes are smart they send their ice-strenghtened ships, and do this when the ice is still around) The one Canadian ship is surprised by 3-4 Danish ships who paint the Canadian ship with their radars, the Canadian captain, tries to use bluff, but quickly backs down when the Danes fire either a warning missile or a few rounds over the bow. Canada has no ability to reinforce the one ship, most of our CF-18 are being serviced or their isn‘t any air to ground missiles around and the losses by trying to use dumb bombs would be to high. the Canadian ship retreats, the Danes setup camp and await the bluster in the UN. Canada is seen as impotent and incapable of protecting the North. Soon China decides that the NW passage is critical to its economy and begins to send ships through to Europe, any attempt by Canada to stop them is countered by threats to boycott Canadian trade....rather bleak eh?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 17:52:00
And I have news for you sledge those Danish patrol boats have exercised with us in the middle of the North Atlantic on numerous exercises, might not be a comfortable trip but they can do it. I can‘t comment on which of their ships are in refit as I did not have their Ops Schedule available at the time I posted.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 01, 2004, 17:56:00
yes but are we talking FPB‘s or patrol ships? different animal.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 18:05:00
Also talking ideal circumstances in deployment as well.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 18:09:00
You would not use FPBs in the worse weather but with a tender they can be easily deployed....look at the MTBs during WW2 for an example and it would not like be the Danes would be in open they would no doubt establish a sheltered base in Greenland.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 01, 2004, 18:10:00
Oh and Colin no such thing as a warning missile. If your gonna use a finite resource you shoot to kill.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 18:14:00
Colin the Thetis class frigates only have guns as well.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 01, 2004, 18:29:00
Quote
Originally posted by sledge:
[qb] Oh and Colin no such thing as a warning missile. If your gonna use a finite resource you shoot to kill. [/qb]
Actually almost any semi-smart missile can launched without targeting the ship. Certainly the gunfire would do. But a missile appearing on the radar even if it‘s not aimed at you will drive the point home. If things went this far, do you think they would worry about a $200,000 missile?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 01, 2004, 18:34:00
If you only have 8 you would and besides the CPF has one of the best self defence capabilities in the world.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Infanteer on April 01, 2004, 20:16:00
...and we are talking about two NATO countries going to war over an insignificant rock in the middle of butt-f***-nowhere.  (Waiting for the Falklands analogy, NATO is the kicker here)

You navy guys have an odd sense of humor.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 01, 2004, 21:08:00
um colin how do you aim a self guiding missile to miss??? Ya can‘t and as for radar guided missiles you need to be locked on to a target for them to launch.

 And yes when your stuck in a steel box for months at a time u get a odd sense of humour
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Scott937 on April 02, 2004, 05:37:00
But Infanteer, didn‘t you just hear, anyone can get into NATO as long as they declared thier support for "Iraqi Freedom". It will soon be like saying "but they are both member states of the UN..."
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Infanteer on April 02, 2004, 14:20:00
Good one.

I must admit I am seeing NATO become more and more obsolete every day...

"Where is the North Atlantic?"
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 02, 2004, 18:26:00
I will confess not to be an expert on missile systems, but I do remember the guys on one ships explain how they would prevent the missile from hitting the target drone, so the impression I have is that they do have a certain amount of control over them. I will ask the question on another forum that may have the answer.

 However the scenario is not that unreal or without precedent, remembers the Iceland-British Cod war? or even the Turbot war? Fisheries resources are becoming scarce and the Island represent the ability to own fishing grounds and any minerals in the surrounding areas. The only reason Canada has not had more confrontations regarding resources is due to our lack of will (political that is) and resources, the reasons exist already in plenty.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 02, 2004, 19:09:00
Colin I am a expert on missile systems. Its my job, so stop sending and receive. In other words stop flapping about what you don‘t know anything about and listen. Ships don‘t purposely miss the drones if locked on. They do use telemetric missiles with no warheads (they send data but don‘t go boom) skin on skin contact between drones and missiles are rare.

 But yes the scenario is quite possible. I agree esspecially for those reasons.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 03, 2004, 02:00:00
Thanks Sledge for the response, as I mentioned it is not my area of expertise, but I was under the belief that it was possible. Which ship do (did) serve on?

 One guys I worked with was a Blowpipe gunner and during a shoot was ordered to miss the drone, he nailed it dead on. The Officer crapped on him, but the BSM bought him beers all night.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 03, 2004, 04:08:00
Colin, I serve on the Regina. Now a blowpipe is not a weapon I know much about, never saw one. I have seen its replacement the javelin. With which you could miss if you wanted to. But its always more fun and confidence building to hit the target.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 03, 2004, 12:01:00
I know it was not well-loved by the guys using it, and it‘s targeting aspect was limited. It was a good weapon when it came out, but we held onto it for to long and was obsolete compared to other systems also in service. If I remember correctly the gunner kept the crosshairs on the target and guided the missile onto target by a small thumb switch, although it‘s been 20 years since I tried the simulator.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: sledge on April 03, 2004, 12:44:00
That would sound about right for what I know of it. But in this case my knowledge is limited.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on April 04, 2004, 22:39:00
If you think that the whole Hans Island thing is neat, wait a few years when the Northwest Passage becomes practicable for navigation. Get this, Canada says that it‘s internal waters, the rest of the world (mainly the US) says that it‘s actually an international strait. A trip through the NWP is about 7000kms shorter then going through Panama, so you can imagine that lotsof folks are keen to use it. Better yet we currently have -no- way to stop vessels from transitting it either. THATS going to be fun...
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: ~RoKo~ on April 04, 2004, 23:48:00
Quote
Better yet we currently have -no- way to stop vessels from transitting it either
Maybe we can ask nicely?
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 05, 2004, 06:39:00
Ummmm its called an airstrike if worse comes to worse...its amazing what firing CRV-7s from a CF18 will do to a ship.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Danno on April 05, 2004, 12:58:00
Apr. 5, 2004. 09:27 AM

THE TORONTO STAR
 
EDITORIAL: Guarding the Arctic


Canada‘s sovereignty over Arctic waters is in danger of melting away as surely as the polar ice is succumbing to global warming. Within a decade or two, climatologists predict, the route through the Arctic archipelago could be navigable year-round.

That would create an irresistible shortcut for freighters and warships travelling between Europe and Asia. The ships could shave 7,500 kilometres and weeks off their journey by using the Northwest Passage instead of the Panama Canal.

What‘s currently an occasional passage soon could be deemed a strait connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Under the long-standing doctrine of freedom of the seas, it would be an international waterway open to any vessel, of any origin.

In fact, Russia and the United States already hold that view.

The prospect of oil tankers and leaky rustbuckets from all corners of the globe flooding through our pristine Far North is horrifying.

Despite much hand-wringing, the federal government under both Liberal and Conservative regimes has done a feeble job of asserting and safeguarding Arctic sovereignty over the decades. It never can find the money or resources needed to do the job properly.

"Our military presence in the Arctic is not exactly extensive. It virtually constitutes the largest demilitarized zone in the world," Martin Shadwick of York University‘s Centre for International Security told Parliament‘s standing defence committee last June.

In such a void, even symbolic exercises are significant. The longest one-way sovereignty patrol in Canada‘s history began last Thursday, when a 20-member team of reservist Canadian Rangers and soldiers set out by snowmobile from Resolute Bay, Nunavut, for a 1,300-km trek. They are to reach Alert, at the top of Ellesmere Island, next Monday.

 Their mission is to wave the Canadian flag over the disputed waters - but no more than that.

 They will steer clear of the Danish flag planted on tiny Hans Island, midway between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, a Danish territory. Canada and Denmark disagree about its ownership.

This summer, the frigate HMCS Montreal is to sail to Baffin Island for joint exercises with 200 soldiers and five helicopters. It will be the first large warship to conduct a sovereignty patrol in more than a decade. Another patrol is set for next year.

These are encouraging displays, but they are not nearly enough.

For example, the hulls of Canadian frigates and destroyers are too thin to be "ice-capable." We have only a handful of dedicated icebreakers and the military is still waiting for its new British-built submarines, which can cruise beneath the ice.

And we need to step up surveillance via satellites and overflights - technology that will cost millions.

We should tell the international community that the unique Arctic ecosystem needs the stewardship Canada can offer. Similarly, Australia was granted a custodial role for the Great Barrier Reef although it lies only partly within its waters.

Ottawa has neglected its northern border for too long. We must truly stand on guard over Canada‘s most remote regions.  :cdn:
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: cheeky_monkey on April 05, 2004, 22:15:00
Quote
Denmark has four icebreakers to Canada‘s none, and five functioning submarines. Canada has four British reject subs that leak when under water.
Correction we do have ice breakers. CCG has a fleet of 17 icebreakers. Five are dedicated icebreakers and 12 are multi-tasked ice-strengthened vessels.

CCG Ice Operations Centres task icebreakers and guide the movement of marine traffic through ice.

Icebreakers
Des Groseillers
Henry Larsen
Lous S. St-Laurent
Pierre Radisson
Terry Fox

Icebreaker / Buoytenders
Ann Harvey
Edward Cornwallis
Georges R. Pearkes
Griffon
J.E. Bernier
Martha L. Black
Sir Wilfrid Laurier
Sir William Alexander
Earl Grey
Samuel Risley

Ice Strengthened / Navaids Tenders
Simcoe
Tracy
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 06, 2004, 06:30:00
"Correction we do have ice breakers. CCG has a fleet of 17 icebreakers. Five are dedicated icebreakers and 12 are multi-tasked ice-strengthened vessels."

Yes and the majority are tied up because of the lack of funds and have not sailed for quite sometime.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Colin P on April 06, 2004, 11:43:00
Quote
Originally posted by 2332Piper:
[qb] Yes, we have the icebreakers but, correct me if I am wrong, are they armed only with a rifle to keep the polar bears away? It‘s nice and dandy for us to wave our fleet of icebreakers to everyone, but if they are not armed, the best they can do is ask them politely to leave. [/qb]
Yes you are correct, one of the Coast Guard cutters I served on had a .303 Enfield still wrapped in cosmolene paper and stuffed under the Captain‘s bunk, we only took it out when we decommissioned the ship, wish I could have got my hands onto that rifle. All of the Icebreakers carry a hunting rifle for bear defence.

Apparently a couple of our Cutters on the East Coast were fitted with mounts for .50 cals for the Turbot wars. There is a strong lobby in the CCG against arming the vessels, some of the senior members do their best to block any attempt to do so. I used to be against it, but the world has changed and I think that at the very least, all major CCG ships should be equipped with at least 2x .50cal and provisions made during normal refits to add hardpoints for a larger weapon systems (40-75mm). These are often the only Government presence in the Northern Waters and should be able to show even some teeth and provide a support platform for RCMP, military boarding parties.
Title: Re: Largest Ever Arctic Exercise
Post by: Danno on April 07, 2004, 15:38:00
Quote
I used to be against it, but the world has changed and I think that at the very least, all major CCG ships should be equipped with at least 2x .50cal and provisions made during normal refits to add hardpoints for a larger weapon systems (40-75mm). These are often the only Government presence in the Northern Waters and should be able to show even some teeth and provide a support platform for RCMP, military boarding parties.
I agree.

I believe it is high time we, as a nation, decide just where "Canada" truly is.  It seems to me that just as there appears to be "second class" citizens in a society, there also appears to be an analogous, cumulative attitude toward "second class" sections of this country.  

Hearts and minds; if â Å“no oneâ ? cares, what's the point in trying to keep it?

Popular opinion is how politicians stay in office.  On the other hand they also seem to do quite well when they play to large corporations.   So I suppose the fate of our northern hinterland hangs in the balance between  â Å“the will of the peopleâ ? and the ability of our government to make these lands open and legally accessible to big business.  If we don't, other countries will.

And then there are the environmental considerations...

Oy!


  :cdn:
Title: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bill Smy on May 24, 2004, 16:45:00
Denmark plants a flag on an obscure Arctic island, and boy, do we ever get serious about sovereignty. Have to do it in August because we don‘t have the capability to go north in the late fall, winter, or early spring.

Of course, any intrusion of Canadian territorial sovereignty would have to be in August,though,  otherwise we could accuse the enemy of ungentlemanly conduct by not playing by the rules.

A buddy of mine is going on this deployment. Why didn‘t they do this stuff when I was young? Even New Viking serials were run when I was too old to participate.

 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dcds/dir/dpdt/j7Ex/pages/exNarwhal_e.asp

BTW. I was a staff officer at FMCHQ in 1984 when the govenment ran a government-wide mobilization exercise (Boldstep 84). I recall one scenario where it set out that a Soviet military troopcarrying aircraft had crashed on one of the arctic islands. There were reports that there were survivors, but the enemy‘s intentions could not be determined. Boy what a puzzle. How long to get a commando down from Petawawa to Trenton, then to Winnipeg, then to Edmonton? How would this affect the air movement of troops to Europe, seeing we had such narrow windows on UK and German airfields, etc. Finally, one bright fellow suggested that we employ water bombers from the Alberta government, do a fly-over, drench them. The poor buggers would freeze solid, and we could deal with them the next spring. I don‘t recall the end decisions.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: logau on May 24, 2004, 17:02:00
Another guy I know is going on the ex. He will report all the secrets of the mid night sun.

Signed

Sgt Dan McGrew (see more here)  http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/service_r_w/carry_on.html

Carry on!

It‘s easy to fight when everything‘s right,
And you‘re mad with the thrill and the glory;
It‘s easy to cheer when victory‘s near,
And wallow in fields that are gory.
It‘s a different song when everything‘s wrong.
When you‘re feeling infernally mortal;
When it‘s ten against one, and hope there is none,
Buck up, little soldier, and chortle;  
Carry on! Carry on!
There isn‘t much punch in your blow.
You‘re glaring and staring and hitting out blind;
You‘re muddy and bloody, but never you mind.
Carry on! Carry on!
You haven‘t the ghost of a show.
It‘s looking like death, but while you‘ve a breath,
Carry on, my son! Carry on!  
And so in the strife of the battle of life
It‘s easy to fight when you‘re winning;
It‘s easy to slave, and starve and be brave,
When the dawn of success is beginning.
But the man who can meet despair and defeat
With a cheer, there‘s the man of God‘s choosing;
The man who can fight to Heaven‘s own height
Is the man who can fight when he‘s losing.  
Carry on! Carry on!
Things never were looking so black.
But show that you haven‘t a cowardly streak,
And though you‘re unlucky you never are weak.
Carry on! Carry on!
Brace up for another attack.
It‘s looking like ****, but -- you never can tell:
Carry on, old man! Carry on!  
There are some who drift out in the deserts of doubt,
And some who in brutishness wallow;
There are others, I know, who in piety go
Because of a Heaven to follow.
But to labour with zest, and to give of your best,
For the sweetness and joy of the giving;
To help folks along with a hand and a song;
Why, there‘s the real sunshine of living.  
Carry on! Carry on!
Fight the good fight and true;
Believe in your mission, greet life with a cheer;
There‘s big work to do, and that‘s why you are here.
Carry on! Carry on!
Let the world be better for you;
And at last when you die, let this be your cry:
Carry on, my soul! Carry on!
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bert on May 30, 2004, 15:18:15
I don't understand the problem.   The infrastructure is already there.

You got FOL Iqaluit, First Air, NWT Air, and Canadian North runs commercial flights north-south practically every day.   You've
got civilian comms up there from SSB radios, microwave backhauls, television braodcast to cable internet matches the
functionality of the South.   Air Baffin, Ken Boreak Air, Canadian North, First Air all run Otter aircraft to all the communities in
the eastern arctic.   Just think of the poor Danish after seeing 10,000 bright orange and yellow twin otters in formation for a
rock assault.     If each aircraft is loaded with the best of Canadian beer (the Danish are picky about good beer), fresh beef,
and large BBQs, then the rock will be ours in a few short hours.   Problem solved.   If you need another problem solved
just ask.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: WillyMethod on May 30, 2004, 17:13:34
Get all Aircraft Availible
Give them All some Means of Carrying Water
 and The Rest is History
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 13, 2004, 14:30:11
I'm gonna take the liberty and inject a few facts on this thread, before it gets silly. Realising your post was in jest, Bert, there are a few points I'd like to mention.

First off, despite a reliance on commercial charters up here to zip our rangers to and fro, they're not gonna get used for soveringty patrols, ever.

Second, 440 (Transport) Squadron in Yellowknife has four (count 'em) four Twin Otter aircraft, and they're rarely all operational (hence the reliance on charters). I've been up here almost a year, and I think they had them all ready to fly ONCE, and they couldn't because they were short on FE's.

Third, as the CF does not have ice-capable vessels. Two (maybe it's three) Canadian Coast guard vessels are cabable of sailing as far north of Hans Island, but they're only in the area during the fall/winter to clear ice for cargo ships/cruise vessels.

Last, the exercise itself is nowhere near Hans Island. It's going to be based out of the Cumberland Peninsula, which is on Baffin Island, not Ellesmere. Hans Island is in the Robeson Channel, close to CFS Alert.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bert on June 18, 2004, 00:38:46
Sorry Acorn, I was jesting mostly.

Seriously, the point I was making is that the civilian infra-structure seems more able in many respects and perhaps more responsive
than military transport infra-structure.  Given the need, you could move alot of equipment and personnel to various locations
surprisingly quickly if need be.  You may know of various installations already serviced or maintained by civilian contractors.  The
Rangers would definitely not be able to move around far from the Baffin or island shorelines but that was never the intention anyway.
Perhaps the eastern arctic has more inter-island links than the western side.  Dunno.

The only way to cover that large an area is by passive listening stations, radar, and  sat, air, surface and sub-surface surveillance.
The next step would a rapid deployment force that would involve military and civilian transport infra-structure and comms. 

I never found any information on Hans island and what the real context was for the incident.  Anyone know?


Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 18, 2004, 15:23:00
Hey Bert,

You raised some interesting points.

Civilian air transport infrastructure up here is definitely more capable than the resources provided by 440 Sqn. Simply put, you have many competing air charter companies in the north, all of whom a) have more planes to work with, and b) follow civilian aviation rules, which are not as strict as the CF's. Moving large amounts of equipment is not an easy thing to do here. For one, many of the aircraft used here are pretty small, and moving an organised body of troops and associated equipment would be a pretty complex process. Also, the weather is a huge factor. Being snowed into (or out of) a community for a week or more is not unusual. ALso, as far as I know there is a charter company that owns a Hercules up here, but it's just the one. Available aircraft get a lot smaller after that. Resupplying of the communities is accomplished by ship, though it's done within a small timeframe due to ice limitations, and often require icebreaker support from the Canadian Coast Guard. Even that is seasonal.

As for moving Rangers around, I'll clarify something. Rangers are not a group of people that jet from community to community as a formed body. In fact, every community has a patrol of varying size, supervised by a ranger sergeant (who is a regular ranger that is basically voted into the position). 1 Canadian Ranger Patrol Group (1 CRPG) is the unit that commands these patrols within CFNA. 1 CRPG consists of an HQ, a QM, and Ranger Instructors, who are all combat arms senior NCO's. These instructors will rotate between the communities. While there, they conduct training, pay the rangers, deliver equipment (ammunitions, rations, etc etc), and supervise patrols. It's the cheaper option, and even then flying individual Rangers costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

As for Hans Island, I'll direct you to this link: http://www.naval.ca/article/Heubert/The_Return_of_the_Vikings.html. Dr. Rob Heubert is one of Canada's foremost experts on northern issues. I'd recommend this article he wrote as a good overview. There is a lot of excellent information on the topic online you can access simply by googling it.

Cheers
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Garry on June 18, 2004, 21:05:50
Keep in mind that the rangers are not there to fight- they keep an eye on the activity in their area, and report if something untowards is noticed. As well, they'll provide area expertise and guiding services to regular troops.

Good bunch, the Rangers!
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bert on June 19, 2004, 15:07:53
Another consideration is who would ever truly invade the North.  Theres not much there.  Likely the events Canada would need to respond to
is a severe environmental event, an invasion of epic proportions, or a small single event like Hans Island.

An invasion of the Canadian North I doubt would be seriously considered by anyone.  That kind of undertaking would require manpower
and equipment that would be hard to hide in the offending country and its transport to the north.  Theres time to deal with that.

An environmental disaster is a plausible scenario and that would require vast amounts of equipment for the civilian population
and thats a scenario for government disaster relief.

The other is a Hans Island like scenario.  Its in the political arena and who cares if 300 Danish marines land on the island.  What are they
going to do other than enjoy BBQs?  At the very worst, and I'm sure its been discussed, is the rapid deployment of a small cold weather
military unit to locations in the North.   If theres a plan for this kind of deployment, then the storage and location of equipment is
allocated and for the deployment of personnel.  Not a large force by any means.  The infra-structure is there is just is a process and a
plan made for this scenario.  Weather not only affects getting there but limits others from moving around too.

But the Hans Island scenario is political and sending Canadian troops may only aggravate a situation solvable by diplomats.  During the
Fish War of 1990s two CF-18s were parked in Iqaluit, Nunavut, over the duration of the diplomatic talks.   It wasn't much but I'm
sure Spain noticed activity in Canadian east coast bases.  It suggests too that future disagreements may be over resources and
challenge Canadian responsiveness.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: nULL on June 19, 2004, 23:41:35
It starts as an island, grows as two. Perhaps the Americans will want some next, or the Russians. As soon as the north becomes passable to freight carrying traffic, it's going to get a hell of a lot more valuable. Not just that, but it's OURS. The only time we are going to have to seriously dispute this is if we do it NOW, as it starts. Why aren't troops going to land on the island and plant our flag/scrawl anti-dane messages on the rocks?
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 19, 2004, 23:48:33
The only time we are going to have to seriously dispute this is if we do it NOW, as it starts. Why aren't troops going to land on the island and plant our flag/scrawl anti-dane messages on the rocks?

I'll tell you why, Null. We don't have a vessel capable of sailing that far North, and the island is too small to land an aircraft. Using one of our Twin Otters with ice skis isn't going to work, as the ice is too choppy around the island. We can't use a chopper, due to range restraints. Even if we were to sail to the island, the thing is shaped like a huge salad bowl. I don't know how in the hell the Danes got on the top of it.

My guess was mountain goats and sherpas, but my boss disagrees.  ^-^
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bill Smy on June 20, 2004, 15:40:30
We don't have a vessel, but the Danes do. Tells us something.  :evil:
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: nULL on June 21, 2004, 00:01:45
couldn't a vessel be used from DFO, an icebreaker for instance?
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Bert on June 21, 2004, 19:58:49
The problem may be broken into three parts; one, you have to create a surveillance system
to know who is trespassing, two, you need to have the resources (transport, equipment,
and manpower) to do something about it, and the three, is what are you REALLY going to do about
it.  

This is hypothetical but say there were 300 Danish marines transported by ice hardened
destroyer.   What are we going to do?  Fight them a NATO ally?  Sending 1500 Canadian military
personnel in response either by air or sea may not be the best political or tactical thing to do.  
Sovereignty of the North has to be maintained some other way.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 22, 2004, 18:35:25
couldn't a vessel be used from DFO, an icebreaker for instance?

DFO doesn't have any vessels capable of that. If you're talking icebreakers, the Canadian Coast Guard is the only game in town.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 22, 2004, 18:38:22
They are one in the same department now. Combined a few years ago to save money.
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 22, 2004, 22:55:01
Just read the departmental backgrounder. Thanks for that!
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Guardian on June 23, 2004, 08:53:00
What's really scary is if, sometime in the future, some other nation challenges our calim to sovereignty over part or all of the Arctic archipelago in an international court, we may lose. Why? Because sovereignty is more than just a set of lines drawn on a map (something that Canadian governments seem to be reluctant to face). Sovereignty implies that both the will and the CAPABILITY to impose our will and our law on our national territory exists; without that capability, we have as much sovereignty over Hans Island, in a practical sense, as we do over Copenhagen. If the government doesn't sort out our ability to defend and patrol the North soon, we may not have a North to protect....

Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 24, 2004, 01:53:37
Bert, on your three points:

1) We have an arctic surveillance satellite in the works. Look up "Polar Episilon" on Google.

2) -Everyone- complains about not having enough resources. Extra transportation assets and the people to run them would be useful. But I don't think that keeping a battalion up here is going to do a lick of good. Being able to move small numbers of assets quickly to communities in the North is a better option. Additionally, if the JSS project ever pans out, we'll have at least some ice-breaking capability. I have gripes with this, but that is a separate rant.

3) As for your last point, it's never going to happen. For one, Denmark doesn't have a ready ability to move a large body of troops.  The vessels that make the trips to Hans Island are coastal patrol vessels, kinda like our MCDV's, but ice-capable (and armed). Moreover, it wouldn't be politically wise or tactically sound for Denmark to do it either. You hit the nail on the head with that point.

As for Guardian, we're not going to lose Canadian territory over a sovereignty dispute. Ever. There is nothing to be scared about. No nation will ever assert any claim over Canadian soil in the North. Canada only has two sovereignty disputes on the books, and one potential one (the NW passage thing). The first is Hans Island. The second is between the US and Canada over a small dispute over the delineation of the maritime Alaska/Yukon border. In both cases, I believe that each party, rather than escalate things, will just 'agree to disagree' and nothing will come of it. No country has a claim to the Canadian Arctic islands, and while we may have not have a lengthy claim of historical use, no other nation out there can touch what we so have. Who would even try and claim them, anyway? It's a non-issue.

Even Hans Island, in all it's giant rock salad bowl glory, is not going to be contested legally at the UN. No one (least of all Denmark, it appears) seems to realise that Hans Island should be a sovereignty dispute between Canada and Greenland, and shouldn't really involve Denmark. Greenland and Denmark currently enjoy an arrangement similar to Canada and Britain. If Denmark really wants to push us on the issue of ownership of Hans Island, Greenland will most likely step in and politely remind Denmark that it's their problem, thank you very much, and nothing will ever come of it.

That being said, the major sovereignty issue with the north in the next 20 years will be over the Northwest passage. The US (and anyone else who has a major shipping interest) consider the NW passage to be an international strait, and of course it isn't. When it opens up enough due to climate change to make it a more economical route than the Panama Canal, then we have issues. Until then, everone please RELAX!!!
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: Code5 on June 24, 2004, 21:30:11
Actually the Danes have control over Greenland's foreign policy.  
Quote
The world's largest non-continental island, about 81% ice-capped, Greenland was granted self-government in 1979 by the Danish parliament. The law went into effect the following year. Denmark continues to exercise control of Greenland's foreign affairs.
CIA world fact book http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gl.html

So yeah, Greenland has absolutely no say over what the Danes do in regards to Hans Island.  

And out of curosity, is there anything in the NATO charter that deals with shooting wars between members?  Not to suggest that we'd start a shooting war over Hans Island....
Title: Re: Sovereignty Exercise
Post by: 0tto Destruct on June 26, 2004, 19:42:10
Ah, thanks for that. Put me foot in me mouth, I did. However, developments regarding the missile defence shield (setting up a site in Thule) is raising some sticky sovereignty questions between Denmark and Greenland. Additionally, it would almost be in Denmarks interest to devolve a sovereignty claim to Greenland. At least Greenland can claim that their Inuit hunters have an established historical use of the area (and the island).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591283.stm
Title: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: atticus on August 19, 2004, 03:33:26
Most probably know about this already but I thought this was an interesting read: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/08/18/military_narwhal040818.html

Is the Canadian arctic really in threat by anybody?
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Born2Fly on August 19, 2004, 04:45:20
What General Mackenzie said:

"In other words, get it on the record [so that] in the future, if we're challenged, we have a record of taking this issue seriously. It fulfills a purpose, it puts down a marker, and from a geopolitical point of view, it's certainly important."


Quite simply, it has to be done. If you claim territory, you better ensure you have the ability to patrol it.


Not that anyone is planning to invade our Arctic, but there are some disputes. The Dixon entrance with the US, a small island with Denmark. You can't back down. If we do, they'll start claiming more and more islands.

I'm happy we're doing it. I've been waiting for the CF to do this for awhile now.

Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Rider Pride on August 19, 2004, 07:35:08
"Armed forces managers say they can't remember a bigger military operation in the Arctic."

Certainly one of the largest I remember since 1990.

Is the Canadian arctic really in threat by anybody?

Let me ask you a question back....

If it was all of Quebec south or the St Lawrence river that was under dispute by the US, or Cape Breton Island by the French, would it be worth the time to assert our sovernty thru military exercises there.....

My point, if it belongs to us, we should be able to defend it.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Bograt on August 19, 2004, 15:30:20
Yesterday I read an article by a CP reporter discussing climate change and the fact that the Northwest Passage is becoming increasingly free of ice- leading some discussion that it should be declared an international waterway and hence no longer under the Soveriegn rule of Canada. As you may know, the Dannes recently planted a flag on some rock in the Artic that Canada claims under its juristiction. Unfortunately the Canadian governemnt has not had as much presence in the North, and unfortunately it is beginning to have international implications.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: T.I.M. on August 19, 2004, 18:37:43
If you go to http://www.combatcamera.dnd.ca/ , go to photo search, and do a keyword search for "Narwhal" you should be able to find some pictures of the ongoing exercise.  Right at the bottom is poor Roman, stuck outside in Iqaluit, (im)patiently waiting to go off shift as he downloads a huge set of files I sent over.  I'm told he's now considering putting out a contract on me.   ;D

Putting in long hours, but it'll be interesting to see how this all meshes together now there are troops on the ground.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Shec on August 19, 2004, 21:40:39
Yesterday I read an article by a CP reporter discussing climate change and the fact that the Northwest Passage is becoming increasingly free of ice- leading some discussion that it should be declared an international waterway and hence no longer under the Soveriegn rule of Canada. As you may know, the Dannes recently planted a flag on some rock in the Artic that Canada claims under its juristiction. Unfortunately the Canadian governemnt has not had as much presence in the North, and unfortunately it is beginning to have international implications.


Indeed that is a very real consideration.   Besides control of the NorthWest Passage it is also important to consider the vast undersea oil & gas resources in the Beaufort Sea, the potential for a major commercial fishery off Baffin Island, the diamond and other precious metal sites across the North, and finally fresh water.   In a world in which future wars are likely to fought over resources rather than ideological differences it's imperative that we re-assert our sovereignity over the Arctic and continue to do so vigorously.

Furthermore, the exercise scenario is one that is based on actual historical events.   During the mid-'70s a Russian satellite did crash in what is now Nunavut and the CF launched a major operation to locate it and clean-up the junk, some of which was radioactive.

Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: T.I.M. on August 20, 2004, 01:17:52
That would be the crash of Cosmos 954 and Operation Morning Light (I find that name very cool  8) ).  It was actually in the NWT proper, with debris stretching from the Great Slave Lake down into northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: atticus on August 20, 2004, 02:40:29
Hmm... I remember my dad talking about a piece of that satillite crashing onto his fathers farm and the military or police comming and picking it up.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Shec on August 20, 2004, 08:54:40
That would be the crash of Cosmos 954 and Operation Morning Light (I find that name very cool   8) ).   It was actually in the NWT proper, with debris stretching from the Great Slave Lake down into northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Thanks for the elaboration & geographic correction.     Seems to me the impact site was west of Baker Lake which is why I referenced Nunavut.
I presume from the Northern Region badge you're in YK,   I lived up there for 14 years.   How's life in the 'Knife these days?  
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: T.I.M. on August 20, 2004, 14:41:47
Just flipping through the OHPs from 1978, and the Morning Light final report (you can find all sorts of things if you dig deep enough in the library) and they show the debris field extending in the direction of Baker Lake, but the bulk of it was found south of Great Slave, with the furthest east peice being at a place called Warden's Grove near the Thelon/Hanbury river junction, which if my quick map recce serves me is just inside the NWT side of the eastern border with Nunavut.  Of course they didn't bother to search much past there due to the remote location.

As for YK, well, I came up from Winnipeg, so the weather feels somewhat familiar, ditto the mosquitoes; shopping is worse, fishing is better, and my mountain bike is getting the crap kicked out of it on the rocks.  Not sure if I'd want to spend 14 years here, but it seems good enough for 3.  ;)
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Shec on August 20, 2004, 20:25:28
Thanks for situating me T.I.M.   So in general I can safely presume that the debris was scattered between Lutsel K'E and Baker Lake, straddling both sides of the tree line which is roughly the NWT/Nunavut boundary.  Of course back then Nunavut had yet to be created so the whole arctic was called the NWT.   Stay away from "Range Rats". :salute:




Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Bograt on August 20, 2004, 22:54:29
Watching the news tonight, it appears that a Seaking had an engine fire while onboard the Iriquois (sp). A plume of black smoke was visible from the deck of the boat (ship?? (don't know proper Navy lingo). No injuries to crew.

Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 21, 2004, 00:22:25
Couldn't have been the Iroquois she is alongside HSL for a refit and Athabaskan been alongside as ready duty ship.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: RangerBoy on August 21, 2004, 01:22:34
Appropos to satellite crashes ... a bud of mine tells me that the Sea King aboard HMCS Montreal caught fire today. Nobody hurt luckily, but a sad commentary on the CF's ability to enforce our sovereignty with 41-year-old choppers.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Bert on August 21, 2004, 14:38:48
What Shec wrote earlier about access to undersea oil reserves in the Beaufort Sea and surrounding area
is quite correct in my opinion.  If the central asian, Iraq, and middle east areas continue to be trouble spots,
then other locations of oil will become more important.  Many countries (EU, China, US) may want free access
to these locations as well.  At worst, the Canadian Arctic may continue to evolve like that of the Spratley
 Islands in the South China Sea and contensious issues between China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and
Singapour.    At the best, Canada will have to become more politically involved in northern oil
exploration/access, sovergnity, and establishing negotiating control within boundary lines.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Shec on August 23, 2004, 23:01:33
...   At the best, Canada will have to become more politically involved in northern oil
exploration/access, sovergnity, and establishing negotiating control within boundary lines.

Exactly.  Exploration has been actively pursued for the past several years.  Very soon the construction of a pipeline along the MacKenzie River Valley to carry natural gas from the Beaufort Sea will likely be announced.  That pipeline will spur massive development of the gas fields that have been identified.  THat pipeline, and its source fields will have to be defended.   And because the pipeline will carry Alaskan as well as Canadian gas to markets in both countries if we can't defend you can bet the Yanks will.  And we know what that means don't we?   
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: clasper on August 24, 2004, 03:01:21
The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is unlikely to carry Alaskan natural gas.  The state of Alaska is still pursuing their own pipeline south from Prudhoe Bay, following the route of the Alaska Pipeline until Fairbanks, and then following the Alaska Highway to meet up with the current pipeline network in northern Alberta.

Because the construction of a pipeline involves a lot of economic benefits, Canada and the US were unable to agree on how to split up the contracts if the route went directly east from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik (which would also involve the pipeline passing through ANWR, which would be politically difficult).  I think it's farcical to have two pipelines built so close to each other, but that's probably what's going to happen.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Shec on August 24, 2004, 09:01:57
The last I heard was that the   US Congress, or maybe the it was the Senate, endorsed the MacKenzie Valley route.   That plan includes a tie-in pipeline connecting the Alaskan field to the Canadian one and then running everything down the Mac. Valley.   While  the route following the Alaskan Highway has the right of ways already approved it is the more expensive to build.   The route from Prudhoe Bay to the port of Valdez raises the spectre of LNG tankers posing a threat to the cities along the Pacific seaboard, something that scares the environmentalists more than ANWR.
  
Environmental approvals are the determinant that have been delaying the final decision by Canada.   However, my guess is the Mackenzie Valley route will be the one selected, especially since Aboriginal groups are on-side.   However your point about the contracts is well taken.      Should the Mac Valley route be rejected it could delay development of the Canadian fields by at least 10 - 20 years.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: clasper on August 24, 2004, 16:19:07
Just to clarify the source of my earlier comments, this is what I've heard from friends in the industry in Anchorage, but nothing official.  Some more concrete reports (found on www.rigzone.com) show the decision about the route is still up in the air, but nothing to report since April.  The Mackenzie Valley project is definitely further along, and will probably gather enough momentum while the Americans dither to become a fait accompli.  As for the proposed pipeline to a Valdez LNG plant, I agree with you that there's no chance of that happening for a good 30 years yet, if ever.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: 0tto Destruct on August 30, 2004, 09:55:07
If you go to http://www.combatcamera.dnd.ca/ , go to photo search, and do a keyword search for "Narwhal" you should be able to find some pictures of the ongoing exercise.   Right at the bottom is poor Roman, stuck outside in Iqaluit, (im)patiently waiting to go off shift as he downloads a huge set of files I sent over.   I'm told he's now considering putting out a contract on me.     ;D

Putting in long hours, but it'll be interesting to see how this all meshes together now there are troops on the ground.

Thats a great pic. Although if it REALLLY was Roman he'd have a smoke behind his ear.  ;D

BTW...I put the contract out on you.
Title: Re: Military exercise to reaffirm Arctic claims
Post by: Chris Pook on August 30, 2004, 13:12:04
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/08/29/f224.raw.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/international/americas/29canada.html?ex=1094863275&ei=1&en=8ecb092bb8b4bc3d

Here are two articles for consideration.

The first talks about how Parks Canada superceded DND on deciding the size and nature of the SovPat from Resolute to Alert.  DND complained and is complaining.  They wanted a Platoon sized patrol of 20 to 50 snowmobiles.  Parks Canada allowed 7.  Next year they may allow 12. 

As a result of Parks Canada's decision, when two Patrol members were injured and had to be invalided out only 5 bodies were left to complete the 1754 km journey. 

As I understand it both the Air Support and Snow Machines were civilian supply.

The second is the New York Times reporting on Op Narwhal and other Arctic Exercises and our capabilties in the North.  It  is a lengthy article and points out that the US and the EU, as well as Denmark in particular, do not recognize all our claims.  Hans Island is about Fish and Oil now and whatever in the future.

First article goes to the question of "How serious are we about sovereignty?"

The second article points out that the Americans know, notice and care what we do up there.  And they have friends.   And none of these people have Canada's interests as a first priority.

By the way although the Times article talks about the US, our traditional bogeyman, and the EU and Denmark, whom our Government have long considered "Sympatico" it doesn't mention Russia, who would also benefit from Northwest Passage for Trade or Norway (Non-EU) that builds ships, fishes and has oil wells.  And Roald Amundsen, that brought us the Sverdrup Islands, Axel Heiberg Island, Ellef Ringnes Island, Amund Ringnes Island, Norwegian Bay, Amundsen Gulf and Gjoahavn (sorry I mean Gjoa Harbour) as well as the Prince Adolf Sea in 1905, was a Norwegian.  IIRC we were still negotiating the Norwegian claims on these areas in the 1950s when the area in question was designated Queen Elizabeth Islands.  I don't know if the Norwegians ever completely accepted our claims.

By the way the Norwegians are miles ahead of the Danes globally when it comes to international fishing.  They capitalized, built and operated the majority of the modern deepwater fleets in the Bering Sea, the North Pacific, the waters off New Zealand and the Falklands as well as the Sea of Okhotsk and the Barents Sea off the East and North Coasts of Russia.

But these folks are all our good buddies.  They'll look out for us.

Cheers
Title: Owning the Candian Arctic
Post by: Chris Pook on February 25, 2005, 12:51:51
NEWSFLASH:

Canadian Radarsat Discovers Chinese Uranium Mine Operating On Meigher Island

Meigher Island off   Axel Heiberg Island in the Arctic Archipelago was charted in 1905 by a Norwegian expedition.   Norway was subsequently convinced not to contest Canadian sovereignty.   International legal opinion on sovereignty divided.

The mine was apparently set up by transporting personnel and materiel using a Chinese version of the Russian built Ekranoplan WIG (Wing In Ground Effect) "Aircraft".   These "Aircraft" carry loads equivalent to small ships at speeds of 300 mph   just meters off the surface.   They are apparently undetectable by conventional radar designed to track high-flying conventional Aircraft.

PM Martin is considering his options.............

EDIT - Duff Duff Duff This is only an exercise Duff Duff Duff.
Title: Owning the Candian Arctic
Post by: 48Highlander on February 25, 2005, 15:14:46
Kirkhill, is that real?  got a reference?
Title: Owning the Candian Arctic
Post by: Chris Pook on February 25, 2005, 15:44:12
Sorry 48th - my enthusiasm got the better of me - no it is not real

It is however a not impossible scenario. 

Our northern archipelago was charted by Norwegian Roald Amundsen in 1905, much to the embarassment of the Canadian Government of the day.  That part is real - can't find the reference just now.

As to international opinion - I made that up - but it seems that international opinion is always being made up anyway so what the heck

On the Ekranoplan WIGs - check out these sites.

http://www.chinabestproducts.com/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0130.shtml

Title: Owning the Candian Arctic
Post by: Zipper on February 25, 2005, 21:32:09
LOL, I like the china green card for sale...

It is closer to truth then you think. China is buying up Canadian resource companies at such a pace and shipping the stuff home, that we'll be lucky if they don't strip the place from under us.

I liked you camparisons there Kirk. However, are the numbers right? I don't remember there being that many people in the CAF except on paper? Not to mention the numbers of fighters, ships, etc are to high as most of them are in for repairs in one way or another.

Title: Arctic Viking
Post by: CloudCover on March 29, 2005, 22:52:55
I notice Dianne DeMille has a running piece underway over at CASR on Danish intentions on the West side of Greenland.
 http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking1.htm

Quote:
"Denmark foresees a growing accessibility to  profitable resources on these islands, and on the sea floor that surrounds them.  It is pressing its claims before the global community.  But it is not depending solely on  geological  surveys and maps of the ocean floor.  Denmark  has the  military  capabilities to back up its  territorial claims and to  challenge  Canada's  sovereignty in the  High Arctic.  Will  we back  down?"

I note she points out that a Canadian based transnational company [Encana] is involved in acquiring some drilling rights and permits.  If the field goes into production and starts draining the Canadian side of the pool, would this be an incursion into Canadian territority sufficient to trigger a military response if a request to cease activity is refused by Encana and Denmark, or should we simply attempt to enter a revenue sharing agreement and thus pretend to preserve our sovereignty whilst doing nothing to assert it?

Title: Re: Arctic Viking
Post by: TCBF on March 29, 2005, 23:08:12
Could get interesting.  Slant drilling by the Kuwatis into Iraq was what got the Iraqis driving south in 1990.  Be interesting to see how we get out of this.  Maybe if the crude is transported on Paul Martin's ships? ;D

Tom
Title: Re: Arctic Viking
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 29, 2005, 23:13:37
Quote,
Maybe if the crude is transported on Paul Martin's ships?

...well at least that would make jobs for Canadi.....oops :-[
Title: Re: Arctic Viking
Post by: van Gemeren on March 29, 2005, 23:15:12
As the icecap melts and the arctic become better for shipping, Canada's claim to sovereignty of the arctic will be challenged more often and more blatantly. It has happen before, but it was news only for a couple of days.
Title: Re: Arctic Viking
Post by: CloudCover on March 29, 2005, 23:36:18
Could get interesting.  Slant drilling by the Kuwatis into Iraq was what got the Iraqis driving south in 1990.  Be interesting to see how we get out of this.  Maybe if the crude is transported on Paul Martin's ships? ;D

Tom

Horizontal boring is certainly one issue that could be discussed. Talking to an engineer at Schlumberger, he told me the other day that they are now regularly drilling horizontally over 800m. Using GPS, a rig could hypothetically set up close to the international border and drill down, then over if the seismic shows a chance for a pool, but chances aree the pool will straddle the international border. If it is the case that the field and pools fall of both sides of the border, and the Danes produce the field and we do not, they are still technically depleting a Canadian mineral resource. Is this enough to have a flap with an "ally" over? Some might argue the federral government owes a duty to the Inuit population in that locale to protect the resource from foreigners and to produce it as well in order to facilitate a royalty based income benefit for the local population.

Is the Quebec government showing interest in the potential for fossils on the east side of the Ungava Peninsula? 
Title: Re: Arctic Viking
Post by: TCBF on March 30, 2005, 01:27:21
"Is the Quebec government showing interest in the potential for fossils on the east side of the Ungava Peninsula?"

You mean in Labrador, right?  Well, why not.  I mean Nfld gave them such a good deal on the Hydro from Churchill Falls...

Tom
Title: Better support for Canadian Rangers
Post by: bossi on April 07, 2005, 14:35:31
While we're at it ... presuming they're "cheaper by the dozen" ...
The other/non-Northern Area-supported Canadian Ranger Patrol Groups (CRPG) would benefit from some "dedicated" air support.
Add a few more aircraft to this purchase (i.e. one per CRPG).

Some excerpts from a National Post article by Chris Wattie:

Competition heats up for Forces planes: Search-and-rescue craft: Manufacturer says military could double coverage

A European aircraft manufacturer says it can offer Canada blanket coverage for air rescue and sovereignty patrol flights over the vast northern half of the country if its plane is chosen as the military's new search-and-rescue aircraft. ...

... The project is to buy an anticipated 15 aircraft, but Mr. Sefzig said the C-295's lower purchase price and servicing costs would allow the air force to buy more aircraft and base them in more locations, boosting its rescue coverage across the country and especially in the Arctic.

By basing the smaller C-295 in such places as Yellowknife, St. John's and Iqaluit, the Spanish-built aircraft -- whose engines and on-board electronics are built in Montreal -- would be able to cover vast areas of the North that now take up to 10 hours for southern-based rescue aircraft to reach, he said.

"Where you want to go is in the North; that's where you have the increased amount of accidents based on the tourism and aircraft traffic," Mr. Sefzig said. "You could place aircraft in the North, in existing bases, [and] you could also use those aircraft ... for sovereignty patrols." ...

The Spanish plane's chances may have gotten a boost from February's federal budget, which included a promise to replace the air force's four Twin Otter utility aircraft now based in Yellowknife.

Canadian Forces' Northern Area command now uses those aircraft for supply and training flights
, and the C-295 would be a natural replacement. ...

The search-and-rescue aircraft program is currently stuck in the defence procurement process despite a pledge two years ago to fast-track the program. ...

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c295/

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2004/articles/apr_04/c27j/
Title: Re: Better support for Canadian Rangers
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 09, 2005, 21:11:03
The Canadian Rangers should be expanded and supported to insure Canadian sovereignty over the north. They are a force multiplier
and cheap to boot. In winter they can cover large areas on snow machines. In summer they cover large areas by boat. Give them satellite phones so they can make reports of suspicious activity and video cameras so they can record things of interest.
Title: Re: Better support for Canadian Rangers
Post by: aesop081 on April 09, 2005, 21:20:11
The Canadian Rangers should be expanded and supported to insure Canadian sovereignty over the north. They are a force multiplier
and cheap to boot. In winter they can cover large areas on snow machines. In summer they cover large areas by boat. Give them satellite phones so they can make reports of suspicious activity and video cameras so they can record things of interest.

That sounds like a good idea.  I had a great experience with those guys back in 94 and have alot of respect for their skills.  Given our usual budget situations, i see them as a cost-effective solution to northern security.  Although i am weary of the C-295's sales pitch, i would like to see an increase in the overall support provided to the rangers by the airforce.  The argument for the use of The C-295 for sovereignty patrols, however is ill-founded, the plane may be able to spot suspicious activity but couldn't do much about it. For that, i think more resources for the Maritime patrol comunity is required, but thats another subject.
Title: Re: Better support for Canadian Rangers
Post by: 0tto Destruct on April 10, 2005, 10:53:36
The Canadian Rangers should be expanded and supported to insure Canadian sovereignty over the north. They are a force multiplier
and cheap to boot. In winter they can cover large areas on snow machines. In summer they cover large areas by boat. Give them satellite phones so they can make reports of suspicious activity and video cameras so they can record things of interest.

They do all of the above already...but who would turn down more money? :)

Every Ranger Instructor (one per patrol, all are combat arms senior NCO's) carries a sat phone on them standard issue. As for video cameras, they are available is they are required, and most people have digital cameras on them...I know a lot of ranger instructors carry one.

It would be great to see a revitalised SAR capability in the north. 440 Squadron used to be a 'transport and rescue' squadron, but lately they focus on the 'transport' aspect. They do have what they call a "Field Deployment Flight" that does SAR work, but its a secondary tasking for most, and none of them (though the senior guys there are certainly well trained in forst aid and survival) not SAR Techs. Interesting point: There was some debate about whether or not SAR Techs are really needed in CFNA. We were told that statistically most SAR incidents happen South of 60, and it's actually faster to fly a couple of SAR Techs up North from Trenton in a herc than it is to fly them from the Yellowknife hangar in a twin otter. They're a workhorse aircraft, but they'r godawful slow pigs, they are...

 :dontpanic:
Title: Sovereignty Patrols Resume: GG to Pangnirtung and Alert
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 18, 2005, 14:44:27
Many of you will know that I like the Governor General; I think she is a decent and accomplished person and performs her duties better than anyone since Georges Vanier.  I think she has lousy taste in men as evidenced by her dimwit husband.  I applaud this from today's Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050618.MACGREGOR18/TPStory  (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050618.MACGREGOR18/TPStory)
Quote
Clarkson makes a 'statement' in Arctic
Echoing Vincent Massey, Governor-General to travel 10,000 kilometres on symbolic trip in the north, ROY MacGREGOR writes

BY ROY MACGREGOR

SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 2005 UPDATED AT 1:29 PM EDT
PANGNIRTUNG, NUNAVUT -- Even on a perfectly calm day, with the sun dancing blue and green in the ice floes and the open water still and shiny as mercury, it is easy to see why it took Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson three tries to get here.

In the best of weather, it still required coming in low by turbo-prop up the fjord, banking sharply directly in front of the sheer cliffs that guard the opening to Auyuittuq National Park, then coming in fast over the graveyard and onto a gravel airstrip that seems built on the shoulders of this tiny Inuit community.

The first two attempts, during previous trips to the Far North, fog had turned Clarkson back, even though each time the village Rangers -- all 35 of them carrying war-era .303 rifles -- had dressed in their red sweatshirts and red baseball caps to stand as honour guard. They were there again this time, and most of the villagers had come out to greet an office so distant from them, the mayor wasn't precisely sure which one disembarking was the Governor-General.

Soon enough, however, all was in order. The beaming Rangers presented arms and stomped their boots onto the gravel, the schoolchildren sang a song of greeting, and what is expected to be the Governor-General's final trip into the Canadian North -- constitutional crises in Ottawa notwithstanding -- was officially under way.
 
 Over eight days, Clarkson and her husband, author John Ralston Saul, will cover some 10,000 kilometres through the Eastern Arctic, including a visit to Canadian Forces Base Alert, the most northerly settlement in the world.

At some point along this final trek, Clarkson plans a symbolic act intended to tie her final journey north to the first ever taken by a Canadian head of state, Vincent Massey's symbolic trip to the North Pole in 1956.

It will soon be half a century since the first Canadian-born governor-general looked down on the polar ice cap and pulled a special cord that sent a message tumbling down in a small metal canister that also held the official flag of the Office of the Governor-General.

"This container," Massey wrote in his 1963 memoirs, What's Past is Prologue, "had the essential facts inscribed on it in several languages and was dropped over the Pole. Attached to it was a little parachute to ease its way down and prevent its being broken on the ice."

The message was clear to whomever might one day come across it -- This is ours -- and Massey wondered if perhaps some day someone in Greenland or somewhere even more distant might find the container floating, open it and get the message.

A half century on, many think that message requires repeating, once again.

That polar ice cap is melting and, if Massey's canister is still intact, it could even be drifting -- much as the north magnetic pole recently slipped out of Canadian territory and into international waters.

Just as, some worry, Canada's presumed say over the legendary Northwest Passage is somewhat adrift.

Clarkson's intention, by visiting these isolated communities and even camping out one night on Ellesmere Island -- deliberately, perhaps, to foil those who love to criticize her extravagance -- is to underline what 32-year-old Roger Alivaktuk, one of the proud Rangers presenting arms this bright afternoon, says is his purpose in uniform:

"It's a presence. That's our role here -- to be a presence."

"There's a statement to be made," says Clarkson. "And I feel it's very important."

So, too, do the villagers of Pangnirtung, a thriving whaling centre in the 1800s, once known for its seal furs before the fur backlash, now struggling to find its place in the world with a smaller seal hunt, Inuit art and hopes for tourism.

In the evening that never darkens, they held a feast that included a freshly shot young ring seal being laid out in the centre of the school basketball court and set upon by Rangers, villagers and even the odd visitor armed only with bare hands and hunting knives.

"This," says Nedd Kenney, the Prince Edward Island native who is the territorial government's manager of tourism and trade, "is the last place you can shake a blood-stained sealer's hands."

Kenney's dreams include a vast ecotourism industry that will bring adventurers up to the mountains and hiking trails of the new national parks.

His hopes also connect with those of Franklin and Amundsen and other Arctic dreamers who sought the Northwest Passage, a route through the northern waters that Kenney imagines becoming "the Arctic Panama" as further warming opens up better access and the Chinese economy moves to the forefront of world trade.

"Are we preparing for it?" Kenney asks as he cleans his own hands and knife of seal blood.

"Are we going to let China and the United States and Russia hold that this is international waters -- or are we going to declare our sovereignty?

"This is the largest coastline in the world -- and it's defended by Rangers that are younger than their guns."

For people like Kenney, any symbolism that stresses Canadian sovereignty is worth attempting.

"By protecting those waters," he says, "you're protecting what Canada is."

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Title: Canadian Rangers article
Post by: x-grunt on June 18, 2005, 20:14:37
Decent long-ish article about the Canadian Rangers in today's Toronto Star. I've never seen anything in mainstream media about them before. Seems pretty accurate, judging from the CanRangers I've known.

[ Article  (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1119047707055&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes)]

Audio Slideshow here: (link didn't work out, edited to remove. Find it beside the article in the Star website.)
Quote
Northern patrol
The native reservists in the Canadian Rangers use their army training to help others in the impoverished native communities of Northern Ontario, Joseph Hall reports

Briefly splitting the Albany River on its northeast rush to James Bay, 160 kilometres downstream, this eye-shaped island was once witness to a massacre. Its name means ghost in Cree. And the bones of the southern Mohawk invaders who were ambushed here by northland Cree warriors some three centuries ago lay for months along the island's sandy shore and along the banks of the Cheepay River, which empties into the Albany nearby. Their spirits are said to haunt the place still.

"This is the story that was brought down to us," says Joseph Sutherland, an elder from the Cree community of Fort Albany, near the river's brackish mouth.

For the Cree, Ojibwa and Oji-Cree peoples of Ontario's far north, the ghosts of the past are the least of their worries. Today, Indians who inhabit more than 50 isolated communities in Ontario's north are being haunted by modern demons. There's alcoholism, poverty, gasoline-sniffing and child abandonment. There's ignorance, violence, rape, murder and epidemic diabetes. And yet there's a set of modern warriors, almost unknown in the big cities to the south, who are helping bring hope to the people north of the 50th parallel. Armed with World War II vintage, bolt-action rifles and uniformed in dirty, red sweatshirts, caps and toques, it's a ragtag band of soldiers to be sure. But the 3rd Canadian Ranger Patrol Group â ” a band of some 400 First Nations reservists who represent Canada's armed forces in Ontario's far north â ” has become a scarlet glimmer of hope in an often-blighted human landscape. And over a recent four-day period, some 57 of them gathered on Cheepay Island in the largest exercise ever of this military outfit â ” surely the most unusual in the Canadian Armed Forces. Under a lowering sky that promises snow but delivers nagging drizzles of rain for much of their frigid stay, the Rangers, both men and women, will take part in a series of competitive drills that, for all their meticulous planning, have a madcap air.

From the 13 community-based Ranger patrols represented on Cheepay, the soldiers will be split into five teams that will adopt names like Shania (for the songstress Twain), River Rats and Wolverines. They'll compete in target-shooting, using their standard-issue No. 4 Lee Enfield .303s. There'll be skeet-shooting, first-aid, map-reading, compass navigation and the art of knots and pulleys. But the bulk of the drills focus on the hunting, fishing and survival skills that the Indians themselves bring to the Rangers table.

They will build goose blinds â ” and fashion instant flocks of wooden geese decoys to go with them. They'll compete in geese-calling contests, with some gratuitous moose calls thrown in. They'll fish â ” how they'll fish! â ” build lean-tos and conjure roaring fires in seconds. They'll prepare bannock - a bread-like concoction introduced by Scottish trappers during the Hudson's Bay Company days - over open flames.

And they'll try - in what is likely one of the most important forums left for preserving the culture of Northern Ontario's Indians - to stem the steady erosion of these traditional skills.

Major Keith Lawrence is the Toronto-raised commanding officer of the 3rd Canadian Ranger Patrol Group.

The Cheepay exercise cost $150,000 to stage and took a full year to plan, says Lawrence, 40, who is white and whose past postings have included stays in Cyprus, Syria, Jordan, Congo, Uganda and Israel.

Outside of its small and largely white regular army leadership, which is stationed at Canadian Forces Base Borden near Barrie, the 3rd Ranger Patrol Group is almost 98 per cent Indian.

Located in 15 different northern communities - two of which could not make the Cheepay gathering - each patrol consists of between 17 and 36 Rangers who receive 10 days of basic army training each.

This instruction, most of it provided in their own communities, includes rifle training, general military knowledge, map, compass and GPS navigation, first aid, search and rescue and communications. The reservists may also have training in flood and fire-evacuation planning, major air disaster assistance and rifle firing exercises.

Rangers are paid between $78 and $136 a day for performing official duties, which do not include policing. They receive compensation for the use of personal snowmobiles and other equipment.

Each community patrol has a cargo bin containing first-aid supplies, a short-wave radio and GPS locator. The patrol must meet at least six times a year. Beyond that, training or operations are more or less ad hoc and largely voluntary.

Despite any training and gear they might receive, however, the Rangers bring a cultural perspective to the organization that stubbornly defies traditional military discipline.

From the window of the 1964 de Havilland Beaver float plane, Cheepay Island seems to appear out of nowhere.

An hour's flight north of Hearst - some 1,135 kilometres north of Toronto - the island sits just above a vast stretch of muskeg; swampland that will unleash billions of mosquitoes into the air in the coming weeks.

Huge chunks of ice from the Albany's spring breakup still line the island's shores during the Ranger's mid-May stay, and temperatures, which mostly hovered around zero, would sometimes drop to minus-10C.

The river runs up against a wide, weedy, rock-strewn beach, where the Rangers parked the 25 motorized freighter canoes that brought them here from staging areas at Constance Lake to the south and Fort Albany to the northeast.

Up a set of dirt stairs, carved into a steep hill at the beach's edge, amid tall cedars and bare poplars, the Rangers have pitched their camp.

About a dozen large, white canvas tents have been slung over long, softwood poles, which were carved out of the forest that covers most of the kilometre-long island.

The tents housing the 11 regular army headquarters staff who lead the Rangers are supplied with canvas cots and military-issue, cold-weather sleeping bags.

But lodgings for the 57 native Rangers (and two Junior Canadian Rangers attending Cheepay) are furnished with the blankets, tarps, foam mats and improvised wood stoves that they'd use during their regular trips into the bush.

Large tarpaulins, strung from trees and poles, protect the half-dozen fire pits that will burn throughout the Rangers' stay. And the sound of wood-chopping will provide a persistent background tempo to the proceedings.

Food on the island consists mostly of the Army's vacuum-sealed individual meal packs of gourmet delights such as chicken teriyaki, cheese tortellini and ham omelette.

But moose, caribou, goose, bannock and, of course, fresh fish are on many menus around the Ranger campsite. Cigarettes dangle from the vast majority of mouths.

In an outfit where fishing can fulfill military commitment and where sergeants are elected by their men and women, you'd hardly expect to see precision drilling.

And on Cheepay there's none. There's also little saluting - except in jest. There's no marching, no shiny brass fastenings or, very often, any buttons at all.

The bugle-boy sense of urgency is definitely absent, as are rules regarding hair length, grooming, cleanliness and "snap-to-it," command-chain respect. Even a straight muster line seems beyond the care or capacity of some Cheepay participants.

Present in abundance among the Rangers, however, are the traditional skills bred by centuries in a grudging, harsh and killing land.

And these skills, except for the Ranger intervention, might well be on the way to extinction in the troubled Indian communities of the north.

They're troubles that Robert Gillies knows well.

Gillies, 37, tells bad jokes - constantly. They're groaners and they'll typically cast hapless Mohawks as the dupes.

But his humour is partly a defence mechanism, jokes and one-liners to hold back recollections from 10 years of policing.

As a former sergeant in the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service, which patrols most native communities up here, the Cree Ranger from Fort Albany has seen the worst of native desperation up close.

"It's a (way of) coping. I put that (bad) stuff away in my mind where I can't retrieve it," says Gillies, 37, who quit the force in 2003.

"If I kept those things in a (conscious) part of my brain, I don't think I'd be able to function."

Over his policing career, during which he rose to criminal investigator in the service's Cochrane divisional headquarters, he saw the worst of the northern aboriginal calamity: suicide, rape, child abuse, even murder.

In one unwanted memory of his policing days, he recalls a tiny pair of siblings cast off by their parents for the bottle.

"It involved two boys, one of them was basically an infant and the older brother was 3 or 4 years old," Gillies says.

"We, as police, brought the two kids to the hospital ... and you could tell the small child was already looking after the infant. The 3-year-old was looking after the infant."

After 10 years as a cop, he says, "I basically had enough."

Gillies joined the Rangers a decade ago and sees the outfit as a major force for good. Indeed, he says, Rangers can often take over community responsibilities in the absence of official band alternatives.

"For example, every year there's usually a flood co-ordinator in the community for (ice) breakup. Every year it's exciting," Gillies says.

"And one time, the flood control committee broke down ... I think the co-ordinator had been drinking. And the Canadian Rangers took over."

The Rangers are lightly trained and are not required to serve overseas in times of war. But they represent a legitimate branch of the armed forces.

Founded in 1947, they were established as a Cold War means to patrol remote northern locales, largely for signs of Soviet intrusions. The force has grown to about 4,500 reservists and is expected to increase to 4,800 by 2008.

They are divided into five different patrol groups across the country, in every province and territory except New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

Their primary mission remains the patrol and security of the country's northern and coastal regions.

In this time of global warming, with ice-free Arctic waters opening up the possibility of year-round shipping and mineral and oil extraction in the far north, sovereignty over lands now claimed by Canada may come into dispute.

What the Rangers can represent in the Arctic is federally funded feet on potentially contentious ground, Lawrence says.

"You have to show your neighbours and show the world that, yes, you want it and you're actually doing something," says Lawrence, whose Ontario group is the newest and smallest of Canada's five Ranger contingents.

Of course, questions of sovereignty are unlikely to arise in Ontario.

But Rangers here can still have a role in the issue, says Lawrence, who took command of the province's group last year.

"While we don't have a pure sovereignty task here, what we do have is the ability to train soldiers to go north," he says.

"It's very expensive to send soldiers into the Arctic. And you can get very similar weather conditions here. All the same (training) principles apply, whether it's navigation or how to survive on the land."

Perhaps more than any other branch of the Canadian armed services, however, Rangers bring their military status and training directly to bear on their own communities.

By dint of their army instruction and, in many instances, an elevated sense of social responsibility, Rangers often become leaders in their communities, Lawrence says.

They commonly provide organized help when flooding or forest fires threaten northern communities, he says. Many volunteer to serve on local fire departments and join in band councils. And most have steady jobs in communities where full-time employment is by no means the norm.

"They're the doers in their communities," Lawrence says.

As such, the Rangers have become something of a social program, Lawrence says - a federal means to send expertise, leadership and extra cash into impoverished and often chaotic communities.

There's also a Junior Rangers element to the outfit, a type of cadet service that, among other things, helps steer native kids away from the delinquent activities that are commonplace in northern communities.

Another role the Rangers perform in Northern Ontario - one that they're enormously adept at - is search and rescue operations.

Rangers-led rescue missions into the bush or out onto the rivers, often conducted in the most brutal weather conditions imaginable, may number in the hundreds each year.

But with most Rangers loath to fill out paperwork describing their actions, or reluctant to embarrass those who got lost, most of their rescue stories remain untold, Lawrence says.

Last year, Rangers also played the key role in an evacuation of Attawapiskat near James Bay, where the threat of flooding forced 1,154 people from their homes.

An eight-year Ranger veteran, Vicky Edwards is a native from the community of Fort Albany. But her eyes belong to the Scottish highlands.

Edwards' great-grandfather was a Scottish fur trader whose genes have come back with a vengeance in the 27-year-old Cree. Her light hair, freckles and hazel eyes all speak more of thistles than muskeg.

But when Edwards fishes, she's all Indian.

Like most of her Ranger colleagues, Edwards will fish at the drop of a hat. And like many of the Cheepay cohort, she does it like a machine.

Having travelled about 10 kilometres up the Albany for an evening of angling, Edwards and two Ranger colleagues turn their 22-foot freighter canoe into a tributary stream and ease it in by a beaver lodge close to shore.

Then, the frenzied casting begins.

With lines whizzing across each other, the Rangers plunk their lures again and again, with amazing precision, into the reedy waters surrounding the beaver house.

"Fish on!" Edwards yells at least 10 times during a half-hour of fishing.

In that time, she lands five good-sized pickerels and one large pike, which will flop around on the floor of the boat all the way back to camp.

As darkness descends, the Rangers turn for home, a 30-horsepower outboard powering their trip.

Told in no uncertain terms to be back by 9 p.m., they're already running late.

But when they spot an American eagle circling a stretch of shoreline, they pull the boat up and break out the poles again.

"That means there's probably fish here," Edwards says.

And if it's a contest between fishing and following orders, the fishing will easily prevail.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on July 26, 2005, 02:19:36
Quote
Defence minister takes symbolic stroll on disputed island
Canada, Denmark at odds over Hans Island

Alexander Panetta
The Canadian Press
Saturday, July 23, 2005


OTTAWA -- Canada's defence minister pulled on a pair of hiking boots and trudged on to a tiny northern island on a one-man mission to counter Denmark's claim to the barren, frozen rock.

The sovereignty exercise on Hans Island happened this week during Bill Graham's trip to Canada's Arctic.

A helicopter set him down on the round, windswept island about the size of a football field, located between Greenland and Ellesmere Island.

"I wasn't there to make some big dramatic statement," Graham said. "My act of going there was totally consistent with the fact that Canada has always regarded this island as a part of Canada. . .

"I was just visiting Hans Island the way I visited other facilities of Canada's."

Of course no other Canadian "facilities" are claimed by Denmark, which sent navy ships to the island in 2002 and 2003 and hoisted a Danish flag.

In turn, Canadian soldiers placed a traditional Inuit stone statue (Inukshuk) with a plaque and a Maple Leaf flag on the island last week before Graham's visit.

Ottawa did inform the Danes of the trip -- two days after Graham left. The Danes would have received an advance courtesy call had Hans Island been considered foreign soil.

The visit could be used to assert Canada's sovereignty over the land, Graham agreed. But he said aboriginals, military and Rangers' stops on the island also bolster the Canadian argument.

Denmark's ambassador to Ottawa, Poul Erik Dam Kristensen, refused to comment on the visit.

Graham wore civilian gear during his one-hour visit Wednesday -- a ski jacket, corduroy pants and hiking boots.

Canada has become increasingly vigilant about asserting its sovereign claim to the Arctic because of global warming, and its potential impact on mining and shipping.

The two countries were aware of the potential for discord in 1973 when they drew a border halfway between Canada's Ellesmere Island and the Danish island of Greenland. They agreed at the time that sovereignty over islands in the region would be determined later.

Denmark's claim is based on their argument that the island is closer to Greenland than to Ellesmere.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on July 26, 2005, 02:20:37
Quote
Denmark to protest Canadian claim of small Arctic island
Globe & Mail
Monday, July 25, 2005 Updated at 6:55 AM EDT
Associated Press


Copenhagen â ” Denmark says it will send a protest letter to Canada over a cabinet minister's visit to an Arctic island off northwestern Greenland, which is claimed by both countries.

Canadian Defence Minister Bill Graham set foot on the 1.3-square-kilometre Hans Island last week, saying Canada has always regarded it as Canadian territory.

Denmark also claims the island, which is roughly 1,100 kilometres south of the North Pole.

In 1973, Canada and Denmark drew a border down the inhospitable Nares Strait, halfway between Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory, and Canada's Ellesmere Island.

But the countries decided that sovereignty over Hans Island and others in the Arctic region would be determined later.

Denmark and Canada maintain good relations despite periodical spats over the island, which can only be reached by boat during mild summers when the ice around it melts.

Officials at the Canadian Embassy in Copenhagen declined to comment.

In 1984, Tom Hoeyem, who was Denmark's minister for Greenland affairs, caused a stir when he raised a Danish flag on the island, buried a bottle of brandy at the base of the flag pole and left a note saying â Å“Welcome to the Danish island.â ?

Danish navy ships visited in the island in 2002 and 2003.

Canadian soldiers came to Hans Island Maple before Mr. Graham's visit and raised a Canadian flag.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on July 26, 2005, 05:34:10
Referring to Arctic Sovereignty and Canadian Pride....

This may have not made the mainstream news but CFS Alert won the BoxTop1 Olympics
this year (Thule AFB being the only other competitor).  We're in-training for BoxTop2. 
If we win it all for 2005, maybe we can take a picture of the trophies and paste it to a
rock on Hans Island with a few empty beer cans to rub it in.   Then again,
10,000 years from now, post-modern humans will find it and think we're nuts.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: atticus on July 26, 2005, 13:28:23
Whats "Boxtop Olympics"?
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 26, 2005, 13:40:42
Whats "Boxtop Olympics"?

Self-help amusements for the pooor sods posted to Thule and Alert.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: atticus on July 26, 2005, 17:08:22
Self-help amusements for the pooor sods posted to Thule and Alert.

So.... then what is it? What do you do? Make robots out of cardboard boxes?
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Zip on July 26, 2005, 23:32:12
Look here. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Feature_Story/2003/may03/15_f_e.asp (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Feature_Story/2003/may03/15_f_e.asp)
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 27, 2005, 10:18:19
So.... then what is it? What do you do? Make robots out of cardboard boxes?

I have not been to Alert for the better part of 20 years â “ I was never posted there, not my part of the ship, as the saying goes.  I don't know what is involved, today, in the Boxtop Olympics but we have some denizens of CFS Alert here in army.ca, perhaps they can enlighten us.

There are some good Internet sites about Alert, none of which seem, to my memory, to be wildly inaccurate:

http://www.img.forces.gc.ca/adm_im/organization/CFIOG/CFS_Alert/index_e.htm
http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/security&defence/alert.html
http://www.ostgate.com/alert.html
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/highalert.html

Alert remains a vital operational unit of the CF â “ war-fighting, day and night, 24/7 as what Churchill (I think) called war wizards.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on July 27, 2005, 12:11:41
Edward Campbell nailed it on the head.. self-help amusments for poor sods. Officially however,
the BoxTop Olympics are considered a morale activity.

During BoxTops, there are many flights between Thule AFB and CFS Alert.   A few people
volunteer to participate in various games like darts, floor hockey, basketball, and generally
have a good time.   Thule comes to Alert once, and Alert visits Thule.   Whoever wins the
most games, gets a coveted trophie and braggng rights.   Its all in good fun.   The Thule
team is made up of US military and Danish/Greenlander civilians working at the base.  
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on July 27, 2005, 13:14:09
How about you guys settle the Hans Island dispute through a game of darts with the Danes and settle this once and for all !!!  ;) ;D
Title: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Cataract Kid on July 28, 2005, 23:45:07
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/hansisland050728.html

Defence Minister Bill Graham says Canada will assert its sovereignty over Hans Island in response to a letter of protest from the Danish government.

Denmark is upset because Graham made a visit to the tiny northern island which is claimed by both countries.

Graham says Canada needs to make its presence felt in the Arctic. But he wouldn't say exactly how the military will do that.

At a news conference in Montreal, Graham defended his visit to the island, saying its part of Canadian territory.

There is concern that global warming has made the Northwest Passage more accessible to shipping and Graham says Canada needs to act.

Canada does not have the ships, submarines or helicopters needed to prevent foreign vessels from travelling through its Arctic waters. The United States, for example, still considers them to be international waters.

Graham was not clear on exactly how Canada will assert its sovereignty without the equipment to keep foreign vessels out of Canadian waters.
   
                                                                                    Copyright © CBC 2005
 
Great, I can see it now. 2 VP may as well pack up their bags and draw their winter kit from the CQ's cause lord knows we aint going anywhere in the next....decade.

Says the Pl Comd to his WO " Have the troops inflate the 12 man assualt boat's, we have to go on another sovereignty patrol" 

 
 
 


Title: Re: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 28, 2005, 23:49:09
"2 VP may as well pack up their bags and draw their winter kit from the CQ's cause lord knows we aint going anywhere in the next....decade"

Roger that.

I hate the cold.
Title: Re: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 28, 2005, 23:51:13
Can we post Carolyn Parrish up there? Considering she would drive polar bears away there is no doubt she would do the same with the Royal Danish Navy... :D
Title: Re: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Cataract Kid on July 28, 2005, 23:53:12
Id love to see her posted there...maybe as an ambassador?
Title: Re: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 28, 2005, 23:54:56
Ambassadors are to facilitate good relations not make them worse lol
Title: Re: Graham vows to make Canada's presence felt on disputed island
Post by: Cataract Kid on July 28, 2005, 23:58:02
Yes, but whom would she be able to make relations worse with there?
When the island does get invaded, maybe they will take her back with them.... *fingers crossed*
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on July 29, 2005, 01:08:38
Hans Island is approximately 300 km S/SE of CFS Alert, and pretty well half way between
Ellesmere Island and Greenland.   If you were to take a Herc flight close to the island, you
would be able to see Ellesmere Island on once side of the window and Greenland on the
other from extreme view-points.     Hans Island, and other rocks along this border region,
lie in this narrow watery region.

In my view, the current diplomatic spat between Denmark and Canada represents two
issues:
1. Growing Canadian sensitivity to arctic sovereignty specific to Hans Island and Denmark;
2. Growing Canadian fears of future multi-national arctic intrusions.

Beyond politics, these issues are not the same.

After flying between Ellesmere Island and Greenland a few times, the distance between the
two land masses are relatively close and this is visually apparent in an aircraft.   Both Canada and
Denmark, (using a Greenlandic point of view), share the same challenges.   They both have
land in northern areas, sharing close proximity, are or will be challenged by other nations in the area,
and submersed or surfaced intrusions occur in Canadian and Danish waters too.   In fact, the
spat between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island suggests more common issues of
sovereignty than conflict.  

In the narrow strait between Ellesmere and Greenland, any multi-national resource collection in the
area  challenging the sovereignty of one will affect the other.   In that context, the Hans Island
spat seems to miss the point.

Canada is better to work with the Danes, create a manageable border agreement, and keep the
current disagreement light.   The real issue is how Canada will maintain arctic sovereignty when
the big boys come.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on July 29, 2005, 19:52:23
A Danish point of view:

Hi, just to bring some balance to the Force I'll tell you a little about Hans Island and The Danish forces.... and what would happen if We went to war!

My background is The Danish Army where I started as a consript in The Royal Guards After September 11. I joined again and have so far had 2 tours in Iraq as an MG63 gunner in the Mech. Inf/ Airborne Inf. After the London Bombing i signed up again for a third tour....( my way of payback )... I love western civilitation and would die for any NATO country ( Including Canada ) if I had to :threat:!!!

Hans Island: "Hans Ø" ( It's Danish name ) comes after "Hans Hendrik" a Danish/Greenlandic arctic traveller and translator. It has been a part of the Danish Impire since the age of the Wikings, but in 1964 the Canadian Goverment wound't recognize it as Danish in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada.

Greenland: "Grønland" ( It's Danish name ) is 100% Danish.. So is The Faroe Islands... We Also used to own Norway, Sweden, Iceland, The Virgin Islands and The Baltics.. And just as Hans Island is a part of Greenland. Greenland is a part of... Bingo...Denmark!!!

A war: I found it exiting to read how some of you thought a war would go!

Part 1: Danish Forces would move in and raise our flag again ( After Bill Graham or your forces pulled the old Danish Flag from 1988-1995-2002-2003 down )!

Part2: If Canada would set foot on our Island again ( next spring...lol.. ;D) We would probably liberate our Island again and block the next Canadian attempt...

Part 3: If Canda was to react voilently against the Danish forces protecting the Island, we would probably defend ourself and sink the Canadian ships... and take P.O.W's

Part 4: If it after that escalated to war we would sink most of the canadian "east-cost" fleet :cdn: and block the Canadian harbors... We would never be able to invade but our Special Forces would wreck havoc and small skimishes against oil,power and water facilities would halt any mobilizing of Canadian forces...
- as for Canadian Forces making it all the way to Mainland Denmark and Invading... HA HA HA!!!! That would never happen!!! Maybe the southern part of Greenland if they got a head start... But NEVER Denmark!!!!

Part 5: If the war didn't stop after us cripling your infrastructure and production we would invade New Foundland ( Also originally Danish "Vinland" ) and sell it to the US as we did with the Virgin Islands...Or maybe not!

A war would be stupid and it would ruin trade between us! And You guys would probably feel bad about beeing killed with Diemaco rifles and US bombs!!!

So lets keep it friendly and KEEP THE H**L AWAY FROM OUR ISLAND!!!

I know you guys feel it's yours but look at the fact and accept that in this case YOU have invaded a Danish Island and You're NOT welcome! ( Remember the Falklands?)

PS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island

PPS.Bill Graham is an idiot! :blotto:

PPPS. I would rather die than hear French spoken on Hans Ø
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Foxhound on July 29, 2005, 20:00:00
Well, now that THAT'S settled ... 
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on July 29, 2005, 22:14:00
OK.  Fine.  Theres only one way to settle this.  A darts match, Canada vrs. Denmark.

The winner takes Hans Island, a case of beer opposing country's beer, and Carolyn Parrish
(a HOT Canadian Politico Extraordinaire). 




For Canadian readers only:  See, this is brilliant.

Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: atticus on July 29, 2005, 22:41:33
The winner takes Hans Island, a case of beer opposing country's beer, and Carolyn Parrish
(a HOT Canadian Politico Extraordinaire). 

What if we won? Thats like loosing cept we won ???
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on July 29, 2005, 23:07:48
So lets keep it friendly and KEEP THE H**L AWAY FROM OUR ISLAND!!!

I know you guys feel it's yours but look at the fact and accept that in this case YOU have invaded a Danish Island and You're NOT welcome! ( Remember the Falklands?)

PS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island

PPS.Bill Graham is an idiot! :blotto:

PPPS. I would rather die than hear French spoken on Hans Ø
Are you ready for that 3-km yomp across the island ??  ;)
Quote
1940
On April 9th, Germany occupies Denmark despite Denmark having declared itself neutral; the Danish government gives up military resistance.
Are you guys gonna do the same as in 1940: ignore trouble when it gets serious ??  ;) While you guys were accepting German occupation, we sent 4 Divisions to liberate Europe...
Finally, I'll speak French wherever I damn want to... especially on a Canadian island !!!  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on July 29, 2005, 23:12:52
Interesting bit of news:
Quote
July 29, 2005 - The Government of Canada officially declared the island as Canadian soil, and stated that it will defend the island as if it were any other part of Canada. Canadian officials said that they will send troops to the island.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on July 29, 2005, 23:57:02
Lets see....

Early Period
982: London is plundered by the Vikings.   :salute:
1043: King Magnus defeats the Wends at the Battle of Lyrskov Hede.
23rd of October 1157: King Valdemar defeats Svend at Grathe Hede in the Danish civil war.
21st of May 1184: A Danish fleet of 125 ships under Absalon defeat a Vendic fleet of 500 ships off Rygen. 447 Vendic ships are captured. Only a few Danish ships are lost.
15th of June 1219: At the Battle of Lyndanis in Estonia, the Danish flag falls from the sky. Or so the myth tells.
1362: King Valdemar defeats a Hanseatic fleet that are besieging Helsingborg and force Lubeck to make peace.
1450-1520 The Union Wars
28th of September 1497: King Hans and his army of German mercenaries, defeat a Swedish army at the Battle of Rotebro.
6th of April 1520: A Danish army defeats a Swedish peasant army at Uppsala and occupies Stockholm.
8th of November 1520: King Christian II orders the Swedish noblemen executed. The day becomes known as the Blood bath of Stockholm.
1534-1536 War with Lubeck and the Danish Civil War
9th of June 1535: A Danish-Swedish fleet fight a sea battle with the German state of Lubeck. The battle ends without a winner. But in the coming days, the Lubeck fleet is destroyed.
11th of June 1536: In the Danish Civil War, a peasant army is massacred by Christian the IIIÂ's soldiers, at the Battle at Oxnebjerg.   :warstory:
1563-1570 The Seven Year War
25th of January 1571: A peace treaty ends the Seven Year War between Sweden and Denmark.
30th of May 1564: A Danish fleet under command of Herluf Trolle, defeat a Swedish fleet between Oland and Gotland.
1611-1613 The Kalmar War
1611: War between Denmark and Sweden breaks out, when Sweden wants to break Denmarks monopoly of the trade to Russia.
18th of January 1613: Denmark and Sweden sign a peace treaty.
1618-1648 The Thirty Years War
1618: Denmark intervene in the war between Catholics and Protestants.
1626: The Danish Army under command of Christian IV is defeated by a Catholic Army at Lutter am Barenberg.
1643-1645 Thorsteinson War
1st of July 1644: The Danish Navy, meets the Swedish Navy by Kolberg Heide. It ends in a Danish strategic victory when the Swedes withdraw.
16th of May 1644: A Danish fleet defeats a Dutch fleet, which has been sent as reinforcement for Sweden by Lister Dyb.
13th of August 1645: Denmark and Sweden make peace in Bromsebro after the Torstensson War.
1657-1658 1st Swedish War
1st of June 1657: Denmark declares war on Sweden in the 1st Swedish War.
18th of February 1657: Denmark and Sweden make peace in the 1st Swedish War.
1658-1660 2nd Swedish War
10th of February 1659: In the 2nd Swedish War, Swedish troops storm Copenhagen, but are repelled. The Danish losses are 12 soldiers, while several thousand Swedish soldiers lose their lives. :threat:
1675-1679 The Scanian War
29th of June 1675: Danish troops lands at Raa in Sweden. This is the start of the Skaanske War.
3rd of December 1675: In the Skaanske War, the Danish and Swedish army meet at Lund.
1st of July 1677: A Danish fleet under command of Niels Juul, defeats a Swedish fleet in the Bay of Koege.
1700-1720 The Great Nordic War
4th of August 1700: The Great Nordic War breaks out, when Swedish troops land at Sjaeland.
15th of March 1709: In the Great Nordic War, Danish troops pull out of Sweden.
28th of October 1709: Denmark declares war on Sweden in the Great Nordic War after Karl XII is defeated at Poltava by the Russians.
24th of April 1715: In the Great Nordic War, a Swedish fleet is defeated by Femern.
3rd of July 1720: Denmark and Sweden makes peace in the Great Nordic War. Denmark receives 600.000 Rigsdaler as retribution.
1788 War with Sweden
29th of September 1788: The Danish Army defeat the Swedish Army by Kvistrumbro. This is the only battle of the war.
1800-1813 The Napoleonic Wars
25th of July 1800: A gunbattle breaks out when four British warships attemts to search a Danish convoy.
2nd of April 1801: A Danish-English sea battle takes place outside Copenhagen. It becomes known as Slaget på Reden. Or the Battle of Copenhagen in English.
4th of November 1807: England declares war on Denmark.
10th of December 1809: Denmark and Sweden sign a peace treaty in Jonkoping.
14th of January 1814: A peace treaty is signed with England and Sweden in Kiel.
1848-1850 The Three Year War
24th of March 1848: Schleswig-Holstein insurgents capture the fortress of Rendsburg and thereby trigger the Three Year War.
9th of April 1848: The town of Bov falls to the Danish Army: This is the first battle between Danish forces and the insurgent army.
23rd of April 1848: Danish and Prussian forces meet at Busdorf (Schleswig) and by nightfall the Danes retreat. The same day Mysunde is occupied by Schleswig-Holstein troops.
24th of April 1848: The German forces are stopped at Oeversee.
28th of May 1848: 14.000 Danish soldiers cross the Als Sound, and attack the German forces by Dybbol. The Germans are forced back to Graasten and Adsboel.   ;D
3rd of April 1849: After a seven month cease-fire, war breaks out again between Denmark and Germany.
5th of July 1849: The Danish garrison and General RyeÂ's corps succeeds in breaking out from Fredericia which is besieged by the Schleswig-Holstein army.
2nd of July 1850: After Russian pressure, Prussia and most of the German states end hostilities with Denmark. The Schleswig-Holstein states continue the war by themselves.
25th of July 1850: After a day of heavy fighting, the Danish Army defeats the Schleswig-Holstein Army at the Battle of Idstedt.
31st of December 1850: The last battle of the Three Year War takes place outside Mysunde.
1864 War of 1864
1st of February 1864: War breaks out between Denmark and Germany-Austria
5th of February 1864: The Danish army retreats from the Dannevirke positions, and pull northwards.
9h of May 1864: A Danish naval squadron defeats a combined Austrian-Prussian squadron at the Battle off Helgoland. The same day a truce takes place between Denmark and Prussia-Austria.
1940-1945 The Occupation   :'(
9th of April 1940: Germany invades Denmark. After a few hours of fighting Denmark surrenders.
29th of August 1943: The German occupation forces take full control of Denmark. Fighting breaks out several places, and the Danish Navy is scuttled by it's crew.
2nd of October 1943: The Germans attempt to arrest the Danish Jews, but most of them escape to Sweden.
19th of September 1944: The Danish police force is interned by the Germans.
5th of May 1945: The German forces in Denmark surrender.

1945- Modern time
Cypress
Gaza
Yugoslavia
May 1994: A Danish tank force from the peacekeeping force in Bosnia defeats a Serbian force near Tuzla. As many as 100 serbians might have been wounded or killed without any looses for the Danes.
May 1999: Danish F-16 fighters participate in attacks against Serbia.

And Kosovo and Afganistan and Iraq......

We might be small... But we pack a punch!!!!!
 

Quote
Are you guys gonna do the same as in 1940: ignore trouble when it gets serious ??     While you guys were accepting German occupation, we sent 4 Divisions to liberate Europe...

That's low... we didn't accept it ( 80mil vs 3.5mil) And we didn't stop fighting until the King told us to!!! What would you do if the US invaded You? ( 250mil vs 33mil )?

Quote
Finally, I'll speak French wherever I darn want to...!!!

Good for You... You must be so proud!!!!   ;D


At various times the King of Denmark has ruled parts of England and Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and parts of the Virgin Islands, Tranquebar in India, parts of the Baltic coast and what is now northern Germany. Scania, Blekinge and Halland were part of Denmark

And if You don't keep away from Hans Ø...Canada will be part of Denmark to!!!!!   :threat:
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on July 30, 2005, 00:02:22
And if You dodn't keep away from Hans Ø...Canada will be part of Denmark to!!!!!   :threat:
LOL !!! Good luck... Have a good one !!!  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on July 30, 2005, 00:29:30
I know you guys feel it's yours but look at the fact and accept that in this case YOU have invaded a Danish Island and You're NOT welcome! ( Remember the Falklands?)
And if You don't keep away from Hans ...Canada will be part of Denmark to!!!!!   :threat:
???  Here I was thinking that it was the governments (not the ptes & cpls) that declared wars and decided what was in a country's interests to fight for.

This thread has gotten silly when we start fantasising about the details of a Canadian/Danish war.

Comparing length of military histories is also about as mature as a penis length contest.

At the very least, lets keep the debate on Hans Island tied to the island's history & geography.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 30, 2005, 00:38:15
Everyone put away the testosterone. It's a useless chunk of rock. It won't be solved by us, or anytime soon.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: jackson on July 30, 2005, 01:39:29
This post has been deleted because it ignored the direction of the mods and attempted to instigate a further juvenile flame war.
Jackson, consider this your only informal warning.  Next step is a verbal.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on July 30, 2005, 02:02:54
This message has been deleted because it ignored the direction of the mods and continued a superfluous examination of military history lengths in a responce to Jackson's instigation.

pfc, consider this your last informal warning
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on July 30, 2005, 03:57:05
I say it belongs to the Danes.  Besides, they wil do a better job of looking after it than we will.  if we have to send a unit, I recommend press-gangs troll the halls of NDHQ and grab anyone who looks like they could use a bit of fresh air and exercise - civil or military - and form them into the 1st Cdn Arctic Island Defense Bn. Then put them on the island.

End of problem.

Failing that, NRMA2.

But, honestly, the Danes own it.  This is just to suck attention away from our corrupt government.  Did the Vikings ever land in Quebec?  Minnesota?

Tom
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Britney Spears on July 30, 2005, 04:17:43
So when the, umm, war comes, how do we tell each other apart? Our uniforms are fairly similar (green with green dots), we use mostly the same weapons (C7, Leopard...), and I can't imagine visibility is too good up there in the north....it would be a pretty confusing fight!

Also we probably won't have to many Leopards left servicable by then, and they have Leo2s,  so I think we are screwed....
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on August 03, 2005, 03:55:41
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking.htm

http://www.rickbroadhead.com/hans.htm
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: NewCenturion on August 03, 2005, 11:21:29
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, however did anyone see the CBC feature a few days ago on Arctic Sovereignty and the increasing number of reports of unidentified floating objects (subs)? The basic gist of the the program was if we don't occupy it or maintain some sort of presence we're going to lose our claim to the contested areas of the north. I remember when I was in the CAR we used to train for Arctic warfare all the time and scheduled exercises in the north. Maybe we should have bought nuke subs instead. Or maybe we should conscript the Coast Guard paint their ships grey and make them part of the navy. My two
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: tomahawk6 on August 03, 2005, 12:20:18
Its physically impossible to control the entire arctic region. Canada should continue to deploy troops to the region for training purposes.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 03, 2005, 13:42:11
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, however did anyone see the CBC feature a few days ago on Arctic Sovereignty and the increasing number of reports of unidentified floating objects (subs)? The basic gist of the the program was if we don't occupy it or maintain some sort of presence we're going to lose our claim to the contested areas of the north. I remember when I was in the CAR we used to train for Arctic warfare all the time and scheduled exercises in the north. Maybe we should have bought nuke subs instead. Or maybe we should conscript the Coast Guard paint their ships grey and make them part of the navy. My two

Successive Canadians governments have blown hot and cold on the Arctic, for about 35 years it has been, mostly, ignored.

A few pre-1967 highlights, in rough chronological order:

1.   The Signal Corps established, in the early '30s, a major cross-Northern Canada radio network.   In the early '60s the civil service began to appropriate several military tasks in the Arctic â “ beginning with the Signal Corps' wireless network â “ which, to be fair, had evolved, rather quickly (in the '30s and '40s) into an essentially commercial telegraph service manned by a bunch of self   taught meteorologists in uniform.   (see: http://www.nwtandy.rcsigs.ca/stations.htm )

2.   It was, largely, only because of an alarm sounded by a British diplomat that Canada took any real, official, notice of the Alaska Highway construction in 1942.

3.   The Canadian Army, in 1946 (I think) established the Northwest Highway System â “ a Royal Canadian Engineers unit which managed and maintained (mostly by contract) the Canadian 'share' of the Alaska Highway.   It (the HQ) was in Whitehorse â “ I'm not sure the beautiful, well forested, pleasant Yukon qualifies as the Arctic.

4.   The first major post war exercise for the CF was Sweetbriar in 1950, also in the Yukon.   It was a joint (army and RCAF) and combined (Canada/US) exercise.   (see: http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/Sweetbriar/cover.html )

5.   The DEW line was built in the mid '50s but Canada's role was, essentially, that of a very junior 'partner.'

6.   The Royal Canadian Navy had an icebreaker back in the '50s: HMCS Labrador (see: http://www.crrstv.net/~gbailey/fore50.htm ).   Amongst other, more famous tasks, Labrador led the annual Eastern Arctic DEW line re-supply convoy in '55.   Labrador was turned over the Coast Guard in the late '50s.


Finally, of course, don't forget the fellows represented by my avatar: the Yukon Field Force (1898/99) - see: http://www.rcrmuseum.ca/html/museum/yukon.html (http://www.rcrmuseum.ca/html/museum/yukon.html)
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Slim on August 03, 2005, 15:00:10
With all the issues surrounding Denmark and Canada why the **** are we all aruing over a 3 KM wide chunk of rock?! If its that big a deal lets divide it down the middle and have 1.5 Km to call our own.

Slim
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Thucydides on August 03, 2005, 16:51:38
Hans Island is just the latest in a series of "wake up" calls. We have seen the Northwest passage traversed by all manner of American. Russian, British and probably French nuclear submarines, the oil tanker "Manhatten" transiting August 24, 1969, the growth of international air transport taking "great circle" routes over the arctic, Soviet "Bear" intercontinental bombers intruding throughout the Cold War.....

The response has been typically Canadian; a big flap, followed by fluffing up the pillows and settling back to sleep. Positive responses like the purchase of Canadian nuclear submarines, a "Polar 8" class icebreaker, seeding the Northwest Passage with sensors, or various plans to increase the permanent presence of Canadian Forces in the high arctic (beyond the Ranger patrols) have all met with slow or swift deaths in the halls of power.

If the earth is really undergoing one of its periodic warming spells, then this question has to be answered, since if we choose to ignore it, the Northwest passage will be fair game, and we will probably be stuck paying the bills for cleaning up after fleets of Korean container ships and Russian oil tankers transiting the passage. Saying the job is too hard simply is sticking our head in the sand...
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Kernewek on August 03, 2005, 18:27:29
Did the Vikings ever land in Quebec?

It is believed that they did.

Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: van Gemeren on August 03, 2005, 18:37:56
With all the issues surrounding Denmark and Canada why the **** are we all aruing over a 3 KM wide chunk of rock?! If its that big a deal lets divide it down the middle and have 1.5 Km to call our own.

Slim

Its more what is under the water around the island than the rock itself. I also agree with Slim, cut the island in half. Make it into an international peace park or something. The sea border between Canada and Greenland was computer generated, so that it would be half way between Greenland and our arctic islands. It just so happens that the line goes through Hans island. The whole border except the 3 km where Hans island is, is already agreed on. This dispute should be a wake-up call to get a larger presence up north, to solidify our ownership of the islands and the water between them.

Location of Island in relation to border
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nares_strait_border_%28Kennedy_channel%29.png

Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 03, 2005, 20:08:54
An article about the Hans Island issue was published in the Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/en/menu/PressAndCulture/News/ArticleabouttheHansIslandissue.htm

Quote
It is generally accepted that Hans Island was first discovered in 1853 on an expedition done in agreement with the Danish authorities with the participation of the famous Greenlander Hans Hendrik of Fiskenæsset.   His place in the expedition earned Hans Hendrik of Fiskenæsset a place in the history of exploration and the island was named after him - "Hans Øâ ? (Hans Island).

 Since then it has been our view that the island, by virtue of its belonging to Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.   Relevant evidence in connection with defining the area of Greenland, such as geological and geomorphological evidence, clearly supports this point of view.

 In 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark, the Court did inter alia refer to the note from the British Government, acting on behalf of Canada, which in 1920 assured the Danish Government that it recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland
Quote
Denmark appreciates that the larger issue of sovereignty in the North is a real concern to Canada. Greenland, and thus the Kingdom of Denmark is also a part of the North. Denmark is not intruding in the area. We are only trying to protect what we believe to be part of our Kingdom
- Poul E. D. Kristensen - Ambassador of Denmark


A quote from
www.polspy.ca
Quote
  Hans Island, is probably more close to being truly Danish than Canadian, for a couple of reasons. It's right off the tip of Greenland, an island around one million square kilometers larger than Quebec, and owned by Denmark, and it's called Hans Island, not Gordon Island. On those two counts alone Denmark has a convincing case.

The only humans that ever go there are Danes, and they travel there via their own military craft, so it's not like they get there on our nickel. If they go there in winter they probably go with one of their four icebreakers. Canada, with it's much more significant arctic territory, doesn't have any icebreakers at all.
- Ray van der Woning

A quote from
www.nunatsiaq.com
Quote
"Geologically, it's very Greenlandy. It's flat - it looks like Greenland, but there are other bits of Greenland plate in Canada. Hopefully, the boundaries aren't decided on geology."
- Keith Dewing - Geological Survey of Canada

A quote from
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2005/07/29/fCanada162.raw.html
Quote
Hansen has taken down the Maple Leaf that has fluttered high over his backyard garden and replaced it with another red-and-white one - the Dannebrog of Denmark.
- The Halifax Herald Limited

And the good news:
Quote
Next month, to bolster Denmark's claim that the island is Danish, Denmark is planning on sending an inspection ship to visit Hans Island.
- SIKU CIRCUMPOLAR NEWS SERVICE
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/50729_06.html
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2005, 15:05:59
Leaving aside the enthusiasms of youth, it does make for an interesting exercise to compare what both sides might be able to bring to the "table" and, given the commonality of gear, how might the IFF issue be handled?

We agree to wear safety orange crosses while they wear neon green triangles?

Curious stuff anyway.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Slim on August 04, 2005, 15:08:08

We agree to wear safety orange crosses while they wear neon green triangles?



 ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pieman on August 04, 2005, 15:12:49
Quote
It is generally accepted that Hans Island was first discovered in 1853 on an expedition done in agreement with the Danish authorities with the participation of the famous Greenlander Hans Hendrik of Fiskenæsset.   His place in the expedition earned Hans Hendrik of Fiskenæsset a place in the history of exploration and the island was named after him - "Hans Øâ ? (Hans Island).

Since then it has been our view that the island, by virtue of its belonging to Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.   Relevant evidence in connection with defining the area of Greenland, such as geological and geomorphological evidence, clearly supports this point of view.

These seem like pretty strong arguments over claim of the Island to me. What is Canada's reasoning that it is ours? (Sorry if it was covered in this thread already, I did not manage to go through all of it yet)

I found a picture of the Island in question here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hans_Island_001.jpg




Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: atticus on August 04, 2005, 17:05:51
(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B92807A9A-79E5-4D5A-AD28-8CB5849D3DAE%7D.gif)

(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B71FEC537-5EF5-4DEC-8618-9993C2F9B7CF%7D.gif)

I think these say it the best.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 04, 2005, 17:41:24
Hello everybody!
Just to clear some of this up I didn't post my first post before page 10 ( I'm sorry if anyone was offended )... and the deleted post contained 2 links to BBC World and was about Danish and Canadian history due to a post about Germany invading Denmark in WW2... The End!

Canada and Denmark is actually very alike... we both live in the shadow/shadows of other more powerfull nations and we both have a strong national sense...
We both love quality beer and bacon and sports. And I'm not kidding: It would be an honor to die fighting for Canada.. But I don't agree about the Hans Island business! Of course we are not going to settle it in this forum, but the internet does give people a way of expressing their feelings and thoughts... I posted on this forum because I would like to tell Canadians what I thought about the "Sovereignty" issue. My first post was a little childish ( my apologies ) but I still think I a have a right to defend what I believe in.

Right now I'm pro splitting the Island ( neon green triangles wouldn't go well with our uniform ), and in the end It will probably be up to some UN Court to decide... But I due feel Denmark has a strong case...


And since this forum is about Hans Island
http://www.pbase.com/jevski/invasion_canada

Maybe there's room for both a LegoLand and a Tim Hortons   ^-^
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 04, 2005, 17:46:24
Good, reasoned response Norup.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: atticus on August 04, 2005, 18:26:41
Legoland? Lego is Danish? Seriously though, I think the best way would be putting the boarder right down the middle, especially after looking at this picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_%28Kennedy_channel%29.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Nares_strait_border_%28Kennedy_channel%29.png)
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 48Highlander on August 06, 2005, 17:17:28
It's not an issue over the island itself, it's more of a pissing contest between two governments who know they're not going to do anything about it, but don't want to look weak in front of their people.  As such, splitting the island probably won't be a workable solution - neither side is interested in the land itself, and this sort of low-level argument gives them a good opportunity to do some grand-standing.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 06, 2005, 17:48:15
Quote
It's not an issue over the island itself, it's more of a pissing contest between two governments who know they're not going to do anything about it

I, personly think they do a lot about it. You don't see other uninhabited 1.3 km ² Islands get as much attention as Hans Island...

Quote
1984 - Tom Høyem, Danish Minister for Greenland, chartered a helicopter to the Island.
1988 - The Danish Arctic/Ocean patrol cutter HDMS Tulugaq arrived at the island, builds a cairn and placed a flagpole and Danish flag on the island.
1995 - The Danish liaison officer and crew working at Thule Air Base flew in and placed another flagpole and flag.
2001 - Keith Dewing and Chris Harrison, geologists with the Geological Survey of Canada who were mapping northern Ellesmere Island, flew by helicopter to the island.
2002 - The Danish inspection ship HDMS Vædderen arrived and erected a new cairn, flagpole and flag, finding the 1988 flag missing and the 1995 flag in pieces, likely due to weather.
2003 - The crew of the Danish frigate HDMS Triton landed on the island and replaced the Danish flag again.
2005 - Canadian soldiers land on the Island, placing a traditional Inuit stone marker (Inukshuk) with a plaque and a Canadian flag - As a symbolic move, Canadian Defence Minister Bill Graham set foot on the island
2005 (August 4 ) - The Danish Arctic/Ocean patrol cutter HDMS Tulugaq has been sent from Naval Station Grønnedal to Hans Island to assert Danish sovereignty. The cutter is expected to arrive in three weeks time
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Slim on August 06, 2005, 18:14:01
Quote
2005 (August 4 ) - The Danish Arctic/Ocean patrol cutter HDMS Tulugaq has been sent from Naval Station Grønnedal to Hans Island to assert Danish sovereignty. The cutter is expected to arrive in three weeks time

Perhaps, as was suggested, Canada could build a Timmies on the island and serve the Danes coffee and chocolate danishes?

Seriously, it'l be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: van Gemeren on August 06, 2005, 19:05:38
Quote
...The border is established in the delimitation treaty about the Continental Shelf between Greenland and Canada, ratified by the United Nations on December 17, 1973, and in force since March 13, 1974. At that time, it was the longest shelf boundary treaty ever negotiated and may have been the first ever continental shelf boundary developed by a computer program.

The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Canada, Having decided to establish in the area between Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Islands a dividing line beyond which neither Party exercising its rights under the Convention on the Continental Shelf of April/29/1958 will extend its sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the continental shelf...

The treaty list 127 points (latitude and longitude) from Davis Strait to the end of Robeson Channel, where Nares Strait runs into Lincoln Sea, to draw geodesic lines between, to form the border. The treaty does not, however, draw a line from point 122 (80 ° 49' 2 - 66 ° 29' 0) to point 123 (80 ° 49' 8 - 66 ° 26' 3), a distance of 875 metres. Hans Island is situated in the centre of this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island

Like I advocated on page 11, continue the border as if the island was not there and split the island, make it into joint military instinstallation joint Arctic exercises or something like that. (I know I'm way out of my lane on this part)
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 48Highlander on August 06, 2005, 19:15:35
I, personly think they do a lot about it. You don't see other uninhabited 1.3 km ² Islands get as much attention as Hans Island...

Take a look at your list again.  Like I said, it's nothin but grand-standing.  A chance for the politicians to show off, have a bit of a pissing contest, and look like they're doing something in front of the cameras.  It'll never come to a military confrontation, and I doubt they have any interest in ever really settling the dispute through diplomacy.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Harbinger on August 06, 2005, 19:20:48
Ever hear of Ripple rock near Vancouver Island? Claim that Hans is a hazard to navigation and every summer blow up a little more of it until the problem goes away. No island - no territorial claim over our waters and our resources.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 06, 2005, 19:24:06
Quote
blow up a little more of it until the problem goes away
Let's do that with Iran and North Korea !!!

Quote
It'll never come to a military confrontation, and I doubt they have any interest in ever really settling the dispute through diplomacy
I don't know what's going on in Canada but in Denmark there is a strong feeling about whom the Island belongs to.. In an ongoing poll on tv2.dk 70% ( August 7. ) is pro doing "whatever is necessary"...

Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 48Highlander on August 06, 2005, 20:30:09
I don't know what's going on in Canada but in Denmark there is a strong feeling about whom the Island belongs to.. In an ongoing poll on tv2.dk 70% ( August 7. ) is pro doing "whatever is necessary"...

Yeah well in a poll here, 70% of respondents said "Denmark has a military?  ???"

Seriously, I didn't think your nation was warlike enough to declare war over a frozen lump of rock.  You sure that the people taking that poll actually understood what "whatever is neccesary" means?
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 06, 2005, 20:47:43
Quote
Yeah well in a poll here, 70% of respondents said "Denmark has a military?
Tell that to the nice people of Southern Iraq..

Quote
I didn't think your nation was warlike enough to declare war over a frozen lump of rock
"Upholding the sovereignty of Denmark and securing continued existence and integrity of the country"
http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/eng/Facts+and+Figures/Security+Policy/ Isn't declaring war...

So unless Canadian forces open fire, there will be no conflict/war...

But we do feel strongly about our territory and almost everybody feels that, until a UN court have decided which country it belongs to, we should defend it as the rest of our Kingdom
Quote
The Armed Forces shall be able to ascertain and repulse violations of Danish sovereignty and exercise authority in the Danish sovereign area
http://forsvaret.dk/FKO/eng/Facts+and+Figures/Aim+and+tasks/
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 48Highlander on August 06, 2005, 21:22:23
So unless Canadian forces open fire, there will be no conflict/war...

But we due feel strongly about our territory and almost everybody feels that, until a UN court have decided which country it belongs to, we should defend it as the rest of our Kingdomhttp://forsvaret.dk/FKO/eng/Facts+and+Figures/Aim+and+tasks/

Hah, I can just see it now.  Two WW1 style trench lines on either side of the line, with no-man's-land in the center.  At least our troops will be ready for it, we've been practicing trench warfare for the last 80 years :P
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on August 06, 2005, 22:03:25
In all seriousness guys, you gotta take a trip up to Alert/Thule/Hans Island area.  Only
then you will see how pointless the discussion is over Hans especially once the ice and
winter sets in.  It is a rock, in the middle of nowhere, undefendable by both Canada
and Denmark at present.  Future resource gathering, multi-national sovereignty
incursions, and arctic transportation are issues both countries face.  Same problem,
same solution, just takes co-operation.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: jmacleod on August 07, 2005, 10:30:33
Hans Island is about oil. If securing the oil reserves is considered a serious activity, the big oil
companies will look to form a joint venture, in this case with a Danish company or the Government
of Denmark - any confrontation about Hans Island can be resolved over a drink or two, probably
in Iceland. National Post reports that the island was used for "scientific research in 1940" in fact
it would have been an Arctic and North Atlantic weather station, providing weather conditions
for convoy and Naval operations - there were several, including German reporting stations - one
located in Greenland. Canada has been running military operations in the North, since the first one
Operation "Musk Ox" about 1946, nothing new or unusual about that, but in the 'fifties even the
Herman Nelson heaters (to preheat aircraft engines) used to freeze up. MacLeod
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on August 07, 2005, 16:07:06
Oil?  Are you saying there is oil under Hans Island or that its about water routes to tpt oil?
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 07, 2005, 16:51:04
Quote
Dewing says it's unlikely that the island will prove to be a treasure trove of minerals or underwater oil reserves for either nation.

"There's some ancient reefs up there and there's probably one of them associated with Hans Island. It could conceivably contain oil, but that is such a far-fetched, unproveable statement now," Dewing said.

"On the Greenland side there are no indication of any oil in any of those reefs. On the Canadian side there's no indication of any oil in any of those reefs. I guess that's the only potential, that there's a reef there and it's chock full of oil, but it's a remote possibility."
Keith Dewing - Geological Survey of Canada http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/40409/news/nunavut/40409_08.html

Quote
Hans Island rightfully belongs to Greenland, Denmark - As part of the homeland of the Inughuit, it is a part of Greenland..."
Kenn Harper http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/40430/opinionEditorial/opinions.html

Quote
A plan to open a Danish consulate in Iqaluit shows Denmark and Canada are more neighbours than enemies, despite their dispute over who owns Hans Island
Jane George http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/50805_01.html
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Roy Harding on August 07, 2005, 17:11:17
Yeah well in a poll here, 70% of respondents said "Denmark has a military?  ???"

Seriously, I didn't think your nation was warlike enough to declare war over a frozen lump of rock.  You sure that the people taking that poll actually understood what "whatever is neccesary" means?

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Alexander Pope

Have some respect for our foreign friends.  Have you ever served alongside Danes?  Do you have anything beyond uninformed opinion upon which to base this assessment of the Danish Military and its' parent society?
Title: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on August 15, 2005, 02:45:32
Quote
Hans Island rock concert floated
Greenland official pitches musical solution to territorial battle

Armando D'Andrea
National Post; with files from The Canadian Press; CanWest News Service
July 27, 2005


TORONTO - Greenland's vice-premier is hoping a concert on Hans Island's barren turf can defuse the "primitive" political muscle-flexing between Canada and Denmark.

Josef Motzfeldt said he believes the disagreement over who owns the tiny rock between Greenland and Ellesmere Island can be resolved by inviting Canadian and Greenlandic musicians and officials to the island for a concert next summer.

He said this would be a more civilized way to address the conflict after last week's visit to the island by Canadian Defence Minister Bill Graham and military personnel, which Motzfeldt called "an occupation" and out of place in the 21st century.

"It's too primitive to come to an island with the military," he said. "I say we try to (resolve) it in a more civilized way. Some representatives from Canada, some Canadian authorities to join us if we can make a concert on the island. Why try to destroy the good neighbour (relations) that have taken place over history?"

Sovereignty of the three-kilometre island has been declared by both Canada and Denmark for years, with each taking turns planting flags on the island to confirm their claim.

The issue came to the fore again after last week's unannounced visit by Graham and his entourage, followed by Denmark's reply with an official letter of protest to the Canadian embassy in Copenhagen.

In Edmonton on Tuesday, Graham was making no apologies for the diplomatic tiff.

"We'll talk to the Danish people about their position, but our position has always been clear: It's Canada, and I went there just as I would have gone anywhere else in the Arctic."

Motzfeldt said any questions over sovereignty could also be resolved by a geological study to determine under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea whether the island was part of Ellesmere Island or Greenland.

Greenland has been a self-ruling territory since 1979, but Denmark continues to oversee many of its administrative and government functions.

Foreign Affairs Canada spokesman Reynald Doiron said Motzfeldt's idea of resolving the matter with a concert was "an interesting one." But he said Canada has never acted in a primitive fashion on this matter.

"It's been treated in an almost gentleman-like manner by both countries, by both governments," he said. "(The disagreement is) there, but it's no matter to go on the warpath."

He disagreed that Graham's visit was tantamount to an occupation.

"Occupation of what, I don't know," said Doiron. "We have said over and over again for the last several years that Hans Island is part of our territory ... Any Canadian federal official going there is going to our own piece of land. Therefore it's not an occupation."

Doiron also expressed reservations about Motzfeldt's idea of geologically settling the problem, saying in his view the only way the matter could be resolved is through direct negotiations or arbitration.
I'd rather see a hockey rink placed in the middle of the island.  We could have an annual tournament, and the winner would fly thier flag for the year.  ;D

Thoughts from the ambassador of Denmark to Canada:
Quote
Nobody wants Hans Island to sour our warm relationship
Canada and Denmark work closely together in many areas

Poul E. D. Kristensen
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, July 28, 2005


Canada and Denmark are neighbours in the North, allies in NATO and in the United Nations working closely together for peace and democracy in challenging spots such as Afghanistan, the Middle East and Sudan. Indeed we are close friends in relations across the board. Canadians of Danish origin are numerous. Cultural and commercial exchanges flourish between us.

In the North the Inuit populations of Greenland and Canada have communicated for centuries. Their oral languages are nearly identical. Denmark is in the final phase of opening an honorary consulate in Iqaluit, making it the first country to be represented on the spot in Nunavut.

As in every real, substantive friendship there are also tiny irritants like the territorial ownership of Hans Island. Such issues need to be dealt with deftly to strengthen the friendship.

The government of Denmark considers Hans Island to be a part of Danish territory. This should be of no surprise to anyone following developments from time to time in this case of disputed sovereignty. It is generally accepted that Hans Island was discovered in 1853 by an expedition carried out in agreement with Danish authorities, and with the participation of the famous Greenlander Hans Hendrik of Fiskensset. His place in the expedition earned Hans Hendrik a place in the history of exploration and the island was named after him -- "Hans /" (Hans Island).

Since then it has been our view that the island, by virtue of its belonging to Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Relevant evidence in connection with defining the area of Greenland, such as geological and geomorphological studies, clearly supports this point of view.

In 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice declared the legal status of Greenland in Denmark's favour, the court did inter alia refer to the note from the British government, acting on behalf of Canada, which in 1920 assured the Danish government that it recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

Therefore, when Canada in 1971, during negotiations with Denmark on the maritime boundary between Greenland and Canada, laid claim to the territory of Hans Island it was the first time the government of Denmark was officially informed about this. We did not reach an agreement at the time and since then our two governments have agreed to disagree.

In order to settle the dispute in a mutually acceptable way, the Danish government has repeatedly declared its willingness to resume consultations with the government of Canada at an appropriate time. This invitation is still very much open. In the view of the Danish government, Canada and Denmark have every reason to pursue an already fruitful co-operation on Arctic matters and we should not let the issue of Hans Island become a stumbling stone in this process.

Let me give you a recent example of co-operation in the North. A unique project between Canada and Denmark was launched as late as June this year. In Ottawa a memorandum was signed between Canada and Denmark to work together on collecting data needed for the redrawing of the continental shelf line in the Arctic Ocean north of Ellesmere Island and Greenland.

Both Denmark and Canada have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that gives us the right to make claims beyond 200 nautical miles of new land and underwater resources in that area.

Now we could have decided that due to the sensitivities involved we would do this work individually. Instead we have adopted a much more constructive approach -- joint operation. We will share equipment, manpower, and knowledge and save time and money. And when the time comes to file our individual claims, I hope we will be much better equipped to divide the land and sea according to each country's wishes.

Denmark appreciates that the larger issue of sovereignty in the North is of real concern to Canada. Greenland, and thus Denmark, is also a part of the North. Denmark is not intruding in the area. We are only trying to protect what we believe to be part of our kingdom. We recognize that Hans Island is claimed by Canada as well; that there is a genuine dispute.

Nobody has an interest in letting such an issue sour our warm relations. That is why we suggest, as we have done in the past, that we turn to dialogue and the rule of law, as we generally do. We look forward to working with Canada on this issue.

Poul E. D. Kristensen is the ambassador of Denmark to Canada.


Quote
War of words over Graham's rock role
Hot Danish say minister broke own agreement with quiet visit to island

Tim Naumetz
For CanWest News Service; with files from The Canadian Press
July 28, 2005


OTTAWA - A disagreement between Canada and Denmark over a tiny Arctic island continued to simmer Wednesday as a Canadian official confirmed Defence Minister Bill Graham, who sparked the controversy last week by landing on Hans Island to demonstrate sovereignty, had agreed last year as foreign affairs minister that both sides would notify the other before visiting the disputed rock.

But Foreign Affairs Department spokesman Reynald Doiron, while insisting he did want to get into a debate with Denmark's ambassador to Canada over claims Graham broke the agreement, said the accord only covered visits by military vessels, and Graham approached the island by helicopter.

At the same time, Denmark served notice it will ask Canada to return to negotiations over ownership of the island, a bare outcrop less than 1,000 metres wide midway between Greenland and Canada's Ellesmere Island, because of the disturbance created by Graham's visit.

"We are very much suggesting now, since it can develop into an issue like this in the media, we had better sit down and resume the consultation and try to find a solution," said Danish Ambassador Poul Erik Dam Kristensen.

"That's very much our position and we hope the Canadian side agrees with us."

The countries agreed in 1973 to draw a border halfway between Greenland -- a semi-autonomous Danish territory -- and Canada's Ellesmere Island.

They could not agree on who should claim Hans Island and decided to resolve the issue at some later date.

Graham's helicopter visit prompted a heated response from Denmark, where the government delivered a letter of protest to Canadian diplomats. A week earlier, Canadian soldiers hoisted a Canadian flag and erected an Inuit stone marker on the island.

A senior Danish government official subsequently called Graham's touch-down on the uninhabited island an "occupation," but Graham reiterated his right to visit the site because of the longstanding Canadian sovereignty claim.

Kristensen said in an interview a "very high level representative" from Canada last year agreed with Danish officials that both sides would give advance notice before visiting the island, following a dispute the previous year over a visit by Danish soldiers.

The ambassador, saying his government advised Canada last week that Graham's visit breached the terms of the accord, declined to identify the Canadian official, other than describing him as "ministerial."

Doiron, deputy director of communications for the Foreign Affairs Department, confirmed it was Graham, who was foreign affairs minister at the time and last year faced opposition questions over the earlier visit by the Danes.

"Yes, of course," Doiron replied when asked if it was Graham who agreed on Canada's behalf.

He insisted, however, the agreement covered only military ships.

"It boils down to strictly military vessels, but we don't have to sail through any part whatsoever of Danish territorial waters because we don't send military vessels," he said.

When it was explained that Denmark believes the agreement covered visits by any government official, Doiron replied: "It does not match our recollection of our files on this, I don't want to contradict or enter into any pissing match whatsoever with the ambassador, but that's not the information I've been given by my legal colleagues."

Graham defended his visit by saying "our view is that it's part of Canada and we continue to be there and to go there."

Danish officials, however, believe the attempt to demonstrate Arctic sovereignty was directly related to disputes between Canada and the U.S. over sovereignty in the Northwest Passage and a boundary disagreement between the two countries over jurisdiction of part of the resource-rich Beaufort Sea.
Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on August 21, 2005, 13:54:42
It seems the Danish Navy won't be landing on Hans Island after all.  They will just sail by it.
Quote
Danish navy vessel backs away from Hans Island
Vito Pilieci
CanWest News Service
Monday, August 15, 2005


OTTAWA -- In order to cool tensions with Canada over Hans Island, the crew of a Danish protection vessel will not visit the disputed territory this year, according to Denmark's foreign minister.

A Danish naval cutter, the Tulugaq, was dispatched to the barren rock outcrop in the high Arctic last week to raise the flag of Denmark and bolster the country's claim to the island.

According to Danish officials, the vessel visits the island and sailors land there every year.

However, in a letter published in news publications in Denmark and Canada today, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller said he is not interested in fanning the flames over the Hans Island dispute with Canada. The vessel will pass by the island, but no sailors will go ashore.

"When it comes to handling conflict, Denmark and Canada are leading countries on the international stage," writes Moller.

"We do not wish Denmark to preclude negotiations with Canada this summer by being dragged into a war of flags on Hans Island."

Moller said he has no doubt Hans Island, about 1,000 metres wide situated midway between Greenland and Canada's Ellesmere Island, is in Danish-Greenland territory and belongs to his country.

But he said allowing the ship to land at Hans Island before the ongoing custody debate is settled would demean the "dignity" of both Canada and Denmark.

"Hans Island is part of Denmark and Greenland; it is part of our territory. To stand firm over one's territory ... is altogether crucial to being an independent state," he writes.

"Either we wish to negotiate or to retaliate. If we go down the path of retaliation, the negotiations will prove unsuccessful and the disputes will continue and escalate. Very seldom does that produce a satisfactory outcome. And it is below the dignity of lead countries like Denmark and Canada."

. . . and it seems the Canadian Navy also has plans to sail around in the area of the island, but they will also be enforcing fishing laws in Canadian waters:
Quote
Military hopes to end illegal fishing near Arctic island at centre of dispute
a journalist
Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service
August 17, 2005


The Canadian government is upping the ante in its push to assert sovereignty in the Arctic by sending a frigate to clamp down on illegal fishing by ships from a Danish protectorate, the Ottawa Citizen has learned.

Military officials have confirmed that HMCS Fredericton will leave Halifax on Thursday for a northern fisheries patrol that will last until the second week of September. The frigate, carrying officers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, will operate mainly in the Davis Strait area with visits to Pond Inlet and Iqaluit, said navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Ken MacKillop.

He did not have a list of countries suspected of illegal fishing in the area, but, MacKillop added, "I do know they need to go up there and see who's operating in the waters, take some surveillance and possibly intercept or board some vessels."

Arctic specialist Rob Huebert, who was invited along on the patrol, said there have been ongoing problems with illegal fishing by ships from the Faroe Islands, a protectorate of Denmark.

"We've also had some problem with the Greenland fishers coming over on our side," said Huebert, a University of Calgary defence analyst. "That's what the Fredericton is all about, to check that out."

Canada is embroiled in a dispute with Denmark over Hans Island, midway between Greenland and Canada's Ellesmere Island. That dispute flared last month after federal Defence Minister Bill Graham visited the tiny barren island, prompting one Danish official to call the trip an "occupation."

A Danish patrol ship is now on its way to the region but the Danish government has since decided to try to defuse the situation through diplomatic channels. The ship's crew will not land on Hans Island to assert Denmark's sovereignty but will instead pass nearby, Danish officials have said.

MacKillop said HMCS Fredericton will not be in the vicinity of Hans Island. But he noted the frigate's fisheries patrol is important. "We haven't done one of those with a frigate for some time, so it's of some significance."

The mission coincides with other naval patrols in the north. HMCS Glace Bay and HMCS Shawinigan, both coastal patrol vessels, will be operating in Hudson Bay and other northern locations. Military aircraft will also be involved in that mission.

Huebert said he applauds the government's increased efforts to assert control over Canada's northern waters and territories.

He said the government's decision to re-emphasize Canadian claims to Hans Island is the right thing to do as it sends a message to the U.S., Russia and Denmark, all of which have disputes with Canada over Arctic territories.

"It simply gives notice we're not going to be pushovers on this," he said.

Huebert said the possibility that global warming could open up the Arctic's vast resources for exploitation by other countries has prompted the Canadian government to realize it needs an increased presence in the region. Some in the Canadian Forces have repeatedly warned Ottawa that the threat to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic will increase as the world's appetite for fish and other natural resources increases.

Quote
Navy frigate to patrol Arctic waters for first time
The Canadian Press
August 18, 2005


HALIFAX - A Canadian frigate will begin patrolling waters in the Arctic for the first time as the federal government attempts to clamp down on illegal fishing and assert its sovereignty in the Far North.

HMCS Fredericton will leave Halifax on Thursday and stay out until the second week of September, Defence officials said Wednesday. The vessel will head to the Davis Strait, Pond Inlet and Iqaluit, said Lt.-Cmdr. Ken MacKillop.

"They'll be heading up there with the intent to verify that our territorial waters are secure and take the opportunity to show our presence and our sovereignty up there in the northern area," he said.

MacKillop had no specifics on countries thought to be fishing illegally in the vast area, but said fisheries officers are prepared to board boats they suspect.

The trip will also give the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a better understanding of who is fishing there, he said.

MacKillop insisted the trip isn't related to an ongoing dispute with Denmark over Hans Island, a three-kilometre-long chunk of land lying between Ellesmere Island and Greenland that both countries have claimed sovereignty over.

"This is not in response to a specific vessel up there from a specific country and nor is it related to the Hans island situation," MacKillop said.

The Canadian government has been under growing pressure to curb overfishing by foreign vessels, especially in areas outside its 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the East Coast.

Critics say DFO and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization have done little to combat the growing problem of foreign ships taking valuable but dwindling stocks.

The Canadian navy is also sending HMCS Glace Bay and HMCS Shawinigan to the north on exercises and port visits in remote parts of Labrador, Nunavut, Quebec and Manitoba.

The objective is "to increase the navy's presence in the north," the military said in a release.
Title: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Gunner on August 23, 2005, 00:09:26
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/22/wcan22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/22/ixworld.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/22/wcan22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/22/ixworld.html)

Quote
Canadian warships were sailing towards the Arctic yesterday in the latest act of gunboat diplomacy over control of the frozen wastes there.

Ottawa has launched a series of Arctic sovereignty patrols to assert its territorial claims and fend off rivals, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States.

 

Its scramble for the Arctic is a consequence of global warming and the retreat of the polar ice. This has raised the prospect of once-inaccessible areas becoming available for oil and mineral extraction. It has also revived the dream of a "North-West Passage" for shipping, linking the Atlantic and Pacific.

Amid diplomatic arguments over territorial rights, Canada's defence minister recently clambered on to a frozen rock, tiny Hans Island, triggering protests from Denmark.

The Canadian programme hit high gear yesterday as the frigate Fredricton sailed towards the contested Davis Strait separating Greenland and north-east Canada. Two coastal defence vessels, meanwhile, have visited the port of Churchill for the first time in 30 years and have set sail for the upper Hudson Bay.

"This is a demonstration of Canada's will to exercise sovereignty over our own back yard," said Cdre Bob Blakely, of the Royal Canadian Navy.

"The sea is a highway that's open to everyone. We will allow everybody passage as long as they ask for our consent and comply with our rules: 'use our resources wisely and don't pollute the fragile northern ecosystem'. "

The renewed Canadian military presence has made other Arctic claimants sit up.

Canada and the US are at odds over control of the North-West Passage and the resource-rich Beaufort Sea, while Canada and Russia both claim overlapping parts of the Arctic continental shelf.

Denmark, which rules Greenland, was angered by the unheralded arrival of Canada's defence minister, Bill Graham, on disputed Hans Island last month.

He stayed for a short while, examining a new Maple Leaf flag planted by Canadian servicemen there, and an old flag left by a Danish naval party three years earlier.

Denmark dispatched the naval cutter Tulugaq and threatened to land more men. However, as tensions rose, the two Nato allies had second thoughts, and the rival claimants agreed to discuss the dispute at the United Nations next month.

Critics of the Canadian policy argue that if the government is serious about pursuing a robust "northern strategy" it will have to start investing.

A C$700 million ( £322 million) road to Tuktoyaktuk on the Arctic Sea has been proposed, but the money has not yet been pledged.

The military, meanwhile, is not ideally equipped for the brutal conditions of the far north. Although it is expanding its Arctic command base at Yellowknife, the navy lacks sufficient capacity to plough through the pack ice.

Critics say that this explains why the Canadian authorities have chosen the summer months to undertake their sovereignty patrols.

A military exercise in the Arctic last year was termed an "embarrassing debacle" by the Toronto Star newspaper because of harsh weather and poor equipment.
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 23, 2005, 07:42:30
From TV2.DK
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php?id=2707213
In Danish
Quote
De to canadiske kystbevogtnings ­skibe "HMCS Glace Bay" og "Shawini ­gan" er pÃ¥ vej pÃ¥ til Canadas nordlige farvande for at besøge havne i Labra ­dor, Nunavut, Quebec og Manitoba.
Flåden benytter dog ikke togtet til at lægge søvejen forbi den omstridte Hans Ø
In English
Quote
The two Canadian ships "HMCS Glace Bay" and "Shawini ­gan" is on their way to Canada's northern sea to visit harbours in Labra ­dor, Nunavut, Quebec and Manitoba.
The fleet does not intend to drop by Hans Island on their way

In Danish
Quote
Samtidig er Søværnets inspektionskut ­ter "Tulugaq" pÃ¥ vej til Hans Ø for at hÃ¥ndhæve dansk suverænitet
In English
Quote
At the same time The Royal Navy's Arctic Patrol Cutter "Tulugaq" is on route to Hans Island to surstain Danish sovereignty
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on August 23, 2005, 10:20:17
Can anyone confirm the historical precedent for Hans Island?

My understanding is that although Hans Island is closer to Greenland (Denmark), it was a British Territorial Holding and as such by International Law would've transferred to Canada at the point of Confederation.

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: geo on August 23, 2005, 10:46:58
Considering that Han Island is halfway between Greenland & Nunavut  AND that this is a piece of rock that no one is particularly interested in establishing a permanent settlement; I would propose that it would make sense that both Denark and Canada share in the development of whatever resources are available on the island.

in the late 40s/early 50s Canada uproted Unuits from Quebec's northern coast and dropped em off on this place called "Grise Fiord" as part of a sovereignity campaign . Not a pretty place (been there) and most of the settlers nostalgic of their rocky settlements on Ungava bay / Hudson straights

Don't think we want that all over again.
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Infanteer on August 23, 2005, 10:49:01
Sounds like a good idea to me - this time I say we uproot Canada's prison population....
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: geo on August 23, 2005, 11:07:27
Someone has already suggested sending Karla Homolka there.........
unfortunately - a bunch of soft hearted bozos have chosen to nix that.

Guess it's only going to be government ministers until such time as commercial interest picks up on that piece of realestate.
Title: Canada vs Denmark
Post by: Bo on August 23, 2005, 11:19:43
Canada sends navy to Arctic north?!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4175446.stm
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: geo on August 23, 2005, 11:35:19
yeah - the minister wouldn't go on his own.
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: LegomyArty on August 24, 2005, 15:26:25
Why don't we just set up joint Danish/Canadian control. Maybe turn it into a giant prison, no need for walls, a few patrol vessels is all you need.
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Kernewek on August 24, 2005, 23:48:33
Why don't we just set up joint Danish/Canadian control. Maybe turn it into a giant prison, no need for walls, a few patrol vessels is all you need.

Sounds like fun. However, the patrol ships are unnecessary. Given that the waterways are frozen over most of the time, and when they aren't, the water kills in minutes. Why not simply build them some nice huts, and then not supply them with jackets? They won't last that long outside in jumpsuits - and if they try, orange makes an excellent contrast to white.
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: geo on August 25, 2005, 00:27:38
In the news on Wednesday that the issue of Han Island came up back in the 20s
and was resolved in the Danes' favour..... WTF are we messing with this matter once again?
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: CloudCover on August 25, 2005, 00:37:11
In the news on Wednesday that the issue of Han Island came up back in the 20s
and was resolved in the Danes' favour..... WTF are we messing with this matter once again?


The Brits tried to sell us out... didn't work. >:D
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 25, 2005, 06:23:35
In the news on Wednesday that the issue of Han Island came up back in the 20s
and was resolved in the Danes' favour..... WTF are we messing with this matter once again?


I thought that was Sprangle(Wrangle)[something like that] Island off of Siberia that was resolved in the Soviet Unions favour....
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: IcEPiCk on August 25, 2005, 06:58:22
I like the idea of an International prison... Ship all major offenders there.  Let them live off of whale blubber.

Fruit punch will be served on holidays, if they have been behaving...

Orange jump suits are a definite must, but pink would stand out just as good and annoy them a bit more I think!

 >:D
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: Rider Pride on August 25, 2005, 09:37:09
I know this will probably pull from a thread about maintaining sovereignty to something else because of this but...

If Canada was serious about this we would have not forgot about the North over the last 10-15 yrs. One of the most effective ways for army to defend the north is with a light/airborne/airmobile force. To show that they are serious the Gov't should push for that rapid light force, for the defence of Canada. Then excersice that force in the artic in both summer and winter. Anyone who opposes that concept could be though of as against defending our sovereignty...

How unpatriotic of them.

Air and naval assets can monitor sovereignty, but it takes the army to enforce it...

What that saying...If a country doesn't have its own army....
Title: Re: Canada flexes its muscles in dispute over Arctic wastes
Post by: paracowboy on August 25, 2005, 10:12:22
I know this will probably pull from a thread about maintaining sovereignty to something else because of this but...

If Canada was serious about this we would have not forgot about the North over the last 10-15 yrs. One of the most effective ways for army to defend the north is with a light/airborne/airmobile force. To show that they are serious the Gov't should push for that rapid light force, for the defence of Canada. Then excersice that force in the artic in both summer and winter. Anyone who opposes that concept could be though of as against defending our sovereignty...

How unpatriotic of them.

Air and naval assets can monitor sovereignty, but it takes the army to enforce it...

What that saying...If a country doesn't have its own army....

obviously you're missing all of the excellent points brought up in other threads how we don't need Airborne forces.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on August 26, 2005, 02:57:10
Quote
Rock paper cuts water from Hans Island fight
Tim Naumetz
For CanWest News Service
Friday, August 12, 2005


OTTAWA - The dispute between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island is "only about the island, not about the surrounding waters," the Foreign Affairs Department says in a newly released statement on the standoff.

In an outline of Canada's position before negotiations begin next month at the United Nations, the department says the two countries signed an agreement more than 30 years ago to set the boundary for territorial waters and the continental shelf between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Greenland.

The boundary line reached to a point immediately south of the tiny island and continued from a point immediately north of the island, said the statement.

"For this reason, Hans Island does not have a territorial sea or an exclusive economic zone," the statement says.

In the controversy that erupted over the kilometre-long rock outcrop in the Kennedy Channel last month, there were suggestions Canada and Denmark were concerned about eventual control over the channel.

SURVEY SAYS IT'S CANADA'S

But the Foreign Affairs statement, posted on the department's website this week, demonstrates Ottawa does not expect to gain new jurisdiction over undersea resources or the waterway if it overcomes Denmark's case.

Canadian claims of sovereignty are founded on international law and include the discovery of Hans Island by British explorers and its devolution to Canada in 1867, the statement says.

"Canada also has a history of occupation and use of Hans Island and has regulated and approved activities on the island throughout the 20th Century, including a temporary scientific station in the 1940s, topographical surveys in the 1950s and 1960s, and the research undertaken by resource companies throughout the 1980s," the department says.

A university expert on the Hans Island question and other sovereignty flashpoints in the Arctic said the statement underscores his belief that both sides have other motives for aggressively backing their claims.

University of Calgary political science professor Rob Huebert says the Canadian position could affect other territorial disputes.

NORTHERN FIGHTS

Other unresolved issues included: A court decision over a territorial dispute with the United States over the international boundary in the resource-rich Beaufort Sea; another fight with the U.S. over sovereignty in the Northwest Passage; a clash with Russia over the continental shelf in the High Arctic and future potential spats with both the U.S. and Denmark over boundary lines on the Arctic continental shelf.

Huebert said Denmark could be demonstrating to the Greenland home-rule government that Denmark is in charge of foreign and defence policy for the Danish territory following its controversial decision to allow the U.S. to establish a missile-defence radar site on Greenland.

"It is technically correct to say it only revolves around the island, but the problem is if either country is seen as being too soft or uncaring in terms of just the land mass, it sets a whole set of precedents," said Huebert.

He said Canada and Denmark have yet to negotiate boundaries for their 200-mile economic-control zones on the continental shelf extending northward from Ellesmere Island and Greenland into the Lincoln Sea.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on August 28, 2005, 07:25:44
Quote
Canada to U.S.: Passage is ours
Heated warning follows spat with Danes

Mike Blanchfield
CanWest News Service
Monday, August 01, 2005


OTTAWA -- After sparking a diplomatic row with Denmark over his impromptu visit to remote Hans Island, Defence Minister Bill Graham bluntly told the United States Sunday to keep its hands off another disputed Arctic territory: the Northwest Passage.

"We actually have a dispute with the United States," Graham told CTV's Question Period on Sunday. "And our view is that's the internal waters of Canada given the layout of the Continental Shelf and our historic exercise of sovereignty over that area."

Graham made that pointed assessment after he visited Hans Island a little more than a week ago on part of a tour of military installations of the Canadian Arctic.

The unannounced visit sparked anger in Denmark, which called Graham's unannounced helicopter touchdown an "occupation."

Danish government officials have suggested that Graham's visit to Hans Island had less to do about concern over that island than it did about ongoing U.S. claims that of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.

The mainly frozen High Arctic passage connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and is already open to maritime traffic for part of the year.

But global warming is expected open the waters to sea traffic year round.

In acknowledging the dispute with the U.S. over the passage, Graham made clear it would be in the interest of the international community if it remained under Canadian sovereignty.

"Other countries are raising that as an issue. This clearly will be an important passageway once it becomes feasible," Graham said.

"It'll cut a lot of time off the trip from Europe to Japan and Asia. So it is important for Canada to make it clear to people in everybody's interest, that we must exercise our sovereignty."

Graham said it would be Canada's responsibility to make sure the passage is not polluted. He pointed out that former prime minister Pierre Trudeau extended the Pollution Prevention Act to Arctic waters.

"We recognize pollution in that area is going to affect our people, and it's in the interest of the world that Canada be in place to control that so that everybody will be protected."

Graham tried to play down his visit to Hans Island, but also continued to send defiant signals to the Danes that Canada would not tolerate its claims over the island in the future.

The two countries have been embroiled in a border dispute for decades over the island, a barren outcrop of rock less than a kilometre wide between Greenland and Canada's Ellesmere Island.

A 1973 treaty drew a border in the region, but Hans Island has remained in dispute.

Both countries periodically send military hardware over to the island to demonstrate their sovereignty. Just a week before Graham's visit, Canadian soldiers visited the island, raised a Maple Leaf, and left behind an Inuit stone marker.

Graham said he raised the possibility of a trip to the island with Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Foreign Affairs Department, when he was in Alert, Canada's northernmost military outpost in the high Arctic.

"I was doing a trip to find out what DND, my department, can do to enhance the government's presence and to help the people in that important region of the North, given the fact there are tremendous changes there in terms of climate and more industrial and mineral and other activity," Graham said.

"It was part and parcel of my general tour of the Arctic and in that sense it wasn't a premeditated sovereignty decision, if you wish," he added.

"As it happens, that's a way of saying Canada considers this to be part of our sovereign territory. We've always made that clear to the Danes and we will continue to make it clear through other means as well."

Graham did not elaborate on what he meant by "other means." He said Canada does have the ability to patrol its Arctic waters, brushing back suggestions the government has no idea whether North Korean submarines or other navies sail into those waters unnoticed.

Graham said new technology, such as "new satellites," unmanned aerial vehicles, and the extension further northward of current radar on both coasts would be able to give the government a clear picture of what was going on in Arctic waters.

The minister said that last year's Exercise Narwhal, which attempted to show the military's ability to exercise sovereignty in the North, was "excellent" and that another similar expedition was planned for next year.

Graham's upbeat assessment seems questionable, though, given the Defence Department's own internal assessment of Narwhal released earlier this year, and which had been confirmed by a documentary film crew that accompanied the navy, and documented difficulties.

A Sea King helicopter repeatedly broke down, severely hampering the military's ability to carry out the mission as planned.

"It would be difficult to brand Exercise Narwhal an overwhelming success," said an internal Defence Department assessment that was declassified earlier this year.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 28, 2005, 11:49:18
Quote
in the late 40s/early 50s Canada uproted Unuits from Quebec's northern coast and dropped em off on this place called "Grise Fiord" as part of a sovereignity campaign
You do know that "Grise Fjord" is Danish and means "Bay of Pigs"???  ???

He he... While it seems like Our Mighty Royal Fleet's crew   ;D won't be allowed to pull down the Canadian flag:
Quote
I have instructed the ship to sail there, but they will not go ashore tearing down (the Canadian) flag and replacing it with a new one

Quote
Therefore, I decided at an early stage of the issue over Hans Island that Denmark should submit a proposal to Canada to resume negotiations over Hans Island. I am very pleased that Canada has now accepted this proposal, and that I am to meet my Canadian counterpart in New York in connection with the UN General Assembly in September.
     However, this does not shake the Danish Government's deeply held conviction that Hans Island is part of Greenland and, consequently, Danish-Greenland territory. Naturally, there are good reasons for the Government to take action over something that at first sight might look like a small matter. Hans Island is part of Denmark and Greenland; it is part of our territory. To stand firm over one's territory - or to exercise sovereignty as international law experts call it - is altogether crucial to being an independent State. Therefore, the Government insists that we hold the valid arguments in connection with the issue of Hans Island. And therefore, we have every right to protest when the Canadian Minister of National Defence pays a visit to Hans Island without prior notification
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller

I can 100% sure guarantee You that a Danish flag WILL be raised on the Island. But it seems the   :cdn: will have to be there until the International Court of Justice in the Hague have decided! Unless You guys back down, ofcause!   ^-^
Quote
Denmark and Canada have agreed to re-open negotiations regarding the future of Hans Island. Denmark will immediately begin geological surveys in the area, and Per Stig Møller will meet his Canadian counterpart Pierre Pettigrew in New York in the middle of September. Should they fail to reach an agreement, both governments have agreed to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island

Would any of You guys travel 1000's of kilometers, just to sail right by your main objective??? http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2005/HansOe2.htm

Oh... and am I mistaken when I say that July 13, 2005 was the first time Canadian Forces sat foot on Hans Island?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Slim on August 28, 2005, 13:28:49
Holy F**K

didn't we all agree to stop yammering about this stupid little piece of rock!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on August 28, 2005, 13:56:58
I can 100% sure guarantee You that a Danish flag WILL be raised on the Island. But it seems the   :cdn: will have to be there until the International Court of Justice in the Hague have decided! Unless You guys back down, ofcause!

 ;D ;D ;D
I would never personally guarantee the outcome of a political process...  ::)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2005, 14:10:14
Norup:

Remember to leave a case of Aalborg.  Its much better than that Gamel Dansk crap and it should be just about the right temperature by the time we go back to swap flags.

Skal.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on August 29, 2005, 02:32:58
Quote
Remember to leave a case of Aalborg.  Its much better than that Gamel Dansk crap

Hmm... It might be a little late but I'll see what I can do...  ::) 

Then we'll probably also trow in some real beers insted of the maple-light thing You guys are used to  ;)

Quote
I would never personally guarantee the outcome of a political process
It's not the political process I'm talking about. It's that they WILL make landfall and raise the Danish flag... But they will have to leave the Canadian flag where it is...
I don't know any Dane who would sail for 3 weeks just to abort 3 days before the objective, and still have to sail right by it!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Infanteer on August 29, 2005, 05:05:12
Ahhh, as a Canadian of Danish decent, my loyalties are conflicting - WHAT DO I DO OVER HANS ISLAND?!?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 29, 2005, 09:53:15
This, from to-day's Globe and Mail is part of the solution.  See, also http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17947.msg191790.html#msg191790 at the bottom of the 1st page of the attachment I discuss National Surveillance and Warning".  In my personal opinion Polar Epsilon (see: http://www.isprs.org/publications/related/ISRSE/html/papers/1000.pdf ) is part (and, sadly, at $60 Million + only a very small part) of the solution.  An essentially static radar imaging system with 14 passes a day is a start, only a start.  We need space, surface and sub-surface sensors - active and passive - which will cover wide areas on a more frequent (maybe no more than, say (will arsed quesstimate every 15 minutes) basis.

However, BZ:  LCdr Quinn, MacDonald Dettwiler and to 'contracting out'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050828.warcsat0828/BNStory/National/
Quote
Canada plans Arctic eye

BY STEPHEN THORNE

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2005 UPDATED AT 8:22 PM EDT
CANADIAN PRESS

Ottawa - The federal government is looking up - way up - to assert Canada's increasingly threatened claim to Arctic sovereignty.

The Canadian Space Agency is buying $400-million worth of Arctic imagery from Richmond, B.C.-based MacDonald Dettwiler Associates, which owns the soon-to-be-launched Radarsat 2 polar orbiter.

The satellite, scheduled to be airborne next summer, is expected to operate over a seven-year lifespan, said navy Lt.-Cmdr. Robert Quinn, project director.

The federal investment is less than the cost of a new icebreaker - and the satellite can see in all weather, day or night, 365 days a year, Defence officials say.

Passing over the North Pole 14 times daily, recording images of ships, aircraft - even pollution - at a rate of 3,000 square kilometres per second, it will be the linchpin in the Canadian military's Project Polar Epsilon.

"Polar Epsilon is a transformational first step for Canada in using space to support the sovereignty and security of the Arctic region, including maritime security and continental defence together with the U.S.A. at the strategic level," say ministerial briefing notes obtained by The Canadian Press.

"Polar Epsilon has no connection to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program," say the documents, obtained through access to information.

Canada will build ground receiving stations near Halifax and Esquimalt, B.C., to process and relay the images.

It's part of an Arctic "offensive" the Canadian military has undertaken, beginning with an exercise called Operation Narwhal last year, stepped-up Ranger patrols and patrols by Canadian navy vessels.

While Aurora aircraft sorties over the Arctic continue, the military is also looking at unmanned pre-programmed or remote-controlled planes.

"No one sensor can conduct effective and complete surveillance of Canada's large area of interest," said Cmdr. Quinn, who wrote the briefing notes. "The best surveillance architecture is a number of sensors used in combination.

"The strengths of all of them outweigh the weaknesses of each one."

Vincent Rigby, director general of policy and planning at National Defence, said there's no direct military threat in the Arctic like that posed during the Cold War.

"Certainly, the Canadian Forces are not defending against hordes of Soviet bombers coming over the Arctic," said Mr. Rigby.

"The threat now is more broadly in the security and sovereignty realm."

Canada's dispute with Denmark over Hans Island could indicate an increase in territorial rows north of the 60th parallel.

Arctic sovereignty is becoming more coveted as global warming melts the ice and opens new areas for oil and mineral exploration, said Mr. Rigby.

He said the military is increasingly being called on as a result.

"We're looking at enhancing some of the capabilities," Mr. Rigby said in an interview.

Those capabilities are sorely in need of enhancement, said Tory defence critic Gordon O'Connor, who is currently on a northern fact-finding mission to help formulate his party's defence policy.

"Years ago, large numbers of our soldiers were trained in Arctic warfare. Very few of them can operate now in the Arctic," Mr. O'Connor said from his first stop in Whitehorse.

"The capability to look after the North has decayed over a number of years."

While Arctic-capable nuclear submarines would cost prohibitive billions, Ottawa should consider alternatives such as seafloor monitors, as NATO has done in the North Atlantic, he said.

Arctic sovereignty sparked controversy in 1985 when the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea traversed the Northwest Passage without Ottawa's permission.

Washington eventually signed an agreement with Ottawa stating it would seek permission before navigating the passage again.

But the issue has never been resolved with a formal acknowledgment that the waters belong to Canada - a critical point as they are becoming passable during more months of the year, says Mr. O'Connor.

The dispute over Hans Island erupted anew when Defence Minister Bill Graham visited the 1.3-kilometre windswept rock in July.

The island in the Kennedy Channel between Greenland and Ellesmere Island was discovered by the British, ceded to Canada at Confederation, and was briefly home to a Canadian scientific station in the 1940s. It is listed as part of Nunavut in the National Geographic Atlas.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew will meet with his Danish counterpart next month, 21 years after a Danish minister, Tom Hoeyem, caused a stir when he visited Hans Island.

Mr. Hoeyem raised the Danish flag, buried a bottle of brandy and left a note saying Welcome to Denmark. Danish ships or military officers have visited Hans Island five times in the last 17 years.

Canadian geological researchers have landed once, and before Mr. Graham's visit a squad of Canadian soldiers hoisted the Maple Leaf and built an Inukshuk, a traditional Inuit stone marker.

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.  

Title: Re: Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: medicineman on August 29, 2005, 15:47:23
I'd rather see a hockey rink placed in the middle of the island.   We could have an annual tournament, and the winner would fly thier flag for the year.   ;D




Good idea -   Canada met Denmanrk in the 1946(?) World Hockey Championship, Canada won 43 - 0.   Hans over Hans Island boys   ;D :cdn:.

MM
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on August 29, 2005, 17:01:07
Edward Campbell<
However, BZ:  LCdr Quinn, MacDonald Dettwiler and to 'contracting out'.
>

Unlike the US, the CF cannot afford to be the leader in developing cutting-edge technology
like Radarsat. The contracting out of some services is a viable option in this case, though, as
mentioned its just part of the solution.  The Radarsat technology is quite impressive.

For those interested. CFS Alert won the Boxtop1 and BoxTop2 Olympics for 2005.  Yay for us!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: kipper on September 19, 2005, 02:13:20
I think that the CF should work with the coast gaurd and arm their ice breakers or at least make them capable to carry wapons if needed. as well as setting up passive survailence of our northern teritory. the sovernty of our north is most likely going to be challenged in the near future mainly becuase of the polar ice caps melting and the NWP becoming accesable all year round! :cdn:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on September 19, 2005, 02:50:51
... they WILL make landfall and raise the Danish flag...
So, how is that guarantee coming along?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Monsoon on September 19, 2005, 14:45:48
I think that the CF should work with the coast gaurd and arm their ice breakers or at least make them capable to carry wapons if needed. as well as setting up passive survailence of our northern teritory. the sovernty of our north is most likely going to be challenged in the near future mainly becuase of the polar ice caps melting and the NWP becoming accesable all year round! :cdn:

Based on what I've seen of the Coast Guard fleet in my time working with them, I'm afraid that really isn't a viable option.  The navy is reluctant to orient itself towards domestic patrol duties because it's concerned that the Task Group focus will diminish and the general public thinks that our Coast Guard should be like the US Coast Guard with respect to sovereignty enforcement, but the organizations are far, far different.  At the risk of sounding condescending, the Coast Guard is really more of a "Coast Janitor" - they maintain the navigation equipment, direct vessel traffic, break ice and do search-and-resuce. but they really don't have the training or infrastructure to employ force.  It is a very, very civilian organization that simply doesn't have training in force employment - to give it that capability would require a complete overhaul of the force and at least a decade of training and culture change.

Sovereignty patrol has always been the purvue of the navy in Canada and, for better or worse, will probably stay that way in the short-to-medium term.  Certainly the CG will be part of the organization that's forming around the new maritime MSOCs, but don't expect them to take a lead.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on September 19, 2005, 22:15:35
Perhaps the Canadian Coast Guard should be absorbed by the Naval Reserve.  Comments?

Tom
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Jungle on September 20, 2005, 20:10:37
So, how is that guarantee coming along?
It seems there are some Danes who would sail for 3 weeks just to abort 3 days before the objective, and still have to sail right by it!
Wadda ya know, looks like even in Denmark, the govt is still in charge !!!   ;)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on September 21, 2005, 09:43:53
Hmm... no solution yet... http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2005/09/19/203413.htm
Danish
Quote
..Danmark og Canada er blevet enige om, at de stadig er uenige..
..da den danske udenrigsminister Per Stig Møller mødtes med den canadiske udenrigsminister Pierre Pettigrew under FN's Generalforsamling i New York
English
Quote
..Denmark and Canada agrees to still disagree..
..when the Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller met with the Canadian foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew under the UN's Generalasembly in New York

But! http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3246948
Danish
Quote
Men udenrigsministeren kunne efter mødet berette, at det canadiske flag nu er blæst omkuld
English
Quote
But the foreign minister could after the meeting confirm that the Canadian flag is now blown down

Video from Hans Island ( 2003 ) http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/Videoklip/Flaghejsning.htm

Memoirs of Hans Hendrik, the Danish arctic traveller http://ve.tpl.toronto.on.ca/frozen_ocean/north_hendrik_memoirs.htm

I still say cut it in half... That way staff from the worlds most Northern Timmy Hortons could visit the worlds most Northern Legoland. And vice versa!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Monsoon on September 22, 2005, 12:51:36
Perhaps the Canadian Coast Guard should be absorbed by the Naval Reserve.  Comments?
There wouldn't be much point to integrating the Coast Guard and the Navy.  The Coast Guard does a good job of what it does - why force it to adapt to the Navy and vice versa?  If you mean the reserves should take the lead in coastal surveillance, then I do agree with you.  In reality that's already happening - Kingston class ships manned by reservists have been the primary means of sovereignty patrol for many years, and the new reserve-only Maritime Intelligence trade has an integral role to play with the new MSOCs and at both coastal intelligence centers in terms of collating the domestic Recognized Maritime Picture.  Ultimately it will always be the RCMP going out and arresting the bad guys, whether they carried by a Coast Guard ship or a Navy ship, but they will be directed by intelligence gathered from many sources and put compiled by reservists.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on September 23, 2005, 09:27:18
Quote
Canada, Denmark agree to disagree over tiny Arctic island
Countries see possible future shipping, fishing value in disputed territory

Jim Bronskill
The Canadian Press
September 19, 2005


OTTAWA -- Canada and Denmark will call a truce today in the war of words over disputed Hans Island, a patch of Arctic rock each country claims as its own.

Insiders say Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and his Danish counterpart, Per Stig Moller, plan to announce in New York that the two countries will draft a protocol for managing their dealings over the tiny island.

The ministers are at the United Nations for the organization's 60th-anniversary summit.

They had previously signalled plans to discuss the Hans Island issue on the summit sidelines. But officials of the two countries have since arrived at an agreement intended to contain -- if not immediately resolve -- the territorial quarrel.

Neither Canada nor Denmark intends to renounce its claim to sovereignty over the windswept outcrop, meaning they have effectively agreed to disagree about ownership.

Uninhabited Hans Island, the size of several city blocks, sits in the Kennedy Channel of Nares Strait between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Greenland, which is controlled by Denmark.

The longstanding dispute now moves from the political arena to the realm of bureaucrats, who will develop a set of mutually agreed rules.

Defence Minister Bill Graham rankled Danish officials by making an unannounced stop on Hans Island during a trip to the Arctic in July. The visit, which received considerable attention in the Canadian media, touched off a diplomatic dustup between the NATO allies.

The Danish government made it clear to Canada's ambassador in Copenhagen that it frowned upon Graham's move.

In a similar vein, Canada had formally protested the planting of Danish flags on Hans Island in 1984, 1988 and 2004.

One source close to the negotiations said the disagreement is solely about national sovereignty.

Canada insists the quarrel is not about the surrounding waters, noting the boundaries of the continental shelf between Ellesmere Island and Greenland were agreed upon in 1973.

There has been widespread speculation, however, that there is much more at stake -- such as claims over northern fishing grounds or future access to the Northwest Passage, particularly should global warming make the route more viable.

Earlier this month, Moller told the Danish parliament's foreign policy committee he expected a peaceful resolution to the disagreement with Canada.

Moller noted during the committee hearing that a Canadian flag hoisted on the island had been knocked down by the bitter winds.

"How do I know that? We're monitoring the island, of course. It's a part of Danish territory."

Quote
Hans rock fight goes on -- nicely
The Canadian Press
Tuesday, September 20, 2005


UNITED NATIONS - Canada and Denmark, still deadlocked over Hans Island, pledged Monday to behave like mature countries as they try to resolve the dispute over the speck of Arctic rock claimed by both sides.

"We have agreed this morning that we would both inform one another of any activity we would do around Hans Island," Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said after meeting for an hour with his Danish counterpart, Per Stig Moeller in New York.

"We will show restraint in order to avoid unnecessary incidents and escalation," the Danish minister said.

Visits to the uninhabited island by personnel from the two sides, including an unannounced drop-in by Defence Minister Bill Graham in July, have stirred diplomatic protests between the two capitals over the years.

Hans Island, only several city blocks in size, is between Canada's Ellesmere Island and Danish-controlled Greenland.

The two ministers agreed to have their officials come up with recommendations on how to "put this issue behind us," Pettigrew said.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on September 24, 2005, 10:42:46
Quote
..Danish-controlled Greenland..
What? :o That's totally offensive! Greenland is a Danish island and thereby Denmark!... just like Hans Island ;D
http://mrdenmark.blogspot.com/


A joint satement from US-controlled New York
http://www.rejsernu.dk/shownews.php?id=6108&PHPSESSID=a173ea14bd9e2579b856a819f7219e6a
Quote
JOINT STATEMENT

SEPTEMBER 19, 2005, NEW YORK

We, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, Pierre S. Pettigrew, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Per Stig Møller, met today, September 19, 2005, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, in New York, to reaffirm our excellent, long-standing bilateral relations as friends, allies and Arctic neighbours. The Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs was accompanied by the Deputy Premier of Greenland, Josef Motzfeldt. Mr. Larry Bagnell, Member of Parliament for the Yukon, accompanied Minister Pettigrew.

Together, we reviewed many of the issues which will be addressed at this General Assembly and on which we are close partners, including climate change, effective multilateralism, transatlantic relations, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. We also took note of the upcoming 60th anniversary this December of the establishment of our diplomatic relations.

We have much in common, and we have worked together over many years in advancing the welfare of the Arctic region and its peoples. Through the Arctic Council and other means, we already collaborate closely on challenges facing the Arctic and the North, such as climate change, resource extraction and transport. We also expressed our satisfaction at the recent launch of our joint project to map the seabed of the Arctic Ocean.

We acknowledge that we hold very different views on the question of the sovereignty of Hans Island. This is a territorial dispute which has persisted since the early 1970s, when agreement was reached on the maritime boundary between Canada and Greenland. We underscore that this issue relates only to the island as such, and has no impact on that agreement.

Firmly committed as we are to the peaceful resolution of disputes, including territorial disputes, we consistently support this principle here at the United Nations, and around the world. To this end, we will continue our efforts to reach a long-term solution to the Hans Island dispute. Our officials will meet again in the near future to discuss ways to resolve the matter, and will report back to Ministers on their progress.

While we pursue these efforts, we have decided that, without prejudice to our respective legal claims, we will inform each other of activities related to Hans Island. Likewise, all contact by either side with Hans Island will be carried out in a low key and restrained manner.

We will continue to pursue our common goal of ensuring the sustainable development of the Arctic region to the benefit of all, and in the tradition of cooperation in the region between our scientists we will explore the feasibility of joint scientific projects on or in the area of Hans Island. Such projects might fall within the research being planned in the context of the International Polar Year 2007-08.

So now there's no flags raised on the island. And the Island will be almost impossible to reach for the next 9 months. Canada is buying satelites and denmark is buying new ships...
Is this the beginning of a small ( very small ) new cold ( very cold ) war? ::)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Bert on September 24, 2005, 12:57:36
Pfc_Norup, I'd recommend you visit Thule AFB sometime.  Walk up along the ridges towards
the water and look out.  This will provide enough perspective to understand how ridiculous
the Hans Island issue is due to the close proximity of Ellesmere Island and Greenland.  The
strait isn't that wide.  Anything that occurs in the region will effect both countries from
multi-natonal resource gathering to soverignty incursions.  This may be a concern of both
parties due to the width of the strait and a possible marine territorial control zone around the
island establishd by the country that controls it.  This doesn't lead to a cold war, but definitely
we can see both governments are actively discussing the larger issue.  Also, Hans Island isn't
really a rock.  Its more like a mound of gravel.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: George Wallace on September 24, 2005, 13:04:54
So Bert, you are saying that this mound of gravel may in fact be a "Navigational Hazard"?   Perhaps we should get together with Denmark and the rest of NATO and have a Joint Exercise where we mine the Island and blow it up in order to clear the Channel for shipping.   ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: ArmyVern on September 24, 2005, 13:06:22
No need to spend your hard earned funds to get there to see the very "scenic" islands we speak of. I've been there...done that...

View a nice pic here:

http://www.thule.af.mil/ (http://www.thule.af.mil/)

 ;)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on September 24, 2005, 19:55:16
"I still say cut it in half... That way staff from the worlds most Northern Timmy Hortons could visit the worlds most Northern Legoland. And vice versa!"

- Lego and tim Horton's... a guy could retire there.  My wife and I drove up to Billund from Lahr to visit the REAL Legoland in 1992.  Lots of fun.

- Saying "Danish-controlled Greenland" is tasteless. That is like saying "Canadian-controlled Baffin Island." 

Tom
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: kelly874 on September 25, 2005, 18:30:07
Have to put my two cents in on this issue.  With regards to northern sovereignty, retaining control of the arctic is crucial for Canada, as any rampant development or exploitation of resources will affect our environment the most. Army and airforce excercises are effective at asserting our control over the region, but the frequency with which they would be required would make the cost prohibitive.  Can you imagine the expense of daily fly-arounds across the arctic, or the cost of creating and maintaining several army bases, and finding the guys/gals who would want to serve up there? It would be far too expensive to maintain a constant army/airforce presence in the north that would actually give legitimacy to our claim on the north.  This is where the navy comes in. Our current navy, however, it not equipped for arctic duties. What we need are NUCLEAR SUBS. If the conservatives had bought a dozen SSNs like they were talking about 15 years ago, arctic sovereignty would not even be an issue.  Fact of the matter is that a nuclear sub requires anywhere from a quarter to a third of the crew of a CPF, can go ANYWHERE in the arctic without having to worry about breaking ice all the way, can remain submerged and undetected for months at a time, and have the capability to not only defend itself but confront any vessel entering our waters unauthorized.  Submarines are the most cost-effective method of patrolling the north, and if we had a fleet of a dozen Trafalgars or Los Angeles class SSNs we would truly be a force to be reckoned with. Of course, if the government had any interest in our long-term claims to the arctic they would have went ahead with the subs years ago. Without nuclear subs, we will never maintain our control of the north.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: George Wallace on September 25, 2005, 18:40:52
Well....kelly874....you'll need a little more than two cents for that proposal.   :o
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 25, 2005, 18:46:58
Considering we don't even have the budget for a dozen SSNs, lets work with what we have and stop thinking in fantasy terms.

AIP (Air Independant Propulsion) is a more realistic approach for our navy not to mention more economical.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: kelly874 on September 26, 2005, 11:35:42
Yeah, SSNs are expensive  :'( , although I do believe that the problem lies not so much with the money as it does with the political will and public opinion, much along the lines of Ex-Dragoon's post about the Canadian public's attitude toward defense spending on major items. :crybaby: I must admit that I do not know anything about AIP other than what I looked up in the last half hour after reading the last post, although if it is possible to extend the endurance of a diesel electric than it could very well be worthwhile to look into AIP as an option.  The main reason why I say SSNs are the best are because of their endurance. With diesels we'd almost have to make a base up north where they could re-supply and do maintenance in order to keep them in the field as long as possible.  Even then we'd need more than the four Victorias that we've got - at any rate, I do feel very strongly that subs should be the lynchpin of our northern sovereignty strategy.  :cdn:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: BillN on September 26, 2005, 11:39:39
Well, we can always do what the Danes do.  Nothing like beating them at their own game  ;)

THE SIRIUS SLEDGE PATROL

By Palle Norrit , former manager of the Patrolservice , North and Northeast Greenland

What is the SIRIUS sledge patrol?

It is a defence unit that was created in 1950 under administration of the Danish Defence Command. In 1994 it was placed under control of the Admiral Danish Fleet. SIRIUS is comprised of 14 soldiers. Twelve are stationed in the patrol at Daneborg and 2 are located at the Defence guard in Mestersvig.

Assignments:

a) To maintain Danish sovereignty in North and North East Greenland.
b) Police authority the Northeast Greenland National Park, which is the worlds largest.
c) Conduct military surveillance over 160,000 square kilometres by dog sledge.

Where is SIRIUS located?

The main SIRIUS station is at Daneborg (74 degrees N) in North East Greenland. Until 1974 there was a Danish civilian weather station at the same location. For four months in the spring and for two months in the fall, 6 sledge teams, consisting of 2 men, 11 dogs and 1 sledge each, patrol North and North East Greenland. In summer, about 65 depots are laid out by the patrol itself for the coming winters' sled journeys. Depot lying is carried out by cutters, planes and helicopters.

How does the sledging work?

Early in the fall, the sled teams build their own sledges and fabricate all the bags and boxes, which are being used on the sled journey. When there is sufficient snow, or when fjord ice is thick enough, training trips are conducted. Real patrol journeys start in early November. An average day's march is approximately 30 km, but these very greatly depending upon conditions. Primarily the patrol overnights in tents, but there are 65 huts maintained for SIRIUS use.
 
Who can be part of SIRIUS?

In June through August of every year, any male officers or non commissioned officers in Danish service between age 20 and 30 may can apply. Applicants are selected following several interviews and psychological tests.

How long is the service at SIRIUS?

After selection for SIRIUS, pre-school students start preparation for their upcoming service in January. Pre-school extends until the first of July, and around July 20 the SIRIUS men go to North East Greenland. There they will serve for two continuous years.

Facts & Numbers

The sled patrol is under command of the  Admiral Danish Fleet stationed in Ã…rhus. From here the patrol is managed by the Patrol Branch North and North East Greenland (PNG), which is stationed at Naval station Auderød (Also basic training station for sailors). People in active service in PNG are all former members of SIRIUS. The main field headquarters of SIRIUS is at Daneborg (74 degrees N). There is an additional support station at ELLA Ø in Kong Oscars Fjord. (72 degrees N). This station is only active in summer, when 4-6 SIRIUS members live there and are busy laying out depots by boat.

During summer, various levels of SIRIUS members are present. These include personnel that are about to return to Denmark after 2 years service, ones that have a year to remain and then recently arrived men who are starting their 2 years of service. In addition, 3 or more people from PNG are present, helping with many logistical activities during the short summer period.

In addition to the 12 men stationed at Daneborg, PNG has 2 former members of the patrol stationed at the former mining airport at Mestersvig (260 km south of Daneborg). These 2 men are part of the SIRIUS surveillance and radio service and also maintaining the airport runway and 10 large buildings.
During the summer about 30 research and pleasure expeditions visit the National Park. Each must obtain special permits from the Greenland Government and SIRIUS controls them.

SIRIUS patrols the world's biggest National Park with an operation area of 160.000 km2  (about three times the size of Denmark).

During the 54 years that SIRIUS has been operational, more than 750.000 km have been patrolled on dog sled. In the same period, cutters in association with depot lying have traversed more than 100.000 nautical miles.

SIRIUS is scheduled for one supply ship visit per year. However, two years of supplies are always maintained on hand because of the chance that the ship will not be able to navigate through coastal ice in a season.

About 150 hours of flying are used for depot lying each year.

About 30 tons of supplies are yearly transported out to the 65 sled depots.

SIRIUS maintains about 65 of the 350 cabins, which are located in the National Park.

SIRIUS has build 34 of the cabins being used for depots and workshops at Daneborg where the average yearly temperature is - 10 degrees. VENSLEV HYTTER designed the cabins specifically for use in North East Greenland. The cabins are prefabricated in sections, and SIRIUS men can build one in about 50 work hours.

The yearly precipitation is about 200 mm in south and about 100 mm in north. For comparison the precipitation in Denmark is about 600 mm in April through June. Measured wind speed in the area is up to about 125 knots (64 knots is hurricane) The lowest temperature ever recorded in the area is minus 55 degrees.

About 260 officers have served duty at SIRIUS. Calorie consumption for men is about 7000 per day and about 5000 per day for dogs. The average time of service for a SIRIUS dog is 5 years. Only the ones NOT run-out are allowed to live on after their 5th year, and in that case they are distributed between Station North, Danmarkshavn and Mestersvig.   SIRIUS breeds their own dogs. The optimal dog is shorthaired with erect ears, "square", long legged, with a weight between 40 and 50 kg. By the time a dog is retired it will likely have travelled more than 20,000 km in a sled team.

Only 27 people over winter in North East Greenland; 2 at Mestersvig, 12 at Daneborg, 8 at the civilian weather station Danmarkshavn and 5 at the military base Station North.

The nearest settlement to the National Park is Scoresbysund, situated about 500 km south of Daneborg.
There are about 110 dogs in the National Park, about 80 belong to SIRIUS.

Daneborg consists of 23 buildings.  SIRIUS has 4 generators, each of which can deliver between 150 and 250 KWA. About 180,000 litres of oil are consumed each year at the station. The oil along with 300 tons of supplies is transported by ship from Denmark. Christmas presents are dropped by parachute at full moon in December.

All fresh water consumed during winter is produced through reverse osmosis of salt water. SIRIUS can make up to 3 tons pr day.

There are no support workers at the patrol. Everything is maintained SIRIUS members.
The average SIRIUS salary is 22000 DKK pr. month (after Greenlandic tax).

SIRIUS helps support scientific investigations through such activities as animal and bird census and banding. Logistical support also is often provided for scientific expeditions in the area.
The total yearly costs for SIRIUS and Mestersvig including salaries, transport (flights, boat & travels), maintenance, equipment, human food, dog food, fuel, etc is about 15 million DKK.  This amount corresponds to 93,75 DKK pr Km2. 

History

In 1721 Hans Egede, a Danish-Norwegian priest arrived in Greenland and went ashore at Godthåb (present name is Nuuk the current capital of Greenland). Even after his visit the east coast of Greenland remained remote and basically unexplored. Contact with the native population was limited, even though there are many stories about meetings between the Inuit and both expeditions and whalers. Along the central and northeast coast of Greenland, native inhabitants were first (and last) seen by Captain Clavering on the south cost of the island that now bears his name (at 74 degrees north). The reasons for their disappearance are uncertain, and my ideas have been proposed. These include disease introduced through contact with European whales and explorers, and a decrease in food stocks as a result of the loss of caribou due to major climate changes
.
In the years 1883-1885, Gustav Holm was in charge of an expedition, which started in South Greenland and headed north along the east coast in a small native, skin-covered boat (a umiak). He found an eskimo tribe near the present site of Ammassalik (Angmagssalik), but none were sighted any farther north. The Danmark ekspeditionen of 1906 -1908, led by Ludvig Mylius-Erichsen, mapped the last unknown parts of North East Greenland. Tragically, both Ludvig Mylius-Erichsen, the cartographer N.P.Høeg Hagen and the Greenlandic catechist Jørgen Brønlund (1907) froze to death. In late years explorations by Lauge Koch, Einar Mikkelsen and Eigil Knuth were carried out and the first systematic scientific investigation of northeast Greenland was undertaken.

In 1814, after signing of a joint agreement of peace in Kiel, Denmark and Norway were granted individual national status. In the latter part of the 1800's and early 1900's, Norwegian sealers and whalers began to hunt off the northeast Greenland coast. And beginning in 1901-02, began to over winter there. This resulted in a conflict of sovereignty between Denmark and Norway over the region. The International Court of Arbitration at the Haag finally resolved this conflict on April 5, 1933 when Denmark was granted sovereignty of all of Greenland The last agreement regarding hunting in the area was established in 1924 and expired in 1967. Since that time, Norwegians have been required to apply officially for permission to visit the National Park.

North East Greenland is part of the Danish Kingdom and it is the e obligation of Denmark to maintain sovereignty by a permanent presence and a will and ability to be present in the entire area. During the Second World War, Denmark succeeded, with help from among others the United States, in keeping Greenland within Al laid control. With an extraordinary effort from Henrik Kaufmann (the Danish ambassador in the U.S.), Eske Bruun, Ib Poulsen, Eigil Knuth and Ebbe Munck among others, Germany failed to establish any viable meteorology or observational stations in northeast Greenland.  Eske Bruun established dog sled patrols under the command of Ib Poulsen, which in the beginning of the 1940's patrolled and located German weather stations and later effected their destruction. The patrol was based in the headquarters at Ella Ø, which had been built by Cartographer Lauge Koch, when he was mapping Northern Greenland earlier in the century.

Denmark did not want to create any situations that could appear militarily provocative to other nations, therefore during the period until the 1950's, only weather and direction stations were established along Greenland northeast coast. Then the Marine Command suggested occupation of the coast the first steps to organize the SIRIUS patrol were undertaken. The project were called" OPERATION RESOLUT" and members were recruited from officers in the Danish Defence Unit. Later, in 1952, the sled patrol RESOLUT was officially established and the headquarters was moved from ELLA Ø to Daneborg. However, a Canadian weather station w as already located at  "Resolute Bay" existed, so to prevent misunderstandings, the patrol was in 1953 renamed to the Sled patrol SIRIUS. The name SIRIUS was taken from the brightest star in the dog constellation ("The great dog").

Sledging & Patrolling

SIRIUS sledge dogs originally come from "the Greenlandic dog", but through careful cross breeding, SIRIUS has produced a heavier and stronger dog. It is kind and loves sledging. Puppies are allowed to roam around on their own until they reach "the teen age", when they are then chained up as the other dogs, ready to start sledging when the autumn journey starts.

The sled is being build by the patrol members; one week is set aside per team. In this fashion any officer will be able to fix his sled if it breaks while patrolling.  The sled runners are made of waterproof plywood or ash wood, which are reinforced, with 15 mm of nylon band on the sliding band and the floorboards are made of unknotted ash wood. Everything is tied together with nylon line, so that the sled can move more over rugged terrain and remain "flexible". Each sled weights about 80 kg and can carry a load of up to 400 kg. Loaded sledges are pulled by 11 dogs, each of which weights from 35- 50 kg.
Besides building sledges, sled drivers also fabricates harnesses, traces, dog chains, necklaces, bags, boxes and other equipment, which is individual for each sled.  The conditions in the patrols' surveillance area are remote, harsh and unforgiving: people patrolling here must always be very alert. There are extremely cold winter temperatures, storms with the strength of a hurricane and great amounts of snow. In addition, polar bear, musk oxen and wolves need to be taken seriously at all times. This is why a sled team is always comprised of a "new" and an "old" SIRIUS member. In that way the "old " can train the "new" to act correctly under all circumstances.

SIRIUS men must be able to drive dogs in all kinds of weather; from deep snow to smooth ice, over 10-15 m high ice packs, places with no snow or ice, through frozen rivers and passes with rise and fall of 20-30 %. The visibility varies from totally "white out" conditions, where there is only a compass or GPS for navigation, to more than 100 km, where a1: 1.000.000 scale map gives a brilliant view.

Following a day of patrol, each SIRIUS team member must prepare for the night by erecting a tent and carefully stowing all gear such as radio, sleeping bags, food supplies, primus, and clothes. Then the dogs must be fed and everything secured. When sleeping in a tent, one must also construct a snow bank around the tent, for security against stormy weather. During the night, the dogs must be checked several times, so when you've been sledging the whole day (6-10 hours) you really need the sleep you can get. However this must follow the cooking, radio connection with DNB, diary writing and patrol view writing / reporting.

A sled team generally drives about 4,000 km in a season. In the 54 years of SIRIUS operation, more than 750,000 km have been sledged, which is more than 16 times around Earth's equator! More than 260 sled drivers have served two years in this honoured and historic organization.

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: geo on September 26, 2005, 12:47:29
Hmmm....
between the troops who are stationed in Alert  (1956)
the Inuit we have "marooned" up in Grise Fjord (1953)
and the extensive Canadian Rangers  organisation we have built up (since 1947).... think we have em beat
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Pfc_Norup on September 26, 2005, 19:56:35
TV2.dk Sirius 2000 guide: http://kronprinsen.tv2.dk/hkhkronprinsen/sirius/40/index.html - Pictures, maps and anecdotes from the 2000 Expedition ( in Danish ), when the Danish Crown Prince ( also a member of the Danish Special Forces http://forsvaret.dk/fkp ) went on the patrol.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on September 27, 2005, 12:09:29
Considering we don't even have the budget for a dozen SSNs, lets work with what we have and stop thinking in fantasy terms.

AIP (Air Independant Propulsion) is a more realistic approach for our navy not to mention more economical.

.....speaking of which Ex, has anyone in the navy been talking about the deal the Indians just cut for (6) brand new Scorpene's with MESMA for $2.0 billion USD?

Of the fact the Germans then tried to underbid that with the U214, which was only disqualified because the Indian's wanted an anti-shipping missile and whilst the Scorpene has exocet, the U214 has none?




Matthew.     :salute:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on September 30, 2005, 13:46:35
Me and a pal of mine from our unit volunteered for the new patrol sometime in Feb 2006. It's suppose to be approximately 3weeks to 1 month long. It's an "Arctic Soverignty Patrol".... That is all I know about it... That and it's damn cold.

Anyone here ever been on one and could shed some light for me? Or have any tips? Is it a bag drive or sort of fun? I hate in-betweens, example:

"We're tactical and this is war boyz, but we won't have any patrols tonight, and there'll be no manned posts".... If it's war, we'd have those...

I like it to either be full-blown switched on crap, or lax. In between is just stupid.

Anyway, any tips or info anyone has on this would be very much appreciated since my unit has no info for me and I don't even know the name of this OP!

Joe
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 30, 2005, 13:51:37
.....speaking of which Ex, has anyone in the navy been talking about the deal the Indians just cut for (6) brand new Scorpene's with MESMA for $2.0 billion USD?

Of the fact the Germans then tried to underbid that with the U214, which was only disqualified because the Indian's wanted an anti-shipping missile and whilst the Scorpene has exocet, the U214 has none?




Matthew.     :salute:

No one in my circles...the submariners I know are too concerned with getting the Victoria's up and running to worry about that at the moment.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 0tto Destruct on December 06, 2005, 22:14:25
Me and a pal of mine from our unit volunteered for the new patrol sometime in Feb 2006. It's suppose to be approximately 3weeks to 1 month long. It's an "Arctic Soverignty Patrol".... That is all I know about it... That and it's damn cold.

Anyone here ever been on one and could shed some light for me? Or have any tips? Is it a bag drive or sort of fun? I hate in-betweens, example:

"We're tactical and this is war boyz, but we won't have any patrols tonight, and there'll be no manned posts".... If it's war, we'd have those...

I like it to either be full-blown switched on crap, or lax. In between is just stupid.

Anyway, any tips or info anyone has on this would be very much appreciated since my unit has no info for me and I don't even know the name of this OP!

Joe

You'll be spending most of your time either travelling, sleeping, or working your arse off to stay alive. Its a harsh environment to operate in, Believe me. Soverignty patrols are not normally "tactical" in the Southern (read: Temperate) sense. No shellscrapes, no rangecards, nothing like that. They're pretty much a travel from 'A' to 'B' type thing. The whole idea being that we can show the flag and get there if we have to. OPERATION KIGLIQAQVIK is the name of the SOVPATs they conduct there.

I have to say its odd that 1CRPG/CFNA would put a callout for reservists to participate in that type of training. Normally sovereignty patrols consist of Canadian Rangers and Ranger Instructors, who are all cbt arms snr NCOs and usually advanced winter warfare qualified. Dragging somebody along on a SOVPAT without a significant amount of experience or at least workup trg sounds like a fantastic way to get someone killed. I heard that LFCA was conducting an exercise in the north at some point in the new year...is that what you are referring to?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: geo on December 07, 2005, 17:47:53
LFQA is also looking at running a combined ops ex with Rangers & Reserves.
Coy of Inf, Tp of Sappers, some med, sigs, Recce types and a whole bunch of Rangers to supervise the "real cold" indoc. This could be fun
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: 0tto Destruct on December 07, 2005, 23:37:50
Sounds like a hoot...once you've used a 'thunderbucket' in -40 you cannever go back. ;)


Moon farmer: "It gets down to -173 here on the moon."
Fry: "Fahrenheit, or Celsius?" 
Farmer: "First one, then the other." 
Futurama - One small step for man, one giant hole in history
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: ambex on December 12, 2005, 00:37:17
Here is a quote that would seam to indicate that the countries with the best original (finders) claim would be the US and the UK.

"The island is supposedly named after Hans Hendrik (sometimes called Heindrich), whose native name is Suersaq. Hendrik was a Greenlandic arctic traveller and translator who worked on the American and British arctic expeditions of Elisha Kent Kane, Charles Francis Hall, Isaac Israel Hayes and George Strong Nares, from 1853 to 1876." - wikipedia

Personally I think that this is a "pissing match", both of our countries have alot of land in the arctic that is very difficult to monitor and keep control of and we will both undoubtedly have to deal with much bigger issues later on. Think about it, when the North West Passage opens up those same tankers crossing Canada's seas will also be crossing by Denmark's seas on the way too and from Europe. Now Iam thinking that with both Canada and Denmark working together we would have a much better chance of getting our way in the end.

We should either blow up the island, draw a line down the middle or make it into some sort of Can/Den peace park. After this we have to make a joint statement saying that our (Canada and Denmark's) waters are ours and when you are in them you follow our rules.

Naturally Canada would have to step up its northern presence; continue to support the Rangers, get some subs that we can actually use up there, establish small automated monitoring stations and get some kingston class ships modified so they can icebreak.   
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: missing1 on December 22, 2005, 16:28:17
The US better be careful, Martin has warned we will not put up with their infringement of our country and will do all in his power to stop it.  ??? :-X :tsktsk:

Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: CanadianBoy92(banned) on December 22, 2005, 20:24:58
The sub should have been destroyed or escorted out of canadian territory no questions asked.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: condor888000 on December 22, 2005, 20:30:38
The sub should have been destroyed or escorted out of canadian territory no questions asked.

Yeah cause destroying an american sub is so easy and when we managed that, we wouldn't find ourselves with an international incident on our hands. No holes in that plan at all. ::)
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: George Wallace on December 22, 2005, 20:35:45
How do you tow a sub that you just destroyed?
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: North Star on December 22, 2005, 20:49:12
Lol...ah, the old sub problem. What do you do if you find one in your waters? Destroy it? That only causes too much of a problem. Tell everybody? Then you look weak because it's in your waters to begin with. Ping it over and over? Seems the only good thing in between the two extremes- makes the crew know they're being watched, and the sub's owner will know you're serious.

The Conservative idea for a new Arctic sensor system (which made the Globe today) does seem to be a good one, as the nature of the threat in the North has changed. However, this system will need to be backed up by rapid reaction forces that can reach the problem area in time as sensors alone are useless. The Liberal plan right now seems to be simply hoping people will respect our Arctic sovereignty because "we say so". It's a policy that's doomed to failure as we've seen with US, Danish, and French activities in the high north.

I'm not saying we need a war footing up there, but we need something with teeth that can show up at the right place and time, and have the potential to put "a little stick about" should the need arise.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Fishbone Jones on December 22, 2005, 21:45:27
As someone once said, every country has an army â ” either its own or somebody else's. If we cannot protect the front door to North America, the Americans feel they have to, and I don't blame them. I don't look at it as an "Invasion of Sovereignty" more like a "Neighbourhood Watch" that we are to unskilled/ cheap/ ill equipped/ lazy to participate in. Nope, don't blame them a bit, and as long as it's them and not someone else surfacing there, so be it.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: CanadianBoy92(banned) on December 23, 2005, 01:01:23
Ya, i agree my last post on this topic was stupid.  But I'm still wondering what the reason was that the Americans wanted to come here in the first place.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Code5 on December 23, 2005, 01:13:37
Quote
Ya, i agree my last post on this topic was stupid.  But I'm still wondering what the reason was that the Americans wanted to come here in the first place.

To prove that they can and that there is absolutely nothing we can do about. 
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Koenigsegg on December 23, 2005, 01:19:23
-   Well, one reason that I can see, because they can.   
-   Our defense under the water is to say the least, lacking.   
-   They seem to think they are allowed, and are entitled to the ability to do so, as they are THE superpower, and the "policing force".
-   In some cases they are still in Cold War mode using subs as their international fist.   They send subs into Russian waters as well.   
-   We dont do an outstanding job of protecting or watery/icy north so they are "assisting" us in that way.
Just a few very basic reasons, in my opinion, on top of Sheerins'
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Fishbone Jones on December 23, 2005, 01:22:09
Like I said, someone's going to do it. It might as well be them. We really have no say in the matter as our milquetoast government hasn't got the cajones to do the job themselves.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: CanadianBoy92(banned) on December 23, 2005, 01:24:26
I see.  You guys all make a good point.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Koenigsegg on December 23, 2005, 01:28:20
I would prefer them lurking around up there more than the Russians, or the Chinese (not a racist comment, but one of the country, and views of their government).
They do it too, but the Americanas do it more.
The Americans, as of now, wish us no harm (directly). Where as the Chinese would be thinking "Hmmm, this would be a good way to get our foot in the door when the **** hits the fan" (in oriental voice).
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: steve-o on December 23, 2005, 03:20:10
I don't understand what the big deal is if Americans are patrolling our arctic waters - they are our allies! Is this going to be some stupid standoff like the Hans Island incident with the Danes? Just sounds like some lame Conservativ rhetoric trying to stoke up anger. Maybe they should have said please though! :dontpanic:
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: CanadianBoy92(banned) on December 24, 2005, 02:17:07
We should have bought nuclear subs to be able to scout our waters ourselves, instead of getting those run down British ones.  I think our government looked for a band aid solution and found it.
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 27, 2005, 13:24:35
From the source that S_Baker provided:
All archipelagic waters within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state like Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered internal waters.
Should this also not apply to Canada as well?
Title: US sub sails under Canadian arctic ice
Post by: Thucydides on December 29, 2005, 01:47:07
Canada has a long history of protesting incursions into the Arctic, but not doing anything about it. The issue allows the PM to make his "get tough with the Yankees" speech to keep the anti-American crowd Liberal rather than NDP, but other than that....

Should so called Global Warming allow ships to transit the Northwest passage, look for the first effective Canadian response (i.e. ability to have a physical presence and take active measures) to come AFTER the first Chinese or Korean container ship runs aground and dumps oil into the Arctic Ocean....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: ErorZ on January 26, 2006, 23:12:40
I was reading up on a few things and though this was interesting and I found myself asking myself even more questions a seen at the end of my post.

In the reproduction of the 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada
http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html

It mentions "Its northern boundary crosses the Arctic archipelago"

This bring up two points... if anyone thinks these a revelant and worth discussing.
- What is meant by crosses ? Fully encompassing the arctic Archipelago ?
- If all archipelagic waters are considered internal waters, as previously stated, would this indicate the US recognition in 1935 that the Northwest passage is indeed Canadian Waters ?


Is this even revelant ? How would a international court rule, what information would they use ? That the area was transfered from British colonial authority to the Dominion of Canada in 1894 ? What legal documents would they use, would showing examples of other countries in the past saying directly or indirectly that these waters are Canadian make a difference ?
Title: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on August 14, 2006, 00:52:12
Reproduced under the Fair dealings Act.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155470046623&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Harper vows defence of Arctic
Aug. 13, 2006. 10:55 PM
DENE MOORE
CANADIAN PRESS

IQALUIT, Nunavut — The world has taken notice of the vast economic potential of the Far North, and it is vital that Canada demonstrate its sovereignty over the rich waters off its Arctic coast, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Harper returned Sunday from a short stay in the northernmost community in the world, the remote military outpost in Alert, Nunavut, on the northern tip of Ellesmere Island.
The remote base is the most visible sign of Canada’s sovereignty over waters up to 200 nautical miles off the northern coast, he said.

“Sovereignty over one’s territory is not a theoretical concept,” Harper told military personnel on the base Sunday. “It is earned and it is retained by being present, by having planes in the air, ships in the sea, and most importantly, boots on the ground.
“You either use it or you lose it.”
There are vast natural resources in the North and Canada is not the only nation to have noticed, Harper said.

“It’s no exaggeration to say that the need to assert our sovereignty and take action to protect our territorial integrity in the Arctic has never been more urgent,” the prime minister said during a speech in front of the Nunavut legislature on Saturday, the first day of his first visit to the northern territories.
A high-profile military exercise in the Beaufort Sea has just wrapped up, and another in the eastern Arctic, Operation Lancaster, is getting underway.

Harper said lax enforcement by previous governments allowed foreign vessels to enter those waters without the permission or even awareness of Canadian officials.
U.S. government vessels have made at least three incursions into the Northwest Passage without informing Canada, most recently in 1995, when a U.S. navy submarine traversed the waters.
Canada’s southern neighbour has not ratified the international Law of the Sea, which recognizes a 200-nautical-mile, or 370-kilometre, exclusive economic zone off a country’s coast.

“Any such voyage represents a potential threat to Canadian safety and security,” Harper said over the weekend. “We always need to know who is in our waters and why they are there.”
To that end, the Conservative government has promised increased military spending in the Far North, as well as a deep-sea port.

Some scientists believe that in as little as a decade, global warming could open the northern shipping route linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to year-round traffic.
While some nations would like the northern waters to be international, falling under the jurisdiction of no specific country, Harper said the Arctic is no different than the Atlantic or Pacific, where Canada’s 200-mile limit is undisputed.

There is also major potential for oil and gas exploitation in the Arctic offshore.
Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik welcomed Harper’s approach.
“It could have a major impact on our territory if there were unregulated shipping activity happening in the Northwest Passage,” Okalik said after meeting with Harper over the weekend. “We would have no way of controlling what took place if that were determined to be international waters. That’s a real concern.”

But the territory is just as interested in the infrastructure that could accompany an increased military presence.
“I’d love to see more infrastructure so we can stimulate our economy in terms of mineral development and oil and gas,” Okalik said.

Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, said the lack of a federal government presence in the past has made the region vulnerable to claims from other nations.
“It’s a large territory,” Smith said. “They have to demonstrate that Canada is using the area in the first place.”

But he urged Ottawa to balance military initiatives with social spending to ease the critical social issues facing the Inuit, a people whose presence in the Far North has maintained Canada’s claim to the territory.

Title: Re: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: CanadaPhil on August 16, 2006, 12:16:41
I just heard a report that a Canadian group has been granted 5 year mineral & other exploration rights to the disputed Hans Island by the Federal government.

I know that small military expeditions from both Denmark & Canada have visited this very small barren rock in the past to "show the flag"

I wonder if this may cause some diplomatic incident with the Danes.
Title: Re: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: CanadaPhil on August 16, 2006, 12:23:53
Here is a link to the CASR website with some interesting articles on the Canada/Denmark Arctic issue.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking.htm
Title: Re: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: Centurian1985 on August 16, 2006, 16:16:08
No doubt it will cause frowns on the Danish side.

I find the continued concept of sovereignty in the Arctic fascinating.   Its been kicked around for years but until now no one has taken a stab at actually doing it. My biggest questions are "who is going to be the poor ******* posted there?" and "what is our operational readiness deadline"? 
Title: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: RL206 on August 20, 2006, 18:16:16
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060820.warcticc0820/BNStory/National/home (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060820.warcticc0820/BNStory/National/home)
Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
BOB WEBER

Canadian Press

Dundas Harbour, Nunavut — Canadian soldiers, sailors, air crews and police officers gathered on one of the remotest points in the country on the weekend to project their nation's sovereignty over the Arctic into the future and pay tribute to those who guarded it in the past.

“It's an honour to be up here doing this,” said RCMP Const. David Lawson, brushing a coat of fresh white paint on the picket fence surrounding the graves of two brother officers who died 80 years ago while posted to this rocky shoreline high above the Arctic Circle.

The work crew was dispatched to Dundas Harbour on Devon Island as part of Operation Lancaster, the Navy's first mission to the disputed Northwest Passage in more than a generation.

Over the course of the 12-day exercise, soldiers landed on surf-pounded beaches and sailors fired across the bow of a Coast Guard icebreaker to practise boarding techniques. The frigate HMCS Montreal patrolled the crystalline waters with the smaller HMCS Goose Bay and Moncton while icebergs drifted majestically by in the near-24-hour daylight.

Aurora surveillance planes cruised overhead while a Griffin helicopter moved soldiers into observation posts along the waters Canada claims for itself.

But after the final fence post around the graves of Constable Victor Maisonneuve and Constable William Stephens had been reinforced and repainted, the manoeuvres grew briefly silent Saturday as members of all five participating services doffed their headgear in remembrance.

“We remember the goals and we remember the dedication that brought them to this place,” prayed navy chaplain John Finlayson. “As we remember their lives, we pledge ourselves also to work for justice, with integrity and with goodwill for all people.”

The grave restoration was a moving echo of the work the Forces are conducting in defence of Canada's disputed sovereignty over the Arctic waters, said Col. Chris Whitecross, commander of the military in the North.

“We're here for sovereignty,” she said. “These guys, the RCMP who were here back in the 1920s, they were here for sovereignty as well. Their mission was to be a foot on the ground to show the world that we are here.

“They were, in fact, pioneers of what we're doing.”

While Canada maintains it controls the seas around the High Arctic islands — including environmental regulation — countries such as the United States have long argued that they should be international waters.

Experts doubt the Northwest Passage will ever be free enough of ice to be a reliable commercial shipping channel. But several factors are combining to increase its shipping traffic.

High commodity and energy prices are making Arctic reserves economically feasible. New technology is increasing the ice capability of commercial ships.

And reduced sea ice has caused a mini-boom in Arctic tourism. Even Dundas Harbour's lonely graves saw visits from several cruise ships last week.

That's why Capt. Jonathan Hubble found himself dangling from a rope ladder over the side of the Montreal on Thursday night, hopping into a rubber motorboat and zooming over rough seas with a section of his fellow Van Doos to set up an observation post on the south side of the passage.

The landing was successful, but the surf swamped the boat on the steep beach. The soldiers were forced to stand waist-deep in the icy water to push the boat back into the sea while bailing it with their helmets.

“It was very, very cold,” Capt. Hubble deadpanned. “I would have bailed with my hands at that point.”

The soldiers then climbed a 20-metre headwall, changed into dry clothes and camped out overlooking Lancaster Sound. In the clear Arctic air, they could see Devon Island, 80 kilometres away across the passage.

“We like these experiences for the learning element, but we also like challenges,” Capt. Hubble said. “Pain is temporary, but stories are forever.”

That's why Cmdr. Paul Dempsey, captain of the Montreal, took his ship on high-speed manoeuvres in the middle of the sound.

The fleet Montreal effortlessly hit 28 knots, then heeled over in turns so tight that crew members were warned they might roll out of their bunks if they were trying to sleep. The ship stopped dead in a couple of hundred metres, then went faster in reverse than many water-skiing boats.

“It's the sports car of the navy,” said Cmdr. Dempsey, clearly proud.

With all its planned exercises so far completed with smooth co-ordination between the various services involved, Col. Whitecross is calling Operation Lancaster a success.

But its impact on the Forces might be better summed up by one of Montreal's seamen, who stood having a smoke on the ship's port deck watching the passing show of glaciated, rugged coastline and the slow promenade of icebergs.

“Gorgeous,” he said in a thick Newfoundland accent. “Makes you feel all Canadian.”

Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: Hunter on August 21, 2006, 22:46:07
Interesting article - I would love to hear more about it when the guys get home!
Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 22, 2006, 09:28:16
Problems with the exercise:

Arctic exercise reveals military weaknesses
Getting Forces to work well together will take some time
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/523691.html

Quote
A problem-plagued landing of soldiers on a remote northern coastline from a navy frigate showed that the goal of the three services being able to operate seamlessly is still a ways off.

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, has said he wants to reshape the Forces so that all branches are able to operate together smoothly and effectively.

"This is a new sort of operation for the navy," said Col. Chris Whitecross, commander of the military in the Arctic. "We don’t necessarily do it all that often in terms of taking folks off the ship and inserting them onto the land.".

As part of Operation Lancaster, the largest naval operation in the Northwest Passage in a generation, soldiers from the Quebec-based Van Doos regiment were to be deployed from the frigate HMCS Montreal. They were to set up an observation post on the Borden Peninsula on the south shore of the eastern gate of the passage.

However, getting the soldiers onto a small Zodiac by dangling them from a rope ladder over the side of the ship took hours longer than scheduled.

As well, heavy surf swamped the small boat when it landed on a steep, rocky coastline. The soldiers were forced to bail out with their helmets and stand waist- and chest-deep in the freezing water to push the craft back out to sea and cut loose ropes that had become entangled in the propeller.

"It was very, very cold," recalled Capt. Jonathan Hubble.

After climbing up a 20-metre headwall, the soldiers were then forced to set up their post kilometres from where they had planned. They were moved to the original post by Twin Otter, but the plane’s landing gear got stuck nearly half a metre deep in unexpected mud.

The Twin Otter remains at the observation post and won’t be able to move for weeks until the ground freezes up.

A helicopter finally picked up the soldiers from the peninsula...

More here:

Arctic blunders highlight military gap: Mired Twin Otter plane suggests Forces ill-equipped for northern manoeuvres
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060822/edm/060822ak.htm

And a project to make new build Twotters:

Viking wants to revamp rugged Canadian aircraft
'Viable candidate for new manufacture,' CEO says
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=dd2ff08d-e71b-4fec-b181-2ab79c201a7a&k=32291

Mark
Ottawa


Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: Chris Pook on August 22, 2006, 12:15:24
Good catches Mark. 

This quote from the Edmonton Journal needs highlighting.

Quote
"I thought this area was not busy, but I was wrong. We saw ships every day," said Ranger Master-Cpl. Norman Simeonie, an Inuk from Pond Inlet who was stationed on uninhabited Devon Island.
Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 13:04:06
would appear that they have grounded an Otter in soft ground at Pond Inlet.  Some suggestions that they might have to wait till freeze-up to fly it out.
Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: mr peabody on August 22, 2006, 15:04:21

  I just spent a short 5 days up there in support of the CP 140.  That was my first time up north and it was a real treat, hopefully this increased presence up there continues, I'd love to go back.  I heard about the Otter while we were up there, good luck to them.
Title: Re: Forces' Arctic patrol more than just an exercise
Post by: geo on August 22, 2006, 17:10:19
hehe.... break out the fishing rods and fire up the coleman stoves.........
Title: Re: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: warspite on August 28, 2006, 15:46:38
I rember reading that in ten years the northwest passage through the arctic will be economically viable for commercial use.  Further more the route will be significantly shorter to travel (from Europe to china) than via the panama canal.  Canada does have to protect this unbelievable asset for itself. How? I don't know but it has to be done or we will have it taken from us. Remember Brittian, spain etc, spent years and years and lots of cash trying to find the northwest passage.  Canada just has to wait and seize this oppertunity for itself
Title: Re: Harper Vows Defence of Arctic- Aug 13/06
Post by: Colin P on August 28, 2006, 17:43:46
I suspect that being posted up there will be better than some of those Islets that are being disputed in Asia that have garrisons despite the fact that the island is only around 10m wide.
Title: Dispute Over NW Passage Revived
Post by: d-fi on November 07, 2006, 21:34:11
Some more recent information from the United States about the Northwest Passage and the sovernty issues associated with it.

Washington Post Link, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110500286.html)

The link above also contains a interesting video of scientists aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen. The scientists discuss the effect that global warming has had on the legendary Northwest Passage.

Quote
Dispute Over NW Passage Revived
U.S. Asserts Free Use by All Ships; Canada Claims Jurisdiction

By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 6, 2006; A18

TORONTO -- A long-standing legal wrangle between the United States and Canada could complicate future shipping through the Arctic as global warming melts the ice in the Northwest Passage.

The United States contends that the Northwest Passage, though owned by Canada, is an international strait with free passage for all, like other straits around the world. U.S. officials say they are following a long-standing position in favor of keeping straits free to all navigation and want unimpeded movement of U.S. ships.

Canada counters that it has sole jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage and wants to enforce its own laws on ships in the Arctic waters. Canadian officials argue that their authority over the myriad channels and straits that make up the legendary route from the Atlantic to the Pacific is the best way to minimize unsafe ships and accidental spills in the pristine North.

The issue has suddenly come alive because climate change is reducing the Arctic ice pack that prevents regular shipping through the passage.

In an unusual twist last week, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, was quoted in Canadian newspapers as saying that he agreed with the Canadian position. "It is in the security interests of the United States that it be under the control of Canada," he said at a conference in Ottawa.

Cellucci's comments prompted the current U.S. ambassador, David Wilkins, to restate U.S. insistence that the Northwest Passage is an international strait.

The spat has flared occasionally in the past. Canadians were incensed when Americans drove the reinforced oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in 1969, followed by the icebreaker Polar Sea in 1985, both without asking for Canadian permission.

Usually, however, the two countries have ignored their differences, agreeing that icebreakers do not need permission to pass and refusing to acknowledge the regular traffic of undersea nuclear submarines that use the passage.

Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia, said that if foreign ships begin using the route, Canada will lose its claim of oversight.

Canada has no search-and-rescue helicopters regularly based in the north and has disbanded the one military unit capable of dropping onto the ice. The country has no submarine that can travel under the ice cap. Its icebreakers are old and considered mid-weight; they leave the Arctic for the winter. The government has promised to build three new, powerful icebreakers and a deep-water port at Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, but has failed to fund any of those projects.

"If a foreign vessel wanted to come through here right now, it could," Byers said. "It's a big welcome mat for all the fly-by-night companies."

(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/11/05/GR2006110500016.gif)
edit: removed typo
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: steveyb4342 on December 14, 2006, 21:17:03
Why don't we just find homeless people that need a place to live and give them some warm clothes and build them a shack on all the little islands that need protection stand a 100ft flag pole up, raise a huge Canadian flag then train and supply the homeless with a .50cal? I think it's a great idea!  ;D It helps the homeless and it helps Canada, where could you go wrong?

                                                                          Steve  :cdn:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: InterestedCivilian on December 14, 2006, 21:56:35
Ex-Dragoon,

While rules regarding Archepelagic (sp?) waters may apply (and I personally believe that they should) there are also rules in international maritime law regarding straits. Under such laws no country may limit access to a strait, ie., it's to be considered international waters. An example being the Straits of Malacca. Theoretically most if not all of the straits are in either Malaysian, Singaporean or Indonesian waters yet none of the countries can deny access to the Straits. (As far as sources go, I could look them up if anyone is particularly interested, they're on my bookshelf doing nothing more usefull than collecting dust right now)

Now, if a country such as the US were to consider the Northwest Passage as a strait (albeit a very long one, or perhaps a series of interconnected straits) they might be able to make a challenge to our claims of ownership. Admittedly this wouldn't apply to all of the artic waters, but primarily those associated with the passage.

P
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 14, 2006, 21:59:19
Why don't we just find homeless people that need a place to live and give them some warm clothes and build them a shack on all the little islands that need protection stand a 100ft flag pole up, raise a huge Canadian flag then train and supply the homeless with a .50cal? I think it's a great idea!  ;D It helps the homeless and it helps Canada, where could you go wrong?

                                                                          Steve  :cdn:
If you don't have anything of value to add then don't add anything....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: T.R.Hayward on April 24, 2007, 12:42:29
Hello All,

I recently read that the Canadian Rangers were patrolling the northern coast, a soveriegnty patrol....

Best Wishes,

-Rick

(P.S. If there was adequate support, I'm sure that there would be ample volunteers to occupy Hans Island and other locations. At least in the summer months. I'd be willing to give it a go for a month or so....)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on April 25, 2007, 22:34:33
We won't be taken seriously unless we spend money on this.

Phase 1: Punch a rail line from Churchill Manitoba to the Bellot Straight. Build a small base.

Phase II: Rail Bridge/ Causeway the Bellot Straight (two km)

Phase III:  Punch the railroad to the north coast of Somerset Island.  Build Main Arctic Base there.  Use it to Air and Ship (when able) our other Arctic Bases (such as on the straight between Devon Island and Baffin Island).  Defiles, anyone?

Go Big or Stay Home.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GAP on April 25, 2007, 22:39:40
Do you really have any concept of the difficulty and cost of building a rail line across the tundra?  To do it to develop only a base, the economics do not support it.

Now if it could be tied into mining/development/non-government funding, it might be feasible.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on April 25, 2007, 22:54:53
I know.  But the amount of undiscovered minerals - and oil - up there will make it worthwhile.

It's a big project, but we have to show the world we are serious.

Otherwise...
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: stealthylizard on April 25, 2007, 23:04:41
Also to be taken into consideration, it is under First Nations legislation.  So they would have to be dealt with as well, making the cost unfeasible.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on April 26, 2007, 02:49:48
Unless they WANT a rail line..

But, it would not be worthwhile.  The ground is just too rough.  Almost cheaper to tunnel!

A good gravel road, maybe.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: stealthylizard on April 26, 2007, 03:02:01
You also have to take into account of the freeze-thaw of the tundra.  Permafrost is starting to disappear adding more problems with maintenance, and infrastructure costs.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2007, 09:34:56
To repeat a comment at another topic--as for asserting sovereignty in Arctic waterways, an excellent article by a former CCG Deputy Commissioner (a brilliant public servant whom I knew):

A job for the Coast Guard
It's too bad that the Harper government's preoccupation with the military has caused it to overlook a more sensible solution to Arctic sovereignty
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: TCBF on July 15, 2007, 03:05:31
By all means use the CCG.  Just remember that "torpedo', "gun", "sonar" and "sonobouy" are not in their vocabulary.  Now, considering what a platform has to be CAPABLE of doing to provide a credible deterent, where should the dollars go?

If towards CCG icebreakers, at least give them some sort of sonar capability. 

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Brockvegas on July 17, 2007, 02:32:45
If towards CCG icebreakers, at least give them some sort of sonar capability. 

I can just see the sonar operator on one of those now;
PING-- "Ice."
PING-- "Ice."
PING-- "Whale."
PING-- "Ice"
PING--"U-boat......hey wait a minute...."

 ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 25, 2007, 13:36:53
Russia deploys mission to claim North Pole
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e4aafe79-9a68-43ee-8af3-77d3f43c8638

Quote
'The Arctic is Russian,' expedition leader says of quest to plant flag at Earth's most northerly point
 
James Kilner Reuters and Canwest News Service Wednesday, July 25, 2007

MOSCOW - A Russian expedition sailed yesterday for the North Pole, where it plans to send a submarine crew to plant a flag on the seabed and symbolically claim the Arctic for the Kremlin.

The mission is part of a race to assert rights over the Arctic, an icy wasteland that is rich in energy reserves and, as climate change melts the ice, could open up to form a lucrative shortcut for ships sailing between Asia and North America.

"The Arctic is Russian," expedition leader and parliamentary deputy Artur Chilingarov told Russian TV. "We are going to be the first to put a flag there, a Russian flag, at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, at the very point of the North Pole."

A nuclear-powered icebreaker will smash through the weakened Arctic ice, leading the way for the main expedition ship, which will launch the submarine.

One of their biggest worries is resurfacing at the same hole in the ice they dived into -- missing it could mean becoming trapped as the mini-submarine is not powerful enough to break through the ice.

International law states the five countries with territory inside the Arctic Circle -- Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark, via its control of Greenland -- are limited to a 320-kilometre economic zone around their coastline.

But since 2001, Russia has claimed a larger slice extending as far as the North Pole because, Moscow says, the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked via the same continental shelf.

In recent weeks, the Canadian government vowed not to flinch in the face of new Russian claims to a vast stretch of Arctic Ocean seabed that could conflict with Canada's own territorial ambitions.

"Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is long-standing, well-established and based on historic title," the Department of Foreign Affairs said last month in response to reports that Russian scientists have amassed fresh evidence supporting their country's claim to about 1.2 million square kilometres of the Arctic seafloor and the potential riches that lie below.

"Canadian and Russian officials have discussed our respective continental-shelf research programs and Canada was made aware of plans for a Russian expedition. Canada will continue to assert its sovereignty in the Arctic, including in our internal waters."

The Russians who left yesterday say they plan to carry out research, but national pride is the driving force behind the expedition, team member Anatoly Sagalevich said.

"I think we will be the first submariners to travel along the ocean floor under the North Pole, we will raise Russia's prestige," he said. "People have flown to the moon but nobody has yet been to the crown of the Earth."

The first submarine to travel under the North Pole was the USS Nautilus, a U.S. nuclear submarine that did not stop on the sea floor during its 1958 voyage.

Mr. Sagalevich said a similar Russian mission planned for 1998 had had to be ditched when Russian financial markets crashed.

Now, though, with revenues from oil, gas and metals swelling Russia's coffers, it has the confidence and cash to fund the expedition.

"We will be the first to see the seabed under the North Pole, and we will plant a Russian flag made from titanium," Mr. Sagalevich said.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: cartwright on July 25, 2007, 20:09:48
From the Globe & Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070725.warctik0725/BNStory/National/home


Less talk, more action on Arctic, expert advises
Canadian Press

July 25, 2007 at 5:26 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Canada needs more than ice-capable corvettes and political speeches if it wants to guarantee access to Arctic oil and gas wealth, says a northern expert.

Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia says the neither the Conservative government nor its Liberal predecessor have put enough time or money into defending the country's economic zone near the North Pole.

Little has been accomplished since Canada signed an international treaty in 2003 that set the clock running for countries to stake out their territory in the polar sea, he said.

Countries bordering the Arctic have 10 years to map and file their claims for international consideration, said Prof. Byers. The time since 2003 should have been spent investing in the technology and ships that would have allowed Canada to explore the inhospitable region, he said.

“I've compared this to Canada's moon mission,” said Prof. Byers, referring U.S. race to beat the Russians to the moon in the 1960s.

“At a technical and a capability level, this is as complicated and daunting as that. To do this properly you need to not only map the area, but you need to do the seismic work.”

Prof. Byers said such an expedition would require one or two heavy icebreakers, which Canada does not have.

The Conservative government recently announced it will build between six and eight armed, medium icebreakers for the navy to enforce Canada's sovereignty in the North, but those vessels won't hit the water until 2012 at the earliest.

Under international law, five Arctic countries, including Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark (through Greenland) control an economic zone within 320 kilometres of their continental shelf. But the definition of the limits of that shelf are in dispute.

Russia first laid claim to wide swathes of undersea Arctic territory in the United Nations in 2001. But the four other polar countries have objected to this bid. Danish scientists maintain the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of Greenland, making Denmark another claimant to the North Pole and its environs.

Canada's foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, was not available for comment Wednesday.

But his spokesman Dan Dugas said that “Canada's sovereignty over the lands and waters of the Canadian Arctic is long standing, well-established and based on historic title.


My question is: What 2003 treaty are they talking about and how is it we have done next to nothing about this for 4 years?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 25, 2007, 21:23:26
cartwright: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070520/arctic_070520
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/05/20/4195386-cp.html

Prof. Byers is no "northern expert"; he's a NDP shill:

I guess context doesn't matter anymore
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-guess-context-doesnt-matter-anymore.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Mr.Newf on July 25, 2007, 21:30:02
Broken ship halts Russian expedition to claim Arctic seabed. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/07/25/russia-arctic.html)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: cartwright on July 25, 2007, 21:38:16

Thanks for the insight Mark. 

Is the reference to a 2003 treaty then some sort of misprint or has there been a new treaty/amendment etc or perhaps that Canada signed in 2003?  Does it seem like one of the international agreements that everyone ignores because the US did not sign?

Actually, I guess my real question is: Is there a realistic deadline for proving our claim in 2013 or is that complete hogwash?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 25, 2007, 22:09:05
2003 is simply the date of Canada's ratification of the 1982 Convention that came into effect in 1994 (and that's the end of my international law expertise for this!).

As for the 2013 date, I don't know but suspect we'd better work fast.  But remember this is all seabed , continental shelf, stuff--no relevance to the Arctic Islands and mainland that we claim and which no-one disputes.

In any case, surely no nice-thinking person would want actually to exploit any resources on the Arctic seabed given the environmental disasters that would ensue should something go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 27, 2007, 17:03:54
Asserting Arctic sovereignty would be easier if we had Coast Guard icebreakers capable of operating like this for extended periods in the Northwest Passage:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=230a509d-842e-476a-8c0d-da1f1225cf09&k=7606

Icebreaker-turned-laboratory begins 15-month Arctic voyage [the headline is a bit misleading if you read the story closely]

Quote
ABOARD THE CCGS AMUNDSEN -- Binoculars in hand, Captain Lise Marchand stands at the steamy bridge of her Coast Guard vessel imagining icebergs.

Twenty minutes out of Quebec City's harbour, heat bounces off the glaring white of this gleaming Canadian Coast Guard vessel and sailboats and pleasure boats bob and weave through the widening channel.

But as the 98-metre icebreaker-turned-floating science laboratory embarks on the first leg of a 15-month voyage into chopping northern seas, Marchand knows ice floes lie only a few days from this sun-drenched port -in the fjords of Labrador or the shoals of tiny Inuit villages on Quebec's distant coast.

More than 40 scientists from Canada, the U.S. and beyond -- along with a 35-person crew and a smattering of journalists, teachers and observers -- set sail yesterday on the 2007 ArcticNet Expedition, buoyed by International Polar Year research projects which over the next two years aim to broaden our understanding of this vast world which has been undergoing rapid and at times, startling changes as a result of global warming...

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on July 30, 2007, 18:51:26
2003 is simply the date of Canada's ratification of the 1982 Convention that came into effect in 1994 (and that's the end of my international law expertise for this!).

As for the 2013 date, I don't know but suspect we'd better work fast.  But remember this is all seabed , continental shelf, stuff--no relevance to the Arctic Islands and mainland that we claim and which no-one disputes.

In any case, surely no nice-thinking person would want actually to exploit any resources on the Arctic seabed given the environmental disasters that would ensue should something go wrong?

Mark
Ottawa

It's only evil if the Bush-cons think of doing it, Russia is merely struggling to overthrow the cloak of capitalism thrown on it by Reagan-con and minor infractions of the environmental creed must be forgiven in such case. Similar blessing were given to Saddam after the nasty West forced him to drain the salt marshes and light the oil fields on fire.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 30, 2007, 20:25:59
Colin P:  :)

And for once Prof. Michael "Bilge" Byers gets something right:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=f7f65e42-e6fe-4ee6-92d3-c962245e8b76&k=34485

Quote
The Conservative government should commit quickly to "the recapitalization of the Coast Guard icebreaking fleet," Byers said. "Two new vessels would likely suffice. In contrast to the ice-strengthened patrol vessels announced for the military, these would be proper Arctic icebreakers that could go anywhere, anytime, including into the area the Russians are claiming."..

--but only because he loathes the "F" in "CF" (great research here by Damian Brooks, and facts the major media never mention about the good professor):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-guess-context-doesnt-matter-anymore.html

Steve Staples evil twin:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008896.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 13, 2007, 17:52:35
(Also posted at "Navy News") This makes sense to me--and then the patrol ships could be redesigned to be much more capable vessels, to replace or supplement the MCDVs, without a serious icebreaking capability

New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=852819

Quote
While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.

In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.

Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:

• Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.

• Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.

• Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.

• Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.

• Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)

• The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.

The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.

New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers...

Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 13, 2007, 18:54:56
Mark - I "Sincerely" hope that you get your Ice-Breaking D9 Cats (  http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/ ). A nice heavy ship for crushing ice, letting scientists see all the nice fishes and counting rocks; a place from which you can service the navigational beacons; a warm and cosy mobile hotel and a stable platform on which to land helicopters.  We can never have enough stable platforms - whether they be ice-breakers, frigates or patrol vessels; ice islands or off shore oil platforms; or northern and coastal bases.  The more the merrier. 

The willingness of some of the Coast Guard to work with other government agencies is gratifying however there is enough confusion based on past history to suggest that not everybody is on the same page.  How feasible is it to change out parts of crews depending on mission and contract rights so that you can supply the right selection of "volunteers"?   ;D

Lets leave all of the Maritime Security and Law Enforcement stuff to the Navy with the Mounties on board.  Those  6000 tonne Svalbard A/OPVs ( http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html ) will do just fine as a Multi-Role Patrol Vessel for our littoral waters as well as being Mini-LPHs on which we can learn the skills necessary to perform joint ops on larger vessels. 

The Italians successfully operated the 7650 tonne San Giorgio LPDs ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/san_giorgio/ ) in conjunction with their San Marco marines.  The Kiwi's Canterbury is operated in a similar role ( http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/mrv-lcm.htm ).  The Dane's 6300 tonne Absalon Flexible Support Ships are moving along those lines
( http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm ) althoug more of a frigate with some LPH/D capabilities.  The Danes also have their new 1700 tonne Arctic Patrol Vessels building which are essentially ice strengthened Micro-Mini LPDs on which a small helicopter can land  (http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm)

I hope that the CF can afford the larger and IMHO more flexible, stable and capable 6000 tonne version of the Svalbard, rather than the 3000 tonne version the RFP seems to suggest.  It does't cost a lot more to build a bigger tin can around an empty hold but that empty hold can come in useful on occasion.

Gawd I'm glad that is over.....3 weeks of enforced silence due to a 56k modem AND being stuck with the in-laws.  I have ground to make up and you are it  >:D.

Cheers mate.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 13, 2007, 20:20:34
Kirkhill: Nice ships but Canadian governments won't buy them.

A number of things about "Arctic" sovereignty:

Nobody is claiming our land (islands included except Hans) territory in the Arctic--so giving lots more money to the Natives or building military bases and expanding any government presence are irrelevant in this context.

Nobody is claiming the surface North Pole which is in recognized international waters.

What the Russians (along with everyone else including Canada though we are not doing it very well) are trying to do is stake claims to parts of the Arctic seabed by demonstrating that they are extensions on their internationally-recognized continental shelf. This is allowed by the Law of the Sea Convention. Claims must be made by 2013 and then will be adjudicated by a an international body set up by the Convention. Naval and other military forces are irrelevant to all this except to the extent that they can help in doing the scientific work to support the claim (the same is true for Coast Guard assets)--unless one wants to use force to prevent the research for the claim or force to dispute a decision late made under international law.

The situation with the Northwest Passage is that no significant state recognizes this as Canadian internal waters. So far that has been essentially irrelevant as there is no real waterway because of the ice. However if the ice does melt enough to allow regular maritime traffic the issue will become live. If at that point Canada has made considerable use of the Passage, even with ice (e.g. by Coast Guard icebreakers of a type that we now do not have), then we would have some basis to support our contention that they are indeed "inland" waterways--though I have my doubts how far that would go in international law.

Without such usage our claim seems about as strong as melted ice.

The new Arctic Patrol Ships can be used to control to some degree ingress or egress from the Passage. I have no idea what force this would have under international law; such action might even be seen as a breach of international law--as would be any effort by the Indonesia to close the straits between its islands to "innocent passage" (though mere inspections before allowing onward progress would be something else but wouldn't seem to assert sovereignty over the waterway itself).

So I still don't see much point in the AOPSs.   And the CCG has experience as acting as a "platform" for the RCMP and for Fishery Officers for enforcement activities:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2005/hq-ac66_e.htm

Four of the new CCG Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels specifically are to be jointly manned with the RCMP on the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac15_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 13, 2007, 21:29:08
Kirkhill: Nice ships but Canadian governments won't buy them.

A number of things about "Arctic" sovereignty:

Nobody is claiming our land (islands included except Hans) territory in the Arctic--so giving lots more money to the Natives or building military bases and expanding any government presence are irrelevant in this context.

Nobody is claiming the surface North Pole which is in recognized international waters.

What the Russians (along with everyone else including Canada though we are not doing it very well) are trying to do is stake claims to parts of the Arctic seabed by demonstrating that they are extensions on their internationally-recognized continental shelf. This is allowed by the Law of the Sea Convention. Claims must be made by 2013 and then will be adjudicated by a an international body set up by the Convention. Naval and other military forces are irrelevant to all this except to the extent that they can help in doing the scientific work to support the claim (the same is true for Coast Guard assets)--unless one wants to use force to prevent the research for the claim or force to dispute a decision late made under international law.

The situation with the Northwest Passage is that no significant state recognizes this as Canadian internal waters. So far that has been essentially irrelevant as there is no real waterway because of the ice. However if the ice does melt enough to allow regular maritime traffic the issue will become live. If at that point Canada has made considerable use of the Passage, even with ice (e.g. by Coast Guard icebreakers of a type that we now do not have), then we would have some basis to support our contention that they are indeed "inland" waterways--though I have my doubts how far that would go in international law.

Without such usage our claim seems about as strong as melted ice.

The new Arctic Patrol Ships can be used to control to some degree ingress or egress from the Passage. I have no idea what force this would have under international law; such action might even be seen as a breach of international law--as would be any effort by the Indonesia to close the straits between its islands to "innocent passage" (though mere inspections before allowing onward progress would be something else but wouldn't seem to assert sovereignty over the waterway itself).

So I still don't see much point in the AOPSs.   And the CCG has experience as acting as a "platform" for the RCMP and for Fishery Officers for enforcement activities:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2005/hq-ac66_e.htm

Four of the new CCG Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels specifically are to be jointly manned with the RCMP on the St. Lawrence Seaway-Great Lakes system:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac15_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa

But Mark, if we're not using our internal waters no one else is either.  Manhattan and Polar Sea would qualify as good attempts although failed.  There have been some other commercial passages - Russian Cruise-Breakers eg but those are with Canadian knowledge and consent and as long as consent is being requested thenour position is solid.

I don't believe covert submarine passages qualify as threats to sovereignty - otherwise the waters around Sweden where a Russian Mini-Sub left caterpillar tracks would be Russian waters.

The AOPS will do a fine job of gate guard on the passage that the Coast Guard opens up annually.  They will do a fine job supplying support to littoral operations by law enforcement.  They will do a fine job on disaster response.  The will do a fine job supporting sovereignty operations ashore.  They will do a fine job as training platforms for amphibious operations.  There is much that those vessels will do.

As to the Canadian Government not buying the vessels: I presume you are referring specifically to the Italian San Giorgios.  I am referring not specifically to the vessel itself but to the type of capabilities it brought to the Italian government in its home waters.  I am suggesting that similar capabilities are found in the Canterbury, the Svalbard, the Absalon and the Danish Arctic Patrol Vessel as well as the San Giorgios.  They are essentially mobile tin cans (or tupper ware containers if you prefer).  The contain things and people.  They transport things and people.  The can launch and recover helicopters and boats to communicate with the shore.  They are equipped with radios.  And, most importantly, they have tall masts on which Canadian flags can be flown.    All this and a willingness to engage the "enemy" with whatever weapons are made available.

The OPP doesn't chase speeders with Snowplows and D9s.  ;)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 13, 2007, 22:34:13
Kirkhill:
Quote
The OPP doesn't chase speeders with Snowplows and D9s.

It appears the new CCG patrol vessels will be faster than the A/OPS ;):
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2007/hq-ac15c_e.htm
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_news/news_e.asp?id=617

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on August 13, 2007, 23:40:22
As you know hull forms good for ice don't promote speed.  :)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 14, 2007, 01:06:05
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/LCP_Class(2004).htm

How about a 40 km "cruiser" with a 100 km range  from "mother" (200 km round trip) when you absolutely have to get there in a hurry - and you have open water available.

The Danes are carrying these as combination utility boat/LCP. 

They are based on the Swedish CB design which can more heavily armed - 7.62 - 120mm.  RWS systems are no doubt possible (seen in the Brazilian movie below). Armour is incorporated in the Swedish boats.

Just the thing to run down those "speeders".   Especially if "mother" has UAV and Helo support and can stand-off in overwatch.

And here's the movie:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=116896


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on August 14, 2007, 01:33:36
They (2nd picture) make a nice landing craft and I bet you could modify a Oil-rig resupply icebreaker (Terry fox) into a Mother ship with a ramp and A frame over the stern and 3-4 boats on deck. We could use it for training and developing SOP's and requirements for future Assault landing vessels. Terry fox runs on around a 35 man crew. I suspect they are to heavy for Davit launch, perhaps you might be able to swing them with a 1100 Class crane (12-15tons if I recall) and maybe 2 landing craft on the well deck.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 14, 2007, 02:14:07
Is this the one you are talking about Colin? http://www.answers.com/topic/ccgs-terry-fox

Canadian Class 4 isn't she? 4 feet or about 1m - about the same as being suggested for the AOPS and the Svalbard and at 4200 tonnes a little lighter than the Svalbard?  In fact the Svalbard looks like a tarted up version of the Terry Fox.

An interesting starting point anyway.

Here's some more CB-90 porn.  The Swedish ones are operating in a more Canadian environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-8NHfAYEK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHFgDIGvOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6Oq1l2ZdNk


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on August 14, 2007, 11:25:37
Yes that is the Terry Fox, not the best ship in the Fleet, but one of the cheaper ones. As a test bed it should do fine. Although I don't know if she is still under lease or bought outright.

Also yes on the CB-90, I love those boats!! However with a displacement of 13,000 kgs likely to heavy for a 1100 class crane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90

Another option might be a deep Sea trawler, which would require less modification to the stern, but likely could only take 2 boats. The processing area could be modified to carry troops.

Keep in mind I am only suggesting the above as intermin vessels to build the capacity into the fleet, not as a long term solution.

I like the surface to surface CB-90, wonder how stable the mortar version is. A couple of the CB-90 along with 1 Anti-ship missile equipped version would be useful at Tuk to patrol the Western Arctic and could hauled out at the end season. Could be manned mostly by locals.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: geo on August 14, 2007, 11:35:15
heh... while the locals would be practicing their anti ship gunnery, the whales wouldn't stand a chance.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: S.M.A. on December 11, 2007, 12:46:20
The Law of the Sea Treaty...interesting...

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157953,00.html?wh=news

Quote
Pentagon: Sea Treaty in U.S. Interests
Military.com  |  By Bryant Jordan  |  December 11, 2007

The U.S. is not about to go to war with Canada over the possibility our northern neighbor will bar liquid natural gas tanker ships from passing through Canadian waters to New England -- a restriction that would impose a severe hardship on the region.
Nor is the administration going to invade Australia, even though our down-under ally demands the right to put an Aussie pilot aboard any ship -- including American -- passing through the Torres Straits running between the island continent and Papua New Guinea.

But with the U.S. facing these prospects the only way to resolve them is by the country signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which 155 countries already have joined, according to Navy Capt. Patrick J. Neher, director of the Navy’s International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General.
"This is pretty serious stuff," Neher said during an interview with military bloggers Dec. 10. He said Australia is asserting a regulatory right over the waterway improperly, and threatens that any violator is subject to arrest and their ship held.
 
"Now we're not going to roll the 7th Fleet into Sydney Harbor to compel Australia to roll back their illegal [regulation]," he said. "But what we can do if we were party to the [treaty] is use the dispute resolution process ... and I'm confident we would win."
 
Same with Canada's plans to keep American LNG tankers from passing through Head Harbor Passage en route to Maine, said Coast Guard Capt. Charles D. Michel, chief of the Office of Maritime and International Law.
 
Diplomacy hasn't worked, he said, noting that the Canadian prime minister reportedly "blew off President Bush" when he weighed in to resolve the problem, and it's highly unlikely the U.S. will use military force against Canada.
That leaves dispute resolution, which is part of the Law of the Sea Treaty, he said.
According to a Navy story on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the agreement was negotiated between 1973 and 1982 in order to update the customary law of the sea that dates from the 1600s. The U.S. helped bring about the treaty but has never signed onto it because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights it has long held under the historical, customary law.
According to Neher, however, the U.S. stands to lose its role as a leader in determining sea law by not joining in the treaty.

"There is a fundamental disconnect [in] trying to lead an alliance of nations to maintain public order on the world's oceans when you're one of the handful of countries … that aren't parties to that convention," he said.
 
The Defense Department has come out squarely in favor of the U.S. joining the treaty, which Neher and Michel said guarantees right of passage through some of the most strategic areas. In June, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to the Senate, urging it to support the treaty.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on December 11, 2007, 13:36:47
Very curious Cougardaddy.

Previously I understood the US Navy to be one of the key OPPONENTS of the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Maybe they now have more faith in their lawyers than their hulls.

As to the US "negotiating" laws for everyone else then failing to get the domestic support to sign on themselves.......that isn't new.  In fact, as I think about it, treaties are negotiated by The State Department.....hmm.  Cultural disconnect between the State Department (and their "investigative arm" the CIA) and the rest of America?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on May 15, 2009, 11:58:16
Quote
Russia foresees military conflict over Arctic; Security report a 'wake-up call' for Canada: expert
Randy Boswell
Edmonton Journal
14 May 2009

A new Russian government security report that predicts possible military conflict over energy resources -- including Arctic oil -- is another "wake-up call" for Canada, says one of the country's top analysts on polar geopolitics.

"In a competition for resources, problems that involve the use of military force cannot be excluded that would destroy the balance of forces close to the borders of the Russian Federation and her allies," states the document.

It forecasts security threats up to 2020 and named the petroleum-rich Arctic -- where seabed boundaries are now being determined under the rules of a UN treaty -- as a potential conflict zone.

The national security strategy released Wednesday surveyed a range of possible threats facing Russia along its Asian, European and Arctic frontiers, according to various news reports from Moscow.

University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert said the Russian outlook released Wednesday should spur Canada's efforts to beef up Arctic defences while continuing to pursue peaceful outcomes on boundaries, shipping rules and resources in the disputed polar realm.

"The Russians have been talking very co-operatively, but they have been backing it up with an increasingly strong military set of actions," said Huebert, associate director of the university's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, who described Russia's stance as a "realistic" view of possible conflicts.

"You mix uncertain boundaries with major powers and massive amounts of oil and gas, and you always get difficult international circumstances," he added.

"I think the Russians have made that calculation."

Requests to the Russian Embassy in Ottawa for a copy of the security report and comments on its implications for Canada were not immediately returned.

A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said Canadian officials would not comment until receiving the report.

Over the past three years, Russia has been sending conflicting signals to Canada and other polar nations about its planned approach to resolving potential Arctic conflicts, said Huebert.

A Russian submersible's planting of a flag on the North Pole sea floor in August 2007 sparked an international war of words over Arctic sovereignty, with Defence Minister Peter MacKay -- then Canada's foreign minister -- decrying the Russian act as a throwback to "15th-century" territorial imperialism.

Tensions appeared to flare again in late February when MacKay -- nine days after two Russian aircraft ventured close to Canadian airspace in the Arctic -- described in a news conference how Canadian fighter planes had raced northward to "send a strong signal" to the Russian pilots that "they should back off and stay out of our airspace."

But Russia's defence minister later objected to what he called MacKay's "bizarre" criticism of a "routine" test flight, and insisted his country is committed to a co-operative, peaceful approach to problem-solving in the Arctic.

A Feb. 20 meeting in Moscow between top Canadian and Russian officials -- revealed earlier this week by Canwest News Service -- does appear to show significant co-operation between the two countries on Arctic issues.

The two sides appeared to be in agreement about Canada's claim to jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage, and even discussed a possible joint Russian-Canadian-Danish submission to the UN to determine Arctic sea floor boundaries.

But Wednesday's security report suggests Russia is also bracing for more pointed conflict in the Arctic and elsewhere as it strives to secure its position as a global energy superpower.

"The attention of international politics in the long-term perspective will be concentrated on the acquisition of energy resources," the paper said.

It said regions where such a competition for resources could arise included the Middle East, the Barents Sea, the Arctic, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia.

The strategy document was approved by President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday and published on Wednesday by the Russian Security Council, which includes Russia's top politicians and intelligence chiefs and is chaired by Medvedev.

"I see a Russia that is not necessarily getting aggressive," said Huebert, "but is getting increasingly assertive about controlling what it sees as the future of its long-term strength."
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on May 15, 2009, 11:59:30
Quote
Ottawa serious about sovereignty
Randy Boswell
The Leader-Post
15 May 2009

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Thursday that the Conservative government will strive to "work peacefully" with other polar nations but "will not hesitate to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty."

The statement came a day after the release of a new Russian government report that predicts possible military conflict over Arctic oil.

Cannon, currently on a diplomatic tour in Asia, told Canwest News Service in a statement from Japan that recent steps taken by Canada to boulster its military and marine infrastructure in the North "will ensure that the Canadian Forces are prepared to address future challenges and respond to any emergency" that unfolds.

"Canada is determined to work peacefully in co-operation with all our northern partners in the Arctic," Cannon said. "That having been said: Canada is an Arctic power, and our government understands the potential of the North. Therefore, when and if necessary, this government will not hesitate to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty, and all of our interests in the Arctic."

Cannon's comments come at a time when Russia has been sending mixed signals about its approach to resolving uncertainties over Arctic boundaries and securing resources in the potentially oil-rich polar region.

Top Russian officials have been publicly emphasizing the country's interest in resolving potential Arctic disputes peacefully under the terms of a UN treaty governing the Law of the Sea.

In February, at a meeting in Moscow attended by Canada's top legal adviser on Arctic issues, Russian diplomats even offered to submit its territorial claims in the polar region jointly with Canada and Denmark.

But Wednesday's security report from Moscow -- which mentioned the possibility of military conflicts over energy in the Arctic and on Russia's other frontiers -- was described as a "wakeup call" for Canada by University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert.

He said Russia has been "making nice sounds" about the Arctic on the diplomatic front while striking an assertive posture militarily on the ground and at sea throughout the North -- including an increase in aircraft training exercises.

Less than two years ago, a Russian submersible planted a flag at the North Pole seabed that prompted a rebuke from Canada's then-foreign minister Peter MacKay over what he described as a "15th-century" style land-grab.

MacKay, now Canada's minister of defence, clashed with Russia again in February over an Arctic test flight by two Russian bombers, which Canadian military planes scrambled to intercept.

Cannon, who said at the time of the February flight controversy that Canada would not be "bullied" by Russia, expressed a similar sentiment in his comments to Canwest News Service on Thursday.

"At every opportunity in my discussions with foreign ministers, including with the Russian foreign minister (Sergei Lavrov), I have and will continue to have frank discussions -- and that includes reiterating Canada will continue to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty."

Cannon said the Conservative government's Canada First Defence Strategy will help the country's military "take action in exercising Canadian sovereignty in the North," and highlighted plans for a fleet of Arctic patrol ships, a deepwater docking facility in Nanisivik, at the north end of Baffin Island, an Arctic military training centre and the "modernization and expansion" of the Canadian Rangers -- a northern patrol force made up largely of Inuit citizens of the North.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Yrys on May 24, 2009, 19:34:53
Canada extends Arctic mapping past North Pole (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090524/arctic_pushback_090524/20090524?hub=Canada), May. 24 2009

The beaver is starting to push back against the bear in the debate over who controls the top of the world.

Federal officials have confirmed that Canada's Arctic mapping flights have ventured beyond the North Pole
into areas claimed by Russia. The flights are the first step towards building a case that Canada's Arctic
sovereignty could reach past the Pole despite Russia's determination to extend its own northern footprint.

"We are surveying where appropriate to define the outer limits of Canada's continental shelf," Jacob Verhoef,
the Natural Resources Canada geophysicist in charge of the project told The Canadian Press in an email.

Canada and Denmark recently completed a series of joint mapping flights from three remote northern
airstrips to begin studying the series of undersea mountains and ridges that will determine how the United
Nations will divvy up most of the Arctic Ocean. The flights were originally said to end at the North Pole.
But Verhoef now confirms some of those flights continued past the Pole.

"We are also investigating the possible continuity of the Lomonosov Ridge beyond the North Pole and
therefore have collected supporting data beyond the pole on some of the flight lines during the recent
survey," Verhoef said.

Although Russia hasn't filed a formal claim for those waters leading up to the North Pole, it has made
no secret of its intent to do so. As well, Russia has undertaken a variety of moves that some call sabre-
rattling, from announcing the formation of special Arctic army units to the release of a policy document
that warns of the possibility of violence over the North's resources. Still, Russia has consistently promised
it would abide by the United Nations Law of the Sea process for settling all claims.

A summary of meeting held last February between Canadian and Russian diplomats said the two countries,
together with Denmark, are considering making a joint submission to the United Nations.

But the fact Canada hasn't simply accepted the North Pole as the extent of its claims shows a willingness
to play some diplomatic hardball, said Rob Huebert at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the
University of Calgary. "We're not backing off on this one," he said. "We're going to have to wait and see
what the Russians do about it."

Huebert adds that neither country must submit claims to the UN until 2013, so there's plenty of time to
come to an agreement. Still, he suggests the aerial mapping means Canada intends to bargain from a
position of strength. "The government is acting on its promise not to be intimidated."

Verhoef cautions that the aerial mapping is only the start of assembling a claim. "The next step is to
analyze that (aerial) information and then decide what, if anything, we should do in terms of collecting
primary data (ie: bathymetry and seismic) in that region," he wrote.

Aerial mapping, which "reads" the seafloor by measuring minute changes in the earth's gravitational field,
must be backed up by extensive actual measurements. To that end, two miniature submarines are slated
to be deployed under the ice by spring 2010.

Although much is made of U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the equivalent of 412 billion barrels of oil
lie undiscovered beneath the sea ice, jurisdiction over the pole is unlikely to bring a huge resource bonanza.
Most of those hydrocarbons lie just off the coast of Russia. Most of the rest lies on or near continental
shelves, which are largely within existing jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CANADIAN F0RCES on June 09, 2009, 19:49:23
any updates on this?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Michael O'Leary on June 09, 2009, 20:59:17
any updates on this?

None that have been posted here yet.

Have you tried searching Google news for more recent information?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 03, 2009, 16:26:29
A post at The Torch:

Canadian Coast Guard for the North, not Navy
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/canadian-coast-guard-for-north-not-navy.html

Quote
The chairs (Liberal) of two Senate committees give their views:

'Wrong decisions could sink Canada’s navy
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1130016.html

By COLIN KENNY and BILL ROMPKEY

THERE are two very good reasons why military planners cannot afford to make mistakes when purchasing ships for Canada’s navy.

First, new ships are going to be at the heart of the kind of navy Canadians are going to need to negotiate the turbulent waters of international politics in the coming decade. Anyone who doesn’t think a robust navy is important to a nation’s political and economic influence is not paying attention to the way the world works.

Second, vessels are extremely expensive, and one or two procurement blunders could bankrupt plans to rehabilitate our navy, which is currently in danger of sailing toward irrelevance.

For those reasons, the strange goings-on at the Department of National Defence these days regarding two vital purchases has some close observers feeling a bit seasick.

The most obvious problem is with the announced purchase of three joint supply ships ["Joint Support Ships", actually].
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-joint-support-ship-anyway-and-when.html
That purchase has been on hold since bids came in that would have put the cost of the ships well beyond what the current government seems willing to pay for them.

These were supposed to be huge vessels that would play dual roles, replacing 40-year-old supply ships that provide ammunition and fuel for Canadian task force operations at sea as well as hauling vehicles and other equipment for Canadian land forces operating abroad. The standstill on this purchase threatens naval renewal.

But there is another dual-purpose vessel on the drawing board that is cause for concern — the planned purchase of six to eight naval patrol vessels to be used in the Arctic in the summer and fall and off Canada’s East and West coasts the rest of the year.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-more-never.html

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has maintained for the past two years that the government’s plan to purchase these ships is wrong-headed for a number of reasons.

Now the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans — in its new report Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/fish-e/rep-e/rep02may09-e.pdf
— is also pointing to a better strategy for controlling Northern waters.

The Harper government, rightly seized with the issue of promoting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, has decided that the best way to do this would be to put these new patrol vessels under the control of the navy. They would also take on some Arctic responsibilities traditionally handled by the Canadian Coast Guard [icebreaking here].
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Ice_Home

The Fisheries and Oceans report points out, "The coast guard has far more experience and expertise in the North than the navy." It says that the coast guard should be outfitted with new icebreakers that might not be in the same league as the powerful Russian icebreaking fleet, but which would at least be more respectable than the ones we have now.

Canada’s current icebreaking fleet, the report points out, is long in the tooth and was designed to be used in the St. Lawrence River, not the Arctic Ocean. "Canada’s icebreaking fleet will not be adequate once shipping increases" (due to warming in Northern waters). Unfortunately, only one new icebreaker is being ordered ["The "Diefenbreaker"--in 2017!?!"],
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html
as the government focuses instead on the patrol vessels. Those patrol vessels, the Fisheries and Oceans report observes, will only be capable of breaking newly formed ice. Serious Arctic vessels must be capable of handling the harder, thicker multi-year ice that will continue to clog Arctic waters.

Furthermore, the report quotes Michael Turner, former acting commissioner of the coast guard, as saying that since the new ships would be of hybrid design, they would have "limited capability in open water." This obviously applies to both the Arctic and along Canada’s East and West coasts. Slow and lightly armed, the new ships are meant for "low threat" environments. They would be too weak for Northern work.

The Committee on National Security and Defence has argued in two reports that moving the navy into the Arctic will drain its effectiveness elsewhere, and that the navy does not have the competence that the coast guard possesses in the Arctic [see here and here].
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007756.html
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRep27mar07-e.pdf

It has further argued that the coast guard should be armed like the U.S. coast guard is armed. If the government wants guns on boats to make a point about sovereignty — which it obviously does — then arm the coast guard. The union representing coast guard employees is not against this, as long as officers and crews are properly trained and compensated.

Again, the Defence committee reports dovetail with the Fisheries and Oceans report, which recommends deploying multi-mission coast guard icebreakers "as a cost-effective alternative to Canada’s surveillance and sovereignty patrol needs in the Arctic."

In short, both the manning of these patrol vessels by navy officers and the purchase of the ships themselves would be a huge mistake — the kind of mistake a country with a limited military budget can’t afford to make. These patrol vessels wouldn’t even be fast enough to outrun speedy fishing vessels, which makes them of dubious use on the East and West coasts.

When two committees tell the government it needs to rethink its course in the Arctic, perhaps the government should show some signs that it is listening.'

I agree with most of the above. However I do not think the Canadian Coast Guard itself needs to be armed. Armed RCMP or Fishery officers are now carried as necessary (as can be Navy personnel), and weapons such as machine guns can be temporarily mounted if needed. Heavier calibre weapons are not necessary. Canada is not going to assert its (dubious) sovereignty over the Northwest Passage by shooting explosive shells at foreign vessels but by maintaining a presence of government vessels, for which the Coast Guard is just fine.

The Harper government's insistence on using the military to assert sovereignty in the North is wrongheaded, especially as no country has any claim to our land there (Hans Island aside). Some earlier posts:

"Icebreakers best bet in Arctic"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/icebreakers-best-bet-in-arctic.html

The right approach to Arctic "sovereignty"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/right-approach-to-arctic-sovereignty.html

The icebreakers we should build
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/icebreakers-we-should-build.html
   
"A job for the Coast Guard"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/job-for-coast-guard.html

What to do with the Canadian Coast Guard?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-to-do-with-canadian-coast-guard.html

"Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/09/military-should-focus-on-coastline-not.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on July 05, 2009, 15:10:10
The first step in changing the CCG mindset will be to arm existing vessels with .50cal MG. This will be a cheap and easy fix. It will allow them to more effectively support armed boarding parties provided by the RCMP/navy. I guesstimated the cost to arm each major CCG ship with 3 MG, two protected mounts, ammo lockers, gun lockers and communications systems to be approx $50,000 for each ship. Training can be done during regular crew cycles onboard with the trainers coming along with the ship on it's regular duties. After the initial qualifications, the crew can do target practice at sea and other training during regular crew cycles. this is actually the easy part. The hard part will be changing the mindset of the senior management and Captains. Ships' Officers will have to take courses designed to teach them basic interdiction tactics, use of force policies. As the junior officers who receive this training move up the ranks they will be better prepared to run ships with heavier armament. In the future I can see a CCG ship with a remote operated turret with perhaps a gun in the 50mm range and MG mounts on both sides. It may be fitted with or more likely "capable" of carrying either Surface to surface or AD missiles and defensive systems like chaff.
The fitting of a small turreted gun will give the CCG the means to enforce sovereignty on foreign shipping and illegal fishing. It won't have to be used as much as it's there as an implied threat, similar to a Police Officer holstered gun.
As for boarding parties, that's a huge kettle of fish, requiring lots of training, manning, physical health standards and a huge mindshift within the Guard. Start with the Mg's and by the time new ships come along the mindshift will have started. Even if the debate about arming them is not settled, build them to be capable of being armed with hard points already built into the vessel.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on July 12, 2009, 00:54:18
The first step in changing the CCG mindset will be to arm existing vessels with .50cal MG.
There is an ongoing discussion on this theme of arming the CCG for domestic security purposes here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,32547.0.html
Title: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: milnews.ca on July 31, 2009, 20:09:06
In response to RUS announcing they're sending paratroopers to the North Pole next year (http://www.canada.com/Russians+drop+troops+Arctic/1847925/story.html),
Quote
Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the Canadian government is closely watching Russian plans to drop paratroopers in the Arctic next April.

"Any country that is approaching Canadian airspace, Canadian territory, will be met by Canadians," MacKay said Friday in Halifax after an announcement on an international security conference planned for November.

MacKay didn't give any specifics on what Canada will do in April but he said Canada is prepared to protect its borders.

"We're going to protect our sovereign territory and we're always to meet any challenge to that territorial sovereignty. "....
More from the Canadian Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hxZBx-wT-ciwsuc0SVDJJteJnuJQ).

Some previous discussion around this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,79865.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,77491.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,42518.0.html
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: AJFitzpatrick on August 01, 2009, 03:11:05
And more

Harper to attend military's Arctic sovereignty exercise (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jYur3S5sxR578sNGi0S77V7I5Cng)

Out of curiosity does the prime minister have a formal military position in the chain of command?
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: X-mo-1979 on August 01, 2009, 13:47:34
So does this mean next year the Yellowknife Company will be on a NTM?As that is what they were created for?

Let's face it.We will have in the end what Russia and the USA leaves us with.I have a funny feeling Our posturing and the Danes will have little to no effect.

So would this be an invasion?As the Russians have already claimed it?If we are there already wouldn't that be a Canadian invasion of Russia?
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: wildman0101 on August 01, 2009, 23:34:27
russian para (special forces spetsna???) excuse the spelling
wouldnt that be and act of agression(war) on our our
soverign claimed  territory,,,, just a question is all
                            scoty b
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: X-mo-1979 on August 01, 2009, 23:35:41
russian para (special forces spetsna???) excuse the spelling
wouldnt that be and act of agression(war) on our our
soverign claimed  territory,,,, just a question is all
                            scoty b

Question is THEY have claimed it.Have placed their flag on it.Would us being there to meet them be a act of aggression on our part?
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: retiredgrunt45 on August 02, 2009, 08:06:04
The US and the Russians have already claimed the artic 50 years ago at the start of the cold war. They've had their boomers and attack subs patrolling those waters for decades...

I keep hearing the government say "we'll defend our rights to the artic. Don't they realize that by our inaction over the past 5 decades that we have already lost those rights.

The real fight is going to be between the US and Russia and like it or not, Canada will get whatever is left over after the two heavy weights finish duking it out. If Canada has any hope of trying to defend its northern borders I think the government should start shopping for a few nuclear subs like yesterday.

McKay is just embarrassing himself and his government by continuing to shout empty conjecture. Then there's Mr. Cannon "we'll do it the Canadian way and be nice" I'm sure the Russians will make nice, shake hands and say no problem take what you want. God get a clue! 
We've been hearing the same old song since 2006. Only Now they sound just like the liberals.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: Old Sweat on August 02, 2009, 08:28:06
Before we go nuclear here, let's get some more information. For starters, how do the Russians expect to extract their jumpers from as inhospitable a place as we are apt to find on the earth? Either they are talking a very small party that could rendezvous with a nuclear submarine or be picked up by a light aircraft or helicopter which is taking a big chance, or they are planning to jump onto or near an already established scientific or research station floating on the ice. Perhaps they are planning to drop the equivalent of the old 12 plane formation commando group that was a standby of our airborne planning a long time ago. They might be planning to drop a large enough force to include engineer plant to build an airstrip and enough folks to guide aircraft in to extract them.

Note: in the early '80s the SSF para dropped a respectable-sized force near a Soviet scientific station that was drifting/floating on sea ice in the very high arctic. This had been coordinated with the USSR before and our troops built an airfield for their own extraction and for the resupply of the research station.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: Dennis Ruhl on August 02, 2009, 11:24:46

Out of curiosity does the prime minister have a formal military position in the chain of command?

Yes and no.  Cabinet is authorized to make regulations and the prime minister leads cabinet and cabinet sits at his will.  A challenge in Canada is to find legislation that grants any power to the prime minister.  All power flows from the Queen through the Governor-General to the Prime Minister.  The prime minister isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

While specific powers are awarded to the Minister of National Defence, he could be replaced tomorrow even by the Prime Minister himself and the will of the Prime Minister will be enforced.  While the Prime Minister's power isn't written, it is real and through administrative powers almost dictatorial.

http://www.queensu.ca/dms/DMS_Course_Materials_and_Outline/NDHQ-Accountability%20and%20Organization-Sept1999.pdf
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: Dog on August 03, 2009, 18:42:46
We all know that Canada will never do more than pay lip-service to arctic defense. It's too expensive, and too much of a hassle to start a new web of infrastructure. Military expansion has never been a priority of the average Canadian Taxpayer... should we lose our rights to the arctic however, watch the masses scream with outrage declaring that the military should have taken steps to prevent the loss.

Not that I'm complaining.... I sure as hell don't want to get posted up above the tree-line.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: SARgirl on August 03, 2009, 19:10:19
This is a topic I don't know very much about.

So... what is stopping Russia from showing up on our arctic shoreline tomorrow and if they want it so badly, why haven't they used their force to take it?  Does Canada really stand much of a chance in stopping the Russians, when we are so short on troops, weapons, air craft, subs etc...?
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: C.G.R on August 04, 2009, 17:52:24
Quote
Does Canada really stand much of a chance in stopping the Russians, when we are so short on troops, weapons, air craft, subs etc...?

On our own it is not likely that we could stop them ourselves, especially since we are already in our current Afghanistan mission. But I'm sure we could hold them off long enough until we could get proper support from our allies.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: basrah on August 04, 2009, 18:07:21
Before we go nuclear here, let's get some more information. For starters, how do the Russians expect to extract their jumpers from as inhospitable a place as we are apt to find on the earth?

Wouldnt be too hard to build an austere airstrip with a company of Russian Desantnye troopers (not spetsnaz), and the proper equipment. If they are jumping in then I am guessing they would already have some fairly flat terrain picked out.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: aesop081 on August 04, 2009, 18:17:50
omg...make this thread stop.......
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on December 15, 2009, 21:26:08
Canadian Army Journal on this topic in the newest edition (summer 2009) -  http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_10_e.pdf
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Antoine on December 16, 2009, 01:54:45
Awesome, thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 24, 2009, 11:31:13
The first paragraphs pretty well sums up Canada's approach to all international issues, lot's of talk , little action. I agree with the "whole government approach" but keep in mind the legislative map is complex. With 3 territories and 2 Provinces involved there will be a lot of jostling going on. Just in the Environmental review of any project might fall under one or more of the 4 environmental assessment Acts up there and possibly one the 2 Provincial reviews.

Personally I like the idea of small armed patrol boats based near the larger communities. These would be seasonal and would manned by local reserves mainly. They would work in conjunction with the larger Southern based vessels. Keep the small vessel fairly basic and easy to maintain using commercial systems and a simple weapon system. There job is to show the flag, support the local government, custom officals, SAR and police forces and build the expertise in the regions. The patrol vessels should be less than a 100' Vessel would be kept in the Arctic and hauled out for the winter, similar to how ATL operated.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Antoine on December 24, 2009, 17:42:13
Are those papers written for the benefit of civil servants working in DND and foreign office, for higher executive level (members of parliament,...) or for officers in the CF ?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Antoine on December 25, 2009, 16:07:36
I am catching up during Holidays on my reading of CF papers, they are usually well written and many are readable by the general public (includes me).

I don`t read often similar paper (in quality) from civilian journalists (the generalist one) about related topics. Do they read those? Unbelievable, if you want a job well done (such as find good information) you need to do it yourself.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: PMedMoe on April 06, 2010, 12:06:41
Military scientists to study secrets of Arctic living (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/06/north-arctic-human-behaviour.html)

Canada's High Arctic will double as a scientific laboratory over the next month for two Canadian military scientists studying human behaviour in extreme environments.

Michel Paul, a specialist in fatigue countermeasures, and social psychologist Don McCreary are researchers with Defense Research Development Canada. They are launching a three-year study of daylight and darkness exposure on military personnel.

And starting Tuesday, they are part of Operation Nunalivut, a month-long High Arctic military operation in Alert, Nunavut. The operation is part of sovereignty operations conducted every year by the Canadian Forces in Canada's North.

More on link
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: PMedMoe on April 28, 2010, 10:10:40
Dogged diplomats steal the show in Canada-Denmark High Arctic exercise (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dogged-diplomats-steal-the-show-in-canada-denmark-high-arctic-exercise/article1549051/)

Charlie is a tad coarse for a Danish diplomat.

He sheds enough hair in a day to knit a sweater, drools when excited and bares his teeth when compatriots try to steal food.

But Charlie, a white and brown Greenlandic sled dog, may have done more over the past two weeks to ease Arctic relations between Canada and Denmark than any human diplomat since 1973 – when the two countries first fell into disagreement in this region over ownership of a rocky outcropping in the Nairn Strait called Hans Island.

A member of the Danish military’s elite dog-sled team, Charlie – along with his 12 shaggy teammates and two ultra-fit human handlers – has mushed and panted alongside the Canadian Forces for the past three weeks as part of Operation Nunalivut, a Canadian sovereignty exercise based here in the northern-most settlement in the world.

While the dogs arrived as a symbol of High Arctic co-operation between Canada and Denmark, they left as the undisputed stars of the massive exercise, which wrapped up Monday with the arrival of dignitaries such as Chief of the Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Premier of Nunavut Eva Aariak.

“Just beautiful dogs aren’t they,” cooed Gen. Natynczyk, as he succumbed to the pet-me-please pout of Charlie. “They are an impressive animal.”

As if Canada’s top general wasn’t sufficiently smitten, Charlie rolled over for a belly rub. “Ha, would you look at that,” said the battle-hardened general as he knelt down and began scratching.

More on link
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 10, 2010, 13:31:48
Pretty good (and long) piece on the whole "Arctic sovereignty" hoo-hah, including Conservative manipulation:
 
Uneasy passage: The Northwest Passage is central to Canadian identity, yet its future remains uncertain
http://www.canada.com/technology/UNEASY+PASSAGE/3133386/story.html
 
Worth the read.

Meanwhile, who's growling now? 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100609/arctic-cda-russia-100608/20100609?hub=Canada&s_name=
 
Quote
The Canadian government denounced it as a land-grabbing stunt when Russia planted its flag on the sea floor under the North Pole in 2007. 

But it was all smiles and handshakes at a conference in Norway this week when federal Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl met the man who piloted the flag-planting sub. 

Strahl says the first thing Arthur Chilingarov did was to ask him to return to Russia this fall to discuss Arctic issues, which he calls a sign the bear is finally starting to crawl out of its cave.  Strahl says that despite well-publicized disputes over possible boundaries in the North, Russia and Canada are becoming increasingly chummy. 

Their foreign affairs ministers have met four times this year, and Strahl has signed an agreement with his Russian counterpart on northern economic development.
 
No joint military or mapping operations are planned, though, and Strahl says Russian intentions in the North can still be a bit of a "cipher.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: SocialyDistorted on June 10, 2010, 20:00:35
I am catching up during Holidays on my reading of CF papers, they are usually well written and many are readable by the general public (includes me).

I don`t read often similar paper (in quality) from civilian journalists (the generalist one) about related topics. Do they read those? Unbelievable, if you want a job well done (such as find good information) you need to do it yourself.

For my culminating in Gr12 International Law my essay was about Canadian arctic sovereignty, and most of my sources were either CF or Parliament. Not really related to the topic, just saying those navy Officers know how to write information papers
Title: Anyone out there know how to design/build a polar icebreaker?
Post by: milnews.ca on June 29, 2010, 10:23:22
This (http://is.gd/d8Oi2) from MERX:
Quote
.... 1.0    On June 3, 2010, the Government of Canada announced the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (the Strategy).  Under the Strategy, the Government will establish a long-term, strategic relationship with two Canadian shipyards for the procurement of large ships - one for combat vessels, the other for non-combat vessels. The shipyards will be selected through an open, fair and transparent competitive process. The Polar Icebreaker is one of the non-combat vessels included in the Strategy. This Letter of Interest for the Design Phase of the project is in accordance with the Strategy.

1.1    The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), an agency of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has a requirement for a Polar Icebreaker to be designed, constructed, outfitted, trialed and delivered.

1.2    The current Canadian Coast Guard's most capable heavy icebreaker, CCGS LOUIS S. ST-LAURENT, is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2017.

1.3    In February 2008, the Government announced the procurement of a Polar Icebreaker to be introduced into service in 2017.  The new Polar Icebreaker will have an expected operational life of at least forty years.

1.4    The government is considering proceeding with a two phase procurement process for the Polar Icebreaker, known as a "Design then Build" procurement. The first phase will be to contract for design services and the second phase would be to contract for the vessel construction.

1.5    The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI) is threefold:
- to communicate the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) initial requirements,
- to solicit information regarding the domestic and foreign industry capabilities for the provision of design services specific to the unique aspects of modern icebreaking
design, and
- to solicit industry feedback on the feasibility of the envisaged polar icebreaker requirements.

1.6    The overall aim is to gain a full appreciation of the ship design industry and identify the Canadian and the global expertise and experience available to deliver a construction specification and Class approved drawing package for building a modern multi-purpose Polar Icebreaker. It also seeks industry's endorsement or comments on the CCG's basic vessel concept assumptions ....
Reference Number     PW-$$NQ-008-20159
Solicitation Number    F7013-10POLA/A


More on the proposed role and (at least conceptual) specs in attached.
Title: More work being done to map Canada's Arctic floor
Post by: milnews.ca on January 01, 2011, 13:11:44
Wanted (http://bit.ly/f4W84D):  Someone to run/maintain Canadian Arctic underwater unmanned subs....
Quote
Under ice Arctic bathymetric Arctic mapping is a challenging task, due to the remoteness of the region and the unpredictable weather and ice conditions. DRDC Atlantic (DEFENCE Research and Development Canada) is collaborating with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in mapping the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean using AUVs.  To support AUV under ice mapping, DRDC is responsible as the scientific authority for the operation and maintenance of the AUVs in Arctic surveys. NRCan and DFO are responsible for logistical support for the Arctic AUV mapping activity.

This requirement is to provide operational support, operator training and general maintenance services for two DRDC Atlantic Arctic Explorer Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) and associated equipment on an "as and when requested" basis, through a contract with Task  Authorizations. This work is to provide specialized support services for two ISE Research Ltd.  (ISER) designed and built "Arctic Explorer" autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV). These AUVs are under-ice capable, 5000m depth rated, are modular in construction and support both in-water battery charging and a variable ballast system for surfacing under the ice or resting on the sea bottom. The experienced vendor will provide support services related to AUV vehicle operations and maintenance in various locations including the Arctic and other non ice covered waters as required ....

More in the Statement of Work here (http://scr.bi/fPR2Ea) (PDF at Scribd.com).

Previous "other elements of Arctic strategy" discussion:
- CF Forming "Yellowknife Company" of Loyal Edmonton Regiment (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,86599.0/all.html)
- Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,86956.0.html)
- Top sailor defends navy's role in Arctic (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,87264.0.html)
- 20 Aug 10: "Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy Statement" Released (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,96113.0.html)
Title: What one American defence commentator has to say....
Post by: milnews.ca on January 11, 2011, 22:06:40
.... on the issue:

1)  U.S. has WAY more under-the-ice subs than Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway, so it has the edge.

2)  "An Arctic war is highly unlikely, at best"

More here (http://bit.ly/gxpmwf) ("How the U.S. Wins the Coming Arctic War," David Axe, Wired.com's Danger Room blog) and here (http://wapo.st/gtCSqW) ("As Arctic melts, U.S. ill equipped to tap resources," Jacquelyn Ryan, Washington Post).
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 08, 2011, 10:52:14
Not much "defending" necessary:

Tories play to misconceptions on Arctic with jet-thundering photo-op (CP by Murray Brewster)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/somnia/article1933244/

Quote
It was a thundering display of Canada’s Northern resolve with jet fighters, a frigate and even a submarine, but a recently released poll suggests such exercises in military prowess play to the public’s mistaken belief the Arctic is under threat.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay posed for a photo-op on the deck of HMCS Toronto 18 months ago in Frobisher Bay, internal polling told them a majority of Canadians believed the North was in peril — a view not shared by defence officials.

"Three in five Canadians (60 per cent) living north of 60 degrees, and one-half of Canadians (52 per cent) in the south, believe there is a threat to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty or to the security of its northern border," says a 2009 Environics survey.

The poll was commissioned by the Defence Department and released under the Access to Information Act after long delays.

But a Defence Department briefing note that same year assured the minister there was no real threat.

"There is no longer a conventional military threat in the Arctic," says the Aug. 11, 2009, briefing note, also obtained by The Canadian Press under the access law.

"The resumption of Russian military exercises in the region is more symbolic of Moscow wanting to be taken seriously as a world power than a return to the armed standoff of the Cold War."

The Environics survey found seven in 10 people worried other countries would challenge Canada’s claim in the Arctic and that a military buildup, not diplomacy, was the best way to handle it.

"Increasing military presence receives the most unprompted mentions from Canadians as a way to clearly establish Canada’s claim to Arctic territory," said an analysis accompanying the poll...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2011, 11:34:04
I wonder if Gazprom and Rosneft sell whiskey?  Perhaps that would make the "threat" more "real".

From a denizen of Fort Whoop Up.
Title: Re: CAN DefMin: Canada Will "Meet Any Challenge" in Arctic
Post by: Thucydides on March 24, 2012, 14:53:18
Perhaps this necro thread is the right place to see where all these grand plans have gotten to. The guy in the trailer will make an astounding amount of TD, though:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Short+changing+Arctic/6353066/story.html

Quote
Short-changing the Arctic

National Post · Mar. 24, 2012 | Last Updated: Mar. 24, 2012 4:05 AM ET

The Tories have talked a good game about Canada being an Arctic country. Prime Minister Stephen Harper never misses a chance to tag along with the military during Operation Nanook, an annual military exercise in the Far North. Our leaders get touchy when Moscow or Copenhagen calls into question our sovereignty over northern waters. We fret about Russian bombers and American submarines going where they aren't wanted. And so, in the spirit of projecting Canada's power northward, way back in the long-ago era of 2007, the Tories promised a major naval base in the Arctic.

And then we didn't hear much about it. Until now. Turns out the "major" northern naval base will consist of a few trailers and a guy with a satellite phone. And not all the time, of course. Just in the summer.

An examination of the political literature makes for illuminating reading. A statement made in 2007 describes the proposed facility in exciting terms: "The establishment of a docking and refuelling facility in Nanisivik will better enable the Canadian Forces, and in particular the new Arctic/ Offshore Patrol Ships, to maintain a federal presence in Canada's Arctic waters throughout the navigable season. The site selected for this facility is strategically located inside the eastern entrance to the North West Passage, at Nanisivik in Nunavut. ... With its sheltered harbour, nearby jet-capable airstrip, and proximity to the North West Passage, Nanisivik offers an ideal location for the docking and refuelling facility."

The statement of 2007 noted that "construction at the Nanisivik site is expected to commence in the summer of 2010, with an initial operating capability planned for 2012, and full operational capability by 2015." It would have been used to support our proposed patrol ships, and any other government vessel patrolling in the region. A 2009 update confirmed that the base at Nanisivik was "on schedule" - even if that schedule seemed to be in flux.

Then came the recession. And the Libyan campaign - which came on top of the existing deployment in Afghanistan. But with those missions behind us now, you would think the government would be focusing on fulfilling its Arctic promises.

Instead, the government has backtracked, without admitting it. The new plan, just announced, will see a small, temporary facility set up, to be used as needed: "DND [Department of National Defence] will axe all permanent accommodations for personnel and will use 'existing DND trailers' for those brief periods when the site is used for refuelling government vessels," Postmedia reported this week. "DND is cutting plans to install a telecommunications system, saying staff can use handheld radios and satellite phones instead." When a facility is built to be used on an as-needed basis, the government clearly believes it won't be needed very much.

The original plan for the base would have given Canada a real foothold in Arctic waters. The new plan will give us enough to stage the odd show of presence in the region ... which we already do. Rather than being a gamechanger, this will make what we already do moderately easier. Canada is either going to be an Arctic power or it isn't. If the government can't even commit the $100-million it originally wanted to spend on developing a proper naval base in the Arctic region, the answer to that question is clear.

The government's policy here is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Canada's economy is largely resource-based. And for a relatively modest investment - the creation of the planned base, and perhaps others, as well as an investment in new ships - we have an opportunity to establish ourselves as the incumbent power in large swathes of the Arctic. Instead, we are creating a window of opportunity for other powers to play that role.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Old Sweat on August 26, 2012, 07:36:29
Rather than start a new thread I decided to post this story here. It concerns an assault by JTF2 on a ship that is supposed to be involved in illegal activities in the north. The text is a transcript of the voiceover (is that a word?) for the story that was broadcast by CTV. The comments on the story range from inane to semi-coherent but most share a common thread - lack of knowledge of the subject matter. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.


Canada’s secret military task force unveiled

CTV National News: Veil of secrecy lifted
 
Joint Task Force 2, Canada's covert Special Forces, were thrust into the public eye for operation Nanook on Friday. Daniele Hamamdjian reports.
 
CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 10:07PM EDT
Last Updated Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 10:54PM EDT


Canada’s top secret task force isn’t so secret anymore, emerging from the shadows and landing in the public spotlight Friday in an unprecedented show of its specialized military skills.
 
Members of Joint Task Force 2, an elite group praised for its counter-terrorism operations around the world, participated in a complex simulation exercise in Hudson Bay and Churchill, Man., in front of cameras for the first time, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay looked on.
 
The simulation was part of Operation Nanook 12’s annual summer exercises and involved dropping Joint Task Force 2 operators from Griffon helicopters on a “vessel of interest,” played in the scenario by an oil-and-gas exploration ship from Cape Breton. Other soldiers, clad in black, surrounded the ship on inflatable boats.
 
The exercise helps special forces prepare for any ships entering Canadian waters illegally and other sea, land or air threats.
 
Harper, MacKay and Gen. Walt Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, watched Operation Nanook 12 aboard the HMCS St. John’s.
 
“I was deeply impressed, and frankly, as a Canadian, I was unabashedly proud … of the skill and precision with which you performed,” Harper said later, addressing the Canadian Forces.
 
Until now, Ottawa hasn’t publicly acknowledged the existence of Joint Task Force 2, which has done work in Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan and reportedly in Iraq, where a Canadian hostage was rescued.
 
The faces of the special group will never be seen, but officials say it’s important that the world knows they are a significant part of Canada’s military muscle.
 
“It's important for them to be seen and be contributing to Canada's overall defence because a lot of what they do is in the shadows,” Brig. Gen. Denis Thompson, commander of the Canadian Forces Special Operations Command, told reporters.
 
“It's more demonstrative today because there's more interest up there in just showing that we have the ability to reach out, anywhere, at any time,” said Maj. Gen. David Fraser, a retired military commander.
 
In a month or so, the Canadian Forces will be posting a recruitment video for the special task force on its website.
.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-secret-military-task-force-unveiled-1.929414#ixzz24e5cURs4
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2012, 07:44:33
On the same ex, from the Postmedia News chain (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper+says+Arctic+defence+spending+critical/7139589/story.html), with an interesting political tid bit:
Quote
The Canadian Forces brought out of the shadows its elite special forces unit Friday, putting Joint Task Force 2 on display for Prime Minister Stephen Harper on a day when the prime minister said the military could — and would — be ready to defend the North’s abundant natural resources.

The unprecedented view of and access to the highly secretive JTF-2, whose members’ names and faces are not publicly known, was the first time the elite unit put on a public demonstration of its capabilities, boarding a moving vessel by sea and air in Hudson Bay in a prepared scenario where a suspected terrorist was aboard an ecotourism vessel headed for Canada.

( .... )

The Prime Minister’s Office encouraged the military to have JTF-2 involved in Operation Nanook, and asked the military to allow the media to watch the unit in action. When asked if the Canadian public could expect more displays given how Friday’s event went, Thompson said: “I don’t think that’s necessarily the conclusion I would make.” ....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GAP on August 26, 2012, 09:13:45

In a month or so, the Canadian Forces will be posting a recruitment video for the special task force on its website.


Lordy..lordy....I can just see the recruiting threads balloon with wannabe's in heat........ ::)
Title: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: MikeL on August 26, 2012, 12:36:38
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-secret-military-task-force-unveiled-1.929414

Quote
CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 10:07PM EDT
Last Updated Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 10:54PM EDT
Canada’s top secret task force isn’t so secret anymore, emerging from the shadows and landing in the public spotlight Friday in an unprecedented show of its specialized military skills.
Members of Joint Task Force 2, an elite group praised for its counter-terrorism operations around the world, participated in a complex simulation exercise in Hudson Bay and Churchill, Man., in front of cameras for the first time, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay looked on.
The simulation was part of Operation Nanook 12’s annual summer exercises and involved dropping Joint Task Force 2 operators from Griffon helicopters on a “vessel of interest,” played in the scenario by an oil-and-gas exploration ship from Cape Breton. Other soldiers, clad in black, surrounded the ship on inflatable boats.
The exercise helps special forces prepare for any ships entering Canadian waters illegally and other sea, land or air threats.
Harper, MacKay and Gen. Walt Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, watched Operation Nanook 12 aboard the HMCS St. John’s.
“I was deeply impressed, and frankly, as a Canadian, I was unabashedly proud … of the skill and precision with which you performed,” Harper said later, addressing the Canadian Forces.
Until now, Ottawa hasn’t publicly acknowledged the existence of Joint Task Force 2, which has done work in Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan and reportedly in Iraq, where a Canadian hostage was rescued.
The faces of the special group will never be seen, but officials say it’s important that the world knows they are a significant part of Canada’s military muscle.
“It's important for them to be seen and be contributing to Canada's overall defence because a lot of what they do is in the shadows,” Brig. Gen. Denis Thompson, commander of the Canadian Forces Special Operations Command, told reporters.
“It's more demonstrative today because there's more interest up there in just showing that we have the ability to reach out, anywhere, at any time,” said Maj. Gen. David Fraser, a retired military commander.
In a month or so, the Canadian Forces will be posting a recruitment video for the special task force on its website.
With a report from CTV’s Daniele Hamamdjian


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-secret-military-task-force-unveiled-1.929414#ixzz24fPrwHvg
Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: MikeL on August 26, 2012, 12:38:03
(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/c850006d.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/daaac781.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/03ae5639.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/71c39c87.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/cda052a7.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/7b9e4494.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/9f3719d5.jpg)
Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: MikeL on August 26, 2012, 12:38:56
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/harper-presides-over-military-exercise-in-hudson-bay-during-operation-nanook-1.928831

Quote

Harper presides over military exercise in Hudson Bay during Operation Nanook

By Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press
Published Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 1:34PM CST
Last Updated Friday, Aug. 24, 2012 2:37PM CST
CHURCHILL, Man. -- An eco-tourism boat carrying suspected illegal immigrants who pose a danger to Canadians was the focus Friday of the military's summer operation in Hudson Bay.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper observed the exercise from the so-called "vessel of interest."
The scenario was also of particular interest to a Conservative government that's been preoccupied with the issue of human smuggling since boatloads of migrants arrived off the shores of British Columbia in 2010.
It recently passed legislation which the Conservatives say will address the problem by imposing stiff fines and sentences on smugglers, and also by detaining people who are suspected of having been smuggled into the country.
The 12th Operation Nanook exercise in Hudson Bay included 650 members of the Canadian Forces, include some of Canada's elite special forces.
The cost of the exercise, as well as one being carried out simultaneously in the Western Arctic, is estimated to be $16.5 million.
"In an uncertain world, where demand for resources is growing, where any number of civilian needs can suddenly come upon us, and where conflicts and potential conflicts remain ever present, you, our men and women in uniform, are here, to, literally stand on guard for the True North strong and free," Harper told the troops on board the HMCS St. John's after the exercise concluded.
The Conservatives have set aside substantial funds for the military's Northern capabilities.
Some $100 million is being spent to build a deep-water facility in Nanisivik, Nunavut, while a further $3.1 billion is being allocated to purchase new offshore patrol ships.
Those ships, first announced in 2006, now may not be operational until 2023.
They've been rolled into the government's overall shipbuilding procurement strategy.
The prime minister acknowledged the delays Thursday while in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, but said the goals are meant to be long-term and pursued on a step-by-step basis.
"I agree it's taking time, but we are taking the time to make sure we get this right, that we spend the right amount of money and we develop this kind of shipbuilding expertise in Canada in the long-term," Harper said.
The Defence Department recently acknowledged it actually doesn't believe Canada is under any kind of military threat in the Arctic. But there's more to Arctic spending than defence, Harper said.
"I think it's critical that we be capable of all kinds of purposes, not just direct military purposes -- sovereignty purposes, search and rescue and other things -- to be able to access all of our Arctic at all times of the year," he said.
The military has been carrying out summer exercises in the North since 2005.
They are billing this year's event as the most complex, partially because they are running two simulations at the same time.
The one taking place near Inuvik involves a rescue mission following a boat collision.
"Sadly, possible scenarios sometimes become tragic realities as we saw last year in Resolute Bay with the crash of a First Air jet," Harper said. "It was a sad reminder that, in an uncertain world, constant preparedness is a soldier's occupation."


Read more: http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/harper-presides-over-military-exercise-in-hudson-bay-during-operation-nanook-1.928831#ixzz24fQRYidu

Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: Good2Golf on August 26, 2012, 12:43:51
Good stuff seeing the ski team come out a bit behind the cloak!

Would have loved to see the lads repeat this at night, it's impressive enough in the day, but especially so after the sun goes down.

Good show.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: Old Sweat on August 26, 2012, 12:49:54
Mods

Can we merge the posts starting here with this one?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16198.msg1167545.html#msg1167545
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Rider Pride on August 26, 2012, 14:08:50
Lordy..lordy....I can just see the recruiting threads balloon with wannabe's in heat........ ::)

Let them come and join up. The next sound won't be the popcorn....
Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: GK .Dundas on August 27, 2012, 04:50:11
[i

Geeze all that non issue kit. Somewhere there is an RSM  having a coronary!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Rider Pride on August 27, 2012, 05:52:59

Geeze all that non issue kit. Somewhere there is an RSM  having a coronary!

Non issue to you.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GK .Dundas on August 27, 2012, 16:28:16
Apparently humour unless accompanied by smileys is either verboten or at least frowned upon  I have apparently just lost lost 100 mil points. Not that I care about the loss of milpoints.
 Therefore could I have a list of those sacred cows that I am not allowed to poke fun at? I'm sure this will make life so much easier for all those who found my posts offensive ....
 Oh and one other thing if I am forced to use smileys ,could I have  a smiley that consists of a smiley character "Flipping the bird" so to speak ?
Title: Re: JTF2 during Op Nanook
Post by: Colin P on August 28, 2012, 17:23:28
[(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/71c39c87.jpg)

(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Canadian%20Army/cda052a7.jpg)



JTF detaining two suspicious charactors found to be hiding on the ship.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2012, 21:58:07
 ;D

However, there is a nose there that I recognize.

 :camo:
Title: CAN-DNK: Lincoln Sea Boundary sorted, Hans Island not yet
Post by: milnews.ca on November 29, 2012, 07:51:09
Quote
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister of the Arctic Council for Canada, and Villy Søvndal, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark, met today in Ottawa to discuss a range of issues of common interest and, in particular, engagement in Arctic matters.

The ministers announced that negotiators have reached a tentative agreement on where to establish the maritime boundary in the Lincoln Sea, the body of water north of Ellesmere Island and Greenland. This will resolve an issue between the two countries that arose in the 1970s. Once ratified, the agreement will also provide an opportunity to modernize provisions of the 1973 treaty that established the current boundary south of the Lincoln Sea.

(....)

The tentative agreement does not address the issue of sovereignty over Hans Island. That issue is the subject of continuing discussion intended to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution.

(....)
DFAIT Info-machine, 28 Nov 12 (http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2012/11/28a.aspx?lang=eng&view=d)

(http://ipolitics_assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Lincoln_Sea_resized-199x300.jpg)
Quote
The solid black line is the boundary agreed in the 1973 treaty. The broken black line is the boundary agreed ad referendum. The broken blue lines indicate 200-nautical-mile zones.

1. Lincoln Sea
2. Nares Strait
3. Baffin Bay
4. Davis Strait
5. Labrador Sea
Title: Danish freighter traversing Northwest Passage a sign of things to come?
Post by: S.M.A. on September 24, 2013, 12:17:27
Necroposted this thread back to life since it's the most relevant among the dozens of threads related to Arctic Sovereignty.

The article does not say whether the Danish vessel Nordic Orion has an ice-strengthened hull or if it had a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker for an escort, both of which were true for the SS Manhattan in 1969, if I can recall correctly.

Yahoo News: Daily Brew section (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/danish-freighter-traversing-northwest-passage-sign-things-come-221210126.html)

Quote

Danish freighter traversing Northwest Passage a sign of things to come – is Canada ready?

The Danish-owned freighter Nordic Orion's sailing this month through the Northwest Passage with a load of B.C. coal is a historic one. It's only the second commercial bulk carrier to traverse the Arctic route since 1969.

But the vessel is likely a harbinger for the future as climate change makes the ice-bound Northwest Passage increasingly navigable.

The implications for Canada are profound, given we claim sovereignty over the region and want to assert control over commercial traffic through the passage.

You can follow the Nordic Orion's progress here as it makes a its way across the top of Canada, scheduled to arrive at Pori, Finland in early October.

It's been more than four decades since the oil tanker SS Manhattan, its bow reinforced to deal with ice floes, made its much-publicized trip through the Northwest Passage to test its feasibility as a trade route to deliver Alaskan oil to the U.S. East Coast, avoiding a long trip south to the Panama Canal.

The Manhattan was ahead of its time. Its journey through the passage wasn't easy and the Americans opted for an oil pipeline to move Alaskan crude south. But as warming Arctic waters make the route navigable for longer each year, the passage could finally become a viable commercial shipping route.

“I think this pretty much cements our position as a world-leading ice operator,” Christian Bonfils, managing director of Nordic Bulk, told the Globe and Mail. “In four years, we have created history in two new shipping routes – we are a small company and that’s pretty special.”
Nordic Bulk shipped a load of iron ore from Norway to China via the Northern Sea Route, which runs through Russian territory, in 2010. The Nordic Orion's sister ship, the Nordic Odyssey, last year took on 65,000 tons of iron ore from Murmansk, in northern Russia, destined for China, according to the New Yorker.

“For some routes, it [the Northwest Passage] can save up to 7,000 kilometres – and that’s not just a distance savings, that’s a savings in terms of fuel, time and salaries,” Michael Byers, an international law expert at the University of British Columbia, told the Globe. “Time is money in the international shipping business and a 7,000-kilometre shortcut is of great interest.”

Byers, who writes a blog Who Owns the Arctic?, last month reposted an article he wrote for AlJazeera.com on the impact of opening Arctic waters.

China, especially, is looking for ways to speed the flow of goods to and from the the global trading superpower, he said.


"In China, the media refer to the Northern Sea Route as the 'Arctic Golden Waterway,' Byers wrote. "Professor Bin Yang of Shanghai Maritime University estimates the route could save his country $60 billion to $120 billion per year."

Russia has taken an aggressive approach to readying its waterways for increased traffic, he said, using icebreakers to escort commercial ships for a fee, and planning to add new search-and-rescue stations, upgrading its Arctic ports, improving weather and ice forecasting and streamlining shipping permits.

A 2006 paper on Arctic sovereignty prepared for the Parliament of Canada noted the climate change could result in nearly ice-free conditions for the entire summer as early as 2050, though probably not before 2100. However scientific studies suggest sea ice is receding even faster than predicted.


"The impacts of climate change heighten the existing dispute over the status of the Northwest Passage," the paper says. "Canada claims that the Arctic waters of the Northwest Passage constitute 'historic internal waters,' and thus fall under Canadian jurisdiction and control.

"However, this claim has been disputed, especially by the United States and the European Union. The United States has consistently argued that the Northwest Passage represents an international strait [international waters], which allows the right of transit passage [beyond 'innocent passage']."


Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said asserting Canada's sovereignty in the region is a priority but the Conservative governments ambitious northern strategy, which included a new fleet of icebreaking patrol ships, a naval refuelling station in the High Arctic and other measures, has stumbled amid budget cuts and the shift to other policy priorities.

The problem alarms some observers.

“The Russians have 10 bases, you would hope we could at least get one going,” Rob Huebert, an Arctic expert, told The Canadian Press last month.

(...)

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on September 24, 2013, 13:43:05
Time for glasses...I thought the ship's name was the Nordic Onion.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on December 03, 2013, 08:24:36
Looks like we might have more arctic over which to maintain sovereignty.
Quote
Canada’s new claim for up to 1.7 million square kilometres of Arctic seafloor may include North Pole
Bob Weber
National Post
01 Dec 2013

Some time this week, Canada is expected to make its case to the world to dramatically expand its boundaries by an area equivalent to the size of all three Prairie provinces.
 
Canada’s deadline is Friday to apply to a United Nations commission for exclusive rights to what is likely to be another 1.7 million square kilometres of Arctic seafloor. The application under the Convention on the Law of the Sea will be the culmination of a decade of work and more than $200 million in public money.
 
The lines on the map will have been drawn by scores of scientists working everywhere from Ottawa labs to ice camps off the northern shores of Ellesmere Island, peering under the stormy black waters to discern the shape and composition of sea floor thousands of metres below.

The effort required more than a dozen icebreaker voyages, as well as trips by helicopters, airplanes and an unmanned, remote-controlled submarine that spent days under the ice.
 
With the co-operation of three Arctic neighbours — Denmark, Russia and the United States — more than 18,000 kilometres of sea-floor data was collected from a part of the globe less familiar than the surface of the moon.
 
“It was a huge effort and enormously challenging,” said Michael Byers, an expert on Arctic and international law at the University of British Columbia.
 
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea governs which nations exert what kinds of controls over their surrounding waters. In addition to the 22-kilometre territorial waters and the 370-kilometre exclusive economic zones, coastal countries are allowed to claim additional sea floor if they can show their continental shelf extends beyond the economic zone.

Canada has previously released maps on the likely boundaries of its claim. Russia filed its claim in 2002 and Denmark released its last week.
 
The U.S. has not signed the convention, but has agreed to follow most of its articles. Its boundary dispute with Canada involves the exclusive economic zone and doesn’t directly impact Friday’s claim.
 
Conflicts are likely to be few. One calculation puts the amount of overlap between claims at a mere 75,000 square kilometres out of millions and millions.
 
Rob Huebert, an Arctic expert at the University of Calgary, will be watching to see if Canada stretches its claim past the North Pole. The geologic justification — an undersea mountain range called the Lomonosov Ridge that stretches north from Ellesmere Island — is there, he said.
 
“I don’t think there’s something magical that stops [the claim] at the North Pole,” he said.

Canadian officials have acknowledged mapping flights over the top of the world and into Russia’s claim, which does stop at the pole.
 
But Byers said there’s no evidence that Canada has collected the kind of data it would need to challenge Russia.
 
“We may have some small overlaps in the middle, but for the most part there will not be any overlap between the Russian submission on the one side and the Canadian and Danish submissions on the other,” he said.
 
It all depends on how valuable Canadian officials think that real estate is, said Huebert.
 
“Maybe it’s simply not worth it. Maybe we said, ’You know what, for the sake of international peace and stability, it’s not important. We’ll only do our science up to that and that will be the basis of our claim.’
 
“(But) it means we didn’t go as far as we could.”
 
Whether or not Canada will claim the North Pole, a decision on its fate is still probably 20 years off. Just checking the science on Canada’s claim will likely take five years, said Huebert.
 
And there isn’t any particular rush, said Byers. These claims cover some of the remotest and harshest points on the planet and commercial exploitation of resources is a long ways off.
 
But just getting to the point where countries have filed claims is a triumph, he said.
 
“In this former Cold War frontier we have an agreed set of rules. That has a huge payoff.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/01/canadas-new-claim-for-up-to-1-7-million-square-kilometres-of-arctic-seafloor-may-include-north-pole/
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on December 11, 2013, 14:49:28
In response, not only are the Russians reportedly beefing up their military presence way up north (http://bit.ly/1fktT53), but they also appear to be telegraphing more latent fears:
"Canada goes to the North Pole from the rear" (http://bit.ly/18DdpTW) (original in Russian here (http://bit.ly/19hKVj4))
 ;D
Title: US Coast Guard proposes Bering Strait shipping route
Post by: S.M.A. on December 07, 2014, 12:22:37
Wouldn't something like this indicate the urgency of completing the Diefenbreaker? As the Northwest Passage gets more and more navigable that is...

Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/05/coast-guard-proposes-bering-straits-shipping-route.html?comp=700001075741&rank=3)

Quote
Coast Guard Proposes Bering Straits Shipping Route

Associated Press | Dec 05, 2014 | by Seth Borenstein
With global warming leading to increased traffic to a vulnerable Arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard is proposing a 4.6-mile wide shipping route through the Bering Strait to try to protect the region.
Any accident in the sensitive area can be a major problem and traffic has increased tremendously, so the Coast Guard mapped out a voluntary two-way route — akin to a highway for ships — said agency project officer Lt. Kody Stitz.

"We see more traffic and envision more traffic to continue," Stitz said.

Last year ships went through the Bering Strait 440 times, twice what it was in 2008, according to a study in the journal Marine Policy.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 08, 2014, 14:39:42
More they are declaring a traffic control pattern, basically painting imaginary lines onto the ocean to prevent accidents and collisions

They would look like the purple lines on this chart

(http://www.newhavenlifeboat.co.uk/images/fullsize/channelchart.jpg)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on January 07, 2015, 15:57:23
While many have been commenting on the significance of Julian Fantino's move for Veteran’s Affairs, one commenter takes a look at this significance to Arctic Sovereignty. 

Quote
Minister of Arctic Neglect
Matt Gurney
National Post
07 Jan 2015

Julian Fantino's longoverdue dumping from his post as the minister for Veterans Affairs on Monday is probably good news for Canada's veterans. It's probably also good news for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who seems to have chosen Monday as a day to get some unpleasant business out of the way (he also had a meeting with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, a meeting she had been demanding for months). In a way, it may even be good news for Fantino himself. He was struggling in the job at Veterans Affairs, and after the sting of his very public demotion wears off, he may be glad to be doing something else.
 
But it is not good news for Canada's Arctic - which is, bizarrely, apparently one of the policy issues closest to the Prime Minister's heart. Because Mr. Fantino is back to being an associate minister of National Defence, and one of the areas of responsibility assigned to him is protecting Canada's Arctic sovereignty.
 
Oh, well, then. I guess that takes care of that. Your move, Moscow.

Talking about, and talking up, the Arctic has always been central to Mr. Harper's purported vision for Canada. Mr. Harper speaks often of the need to assert Canadian sovereignty over our northern territories, and of opening up our gigantic northern areas to economic (primarily natural resource) development.
 
The two goals would be mutually reinforcing, of course: Economic development would provide the riches, or so we hope, to cover the considerable costs of guarding said riches, and of having sufficient military capability to deter any incursions by hostile states (read: Russia), counter claims by otherwise friendly states (United States and Denmark), and providing a search-and-rescue capability in the event of an air travel or shipping disaster.
 
The problem is, despite the boasts, not much has been done. Yes, the Prime Minister makes an annual trip up north for a major military exercise, Operation Nanook, and that's nice. Also, the location of the Franklin Expedition's HMS Erebus last September is a major historical find that the Prime Minister, who made it a personal priority, deserves some credit for.
 
The list of unfulfilled promises, however, is distressingly long. Most striking was the
 
proposed major military base in the north. It was going to be a permanent outpost, staffed year round, with a port for warships to dock, supply and fuel facilities to provision those ships, a jet-capable airstrip and an advanced communications array. The fulltime staff would live in proper, climate-appropriate accommodations. After years of no updates, those plans were eventually whittled down to a part-time facility to be staffed only in warm weather, using trailers as living quarters and with handheld satellite phones for communications. Likewise, plans for a northern military training area were reduced essentially to a barracks tacked onto a science station in the middle of nowhere. It won't be used much by the military.
 
A proposal for three armed naval icebreakers magically transformed into one unarmed icebreaker for the Coast Guard. She'll enter service ... sometime next decade. Six to eight Arctic Patrol Ships for the Navy were announced in 2007. Now, eight years later, the Navy is hopeful that the first vessel may begun construction this fall ... and the auditor-general reported last year that, without more money, six to eight vessels may end up being more like three or four. Similarly, the High Arctic Research Station, discussed since 2007, only saw ground broken in late 2014.
 
Reduced ambition, delays, outright cancellation of projects - the Prime Minister's support for the Arctic is sadly similar to his support for the Armed Forces in general: Loud, seemingly heartfelt, and only occasionally turned into concrete action. The odd victory or promise kept doesn't, in the end, amount to a legacy or even competent stewardship. The Tories have talked a lot about the Arctic, taken some terrific photos and delivered ... little bits, here and there.
 
In a way, Mr. Fantino's new job as the minister responsible for our northern territory is symbolic. Mr. Fantino is considered important for his ability to hold his suburban Toronto riding of Vaughan, in Ontario's voterich 905 region and an asset among Italian-Canadians. His long law-enforcement career is certainly in line with the Tories' tough-on-crime agenda. But these facts aside, he's been a disaster as a cabinet minister, possessed of a reverse Midas touch: Every file he has touched has turned to, er, junk. There is simply no way anyone of sound mind and judgment would let him near anything even remotely important.
 
So Mr. Harper put him in charge of Arctic sovereignty.

No surprise, really. Mr. Harper used to say that Canada had to use its Arctic or lose it. With Mr. Fantino now on the job, it's clear that he's lost it.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 07, 2015, 16:36:52
that's an article that Micheal Byers could write, in fact it's only on the subject that is the Arctic will bother to read his articles. It's telling that 2 people with very different political views would likely sound the same on an issue.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GK .Dundas on January 07, 2015, 19:09:14
that's an article that Micheal Byers could write, in fact it's only on the subject that is the Arctic will bother to read his articles. It's telling that 2 people with very different political views would likely sound the same on an issue.
It could be worse ,Colin He could have been named Foreign Minister .
 If that had happened ,right now I would out back digging a bomb shelter. :facepalm:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MilEME09 on January 07, 2015, 19:24:11
It could be worse ,Colin He could have been named Foreign Minister .
 If that had happened ,right now I would out back digging a bomb shelter. :facepalm:

I'd be digging mine into the mountains, but thats just me
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: S.M.A. on January 08, 2015, 18:02:14
A notable repost from the Globe and Mail and CDFAI's facebook page:

Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/more-ships-in-the-northwest-passage-will-boost-our-arctic-claim/article22294408/)

Quote
More ships in the Northwest Passage will boost our Arctic claim
WHITNEY LACKENBAUER AND ADAM LAJEUNESSE
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jan. 05 2015, 1:45 PM EST
Last updated Monday, Jan. 05 2015, 1:45 PM EST

Behind sensationalist headlines and some over-zealous punditry, the reality of Arctic shipping is far less dramatic. There were no commercial transits of the passage in 2014. Heavy ice effectively cancelled the shipping season.

Variability from year to year, and even from day to day, will continue to make scheduling a transit through the Canadian Arctic both difficult and dangerous. International shipping is a business built on tight schedules, and schedules are hard to keep when a ship’s speed and route cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty.

In spite of nearly seventy years of modern exploration and mapping, Canada’s Arctic sea-routes are still dangerously uncharted. At present, only 12 per cent of the region is mapped to modern standards – a deficiency starkly demonstrated by the 2010 grounding of the cruise ship Clipper Adventure in Coronation Gulf, about 100 km east of Kugluktuk, Nunavut.

These factors, along with high insurance costs, limited navigational aids, and a complete lack of salvage and repair infrastructure, make regular shipping through the Canadian Arctic an uncertain proposition. Although there will be more Nordic Orions in the years to come, they are likely to be niche voyages and government-supported operations, not the uncontrollable flood of transarctic shipping that still dominates popular imagery.

The future of Arctic shipping is likely to remain destinational traffic, made up of resource carriers, resupply ships, and cruise liners moving in and out of – not through – Canada’s Arctic waters. Rather than undermining Canadian sovereignty, these vessels confirm it.

Canada considers the Northwest Passage as historic internal waters, a position in law that requires the acquiescence of foreign entities interested in the region. While this recognition has been hard to win from foreign states, it will be easier to secure from private corporations operating in Canada’s waters. Why, after all, would any company with business interests in Canada risk challenging sovereignty and precipitating popular and political backlash?

Rather than fixating on the political ramifications of Arctic shipping through a sovereignty lens, the government can better serve Canadians by focusing on the practical requirements of developing and maintaining safe sea routes. There remains much to be done in hydrographic surveying, building marine infrastructure, and enhancing search and rescue capabilities.

Investments in these areas will help to ensure that future shipping is safe and beneficial for Inuit, whose traditional hunting-grounds and highways will have to double as transit routes for resource carriers and cruise liners.
These priorities lay at the heart of Canada’s chairmanship of the Arctic Council and its Northern Strategy. They are also priorities for Inuit, as the Inuit Circumpolar Council has documented in recent studies like The Sea Ice is Our Highway (2009) and The Sea Ice Never Stops (2014).

It is important to note that Inuit, despite their concerns about the human and environmental impacts of shipping, generally look forward to the prospect of increased maritime activity. More shipping will reduce the costs of supplies and improve standards of living in a region where limited resupply options have led to $7 litres of milk and $40 packs of diapers. Alleviating Canada’s highest levels of unemployment is equally important, and good paying jobs in the resource sector are predicated on cost-effective access to these resources and an ability to carry them to market. The risks inherent in Arctic shipping must therefore be considered alongside these new opportunities as well.

When it comes to the prospect of shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic, safety and security – not defence or sovereignty – should be primary areas of focus. The long-standing questions of sovereignty and jurisdiction are well managed and, as counterintuitive as it may seem, more activity is only likely to strengthen Canada’s position.

While the Northwest Passage is unlikely to emerge as a new international sea route, Canada will have to prepare for increased destinational traffic. As such, new investments in marine infrastructure and monitoring will be necessary to mitigate many of the dangers inherent in Arctic operations. However, if managed properly, this shipping could be a powerful enabler for northern development and all the regional benefits that would flow from it.

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: S.M.A. on January 11, 2015, 14:15:51
Canadian Press (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-military-deploys-spooks-against-possible-arctic-spies-171508843.html)

Quote
Canadian military deploys spooks against possible Arctic spies and sabotage
The Canadian Press

By Murray Brewster

OTTAWA - The Canadian military has been routinely deploying a counter-intelligence team to guard against possible spying, terrorism and sabotage during its annual Arctic exercise, according to internal documents.

In the view of intelligence experts, the move is unusual because Operation Nanook is conducted on Canadian soil in remote locations of the Far North. Foreign involvement is limited to friendly, close allies.

It is also curious because guarding against such threats at home is usually the purview of either the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the RCMP, said Wesley Wark, a University of Ottawa professor and one the country's leading experts on intelligence.

A spokesman for the military's intelligence branch says the team has been deployed every year since 2008, which is two years after Prime Minister Stephen Harper began attending the military exercise with members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in tow.

The only regular foreign media presence on those trips has involved the Chinese, including the country's official news service and — in 2013 — a representative of a major daily, both of whom are accredited members of the gallery in Ottawa.

Capt. Travis Smyth said the military intelligence branch has a legal responsibility to protect the Forces. The Arctic exercise, despite being within the country's borders, is "highly visible and the potential for threats to security exist."

He would not say what potential threats were posed in the remote region, citing it as an operational security matter.

When asked directly whether the media was targeted, Smyth replied in an en email: "For reasons related to operational security, any individuals or groups that may have been under investigation cannot be publicly released."

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 11, 2015, 15:17:25
Must have been a REALLY slow news day and someone already nabbed the special article on what wheelbarrow costs are forecast to be this coming spring...
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: George Wallace on January 11, 2015, 16:54:17
Must have been a REALLY slow news day and someone already nabbed the special article on what wheelbarrow costs are forecast to be this coming spring...

Yup!   Really slow news day. 

Quite a naive piece on the part of the Reporter and the newspaper.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 12, 2015, 11:20:19
I am sure the Chinese rep would have been shocked and disappointed if we hadn't been watching them.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: S.M.A. on March 10, 2015, 12:18:20
The importance of polar icebreakers is increasingly being recognized in Washington. Note the estimates below on building vs overhauling a USCG icebreaker. Comparatively, how much longer can the CCGS Lois St. Laurent serve before the "Diefenbreaker" is needed?

Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/09/senator-icebreakers-crucial-to-us-arctic-strategy.html?comp=700001076338&rank=3)

Quote
Senator: Icebreakers Crucial to US Arctic Strategy

Congressional Documents & Publications | Mar 09, 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) heard from witnesses, including the former commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, who said that increasing the U.S. icebreaker fleet is crucial to the United States.

Cantwell, ranking member of the Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Committee Chairwoman, led a hearing on U.S. strategy in the Arctic. As polar ice caps continue to melt, the United States will be faced with challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing Arctic. Much of this activity will require investment in Arctic capabilities, research and infrastructure. Cantwell has championed efforts to increase the icebreaker fleet, which is based in Seattle.

"As climate continues to change, the economic importance of the Arctic will only continue to grow in the years ahead," Cantwell said during the hearing. "Our Coast Guard needs the tools and infrastructure required to operate in the Arctic, which means developing a polar icebreaking fleet. It's very important that as we discuss our Arctic strategy, the United States understands it needs to make an investment in icebreakers."

(...SNIPPED)

According to a recent study, the U.S. Coast Guard needs a minimum of six heavy duty icebreakers and an additional four medium icebreakers to meetCoast Guard and Navy mission requirements. Currently, the Coast Guard has only two operational icebreakers - the Polar Star and the Healy. TheHealy is a medium icebreaker and research vessel. The U.S. Navy has no icebreaking capability.

"Icebreaking is the lowest hanging fruit for the U.S. to jump into Arctic assistance and Arctic development," said Patrick Arnold, Director of Operations and Business Development for the Maine Port Authority. "Without this capability, the U.S. does not have the opportunity to lead in a meaningful way regarding the support of future trade lanes or natural resource opportunities, or contributing to search and rescue commitments."

The U.S. is lagging behind other Arctic nations such as Russia in developing and maintaining polar icebreakers. Russia currently operates 29 icebreakers and has 8 more in construction.

In 2014, Cantwell cosponsored legislation that would have authorized the Coast Guard to overhaul the heavy
icebreaker Polar Sea, now idle atSeattle's Pier 36, and return it to service. In 2012, Congress passed legislation with an amendment sponsored by Cantwell that saved the Polar Seafrom the scrapyard. Cantwell and U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA-02) have repeatedly made the case for strengthening the nation's fleet of polar icebreakers and for protecting the Polar Sea.

Building a new vessel can take eight to ten years and employ more than 1,000 workers. Refurbishing a large icebreaking vessel like the Polar Star can take roughly five years and employ upwards of 300 workers.

Cantwell pointed to the Polar Star's recent mission to rescue a commercial fishing vessel that got stuck in Antarctic ice. The Polar Star traveled 860 miles and broke through 150 miles of thick Antarctic ice to rescue 26 people.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 10, 2015, 13:08:11
Related, on both US and Canadian Coast Guards:

Quote
US “Coast Guard Working With Canadians, Finns on Future Icebreaker Design”
https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/mark-collins-us-coast-guard-working-with-canadians-finns-on-future-icebreaker-design

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on March 10, 2015, 13:41:57
Lot's of different types out their, River icebreakers generally have more longitudinal strength, whereas open ocean breakers need to be strong all round to avoid being crushed. 
Title: Russian Threat to Arctic Sovereignty and Influence?
Post by: MCG on March 11, 2015, 14:03:59
Quote
Arctic alert: Russia is taking aim at the North
Derek Burney and Fen Osler Hampson
Globe and Mail
09 Mar 2015

The brutal assassination of the prominent Russian opposition leader and former deputy prime minister, Boris Nemtsov, should dispel any lingering doubts that Vladimir Putin’s “New Russia” is a normal country that respects the rule of law and with which the West can do business. In the words of former Russian prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, Russia “is rolling into the abyss.”

There are ominous signs that Russia’s new revanchism is also taking direct aim at the Arctic and not just Ukraine where, despite a flurry of high-level diplomacy in search of peace, Russia’s incursions continue largely unabated, complemented most recently by threats to curtail gas shipments.

Largely unnoticed in Canada is the appointment of Deputy Prime Minister Dimitry Rogozin as head of Moscow’s new Commission for Arctic issues. Mr. Rogozin has been in charge of defence and space industries since 2011. Before that, he served as Ambassador to NATO, where he undoubtedly learned first hand that the alliance had become a rudderless, paper tiger lacking capacity, leadership and resolve.

Known best as a staunch advocate of the rights of ethnic Russians throughout the former Soviet Union, Mr. Rogozin has demonstrated neither diplomacy nor tact. His inflammatory rhetoric is unnerving to say the least. He has indulged Twitter more than once to stir nationalist sentiments. When Norway’s Foreign Minister wrote an article suggesting stronger military co-operation among Nordic countries, Mr. Rogozin lashed back that Russia would “respond in kind.” When his flight over Romanian airspace was curtailed because he was among the first names on Western sanctions lists, he vowed on that his next flight over Romania would be “in a Tu-160 bomber!”

Echoing Mr. Putin’s claim that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest catastrophe of the 20th century” Mr. Rogozin endorsed the view that the sale of Alaska was a “betrayal of Russia’s power status.” He declared solemnly that Russia had the “right to reclaim our lost colonies.” The Duma (and Twitter for that matter) is no stranger to right wing wackos but few have risen to the high office in Moscow that Mr. Rogozin now enjoys.

While Mr. Rogozin’s rhetoric may be more colorful than significant at this stage, the undercurrent and the nationalist fervor on which it feeds should not be ignored, especially by an administration in Washington that finds it easier to block a pipeline from its neighbour and ally than to muster the will to thwart the ambitions and the violations of international law by a resurgent Russia.

Also largely unnoticed in Canada are the steps Russia is taking to assert its interests in the Arctic through military means. Russia’s new military doctrine, which was signed by Mr. Putin late last year, calls the protection of the Arctic by the country’s armed forces during peacetime a matter of national priority. This is also a first. Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu has also gone out of his way to state that Russia will use military means to defend its interests in the North.

Canada has a distinct interest in any threat to the Arctic and our position cannot be adequately defended by annual, high-level visits and solemn assertions of territorial and legal claims. It would be prudent and timely for Canada’s new Defence and Foreign Ministers to initiate an urgent dialogue with their American counterparts, notably new Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, who clearly “gets it” on many issues, to give new meaning and relevance to NORAD by planning a security perimeter for our shared Arctic. Equally, they should broaden the dialogue to include like-minded Nordic countries in a concerted effort to guard against Russian intransigence.

There also need to be tangible deeds and not just communiques to anchor such discussions. The West should have learned by now that high level talk shops and paper agreements are no match for the rising tide of “New Russia” nationalism.

Ronald Reagan’s adage about the old Soviet Union – “Trust but Verify” – was never more relevant than it is today. The difference is that, for Mr. Reagan, these were not simply words. He spoke with the authority, the conviction and the power of a serious, superpower – and the Russians paid attention.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/arctic-alert-russia-is-taking-aim-at-the-north/article23354606/
Title: Russia's Arctic claim could be issue in 2015 Canadian election
Post by: S.M.A. on August 06, 2015, 11:16:12
Another issue that should be be brought up at tonight's Federal debate:

CBC via Yahoo News (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-arctic-claim-north-pole-115913173.html)

Quote
Russia's Arctic claim to North Pole could be an election issue
CBC – Wed, 5 Aug, 2015

Russia's new bid to the United Nations for vast regions of the Arctic — including the North Pole — may put the Canadian government in a lose-lose situation in an election year.
In a statement released Tuesday, Russia's foreign ministry said their country is claiming 1.2 million square kilometres of Arctic sea shelf. The area extends more than 650 kilometres from the shore.
"I think the election will have a very strong influence on the immediate reaction of the Canadian government," said Rob Huebert from the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
He says Arctic sovereignty has been one of the major platforms of the Conservative government, and in an election year it can become a hot-button issue.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)
Post by: Colin P on March 07, 2016, 15:43:59
The US doesn't consider any full passage through the Northwest Passage international waters.  There is no passage through that is always wider than 24nm, which means some of it is de facto Canadian Territorial waters. Although there are a lot of different passages, the closest is Lancaster Sound, Barrow Straight, McClure Strait which narrows possibly only once near Resolute.

They don't recognize our 1986 Declaration of Straight Baselines, which makes all of it Canadian Internal Waters.  However, as they have not actually contested or challenged it then it could become recognized.

What they do claim is that it is an International Straight, and that therefore transit passage is enjoyed (think Straights Of Gibraltar, etc).  This would mean they would not have to ask permission; certain rules of the EEZ would still apply (esp Environmental).  However, the rules for International Straights are deliberately vague; they refer to "Straights Used For International Navigation" which alludes to they need historical precedent, but they don't formally define them.  Canada believes there is no precedent for the Northwest Passage, the US does.

This http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf) is a relative recent statement of their position.  Note they say it is an International Straight, and make no justification; that is so that there position is that it is a fact.

My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.
 
Title: Re: Re: Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)
Post by: Baz on March 07, 2016, 16:18:20
My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.

Agree it belongs on another thread...

The US has done a lot of transits: http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php (http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php), and the ones they do they notify us due to the 1986 Agreement (to which we give permission, because that is how the game is played).


I am wondering, though...  would the US prefer to have it recognized as Internal Waters (or not as an International Straight) in order to leverage against Russia and/or China; they haven't indicated that so far...


The best "defense" against this isn't military... get a permanent Coast Guard Station in Resolute or Nanisivik, call everybody up that goes through and give them "permission," have the ability to do SAR properly (not from a base thousands of miles to the south), go out and do environmental inspections of ships in our EEZ; because we are exercising sovereignty we in fact would have it.  The question is a t point is it required to the extent the cost can be justified.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on March 07, 2016, 18:47:30
I would go with both CCG and DND. CCG keeps a fleet of vessels at Inuvik for the Mackenzie river, I would start there by adding a deep water patrol boat of some 70' and base a helicopter out of there in the summer. On the East side a DND base that supports the rangers year round, likely a leased civy SAR copter in the short term, which also supports RCMP, CCG and other government departments, federally and territorial, have a 70'+ lightly armed patrol boat, manned by a mix of local reservists and people brought up from the south. the first decade will be bumpy, but the offer of steady employment up there will help and not only help all government services, sovereignty, but would also add to the social well being up there, as does the Rangers. Eventually have a combined DND/CCG/RCMP Marine section working out both Western and eastern arctic. As for spending infrastructure monies, start building bigger and better airports and emergency runways. Better marine and air navigation aids. Build some decent harbour facilities throughout the Arctic as well. this is one area where the Conservatives and Liberals can sit down and map out a long term strategy to build up Northern infrastructure, so funding and will does not change when governments do.   
Title: Re: Future Canadian Airborne Capability and Organisation! Or, is it Redundant? (a merged thread)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2016, 19:49:45
My understanding is that by not challenging formally, but still conducting transits as they please avoids legitimizing our claim and allows them to continue ops as required. Anyways a discussion for another thread.

Isn't the Bosporus and Dardanelles (Montreux Convention) a better guide than Gibraltar, Malaca, Kattegat or Hormuz?  Same country on both sides of the straits.

Also I wonder how Denmark has managed things.  They have the Kattegat passage between Sweden and Denmark and Lillebaelt-Storebaelt passages inside Denmark.

Title: China challenging Canada over NW passage
Post by: S.M.A. on April 22, 2016, 00:27:09
It was only a matter of time before this happened, as China sets its sights northward as well: 

Time.com (http://time.com/4302882/china-arctic-shipping-northwest-passage/)

Quote
China Could Be Preparing to Challenge Canada’s Sovereignty Over the Northwest Passage

    Nash Jenkins @pnashjenkins

5:05 AM ET

Beijing has declared that it plans to ship cargo through the arctic waterway

China has declared that it plans to ship cargo through the Northwest Passage, a series of waterways in the Arctic Circle over which Canada claims sovereignty.

Chinese maritime authorities tacitly declared the news by printing a lengthy guide to Arctic shipping and navigation; a state spokesperson then confirmed it to reporters on Tuesday, the Globe and Mail reports.
(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Baz on April 22, 2016, 09:30:35
The article linked states "U.S. believes the passage to be international waters."  That is untrue; the US believes it to be an International Straight under UNCLOS, as does China.  There are areas where it cannot be International Waters because it is less than 24nm wide, therefore it is de facto Canadian Sovereign Waters.

The US position is actually "The Northwest Passage is a straight used for international navigation.  Therein, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, in accordance with international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.  The enjoyment of transit passage is not subject to prior notice to, or permission from, Canada as the State bordering the straight."  http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/98836.pdf)

Further, from the President (Bush): "we believe it's an international passage... We'll manage the differences, because there are differences on the Northwest Passage." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=57868baf-87b0-4f29-9a4f-b6251b48582d&k=92663 (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=57868baf-87b0-4f29-9a4f-b6251b48582d&k=92663)

As well, economic control over the entire straight (fisheries, oil, etc) is Canada's as it is part of our 200nm EEZ.

The issue isn't that someone is going to suddenly decide to go up there and take it; it's whether or not Canada wants to maintain (exert?) exclusive control over who goes through it.  What is and isn't an International Straight is governed by customary law: if it's always been that way, then that's the way it is.  However, this is a point of disagreement because those who believe it is an international straight think that the only reason it hasn't been used continuously as such is because it couldn't be (due to it was frozen).

When (and if, although I believe when) it can be used as a straight, then if countries start to use it as such (companies can't, as vessels are flagged by states), and we don't challenge it, then it will in fact become an international straight.  Strongly worded letters will mean nothing.

This why we need the Coast Guard (this is there job, not DNDs) to have a permanent presence (VTS, radar, AIS, SAR, air recce, and surface inspection) at the main areas where it narrows.  If you don't have permission, and don't subject yourself to Canadian territorial law, then you don't enter.  I am not certain the current government cares enough to do that... I'm not even certain the last one did, to tell you the truth (proof is in action, and they didn't do anything).

As the EEZ thaws we also need the ability to exert our monitoring over it.

The only reason we need an armed (ie DND) capability is if we truly believe there is/are nation(s) willing to press the point with an armed escort.  I don't think there are; the international response would immediately put them on the wrong side of the discussion.


Now the nuance: Canada also claims straight baselines over the entire thing as an archipelago; ie we would seal the west end and the east end and *all* of it is internal waters.  This is more of a stretch since the archipelago section of UNCLOS is more directed at states that consist of nothing but islands.  There is much less international support for this; the US certainly has made it plain that if they never enter Canadian 12nm waters they can do whatever they want (from the letter above: "For the record, the United States sees no basis in international law to support Canada's drawing of straight baselines around its Arctic Islands and its claim that all the waters among the Canadian Arctic Islands, including the Northwest Passage, are internal waters of Canada").

Canada's claim is much weaker here.  If we intend for that to be our position, then we better start treating them like internal waters and get a robust patrol capability over and on them *all the time*.  I don't think we are going to do that, and so by customary use they will de facto become international water's (outside of our 12nm limit, of course).  This will in no way change that if the water's are in fact enclosed by overlapping 12nm limits then they are, in every sense of the word, territorial waters.


I wish that commentators on this would actually use the right terms and explain the positions correctly (which Time.com didn't)... but the people that write this stuff see no need to actually give the facts a lot of the time.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 22, 2016, 10:20:04
There are a few other more subtle twists, but Baz basically got the gist of it in his post.

International straight means we cannot deny right of innocent passage, but since some (most) of the passage is narrower than 24 NM, it is at the very least Canadian territorial waters, meaning that anyone entering would still be subject to Canadian law.

In most of our territorial waters, this means little, but up in the North, we still have this little act called the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It's enforcement means that we could deny access to the straight to any ship that does not meet that regulation, and it would still be in accordance with the law applicable to international straights. In fact, even the US has recognized that right of Canada in the past.

Personally, I must say that I find comforting that China is taking the time, in advance of any passage, to compile for its Merchant seamen a thorough guide to the waters that looks at the known dangers, unresolved risks and all other aspects of the passage that can have an important influence on safe passage. I can guarantee you that when the passage opens, many "western" shipping companies, operating on the cheap under flags of convenience will not bother with such niceties: they will just tell their captains "that's the way we want you to go, so just go". 

I also personally believe that the "base-lines-around-the-archipelago-enclosing-internal-waters" argument will never fly. We'd better accept sooner rather than later that they will be territorial waters including within them an international straight, and exercise our sovereignty accordingly: Were I the government, I would be right now investing heavily in updating charts of that portion of the Arctic archipelago that constitutes the North-West passage and setting up both a VTMS (Vessel Traffic Management System) and a Separation Scheme Juan-the-Fuca Straight style, but all Canadian.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Baz on April 22, 2016, 11:15:18
I should have disclosed.  Even though my degree is a BSc Comp Sci, I had the pleasure (and I mean it, they were interesting courses) of taking a couple of third year Poli Sci courses at Dal in the 1990s.  One was (sic) Maritime Strategy and one was (sic) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  I was old enough at the time, and had already been an MH Crew commander, to recognize their worth.  They gave my a better grounding in these issues then anything I was ever taught in the military.  The only reason the department of Poli Sci allowed me to take them (without the normal 2nd year Poli Sci pre-requisites) was because of my military experience; we also had at least one MARS officer as well.

Interestingly, they both had two professors in the seminars (they didn't really do lectures); one was the actual professor, but one was an older lady who just provided wisdom.  Although I forget her name, she was in some way part of the Canadian negotiation team for UNCLOS.  Gives one a completely different insight...

One of the most interesting things we did was full weekend seminar (and nobody complained).  Each person was given a different role in either the Government of a fictitious island nation (ie "President", Minister of Defense, Minister of Economy, Chief of Defense, etc) or another stake holder organization (CEOs of oil companies, neighboring nations, etc).  We then held rounds of negotiations over some of the pressing maritime issues of that nation (offshore exploration, how much to spend on the Navy, etc).  It certainly made a much better learning environment then the EOs and POs of a standard military course!

Anyway, that is where my grounding in this stuff comes from; it's enough of a grounding that it's pretty easy to find the relative factual information on the internet.  Too bad more journalism majors didn't take these types of courses...


Rant on: why is it that BSc students have to take a sprinkling of liberal arts courses (which is a good thing!), but BAs and MBAs don't have to take any science courses.  Maybe if more people had a first year university level understanding of the scientific method than there would be so many BS opinions floating around???
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MCG on July 28, 2016, 01:45:43
Is the closing of Canada's only mainland deep-water arctic port a sovereignty issue?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-port-analysis-1.3696199
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 28, 2016, 02:53:31
Meh. People in Manitoba wanted to dictate what could/could not be shipped from Churchill. Oil was verboten.

Life is a ***** when actual economics hit you in the face.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on July 28, 2016, 11:51:37
No different than Vancouver.

Vancouver has been "cleaning up the waterfront" for decades.  In the process they have driven industry away from the water - the very things that justified building a port in the first place and that attracted people to live there.

Now the grandkids of the stevedores live in condos in converted warehouses, complain about the odours from the remaining working facilities like West Coast Reduction and demand that their sight lines be improved.

Gloucester, Massachusetts is another example among many.   A working fishing port it attracted rich city types looking for a summer retreat in a quaint setting.  Eventually they priced and legislated the industry out of existence.

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on July 28, 2016, 12:07:37
Is the closing of Canada's only mainland deep-water arctic port a sovereignty issue?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-port-analysis-1.3696199

Meh...

It wasn't in 1997 when Chretien sold it to the Americans.  I'm assuming that under Trudeau Jr., it won't be an issue either.

#pragmaticrealism

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Lightguns on July 28, 2016, 12:09:33
Meh...

It wasn't in 1997 when Chretien sold it to the Americans.  I'm assuming that under Trudeau Jr., it won't be an issue either.

#pragmaticrealism

Regards
G2G

All depends on whether the minister for the Inuit and the North is out of rehab yet or not. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: jmt18325 on July 28, 2016, 15:12:58
All depends on whether the minister for the Inuit and the North is out of rehab yet or not.

He is - and no longer welcome in the Liberal party.  There's obviously more to that story.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on July 28, 2016, 15:33:49
All depends on whether the minister for the Inuit and the North is out of rehab yet or not.
And that relates, specifically, how to the argument of keeping or closing Churchill?  Or anything, really, other than a great dig at someone's addiction and treatment?  Great add to the discussion  ::)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Lightguns on July 28, 2016, 16:21:11
Churchill is an important port for development of the North and in an NDP riding. To be considered in cabinet someone in cabinet is going to have to stick handle it, the obvious individual who constituents have a large stake has incapacitated himself and put the issue at risk for his constituents. That how it adds to the discussion.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on July 28, 2016, 16:29:57
Churchill is an important port for development of the North and in an NDP riding. To be considered in cabinet someone in cabinet is going to have to stick handle it, the obvious individual who constituents have a large stake has incapacitated himself and put the issue at risk for his constituents. That how it adds to the discussion.
And that sounds like FAR less of a cheap shot -- it's hard to read context in print.  Well rephrased - thanks.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: S.M.A. on September 01, 2016, 19:28:29
Byers weighs in again:

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-arctic-harper-military-1.3739413)

Quote
Trudeau ends Harper's tradition of attending Arctic military exercise
Operation Nanook is viewed as the most important for asserting Canadian sovereignty

By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press Posted: Aug 29, 2016 8:53 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 29, 2016 1:07 PM ET

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is flying to China on Monday, adding to the long list of countries he has visited since winning last year's federal election. Yet there's one place closer to home that Trudeau hasn't set foot in since forming a government: Canada's Far North.

Officials maintain that despite the lack of a prime ministerial visit, the Arctic remains one of the government's top priorities. But opposition critics and experts say the Liberals have been noticeably absent in a number of ways when it comes to Canada's northern reaches.

The Canadian Forces launched its annual Arctic exercise, Operation Nanook, last week. In this year's iteration, hundreds of soldiers are helping respond to a simulated earthquake in the Yukon while hundreds more scour Nunavut with the help of ships and aircraft to retrieve a lost object.

(...SNIPPED)

Byers, who ran unsuccessfully for the NDP in 2008, said the government has also been largely silent on the potential environmental concerns associated with the Crystal Serenity, a luxury liner that is attempting to traverse the Northwest Passage this summer, or Russia dumping spent booster rockets into Baffin Bay.

"What we have seen is a silence on some fairly significant developments which previous prime ministers would have commented on," Byers said. "The approach seems to be that the Arctic is not a priority."

(...SNIPPED)


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on September 02, 2016, 11:26:12
Byers actually giving Harper (He who must not be named in Byers world) a sideswiping compliment. Wonders never cease!   
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on September 02, 2016, 12:05:18
Byers actually giving Harper (He who must not be named in Byers world) a sideswiping compliment. Wonders never cease!
To be fair, Byers (who does have fans and haters) IS big on doing things in the Arctic.  Now, what things when & how?  Let the debate begin  ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: ModlrMike on September 02, 2016, 12:42:33
Quote
"The approach seems to be that the Arctic is not a priority."

That may change when Putin sends his ships through the NW Passage uninvited.

Vladimir Putin, Justin Trudeau, and Canada’s Arctic problem (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vladimir-putin-justin-trudeau-and-canadas-arctic-problem/)

All of Moscow’s effort and attention, combined with Canada’s neglect, has effectively turned the Arctic Ocean into Putin’s Lake.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on September 02, 2016, 12:47:26
To be fair, Byers (who does have fans and haters) IS big on doing things in the Arctic.  Now, what things when & how?  Let the debate begin  ;D

Yes, I just enjoying the irony of his discomfort..... [:)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on September 02, 2016, 14:48:00
Yes, I just enjoying the irony of his discomfort..... [:)
A touch of squirm?  Yup!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: dapaterson on September 12, 2016, 14:24:45
The Guardian reports that HMS Terror has been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/12/hms-terror-wreck-found-arctic-nearly-170-years-northwest-passage-attempt
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Journeyman on September 12, 2016, 14:34:59
The Guardian reports that HMS Terror has been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/12/hms-terror-wreck-found-arctic-nearly-170-years-northwest-passage-attempt
Thank you, British media.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on September 12, 2016, 14:49:16
Earlier in the day, CBC Newsnet was noting they had also found HMCS Terror...  ::)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on September 12, 2016, 14:56:38
The CBC article is absolute crap, barely readable, meanwhile the Guardian provide full details, maps and images.....It's not often I feel the need to praise the Guardian, but CBC utterly failed us.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on September 13, 2016, 20:32:33
That may change when Putin sends his ships through the NW Passage uninvited.

Vladimir Putin, Justin Trudeau, and Canada’s Arctic problem (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vladimir-putin-justin-trudeau-and-canadas-arctic-problem/)

All of Moscow’s effort and attention, combined with Canada’s neglect, has effectively turned the Arctic Ocean into Putin’s Lake.

That was said like it is going to happen in the future...as opposed to 'that ship has (literally) already sailed...'
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on September 14, 2016, 23:03:58
Isn't the NE Passage more passable (both duration and clearance between land and ice) than the NW? 

I would think that the Russians would prefer to follow the easier route...that they have been spending decades building infrastructure along the way to support its use, non?


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 14, 2016, 23:11:56
Isn't the NE Passage more passable (both duration and clearance between land and ice) than the NW? 

I would think that the Russians would prefer to follow the easier route...that they have been spending decades building infrastructure along the way to support its use, non?


Regards
G2G

I've only been to the high arctic a few times, but I attended a presentation by Uncle Walt at Royal Roads ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Natynczyk

... where he said, and I quote pretty much verbatim, "If anyone invaded Canada's Arctic, my first responsibility would to rescue them'.

And I tend to agree. It's vast, cold and presents an awesome barrier to invasion, even if the ice is less prevalent than in previous years.

There are more urgent threats on our national survival horizon, IMHO.


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Lumber on September 15, 2016, 10:04:51
Isn't the NE Passage more passable (both duration and clearance between land and ice) than the NW? 

I would think that the Russians would prefer to follow the easier route...that they have been spending decades building infrastructure along the way to support its use, non?


Regards
G2G

Yes, but the NE Passage goes through either Russian waters, international waters, or international recognizes straits.

The NW Passage, on the other hand, is being claimed by a bunch of Western-European emigrants. So, they'll keep using the NE passage while putting all of their international efforts toward the NW Passage; that's why you hear more about it.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on September 15, 2016, 10:22:18
Yes, but the NE Passage goes through either Russian waters, international waters, or international recognizes straits.

The NW Passage, on the other hand, is being claimed by a bunch of Western-European emigrants. So, they'll keep using the NE passage while putting all of their international efforts toward the NW Passage; that's why you hear more about it.

That, I suppose, was my thinly veiled point.  RUS: NE = regular business, NW = disruption activities.

:2c:

G2G
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 13, 2016, 12:19:31
Mainly US Coast Guard and icebreakers but relevant to CCG and all the "arctic sovereignty" fussing:

Quote
The Bear and the North American Arctic: Not Really to Worry (for now)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/mark-collins-the-bear-and-the-north-american-arctic-not-really-to-worry-for-now/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 08, 2018, 13:50:04
New CCG vessel and base

New inshore rescue boat station in Nunavut

Rankin Inlet, with a population of 2,800, has been selected as the site of Canada's first Arctic inshore rescue boat station. The station is set to open this summer depending on ice conditions and weather and will consist of a six-person crew operating out of an existing building and a nine-metre, enclosed rigid-hull inflatable boat. The station is just the latest among 25 student-run rescue stations in Canada. However, its first few seasons will include seasoned veterans among six Indigenous students being recruited by the Canadian Coast Guard in the North. Crew members will undergo initial training alongside their southern-station counterparts in Ontario. This initial training will include Canada's national search and rescue system, search patterns, boat handling, marine first aid, and radio communication.

http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3964:new-inshore-rescue-boat-station-in-nunavut&Itemid=294
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Underway on January 08, 2018, 22:09:18
This is excellent news.  Increases arctic sov, helps fulfil our requirements under the Arctic SAR agreement and give jobs to people where jobs are scarce.  Hell maybe they might even save some lives some day!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 08, 2018, 23:48:42
This is excellent news.  Increases arctic sov, helps fulfil our requirements under the Arctic SAR agreement and give jobs to people where jobs are scarce.  Hell maybe they might even save some lives some day!

And one of these days, there might even be a road....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-build-road-engineer-1.4174034
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Old Sweat on January 09, 2018, 00:39:51
It can be done, because we did it. See the wikipedia entry here about the Dempster Highway from Dawson City to Inuvik and then to Tuk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dempster_Highway
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 09, 2018, 10:36:44
This is excellent news.  Increases arctic sov, helps fulfil our requirements under the Arctic SAR agreement and give jobs to people where jobs are scarce.  Hell maybe they might even save some lives some day!

Ref the yellow part...is that not a bit of a stretch?

Curious, where would this stations AOR extend out to/cover?  Wondering how far they can go in one of those model of RHIBs.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 09, 2018, 11:55:49
It's a beginning, and overdue. The thing about SAR stations is that once in place the stats for SAR incidents climb because they are now counting the ones that never made it onto the radar, done by locals. Hopefully they put in some VHF repeaters in the area as well to extend radio communications.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on January 09, 2018, 16:47:06
I would say 'GREAT'  if the same infrastructure was put in place in every major community.  Even with a 40 knot speed the effective radius for response would be less than 150 miles and that is probably stretching it.  After that, one might just as well wait for the C130 from Winnipeg (would hope).  This smells more like a 'placate the natives' gesture instead of a true attempt at providing a real service to the citizens of the north.  Or maybe I am just being cynical.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Blackadder1916 on January 09, 2018, 17:24:32
I would say 'GREAT'  if the same infrastructure was put in place in every major community.  Even with a 40 knot speed the effective radius for response would be less than 150 miles and that is probably stretching it.  After that, one might just as well wait for the C130 from Winnipeg (would hope).  This smells more like a 'placate the natives' gesture instead of a true attempt at providing a real service to the citizens of the north.  Or maybe I am just being cynical.

As a dyed in the wool cynic, my impression is much the same.  Though I don't discount the service provided by the youngsters who staff the Inshore Rescue Boat programme, let's not forget that it was initially started (and continues to be funded primarily) as a summer job programme for students, much like some programmes that DND once ran (though funded from outside the defence budget) like SYEP.  Though some reports identify one of the benefits of the IRB as being a gateway to attract individuals to continue a career with the CCG (or DFO or whatever gov't dept sends civilians on/over the water), the young people who do man these boats can only do it for two years max during the summers while attending a postsecondary school.  While it may be to "placate the natives", they should be just as entitled to have access to summer student job opportunities as their southern countrymen. This will not be a year round service, it will only operate May to Sept (just like all the other IRBs) to accommodate the school calendar.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2018, 17:36:39
YZT - You are just being cynical.

I have nothing against "just placating the natives".  It is a dam sight more useful than constantly perturbing them.... particularly if I want to buy the minerals on their ground, lay pipelines or cut down trees.

It is not ludicrous for natives to want to have a lifestyle comparable to us southerners.  It is ludicrous to apply technologies that work in Holland and France (and southern Ontario at a stretch).  Building communities based on railways, 4 lane highways, natural gas lines, power lines and water and sewer in the constant freeze-thaw of our North is a nonsense.

Doing stuff differently has to make sense.  In a world of "tiny houses" and "off-grid" southerners it can't be beyond the ability of bureaucrats to make communities of self-supporting houses.

Equally, it can't be beyond the ability of bureaucrats to supply ambulances, fire-trucks and rescue vehicles that don't require roads.

In fact, rather than RHIBs I would suggest supplying a mixed complement of these:

(http://www.navalhistory.dk/images/Skibene/S/SAR2_400px.jpg)

and these

(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/multimediaimage/webImage/20151116152506/1434570545001.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hxzqJ8YuHOE/maxresdefault.jpg)

I think it would be an awful lot cheaper, and more effective, than flying CH-146s in C-17s from Trenton every time some kiddy wanders off into the bush.

National sovereignty starts with the government making itself useful - and that means providing public services.

It is worth our while subsidizing folks that want to live on land that we want to exploit.  If we don't subsidize them they will find someone else who will and the map of Canada will be a lot smaller.

 :cheers: ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 09, 2018, 17:39:32
That's funny: I saw it more as "placate" the "adventure-tourism" industry plan. These "adventure" warriors are mostly older rich adults from the urban centres of North America endEurope who want to see the Arctic and other remote lists , but from the comfort of fully equipped cruise ships, etc.

SAR has been going on up in the Arctic for a long time, and it is tracked Colin, but is normally operated with local resources (large boats, ski-doos, ATV) by the local Ranger patrols. The "adventure-tourism" industry doesn't trust them (but they should - they are damn good at it).

And, BTW, Chris: there are no trees to cut in the area where this station is going up. Just sayin'  ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2018, 17:43:40
....

And, BTW, Chris: there are no trees to cut in the area where this station is going up. Just sayin'  ;D

Hardeharhar - he finds another nit to pick.   ;)

(http://canacopegdl.com/images/nit-picking/nit-picking-10.jpg)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on January 09, 2018, 19:47:46
My comment was not repeat not intended to diminish the role of the 'natives' but rather to emphasis the pathetic response of the government.  Properly equipped and staffed stations should be located in every town/village of any size located along the coastline. The Brits have manned life stations for centuries because they save lives, not because they attract votes but locating a single station 2/3 of the way up the Hudson Bay coast is nothing but throwing a few crumbs at the locals.  It is neither cost effective nor is it a good use of resources.  As a training programme for college kids it should be tailored to lead into permanent positions in the north staffing those rescue centres and augmenting the rangers who, I agree, are top of the line.  Their only limitation is their number and I suspect that it would expand rapidly if the government ever took the lid off. 

To augment those RHIB and tracked vehicles you should also include a DH6 every second or third life station along the coast, co-located with the rangers and staffed by ranger pilots.  Then you could leave the hercs at home and we wouldn't have to worry about duty hours and the extremely limited range of our new SAR aircraft.  As a bonus, you would provide jobs to BC (viking) those encouraging those folks to vote for pixie dust.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2018, 21:29:51
I see your position now YZT - and agree with you.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 09, 2018, 21:49:46
New CCG vessel and base

New inshore rescue boat station in Nunavut

Rankin Inlet, with a population of 2,800, has been selected as the site of Canada's first Arctic inshore rescue boat station. The station is set to open this summer depending on ice conditions and weather and will consist of a six-person crew operating out of an existing building and a nine-metre, enclosed rigid-hull inflatable boat. The station is just the latest among 25 student-run rescue stations in Canada. However, its first few seasons will include seasoned veterans among six Indigenous students being recruited by the Canadian Coast Guard in the North. Crew members will undergo initial training alongside their southern-station counterparts in Ontario. This initial training will include Canada's national search and rescue system, search patterns, boat handling, marine first aid, and radio communication.

http://www.cosbc.ca/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3964:new-inshore-rescue-boat-station-in-nunavut&Itemid=294

Sorry folks, but to me, this capability has little if anything to do with 'defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty'.  I see a capability where there wasn't one, but it is a SAR one, not a 'defence' or 'sovereignty' one.

Anyone know what size of an AOR a single boat of this type is typically responsible for?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 09, 2018, 22:32:36
That's funny: I saw it more as "placate" the "adventure-tourism" industry plan. These "adventure" warriors are mostly older rich adults from the urban centres of North America endEurope who want to see the Arctic and other remote lists , but from the comfort of fully equipped cruise ships, etc.  bored management consultants escaping the reality of their joy destitute lives

FTFY :)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 09, 2018, 22:45:04
I suspect most of the opposition is from CCG management, who likely don't feel they are getting enough resources to support these types of station, therefore it is a threat to the other programs and in the CCG world, the big ships win, after Headquarters that is.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Thucydides on January 10, 2018, 12:45:10
There was a thread a while ago about using hovercraft to move people and equipment around in the arctic, which eventually morphed into a sort of giant catalogue shopping thread (boats!, barges!, helicopters! MTVs!). If we can align military needs, we could actually do what both Chris and YZT are advocating as well. Military equipment optimized for that environment will be pretty much indistinguishable from CG equipment (getting around pretty much needs shallow draft boats and MTVs as a minimum), so the CG can team up and have joint service depots at the three military bases that would probably be needed (one to cover the Western Arctic, one to cover the Eastern Arctic and one to cover Hudson's Bay). And an "Arctic regiment" (even if it is just a battalion augmented by TBG companies rotating on 6 month Class "B" contracts) would provide manpower and stable funding/population base to support other economic activities as well (think of the service industries growing off "garrison" towns).

As YZT also points out, light aircraft are going to be needed (as a minimum), so there is scope for airforce activities as well. Once again leveraging the airfields and support needed for the three bases, they can serve as the air depots for the light planes as well.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Underway on January 10, 2018, 13:05:40
Sorry folks, but to me, this capability has little if anything to do with 'defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty'.  I see a capability where there wasn't one, but it is a SAR one, not a 'defence' or 'sovereignty' one.

Anyone know what size of an AOR a single boat of this type is typically responsible for?

Any Federal institution adds to sovereignty.  SAR is an important aspect of that even if only a small region for regional fishermen etc...  We used to do sovereignty with Post offices in the Arctic.  This is significantly better then that.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 10, 2018, 13:19:31
There was a thread a while ago about using hovercraft to move people and equipment around in the arctic, which eventually morphed into a sort of giant catalogue shopping thread (boats!, barges!, helicopters! MTVs!). If we can align military needs, we could actually do what both Chris and YZT are advocating as well. Military equipment optimized for that environment will be pretty much indistinguishable from CG equipment (getting around pretty much needs shallow draft boats and MTVs as a minimum), so the CG can team up and have joint service depots at the three military bases that would probably be needed (one to cover the Western Arctic, one to cover the Eastern Arctic and one to cover Hudson's Bay). And an "Arctic regiment" (even if it is just a battalion augmented by TBG companies rotating on 6 month Class "B" contracts) would provide manpower and stable funding/population base to support other economic activities as well (think of the service industries growing off "garrison" towns).

As YZT also points out, light aircraft are going to be needed (as a minimum), so there is scope for airforce activities as well. Once again leveraging the airfields and support needed for the three bases, they can serve as the air depots for the light planes as well.

Roads, as the Romans well knew, are the best way to control territory, manage populations, and 'stake a claim'.

If we can't even find the will to build a road to some of these places, no 'Hovercraft Regiment' or equivalent will help us stake an equivalently credible claim.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 10, 2018, 13:39:17
When the Harry Dewolf Class starts to regularly operate in the Arctic, there is talk of a plan whereby for the 4 or 5 months of the operating season Aboriginal youth are embarked from the communities as ordinary crew members. This gets the youth out of the communities, teaches them new skills and possibly opens them up to permanent employment in the RCN. This might also open up a sort of Naval Arctic Ranger.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Thucydides on January 10, 2018, 16:13:53
Roads, as the Romans well knew, are the best way to control territory, manage populations, and 'stake a claim'.

If we can't even find the will to build a road to some of these places, no 'Hovercraft Regiment' or equivalent will help us stake an equivalently credible claim.

Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Dimsum on January 10, 2018, 16:25:05
Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.

Maybe the same way they built the road from Inuvik to Tuk?  Although if going to Iqaluit, wouldn't it make more sense from a road north from say, Quebec City or Chicoutimi?

Either way, I think the distance itself would mean maintenance would be a complete pain. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 10, 2018, 16:34:04
Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.

Some Provinces do build roads though, at least the ones that care about exploiting their natural resources and unlocking their wealth.

Quebec has the James Bay Road, Trans-Taiga Highway, and Highway 389 which connects to the Trans-Labrador Highway.  I've driven all of Highway 389 and am planning to drive the James Bay Road this summer. 

Ontario should take a greater interest in it's North but it doesn't for whatever reason  :dunno: and I think the interest stops at Highway 7. 

The territories are Federal responsibility though and we really have no excuse there. 

Maybe the same way they built the road from Inuvik to Tuk?  Although if going to Iqaluit, wouldn't it make more sense from a road north from say, Quebec City or Chicoutimi?

Either way, I think the distance itself would mean maintenance would be a complete pain. 

Any road would need to have some sort of commercial purpose.  Also, driving some of these roads can be treacherous.  I have a truck with an off-road suspension, two spare tires and a jerry can of gas I carry when I go off on one of my road adventures.

I haven't done Trans-Taiga yet but you need Jerry Cans because the distance between gas stations is like 650km in some cases, not to mention you better have a smick about basic auto diagnostics because if you break down, you're screwed.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 10, 2018, 16:38:34
Any Federal institution adds to sovereignty.  SAR is an important aspect of that even if only a small region for regional fishermen etc...  We used to do sovereignty with Post offices in the Arctic.  This is significantly better then that.

I find calling both a single 9m RHIB and a post office 'additions rather silly, when the people who might threaten that sovereignty in the future are using nuclear surface/sub-surface...assets.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 10, 2018, 16:48:12
I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 10, 2018, 16:55:03
I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!

Oh we could definitely do it, we would need to drastically increase our SAR bill if we did though.

People will never surprise me with their ability to underestimate mother nature, especially people from suburbia with no experience.

Note:  One thing that may be problematic is building in the Taiga where the Forests are swampy.  Norway doesn't have this problem but from my understanding, roads really don't like this type of ground and require fairly regular grading.

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 10, 2018, 16:57:50
Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?

And how do you justify the hundreds of billions of dollars (you think getting six AOPS is expensive - think again) you would need to put thousands of kms of roads to link even just the few, far flung, barely inhabited (other than two or three towns such a Iqaluit, Tuktuyaktuk and Kuujuak, which have a few thousand inhabitants) towns of a few hundred people?

This various towns all have small, gravelled but maintained, and operational airports and usually, at least weekly service from mostly Twin Otters and slightly larger cargo planes. Air, supplemented by ships for heavy cargo during the summer season, is the only logical and logistically efficient system up there, and the only justifiable one.

Here's my dare: I dare anyone who has actually been up there for any reasonable amount of time, to argue otherwise.

I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!

Daftandbarmy: Norway, because of the Gulf stream, is not an arctic tundra and all these roads/railroads do not have to run in extreme cold weather, nor has to go over muskeg or permafrost ground. Finally, they have a population of 5.3 millions (because it is inhabitable) in 325,000 square kilometres, whereas the Canadian Arctic - in reverse figures - has only 120,000 inhabitants (mostly in the  Yukon) spread over 3.5 millions square kilometres.



 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 10, 2018, 17:07:26
Iqaluit would be better served by the construction of a deep water port than what they do there for the annual sea lift now.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 10, 2018, 17:07:48
Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?

And how do you justify the hundreds of billions of dollars (you think getting six AOPS is expensive - think again) you would need to put thousands of kms of roads to link even just the few, far flung, barely inhabited (other than two or three towns such a Iqaluit, Tuktuyaktuk and Kuujuak, which have a few thousand inhabitants) towns of a few hundred people?

This various towns all have small, gravelled but maintained, and operational airports and usually, at least weekly service from mostly Twin Otters and slightly larger cargo planes. Air, supplemented by ships for heavy cargo during the summer season, is the only logical and logistically efficient system up there, and the only justifiable one.

Here's my dare: I dare anyone who has actually been up there for any reasonable amount of time, to argue otherwise.

Daftandbarmy: Norway, because of the Gulf stream, is not an arctic tundra and all these roads/railroads do not have to run in extreme cold weather, nor has to go over muskeg or permafrost ground. Finally, they have a population of 5.3 millions (because it is inhabitable) in 325,000 square kilometres, whereas the Canadian Arctic - in reverse figures - has only 120,000 inhabitants (mostly in the  Yukon) spread over 3.5 millions square kilometres.

100% concurrence, Iqaluit would be best served by a port of some sort.  As I stated earlier, a road should only be built for commercial purposes, like Quebec is doing with the James Bay Route, Trans-Taiga and hwy 389.

I've been to Resolute Bay, Iqaluit, Hall Beach, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet (Summer and Winter in each).  I really see no point in having a road to any of these places.  A port in Iqaluit would probably be helpful and make a lot of sense, my understanding is this is in the works.

EDIT:

As I said earlier, one of the only provinces that's taking northern development seriously is Quebec.  Here is a transportation plan from 2002 for Northern Quebec, it's pretty detailed and in english.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212313/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/regions/abitibi/nord_prediagnostic_en.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212313/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/regions/abitibi/nord_prediagnostic_en.pdf)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Dimsum on January 10, 2018, 17:38:29
A port in Iqaluit would probably be helpful and make a lot of sense, my understanding is this is in the works.

Agreed.  My comment about the road was more of the "can" vice "should".
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 10, 2018, 18:01:41
daftandbarmy: Thing is, no country has any claim on our Arctic land territory (Hans Island aside)--and our claim to sovereignty over NW Passage is disputed by almost everyone (Russia aside), not just the US.  Meanwhile, what about our sovereignty over, e.g., Labrador?  All this nationalist frenzy was whipped up by Harper with no factual basis and then accepted by the clueless media--more from 2011:

Quote
The Misguided Fixation on the Arctic and Our Military
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=365

NORAD air defence in the Arctic is not a matter of sovereignty, rather simply the geographical location of a military threat to to the continent as a whole--plus broader considerations here:

Quote
Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 10, 2018, 18:14:54
Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

Yup...been there recently.  $69 for fish and chips!!!   :orly:

Quote
It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?


See attached pic?    ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 10, 2018, 18:29:59
That, Eye in the Sky, would be my way to get to Iqaluit too.  :nod:

Mark: You are oversimplifying the situation in your post:

Everybody except the Russians is contesting Canada's position that all the waters contained within straight base lines enclosing the Arctic archipelago are internal waters of Canada under the law of the sea.

Nobody (not even the US) is contesting that Canada's territorial waters extend 12 NM from every piece of land in the Arctic that is recognized as Canadian. This means that many parts of the NW passage fall completely within Canadian territorial waters, as they are narrower than 24 NM.

Similarly, nobody contests that Canada's EEZ in the Arctic extends to at least 200 NM from any piece of land in the Arctic that is recognized as Canadian, which means all the waters within the archipelago and outwards to 200 NM since there are no parts of the archipelago that are wider than 400 NM.

The distinction on what powers a nation may exercise in territorial waters as opposed to internal waters, in particular restrictions on peaceful passage,  is the real issue that causes international problems, and is therefore contested.

Finally, when it is open, because the NW passage links two international bodies of water, the US, and some but not all other nations, claim that, on top  of all that, the rules relating to freedom of navigation (this is distinct from issues of sovereignty) in international straits must apply at all time, so Canada would have no power at all to impede in any way peaceful passage.

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 10, 2018, 18:56:18
Canada would have no power at all to impede in any way peaceful passage of any kind, in reality.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on January 10, 2018, 19:00:50
No one in his right mind would ever believe that we risk having an invasion from the north that would require some form of significant military response.  The development that is needed is in infrastructure and job opportunities to service our most northern residents/citizens and to provide some form of realistic response to assist those who run into serious problems: be they local fishermen/hunters, yachtsmen attempting the ridiculous or cruise ships intent on making money.  For all of those groups having locally based and knowledgeable assets in position to reach out is important and it validates our claim to sovereignty in those areas.  We, that is Canada,stands to profit significantly from the resources that are buried in the Arctic but those treasure troves are not going to be located and exploited without significant investment and risk.  The ideas expressed here are actually quite cheap as infrastructure development projects go and could easily be funded by the proposed infrastructure investment that features in the Liberals election platform.  And for a change it would actually serve a valid purpose and save lives. 

As for roads, forget it.  Even up until the end of WW2 most of Georgian Bay was serviced by ship, not by road.  The CPR relied on ferry service from Port McNicol and grain trains ended at the Lakehead.  The entire BC coast was only accessible by boat.  Until such time as there are significantly large settlements, the north will have to rely upon ship and air.  Both need SAR standing by not located in Trenton 8 hours away
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 10, 2018, 23:09:05
Because there are no natural resources up there...at all?  I don't think any 'invading force' would want the land itself...but...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/the-north/science/geology-energy-minerals/10717

Quote
Canada’s Arctic is one of Earth’s last frontiers for natural resource development. As a result mining and oil and gas development will be a key economic development instrument. The region is rich in diamonds, gold, oil and gas, base metals and iron ore. However, much of Canada’s North has not been studied to a sufficient level to encourage and sustain resource investment and to inform land-use decisions such as the creation of parks and other protected areas. Recent and on-going activities, primarily as part of the Earth Sciences Sectors’ Geo-Mapping for Energy and Minerals Program, are improving our knowledge of Canada’s North through the acquisition and rapid release of new geoscience information for targeted areas with high potential for base metals (copper, nickel, iron, zinc and lead), precious metals (gold, silver, platinum), diamonds, and multiple commodities including rare metals.

And it isn't only Russia with an eye on the Arctic.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ship-making-first-voyage-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36142513/

Maybe not today, but sometime tomorrow "down the road" as natural resources dry up globally, someone guarantee me wars won't be fought for these extra resources.  Anyone?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 11, 2018, 00:18:49
Because there are no natural resources up there...at all?  I don't think any 'invading force' would want the land itself...but...

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/the-north/science/geology-energy-minerals/10717

And it isn't only Russia with an eye on the Arctic.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ship-making-first-voyage-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36142513/

Maybe not today, but sometime tomorrow "down the road" as natural resources dry up globally, someone guarantee me wars won't be fought for these extra resources.  Anyone?

This book seems to think so:

Canada's Arctic Sovereignty: Resources, Climate and Conflict

Until now, Canada's claim to the frozen expanses of the Arctic has gone largely unchallenged. No longer. Suddenly our great white North is on everyone's radar, and five other countries are all interested in redefining our international boundaries. As known global oil and gas reserves dwindle, these nations are rushing to stake their claims on the Arctic's impressive, untapped mineral and energy reserves. Unprecedented global warming means that natural resources previously trapped by ice under the region's seabed are more accessible. Melting sea ice is also opening the Canadian Northwest Passage, a coveted trade route that has been almost impassable for most of recorded history. Journalist Jennifer Parks explores the issues related to Canada's Arctic in this timely, thought-provoking treatment.

https://www.amazon.ca/Canadas-Arctic-Sovereignty-Resources-Conflict/dp/1926736001
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2018, 11:47:14
Having been involved in infrastructure projects for years, having roads, airports, ports, communications and powerlines, makes a huge difference in the region they are built. Canada has a lot of resources, but generally to far away to be economically viable for most companies. Once the road/rail is in place, then projects suddenly become viable. It is the job of government to create these opportunities and set up the conditions for growth. We have no overarching Northern strategy, other than "permanent ignore". I applauded Harper's efforts to make it more of an issue and the needle has moved a bit.

Ports and Airport improvements are the first step, along with investments for renewable energy and improved communications. These produce a quicker bang for the buck. But they are still limited in what they can do. The next step is develop rail/road routes that follow the best geography and allow the greatest potential for connections with resource projects and remote communities. The road/rail payoff are measured in decades and that makes them politically uninteresting, unless your name is W.A.C. Bennett. I only wish he had manged to finish the rail line to Dease Lake. We lack visionary leaders and voters who would vote for them.     
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 11, 2018, 23:19:47
Meanwhile, in Russia:


Jane's Defence Weekly
New airbases significantly expand Russia’s Arctic geographical presence
Bruce Jones

Russia’s Northern Fleet has announced in a New Year’s press release that during 2018 its pilots will “significantly expand the geography of its Arctic air presence” through the use of new polar airbases. Russia’s staple maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft are the Tu-142 ‘Bear’ and Il-38 ‘May’.

Official Russian defence sources provide more detail on Arctic airbase developments from west to east.

The ongoing reconstruction of the Northern Fleet’s main airbase of Severomorsk-1 on the Kola Peninsula includes a new runway, taxiways, lighting and communications’ systems, and a new command-and-control centre. It will be capable of handling a wide range of aircraft, including the Il-96 long-haul wide-body airliner. Almost co-located Severomorsk-3 airbase has already been modernised.

The new Nagurskoye airfield on Alexandra Land Island in Franz Josef Land, will have a 2,500 m runway and be able to station a fleet of MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ interceptors, Su-34 ‘Fullback’ bomber-strike fighters, and Il-78 ‘Midas’ refuelling aircraft.

Reconstruction has been carried out at airbases at Rogachevo on the Novaya Zemlya island group, and at Naryan-Mar, in the Nenets province on the Barents Sea.

Upgrades and modernisation are continuing at Vorkuta, a city built to administer the gulag system, inland from the Kara Sea; Norilsk-Alykel, serving the closed Arctic city of Norilsk in central Siberia; Severnaya Zemlya Island, part of Krasnoyarsk Krai, on the Kara Sea; Tiksi, on the Laptev Sea; Anadyr, on the Bering Straits opposite Alaska; Cape Schmidt, on the Chukchi Sea, towards Alaska and the Bering Straits; and Wrangel Island, on the Chukchi Sea, straddled by the international dateline.

Temp airbase on Kotelny Island in the New Siberian Island group is expected to be in service by the end of 2018.
Aircrews serving in the polar regions receive considerable additional specialised training in order to deal with challenging navigational, communications, meteorological, and flight-planning requirements.

All off-lying island bases have detachments of Aerospace Forces’ (VKS) Radio-Technical Troops on 24-hour duty maintaining long-range communications links, radar, and early warning systems.

They are equipped with very recent Nebo-M, Podlet-M-TM, Kasta-2E2, and Gamma-S1 mobile air and missile defence radar systems and the Fundament signals processing system, which is integrated with the S-400 missile system.

These systems cover different ranges and altitudes and are claimed together to be “able to track 200 targets at altitudes of more than 35,000 ft [7,600 m] at a range of 200 km,” in all weather, including conventional and stealth targets.

ANALYSIS

Because of the drop in energy prices and the effects of economic sanctions following its annexation of Crimea and activities in Ukraine, Russia is not expanding its militarisation as much as in recent years. Much, however, has and continues to be achieved.
The overarching obstacle facing these developments has been the role of the Federal Agency for Special Construction, Spetsstroy, which was liquidated on 27 September 2017 after being cited for alleged “multi-billion-dollar embezzlement”. This has resulted in delays and confusion over the actual status of projects.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The expansion of Russian bases comes while there is pressure within NATO, including the United States in Alaska, to reduce its commitments within the polar circle. At the same time there is a vast shrinkage in NATO ’hull numbers’ in the Atlantic, while Moscow’s grow exponentially. NATO furthermore no longer enjoys naval supremacy around or north of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap.

Russia’s expansion of High North bases creates nodal networks of airfields and staging bases, enabling troops and equipment to be moved and deployed in parallel, east to west or vice versa simultaneously, en masse and with speed and surprise, along shorter high latitude routes. Russia it should be remembered is adopting the pre-positioning of weapons and stores co-located at major bases to await large numbers of reinforcing troops.

The bases create a further symbolic possibility, particularly using mid-air refuelling and stand-off missiles, of being able to strike targets in North America.

MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ fighter-interceptors, Su-34 ‘Fullback’ bomber-strike fighter and Il-78 ‘Midas’ refuelling aircraft are to be stationed at Russia’s Nagurskoye base. From Nagurskoye to US Thule AFB, Greenland, and Canadian Forces’ Station (CFS) Alert on Ellesmere Island is 1,000 miles, from Wrangel Island to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, 700 miles.

Russian military doctrine has always favoured making use of challenging terrain and climatic conditions to other options, because it does not fire back.

http://janes.ihs.com/Janes/Display/FG_713879-JDW
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 12, 2018, 00:08:41
Article Link, April 2017 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39629819)

Russia's new Arctic Trefoil military base unveiled with virtual tour 

Visitors to the Russian defence ministry website can now take a "virtual tour" of a new military base in a remote region of the Arctic.

Such media openness contrasts markedly with Russia's traditional military secrecy. However, the tour does not show any new military hardware.

The Arctic Trefoil permanent base is in Franz Josef Land, a huge ice-covered, desolate archipelago.

The Russian military sees the resource-rich Arctic as a key strategic region.

President Vladimir Putin visited the new base, on Alexandra Land, last month.

It is built on stilts - to help withstand the extreme cold - and will house 150 personnel on 18-month tours of duty. Winter temperatures typically plunge to minus 40C.

Covering 14,000sq m (151,000sq ft), it is the second Putin-era Arctic base to be built for air defence units. The first base to be completed was Northern Clover on Kotelny Island, further east.

A military airstrip is also under construction in Franz Josef Land, called Nagurskoye.

Russia is building four other Arctic military bases - at Rogachevo, Cape Schmidt, Wrangel and Sredniy.

Experts say the melting of Arctic sea ice - generally attributed to climate change - is making the polar seas more accessible for shipping. That could make it easier to prospect for untapped energy and minerals in the region.

The 360-degree virtual tour shows the main living quarters at Arctic Trefoil, including a central five-storey atrium. The "trefoil" name refers to the main block's three wings.

The base is self-sufficient in electricity, and equipped with a clinic, library, chapel, gym and cinema.

A military expert quoted by RIA news agency, Col (Rtd) Viktor Litovkin, said Russia was pursuing several strategic goals in the Arctic:
◾Control of international shipping on the Northern Sea Route, including providing alerts about icebergs and severe weather
◾Protecting Russian oil and gas resources in the Arctic
◾Defending Russia against any intrusion by foreign warships and missile threats.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Franz+Josef+Land/@80.6896657,46.3452741,743115m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x453d135600f66d7f:0xe41ee8cc6c1f61dc!8m2!3d80.799898!4d55.2478176
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on January 12, 2018, 10:35:34
Can you imagine the retention issues if we were to attempt to deploy squadrons of F18s to even Yellowknife for extended periods of time?  Cold Lake would seem like paradise....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 12, 2018, 10:52:54
Can you imagine the retention issues if we were to attempt to deploy squadrons of F18s to even Yellowknife for extended periods of time?  Cold Lake would seem like paradise....

But it would be a great place for all those pilots ;)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 12, 2018, 16:50:25
Just a point about roads -

A number that keeps coming to my mind is 70%.  That is the land mass of Canada that a Manitoba study determined was not accessible by road.  That means something like 7,000,000 km2 of area.  That is something like 4x the area of the prairies (~5,900,000 people and 473,000 km of paved and gravel roads).  It is also something like 1000x the area of the Greater Toronto Area (also ~5,900,000 people but only 5200 km of roads).

The point is that to economically exploit an area requires a network of roads - not a single, spidery, vulnerable connector 1000 km long to a "Field of Dreams" (pace Kevin Costner).

Maintaining the Prairie road network is a financial challenge for the 5,900,000 locals. 

What would be the challenge of an equivalent network 4x the size (4x 473,000 km = 1,892,000 km) borne by the 113,000 inhabitants of Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Terrritories?  Forgetting the challenge of rivers, lakes, 'skeg and pingos (monstrous great zits that erupt on the landscape - not muddy footed troops on ships).

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 12, 2018, 18:38:44
In BC

Over 620,000 kilometers of roads on the British Columbia landbase are considered resource roads.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 13, 2018, 14:18:52
We punched a railroad West across thousands of miles of some of the toughest land in the world to guarantee Confederation in the mid-1800s.

I assume we can figure out how to go North in the early 20 teens if we have the same will.....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 13, 2018, 14:35:37
In fact not until towards the end of the century:

Quote
...
On Nov. 7, 1885, the eastern and western portions of the Canadian Pacific Railway met at Craigellachie, B.C., where Donald A. Smith drove the last spike. The cost of construction almost broke the syndicate, but within three years of the first transcontinental train leaving Montreal and Toronto for Port Moody on June 28, 1886...
http://cpconnectingcanada.ca/our-history/

 ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on January 13, 2018, 14:36:04
We punched a railroad West across thousands of miles of some of the toughest land in the world to guarantee Confederation in the mid-1800s.

I assume we can figure out how to go North in the early 20 teens if we have the same will.....

We already did this once. Goes to Churchill but it is washed out and no one has the will or the cash to repair it and without a reason for the destination there is no purpose either.  If it costs too much to fix one that is already there, what is the economic sense of creating another one thousands of kilometres long.  There just aren't enough customers at the end of it.  Wouldn't it make more sense to develop an arctic shipping infra-structure centred on Churchill that provided shipping services throughout the entire Arctic?  Although ships are seasonal, they have the advantage that the water is already there and they are capable of hauling large quantities of cargo. Even for mineral development constructing a pier and short spur lines from source to coast makes more sense than trying to finance even a few hundred miles of road.  For those who say that seasonal shipping isn't profitable consider that grain shipments east of Thunder Bay used to terminate mid-December and didn't start up again until April.  Also the steel mills in Hamilton stockpile ore for 3 months or more to cover winter operations: so a short but intense shipping season from mine to Churchill could be conceivable.
Without actions such as this even fixing what we have is a waste of money
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 13, 2018, 15:12:17
Owning a big country is like owning a big chunk of property, either look after it, or someone else will.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 13, 2018, 15:21:04
Colin P: Only the US could conceivably really threaten our sovereignty--and they certainly would act to stop any serious incursion by a third country, in their own security self-interest (and follow Article 5 of NATO treaty).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 13, 2018, 19:19:56
There was a significant difference between the CPR and the Churchill line and YZT alludes to it - the CPR line went from someplace to someplace, not from someplace to noplace.

Victoria and Vancouver were already up and running as ports trading into western North America and were growing on their own.  Likewise Halifax to Sault Ste Marie was settled and growing.  Also, both Halifax and Victoria were connected by the White Ensign.  So the CPR, and its associated telegraph, was essentially a shortcut for the RN, as well as the Merchant Bankers of London.

The railway didn't create Vancouver.  It didn't even create Edmonton (the HBC did that) or Calgary (Whiskey traders created Lethbridge and made Calgary necessary). The railway created Ottawa.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on January 15, 2018, 11:21:30
Colin P: Only the US could conceivably really threaten our sovereignty--and they certainly would act to stop any serious incursion by a third country, in their own security self-interest (and follow Article 5 of NATO treaty).

Mark
Ottawa

Depends how you define sovereignty, if China decides to drill in arctic waters we call our own, but even the US disagrees, then are they going to help us? China does not need to claim it as their own, just state "In our opinion it's belongs to everybody and by the way we have bought enough UN votes to support our postion" 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on January 15, 2018, 16:22:35
There is precedent - The Doughnut Hole.

The Doughnut Hole is in the Bering Sea.  It is a space that is more than 200 NM from any American or Russian shore.  Thus it falls outside of the Economic Exclusion Zones of both the US and Russia.  Thus it is International Waters - or Commons.

The Bering Sea is home to a fish, the Walleye Pollock, which has been feeding Japan since the 1960s and the US since the 1980s.  In the 1980s the US asserted its economic rights over its EEZ and started managing the Pollock stock and turned it into a sustainable fishery.  The Russians never managed the same trick.

The Doughnut Hole (or Donut Hole if you prefer) became a major problem.  It became an unmanaged and unmanageable area into which Chinese and Polish Trawlers entered and sucked up the pollock - undermining both the Americans and the occasional Russian attempts to control the fishing of the pollock.  Ultimately it threatened the stock and the ability of the Japanese and Koreans to be fed.

The Doughnut Hole was unique because to access it the "pirates" had to transit nationally controlled waters and because they were proceeding to International waters there was nothing the intervening nations could do to restrict either the fishing, which was not illegal, or the free passage.

That is the type of problem that Canada faces in its Arctic (and Dixon Channel and the Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank).

Canada needs to be able to place DFO and RCMP officers in place to assert Canada's desire and intention to manage the area according to our laws.  The CAF needs to be available and capable of supporting those officers in the event Spanish Trawlers show up again or a Canadian version of the Icelandic Cod War breaks out.

Quote
The Cod Wars
Background to the Cod Wars

 
The cod wars were a series of disputes between Britain and Iceland running from the 1950s to the 1970s over the rights to fish in Icelandic waters. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense of the word (the massive and well-equipped Royal Navy would have easily defeated the tiny Icelandic Navy), the peak of the Cod Wars saw thirty seven Royal Navy warships mobilised to protect British trawlers fishing in the disputed territory. While the wars were eventually settled through diplomatic means there was conflict between British naval vessels and Icelandic ships out at sea. The Cod Wars showed how seriously nations took their fishing rights, and the lengths they would go to in order to access rich fishing grounds.

 http://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 14, 2018, 16:32:14
Conclusion of very sensible piece at CGAI:

Quote
Arctic Sovereignty: Preoccupation vs. Homeland Governance and Defence
...
by CGAI Fellow Andrea Charron and James Fergusson
...
Referencing “Arctic” and “sovereignty” in the same sentence is generally a recipe for alarmist and precipitous action. It is usually translated into a demand for a more military presence, which, while a ready answer for the Canadian government, ignores the fact that sovereignty issues today are settled in courtrooms. There are no de jure or de facto threats to Canadian Arctic sovereignty. If Russia is a real threat, it is to Canada and its allies as a whole. Indeed, the Arctic is the one issue area in which Russian co-operation has been tremendously helpful. Certainly, as the balance between de facto and de jure sovereignty has changed over time, one cannot predict how it might change in the future. For now, however, Canadians should replace Arctic sovereignty with homeland defence and devote attention to issues which relate to how the federal government exercises its sovereign authority over the people who live in its Arctic territory and how it will work with allies now and in the future to defend Canada.
https://www.cgai.ca/arctic_sovereignty_preoccupation_vs_homeland_governance_and_defence

Relevant earlier post of mine:

Quote
Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Blackadder1916 on October 23, 2018, 16:21:24
Since the only reference to Exercise Musk Ox that I found on these means was a brief mention in this thread back about 10 or 11 pages, I thought this may be an appropriate thread in which to provide a link to a 1946 DND/NFB film about the exercise in which Canadian soldiers travel overland from Churchill to Edmonton the long way (up north and then across the territories).


https://vimeo.com/167910734


There is some background material available at the U of C. https://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/map-home/army-goes-north-operation-muskox

(https://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/files/arcticexpedition/images/muskoxclose600.jpg)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Underway on December 08, 2018, 11:28:49
NATO's Arctic Dilemma (http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic-special-reports/norway-nato-trident-juncture-exercise-arctic-kirkenes-russia-military-defence-tensions/) is a CBC article focused on dealing with Russian in the arctic.   Not bad reading for the topic.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 08, 2018, 12:29:00
A guide to writing about the Arctic from a Canadian academic specialist:

Quote
How to write an Arctic story in 5 easy steps
OPINION: A foolproof guide for reporters new to covering the Arctic
By Heather Exner-Pirot [https://www.opencanada.org/contributors/heather/]

So you’ve been assigned to write a story on the Arctic. Congratulations! This will be one of your easiest assignments.

The key is to write the exact story your urban, mid-latitude reader expects to read. Stick to this formula and you’ll be on the path to high click rates in no time.

1. Climate change is the pretext for your article, so make sure to point out how many degrees the region has warmed. To avoid doing math, simply state “Twice as fast as the rest of the planet”. Reiterate that this will have significant impacts on polar bears. Don’t forgot your illustration of the Arctic Ocean showing its shrinking sea ice extent since 1979: This is key!

2. The Arctic conflict narrative is essential. Most journalists used to lead with the Russian flag being planted on the seafloor at the North Pole in 2007, but more and more are opening with China’s 2018 Arctic White Paper. Portraying the Russians and Chinese as a double threat to Arctic sovereignty is ideal.

Be sure to note that Russia has way more icebreakers than your country, and that China is building some too. Imply that these icebreakers have some nefarious purpose, like war-fighting or illegal fishing. Describe shipping growth in the Northern Sea Route as a percentage (“80 percent growth”), not the actual double-digit figure (27 transits in 2017).

It’s best to call Russia’s extended continental shelf claim submission a “land grab,” even though 80 other states have made similar submissions under the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If you do mention that Canada and Denmark have competing claims, make it seem like Russia’s is somehow more aggressive. It is always preferable to refer to the ‘North Pole’ rather than the ‘Central Arctic Ocean’, even though the former is an abstract point.

Bonus points if you can show a map of Russian military assets in the Arctic. Don’t distinguish between Soviet-era airstrips, refueling ports or search and rescue stations. What really matters is that there are a lot of dots. Call Russia’s new Nagurskoye base in Alexandra Land in the Franz Josef archipelago, which accommodates 150 people, “giant” or “massive.”

3. Resource development, of course, is the reason we are all here. Start by asserting that the Arctic region could contain 90 billion barrels of oil. If you are feeling bold, declare it a “trillion dollar ocean”. Point out the paradox that climate change is making oil and gas resources more accessible WHICH WILL LEAD TO MORE CLIMATE CHANGE. For a balanced take, remind the reader that resource development also provides jobs in remote locations. Recite someone from Greenpeace describing how those jobs can be replaced through renewable energy projects or tourism.

4. It is very important to make mention of Indigenous peoples, and the fact that they have lived in the Arctic for millennia. A trip to an Inuit village is optimal. Describe the weather on the day you visit as ‘frozen’, ‘brutal’ or ‘harsh’.

Provide quotes on how climate change has affected hunting patterns. References to addictions, the high cost of milk, crumbling infrastructure — any kind of struggle — are welcome, while descriptions of normal, everyday life are discouraged.

5. The easiest part of your article is picking your headline – there are only four options after all. “Scramble for the Arctic” “Polar Power Struggle” and “Race for Arctic Resources” are good, but it’s hard to top “New Cold War”.

Include an image of soldiers in snow camouflage uniforms in your social media posts.

Once you have checked all these boxes, your Arctic article is complete. Great job bringing attention to this changing, vulnerable region! After all, what happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic...
https://www.arctictoday.com/write-arctic-story-5-easy-steps/

Then see this by two other academics--start of major piece:

Quote
Arctic Sovereignty: Preoccupation vs. Homeland Governance and Defence

POLICY PERSPECTIVE
by CGAI Fellow Andrea Charron and James Fergusson
September 2018
...
Introduction

Inevitably, Canadian foreign policy scholars are either asked, or feel compelled, to write about the Arctic.1 More often than not, their writings include the nebulous topic of Arctic sovereignty and it is usually assumed to be under threat. Yet, foreign policy scholars from other Arctic states are not fixated on sovereignty [emphasis added]. They are concerned about their ability to defend their homelands from a variety of (especially) state-based threats. Indeed, analysts from other Arctic states are simultaneously fascinated and confused as to why Canadian foreign policy scholars and Canadian political discourse writ large spend so much time narrowly focused on Arctic sovereignty rather than homeland governance and defence ]emphasis added]. The answer revolves around a misunderstanding of today’s concept of sovereignty and a reluctance to talk about threats to the homeland. The former is a legacy of a Canadian need to navigate great powers and allegiances (read the U.K. and U.S.) and the long and difficult history of securing title to the territory.2 The latter is to avoid U.S.-type language and the (false) assumption that Canada is still “fire-proof”. The result, however, is debates in Canada, which use outdated arguments to simultaneously address and avoid conversations about potential, real threats to Canada, which have nothing to do with the Arctic and wider issues about governance. This article returns to the basics to define sovereignty and then applies it in the Arctic context. We finish with a few thoughts on what might be a way forward...

Canada's Arctic Sovereignty

This brief exposition of the sovereignty question provides the backdrop for understanding the Canadian Arctic sovereignty preoccupation. While one might contest the legality of the transfer of de jure sovereignty of Arctic territory from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1880 by Order in Council,4 no one in the international community has contested or challenged Canada’s legal sovereign status over the area. Nor has any sovereign state provided a de facto challenge (i.e., seized control of part of the territory) to Canadian sovereignty over its Arctic territory [emphasis added].5

Of course, the status of the Northwest Passage (NWP) is regularly portrayed as a threat to Canadian de jure and de facto sovereignty. While one may debate whether the passage should be legally treated as an international strait, this debate is not about Canadian sovereignty per se, no more than other recognized international straits are about the sovereignty of the adjacent states...Canada, in reality, does not need to control the territory, because there are no challenges to its de jure sovereignty [emphasis added]. While many point to Russian Arctic military capabilities, their simple existence does not translate into a de facto threat to Canadian sovereignty. Russian aggression is evident across the world but we have yet to see Russian designs to take over and control Canadian Arctic territory. Even with the resumption of Russian military flights over the Arctic Ocean approaching Canadian territory, Russian pilots have been cautious to respect Canadian airspace knowing the potential consequences of a significant, lingering breach. Canadian Arctic sovereignty is not at stake. Rather, bona fide threats to Western states as a function of Russian designs on territory in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics must be discussed in the context of homeland protection. The Canadian Arctic remains a pathway to key potential targets in the south (especially in the U.S.) ]emphasis added...
https://www.cgai.ca/arctic_sovereignty_preoccupation_vs_homeland_governance_and_defence

See this earlier post:

Quote
Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 09, 2018, 14:51:12
Using Putin's "polite green men" strategy. Imagine a scenario based around a Chinese statement at the UN that Canada's claim to the Arctic is illegitimate, with political support from Chinese and Russian vassal States, Putin moves a contingent of scientists, civilians with protection by heavily armed naval infantry and logistical support of one of it's new nuclear icebreakers and takes over Mould Bay, claiming it as a "International science station" administrated by Russia on behalf of the world. What can Canada do? Sure the US could move a nuke attack sub into place, but is it going to torp a civilian nuclear powered icebreaker in the arctic, likely quietly supported by a Russian nuke sub?     
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 09, 2018, 15:51:00
I do not believe any US administration would tolerate such action against/on Canadian territory--if necessary a forceful response--passive acceptance = end of NATO (amongst many other consequences unacceptable to Americans).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 09, 2018, 15:59:30
yes but what can they actually do? Would they land troops to contest it? Plus the US is not overly in love with our definition of Arctic sovereignty either.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 09, 2018, 16:10:00
Well, US forces in coordination/with help from CAF, could try to interdict/stop Russkies en route ("Ice Station Zebra" in reverse scenario, sort of--fun flick http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/783/Ice-Station-Zebra/).

(https://images3.static-bluray.com/reviews/6804_1.jpg)

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzZhMTEyY2YtNDUyMi00MTgzLWIxYWYtMzFjZDViMmI2YjU0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwMzI2NzU@._V1_.jpg)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 09, 2018, 17:12:09
My suspicion is we won't even notice till they land and announce it. A 3 day voyage for their big icebreaker depending on ice conditions, even if we notice it on the 2nd day, it take a whole day just for the BN to get up the chain and another couple of days before some sort of decisions is made to protest through diplomatic channels. Likely they have people landed by the time we our first overflight. If they sent 2 icebreakers, they could likely land 50 people and supplies for a year in a week of hard work. Plus their icebreakers can work earlier and later than ours can. China sends up theirs as an act of "solidarity". Neither are "naval vessels".

Canada has a couple of Ranger patrols nearby, a unarmed icebreaker and Aurora attempting to maintain air coverage, with the occasional CF-18 escorting it. 

Russia can provide sub cover all along the supply route, along with Bears providing air coverage.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 09, 2018, 18:11:54
My suspicion is we won't even notice till they land and announce it. A 3 day voyage for their big icebreaker depending on ice conditions, even if we notice it on the 2nd day, it take a whole day just for the BN to get up the chain and another couple of days before some sort of decisions is made to protest through diplomatic channels. Likely they have people landed by the time we our first overflight. If they sent 2 icebreakers, they could likely land 50 people and supplies for a year in a week of hard work. Plus their icebreakers can work earlier and later than ours can. China sends up theirs as an act of "solidarity". Neither are "naval vessels".

Canada has a couple of Ranger patrols nearby, a unarmed icebreaker and Aurora attempting to maintain air coverage, with the occasional CF-18 escorting it. 

Russia can provide sub cover all along the supply route, along with Bears providing air coverage.

Just you never heard of satellite coverage.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 09, 2018, 22:25:49
and what do they see? Two Russian icebreakers on the edge of their normal territory for 1/2 the voyage, a cover story of setting up a ice weather station on the ice floes which has been made public a couple of weeks before. That's 1.5 days of their trip, someone has to also notice them, interpret the data, sees Arctic type shipping in the Arctic, they might not even make an urgent report, perhaps an e-mail on Friday evening that sits till early next week.. Even if you do get the report to the right ears, what are they going to do in that time? 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CloudCover on December 09, 2018, 23:46:42
Yes, yes. But we have special satellites with frickin laser beams.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 10, 2018, 00:18:59
Yes, yes. But we have special satellites with frickin laser beams.

No we had a program to arm sharks with frikin Laser Beams, but since sharks were expensive and hard to come by. We were offered an cheaper option with regional benefits, now we have Farmed raised Atlantic Salmon with Frikin dollar store Laser beams duct taped to their heads.  8)

Wait to PETA hears about it, or Greenpeace!!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 10, 2018, 07:13:26
and what do they see? Two Russian icebreakers on the edge of their normal territory for 1/2 the voyage, a cover story of setting up a ice weather station on the ice floes which has been made public a couple of weeks before. That's 1.5 days of their trip, someone has to also notice them, interpret the data, sees Arctic type shipping in the Arctic, they might not even make an urgent report, perhaps an e-mail on Friday evening that sits till early next week.. Even if you do get the report to the right ears, what are they going to do in that time?

You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 10, 2018, 08:55:50
You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization someone else has assets that we piggy back off of that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?

 ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 10, 2018, 09:47:50
;D

True that, we do have some assets though and your right we do share with others with greater resources than our own.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 10, 2018, 14:56:26
You are reading too many Tom Clancy novels my friend. Don't you think we have an organization that looks at the maritime picture in the Arctic continuously?

I work in the Federal Government, i have very little faith in their ability to monitor anything and respond to it. As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise.     
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Blackadder1916 on December 10, 2018, 18:04:33
. . . As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise.   

While Putin the Russians (though I give credit specifically to Vlad, he isn't the sole smart one in that country) did steal a march on the West, bear in mind that they already had a foot on the ground in both the Crimea and Syria.  It would be a decidedly different scenario for Russia to attempt such a move in claiming a part of Canada's land territory regardless of its remote location and sparse population.  Is the Bear's move to regain what it lost following the break-up of the Soviet Union over?  Most likely not, but it is also most unlikely that Putin is having fantasies of occupying our North when he is probably licking his lips at the prospect of re-establishing suzerainty in some of the Eastern European territory that was his stomping ground in his KGB days.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 10, 2018, 18:36:34
I work in the Federal Government, i have very little faith in their ability to monitor anything and respond to it. As for novels, I just look how Putin operates and such a move is one he would make. He outmaneuvered the west in Syria and Crimea, if you don't think he won't try again somewhere else, then you will be in for a surprise.   

Thank you for not having much faith in us, unlike you I regularly see the maritime picture in the Arctic...  If you want to maintain that a scenario where the Russians and possibly the Chinese as a self declared near Arctic nation will enact a beach head in our Arctic territory as a possibility then that's fine. Like was mentioned already that will mean war as the US will never allow such a incursion near their territory, Russia knows that and so does China.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: QV on December 10, 2018, 19:15:43
Thank you for not having much faith in us, unlike you I regularly see the maritime picture in the Arctic...  If you want to maintain that a scenario where the Russians and possibly the Chinese as a self declared near Arctic nation will enact a beach head in our Arctic territory as a possibility then that's fine. Like was mentioned already that will mean war as the US will never allow such a incursion near their territory, Russia knows that and so does China.

I sure wish we could all say: "Canada will never allow..."
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CloudCover on December 10, 2018, 20:05:18
... on the other hand, let them come in and build all the infrastructure, then surround it and kick them out.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on December 10, 2018, 22:19:37
Have you seen Russian and Chinese infrastructure?

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CloudCover on December 10, 2018, 22:52:23
Only in Russia and China.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 09, 2019, 20:22:14
The Arctic and US Navy/Coast Guard (Northwest Passage?) and USAF (North Warning System):

1) Navy (note speaker):

Quote
Navy May Deploy Surface Ships to Arctic This Summer as Shipping Lanes Open Up

The Navy may follow up October’s carrier strike group operations in the Arctic with another foray into the icy High North, with leadership considering sending a group of ships into a trans-Arctic shipping lane this summer, the Navy secretary said.

Much has been made of potential Arctic shipping lanes opening up as ice melts and more areas become navigable. An expected uptick in commercial shipping and tourism in the Arctic region has put some urgency on the U.S. Coast Guard’s plans to build a fleet of icebreakers, as well as the Navy’s interest in having a more visible presence in the region.

Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer said this morning at a Center for a New American Security event that the Navy has been in the Arctic regularly since the 1960s, but most of that presence has been with submarines or patrol aircraft rather than with warships on the sea.

With three potential trans-Arctic routes potentially opening up, he said, the Navy’s discussion about Arctic presence has changed dramatically in the past two years.

“As an example, this summer, the [chief of naval operations] and I have talked about having some ships make the transit in the Arctic. It’s going to be a multi-service task – I think you’ll see the Coast Guard involved. We’re just fleshing it out right now. But what is the purpose of that? We have to learn what it’s like to operate in that environment,” he said.

Spencer said the Ticonderoga-class cruisers were the last class of Navy ships to be designed with steam systems to remove ice from the ship, and that newer classes are not ice-hardened or equipped with systems to remove ice.

When the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group operated north of the Arctic Circle for several weeks this fall, the carrier itself handled the environment well, but its smaller escort ships and the supply ships the carrier relied on had a tougher time in the high sea states and icy waters. Similarly, when the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group sailed from Iceland to Norway in October, the larger amphibious assault ship made the journey safely, but the smaller dock landing ship was damaged in heavy seas and had to turn back.

Though the Navy is currently capable of meeting the Joint Staff’s requirements for Arctic operations, Spencer said, “is that requirement a full requirement? I think we can do more. We’re starting to do more in the Navy as we flesh it out.”

“A strategic port up in the Bering [Sea] area is being explored, but that would be a whole-of-government approach: that would be Coast Guard, Navy and [Department of] Commerce in that regard. But it’s an area we have to focus on, most definitely,” the secretary continued.

..."freedom of navigation should be plied up there. We’re going to try to do it,” he said. “We’re going to learn our way.”
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/08/navy-may-deploy-surface-ships-arctic-summer-shipping-lanes-open

2) USAF (note co-authors):

Quote
Air power and the Arctic: The importance of projecting strength in the north

The U.S. Air Force has been flying over the Arctic for more than a half century. Often forgotten, the United States’ first-ever mass airlift and aerial bombing campaigns were conducted there during World War II’s Thousand-Mile War along a remote chain of Alaskan islands.

Almost a decade before the Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands, Gen. Billy Mitchell advocated building airfields, telling Congress: “Whoever holds Alaska will hold the world.” Even then, the Arctic was strategically important, and Mitchell’s words underscored the role of air power in the region, where minimal infrastructure and extreme climate severely limit how militaries can operate.

Fast forward 75 years, and the Arctic has become even more important to the nation. Both a northern approach to the United States, as well as a critical location for projecting American power, its geo-strategic significance is difficult to overstate. Key defense assets dot the landscape. The Air Force operates most of our Arctic locations — from fighter and tanker bases to space-tracking systems and radar sites that detect aircraft and missiles coming over the poles.

One way to view the region’s growing importance: By 2022, Alaska will be home to more advanced fighter jets than any place on Earth.

...Russia is securing its economic interests in the north, which makes up about 20 percent of its gross domestic product, and is rebuilding its military presence in the region. China considers the Arctic as part of its Belt and Road Initiative and is establishing a presence through economic leverage with other Arctic nations.

Responding to these changes in June, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis stated: “America’s got to up its game in the Arctic.” The Air Force is now developing a comprehensive Arctic strategic vision, ensuring our ability to fulfill the objectives of the new U.S. National Defense Strategy. We must be ready to defend our security interests and deter aggression by major powers.

The Air Force is exploring ways to modernize our more than 50 radars, many co-managed with Canada, that cross the top of North America and form an essential part of protecting the U.S. and Canada from missile and bomber attacks [emphasis added]. Northern bases are key staging locations, allowing aircraft to quickly reach any location in the Northern Hemisphere. The Air Force also recently upgraded critical space-surveillance assets in Thule, Greenland, the northernmost U.S. base in the world. Meanwhile we continue to train and equip for cold weather operations, managing the Defense Department’s oldest polar survival school and retaining the capacity to land on ice with unique, ski-equipped aircraft.

Completing these missions is not without challenges. The region poses difficulties with extreme cold and unpredictable weather, short construction seasons, and extended periods of darkness, in addition to aurora and space weather phenomena that inhibit radio and satellite communication.

These demands make the Arctic a region where alliances and partnerships are all the more vital. In addition to our enduring partnership with Canada, the Air Force is looking at opportunities to expand relationships with other Arctic allies — especially through exercises [emphasis added] — by sharing weather, communications and reconnaissance data, as well as trading operational best practices...

Heather Wilson is the secretary of the U.S. Air Force and Gen. David Goldfein is the service’s chief of staff.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/01/09/air-power-and-the-arctic-the-importance-of-projecting-strength-in-the-north/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 21, 2019, 16:33:21
USCG taking steps to improve search and rescue for vessels in Arctic waters--trust CCG, RCAF (JRCCs) will have access to any needed data:

USCG Arctic Satellites aim to Add Margin of Safety

The U.S. Coast Guard’s mission of keeping the seas safe will soon get an additional boost from space with two polar satellites. The two satellites, called “cube satellites” or “cubesats” for their small size of about 60 square centimeters, or a little under 2 feet, will be part of a payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket scheduled to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California Nov. 28. Although the Coast Guard has used satellite technology for years, these two are the first to be entirely dedicated to a Coast Guard mission. 

The initiative is part of the U.S. Homeland Security’s Polar Scout program, which aims to increase technical resources in the Arctic to detect emergency position indicating radio beacons, or EPIRBs, sent from mariners in distress in that region. The project will also be a test to explore the effectiveness of using the cubesats, which are less expensive than other forms of technology, for these and other missions.

The service will also gain two ground stations to monitor and control the satellites as they orbit the planet over the poles every 100 minutes or so. One ground station has already been completed in Fairbanks, Alaska. Another is planned for construction before the end of the year atop Smith Hall at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Conn. 

The increasing sophistication of technology, along with the ever-shrinking size of electronics, has made it possible for cubesats to do the job that once was performed by much larger and much more expensive satellites, said U.S. Coast Guard LCRD Grant Wyman. He is the project manager for the initiative at the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center in New London, Conn. 

 “It’s really expensive to build, launch and maintain a satellite, but the technology advancements that have occurred in recent years have begun to reduce those costs,” said   Wyman.  He explained that the two cubesats, named Yukon and Kodiak, would orbit in “low Earth orbit” of between 690 and 1000 kilometers, or about 428 to 621 miles.

The Arctic is a high-priority area for the Coast Guard, Wyman said, as commercial shipping and even cruise traffic increases in previously inaccessible areas as the ice melts with climate change.  Yet the area is still an extreme environment even in the warmer months, with harsh weather, cold temperatures, and emergent areas of  navigation.

The diminutive satellites will likely have some company as they are launched into orbit; the Spaceflight rocket that will launch the cubesats for the Coast Guard will have a payload of more than 70 other satellites for 35 different organizations. The mission has thus been dubbed the SmallSat Express for the variety and number of spacecraft involved, the most launched from any U.S. spaceship. This high-tech form of ridesharing has a positive upside: the more organizations and governments launching on the same rocket, the more the venture can potentially lower the cost of entry into space for all.

The reduced cost of the cubesats – and the construction of a ground station at the Coast Guard Academy – will also have an impact across the board on the education of Coast Guard cadets, for which the Academy has been preparing for the last five years, said Dr. Lorraine Allen, associate professor of physics at the Academy...
https://www.marinelink.com/news/uscg-arctic-satellites-aim-add-margin-461930

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 15, 2019, 16:57:44
At last for USCG with Trump signing bill--meanwhile CCGS Diefenbaker off somewhere in late 2020s never never land:

Quote
Coast Guard Secures $655 Million for Polar Security Cutters in New Budget Deal

The Coast Guard’s long-sought heavy icebreaker, the Polar Security Cutter, was among the programs to receive funding when Congress passed a spending package on late Thursday.

The Coast Guard is receiving $655 million to start construction on the lead ship for a new class of Polar Security Cutter and is receiving an addition $20 million to purchase long-lead-time materials for a second heavy icebreaker, as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s Fiscal Year 2019 appropriations bill, Congressional staffers told USNI News.

Last summer, the Senate had agreed to appropriate $755 million for the Polar Security Cutter. The House of Representatives, though, instead provided DHS with $5 billion to build a wall along the border with Mexico while canceling funding for a variety of programs including the Polar Security Cutter.

“With the support of the administration and Congress, we plan to build a new fleet of six polar icebreakers – at least three of which must be heavy icebreakers – and we need the first new Polar Security Cutter immediately to meet America’s needs in the Arctic,” read a statement from the service provided to USNI News. “The United States is an Arctic nation with extensive national and global responsibilities. Our role in the Arctic is growing. Diminishing Arctic sea ice is expanding access to the region and attracting attention from both partner and rival states across the globe. Resource extraction, fisheries, tourism and commercial shipping, in conjunction with traditional Alaska native activities, are driving increased maritime activity and a greater need for Coast Guard presence in the region. America’s only heavy icebreaker, the Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star, is more than 40 years old and must be replaced by the new Polar Security Cutter.”

The Coast Guard has for several years pushed for funding the ice breaker program. Currently, the Coast Guard has only one operational heavy icebreaker, USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), commissioned in 1976. A second icebreaker, USCGC Polar Sea (WAGB-11) has not been operational since a 2010 engine failure [emphasis added] and instead has for nearly a decade served as a parts donor to keep Polar Star running, USNI News reported in 2017...
https://news.usni.org/2019/02/15/polar_security_cutter_coast_guard

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 22, 2019, 17:30:40
USCG bids for lead Arctic role, note references to NORAD, NORTHCOM. Almost no mention of Canada, could find only one of CCG (top p. 21 PDF); no reference to NW Passage:

Quote
Document: Coast Guard Arctic Strategic Outlook
...
From the report

The United States is an Arctic Nation, and the United States Coast Guard has served as the lead federal agency for homeland security, safety, and environmental stewardship in the Arctic region for over 150 years. Since Revenue Cutters first sailed to Alaska in 1867 to establish U.S. sovereignty, the Service’s role has expanded, including representing American interests as a leader in the international bodies governing navigation, search and rescue, vessel safety, fisheries enforcement, and pollution response across the entire Arctic. As the region continues to open and strategic competition drives more actors to look to the Arctic for economic and geopolitical advantages, the demand for Coast Guard leadership and presence will continue to grow.

Since the release of the Coast Guard Arctic Strategy in 2013, the resurgence of nation-state competition has coincided with dramatic changes in the physical environment of the Arctic, which has elevated the region’s prominence as a strategically competitive space. America’s two nearest-peer powers, Russia and China, have both declared the region a national priority and made corresponding investments in capability and capacity to expand their influence in the region. Russia and China’s persistent challenges to the rules-based international order around the globe cause concern of similar infringement to the continued peaceful stability of the Arctic region. As the only U.S. Service that combines both military and civil authorities, the Coast Guard is uniquely suited to address the interjurisdictional challenges of today’s strategic environment by modeling acceptable behavior, building regional capacity, and strengthening organizations that foster transparency and good governance across the Arctic.

The Arctic’s role in geostrategic competition is growing, in large part because reductions in permanent sea ice have exposed coastal borders and facilitated increased human and economic activity. The warming of the Arctic has led to longer and larger windows of reduced ice conditions. From 2006 to 2018, satellite imagery observed the 12 lowest Arctic ice extents on record.1 This has led to greater access through Arctic shipping routes. While the near-term future of these routes is uncertain, a polar route has the potential to reduce transit times of traditional shipping routes by up to two weeks. Russia’s establishment of a Northern Sea Route Administration, along with the use of high ice-class Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers built specifically to export natural gas from its Yamal LNG facility, have contributed significantly to the increase in commercial shipping traffic in the Arctic. In addition, opportunities for potential resource extraction and expanding Arctic tourism offer new prospects for some of the Nation’s most isolated communities and broader benefits to America. However, changing terrain and subsistence food patterns, as well as the impacts of increasingly frequent and intense winter storms, continue to challenge the communities and increase risk in the maritime domain...
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/22/document-coast-guard-arctic-strategic-outlook

Mark
Ottawa


 

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Journeyman on April 23, 2019, 10:02:33
An interesting article from the New York Times.  It is variously alarmist, suggesting that Spetz'Naz troops could soon be walking into Canada, and realistic, in that the cold is likely the greatest obstacle to be addressed in any arctic conflict (various 'retreats from Moscow'... or Stalingrad... suggest that it's not just the arctic where Canada may need some additional efforts)

The attached is only part of the article, which is available here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/europe/global-warming-russia-arctic-usa.html).  In the highlighted bit, I can't help but think that our MND is experimenting with pharmaceuticals or preparing for a second career in stand-up comedy.

Quote
Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Military Drills in Arctic Aim to Counter Russia, but the First Mission Is to Battle the Cold

RESOLUTE BAY, Canada — After finishing a training drill on surviving the bitter cold, the soldiers gathered around Ranger Debbie Iqaluk to hear about an inescapable fact of life in the high Arctic: The ice is melting despite the frigid temperatures.

And that means the Russians are coming.  [Comment: Ok, ok, hyperbole sells newspapers;  I'm also sure that several readers are scratching their heads at a Ranger named "Debbie"  ;) ]

NATO is rushing to try to catch up. Last month, hundreds of troops from member countries and partners, including France, Norway, Finland and Sweden, joined Canadian soldiers, reservists and rangers for the Nanook-Nunalivut exercises that aimed in part to help alliance forces match Russian readiness in extreme-cold climes. (The United States sent observers but no troops this year.)

Twenty percent of Russia’s gross domestic product is pulled from the Arctic, whether in minerals or through its shipping lanes. It is far ahead of North America when it comes to maneuvering in the region; by comparison, less than 1 percent of the United States’ economic output is derived from the Arctic.

Russia has also expanded its fleet of icebreaker ships to more than 40 (the United States has only two that are operational) and reopened military bases in the Arctic that were shut down after the end of the Cold War. Two months ago, a top Russian lawmaker told a state-run news agency that Russian special forces were training for a potential conflict in the Arctic.

At a meeting on Tuesday of the International Arctic Forum, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia outlined an ambitious program, including new ports and infrastructure, to further cement Russia’s standing in the region. “We don’t see a single matter that requires NATO’s attention” in the Arctic, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia said at the same event.

In a telephone interview, Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan of Canada made clear that the alliance had no intention of ceding the icy expanse. “We want Russia to know what our capabilities are,” Mr. Sajjan said. “It prevents them from doing more aggressive things.”
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on April 23, 2019, 11:02:51
Well apparently back in the cold war Soviet 5.56x39 was found on the shore of a remote bit of Alaska, so possibility they have done so in the past.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on April 24, 2019, 00:04:39
Well apparently back in the cold war Soviet 5.56x39 was found on the shore of a remote bit of Alaska, so possibility they have done so in the past.

Any of that, or any 7.62x39 found near Lady Franklin Point on Victoria Island, NWT around the 2000 timeframe?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on April 24, 2019, 11:42:14
Any of that, or any 7.62x39 found near Lady Franklin Point on Victoria Island, NWT around the 2000 timeframe?

Before or after the facilities there almost burned to the ground?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on April 24, 2019, 11:53:14
Any of that, or any 7.62x39 found near Lady Franklin Point on Victoria Island, NWT around the 2000 timeframe?

Found this article from the CBC going back a few years ago.  Might find this interesting....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/soviets-familiar-with-canada-s-arctic-waters-1.1001748
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on April 24, 2019, 12:43:45
Before or after the facilities there almost burned to the ground?

...”on, or around” 10 Jan 2000... :nod:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: QV on April 24, 2019, 12:51:05
"Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty"... with what?!?
 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on April 24, 2019, 12:58:48
7.62x39 surplus was available commercially back then, I don't believe 5.45x39 was available and even if it was, firearms using it were not for sale in Canada and very rare in the US. SKS's are common and shoot 7.62x39, so unless you have an interesting headstamp it's likely some local shooting seals with one. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 24, 2019, 15:04:47
Further to this post on USCG's "Arctic Strategic Outlook",
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16198.msg1569359.html#msg1569359

cool-looking new icebreaker:

VT Halter Marine to Build New Coast Guard Icebreaker

VT Halter Marine Inc. has been awarded a $745M detailed design and construction contract for the Coast Guard’s next-generation heavy icebreaker, according to a Tuesday Pentagon contract announcement.

According to the announcement, the first-in-class ship will be built at the company’s Pascagoula, Miss. shipyard and is scheduled to deliver in 2024.

“The initial award is valued at $745.9 million and supports non-recurring engineering and detail design of the PSC class as well as procurement of long lead-time materials and construction of the first ship,” read a statement from the Coast Guard and Naval Sea Systems Command. “The contract also includes options for the construction of two additional PSCs. If all options are exercised, the total contract value is $1.9 billion.”

The yet-to-be-named Polar Security Cutter will be the first of a planned class of six icebreakers – three heavy and three medium – the Coast Guard says it needs to meet the minimum requirements for the U.S. mission in the Arctic.

“Against the backdrop of great power competition, the Polar Security Cutter is key to our nation’s presence in the polar regions,” Coast Guard commandant Adm. Karl Schultz, said in a Tuesday statement. “With the strong support of both the Trump Administration and the United States Congress, this contract award marks an important step towards building the nation’s full complement of six polar icebreakers to meet the unique mission demands that have emerged from increased commerce, tourism, research, and international activities in the Arctic and Antarctic.”

VT Halter Marine beat out Gulf Coast shipbuilder Bollinger and a team between Philly Shipyard of Philadelphia and Fincantieri Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, according to a report in The Associated Press. General Dynamics’ NASSCO shipyard had previously expressed interest in the work but did not submit a bid for the final work, USNI News understands.

The contract award follows the release of a request for proposals from the Coast Guard and the Navy last year for the new ships.

The Coast Guard received $655 million in Fiscal Year 2019 for the first hull and an additional $20 million for the second ship in the class. The service requested $35 million in the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget request for program management costs to keep the line going between new ships.

The development of the Polar Security Cutter is the furthest the Coast Guard has progressed in its long-voiced request to replace its decades-old pair of icebreakers.

Currently, the service has two icebreakers, heavy icebreaker USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), commissioned in 1976, and medium icebreaker USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) that was commissioned in 1999.

The service’s new Arctic Strategic Outlook, released this week, stressed the services need to recapitalize its Arctic ships and aircraft to keep pace with Russian and Chinese icebreaker developments. The Russian has a fleet of 14 icebreakers.

“The Coast Guard cannot meet the challenges of tomorrow’s Arctic with today’s paradigms. Rapid technological advancements within the maritime industry, combined with robust investments by strategic competitors, have raised the stakes,” reads the document. “The service must take this opportunity to leverage transformative technology and lead the employment of innovative policies to solve complex problems.”

The development of the design will be jointly overseen by the U.S. Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command and the Coast Guard.

“This contract award reflects the great benefit achieved by integrating the incredible talents of U.S. Coast Guard and Navy acquisition and shipbuilding professionals to deliver best value at speed,” said James Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition in a statement...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D473PmIWkAI4s2y.jpg)
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/23/vt-halter-marine-to-build-new-coast-guard-icebreaker

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 03, 2019, 16:21:36
This could get a lot of people's knickers in big knots, note NW Passage:

Quote
U.S. Navy plans to be more active in the Arctic

The U.S. Navy is increasing its presence in the Arctic, and Navy Secretary Richard Spencer said he’d like to send a ship through the Northwest Passage this summer.

“We’re still exploring to see if we could do a full passage. There’s still ice up there in some places,” Spencer told a U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week.

If the voyage happens, it would be a freedom-of-navigation exercise. That’s a way the U.S. asserts itself and its maritime rights in an area. Spencer said he wants to do more of them in the Arctic [emphasis added]...
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/05/03/navy-usa-arctic-alaska-spencer-geopolitics/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 03, 2019, 16:44:01
Gets even better

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/chinese-military-expanding-reach-into-arctic-region-pentagon-fears-it-will-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR1zRY2H9G5yciZSHW8ZwUZwD-fU7_wIV_SS3-11e4Ucmh8ivETBTl36tQs#Echobox=1556904142
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 03, 2019, 19:19:11
Gets even better

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/chinese-military-expanding-reach-into-arctic-region-pentagon-fears-it-will-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&fbclid=IwAR1zRY2H9G5yciZSHW8ZwUZwD-fU7_wIV_SS3-11e4Ucmh8ivETBTl36tQs#Echobox=1556904142

Perhaps the dragon will negate the bear.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 03, 2019, 19:30:30
More likely they work together, China does not have the Arctic friendly resources to maintain a presence in the Arctic, but has the money, Russia has the Arctic friendly resources, but not the money.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on May 03, 2019, 21:42:11
More likely they work together ...
Zackly ...

"China and Russia want to develop Arctic energy resources together, and US disapproval may not deter them (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/asia/article/2163719/china-and-russia-want-develop-arctic-energy-resources) -- Donald Gasper says China has helped to finance Russia’s quest to develop Arctic resources after US sanctions, and deeper involvement may follow if Beijing can acquire a management role ..." (South China Morning Post)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 03, 2019, 21:44:28
More likely they work together, China does not have the Arctic friendly resources to maintain a presence in the Arctic, but has the money, Russia has the Arctic friendly resources, but not the money.

I think that's great, two countries working together developing resources. Perhaps we could hire China to manage ours.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 03, 2019, 22:50:17
And note from re-established US 2nd Fleet at Norfolk, VA:
Quote
New 2nd Fleet To Confront Russia From Day One
...
The Pentagon report [ https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf ] said that Chinese “civilian research could support a strengthened Chinese military presence in the Arctic Ocean, which could include deploying submarines to the region as a deterrent against nuclear attacks.”

The Arctic is part of 2nd Fleet’s responsibility, and in the long run, the US is looking to establish more of “a capability and a presence in the Arctic, so as to maintain freedom of the seas, freedom of navigation within international norms,” [Admiral, Fleet commander] Lewis said.

He added that since Beijing is “very focused on their Belt Road initiative — and that goes through the Arctic.” Asked if he expects to have contact with the Chinese in the far north, he said “potentially.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/new-2nd-fleet-to-confront-russia-from-day-one/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: milnews.ca on May 04, 2019, 07:21:35
... I think that's great, two countries working together developing resources. Perhaps we could hire China to manage ours.
Don't think they don't know what we have, even in spots many Canadians don't know we have (https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry-news/mining/chinese-railroaders-like-the-route-to-the-ring-of-fire-632921) ...
Quote
A delegation of KWG Resources and Marten Falls First Nation (MFFN), one of the communities near the Ring of Fire deposits, completed a trip to China to lay the foundation for a Far North railway and project financing.

A June 1 KWG release said the group was provided with an overview of the feasibility study began last year, when they most recently visited with their project partner, China Railway First Survey & Design Institute Group (FSDI), at its headquarters in Xian, China on May 15 (2017).

The company was advised by its Chinese partners that the study had concluded that the route which traverses the Marten Falls’ traditional territory was a viable alignment for the construction of a chromite ore-haul railroad.

The study estimates that at a capital cost of US$1.965 billion such a railroad could be constructed to transport 10 million tonnes of chromite annually by 2030, potentially growing to a yearly volume of up to 24 million tonnes by 2040.

KWG has a 30 per cent stake in the Big Daddy chromite deposit in a joint venture it shares with Noront Resources. The company is also holding a 50 per cent stake in the Black Horse chromite deposit in another agreement with Bold Ventures.

As a proponent of a north-south railroad, the Toronto-based chromite developer is looking to source financing and secure supply agreements from within the Chinese stainless industry ...
Just remember, though, Chinese soft power is soft, until it's not anymore (http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20190114-kenya-mombasa-port-china-debt-default).
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: OceanBonfire on May 04, 2019, 14:06:22
Quote
N.W.T. premier will push Ottawa for greater military presence, more icebreakers in the North

Bob McLeod’s vision for the future includes a 5,000-person military base in Inuvik, N.W.T.

Laurie Sarkadi · CBC News · Posted: May 01, 2019

(http://i.imgur.com/wNPheyv.jpg)
N.W.T. Premier Bob McLeod says his vision for the North includes a stronger military presence, and more investment in transportation infrastructure. (Bill Braden/Canadian Press)


N.W.T. Premier Bob McLeod is laying out a vision for the North's future that includes an increased military presence and major development of Arctic waters for transportation.

"We need to position Canada's North as a central international transport hub for the future of the Arctic and we see significant more infrastructure investment required," McLeod said in a recent interview with CBC Politics in Ottawa.

McLeod said he'll be presenting this and other ideas to the federal government in Ottawa within the next month.

The premier wants Canada to triple its icebreaker fleet within five years and triple its deepwater port capacity within 10 years.

"I think that you see other Arctic countries becoming significant players in the Arctic and we need to be sure that Canada and the North is ready for when that happens," McLeod said.

(http://i.imgur.com/N6LueYM.jpg)
The Coast Guard icebreaker Des Groseilliers sails in the water of the Arctic Archipelago. N.W.T. Premier Bob McLeod wants the federal government to build more icebreakers to serve the North. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)


Both China and Russia have shown growing interest in the Arctic. The Barents Observer of Norway reported in February that Russia plans to use supersonic jet fighters to make regular patrols of the North Pole, something Russia hasn't done since the Cold War.

McLeod said Inuvik, located 100 kilometres from the Beaufort Sea, should play a key security role.

"We'd like to see a full military base, preferably in Inuvik, of about 5,000 permanent personnel," he said.

While the federal government announced last fall that Yellowknife will be home to a new Arctic Region Coast Guard base, McLeod said there should be a base in the Beaufort Sea.

Officials from all three northern territories are meeting in Yellowknife on Wednesday. The Arctic Security Working Group will discuss safety, security and defence issues, along with the commander of the Canadian Forces' Joint Task Force North.

It's unknown whether McLeod's vision of a more militarized North will be part of the federal government's much-anticipated Arctic Policy Framework, which may be released as early as June.

The new Arctic policy initiative was announced in December 2016 to replace the 2009 Northern Strategy and the 2010 Statement on Canada's Arctic Foreign Policy under Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

The current federal government recently added foreign affairs and national security, as well as reconciliation, to the list of themes the new policy will address.

"We've been working with the government of Canada on a 10-year vision and plan for Arctic Canada and I've been going to a lot of Arctic conferences and realizing that Canada is falling way far behind the other Arctic countries," McLeod said.

"So we're coming up with a plan where the Arctic will become a critical international arena of economics, science and infrastructure and environment strategy."


Icebreaker U

In order to increase understanding of the Arctic, McLeod envisions a Canada-wide civil service rotation program in which senior bureaucrats from the South spend time living in the North. He'd also like to see a federal department of Arctic affairs and a northern immigration program.

"We think that we need more immigration and the fact is we don't have enough people up here. We're also looking at having a permanent offshore Arctic university school on one of the existing icebreakers," he said.

McLeod said he takes climate change and Arctic ecology "very, very seriously." His vision for the N.W.T., however, remains steeped in fostering transportation corridors and pipelines to accommodate the oil and gas industry.

McLeod says innovation is needed to find alternate energy sources for 20 diesel-dependent communities beyond solar and wind, given that neither of those can supply continuous, year-round power to communities.

McLeod has been premier of the N.W.T. since 2011. He is the MLA for the riding of Yellowknife South. The next territorial election is Oct. 1.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/premier-mcleod-to-pitch-ottawa-1.5117709
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on May 04, 2019, 16:48:59
I like that.

A civilian ask rather than a military demand.

PS, and by the way, the civil servants should also rotate through the West as well as the North.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 04, 2019, 17:42:04
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that someone named McLeod is asking for more Coast Guard icebreakers.  :whistle:

I am sure, at least Colin get's the reference.
 :nod:

Or as they used to say in Cheers: NORM!!!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 06, 2019, 13:30:20
Rogers, understood ;)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 06, 2019, 16:29:46
Meanwhile CCG will be lucky to get its one new polar icebreaker from Seaspan before 2030 (not even a timeline for delivery now http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/rpp/2018-19/SupplementaryTables/mcp-eng.html ):
Quote
Coast Guard Hopes to Have 3 Polar Security Cutters Fielded by 2028

The Coast Guard hopes to have its first three heavy icebreakers fielded by 2027 or 2028 to replace the one icebreaker that is increasingly struggling to make it to Antarctica and back each year and to increase U.S. presence in the high latitudes, the commandant said today.

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Karl Schultz said this morning that the icebreaker program – a planned three heavy icebreakers dubbed the Polar Security Cutter and three medium icebreakers – was more capital-intensive than most Coast Guard acquisition efforts, but “right now my sense is we enjoy support from the administration, we enjoy bipartisan, bicameral support” in Congress, he said while speaking on a service chiefs panel at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space conference.

After awarding a $745 million contract to VT Halter on April 23, “we’re off to the races” on buying the first ship. This first ship is supposed to deliver to the Coast Guard in 2023. Still, Schultz noted, the Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal only contains $35 million for the program as a bridge, to keep the acquisition office and construction yard humming until “a big tranche of money” is ideally awarded in FY 2021 to buy the second ship of the class.

“You’ll see larger asks here to get after the second and the third polar security cutter. Ideally projected into our capital investment plan or CIP you’ll see between now and 2028 the [funds] to deliver on those first three polar security cutters,” Schultz said.

Schultz did not elaborate on specifically when he hoped each ship would be put on contract, but maintaining and every-other-year acquisition profile – buying the second and third ships in FY 2021 and 2023, respectively – would allow for all three to be in the fleet by 2027 or 2028...

Schultz said repeatedly that “presence equals influence up there” and that the Coast Guard needed to remain involved in any commercial or military activity taking place in the Arctic as waterways open up. The Coast Guard last month released an Arctic Strategic Outlook [ https://news.usni.org/2019/04/22/document-coast-guard-arctic-strategic-outlook ] that updates a 2013 document. In the intervening six years, the admiral said, the Coast Guard’s focus has moved from safety, security and collaboration to more of an emphasis on competing powers. China is much more active in the Arctic region now, he said, and oil and rare earth minerals under the sea make the Arctic “geographically, geo-strategically competitive space.”

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said during the panel that the U.S. Navy is not looking to conduct a legal freedom of navigation operation like it does in contested waters such as the South China Sea, but it does intend to be more active in the Arctic with its Coast Guard and Marine Corps partners.

Richardson said the Navy needs to make a habit of “navigating in these now-free navigable waters. So we want to make sure that as navigation channels open up, consistent with our sovereign responsibilities – we are an Arctic nation – that we are getting up and remaining familiar with those operating in that high north
[emphasis added].”

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 06, 2019, 16:38:30
I don't have huge faith in the US shipyards delivering either.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 06, 2019, 16:55:18
Further to end of this post https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16198.msg1570752.html#msg1570752 now see this from Pompeo on NW Passage--not nice:

Quote
U.S. stuns audience by tongue-lashing China, Russia on eve of Arctic Council ministerial

ROVANIEMI, Finland – U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stunned onlookers Monday by tongue-lashing China and Russia during an Arctic policy speech on the eve of the Arctic Council ministerial.

“China’s words and actions raise doubts about its intentions,” Pompeo said to a packed audience mostly made up of Arctic Council delegates at Rovaniemi’s Lappi Areena.

“Beijing claims to be a near-Arctic state,” Pompeo said refrencing China’s 2018 white paper on the Arctic. “Yet the shortest distance between China and the Arctic is 900 miles. There are Arctic states, and non-Arctic states. No third category exists. China claiming otherwise entitles them to exactly nothing.”..

Military and security issues have been explicitly excluded from the Arctic Council since its founding, but Pompeo, after discussing China, also singled out Russia in his speech, citing the Ukraine crisis and Russia’s reopening of military bases in the North, as activity increases along the Northern Sea Route.

“We’re concerned about Russia’s claim over the international waters of the Northern Sea Route, including its newly announced plans to connect it with China’s Maritime Silk Road,” he said.

Pompeo also took a swipe at Ottawa during his speech when discussing the Northwest Passage, a waterway Canada considers internal waters, and that the U.S. considers international waters.

“We recognize Russia is not the only country making illegitimate claims,” he said referring to Canada
[emphasis added]...

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 06, 2019, 18:49:06
Canada should start negotiations with France for 4 nuke attack subs to replace the Victoria Class. I picked French as I don't think there are any ITAR items aboard that the US could object to. that might perks Washington's attention. Along with Rafale jets.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CBH99 on May 06, 2019, 19:07:19
Dassault already pulled the Rafale from the competition, most likely because dealing with Procurement Canada isn't worth the headache.  Think India via North America...

And if the only 'contested' area of water is the NW Passage, that's something I'm sure the US & Canada could discuss and come to an agreement on. 

I'm not sure if it makes a huge different in practicality one way or the other, as I'm not sure if if there are many natural resources to be exploited & industrialized in that area?  (I legitimately don't know, so feel free to correct me on this last statement.)


We have to remember that once this American administration is gone, relations will hopefully return to a more civil & allied demeanor.  Which means when it comes to the defense of North America, Canada & the USA are shoulder to shoulder - both in SPIRIT and the practical application of NORAD.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on May 06, 2019, 19:35:38
Canada should start negotiations with France for 4 nuke attack subs to replace the Victoria Class. I picked French as I don't think there are any ITAR items aboard that the US could object to. that might perks Washington's attention. Along with Rafale jets.

Four wouldn’t be a game changer, either we do 7-8 or we don’t bother.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 06, 2019, 19:39:28
Dassault already pulled the Rafale from the competition, most likely because dealing with Procurement Canada isn't worth the headache.  Think India via North America...

And if the only 'contested' area of water is the NW Passage, that's something I'm sure the US & Canada could discuss and come to an agreement on. 

I'm not sure if it makes a huge different in practicality one way or the other, as I'm not sure if if there are many natural resources to be exploited & industrialized in that area?  (I legitimately don't know, so feel free to correct me on this last statement.)


We have to remember that once this American administration is gone, relations will hopefully return to a more civil & allied demeanor.  Which means when it comes to the defense of North America, Canada & the USA are shoulder to shoulder - both in SPIRIT and the practical application of NORAD.

Even "Discussions" will get noticed and some political talk about Canada needing to enforce it's sovereignty. That would make any quiet diplomacy more fruitful.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 06, 2019, 20:51:10
How is the USN going to do a FONOP in NW Passage this summer? Something weird is going on with USN, USCG and Pompeo (and probably Bolton):

Washington plans to send U.S. Navy through Northwest Passage

Canada should brace for a potentially bruising political showdown with the United States this summer as Washington considers sending its navy through the Northwest Passage, undermining Canada’s sovereignty claim over the Arctic sea route in a message intended as a warning to Russia, experts say.

Navy Secretary Richard Spencer told reporters last week Washington is exploring the possibility of sending a ship through the Northwest Passage this summer as part of a freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) to assert its right of passage through what it considers to be international waters.

Spencer’s message was reinforced Monday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who told a meeting of foreign ministers of the Arctic Council in northern Finland, that the U.S. doesn’t recognize Canada’s “illegitimate” claim to the Northwest Passage, which cuts through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, or Russia’s sovereignty over the Northern Sea Route along its Arctic coastline.

Both Canada and Russia claim these passages are internal waters and argue that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows coastal states to manage ice-covered waters.

Pompeo’s remarks during a blistering speech where he attacked both Russia’s but also China’s Arctic ambitions, come after a series of pronouncements by U.S. officials in recent months, where they floated the idea of conducting freedom of navigation operations in Arctic waters, just as Washington begins to see the region as “an arena for power and for competition” in Pompeo’s words.

With receding sea ice, the Arctic Ocean is rapidly taking on new strategic significance for the U.S., Pompeo told an audience of stunned Arctic Council foreign ministers and Indigenous leaders during a speech in Rovaniemi, Finland.

Offshore resources in the rapidly melting Arctic are the subject of renewed competition, he added.

“Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” Pompeo said.  “This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days. Arctic sea lanes could come before – could come the 21s century Suez and Panama Canals.”
‘Mind-bogglingly provocative’

But while the warming Arctic may open dramatic new possibilities for shipping and commerce, plans for U.S. Navy Arctic operations are premature and potentially dangerous, said Becca Pincus, an assistant professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department at the U.S. Naval War College.

“In Russia it would be just mind-bogglingly provocative,” Pincus told Radio Canada International. “It is really hard for me to think of a more provocative action the U.S. could take vis-à-vis Russia among the suit of legal steps.”

Russia is not going just watch the U.S. ships go by and issue a diplomatic protest, she said.

“It’s going to be a crisis,” Pincus said. “And we’re already at a boiling point, it’s really risky.”

And on the Canadian side it would also provoke an enormous political backlash, she said.

“I don’t think there would be as much potential for sort of a kinetic level crisis as you’d see on the Russian side,” Pincus said. “I think it would be a political crisis rather than, perhaps, a military crisis.”

However, it’s hard to understand how applying pressure on Canada – one of the closest U.S. allies, a partner in NORAD – would benefit Washington and how it would outweigh the enormous political cost that would ensue, she added.

Business as usual

Officials with Global Affairs Canada reiterated Monday Ottawa’s commitment “to exercising the full extent of its rights and sovereignty over its territory and its Arctic waters, including the various waterways commonly referred to as the Northwest Passage.”

The waterways that make up the Northwest Passage are part of the internal waters of Canada, said a statement from Global Affairs Canada.

“Canada and the U.S. have differing views regarding the status of the Northwest Passage under international law,” the statement said.

“The situation is well managed, including through the 1988 Arctic Cooperation Agreement, according to which the U.S. government seeks Canada’s consent for its ice breakers to navigate the waterways.”

And when it comes to defence and security, relations between Canada and the U.S. are “longstanding, well-entrenched and highly successful, the statement added.

Lack of ice-strengthened ships could hamper U.S. Arctic ambitions

It’s also not clear what vessels the U.S. plans to use to conduct the FONOP this time around, Pincus said.

“You would need an ice-strengthened vessel of some kind to do a FONOP in the Arctic region whether you’re going through the Northwest Passage or Northern Sea Route (NSR),” Pincus said. “The United States Navy doesn’t have ice-strengthened surface vessels, period.”

And the U.S. Coast Guard has one functioning medium class icebreaker, USCGS Healy, that is fully booked for science missions this summer, she added.
[emphasis added]

“I have no idea how the Navy would execute a FONOP through either the NSR or the Northwest Passage without an icebreaker and I don’t know where they would get an icebreaker,” Pincus said. “It does not seem to me feasible.”

Doing a freedom of navigation operation without an icebreaker escort would be extremely dangerous, she added.

“It would be a hell of a risk to take particularly when you’re conducting an operation that is designed to challenge the coastal state,” Pincus said. “You’re not going to be in a position to get a lot of help from that coastal state.”

And if the U.S. vessel were to run into trouble in the Northwest Passage and forced to ask for help from Canadian authorities, it would undermine the point of the mission, she said.

“I think this proposal reflects a lack of familiarity with the specifics and the particulars of the Arctic region,” Pincus said...
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/05/06/washington-plans-to-send-u-s-navy-through-northwest-passage/

Read on.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on May 06, 2019, 21:41:36
Four wouldn’t be a game changer, either we do 7-8 or we don’t bother.

4 would be 4 more that are 'under ice' capable than the RCN has now.  Keep the current SSKs (we've already got $ put into them, and SSKs are useful in ways that SSNs aren't in some situations), and add the SSNs.  Littoral and blue water capabilities. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on May 07, 2019, 06:59:13
4 would be 4 more that are 'under ice' capable than the RCN has now.  Keep the current SSKs (we've already got $ put into them, and SSKs are useful in ways that SSNs aren't in some situations), and add the SSNs.  Littoral and blue water capabilities.

I agree with that, maybe have 8 be the end goal with the last 4 coming online as the Vic’s are paid off.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on May 07, 2019, 09:01:29
Won’t happen for numerous reasons.

The US controls the arctic.  While we like to pretend we do, we don’t.

We need to find a way to work with them, instead of digging our heals in.  At the end of the day they have the resources and we don’t. 

Everyone likes to slam China for their shenanigans in the South China Sea, but the US is no different.

Perhaps there could be some sort of global fund setup to help finance quick reaction SAR stations at key locations in the Northwest Passage.  If the global community is going to benefit from using the passage, then perhaps the big global players could provide funding for these stations. 


Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: SeaKingTacco on May 07, 2019, 10:10:35
Or Canada could just put on its adult clothes and actually pay the real costs of sovereignty.

Instead of just mouthing platitudes.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 07, 2019, 16:31:51
Or start leasing your arctic oil drilling property'
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on May 07, 2019, 17:15:20
Perhaps there could be some sort of global fund setup to help finance quick reaction SAR stations at key locations in the Northwest Passage.  If the global community is going to benefit from using the passage, then perhaps the big global players could provide funding for these stations.

You mean, like, all the communities, Inuit and otherwise, we have dotting the landscape up there right now that are basically falling into a state of disrepair that would never be seen even in the 3rd world?

Yeah, we're committed alright. To the strip on land about 200 miles wide along the US Border that contains 99.9% of Canadian voters.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 07, 2019, 18:40:47
Harper for all his warts, was the first PM in a long time that paid attention to the Arctic, but even he his team were primarily focused on winning the next election from day 1.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on May 07, 2019, 20:58:32
Harper for all his warts, was the first PM in a long time that paid attention to the Arctic, but even he his team were primarily focused on winning the next election from day 1.

I’m putting it out here now - the PM will be up in the Arctic at least once this summer for the photo ops before the election.  Either on the HDW or at Nanisivik or both.  Guarantee that he does it. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on May 07, 2019, 23:18:41
I’m putting it out here now - the PM will be up in the Arctic at least once this summer for the photo ops before the election.  Either on the HDW or at Nanisivik or both.  Guarantee that he does it.

Too bad he's already handed out all the parkas to the Syrians  ::)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CloudCover on May 11, 2019, 00:30:41
[quote author=daftandbarmy link=topic=16198.msg1570887#msg1570887 date=1557260120

Yeah, we're committed alright. To the strip on land about 200 miles wide along the US Border that contains 99.9% of Canadian voters.
[/quote]

Every time i go home and see the poverty of Northern Ontario, my exact sentiments to this statement are reinforced. When I speak to seniors who live up there, they tell me they are living on land that no one can make useful after it has been exploited, all the benefit of the land has gone to the wealth of that 200 mile strip. I think this true. I also think that will never change in the lifetime of anyone is alive today, or in 50 years.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 11, 2019, 09:13:05
I’m putting it out here now - the PM will be up in the Arctic at least once this summer for the photo ops before the election.  Either on the HDW or at Nanisivik or both.  Guarantee that he does it.

Seeing that both are not operational I think you're wrong.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 12, 2019, 13:25:55
[quote author=daftandbarmy link=topic=16198.msg1570887#msg1570887 date=1557260120

Yeah, we're committed alright. To the strip on land about 200 miles wide along the US Border that contains 99.9% of Canadian voters.


Every time i go home and see the poverty of Northern Ontario, my exact sentiments to this statement are reinforced. When I speak to seniors who live up there, they tell me they are living on land that no one can make useful after it has been exploited, all the benefit of the land has gone to the wealth of that 200 mile strip. I think this true. I also think that will never change in the lifetime of anyone is alive today, or in 50 years.

I was shocked at how little infrastructure there is in Northern ontario. Every other Province has put far more effort to open their northern regions, considering their historical headstart, it's plain laziness of the politicians and voters.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 12, 2019, 17:20:56
That, Colin is because Ontarian think that North Bay is way up in the North and there is nothing beyond.  :nod:

Little do they realize that North Bay is only very slightly North of Ottawa or Montreal, and definitely South of most other non-Ontarian large Canadian cities, like Quebec, St. John's, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver (yes! Vancouver).

Since most Of Ontario's population live in that southern "dagger" into the US, their view of what constitutes "North" is skewed.

Toronto's "We the North" motto for  expressing support for the Raptors is sort of funny when you consider that they are barely more than 130 Km North of Boston (Celtics), and are themselves 140 Km South of the Minneapolis' Timberwolves and definitely 245 Km South of the Portland Trailblazers.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GK .Dundas on May 12, 2019, 20:22:40
Given the amount of effort Ontario put into first put into aquiring the North in the first place. Including the infamous Rat Portage war of 1883.
You would think they would take better care of it!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 12, 2019, 21:41:44
That, Colin is because Ontarian think that North Bay is way up in the North and there is nothing beyond.  :nod:

Heck, I think most Ontarians think the Muskoka's are the end of civilization!

Quote
Little do they realize that North Bay is only very slightly North of Ottawa or Montreal, and definitely South of most other non-Ontarian large Canadian cities, like Quebec, St. John's, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver (yes! Vancouver).

Not only that, but it is also south of the 49th parallel - the international border between western Canada and the US.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Old Sweat on May 13, 2019, 07:53:28
My wife, who is a Northern Ontario girl but taught in Toronto for a number of years, used to say that the average Toronto resident thought the north started at Eglinton Avenue.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on May 13, 2019, 10:37:15
My wife, who is a Northern Ontario girl but taught in Toronto for a number of years, used to say that the average Toronto resident thought the north started at Eglinton Avenue.

As someone who grew up in Windsor, Ontario.....don't ask me where the 'North' starts.....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Calvillo on May 13, 2019, 10:56:35
Or Canada could just put on its adult clothes and actually pay the real costs of sovereignty.

Instead of just mouthing platitudes.

While I understand what you wrote, but pay with what? Are we ready for tax increase or cuts to other government services or cuts to social benefits?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: YZT580 on May 13, 2019, 11:15:04
While I understand what you wrote, but pay with what? Are we ready for tax increase or cuts to other government services or cuts to social benefits?
  Yes, quit subsidising laziness and supporting leeches also known as multiple layers of bureaucracy.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on May 13, 2019, 11:20:49
  Yes, quit subsidising laziness and supporting leeches also known as multiple layers of bureaucracy.

100% Agree -
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on May 13, 2019, 11:22:08
While I understand what you wrote, but pay with what? Are we ready for tax increase or cuts to other government services or cuts to social benefits?

We could start with 'not giving the money away that we need for ourselves'.  Why not stop wasting the tax money the government already gets and prioritize spending better? 

I know. silly ideas.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 13, 2019, 12:00:31
BC has invested more effort in our Northern Regions with a much smaller population base and less time. A lot of it due to politicians who had large visions like WAC Bennett.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 15, 2019, 13:27:09
Following through on USN's, USCG's and Sec. Pompeo's big arctic talk (though not actually there):

Quote
Theodore Roosevelt Strike Group in Alaska for High-End, Joint Exercise Northern Edge 2019

An aircraft carrier is in Alaska for Exercise Northern Edge for the first time in a decade, as the service continues to prioritize re-learning how to operate in the Arctic.

Northern Edge 2019 is a high-end joint exercise hosted by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and focused on air warfare that runs May 13 through 24. About 10,000 personnel are participating, about half of which come from the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group currently operating in the Gulf of Alaska. Strike group assets include Carrier Strike Group 9 leadership, USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), Carrier Air Wing 11, USS Russell (DDG-59), USS Kidd (DDG-100), USS John Finn (DDG-113) and USNS Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO-187).

Rear Adm. Dan Dwyer, who commands the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, told USNI News in a phone call from aboard the carrier that “this is one of the premier exercises for the INDO-PACIFIC commanders. … Northern Edge is designed to sharpen all of our skills, tactical combat operating skills; improve our ability to command and control forces, establish those command relationships; develop our communication networks; with an overall goal of increasing interoperability within the joint force, particularly in the INDO-PACOM region.”

He said the exercise covers command and control over both land and maritime domains, and so “all participants, whether it’s the air wing or the destroyers, are integral to that mission set and each all plug into the higher command and control piece” to share information and work together under a single joint force commander.

Dwyer said his crew was excited to begin the joint event, which would pair the carrier air wing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers and E-2 Hawkeyes with ground-based Navy P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and KC-130 cargo and refueling aircraft, and Air Force jets such as the F-22 and F-15. Any time that many types of aircraft come together to work in a range of mission areas “is incredibly valuable, especially as we talk about exercising at the highest potential of a joint force. So to come together with all those platforms will increase our readiness and our lethality across the board.”

This opportunity is especially valuable to the Navy as it seeks to relearn old lessons about operating in the high latitudes. Last year’s Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group deployment included a jaunt north of the Arctic Circle and in frigid Norwegian waters before and during the NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018.

Dwyer said he couldn’t speak to the Truman CSG experience, but he said the Navy has operated in the Alaskan Gulf area for 30 years and had many after-action reports for the strike group team to pore over ahead of the exercise.

“As Navy Secretary Richard Spencer told Congress recently, the Navy is deepening our commitment to Arctic security and operations in Alaska,” the admiral said.

“The Alaskan (operating area) is critical to the INDO-PACOM region. The expansive training areas offered here in Alaska provide us with an excellent environment to fully engage and conduct integrated, large-scale joint training exercises unmatched anywhere else in the United States, I must say. The Arctic ice cap is as small as we’ve seen in our lifetime, and this gives rise to increasing trade routes and sea lanes that are open more times of the year, so it’s incredibly important that we as an Arctic nation continue to operate in this area to protect this vital area to our national defense.”..
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/14/theodore-roosevelt-strike-group-in-alaska-for-high-end-joint-exercise-northern-edge-2019

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 20, 2019, 11:31:07
Some good points from Prof. Huebert--US seems blissfully unaware to our extreme paranoia on this matter:

Quote
Winning at all costs: the bizarre position of the Trump administration on the Northwest Passage

Robert Huebert is an associate professor at the University of Calgary

At the conclusion of the Arctic Council meeting earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo stated that Canada’s position on the Northwest Passage is “illegitimate." This should be the definitive proof that the Trump administration cares only about winning, with no regard to its own interests, let alone those of its closest ally and economic partner – Canada.

Mr. Pompeo’s statement is only the latest in a series of comments by Trump administration officials who have made it clear that it is now time to win their argument with Canada regarding the status of the Northwest Passage. The Americans have always maintained that it is an international strait, while Canada argues it is internal waters. The difference in these two positions concerns international shipping through the passage. If Canada is correct, then we have the right to either allow or refuse the entry of foreign vessels in the passage. If the American position prevails, then all international shipping – including submarines – can use the passage regardless of Canada’s position.

In 1988, through the direct involvement of then-president Ronald Reagan – a Republican – and then-prime minister Brian Mulroney the two countries reached a practical solution to the dispute. Agreeing that this solution would not prejudice each other’s position on the passage, the United States would ask Canada for consent for its icebreakers – the only American surface ships capable – to traverse the passage. In return, Canada would automatically grant the consent. With this solution, neither state could be viewed as giving ground and it was a means to avoid politically costly disputes over the issue.

However, due to Mr. Trump’s pathological need to win, the Americans are set to disregard this solution and win the dispute. The U.S. Secretary of the Navy – Richard Spencer – has publicly stated three time this year that the United States is preparing for what they call a freedom of navigation operation through the Northwest Passage. This means sending their one operationally functioning icebreaker or a naval ship through the passage without asking Canada for permission. The idea is not only a direct, stupid insult to Canada, but it is also directly against U.S. interests.

First, while lambasting the Canadian position, Mr. Pompeo also attacked Russia and China for their moves to militarize the Arctic. Given that Russia is actively militarizing and China may soon be taking similar action, the United States’ move to attack Canada, its most important ally, while meeting this threat makes no sense. If the Americans are really concerned about the rise of Russian military strength in the Arctic, they need Canada to help meet the threat.

Specifically, the North American Aerospace Defence Command needs to be modernized to counter the growing Russian threat in the Arctic, and that cannot occur without Canada’s participation, given our Arctic geography and long-standing co-operation on this issue. Given this backdrop, it is astounding that the Americans think provoking Canada on one of the most politically sensitive issues regarding Canadian-U.S. relations is rational. What Canadian prime minister will want to work with the United States to modernize our shared northern defences if they destroy the 1988 agreement that had politically resolved the problem of the Northwest Passage?

Secondly, a freedom of navigation challenge will create a lose-lose situation for the U.S. If the Americans conduct a successful voyage and use that operation at an international court to win their position that the NWP is an international strait, they will open the passage to unimpeded transit of Russian and Chinese submarines and aircraft. Under international law, submarines enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits submerged. If the United States are really concerned about a rising Russian and Chinese threat in the Arctic, how can they possibly believe this is a good thing?

On the other hand, if the ship they send fails to make the transit, whether due to ice conditions or the lack of proper charting in these waters, then all they will have done is prove the Canadian position that these waters are unique and are not a functioning international strait.

Further, the United States will have damaged its relations with Canada. Whether Mr. Trump succeeds or fails in the Arctic, he will have seriously hurt the U.S. relationship with Canada right at the moment they need to be working more closely with us.

While Mr. Trump may get to claim that once again he has won where others have not, what he will actually do is seriously hurt American interests and cause further damage to the special relationship that existed between Canada and the United States.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-winning-at-all-costs-the-bizarre-position-of-the-trump-administration/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on May 20, 2019, 12:53:27
Some good points from Prof. Huebert--US seems blissfully unaware to our extreme paranoia on this matter:

Mark
Ottawa

The Americans don't accept our position because it undermines their own military position.  If the NWP became internal waters than the US would not be able to conduct their own submarine operations either. 

IMO, Canada's position is severely weakened by our lack of military capability.  We have no ability to enforce anything and the US is going to do whatever they want, regardless of our position.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Underway on May 20, 2019, 15:04:50
The Americans don't accept our position because it undermines their own military position.  If the NWP became internal waters than the US would not be able to conduct their own submarine operations either. 

IMO, Canada's position is severely weakened by our lack of military capability.  We have no ability to enforce anything and the US is going to do whatever they want, regardless of our position.

The Americans don't accept our position because if they did they would have to accept North Korea's, Libya's, Russia's and China's position (and a number of others) regarding straight baselines.  They can't without overturning their own foreign policy for actual important countries.  Thus the great compromise.  The US won't sail without asking permission and Canada will never say no.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 20, 2019, 15:10:09
Also several passages and straits in and around Indonesian archipelago:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/fd/22/27fd2220237c72c30094d40a59ae0275.gif)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 20, 2019, 15:14:43
In any event our claim to NW Passage under international law is pretty weak, which is why no gov't has dared take it to international arbitration. See this article by Prof. James Kraska ( https://usnwc.edu/Faculty-and-Departments/Directory/James-Kraska ) at p. 41 PDF:
https://cdainstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/vimy_paper2.pdf

Lots more on Prof. Kraska, quite the biography--note service in USN:
https://cnsl.virginia.edu/james-kraska

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 20, 2019, 16:24:11
Well-informed friend comments: "It will be interesting to see the USA response when the Russians and Chinese start doing FON operations in the Northwest Passage…"

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: suffolkowner on May 20, 2019, 16:57:28
Also several passages and straits in and around Indonesian archipelago:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/fd/22/27fd2220237c72c30094d40a59ae0275.gif)

Mark
Ottawa

Seems a poor example to me. The difference in access and use have to be so many orders of magnitude as to approach a difference in kind. Lots of Indonesians walking across the water over there, is there?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on May 20, 2019, 17:28:22
Seems a poor example to me. The difference in access and use have to be so many orders of magnitude as to approach a difference in kind. Lots of Indonesians walking across the water over there, is there?

No.  Lots of Chinese building islands out of submerged rocks over there.  Then planting docks and airfields on them.  Then arming them.

(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/61d10522a5f284dd338f6bbf508b324753682226/sat-fierycross-2015apr18-1050.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/61d10522a5f284dd338f6bbf508b324753682226/islands-1650.jpg)
(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2015/05/29/south-china-sea-stack/61d10522a5f284dd338f6bbf508b324753682226/spratlys-zoom-1050.jpg)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html

And as to Russians and Chinese operating in the Northwest Passage

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ship-making-first-voyage-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36142513/
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/chinese-military-expanding-reach-into-arctic-region-pentagon-fears-it-will-deploy-nuclear-armed-submarines


If we don't mow our lawn, someone else will do it for us.  They don't want to be pestered with our dandelions.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 20, 2019, 23:02:21
From a friend very knowledgeable about the US and its gov't:

Quote
There has always been a school of thought in Washington that sees Canada as a spoiled pet. In this view, the USA should simply exert its power and demand obedience. What we see with this Administration is the absence of canned Canada-USA Happy Talk.

Endless failure to pay our fair share coming home to roost. Time to spend for "defence against help"? As we once were willing to do. Plus then having the sensible decency to recognize that there were actually existing enemies (now "adversaries") out there and it was Canada's duty as a serious country to, er, do its bit.

No more. Upchuck.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 22, 2019, 13:32:57
Slight reprieve from USCG:

Quote
New U.S. icebreaker will focus on Antarctic, says Coast Guard boss

The Coast Guard expects to launch the first of three new icebreakers in 2024, but don’t expect to see much of it in Alaska. Coast Guard Commandant Karl Schultz said Tuesday the primary duty of the first icebreaker will be in the Antarctic, not the Far North.

“Until that second or third (polar) security cutter, we won’t really have much of a game up there, in terms of presence,” Adm. Schultz told a U.S. House Transportation subcommittee.

The new icebreaker’s essential mission will be to clear a path for supply ships serving the McMurdo Station. It takes more than 100 days to get to Antarctica, which would leave little time for trips to the Arctic. Schultz isn’t taking that lightly. He said physical presence on Arctic waters is vital for national security.

“In the polar regions, presence equals influence,” he said. “And your Coast Guard is the sole surface presence protecting our rights and projecting sovereignty.”

Trump ‘upset’ by price tag

In April, the government awarded a contract for up to three icebreakers to VT Halter Marine, a shipyard in Mississippi, in the southern US. Halter recently released some design details. The 460-foot hull will be able to break ice up to eight feet thick (2.4 meters). It will accommodate 186 people for up to 90 days at a time.

Schultz said the cost is expected to total $1.9 billion for the three ships [emphasis added--the Seaspan Diefenbreaker alone is put C$1.3B., good luck with that and lord knows when it might be delivered https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/mark-collins-seaspan-at-work-rcn-jsss-still-sliding-right-ccg-icebreaker-not-for-now/ )

House Transportation Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore, said that’s a concern for President Trump.

“When I was at the White House a few weeks ago, the president was quite upset at the price tag per ship,” DeFazio said at the hearing.

A White House spokeswoman did not respond to an email asking about the president’s views on the icebreaker contract.

The shipbuilder says it will deliver the third icebreaker by 2027 [emphasis added].
http://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/05/22/icebreaker-usa-coast-guard-antarctic-arctic/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on May 22, 2019, 14:20:32
I was at a LNG Trade show yesterday, NWT government was there touting the Tuk to Aisa route, also showing off it`s northern infrastructure, again Ontario fails in comparison. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Good2Golf on May 22, 2019, 17:35:14
I was at a LNG Trade show yesterday, NWT government was there touting the Tuk to Aisa route, also showing off it`s northern infrastructure, again Ontario fails in comparison.

...as opposed to the ‘Moose Factory to Asia’ route? ???
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Spencer100 on May 22, 2019, 18:00:29
This may get Canadians to think and spend more on the Arctic.  Fear of the Russian or Chinese will not but those evil Americans...… :cold: :D

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/bolton-coast-guard-to-help-reassert-us-leadership-in-arctic/ar-AABKu3B?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/bolton-coast-guard-to-help-reassert-us-leadership-in-arctic/ar-AABKu3B?ocid=spartanntp)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: dapaterson on May 22, 2019, 18:13:58
...as opposed to the ‘Moose Factory to Asia’ route? ???
Well, via Halifax and the Panama Canal, of course.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Spencer100 on June 12, 2019, 23:08:10
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/06/trumps-new-arctic-policy-has-familiar-ring/157622/?oref=d-river (https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/06/trumps-new-arctic-policy-has-familiar-ring/157622/?oref=d-river)

Author suggests a joint NW passage voyage.  Do we even have a ship that could do it?  St Laurent is in dry dock.  Could the AOPS do it in the future?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on June 12, 2019, 23:10:33
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/06/trumps-new-arctic-policy-has-familiar-ring/157622/?oref=d-river (https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/06/trumps-new-arctic-policy-has-familiar-ring/157622/?oref=d-river)

Author suggests a joint NW passage voyage.  Do we even have a ship that could do it?  St Laurent is in dry dock.  Could the AOPS do it in the future?

It could, in fact a circumnavigation through the NW passage is expected by the Harry DeWolf class at some point I would imagine.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 13, 2019, 19:26:41
It could, in fact a circumnavigation through the NW passage is expected by the Harry DeWolf class at some point I would imagine.

I'm prepared to lead an expedition to right the wrongs inflicted upon Canadian sovereignty by this example of brazen, Dutch border bouncing :)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/dutch-kayaker-reaches-paulatuk-on-journey-through-northwest-passage-1.3195643
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on June 14, 2019, 01:11:13
Raise a regiment of illregulars and call it the 5th Light Walts Rifles.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 25, 2019, 15:02:31
USN more concerned about Northern Sea Route than NorthwestPassage--excerpts, note CCG commandant:

How geopolitics make the U.S. Navy’s plans for major Arctic operations so complicated
The U.S. Navy will conduct some kind of Arctic operations this summer — but it hasn't said exactly what. Every option comes with potential issues.

In response to new Russian rules on the Northern Sea Route, the U.S. Navy plans to undertake significant operations in the Arctic this summer, perhaps even a freedom of navigation, or FONOPS, exercise — though the exact nature of those operations remains unclear.

But whatever form those operations take, they will be constrained by a complicated — and sometimes contradictory — set of geopolitical factors at work in the Arctic.

The Navy “has already talked about doing freedom of navigation operations or innocent passage, depending on what they’re going to call it, up through the Arctic this summer,” said U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska, in remarks last week at a symposium on the Arctic in Washington. Sullivan added that the exercise would likely involve “a couple of destroyers.” (Disclosure: The writer moderated a separate event at this symposium.)

[US Navy plans to send surface vessels through the Arctic]

Speaking later that afternoon, Rear Adm. Thomas Marotta, the reserve assistant deputy chief of naval operations, plans and strategy, confirmed Sullivan’s remarks and earlier reports.

“Senator Sullivan told you this morning exactly what the Navy’s going to be doing in the Arctic,” Marotta said, joking that his job at the conference had been done for him.

In response to an ArcticToday inquiry to the Navy about plans to conduct FONOPS in the Arctic, a spokesperson sent a copy of its latest Arctic strategy as its only response.

Marotta also confirmed the impetus for such an exercise: the news, in March, that Russia would be restricting traffic on the Northern Sea Route — with requirements to notify them 45 days in advance, detail the characteristics of the ship or ships, and bring Russian pilots aboard foreign ships. In May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Russian requirements on the Northern Sea Route were illegal — and also labeled parallel Canadian claims to sovereignty over the Northwest Passage as “illegitimate. [emphasis added]”..

Marotta also made clear in his remarks that the Navy’s dispute is with Russia, not Canada — despite a decades-long disagreement over the Northwest Passage, which Canada claims as internal waters and the U.S. sees as an international seaway.

“But there’s never been a requirement or a threat from the Canadian government to arrest your captain or sink your ship,” Marotta said. “So that’s why the conflict is in the Arctic.”

The secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, first commented in December that the U.S. Navy should be conducting freedom of navigation operations in the Arctic.

“We need to be doing FONOPS in the northwest — in the northern passage,” Spencer said at an event with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. It was unclear from that speech whether Spencer was referring to the Northwest Passage or the Northern Sea Route.

[The US Navy’s revived 2nd Fleet, with a focus on the North Atlantic and nearby Arctic, is now operational]

At an April hearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Sen. Sullivan asked Sec. Spencer about freedom of navigation operations in the Arctic.

“The Arctic is a focus of ours, and we’ve never taken our eyes off of it,” Spencer replied. He said that he and Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, had discussed “the possibility of bringing some ships up, maybe up to Valdez,” in the summer. In that hearing, Spencer emphasized the importance of cold-weather training and preparedness — in part to prepare for freedom of navigation and other “diligent maneuvers” in the circumpolar north...

Another option could be a joint exercise with Canada.

“That would be far less controversial,” Pincus said.

However, the United States’ only medium icebreaker, the USCGC Healy, is booked through the summer, so it’s unlikely that it could escort Navy vessels through ice-infested waters. The transit would have to take place in clear waters, or it would have to be with an ally like Canada.

Jeff Hutchinson, commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, told ArcticToday in May that he wasn’t aware of any joint operations planned. “But that doesn’t mean we might not plan one in the future,” he said. He pointed to a recent precedent, the 2017 exercise where a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker assisted the USCGC Maple through the Northwest Passage.

Hutchinson also mentioned the possibility of an exercise with Denmark, the United States and Canada
[emphasis added].

“The Danes are really interested in strengthening the North American relationship — of course, Greenland is geographically part of North America,” he said. “So, I could see that in the not-too-distant future.”

However, he cautioned against associating exercises such as these with official freedom of navigation operations.

Responding to Sec. Spencer’s comments, Hutchinson said, “Somebody should remind the secretary that the Canadians know better than anybody: When people go through there, it’s almost always with our help.”

The majority of ships that go through the Northwest Passage rely directly on Canadian Coast Guard vessels to get them through, he added...

(https://www.arctictoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3679711.jpg)
The crew of U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Maple follows the crew of Canadian Coast Guard Icebreaker Terry Fox through the icy waters of Franklin Strait, in Nunavut Canada, August 11, 2017. The Canadian Coast Guard assisted Maple’s crew by breaking and helping navigate through ice during several days of Maple’s 2017 Northwest Passage transit. (Petty Officer 2nd Class Nate Littlejohn / U.S. Coast Guard)

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on July 25, 2019, 21:19:06
The USCG icebreaking fleet makes us look pretty good in comparison.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: tomahawk6 on July 26, 2019, 00:20:31
3 new heavy ice breakers are to be built.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/06/18/coast-guard-picks-homeport-for-new-icebreaker-fleet/
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on July 26, 2019, 11:38:38
When they are floating i will believe it.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 26, 2019, 15:31:41
Earlier on planned new USCG icebreakers (rebadged as "Polar Security Cutters" to sound defence-oriented in order to make it easier to get money from Congress)--note major role for US breakers has been in the Antarctic, not the Arctic:

Quote
Coast Guard Hopes to Have 3 Polar Security Cutters Fielded by 2028 [one hopes CCG will have its one planned new polar icebreaker by then, presumably built by Davie now that that ship has been taken from Seaspan https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/icebreaker-vancouver-seaspan-national-shipbuilding-strategy-1.5173027 ]

The Coast Guard hopes to have its first three heavy icebreakers fielded by 2027 or 2028 to replace the one icebreaker that is increasingly struggling to make it to Antarctica and back each year and to increase U.S. presence in the high latitudes, the commandant said today.

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Karl Schultz said this morning that the icebreaker program – a planned three heavy icebreakers dubbed the Polar Security Cutter and three medium icebreakers – was more capital-intensive than most Coast Guard acquisition efforts, but “right now my sense is we enjoy support from the administration, we enjoy bipartisan, bicameral support” in Congress, he said while speaking on a service chiefs panel at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space conference.

After awarding a $745 million contract to VT Halter on April 23, “we’re off to the races” on buying the first ship. This first ship is supposed to deliver to the Coast Guard in 2023. Still, Schultz noted, the Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal only contains $35 million for the program as a bridge, to keep the acquisition office and construction yard humming until “a big tranche of money” is ideally awarded in FY 2021 to buy the second ship of the class.

“You’ll see larger asks here to get after the second and the third polar security cutter. Ideally projected into our capital investment plan or CIP you’ll see between now and 2028 the [funds] to deliver on those first three polar security cutters,” Schultz said.

Schultz did not elaborate on specifically when he hoped each ship would be put on contract, but maintaining and every-other-year acquisition profile – buying the second and third ships in FY 2021 and 2023, respectively – would allow for all three to be in the fleet by 2027 or 2028.

The first cutter, he said, would replace the 43-year-old USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), which has experienced more and more severe engineering casualties in recent years when it makes its annual voyage to the McMurdo Station in Antarctica.

“It’s the second and third subsequent hulls that gives us increased presence at the high latitude region,” Schultz added.

Schultz said repeatedly that “presence equals influence up there” and that the Coast Guard needed to remain involved in any commercial or military activity taking place in the Arctic as waterways open up
[emphasis added]...
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/06/coast-guard-hopes-to-have-3-polar-security-cutters-fielded-by-2028

And this from July 9:

Quote
Report to Congress on Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter
...
(https://i1.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/HPIBsingle_ship-002.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1)
https://news.usni.org/2019/07/09/report-to-congress-on-coast-guard-polar-security-cutter-2

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chief Engineer on July 26, 2019, 15:40:13
Earlier on planned new USCG icebreakers (rebadged as "Polar Security Cutters" to sound defence-oriented in order to make it easier to get money from Congress)--note major role for US breakers has been in the Antarctic, not the Arctic:

And this from July 9:

Mark
Ottawa

We should of swallowed our pride and bought there as well.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: CloudCover on July 26, 2019, 15:50:00
Some specs on USCG ships, note delivery dates : https://vthm.com/polar-security-cutter/

“The U.S. Department of the Navy has awarded VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, Mississippi, as the prime contractor of a $745,940,860 fixed-price incentive-firm contract for the detail design and construction of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) PSC (formerly the Heavy Polar Icebreaker). The PSC program is a multiple year Department of Homeland Security Level 1 investment and a USCG major system initiative to acquire up to three multi-mission PSCs to recapitalize the USCG’s fleet of heavy icebreakers. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $1,942,812,266. The first ship delivery is scheduled to occur in 2024, the second in 2025 and the last delivering in early 2027.

The Polar Security Cutter will fill a current, definitive need for the Coast Guard’s statutory mission and provide support for other mission needs in the higher latitudes vital to the economic vitality, scientific inquiry and national interests of the United States.

VT Halter Marine is teamed with Technology Associates, Inc. as the ship designer and, for over two years, has participated in the U.S. Coast Guard’s Heavy Polar Icebreaker Industry Study. The ship design is an evolution from the mature ”Polar Stern II” currently in design and construction; the team has worked rigorously to demonstrate its maturity and reliability. During the study, TAI incrementally adjusted the design and conducted a series of five ship model tank tests to optimize the design. The vessels are 460 feet in length with a beam of 88 feet overall, a full load displacement of approximately 22,900 long tons at delivery. The propulsion will be diesel electric at over 45,200 horse power and readily capable of breaking ice between six to eight feet thick. The vessel will accommodate 186 personnel comfortably for an extended endurance of 90 days.“
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 26, 2019, 20:24:27
From Cloud Cover above:
Quote
Quote
During the study, TAI incrementally adjusted the design and conducted a series of five ship model tank tests to optimize the design

Some of that USCG tank testing, June 2018 story:

U.S. Coast Guard turns to Canada for help with designing its new heavy icebreaker

With growing concerns over its apparent “icebreaker gap” with Russia and an urgent need to replace its only operational heavy icebreaker the United States Coast Guard has turned to Canada for help in designing the future generation of its polar-class heavy icebreakers.

The U.S. Coast Guard is collaborating with the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) to access its renowned ice tank facilities in St. John’s, Newfoundland, to model and evaluate the specifications needed to design the new heavy icebreakers...

(https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2018/06/2017-06-01-13-07-23.jpg)
Researchers tested multiple scale models of heavy icebreakers with different hull designs and propulsion configurations at the National Research Council of Canada in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. (National Research Council of Canada)
https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2018/06/22/u-s-coast-guard-canada-heavy-icebreaker-nrc-ice-tank/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 21, 2019, 11:59:43
Note Russkie icebreaker help--our A/OPS derived from Svalbard:

Quote
Norwegian Coast Guard vessel reaches North Pole
Both Canadian and US Coast Guard have sailed to the top of the world before, but «KV Svalbard» became the first Norwegian ship to reach the North Pole.

The ice-breaking capable «KV Svalbard» sails in the Arctic ice as part of CAATEX, an ocean climate change research project led by Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre.

On Wednesday, the ship made history by becoming the first Norwegian vessel to reach the North Pole, the Coast Guard writes in a tweet.

TV2 can tell that the Norwegian Coast Guard vessel partly sailed in a path in the ice made by a Russian icebreaker. Sailing with tourists to the North Pole, the nuclear-powered icebreaker «50 let Pobedy» has been to the top of the world five times this summer.

It was also a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker, the «Arktika» that on August 17th 1977 became the world’s first surface vessel to reach the North Pole. First attempt to drift over the Arctic Ocean was done by Fridtjof Nansen and his crew onboard the «Fram» in 1893-96.

Sailing under the ice, the U.S. nuclear-powered submarine «USS Nautilus» became the first to reach the North Pole on August 3rd, 1958.

The first non-nuclear-powered ship to reach the North Pole was the Swedish icebreaker «Oden» in September 1991. In 1994, the two Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers «CCGS Terry Fox» and «CCGC Louis S. St-Laurent» made it to the North Pole, while the Coast Guard vessel «Healy» became the first U.S. surface vessel at the North Pole in 2005.

(https://thebarentsobserver.com/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/skjermbilde_2019-08-21_kl._13.54.38.png?itok=i24nXlke)
"KV Svalbard" came to 90 degrees North on August 21st, 2019. Photo: Norwegian Coast Guard
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/08/norwegian-coast-guard-vessel-reach-north-pole

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Czech_pivo on August 21, 2019, 12:04:37
After losing a frigate earlier I guess they needed a 'feel good' story for the people back home.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 22, 2019, 04:19:04
Note Russkie icebreaker help--our A/OPS derived from Svalbard:

Mark
Ottawa

<cough> Amundsen <cough> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Amundsen

:)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on August 22, 2019, 12:22:27
Quote
Why is it considered better that we liberal Danes run Greenland rather than the Americans? Is liberalism more effective at countering Russian and Chinese expansionist ambitions?

Gullible Danes, who are now smugly laughing off Trump’s offer, find Chinese commercial investment innocent because it does not make territorial claims explicit. And our pacifist vision for the territory is to let well-intentioned scientists dig for ice-core samples to figure out how the climate looked in the Jurassic age and mine the vast frozen island for stories about melting ice to frighten the world.

Handing Greenland to the United States is Denmark’s only chance to counter Russian arctic domination and Chinese ambitions. With Global warming opening up major sea lanes in the north, that will considerably reduce time and costs for commercial shipping as well as unleash a bonanza of untapped oil and rare metals riches. The addition of Greenland to US territory will enhance Denmark’s security and guarantee that Greenland’s resources are tapped to our benefit and not to that of China, who has been showing an increasing and keen interest in Greenland’s geological riches.

Greenland is a territory of enormous strategic importance. Truman acknowledged this when he sought to acquire the territory in 1946 for £80m ($100m) and Trump has only made explicit what US foreign policy experts have been advocating for decades. When the West’s Middle East ambitions imploded after the disaster in Iraq, many think-tankers began to explore the Arctic question. It is clear from the many papers written on this that it is a generation-defining issue.

Russia has already claimed ownership in the Arctic and strengthened its military presence greatly. It demands that freighters ask permission to use the Northern sea route and demands that Russian pilots are allowed on board. This is exactly what the Danish king used to do at Elsinore where tolls would be wrested from merchant vessels by training cannons at traffic on the sound. This extorted money funded the Danish empire.

As for the Greenlanders, among its 50,000 inhabitants, there has been a strong and growing independence movement fed by resentment of Danish colonial policies. The Greenlander union boss, Jess G. Berthelsen, famously said that he would rather crap in a bucket than take the yearly £400m lump sum from the Danish government. There is no doubt that there would be a majority for a US acquisition, if the price was right.

Even though we have jesters for kings now, the basic security structure remains the same. Putin and Xi are wolves let loose among the liberal sheep of the Arctic (Norway, Canada, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland). I would much rather entrust the security of my family to the capable force of the American military than to a rag-tag bunch of smug Danish liberals.

Thomas Vann Altheimer is a filmmaker from Copenhagen

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/why-denmark-should-sell-greenland-to-donald-trump/

It seems to fit with the discussion.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Spencer100 on August 22, 2019, 18:27:57
Why is Byers the go-to guy?

https://apnews.com/20632f3e017741b89a15e0d0927a7ada

- mod edit to fix link -
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2019, 19:12:47
To be fair to Byers he is quite good when it comes to the legal issues around the Arctic and laws regarding international marine boundaries. When he starts talking about military matters I stop listening. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Underway on August 22, 2019, 21:25:55
 :ditto:

Very good for arctic stuff I agree.  Perhaps if Greenland doesn't want to go with the US and is against working with the Danes still we could make an offer...

Pros and Cons of that? 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on August 22, 2019, 22:30:30
We already do a terrible job of looking after our North, they take one look at the effort we put into our Northern communities and say "No thanks". The US already pumps a lot of money into Greenland, so for now they can have their cake and eat it to.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Blackadder1916 on August 23, 2019, 00:16:51
We already do a terrible job of looking after our North, they take one look at the effort we put into our Northern communities and say "No thanks". The US already pumps a lot of money into Greenland, so for now they can have their cake and eat it to.

I doubt Greenlanders get much cake from a US presence in their country.  Their one big location in Greenland is Thule.  Don't try imagining it as a typical base that pumps money into the local (environs of the base) economy by purchasing goods and services for base operations or by providing a customer base who will live in the community and frequent local merchants.  There are no local merchants because there is no local community (. . . nearest village is located 75 miles away).  The locals who used to live where the base is now were relocated (against their will) somewhere around a hundred miles away.  There have been (maybe still ongoing?) lawsuits from some of the dispossessed to regain their traditional hunting grounds that they are still forbidden to use.

Where does the USAF get their supplies?  Just like the CAF at Alert, they are shipped in from down south (the United States).  As for providing employment for Greenlanders:

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-serve-at-thule-air-base-2016-4
Quote
Today, the base typically is used for allied surveillance of the northern polar region and has a stripped-down presence of  approximately 400 Danes, 50 Greenlanders, three Canadians, and 140 American military and support staff.

Surely the US government pays a hefty rent for their base and the environmental impact of military operations that has included nuclear radiation from the attempt to station nuclear missiles and the crash of an armed bomber (not including the bomb that is still missing).  According to the 1951 US/Denmark agreement:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
Quote
Government of the United States of America, without compensation to the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, may use such defense area in cooperation with the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark for the defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area, and may construct such facilities and undertake such activities therein as will not impede the activities of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark in such area.

There was some updating of agreements in 2004 to take into account the changes in the autonomy of Greenland, but in terms of payment to Greenland it was something in the neighbourhood of $20 million.

Some info about Thule.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/128262/life-at-thule/
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Spencer100 on August 27, 2019, 09:06:28
From the Seapower. 

https://seapowermagazine.org/high-latitudes-higher-tension-ice-diminished-arctic-does-not-extend-a-warm-welcome/?fbclid=IwAR0Yj2Fg5mw7zyhLAt01zRHXpleqY-DB_tw6FcFWpYEC1M-z_Sh_KBWCJPc

Lots to say about Canada
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 27, 2019, 12:36:01
Sensible US piece here, lots on Canada, note CCG commissioner (no reporting in our media)--excerpts from Seapower, official publication of the Navy League of the United States, headline a bit of a stretch:

Quote
High Latitudes, Higher Tension: Ice-Diminished Arctic Does Not Extend a Warm Welcome
...
Speaking at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space exposition in May, Commandant of the Coast Guard Adm. Karl Schultz announced that the service had just contracted for its new Polar Security Cutter (PSC), calling it the “first recapitalization of the heavy icebreaker capability in the nation in more than 40 years.” Simultaneously, and what Schultz said was no coincidence, the Coast Guard issued its new “Arctic Strategic Outlook.”

The U.S. Navy released “Strategic Outlook for the Arctic” in January, which outlines the objectives of defending U.S. sovereignty and the homeland from attack, ensuring that the Arctic remains a stable and conflict-free region, preserving freedom of the seas, and promoting partnerships within the U.S. Government and with allies and partners to achieve these objectives.

According to the Danish “Defence Agreement 2018-2023,” “Climate change brings not only better accessibility, but also an increased attention to the extraction of natural resources as well as intensified commercial and scientific activity. There is also increased military activity in the area.”..

All of these documents and action underscore concerns about presence, sovereignty, safety and security, environmental, economic, and world power competition in the Arctic. Russia has been open about its massive military buildup in the Arctic, but Russia has a vested interest in extracting resources and building access to markets. In fact, Russia gets 20 percent of its gross domestic product from the north — not the situation in North America [emphasis added]. In 2018, China announced in its official Arctic strategy a $1 trillion program to develop polar regions economically, declaring itself a “Near-Arctic State.” Russia’s military expansion and China’s attempts to invest in a ports on Baffin Island and airports in Greenland have alarmed the West. However, all the nations have a goal to maintain the Arctic as a low-tension area, stressing cooperation and collaboration...

The Royal Canadian Navy has commissioned [not yet] the first of six Harry DeWolf Arctic and offshore patrol vessels, and two more are planned for the Canadian Coast Guard. The CCG is also modifying three icebreakers procured from Sweden for use in Canadian waters...

There has been an increase in traffic in Canada’s Northwest Passage, including transits by the Crystal Serenity cruise ship in 2016 and 2017. But the ice is unpredictable and prevented ships from getting through last year. The 27 rural communities in Canada’s Nunavut territory are not connect by roads, but must be resupplied once a year by ship or barge, and are dependent on the capability to operate in the Arctic in the summer. Both the Royal Canadian Navy and Coast Guard hope their new ships will allow them to work farther north, and upgrading a former mining pier at Nanasivik to be used as a refueling port will let them stay longer.

Cooperation

Also speaking at Sea-Air-Space, U.S. Coast Guard Deputy Commandant for Operations Vice Adm. Daniel B. Abel talked about profound partnerships and native knowledge. He served previously in command of the 17th Coast Guard District in Juneau, Alaska, where he learned to “Listen to those who live there, who are impacted by the Arctic.”

The Alaskan coastline is more than 6,600 miles long, Abel said — more than the entire coastline for the lower 48 states. So cooperation is an absolute necessity.

We work closely with our partners in the Arctic, including our neighbors in Canada, who are the best partners we could ever have [emphasis added],” Abel said.

But that includes all the players in the Arctic. “The distance across the Bering Strait is 44 miles, the same distance as Washington is to Baltimore. That’s how close the United States is to Russia,” Abel said. “Clearly, we have to cooperate.”

Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard Jeffery Hutchinson, speaking at the Sea-Air-Space, said the Arctic is “not as frozen as it once was, but from where we sit, there’s still lots of ice [emphasis added].”

The U.S. and Canada work closely with the other Arctic nations, as members of the Arctic Coast Guard Forum. “We all understand the vastness in the Arctic, in the ice, on the seas and on the land. It requires everyone to pull together,” Hutchinson said. “There isn’t an Arctic nation that hasn’t had to rely on another Arctic nation, at some point — and I say that with pride and humility.

One important way nations cooperate in through scientific research and environmental data collection. This fall the German research icebreaker Polarstern will get stuck in the Arctic ice on purpose, and drift for a year as teams of 600 scientists and researchers from 17 countries rotate on and off the ship to collect data that would otherwise be impractical or impossible. The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) will study the Arctic climate system and how it relates to global climate models. The U.S., Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden are participating in the International Cooperative Engagement Program for Polar Research (ICE-PPR), which shares in the development and use of polar sensors and remote sensing techniques, data collection, environmental modeling and prediction, and associated human factors involved in operating in the extreme latitudes. The Canadian Armed Forces are leading the multinational Joint Arctic Experiment...
https://seapowermagazine.org/high-latitudes-higher-tension-ice-diminished-arctic-does-not-extend-a-warm-welcome/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 27, 2019, 13:49:52
If you want to have a lower cost, regularly achievable option of staking a claim to Arctic Sovereignty, why not make it a primary task of the reserves?

They could train all year to deploy to the high arctic in the summer, then conduct live firing/ other training on the rocky shores of Cornwallis and Baffin Islands, near all weather air and sea ports. Make it part of OP SNOWGOOSE or something.

I mean, if Army Cadets (like me and Ian Hope) can do it... #summerarcticindoctrinationcourse https://www.armycadethistory.com/Arctic_Indoc_main.htm

:)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 27, 2019, 13:59:17
daftandbarmy:

Quote
If you want to have a lower cost, regularly achievable option of staking a claim to Arctic Sovereignty, why not make it a primary task of the reserves?

They could train all year to deploy to the high arctic in the summer, then conduct live firing/ other training on the rocky shores of Cornwallis and Baffin Islands, near all weather air and sea ports. Make it part of OP SNOWGOOSE or something...

No need for any of the CAF to go "staking a claim" to sovereignty over any of the territory you mention. No country disputes Canada's sovereignty over any of our land in the Arctic, Hans Island and the Danes aside.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: LoboCanada on August 27, 2019, 14:44:55
Interesting idea. I wonder what the logistics challenges of doing that are, maybe make all of the Reserves an expanded "Arctic Response Force" or whatever.

Having units use the rail to Churchill and disbursing from there?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 23, 2019, 15:09:57
US Navy officer with RCN frigate in Arctic this summer, to get lay of the sea:

Quote
The US Navy sent this officer to sail the Arctic with the Canadians — here's what he learned about this unforgiving environment

    *The Arctic is fast becoming an increasingly competitive space, and the US Navy is working to strengthen muscles that have atrophied.
    *Lt. Samuel Brinson, a Surface Warfare Officer assigned to the Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Tortuga, sailed with the Canadians aboard the frigate HMCS Ville de Quebec through the Arctic this past summer on a fact-finding mission.
    *The lieutenant was approached by the newly-established 2nd Fleet to learn from the Canadians how the US Navy can better operate in the Arctic.
    *"We need to get up there. We need to practice operating. We need to practice operating with our allies," Brinson told Insider during a recent interview, adding that "we need to start getting the level of knowledge back."
   
The US Navy's Arctic muscles have atrophied over the years, so the service is working to relearn how to operate in this increasingly competitive space.

One way the Navy is doing that is by working with US allies and partners with the necessary knowledge and skills, picking their brains on how best to operate in this unforgiving environment.

Lt. Samuel Brinson, a US Navy surface warfare officer who took part in an exchange program aboard the Canadian frigate HMCS Ville de Quebec as it conducted Arctic operations, recently talked to Insider about his experiences.

Although he declined to say exactly where he went, Brinson said that he "didn't know anyone who had been as far north" as he traveled on his Arctic mission.

The US Navy's 2nd Fleet was reactivated last summer to defend US interests in the North Atlantic and Arctic waterways, as great power rivals like Russia and even China are becoming increasingly active in these spaces.

But there's a learning curve.

"2nd Fleet is a newly-established fleet, and we just haven't been operating in the Arctic as a navy much recently," Brinson told Insider.

"We need to get up there. We need to practice operating. We need to practice operating with our allies. We need to get up there and experience it for ourselves as much as possible."

That's exactly what he did. He went on a one-month fact-finding mission in the Arctic.

Brinson, who had previously deployed to the 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operations (Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf), was approached by 2nd Fleet for this opportunity, which involved reporting on how the Canadian navy carries out its activities in the Arctic effectively.

"The most striking difference [between the Arctic and other deployment locations] is how remote it is," he explained to Insider. "There are just not many towns. You go forever without seeing other ships. You go forever without seeing other establishments. The distance is a lot further between the places we were operating than it looks on a map."

From an operations perspective, that makes logistics a bit more difficult. "The biggest challenge for going into the Arctic is logistics," Brinson said.

"You have to have a plan where you are going and really think about where you are going to get fuel, where you are going to get food, and if you need to send people or get people from the ship, how and where you are going to do that. Everything is pretty far apart."

"You don't have a lot of refueling points, resupply stations," he added. "When you get up into the Arctic, there is not really anything there, and if someone had to come get you, like if they had to send tugs to come get us, it was going to take days, like lots of days."

The emptiness of the Arctic isn't just a problem from a resupply standpoint. It also creates navigational problems.

"Because it's less developed up there, it's also been less charted," Brinson told Insider. "We spent a lot of time switching between electronic charts, paper charts, you know, Canadian charts, Norwegian charts, etc. to navigate around where we were going. You have to use whichever chart was most complete and most up to date."

"There's a lot of headway that could be made on that in the future," he added. "The more we operate up there, the more we know that, but before we send ships in to some of these places, we probably need to just survey it first."..
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-is-learning-about-arctic-operations-from-the-canadians-2019-11

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 28, 2019, 13:16:59
No need for hoo-hah over "icebreaker gap" when considering US Arctic sovereignty and defence--start of the piece (lots of further links at original):

Quote
The Icebreaker Gap Doesn’t Mean America is Losing in the Arctic

A warming Arctic is potentially creating a colder regional security environment. Exchanges of whiskey and schnapps — as the Canadians and Danes have done over the disputed Hans Island — may not suffice as new issues emerge. There are growing worries that a region long characterized by cooperation will no longer enjoy that exceptional status. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in May that “the region has become an arena for power and for competition.” And a number of recent U.S. government documents and speeches have highlighted similar concerns about competition in the Arctic.

For many, the United States is woefully behind, with serious implications for national defense. One of the most common and consistent metrics to make this case is a comparison of the numbers of U.S., Russian, and Chinese icebreakers. As Lindsay Rodman highlights, when comparing Russian military advantages relative to the United States in the Arctic, “the most often cited example is icebreakers.” By this standard, Washington is losing to Moscow — and it’s not even close. While Russia has at least 40 icebreakers in its fleet, China and the United States have two icebreakers apiece.

However, using relative icebreaker fleet sizes as a key metric for the state of strategic competition in the Arctic is flawed. While they are an important platform, icebreakers do little to create or address the most commonly identified defense challenges in the region. Instead, analysts should focus on the nature of the military risks in the Arctic, the role of allies and partners, and economic interests in a broader geopolitical context rather than comparing specific capabilities. Doing so is important to avoid mischaracterizing the scope of the danger or emphasizing the wrong types of solutions...
https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/the-icebreaker-gap-doesnt-mean-america-is-losing-in-the-arctic/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on November 28, 2019, 13:43:10
The authors seems very vague on the Icebreakers current missions and only mentions Antarctic once in brackets. They are correct in saying they are not the "teeth" of defense, but also assumes that the threat will be military and not a asymmetrical approach. He is also silent on the fact that Canada and the US have a dispute about Canada's arctic claims, while implying they can rely upon our fleet and other NATO countries. I think he will find that ice breaking assets are already heavily utilized and future booked, leaving little room for flexibility. In fact one thing the AOP's bring to the table is a fleet of available ice capable  assets that will increase the flexibility of the government to respond to unplanned events in Northern waters.

Canada could offer up two of the AOP's on lease to help the US fill it's ice breaker gap till more ships come on line. I doubt very much they would buy ships from us, but may buy the design.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 01, 2019, 12:12:44
And note the Danes and Greenland--and US wanting Danish fighters (F-35As will be replacing F-16s) there:

Quote
Danish News Round-Up: Greenland highest priority in new risk report by the Intelligence Service

Greenland tops report on risk areas

The Danish Defence Intelligence Service released its annual risk assessment report on Friday, making Greenland the top priority on its agenda, overhauling traditional focus areas such as cybercrime and terrorism. “This change has taken place relatively quickly. 11 years ago, the Arctic was not even mentioned, and now it’s suddenly of the highest importance,” said Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, a researcher of security policy in the Arctic at the Royal Danish Defence College, to TV2.

One reason for this rise in importance is that major powers such as the United States, Russia and China are very much interested in the area. The United States is concerns are about Russia’s ability to attack the Thule Air base and China’s alleged desire to gain control over important Greenland resources and critical infrastructure through investments. “A very large part of Denmark’s foreign and security policy is about going where Americans look,” Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen commented.

No clear solution to the Arctic threat from the government

Defence Minister Trine Bramsen said that no final plan has been developed regarding a strengthened Danish military presence in Greenland as of yet. However, the US is pushing for an expansion, having suggested permanently stationing Danish fighter aircraft in Greenland – the US ambassador to Denmark encouraged the purchase of more F-35 planes.

http://cphpost.dk/news/us-wants-denmark-to-buy-more-fighter-jets.html

But Bramsen does not intend to oblige at this time. “In the short run, we’re not considering sending fighter planes to Greenland. It is not the solution to the challenges we’re facing right now,” she said to BT. When asked about possible solutions, she didn’t go into any specifics. “I don’t want to say anything more concrete about it. Sending fighter planes is just not what we intend to do. But we’ll look into how we can strengthen our overview in the area.”

New cybersecurity military service launches next February
... [read on]
http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-round-up-greenland-highest-priority-in-new-risk-report-by-the-intelligence-service.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 01, 2019, 12:17:29
And note the Danes and Greenland--and US wanting Danish fighters (F-35As will be replacing F-16s) there:

Mark
Ottawa

And the warmer it gets, the more the world will be warming  up to Greenland's vast, untapped natural resources treasure chest

The Greenland Gold Rush: Promise and Pitfalls of Greenland’s Energy and Mineral Resources

As the Arctic ice continues to melt due to global warming, Greenland’s mineral and energy resources – including iron ore, lead, zinc, diamonds, gold, rare earth elements, uranium and oil – are becoming more accessible. The political establishment in Greenland has made natural resource extraction a central part of its plans to become economically self-sufficient, and ultimately politically independent, from the Kingdom of Denmark. This will be no easy task, and it is made more difficult by Greenland’s rapidly aging population.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-greenland-gold-rush-promise-and-pitfalls-of-greenlands-energy-and-mineral-resources/
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Thucydides on December 01, 2019, 12:33:11
Interesting idea. I wonder what the logistics challenges of doing that are, maybe make all of the Reserves an expanded "Arctic Response Force" or whatever.

Having units use the rail to Churchill and disbursing from there?

Given the vast distances to cover and lack of infrastructure, the primary method of transportation should be air (taking into account the difficulties due to weather and climactic conditions). This isn't entirely a handwave, many small companies supply arctic oil and mining operations using a wide variety of old aircraft including WWII era C-47/DC-3's, and Canada has (or at least had) a strong "bush pilot" tradition of aviators capable of operating in these sorts of conditions.

C-130's have long demonstrated their ability to operate in the arctic and antarctic, and cargo helicopters like the Chinook would provide the more "tactical" logistical support. Modern concepts like GPS guided parachute drops and GPS guided "gliders" carrying cargo can also be adapted to deliver logistic support. Helicopters and GPS guided parachute drops can also support icebreakers and ships in the arcitic as well when the weather cooperates.

This would involve a large (and expensive) increase in the RCAF, including improved ground support facilities in places like Yellowknife and Resolute Bay in addition to a dedicated wing (minimum) to supporting arctic operations. Longer term, pushing railheads as far north as possible to bring bulk supplies like fuel as close to the AO as possible is also going to be needed.

Of course, this sort of thing actually needs an articulated policy by the government to launch and carry out....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 01, 2019, 13:01:25
Given the vast distances to cover and lack of infrastructure, the primary method of transportation should be air (taking into account the difficulties due to weather and climactic conditions). This isn't entirely a handwave, many small companies supply arctic oil and mining operations using a wide variety of old aircraft including WWII era C-47/DC-3's, and Canada has (or at least had) a strong "bush pilot" tradition of aviators capable of operating in these sorts of conditions.

C-130's have long demonstrated their ability to operate in the arctic and antarctic, and cargo helicopters like the Chinook would provide the more "tactical" logistical support. Modern concepts like GPS guided parachute drops and GPS guided "gliders" carrying cargo can also be adapted to deliver logistic support. Helicopters and GPS guided parachute drops can also support icebreakers and ships in the arcitic as well when the weather cooperates.

This would involve a large (and expensive) increase in the RCAF, including improved ground support facilities in places like Yellowknife and Resolute Bay in addition to a dedicated wing (minimum) to supporting arctic operations. Longer term, pushing railheads as far north as possible to bring bulk supplies like fuel as close to the AO as possible is also going to be needed.

Of course, this sort of thing actually needs an articulated policy by the government to launch and carry out....

A great example of why the RCAF might need to stand up the equivalent of the RAF regiment, which was created Post-WW1 to guard RAF airfields in the more remote, isolated and heavily contested regions of the Empire.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GR66 on December 01, 2019, 13:33:50
Given the vast distances to cover and lack of infrastructure, the primary method of transportation should be air (taking into account the difficulties due to weather and climactic conditions). This isn't entirely a handwave, many small companies supply arctic oil and mining operations using a wide variety of old aircraft including WWII era C-47/DC-3's, and Canada has (or at least had) a strong "bush pilot" tradition of aviators capable of operating in these sorts of conditions.

C-130's have long demonstrated their ability to operate in the arctic and antarctic, and cargo helicopters like the Chinook would provide the more "tactical" logistical support. Modern concepts like GPS guided parachute drops and GPS guided "gliders" carrying cargo can also be adapted to deliver logistic support. Helicopters and GPS guided parachute drops can also support icebreakers and ships in the arcitic as well when the weather cooperates.

This would involve a large (and expensive) increase in the RCAF, including improved ground support facilities in places like Yellowknife and Resolute Bay in addition to a dedicated wing (minimum) to supporting arctic operations. Longer term, pushing railheads as far north as possible to bring bulk supplies like fuel as close to the AO as possible is also going to be needed.

Of course, this sort of thing actually needs an articulated policy by the government to launch and carry out....

Expanding the C-130 fleet would have multiple advantages for the CF.  Obviously logistics needs are not limited just to Arctic operations but the Hercules is flexible enough that a common airframe (easier to maintain and train crews for) could also be used for aerial refueling (KC-130J) as well as modular kits that can be added on to existing airframes to provide specialized abilities such as firefighting (with the MAFFS II kit) and Maritime Patrol with the scalable MSA/MPA kit.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/C-130J/MG180389_C-130Brochure_NewPurchase_Final_Web.pdf (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/C-130J/MG180389_C-130Brochure_NewPurchase_Final_Web.pdf)
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: dapaterson on December 01, 2019, 15:05:33
Hercs lack the range to be an effective ISR or refuelling platform, particularly in a Canadian context.

Fleet commonality is good in many respects, but fleet commonality at the expense of operational capability is a tradeoff that needs significant analysis.

Perhaps look at a Boeing 767 based ISR platform, and acquire KC 76 Pegasus refueller / strat airlift aircraft.

Added bonus: Leverage Air Canada for some strategic depth, with Reserve Force pilots who can do most of their proficiency maintenance in their full-time jobs.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 01, 2019, 15:51:13
Not the craziest idea I have read, today...
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GR66 on December 01, 2019, 16:26:10
Hercs lack the range to be an effective ISR or refuelling platform, particularly in a Canadian context.

Fleet commonality is good in many respects, but fleet commonality at the expense of operational capability is a tradeoff that needs significant analysis.

Perhaps look at a Boeing 767 based ISR platform, and acquire KC 76 Pegasus refueller / strat airlift aircraft.

Added bonus: Leverage Air Canada for some strategic depth, with Reserve Force pilots who can do most of their proficiency maintenance in their full-time jobs.

Not suggesting that additional Hercs would be instead of new MPA’s or strategic refueling aircraft, just that they have additional benefits beyond arctic resupply if we chose to use it.

Say for example we’re in a conflict that is primarily maritime based and enemy subs are a significant threat. Existing Hercs with the ASW kit installed could take over patrols inshore freeing up the Auroras to patrol further out.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: daftandbarmy on December 01, 2019, 16:27:29
Not suggesting that additional Hercs would be instead of new MPA’s or strategic refueling aircraft, just that they have additional benefits beyond arctic resupply if we chose to use it.

Say for example we’re in a conflict that is primarily maritime based and enemy subs are a significant threat. Existing Hercs with the ASW kit installed could take over patrols inshore freeing up the Auroras to patrol further out.

Or drones because, you know, 'transformation'...
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: dapaterson on December 01, 2019, 16:30:17
Not suggesting that additional Hercs would be instead of new MPA’s or strategic refueling aircraft, just that they have additional benefits beyond arctic resupply if we chose to use it.

Say for example we’re in a conflict that is primarily maritime based and enemy subs are a significant threat. Existing Hercs with the ASW kit installed could take over patrols inshore freeing up the Auroras to patrol further out.

Or we could build a real navy, and not just a dozen frigates, four SSKs, a dozen coastal patrol vessels and (in the future) 28 ASW helicopters for three oceans and the world's longest coastline.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Colin P on December 01, 2019, 16:44:56
Or drones because, you know, 'transformation'...

I think politicians like drones partly because they "drone on and on" so they are brother in arms, but also the politicians hear "unmanned" and think they can save on personal costs and pernickety veterans.   
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 01, 2019, 17:39:28
Not suggesting that additional Hercs would be instead of new MPA’s or strategic refueling aircraft, just that they have additional benefits beyond arctic resupply if we chose to use it.

Say for example we’re in a conflict that is primarily maritime based and enemy subs are a significant threat. Existing Hercs with the ASW kit installed could take over patrols inshore freeing up the Auroras to patrol further out.

Where are the ASW crew from the Herc coming from?  Roll on/roll off kit is no use if there is no one there to operate it.  It's not as simple as toss sonos in the water and voila.  LRP acoustician is a full time job.  They don't even learn how to operate/employ the rest of the sensors...it's just too much to know and be proficient at.

Aurora's are a good ASW asset but..they're never really employed on their own, just out yankin' and bankin'.  They're part of a system of systems.  I say, if you recognize you need (1) more ASW aircraft then it makes sense to look and see if you need (2) NEW ASW aircraft.  Then...kill 2 birds/1 stone. 

**If I was going to do a 'short range' ASW fixed wing platform, for limited range stuff...I'd consider something like the CASA 235  (https://www.flickr.com/photos/129215788@N08/35539032654)the Turkish Navy is using.  Less cost, fuel and crew used over the lifespan of the platform.   :2c:    I'd also then have the similarity between the 295...on the 'off season', I can use it for normal surveillance 'stuff'...
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Chris Pook on December 01, 2019, 18:37:22
Where are the ASW crew from the Herc coming from?  Roll on/roll off kit is no use if there is no one there to operate it.  It's not as simple as toss sonos in the water and voila.  LRP acoustician is a full time job.  They don't even learn how to operate/employ the rest of the sensors...it's just too much to know and be proficient at.


Got you a new career.  Training reserve squadron operators at "stone frigate" consoles distributed all across Canada.  Let them listen in to real time "pinging".
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: suffolkowner on December 01, 2019, 19:36:34
**If I was going to do a 'short range' ASW fixed wing platform, for limited range stuff...I'd consider something like the CASA 235  (https://www.flickr.com/photos/129215788@N08/35539032654)the Turkish Navy is using.  Less cost, fuel and crew used over the lifespan of the platform.   :2c:    I'd also then have the similarity between the 295...on the 'off season', I can use it for normal surveillance 'stuff'...

EITS , out of curiosity, why the 235 instead of 295 or even the SAAB Global Express offerings?

We would have to committed to new P-8's first else we might end up with above only!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GR66 on December 01, 2019, 21:43:00
Where are the ASW crew from the Herc coming from?  Roll on/roll off kit is no use if there is no one there to operate it.  It's not as simple as toss sonos in the water and voila.  LRP acoustician is a full time job.  They don't even learn how to operate/employ the rest of the sensors...it's just too much to know and be proficient at.

Aurora's are a good ASW asset but..they're never really employed on their own, just out yankin' and bankin'.  They're part of a system of systems.  I say, if you recognize you need (1) more ASW aircraft then it makes sense to look and see if you need (2) NEW ASW aircraft.  Then...kill 2 birds/1 stone. 

**If I was going to do a 'short range' ASW fixed wing platform, for limited range stuff...I'd consider something like the CASA 235  (https://www.flickr.com/photos/129215788@N08/35539032654)the Turkish Navy is using.  Less cost, fuel and crew used over the lifespan of the platform.   :2c:    I'd also then have the similarity between the 295...on the 'off season', I can use it for normal surveillance 'stuff'...

Simple answer is that we need more ASW crews.  As Chris Pook says the Reserves could be one option.  Or we could have more Reg Force operators.

It looks to me like we as a nation aren't willing to spend what is necessary to have a military that is effective in all areas.  As a result we seem to have a military that isn't really effective (in terms of a real near-peer conflict) in ANY area.  An army without enough anti-tank weapons, artillery, air defence, etc.  Are 85 fighters enough to defend Canada and participate in operations overseas?  As Dataperson notes our Navy isn't large enough for a nation with three coasts and the world's longest coastline.  And do any of our elements have enough war stocks and logistics capability to sustain major combat operations for any length of time without relying on the Americans to support us?

For that reason I think we should accept reality and focus on those areas that are most vital to our national defence and which would allow us to make a real, effective and sustainable contribution to our allies in time of war.

I think that ASW is one of those areas that meets that criteria.  In my perfect world that would mean replacing the Aurora's with P-8's and probably supplementing them with another aircraft.  Would maybe the Saab/Global Express Swordfish be an option (and using the same airframe for commonality) possibly also the Globaleye  AEW aircraft for the RCAF and the Global Express as the replacement VIP transport aircraft?  The C-130J ASW kit would be just one more possible tool to be added to the box.  The added benefit that this tool is not airframe dependant.  If an Aurora/P-8 or Swordfish is out of service you can install the ASW kit into one of the Herc's and shift the sensor operators to the new aircraft. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 01, 2019, 22:17:22
Got you a new career.  Training reserve squadron operators at "stone frigate" consoles distributed all across Canada.  Let them listen in to real time "pinging".

My honest opinion is a Cl A reservist simply would not be able to gain, and then maintain, the required (multiple) skill sets to make this work.  I'm not talking proficient either, just to even be considered "current".  The only folks I've seen make it work on the Res side are folks that were long time Reg Force and CTd and kept the flying quals going.  Once they dropped them (happened to one Cl A I know) they usually just leave them behind (the pers I'm thinking of works in Sqn Ops now).

The courses are too long and the skill fade is too "immediate".  And, more importantly...if there is a real submerged contact out there...and you're trying to hold it...do you really want your part timers part of the solution?

We haven't event talked about how they are tapping into the signal from a sono XXXX miles away...

Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 01, 2019, 22:20:25
EITS , out of curiosity, why the 235 instead of 295 or even the SAAB Global Express offerings?

We would have to committed to new P-8's first else we might end up with above only!

Not the 235 specifically...'something like that'.  It was just the first one (baby MPA) that came to mind, because I've been next to them/shared airspace with them.

I'm CRA in 2030.  The next RCAF MPA will not be here then...don't hold your breathe on a replacement for the Aurora.  They're just starting to upgrade the fleet to Block 4, and they're doing trials now on one of the aircraft (not a Block 3 or 4...a 'leftover' Block 2 tail) on the new engine/prop config.
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 01, 2019, 22:38:05
If an Aurora/P-8 or Swordfish is out of service you can install the ASW kit into one of the Herc's and shift the sensor operators to the new aircraft.

It's not quite that simple unfortunately.  The aircrew would need to hold qualifications and currencies on both aircraft.  I did that on the Aurora when the fleet was split between Block 2 and 3 aircraft;  it was hard enough when the only (main) difference was the computer systems and sensors.  The only aircrew trade I can think of that maintains 'dual airframe' quals are SAR Techs.

If an Aurora sensor operator flies on a Cyclone...you know what they're allowed to operate?  Nothing.  They hold no quals on that aircraft.  Same if a Cyclone TACCO goes on an Aurora - they are a PAX (Passenger).

Mixed fleets of aircraft = mixed fleets of aircrew and maintainers.  If Canada decided it needed XX number of MPAs...then just get a single fleet of that number.  I'd love to double the amount of aircraft and crews, and we could effectively employ them, no question asked.  Except...the average Canadian doesn't care about ASW...so it's not high on the priority list of the government, either (despite any fairly tale lines in SSE).

In line with the thread....if we're serious about ASW/under water surv of our northern waters, we need under-ice capable subs.  Anything else is...amateur, IMO.  We're missing the best system for ASW up there (IMO).  Guess we will rely on friends with deeper pockets....
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: suffolkowner on December 01, 2019, 23:42:37
Thanks for the info EITS, lots to think about that's for sure.

It sure seems like a "cheaper" ISR platform is a non starter just from the sensor operator standpoint, but we will be adding the king airs so I guess that is our low end?

If the Aurora's can continue to be life extended/upgraded what are we missing by not replacing with the P-8? I would have thought with a 40year old platform we were pushing things
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: GR66 on December 02, 2019, 00:00:28
It's not quite that simple unfortunately.  The aircrew would need to hold qualifications and currencies on both aircraft.  I did that on the Aurora when the fleet was split between Block 2 and 3 aircraft;  it was hard enough when the only (main) difference was the computer systems and sensors.  The only aircrew trade I can think of that maintains 'dual airframe' quals are SAR Techs.

If an Aurora sensor operator flies on a Cyclone...you know what they're allowed to operate?  Nothing.  They hold no quals on that aircraft.  Same if a Cyclone TACCO goes on an Aurora - they are a PAX (Passenger).

Mixed fleets of aircraft = mixed fleets of aircrew and maintainers.  If Canada decided it needed XX number of MPAs...then just get a single fleet of that number.  I'd love to double the amount of aircraft and crews, and we could effectively employ them, no question asked.  Except...the average Canadian doesn't care about ASW...so it's not high on the priority list of the government, either (despite any fairly tale lines in SSE).

In line with the thread....if we're serious about ASW/under water surv of our northern waters, we need under-ice capable subs.  Anything else is...amateur, IMO.  We're missing the best system for ASW up there (IMO).  Guess we will rely on friends with deeper pockets....

Is there any reason that the Auroras/replacements, Swordfish and Herc palletized sensors could not be the same?  Would that not allow the sensor operators to move between airframes? 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Dimsum on December 02, 2019, 00:09:52
Is there any reason that the Auroras/replacements, Swordfish and Herc palletized sensors could not be the same?  Would that not allow the sensor operators to move between airframes?

It's not just the sensors, it's the other things in the aircraft like safety equipment, etc. 

You're qualified on an aircraft type, not the sensor (or whatever equipment).  You then have to maintain those quals on every aircraft type (assuming anyone is qualified on more than one type) which are a mix of flying x hours per month, simulator time, etc. 
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 02, 2019, 13:53:49
And note the Danes and Greenland--and US wanting Danish fighters (F-35As will be replacing F-16s) there [Thule one assumes--under NORAD?]:

Mark
Ottawa

Quote
Now from Danish defence minister with NATO London meeting in mind--no specifics:

Denmark’s defense minister: Shouldering our responsibilities in multiple cooperative frameworks
...


In our region — to the north — the situation in the Arctic is changing rapidly. This is due to climate changes. The opening of the Arctic Sea provides new opportunities. It has also led to increased military presence and interest from Arctic as well as non-Arctic states.

Russia is increasing its military presence. It is our understanding that Russia is still committed to keeping the Arctic a region of low tension. But the military buildup, in particular its offensive elements, is of concern. The increasing interest from China is directed toward access to trade routes and resources. But we should not be naive about China’s strategic interests and the potential security risks of Chinese presence in the region.

Denmark remains committed to the goal of low tension. With this in mind, Denmark will increase its situational awareness in the Arctic and strengthen its presence. We also welcome the increased focus by the U.S. on the security of the north Atlantic and the Arctic...
https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/denmarks-defense-minister-shouldering-our-responsibilities-in-multiple-cooperative-frameworks/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 02, 2019, 17:57:14
Thanks for the info EITS, lots to think about that's for sure.

It sure seems like a "cheaper" ISR platform is a non starter just from the sensor operator standpoint, but we will be adding the king airs so I guess that is our low end?

If the Aurora's can continue to be life extended/upgraded what are we missing by not replacing with the P-8? I would have thought with a 40year old platform we were pushing things

The only KingAirs we're getting in the near future are going to the CANSOF world;  I doubt they will have the sensors or 'task sets' that pertain to maritime warfare.

ISR platform doesn't equate to "effective maritime airpower platform".  Transport Canada, PAL, etc have maritime ISR platforms (DASH 8s, basically) but they are what I'll call above water systems (and *sense* only ones, at that).  True MPAs have to be able to fight in the underwater, surface and air battle spaces, and fit into the 'system of systems'. 

Is it important to have maritime patrol aircraft?  I think so;  just for starts, it's part of our NORAD mission (https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/05/29497).  We also need a sub surface capability.  Personally, I'd rather see Canada procure some under-ice capable subs over a new MPA fleet.  :2c:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: suffolkowner on December 02, 2019, 20:01:34
EITS I was more thinking that the sensor suites/skills would be similar and that transitioning would not be that difficult from say the globaleye/swordfish to the Aurora, and that other "cheaper" platform would take some stress off the Aurora fleet. much like the light fighter discussion and maybe it's the same response from those of you in the know?
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 02, 2019, 21:07:10
Understanding that I'm a line squadron operator, I always want the ability to find, fix and if required, destroy the enemy.

Showing up with a sensor platform that can't reach out and touch is the same, to me, as having a police force that isn't armed.  When they respond to an alarm for a break-in, they can show up and confirm "yup...there's a break-in in progress here", leave and then call the armed cops, who then have to go respond to the crime scene.

Part of the effectiveness of a platform is its 'deterrence' effect.  I mentioned subs;  when they are away from port, would you really know where if they were submerged?  No, so you'd have to assume they are anywhere/everywhere.

Planes have to take off and land and we're actually pretty easy to shadow unless we're under 100% EMCON.  We sorta have to talk to ATC so...

If you have a fleet, make it a fleet of actual MPAs.  We don't have the money and numbers to frig around with un-armed and armed cops.  They should all be armed;  you can't expect the bad guy to sit tight and wait for your armed cops to show up once the "mall cops" have found him.

 :2c:
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Dimsum on December 02, 2019, 23:31:25
Understanding that I'm a line squadron operator, I always want the ability to find, fix and if required, destroy the enemy.

You couldn't have used some alliteration and said "finish" or "f***-up"?   ;D
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 03, 2019, 16:29:13
You couldn't have used some alliteration and said "finish" or "f***-up"?   ;D

I'm only a NCM...I was stretching my literary abilities in that sentence just by using a 4 sill-la-bull word!
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 28, 2020, 16:53:04
Note italicized bits--companies have basically given up on natural gas in Canadian arctic, on land and undersea:
Quote
Russian Arctic shipping up 430 percent in three years
A total of 31,5 million tons of goods was shipped on the Northern Sea Route in 2019.

The goods volumes delivered to and from ports on the Arctic shipping route has never been close to the current level.

According to Nikolay Monko, the Acting Director of the the Northern Sea Route Administration, a total of 31,5 million tons of goods was shipped on the route in 2019. That is an increase of 56,7 percent from 2019, and 150 percent from 2018.

Over the last three years, NSR volumes have hiked by more than 430 percent. The ship traffic on the route is now several times higher than in the Soviet period. The Soviet-era record was set in 1986 when 6,455 million tons was shipped in the area.

It is liquefied natural gas (LNG) that constitutes the lion’s share of the goods volumes [emphasis added]. A total of 20,5 million tons of LNG was sent out from natural gas terminal Sabetta in Yamal, Nikolay Monko told TASS. In addition comes 1,5 million tons of ores sent from Dudinka, company Nornickel’s port on the Yenisey River, and 7,7 million tons from Gazprom Neft’s Novy Port field, news agency Korabel reports.

Transit shipments constitutes only a minor share of the goods [emphasis added]. In 2019, a total of 697,200 tons was shipped from the east to the west or vice versa on the route, an increase of 42 percent from 2018. A total of 37 ships last year made transit voyages across the remote and icy Arctic route.

The Northern Sea Route includes the waters between the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya and the Bering Strait, a distance of about 5,600 km. It is a significant shortcut between markets in Europe and Asia, but is covered by ice major parts of the year and ships need icebreaker escort for maneuvering through the area [emphasis added, a major reason Russia is building all those icebreakers--to advance its economic interests].

(https://thebarentsobserver.com/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/tanker.shturmanskruratov-as.jpg?itok=VQlQyryj)
Ice-class tanker "Shturman Skuratov" is one of the ships carrying oil from Gazprom Neft's Novy Port field in Yamal. Photo: Atle Staalesen

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/02/russian-arctic-shipping-430-percent-three-years

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 15, 2020, 16:16:09
US has not followed up on Arctic FONOPs noises they were making last year, Russia's Northern Sea Route no threat to Suez traffic for at least quite a while to come--start of a post, note legal matters regarding Northwest Passage at end:

Quote
Shipping in Russia's Northern Sea Route no Big Deal for Some Time, Ditto for Northwest Passage

Further to this post,

Quote
Arctic: NW Passage Commercial Shipping Long Way Off/No Shell

here’s a generally sensible piece on Russia and the Arctic (perhaps not published where on might expect to find it):

Quote
Cold truth about Russia’s Arctic ambitions and Northern Sea Route
...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/15/shipping-in-russias-northern-sea-route-no-big-deal-for-some-time-ditto-for-northwest-passage/

(https://mark3ds.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/northern1.png?w=672&h=372&crop=1)

Mark
Ottawa