# Military pushing for hovercraft to guard Arctic



## munky99999 (23 May 2006)

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.
> 
> ...



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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

Amen George.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

> 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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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 (23 May 2006)

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

Similar situation here: Must get back to work.  Therefore I will close for a while with this posting:



> Estonian Border Guards to Get New Hovercraft
> 
> Apr 29 - Border guards working in the region of Lake Peipsi on the Estonian-Russian border will get a second hovercraft by the end of this year, in accordance with an agreement signed with the British manufacturer.
> The roughly nine-million-kroon (EUR 0.58 mln) agreement was signed by the Interior Ministry, the Border Guard Board and Griffon Hovercraft Ltd. The manufacturer will provide crews of the new hovercraft with the necessary training.
> ...



http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_137/aken_prindi/7489.html

This sounds to be the Griffon 1000 TD (1+12 passengers), slightly smaller than the 1500 TD (1+16 passengers).  580,000 Euros is roughly equal to 850,000 CAD.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

Futher to my previous post:



> Objectives for tests in Alaska in March 1992 included evaluating all operational effectiveness and suitability concerns of multiple LCAC in an arctic environment. LCAC was neither operationally effective or suitable for arctic operations, and merely correcting the cold weather kit design would not be sufficient to conclude that LCAC was operationally effective and suitable in an arctic environment. Performance in opposed scenarios and in severe cold weather conditions would be necessary to fully evaluate LCAC performance. DOT&E recommended further operational testing. Developmental tests indicated that at colder temperatures engine power increases until gearbox torque limits capability, but icing and sea state would reduce that capability. Since then, LCAC has been used in two arctic exercises, one of which included operations in weather down to 15oF and realistic sortie rates. Based on this exercise, DOT&E concluded that further operational testing would not be necessary. LCAC demonstrated the ability to travel over light ice and open water, in fairly calm seas. The distance traveled per sortie ranged from 3-10 miles each way. Icing, which occurred in some conditions, also requires periodic interruption of missions to remove ice. JP-5 fuel was used, which alleviated problems with filters clogging.



uhh...back to the drawing board...can't find anything that says they solved this problem yet.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

Guess I just can't quit: ;D

Here's one of the Canadian Coast Guard's hovercraft.   Built in Wheatley, ON and operated on the St. Lawrence in the winter.  Perhaps they have a better handle on the icing thing.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessels-navires/results_details_e.asp?name=SIPU+MUIN
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/marine/1999/m99w0116/m99w0116.asp

Another thing about those LCACs, they use those gas-turbines so beloved by the Americans instead of a nice, reliable diesel like the Coast Guard and Griffon use.

By my figuring Griffon's diesels lift 2 tonnes for 7 hours with something like 90 Imp Gals of Diesel or approx. 0.3 Tonne-Hours/Imp. Gal,  while the LCAC lifts 60 Tonnes for 4 hours with 4000 Imp Gal (5000 US Gal) of JP5  or 0.06 Tonne-Hours/Imp. Gal.  On that basis the diesel is something like 5 times more efficient in the application than the Gas-Turbine.



 community.webshots.com/ album/133075018nfYmUA  image below from this location.


----------



## Enzo (23 May 2006)

Combining operations with the CG/RCMP seems to be the best place to start. I like the notion of such cooperation. Everyone should sit down, identify the needs and then present their list of toys. See what we come up with. I also like the idea of domestic innovations having an opportunity to shine, don't we build vehicles anymore? Maybe we can come up with a homegrown solution.

As an aside, what about airships?

http://www.21stcenturyairships.com/
http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/file/DBC2883CAEB5E6A187257131005F2208/$file/weu03.10.06.htm
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/

I'm just musing aloud, more for discussions sake. Bear in mind, I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about.  :


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

> I'm just musing aloud, more for discussions sake. Bear in mind, I haven't a clue as to what I'm talking about.



That makes a bunch of us.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2006)

Well I got to spend 9 years working on our west coast Hovercrafts. They are good niche machines and give you some advantages over displacement craft.

I would not recommend the Griffons, generally to small and they don’t stand up well to green water impacts. 

Our first hovercrafts were the SRN-5 & 6. The 6 being a longer version of the 5 which was the same as used in Vietnam by the US. They were powered by a 1100hp RR gnome gas turbine with power split between the lift fan and propeller. In fact one of our hovercraft CG 045 spent a good chunk of it’s life in the Arctic doing Seismic work before we got it.

Now we are running 2 AP1-88 400’s one on each coast and 2 API-88 200 one on each coast. Here is some detail information on the 2 west coast craft.

 http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/fleetinfo/penac_e.htm

http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/fleetinfo/siyay_e.htm

The AP1-88 400 can carry a fully loaded fire pumper truck, or a crane or have a shelter over well deck to carry passengers (troops)

The plus side is that they can take fairly heavy sea states, we regularly had to go through 10-12’ surf to get back to our base. They do not generally detonate mines, can land at most beaches and the are large enough to have a decent range and are fairly good on the crews.

The downside is that they are more maintenance heavy than a ship, especially the skirt takes a real beating going over ice, beaches, rocks. We were also disappointed with the Cats, there was a lot of failures of the peripheral equipment attached to them. They will need a base to operate from and can only operate away from that base for so long, they are also not cheap, I seem to remember 7 million each, but I could be wrong. The good news is that the class is now proven. Arming them would take some doing and would likely reduce their other abilities if you were going for anything bigger than 20mm.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

What about winter artic conditions? Were they tried to any extent in the artic. Did you get any feedback on difficulties they had while doing the sesmic work? The USMC ones quoted having difficulty with icing and reduced performace, did yours?


----------



## couchcommander (23 May 2006)

re: the armament - what could we feasibly put on these things for anti-ship/anti-air?

Is it even possible to give them an anti-submarine capability? 

(I have no idea.... that's why I am asking)?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

In Finnish service she was known as the Tuuli and was an LCAC derivative.

In the 70s Vosper Thornycroft came up with a number of Patrol derivatives although they were never put into production AFAIK.

These are not long endurance platforms.  They are useful for point-to-point missions, as Colin P says, operating from a base.

The largest hovercraft was the Saunders Roe SRN4 which displaced 310 tonnes and carried 418 passengers and 60 cars across the English Channel (22 miles) at 50 knots.

Think of them as something between a landing craft and an old fashioned Motor Torpedo/Gun Boat or Fast Patrol Boat.  Light guns and missiles up to Sea Sparrow and Harpoons.



> Aker Finnyards win contract to build hovercraft
> 09-July-99
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


http://www.akerfinnyards.com/press.cfm?ID=27


Interesting that the build yard is the same company (Aker) that seems to be at the front of so much ice technology (Svalbard again, Double ended tankers) as well as patrol vessels.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 May 2006)

While the running assumption through this thead seems to be that hovercraft could be used as a theat response deployment vehicle, one aspect that has not been brought up is the hovercraft's vulnerability.

I expect most COTS hovercraft have a fine power to weight (+payload) balance.  What will be the likely reduction in payload to add sufficient armour for even a low threat environment (SAA?).  If they are too vulnerable they become a liability, either unable to get into an area, or unlikely to return.  Add protection, payload drops, as well as range, endurance and lifecycle.  Increase number of machines, or use larger machines, to compensate, and targets (for the threat force) increase in number and/or size. 

Just beating the weather conditions may not be enough for hovercraft to be a viable solution.


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 May 2006)

Out of curiosity, how far north do the posters here think that sovereignty should be enforced?  I ask because in the past several countries have failed to recognize Canada's sovereignty north of 80 degrees and others still contest that the northwest passage is a sea route open to all countries. (There are also other disputes over the Dixon Entrance and other key areas along Canadian west and east coasts).

Examples: (ISUMA Dec 2001)
http://www.isuma.net/v02n04/huebert/huebert_e.shtml:

The melting of the ice that covers the Northwest Passage gives rise to questions about the impact this has on Canadian claims of sovereignty. There is no question about the status of the land territory that comprises the Canadian Arctic archipelago. All conflicting land claims were settled in the 1930s,[ 10 ] with the sole exception of a dispute over the ownership of a small island between Baffin Island and Greenland named Hans Island. The government of Denmark contests the Canadian claim of ownership. The only relevance of this claim is its impact on the determination of the maritime boundary line between Canada and Greenland in the Davis Strait. Canadian claims of sovereignty of its Arctic areas with respect to maritime boundaries have resulted in three disputes. Canada disagrees with both the United States and Denmark over the maritime boundaries that border Alaska and Greenland respectively. Neither dispute will be influenced by reduced ice conditions.

It is a third dispute, concerning Canada’s claim over the international legal status of the Northwest Passage, which will be adversely affected by a reduction of ice cover in the Passage. The Canadian government’s official position is that the Northwest Passage is Canadian historical internal waters. This means that Canada assumes full sovereignty over the waters and thereby asserts complete control over all activity within them. The Government of Canada’s most comprehensive statement to this end was made by then Secretary of State for External Affairs, Joe Clark, in the House of Commons on September 10, 1985. In that declaration, he included the following statement:

Canada’s Sovereignty in the Arctic is indivisible. It embraces land, sea, and ice. It extends without interruption to the seaward-facing coasts of the Arctic Islands. These Islands are joined and not divided by the waters between them. They are bridged for most of the year by ice. From time immemorial Canada’s Inuit people have used and occupied the ice as they have used and occupied the land.[ 11 ]

*The United States and the European Union position is that, contrary to Canadian claims, the Northwest Passage is an international strait. The Americans in particular do not accept the argument that ice cover makes a difference for the international legal definition of an international strait. The Americans have always maintained that the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Strait of Corfu case is applicable for the Northwest Passage. In that case, the Court ruled that an international strait is a body of water that joins two international bodies of water, and has been used by international shipping.[ 22 ] The United States argues that the Northwest Passage joins two international bodies of water and has been used for international shipping, albeit a very small number of transits.*

Trivia - In 1999, the first non-American passage (note - surface vessel)  for commercial shipping purposes took place when a Russian company sold a floating dry dock based in Vladivostok. Its new owners decided to move the dock to Bermuda. With the aid of a Russian icebreaker and an ocean-going tug, the dry dock was successfully towed through the Passage. This use of the Passage to avoid storms in the open ocean demonstrated its advantage for international shipping should the ice be reduced. The fact that the dry dock was then almost lost in a storm off Newfoundland seemed to confirm the benefits of sheltered waters of the Passage route.Also in 1999, a Chinese research vessel visited Tuktoyaktuk. While the Canadian embassy in Beijing had been informed of the Chinese plan to send a vessel to the western Arctic, local Canadian authorities were not informed. Consequently, local officials were considerably surprised when the Chinese arrived in Tuktoyaktuk. The voyage of the Chinese vessel demonstrated the limited Canadian surveillance capabilities. Canadian officials did not learn of the vessel’s entry into Canadian waters until it actually arrived.
The U.S. Navy has begun to examine the issue of conducting surface vessel operations in Arctic waters. In April 2001, the U.S. Navy organized a symposium on the subject. This strongly suggests that it perceives the possibility of an ice-free Arctic where it may be required to operate and has begun to give the subject serious thought.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

> Out of curiosity, how far north do the posters here think that sovereignty should be enforced?



How far North do we claim?  Isn't the answer to one, the answer to both Centurian1985?  Our claim is only as good as our ability to enforce the claim.



> Just beating the weather conditions may not be enough for hovercraft to be a viable solution.



That is true.  But in the constabulary role the Mounties are using unarmoured catamarans, and other nations are using thin-skinned fast patrol boats.  Also the LCAC is used operationally by the USMC as a landing craft.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 May 2006)

Here's a thought: rather than planning to deal with any percieved threats, why not be the ones who actually place the threat in the arctic? An armed icebreaker is no real deterrent-it is a platform to slowly react to an incursion. What we ought to do is raise the stakes so bloody high that nobody would risk antagonizing us over the arctic.  

But then again, we took ourselves out of the pro-active defence business a long time ago.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

Or is an armed ice-breaker a "mobile" platform on which you can mount a threat?


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 May 2006)

Probably. The kind of threat I'm thinking of is the kind you don't want to be anywhere near when it goes "boom" before Miller Time.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

Miller Time - I'll have a Kilkenny Cream.


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 May 2006)

I'm sorry but you've given me some silly mental images; I'm seeing an icebreaker with a deck gun plowing at a breakneck speed of about 3 knots through the ice and yelling at a foreign vessel in Canadian waters to 'prepare to be boarded'.  

You still haven't clarified 1) who do you want to keep out and 2) what waters or ice-bound areas are you trying to protect?  

Are you implying that we should take up an armed position with armed ships to block the US from using the NWP?

This all falls under operational management, guidance and planning.  If the government wants to declare territorial sovereignty they have to actually dedicate some money and create forces to defend the territory, something which our government has yet to do, and cannot be done with the purchase of a few icebreakers or the placement of a land-based unit.              

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1755765,00.html (18Apr06)
A dispute between the US and Canada over rights to shipping lanes through the North-West Passage flared up again this year, with Canada promising to step up its military presence to protect what it regards as its territory and the US sees as international waters. Norway and Russia are squabbling over the Barents Sea, while Denmark is eyeing the north pole itself.  International law allows a country to claim the seabed up to 350 miles off its coast, which is judged from the edge of its continental shelf. Existing surveys show that no country's shelf extends far enough to give it a claim on the pole, so a neutral area around it is administered by the International Seabed Authority. To get round this, Denmark is trying to prove that Greenland - a Danish territory - is connected to a 1,100-mile underwater ridge that stretches towards the pole. Launching the effort in 2004, the Danish science minister, Helge Sander, said it was to give Denmark access to "new resources such as oil and natural gas". Canada and Russia are trying to make similar claims and it could take years to sort out.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2006)

Here's the Northwest passage...that's some inhospitable land out there!!

Everything aside...nobody has spelled out exactly what it is we are defending from...unauthorized passage, military passage excursions, invasion, or territorial claims. I would think each of these listed (and probably a whole lot not listed) require different specific equipment to perform.


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2006)

As has been said, who or what exactly are we defending against?

Unauthorized incursions, violations of environmental regulations, claim jumping of oil or mineral deposits are really an RCMP/Coast guard thing. Even creating an airborn Task Force stationed in the high Arctic is really only a means of having a readily available "first responder" unit, since neither the RCMP or Coast Guard have well developed parachute capabilities. On the other hand, since we would like to be able to have someone physically present to observe the situation and have the ability to take action, a force configured to be able to jump in or land at austere landing zones would be able to rapidly cover a large land area like the arctic.

Hovercraft are just another way of getting around, we should be talking about snowshoes, skis, dogsleds, snowmobiles and BV-206's as well, since these are all proven and viable means of transportation. Realistically, hovercraft could be used to pick up and deliver a team of troops/constables with their transportation, but does it really offer that much of an improvement over a Chinook or transport aircraft?

Hovercraft have horrible fuel economy (especially the turbine powered ones), and are difficult to control, unless you have dodges like a surface piercing hull (the Surface Effect Ship or SES), or have wheels to provide steering and traction (hovercraft "trucks" which use the hovercraft feature to reduce ground pressure when carrying heavy objects or driving over very soft ground). They are useful in special niches, like getting 60 tons of military hardware from ship to shore post hast (the old USSR had hovercraft large enough to deliver mechanized infantry including BTR 60 APC's and PT-76 light tanks in platoon and company sized formations from ship to shore), but I don't think this is actually what is needed for Arctic Sovereignty missions.


----------

