Military pushing for hovercraft to guard Arctic

[munky99999]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0a7c3bcb-e95d-4285-964f-df701102ec71&k=82295

OTTAWA - Worried about the excessive cost of the Conservative government's plan to build armed icebreakers for the Arctic, military officials are trying to convince Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to instead use less expensive hovercraft or small patrol boats to monitor the entrances to northern waterways.

Resistance is building inside the Defence Department towards some of the Conservatives' military policies, particularly those involving the Arctic, as well as the stationing of a new rapid reaction army battalion in Goose Bay, N.L.

Officers view some of the government's election promises as unworkable or too costly and in some cases have proposed alternatives. For example, in regards to O'Connor's multibillion-dollar plan to purchase armed icebreakers, the navy has countered with suggestions a small fleet of hovercraft or a new class of ice-capable patrol ships might be a more inexpensive option. The hovercraft could be stationed in the Arctic while the ice-capable vessels could patrol near key entrance ways to northern waters, officers said.

They noted O'Connor appears receptive to the idea.

The army also has concerns about the Conservative plan to station troops in Goose Bay. The army is focused entirely on its ongoing mission in Afghanistan and there are questions about where troops for new army units at Goose Bay and other locations would come from.

The Canadian Forces' recruiting system is barely keeping pace with attrition, potentially putting into jeopardy plans to expand the size of the military, Auditor General Sheila Fraser warned in her latest report.

O'Connor's office did not provide comment on the status of the government's Arctic plans. But O'Connor hinted at a May 8 Senate defence committee hearing that the Harper government might be open to altering some of its proposals.

''I have the staff working on Arctic options now,'' he said. ''We may, in the future, end up with a mix of icebreaker and hovercraft or something like that ... or maybe there is another way to do it.''

O'Connor added that ''our vision for the North and sovereignty for the North is at the heart of our (defence) policy.''

But University of Calgary defence analyst Rob Huebert said the military sees its role as mainly conducting overseas operations such as in Afghanistan. The navy, he noted, is worried about diverting financial resources to build the icebreakers the Conservatives promised in the last election.

''And anything that is viewed as taking away from the army's overseas capability is seen as a black hole,'' Huebert said.

He said O'Connor is going to ''have a huge battle on his hands'' in moving forward significant parts of the government's Arctic agenda, particularly with the Afghanistan mission scheduled to continue until 2009. At the same time there is a pressing need to re-equip the military with billions of dollars of modern gear.

A defence think-tank last week released figures that Canada's commitment to Afghanistan since late 2001 has so far cost more than $4 billion.

But Huebert said if the Harper government is serious about protecting Canadian sovereignty in the North it could do the job with a combined force of military personnel, RCMP and members of the coast guard. He noted the coast guard is recognized as one of the most skilled in the world when it comes to ice-breaking operations but various federal governments have severely cut that organization's funding.

International law Prof. Michael Byers, who supports a greater government presence in the Arctic, said the military has never been keen on northern missions. O'Connor can expect to meet a lot of opposition from the defence leadership on his Arctic agenda, he added.

''The capacity of the general officers to slow things down, to flood the agenda with alternatives, is pretty extraordinary,'' said Byers, of the University of British Columbia. ''They will try to 'Yes minister' him.''

He agreed new icebreakers are needed but also said they should be operated by the coast guard.

David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the military leadership is also concerned about the government's plans to station a rapid response battalion in Goose Bay and other units in places like Comox, B.C. He noted there is ''absolutely no military reason to station troops in Goose Bay.''

Rudd said some officers have suggested increasing reserve units in Goose Bay and other locations to deal with the Harper government's election promise.

What is meant when they say “potentially putting into jeopardy plans to expand the size of the military?”

Couldn’t they simply build up some unmanned stations which monitor the air and ground? Wouldn’t that be more efficient? It would definitely cut down on personnel required. Or are they monitoring for something other then an air attack from over the pole?

 

[George Wallace]

Your question leads me to think that you are in the group of people who believe that Air Power is all that is required to defeat an enemy.  By massive aerial bombardment and precision bombing we can destroy and enemy.  These types of people don't realize that Air Power is only one of the Tools of War, and that it along can not defeat an enemy.  It is the man on the ground who will finally do the job.  Until there is a soldier occupying the enemy's territory, no victory has taken place. 

Now think of our Arctic.  Without a doubt there are already sensors covering the Arctic, but sensors are just 'items' left in place.  Men occupy and react to intrusions of these spaces.  Some plan must be in place to occupy or react to the intrusion of our sovereign territory.

 

[Kirkhill]

Amen George.

 

[GAP]

Are existing Hovercraft "up" to dealing in all weather situations in the Artic? I am assuming there are some examples such as the Netherlands, etc that have tried it in littorial waters frequently covered by ice.

 

[munky99999]

Your question leads me to think that you are in the group of people who believe that Air Power is all that is required to defeat an enemy.

HeH. Yes I guess I am. Sure it is true that airpower controls and clears the ground. I do admit that the army is the ones who actually flag it. I would also assume you’d admit that the air force paves the way for the army.

But if I look at the arctic, which I’m probably just ignorant, the ice is very uneven and it’s VERY cold. I wouldn’t expect much of an army moving across it to attack Canada. Navy for sure could happen, but sensors can watch for that and just send some cf-18s to finish them off. Assuming we have anti-ship missiles like the AIM-7 or AGM

 

[Kirkhill]

Not so much Netherlands GAP.  Their littoral waters have been ice free, generally speaking, except for a brief interlude in the late 17th century, early 18th century since the last ice age.

The Scandinavian countries, however, have worked with air cushion vehicles.  The Finns experimented with pure hovercraft but apparently rejected them in favour of conventional patrol boats.  The Norwegians have adopted hybrid vessels that combine an air cushion with a catamaran. The latter machines unfortunately can only operate on water.

The Finns probably rejected the hovercraft due to the cost of operations and the fact that the Baltic is much like the Great Lakes, AFAIK.  It is either iced over or it is free of ice.  Bergs and floes aren't much of a problem during the height of the shipping season so patrol boats are adequate.  

The Russians also have experience operating hovercraft in those waters.

The hovercraft might not be a bad option for the Canadian Arctic though.  It is already proven as a light ice-breaker.  It also has the advantage of being relatively fast at speeds of 60 to 100 km per hour.  It can carry a useful sized boarding party, or crash victims or even an amphibious landng party.  The cost of operating one is quite high, comparable to a helicopter in gas with the additional cost of having to maintain/replace the rubber skirt regularly and its range demands that, like a helicopter, it operates from a home base: either a land base or a patrol vessel.  Much of the work it could do could probably be done by a helicopter.  It does have a couple of decided advantages over the helicopter, when operating in the arctic.  It flies low and thus has less distance to fall.  It floats.  It can beach itself on any available flat surface.  This makes it a much safer proposition.  When the motors stop running their is much more chance of survival.

The hovercraft would have the additional advantage of being able to navigate the land during the summer months up North when much of the littoral turns to mud and ponds.

Finally, Navy or RCMP manned hovercraft could be launched at distances of 100 km or more from a parent platform operated by the Coast Guard, thus limiting the risk to Coast Guard personnel and avoiding the question of whether the ice-breakers (or Arctic Patrol Vessels - APVs?) should be manned by the Coast Guard, the Navy or Naval Reservists.

http://www.griffonhovercraft.com/military.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

Perhaps some combination of a Navy (or RCMP) manned hovercraft and the Svalbard ice vessel (or a Kiwi MRV) might not be a bad option.  Coast Guard APV, Naval Reserve manned hovercraft with RCMP, JTF2, or Militia boarding/landing parties?

 

[Naval Boarding Party]

Folks, you and assume that with the age old model that the Army takes ground but you are all quite off the mark. The Brits, Russians and Americans routinely move about in the Arctic unchallenged. They do this with Nuclear Powered Subs. That is the only way to maintain a presence without freezing your butts off. Nukes can make their own water and air and their endurance is only limited by their crews ability to stuff as much food on board as it can carry.

I liken the arctic to walking across a frozen lake. You never see the trout below. They know you're there and they can track your every movement. You know that they must be there too, you can even have a quick look with a sonar fish finder through a hole in the ice. But, you eventually get too cold and head home. I don't see the Army looking under the ice and maintaining the Sovereignty. Not their job and they are not expected to carry it out.

Nuclear submarines were brought up a number of years ago but the Canadian public do not want to be seen as a nuclear capable superpower. That's what big brother to the south is for. I even worked with a Naval Engineering Officer who was educated as a Nuclear Engineer in anticipation of a Nuclear Submarine program. It never was launched. Political tension I conclude.

So, sending a patrol up North to be escorted/babysat by the Rangers does not exactly entrench our claim to the North. The Brits and Americans (lets not forget the Belgians) simply will not recognize Canada's claim to the Arctic until there is a permanent, recognizable presence by Canadians. Nuclear submarines armed with torpedoes, anti air/ship missiles, combined with an integrated Sonar Under Sea Surveillance both passive and active system will let us meet and greet any who pass through our sovereign territory.

 

[Kirkhill]

munky9999:

Suppose you don't want to vaporize the intruders?  Suppose you want to find out first: who they are; why they are there; will they leave the area; do they need help; will they respect the law enough to allow themselves to be arrested if the situation requires;  will they report to the nearest port?

Might not all of those questions need to be answered before you decide to vaporize them?

The only way to do that is to put boots (or mukluks) on the ground (or deck) in front of them and ask.  And if the questioner's personal artillery (pistol or rifle) isn't enough force to resolve the situation THEN you can have the Air Force bring in the heavy artillery.

 

[Kirkhill]

NBP:

Correct me if I am wrong but while the nukes can stay under the ice in the Beaufort or Baffin Bay (which is seasonally open) the combination of shallow waters and deep ice in the Archipelago actually makes the passage quite dangerous to transit.  It also means that there are relatively few useable transit routes and few entrances and exits.  The difficulty of transiting those waters probably explains the occasional sightings of submarines that would otherwise remain submerged.

We can probably deny the use of the Northwest Passage(s) to subs transiting from the Atlantic to the Arctic without them.  Captive and remote sensors; UAVs and UAVs; Patrol vessels and the Victorias; helicopters and CP-140s, together with captive mines or intelligent torpedoes and the existing ASW capabilites deployed around Davis Strait: all of those together would make the transit a pretty unappealing venture I would think.

On the other hand I will grant that we can't control sub movements in our EEZ of the west coast of the Archipelago in the Arctic Ocean without subs of our own.

 

[GAP]

Kirkhill...thanks for the information. It actually sounds like it could be a viable option, in concert with proper infrastructure. All it takes is the proper planning, acquisition and implementation by whomever is deemed responsible.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're welcome GAP.  Hovercraft have been kind of an enduring interest of mine since Cockerel's SRN1 crossed the English Channel.

Just reading Griffon's blurbs and came across this: 

In the military/paramilitary roles, this size of craft is in service with the British Royal Marines (4 craft), the Swedish Coast Guard (3 craft), Finland Frontier Guard (3 craft), Belgian Army (1 craft), the Estonian Boarder Guard (1 craft) and Lithuanian Border Police (1 craft), Pakistan Navy (4 craft).

It seems that the Finns decided to use some of these hovercraft after all.  As did the Swedes, Estonians and Lithuanians who operate in the same waters.

 

[GAP]

Russia is probably the one country that has closest terrain...what do they use?? anything similar?

 

[Kirkhill]

I am unaware of any Russian hovercraft activity on its North Coast.  AFAIK it concentrated its activities in the field to the Baltic and its internal rivers. 

Despite the difference in latitude (and in complete ignorance of actual sailing conditions in our North beyond what I have seen in the movies) I would guess that vessels sailing in the Arctic Archipelago don't have to worry to much about wave action.  It would seem to me that all that ice and the islands would tend to reduce the ability of the wind to create a sizeable "fetch" necessary to generate high waves.  Chop might be something else again.

Perhaps Colin P or somebody that has actually sailed in the north could weigh in here.

 

[a_majoor]

Hovercraft would make a nice suppliment to other systems, and have certain advantages in the sort of terrain you would encounter in the far north all year round, but given their performance and maintainence chatacteristics, they can be considered really large, low flying helicopters. If we want real presence, we should be considering an airborn battalion stationed in the far north with planes capable of taking off and landing from very austere airfields.

If someone/something is in our far north, this sort of reaction force can fly out and jump or land (depending on the conditions and urgency) troops quickly to take a look and find out what is going on. If there is something, the troops can take appropriate action, from talking to whoever they find, taking direct action or calling for help. Once they are done, they can march, dogsled, snomobile or drive BV 206 or other over snow vehicles (depending on what they dropped or landed with) to the nearest landing field and await pickup. (Or a hovercraft can come and get them).

Why a battalion? This gives the ability to cover multiple incidents and a reserve in case an operation needs to be ongoing for an extended period. As well, since the far north is pretty hard on men and equipment, this would ensure you really do have enough functioning soldiers to make a viable presence. If we have an expanded Airborn capability, we could create a battalion sized "Task Force" by rotating companies from the LIBs, the potential Airborn Battalion and CSOR into the north for tours.

 

[GAP]

Kirkhill: Having lived in Churchill for a number of years, that's wrong. There is no shortage of waves and a constant wind. The trees in Churchill do not have limbs on the north side, due to the scouring action of the wind blowing ice crystals. Even painting a house only lasts one year before it is scoured off, that's largely why photos of the northern towns, etc look so dowdy..the wind actually scours them back to the rustic flavour.

I have visited the more remote, northern communities, but not enough to know about land/ice conditions for ships/hovercraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

GAP:  Thanks for correcting my assumption on waves. 

On the other hand some larger hovercraft can handle conditions of up to Sea State 4.

I apologise for dominating this thread, but as I say I have been fascinated by this topic for years.

Back in 1997 an organization calling itself Hoverquest, Inc.  tried to raise funds for an arctic expedition using two Griffon hovercraft:  a 1500 and a 2500 model.  I gather from looking at Griffons literature that these models have been superseded.  However the 2000 and the 3000 are in a similar size range.

The expedition route was to be Yellowknife, down the MacKenzie, to Inuvik and Tuktoyuktuk, to Paulatuk, Coppermine, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Spence Bay and Resolute.

The projected rate of advance was 300 miles per day with a total transit time of 4 to 7 days.   The expedition cost was estimated at 2.4-3.0 MCAD (including the price of the hovercraft).  AFAIK they are still looking for funding.

The Griffon 1500: 16 passengers, 33'x13'x9', 1x192 HP, 30 kts, 7 Imp Gals of diesel per hour with a 60 Imp Gal tank resulting in an endurance of about 8 hours and a range of less than 400 km one way.



The Griffon 2500: 30 passengers, 45'x16'x12', 2x192 HP, 30 kts, 13 Imp Gals of diesel per hour with a 90 Imp Gal tank resulting in an endurance of about 7 hours and a range of less than 350 km one way.

Presumably larger tanks could be installed.

And a_majoor:

I agree with your analysis that the hovercraft might be seen as a "low-flying helicopter".  As I noted this makes it safer and perhaps more likely to be available when needed.  It would be a useful logistical adjunct to your Airborne battalion (an idea I don't disagree with but apparently stationing troops in areas without Timmies is not an operationally viable concept for the CF).  It would also give the Navy/CG/RCMP a potential working vessel for patrols/intercepts.

 

[GAP]

I don't find you dominating the thread other than with good info.

Why are we not considering what they use in Antarctica? There was some use of hovercraft down there, I think by the British. I'm probably out to lunch on that, but chewing all that aluminum has it's effect on the memory.

 

[Kirkhill]

There was a British outfit called the Interservice Hovercraft Trials Unit back in the 1960s that trialled hovercraft in virtually every environment known to man ( with the possible exception of Mount Everest).  Those trials included the Canadian arctic, along with tropical rivers, deltas and IIRC the Sahara desert.  No doubt there are more up to date and relevant trials involving DND, the CG and even oil companies that could be examined.

Some of the IHTU trials might have included Antarctica as well.  Do you have any links or references?

 

[GAP]

No, I'm searching now at work, but keep getting pulled away. All I have at the moment is a decrepit memory. I am thinking along the lines of the approach the USMC used to develop their landing craft..must be based on something for them to spend the big $$

 

[GAP]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/lcac.htm

The LCAC is capable of carrying a 60 ton payload (up to 75 tons in an overload condition) at speeds over 40 knots. Fuel capacity is 5000 gallons. The LCAC uses an average of 1000 gallons per hour. Maneuvering considerations include requiring 500 yards or more to stop and 2000 yards or more turning radius. The LCAC, like all "hovercraft," rides on a cushion of air. The air is supplied to the cushion by four centrifugal fans driven by the craft's gas turbine engines. The air is enclosed by a flexible skirt system manufactured of rubberized canvas. Unlike the Surface Effect Ship (SES), no portion of the LCAC hull structure penetrates the water surface; the entire hull rides approximately four feet above the surface.

LCAC operates in waters regardless of depth, underwater obstacles, shallows or adverse tides. It can proceed inland on its air cushion, clearing obstacles up to four feet, regardless of terrain or topography), including mud flats, sand dunes, ditches, marshlands, riverbanks, wet snow, or slippery and icy shorelines. Equipment, such as trucks and track vehicles, can disembark via ramps located both forward and aft, there by shortening critical off load time.