Author Topic: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty  (Read 316479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,086
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #575 on: August 27, 2019, 12:59:17 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 197
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #576 on: August 27, 2019, 13:44:55 »
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?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,086
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #577 on: November 23, 2019, 14:09:57 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,086
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #578 on: November 28, 2019, 12:16:59 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #579 on: November 28, 2019, 12:43:10 »
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.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,086
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #580 on: December 01, 2019, 11:12:44 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 304,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,806
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #581 on: December 01, 2019, 11:17:29 »
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/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 197,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,812
  • Freespeecher
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #582 on: December 01, 2019, 11:33:11 »
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....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 304,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,806
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #583 on: December 01, 2019, 12:01:25 »
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.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 63,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 704
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #584 on: December 01, 2019, 12:33:50 »
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

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 523,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,087
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #585 on: December 01, 2019, 14:05:33 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 168,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,865
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #586 on: December 01, 2019, 14:51:13 »
Not the craziest idea I have read, today...

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 63,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 704
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #587 on: December 01, 2019, 15:26:10 »
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.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 304,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,806
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #588 on: December 01, 2019, 15:27:29 »
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'...
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 523,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,087
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #589 on: December 01, 2019, 15:30:17 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,288
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #590 on: December 01, 2019, 15:44:56 »
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.   

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,295
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #591 on: December 01, 2019, 16:39:28 »
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 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'...
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 16:47:54 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 216,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,976
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #592 on: December 01, 2019, 17:37:22 »
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".
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 399
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #593 on: December 01, 2019, 18:36:34 »
**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 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!

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 63,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 704
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #594 on: December 01, 2019, 20:43:00 »
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 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. 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,295
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #595 on: December 01, 2019, 21:17:22 »
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...

« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 21:55:26 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,295
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #596 on: December 01, 2019, 21:20:25 »
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.
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,295
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #597 on: December 01, 2019, 21:38:05 »
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....
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 21:42:20 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 399
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #598 on: December 01, 2019, 22:42:37 »
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

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 63,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 704
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #599 on: December 01, 2019, 23:00:28 »
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?