# Forces may ice ships



## JasonH (20 Apr 2006)

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces is reviewing its shopping list to find extra funds to pay for expensive Tory priorities.

A top officer involved in the large-scale review of equipment said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's military spending priorities, especially icebreakers, are proving to be significantly more costly than the Conservatives expected.

The officer said that engineers are conducting a feasibility study and it's thought that the cost will be so high they'll have to recommend against them.

During the election campaign, Harper promised Canadian shipyards would build military icebreakers.

But the senior officer said not only do Canadian shipyards not have the experience needet would not discuss the nature os of polar ice will require mammoth ships with a huge pricetag. 

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/04/20/1542044-sun.html


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

> The officer said that engineers are conducting a feasibility study and it's thought that the cost will be so high they'll have to recommend against them.



There is always that solution.  Make the price tag so high that it is impossible to do.  I guess it is always better to do nothing than do something less than the ideal.  Especially if you don't want to do it in the first place. I wonder how the BHS is coming along.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2006)

Well, IMHO, this is a waste of time anyway.  Large icebreakers for the Navy could well be a boondoggle of epic proportions.  The Navy (again IMHO) needs to be able to operate globally and ships built for a single purpose and a single geographic area dramatically reduce flexibility.

This potential task really belongs to the Coast Guard - not the Navy.  There's no potential enemy in the Arctic (unless you're counting Denmark...heh) and we already have an organization that performs icebreaking tasks quite well - along with showing the flag.

If we're going to assert Arctic sovereignty, why not build - at much lower cost - a permanent Arctic Warfare training centre and invite our Allies to come and use it?


----------



## Haggis (20 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> If we're going to assert Arctic sovereignty, why not build - at much lower cost - a permanent Arctic Warfare training centre and invite our Allies to come and use it?



Stop making sense!  It contradicts your profile "faceless bureaucrat".


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

> The Navy (again IMHO) needs to be able to operate globally and ships built for a single purpose and a single geographic area dramatically reduce flexibility.



Agreed that the Navy needs to operate globally - so why are their ships built so that they can't operate in our own waters as well as ice free waters?

The JSS is/was at least a nod to the Arctic in that it is/was ice-strengthened.  That would make it that much more capable of asserting a military presence than anything else in the fleet.

Only trouble is now you have a support vessel that can travel farther than any vessels it is likely to support.

The Svalbard that Blackshirt and I mentioned is not a Class 8 polar breaker such as Mulroney proposed for the Coast Guard.  It couldn't punch through Barrow Strait in the dead of winter but so what?

It is a stand-alone platform that can move farther North than anything the Navy currently has and with a DNV ice class of *1A1 it would be able to move farther and stay on station longer that either the Danish Thetis class frigates that are limited to 80 cm ice or the ice-strengthened trawlers currently fishing up Baffin Bay.  The Kiwis MRV is also ice-strengthened and would be an interesting alternative.  Either vessel could move farther up Baffin Bay than the CPFs which, as I understand it, can only safely make it as far north as Iqaluit.

At 80 MUSD apiece, (built in Norwegian yards admittedly) it seems like a much cheaper bet than MGSs that the Armoured Corps doesn't want or Tanks that the Government won't deploy.

In addition such vessels could be used outside of ice-infested waters on international deployments.  If the MCDVs can then these surely could.  Both the Kiwis and the Norwegians intend to use them that way.

Actually I don't particularly mind who the devil operates vessels for Canada.  I just want somebody willing to operate a vessel that can keep up with foreign fishermen in our backyard and not back off when a rifle appears on deck and that can see off the vessels of other "visiting" foreign nations that may be inclined to support them.  If the Navy doesn't want the job then fine.  Unfortunately it seems that the Coasties don't want the job either.  Maybe they should be given too the Mounties.

As to the Arctic Training Base, well, I agree with that too.  In fact I would go so far as to suggest that a permanent facility at Resolute with helicopters would be an interesting adjunct/alternative to the ice-strengthened vessels and could supply a reaction capability that would ease the design requirements on the vessels - assuming the weather co-operated.

Frankly this is a bigger problem - and it is not just a military problem nor is it just a Canadian problem.  While in general principle I agree with civil authority deciding "what" and the professionals in the military deciding "how" I have seen too often, not in Canadian military circles but in other environments, "professionals" preparing cases to prove that what is asked of them is impossible.

It is all too easy to design a system that can do all, be everything, create zero-pollution and employ nobody/everybody (according to the whim of the day) and be risk-free.  The issue then becomes that nobody can afford it.  The project gets scratched and nothing changes.

In the meantime incremental improvements and changes with manageable risks are ignored.  The Best truly is the enemy of Better.

Companies go broke because of this.  The environment doesn't improve because of this.  And, apparently, militaries stand pat because of this.

Cheers.


----------



## Sapper41 (20 Apr 2006)

First off Staff officers are not suppose to say can't, they are there to provide courses of action.  

That being said, it would have been a lot cheaper in retrospect to have nuclear subs than can patrol the north 24 and 7.  The current MND seems to be kinda old school, trying to solve cold war issues almost twenty years after the fact (just wait for your posting to CFB Goosebay).  I just hope that our new and eager federal government doesn't derail the CDS's priorities.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

> First off Staff officers are not suppose to say can't, they are there to provide courses of action.



Agreed Sapper41,  but as someone guilty of the crime myself, I can tell you that you can frame the solutions in such a fashion as to lead to a preferred conclusion.   :-[

I don't know if breakers are the right answer. I don't know if the Conservatives thought they could buy Class 8 capability at row boat prices.  

I do THINK that there is a need for some sort of vessel to maintain a presence during the navigation season at least and that is prepared to be at least as forceful in dealing with interlopers as the Mounties, DFO and the Navy have been elsewhere in the past.

My sense, my belief if you will, is that the Coast Guard, like their brethren in Customs/Border Security, are conflicted because previous governments have stuck civil servants (customs and navigation types) together with "law enforcement officers" (DFO and ... sorry analogy falls apart, I don't think we ever had a border law enforcement presence beyond, perhaps, the Mounties).

'pologies to all for strong tone of earlier post.

Cheers.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2006)

> First off Staff officers are not suppose to say can't, they are there to provide courses of action.



Oh?  Spent a lot of time on the Staff, have you?  Staff officers don't say "no" to subordinate commanders - they possess no authority - however, when something contradicts issued direction (or common sense) "can't" can be a reasonable answer.

Kirkhill:  nothing you have said - and you raise some good and detailed points - has convinced me of a requirement for a permanent naval (the distinction is important) presence in the North.  Again, aside from esoteric "sovereignty" issues, what's the threat?  American submarines?  Lay a remote operated SOSUS system.  Encroachments from the Danes?  Seriously?  If we have an identifyable threat and a rational plan for dealing with it, fine.  But as it is, I just can't support something that appears to me to be a politically-driven attempt to assert a nebulous "sovereignty" in the face of the electorate's skepticism of Conservative loyalties.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

Teddy:

I am willing to stipulate that the force in the north does not have to be naval, nor does it have to be permanent (as opposed to seasonal and not occasional).  However I think we fundamentally disagree on the "esoteric" nature of the challenge to Canadian sovereignty.  

I agree that there is not a noteworthy military "threat". If it is improbable that Canada would fire on a US submarine if it found one it is equally improbable that a US submarine would fire on Canada.

However the threat is not military it is commercial.  And if you do not enforce your commercial law, or your criminal law for that matter, then you diminish your claim to ownership.

Canada has issues with respect to fishing in contested waters (Flemish Cap and the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks) and has demonstrated a willingness in the past to do what other countries have. 
They have used armed force to press the rights of their fishermen.  

Fishermen from Europe are fishing up Davis Strait and Baffin Bay.  Greenlanders are apparently hunting on our northern islands.  Danes are actively looking for resources in their north.  In each and every case, if we don't challenge then we condone.  If we do challenge and the prize is worth the effort then it is not unknown for foreign governments to support their citizens over "trivial" matters.
The actual flash point in the Falklands case was actually some scrap metal dealers removing material without permission and being arrested by a government whose authority they didn't recognize.

Maybe it isn't the Navy's job, although the navies of Britain, Denmark and Norway, amongst others, all seem to feel that EEZ patrols are their responsibility.  Maybe it should be the role of the Coast Guard as it is in the US but our Coast Guard isn't founded on the same principles.  It is not a military or para-military force.  Much of it doesn't even see itself as a police force.

Such issues may seem trivial or "esoteric" and "nebulous"  to you but they don't to the Canadian fishermen, or even Inuit hunters, that rely on their government to hold foreigners to the same laws that they themselves are required to obey.  And if the problem doesn't seem imminent to you remember that the Danes and Norwegians have been working those waters for the best part of 1000 years.  Their time sense might be a bit different than our own.

So if not the Navy and not the Coast Guard then who?

Yours aye.

PS perhaps you could clarify this:



> But as it is, I just can't support something that appears to me to be a politically-driven attempt to assert a nebulous "sovereignty" in the face of the electorate's skepticism of Conservative loyalties.



I am afraid I don't follow.  Are the Conservatives' loyalties suspect? 

And Sherwood, I will see your 5 and raise you a minute. But it will take 3 days for me to tell you about it.  ;D

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2006)

> PS perhaps you could clarify this:
> 
> _But as it is, I just can't support something that appears to me to be a politically-driven attempt to assert a nebulous "sovereignty" in the face of the electorate's skepticism of Conservative loyalties._
> 
> I am afraid I don't follow.  Are the Conservatives' loyalties suspect?



Sure, no problem.  IMHO, the late addition of icebreakers and a port facility in Nunavut to the Conservative defence platform were designed to reassure a skeptical Canadian public that the party took the "threat" of US encroachment seriously and that it was not tied too closely to the Bush administration.  In a similar vein, Harper delivered a stinging rebuke to the US ambassador over Northern maritime sovereignty about two days after taking charge, again to show "independence".

I wasn't accusing anyone of actually having misplaced loyalties...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2006)

Protect it or lose it, if the North becomes valuable to someone, they will challenge our claim and we have worked hard over the years to weaken it, because everyone said it will cost to much, well the birds are coming home to roost and the piper wants to be paid.

The navy can lease a light icebreaker (like the CCG did with the Terry fox), put a Bofers and some 12.7mm MG’s on it. Paint it grey and man with a mixed crew of Regular and reservists with a small group of CCG Officer used to Arctic operations. This will get us into the game quickly and build up the expertise needed.

The Navy can’t ignore the North any longer, The CCG would need to be totally revamped to take on the same roles as the navy and has neither the ships, men, mandate or will to do it. The Navy had an Icebreaker, so it is not a unique situation. It also won’t need to be a Polar 8 (big, big bucks) but at best a Polar 4 (similar to the CCG Radison and Henery Larson).


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

Thanks for the clarification TR.

As to the "late addition" of the icebreakers I could have sworn that the icebreakers were announced in Winnipeg, before Christmas, just shortly after the Trenton announcement about the Airborne Regiment and as part of a general package of measures focused on the arctic, including an arctic training centre.  December 23 strikes a chord.

Must be my memory slipping.

Cheers.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2006)

> As to the "late addition" of the icebreakers I could have sworn that the icebreakers were announced in Winnipeg, before Christmas, just shortly after the Trenton announcement about the Airborne Regiment and as part of a general package of measures focused on the arctic, including an arctic training centre.  December 23 strikes a chord.



Meh, you're probably right.  I stopped paying a huge amount of attention as soon as I heard "rapid reaction battalion" and "Goose Bay" in the same sentence...   I _still_ voted Conservative, though!


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2006)

Kirkhill: 22 December 2005.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/36512

Coast Guard icebreakers (they now operate them for Canada) will be perfectly adequate for any sovereignty assertion purposes.  And the CCG needs new icebreakers.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2006)

MarkOttawa: Thanks

As I stated earlier I'm not really bothered who operates the Breakers/Patrol Vessels, just so long as they are willing to challenge foreigners breaking our laws.  I also think that the Navy should at least have some sort of ability to move an armed vessel into Northern Waters in support of such vessels.  If that could be done by double-hulling and strengthening a CPF then "fill yer boots".

Otherwise building an "ice-breaker" manned by the Navy seems to solve the problem as well.

And TR,  WRT the Conservatives, if we're wrong then we will both get the opportunity to repent in the future.  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Aug 2006)

Give the Canadian Coast Guard the icebreakers for the Arctic and the Canadian Space Agency some satellites:

Arctic sovereignty's trapped in a policy ice jam (full text not online)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060817.wxconorth17%2FBNStory%2FspecialComment%2Fhome&ord=1155832617128&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true




> Canada claims to be a northern nation, but its attention is clearly on the south. That means northern issues -- protecting our sovereignty there is only one of many -- get pushed to the back. And the price tag for the resources to protect our sovereignty is often too great for one department or agency to handle: A single icebreaker, depending on size, equipment and capabilities, can easily range from $300-million to $700-million. That means many key departments, although they support protecting Arctic sovereignty, cannot afford the capital-intensive program it will take...
> 
> The problem with waiting for the challenges to Arctic sovereignty to become clear and immediate is that the equipment needed to defend Canadian sovereignty cannot be acquired quickly. Given the Canadian track record, it will take 10 to 20 years to get many of the tools -- such as new icebreakers, more satellites -- that we will need...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2006)

The rust out of the CCG ships has been an issue and there are rumbling about a new build program in the works.

The navy can lease a light ice-breaker mount a gun, comms and better radar on it and paint it gray. This will improve accessibility to the North for them and build the necessary skill sets while they determine what sort of platform they need.

As I said elsewhere build 3 small 100’ patrol boats that can be stationed in the North, the boats will be manned by Northerners and hauled out and stored there for the winters. One in the West and one in the East, with one being a spare. Arm it with a small automatic cannon and MG’s, crew would be about 10-20, it will provide local security, SAR, Sovereignty patrol, Northern warfare training support, police support, employment, recruitment for the military and self-esteem for the locals involved. The storing of vessels up North was a typical scenario for ATL during the 70’s and still done by the CCG for it’s fleet of small riverboats. Some of the infrastructure is still in place.

We also need to improve some of the existing airfields up there, both by improving surface, load bearing, length and by increasing infrastructure, comms and automatic systems, so we can move people quickly, efficiently and safely.


----------



## Bearpaw (17 Aug 2006)

I agree with the spirit of Colin P's suggestion about the small patrol boats for the Arctic.  My suggestion would be to consider 3 to 6 hovercraft based on the LCAC-----perhaps with enlarged fuel capacity for much greater range and armed with the MLG 27 light naval gun system.  The crew would be small(10- to 12).  The ability to move over pan-ice and onto low-gradient land will be useful for SAR and patrol work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2006)

I have worked on CCG Hovercraft at Sea Island for many years, as much as I love them and promote them, I will have to disagree at this point, they would require to much support and there is a shortage of qualified operaters already, our CCG hovercraft pilots have to instruct the TC ships safety types how to test them! The time may come when the navy can run some of these up there, but they don't have the ability to do so. but they do have the ability and know how to run small vessels and the locals can add the ice knowledge. It is fairly simple, relatively cheap and will have short lead time from implementation to vessels on patrol.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Aug 2006)

Letter of mine in _Toronto Star_ today:

Give icebreakers to Coast Guard
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156197009431&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895



> Arctic defence
> 
> Aug. 19.
> 
> ...



Fraser's column:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155937810335&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621570

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw (22 Aug 2006)

Thanks Colin P for your input----I was a bit shocked after my post when I saw how thirsty the LCAC are.  Can you provide an approximate figure for fuel consumption for the AP1-88 used by CCG?  The reason that I am attracted to hovercraft is that they could be used when the ocean is completely iced over.  What would you think of the AP1-88 in a militarized version?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2006)

I would have to ask around for the consumption, but I seem to remember approx 60 gallons an hour (4 Cat diesels)

They would certainly outlast the Griffions in use by the Brit RM, I was there when we were looking for replacements of our SRN 6's, there was several possibilities, but most were not up to the task. The AP1-88 is the smallest hovercraft to my knowledge designed to take "green-water" impacts (solid waves) Its construction and propulsion systems are fairly simple and can carry approx 70 people or troops. However a Hovercraft does have a significant noise signature, which would reduce the element of surprise, but would give you great flexibility. It's all about tradeoffs and if they balance out in your tactical favour.


The SRN, 4,6's, AP1-88, all Russian and US military hovercraft use a heavy duty skirt design with high and low pressure areas, imagine a large tube around the outside with replaceable "fingers" attached, a keel bag, 2 horizontal bags and 2 bags at the stern that trap the air into 4 areas reducing the shifting of the "Centre of Pressure"


----------



## warspite (29 Aug 2006)

big icebrekaers with limited use at huge cost- don't build
small boats in the artic- i this is feasable, build
hovercrafts- a watched a show on the british(i think may have been scandinavian) hovercrafts being used in the artic, very impressive
allowing any one to control the entances to the NW passage let alone come any where near it-* unthinkable* :threat: :rage:
you can call me paranoid but we should keep our allies at arms lenghth when it comes to the artic, think about how many of them formally reconize that we own the artic
         U.S.- Nope
         Euroupe-Nope
        *China-nope
        * Russa-nope    *dont think the're allies
You look at it this way very few countries recgonize our claim to the artic and in my oppinion they should be kept as far away as possible...at gunpoint... behind a wall... with attack dogs... and an alarm system... with one of those cool sirens.



mod note....ease up on the smilies. No one will take a post like that seriously.


----------



## T.I.M. (30 Aug 2006)

There's no serious question about whether we own the islands of our high Arctic archipelago (Hans island being an insignificant exception) - the issue is whether we control the seas around them, and most particularly the passage through them.  The US in particular maintains that the NWP (now officially redsignated "Canadian Internal Waters" in a bit of newspeak) is an international strait, and customary international law is more likely to end up on their side than ours.  

For now we can get away with claiming the NWP as internal waters is due to its lack of use.  An international strait is considered a body of water between two high seas that is useful for navigation and has experienced regular traffic.  The first clause is true, the second currenly only holds for icebreakers and ice strengthened vessels, and then only for a couple of months of the year, but is expected to change.  The third clause is the basis for where we stand.  Currently traffic through the passage is minimal, and almost all ships request our permission before making the transit, and usually recieve significant aid from the CCG in the process.  However once the ice clears enough for regular traffic and ships routinely start transiting without asking our permission, then our claim starts getting very shaky - unless we have the means and the will to enforce it.

Personally, if the ice clears, I can't see us being able to hold onto this position without a compromize.  In my opinion we'll probably end up settling for some sort of navigation agreement where ships freely use the Passage, but must adhere to certain rules while doing so.  That would be smart of them, since even an "ice free" passage will still have plenty of navigational hazards, and risk averse merchants won't want to forgoe any help we might be able to offer just to thumb their nose at Canadian maritime claims.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2006)

Further to T.I.M.'s point of a compromise.

Everyday many American and international vessels violate our sovereign territory and we let them do it.  The only difference between the vessels currently using our territory and the ones that might use the NWP is that the current ones go by air.  Aircraft regularly transit Canada's sovereign airspace en route from London, Copenhagen, Amsterdam etc to Seattle and Minneapolis.  They recognize our sovereignty.  They get right of innocent passage and a guaranteed pick up in the event of an emergency.  They also get an "armed escort" if the circumstances warrant it.

As well USAF aircraft can transit Canadian Airspace - presumably with notification.

If the issue is just transit rights then Canada and the US can haggle out something there.  As T.I.M. also points out, with the exception of Hans Island, nobody contests our right to the stuff that sticks out of the water.

The big question is access to sea-bed resources.  That is new ground - literally, as there is no history of exploitation or common use on which to base ownership rights.  And there we are up against not just the Americans and the Russians and Danes (possibly the Norwegians) that are our neighbours but also other players.  What would we do about a Nigerian registered company that started mining Hydrates 200 miles of our Northern coast?

The Americans had a big problem in the Bering Sea over fishing rights in an area called the "Doughnut Hole".  In most of the Bering Sea the water was claimed by Russia or the US.  Because of the way the boundaries were set however there was one small location where the boundaries didn't match creating an area of the High Seas in the middle of the territorial waters.  Efforts to control and regulate the fish catch in the Bering by both the Russians and the Americans were frustrated by Chinese and Polish trawlers fishing the Hole and disregarding quotas.

Those are the types of issues that need to dealt with - along with making it clear to the Americans that we can look after our own approaches and that we will be a good neighbour and let them pass through provided they let us know what, where and when.


----------



## warspite (30 Aug 2006)

Excuse me if I'm wrong but I've been reading on wikipedia about the U.N.'s law of the sea.  My understanding of the treaty is this.  12 miles from the baseline of a nations coast are territorial waters, and the twelve miles after that are a contiguous zone where a nation may enforce it's laws but doesn't own the water. Now Territorial waters belong solely to one nation and that nation is free to set any laws it wishes to.  But through strategic straits vessels have the right of innocent passage.  And to top it off a nations exclusive economic zone extends 200 miles from a nations coastal baseline unless it conflicts with another nations economic zone. After looking at google earth and playing connect the dots with the measuring tools it is my understanding that there is no route through the Arctic that wouldn't pass through our territorial waters. And the whole of the area would belong to our exclusive economic zone. So as long as we control the islands in The Arctic then by U.N. law we directly own a lot of the water, can enforce our laws in most of the water, and have economic control over all the water.
Could some please tell me if this is correct.

And about the oiganal topic, how much would some smaller effective vessels cost compared to the 300 mil. to 700mil. for an ice breaker mentioned in the Globe and Mail Article posted by MarkOttawa?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

Some suggested reading Warspite - a 6000 tonne ice-resistant patrol vessel like the Svalbard can be had for something between 50 and 100 MUSD.

12 miles is territorial.
200 miles is the EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone)
New rules will extend the EEZ rules out to the edge of the Continental Shelf - whatever that is, wherever it is and how its defined. That is the reason for the sudden hydrographical interest up North - the Russians seem to be determined to prove that our archipelago is part of their Continental Shelf (I jest but the Lermontsov Ridge stretches a long way).

And places like the Straits of Dover, Gibraltar and Molucca qualify as Strategic Straits with territorial claims overlapping.


----------



## Dale Denton (31 Aug 2006)

S_Baker made a good point earlier. Couldn't we add the Danish to NORAD? NORAD is adding maritime security to its responsabilities, and since the arctic is being patroled by us and the Danes couldnt we save some money too? If the Danes report anything odd in up there couldn't they tell us and we all send ships, aircraft...etc (and visa-versa). If we are all ally's doing the same thing then why not just combine our forces for the greater good? All I can see is positive things from adding the Danish into NORAD, what are your thoughts?

What if we combine/integrate the coast guard with the RCMP fleet so that they could patrol the Arctic for the navy? They could combine their budgets and fleets to take arctic sovreignty off the navy's back, just buy a couple more icebreakers for them. Wouldn't having 2 fleets (Navy/CCG) make co-operation and communication more efficient than having 3 (Navy/CCG/RCMP)? It could save money too couldn't it?


----------



## Guardian (31 Aug 2006)

If someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I did look) I apologize.

One of the most significant manifestations of our lack of control over the Arctic is the presence of US, Russian, and other nuclear submarines under the icecap. These will be next to impossible to control with icebreakers anyway, and I doubt satellites can help (don't have a shooter capability, after all).

The only real solution is a nuclear submarine, like the Mulroney gov't recognized in the 80's. The problem's still the same, isn't it (except for the Soviet threat)? If we had just two, that would probably be enough to provide an effective demonstration of sovereignty - AND a way to enforce it (which, as stated above, icebreakers, sats can't do).

I know the US wouldn't look highly on us developing that capability - they didn't in the 80's. Maybe the French could help. They've got a 2600-ton displacement nuclear class called the Rubis...

Maybe one of our resident Navy guys could comment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2006)

Guardian said:
			
		

> If someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I did look) I apologize.
> 
> One of the most significant manifestations of our lack of control over the Arctic is the presence of US, Russian, and other nuclear submarines under the icecap. These will be next to impossible to control with icebreakers anyway, and I doubt satellites can help (don't have a shooter capability, after all).
> 
> ...



 Of course we can always say: "Prove it that your subs are up there" then they will have to release classified information on their sub movements and I not sure if covert transits by submerged submarines could be taken as legit means of challenging sovereignty.


----------



## Guardian (31 Aug 2006)

Having the capability should itself be sufficient proof of our presence.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2006)

Not to mention a concept that I have advanced before - planting CAPTOR mines at the entrances and exits to the Internal Waters.  But instead of equipping them with explosive warheads have them equipped with a noisemaker that attaches to the hull and invites the offending vessel to report to a Canadian port to have the device removed.  Make it something like those car alarms / home alarms that disturb my sleep at 3 o'clock on a Sunday morning and just have it squawk continually until a Canadian with a key switches it off.  Aside from reducing the ability of the sub to skulk I can't imagine that the crew would be right thrilled with the racket.

In the event of a military situation the original CAPTOR "noisemakers" might be deployed.

The issue is about controlling access to the Internal Waters of the Passage.  It is not as if there is unfettered movement in all the Internal waters.  There are a limited number of passages that a sub can take submerged due to depth of water and depth of ice.

Policing "land claims" on the Continental Shelf under the ice will be another matter entirely and there some subs might be useful.


----------



## patton (31 Aug 2006)

If the Navy wants to expand its operational capabilities, instead of wasting tax payers money on Navy Ice Breakers, spend the money on Aircraft Carriers.  Everyone knows the operational advantage and capabilities of these war machines.  Also, with global warming happening faster than predicted, I really do not think ice in the northern seas, is really going to be an issue in the next couple of decades.  The Ice Breakers that we currently have are doing the job just fine, add an Aircraft Carrier to this fleet, the northern seas, will be well protected.   :soldier:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2006)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Having the capability should itself be sufficient proof of our presence.



I was thinking that more that other peoples claims against our sovereignty based on passage by submerged submarine would be less a legal challenge than that of a surface ship.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2006)

I was thinking that you would be right Colin.  Sneaking through might suggest the you believe if you go through openly you might be challeged. Ergo you don't believe the other guy wants you to be there.


----------



## Torlyn (31 Aug 2006)

patton said:
			
		

> instead of wasting tax payers money on Navy Ice Breakers, spend the money on Aircraft Carriers.  Everyone knows the operational advantage and capabilities of these war machines.



Have you compared the cost of both?  A quick google on the price difference should have occured to you, and would potentially have kept you from trolling (ahem!).  Bonne chance!

T


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2006)

patton said:
			
		

> add an Aircraft Carrier to this fleet, the northern seas, will be well protected.   :soldier:



where an ice chopper is not a helicopter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> where an ice chopper is not a helicopter.



I am sure the USN would be happy to spend several billion to develop a ice breaking helicopter.


----------



## warspite (31 Aug 2006)

Who says they haven't already ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Sep 2006)

> big icebrekaers with limited use at huge cost- don't build



I disagree. For the simple fact we just don't have the arctic we might have to patrol but other water ways and harbours that get jammed with ice. Luckily Halifax and Esquilmalt are ice free but in the event we need to deploy a naval force to an ice jammed area, are you really going to rely on the CCG to do that? Gawd I hope not by the time talks finished it might be too late. Besides, you could also use the platform for patrol, scientific research and give it some sort of sealift capability. One use naval platforms do not make a lot of sense in this day and age.



> If the Navy wants to expand its operational capabilities, instead of wasting tax payers money on Navy Ice Breakers, spend the money on Aircraft Carriers.  Everyone knows the operational advantage and capabilities of these war machines.  Also, with global warming happening faster than predicted, I really do not think ice in the northern seas, is really going to be an issue in the next couple of decades.  The Ice Breakers that we currently have are doing the job just fine, add an Aircraft Carrier to this fleet, the northern seas, will be well protected.



Oh pulease!!! : Lets be realistic and get something we actually need. There are whole threads on aircraft carriers here. Please look at them. But  I will spell it out for you. Lets start with getting our subs working or new ones;  how about getting our new AORs(JSS) actually built so we can replenish our fleet and that of our allies; start on replacing the CPFs and 280s now so we will have a decent surface warfare combatant(something with a land attack capabilty). The new name of the game coming on line these days is expeditionary warfare which is Gen Hillier's BHS (whether that is an LHA/LPD etc) this is a lot more useful to our allies then a carrier. Not saying it should not have a VSTOL fighter capability but that is a nice to have not a necessity. As an Arctic nation not being able to get to a good portion of your country part of the year seems almost like we are asking for trouble. We have a duty in keeping that area safe and having ships capable of operating in ice. What does a carrier do for us? Right now all it would do is drain money needlessly. Training, infrastructure, doctrine it all adds up.


----------



## Dale Denton (2 Sep 2006)

Couldn't we combine the RCMP and the CC G's fleets to the navy? That would save time talking between them and also it could be easier to communicate as well couldn't it? Also if you give all the money spent on building/upkeep of both fleets to the Navy couldn't that solve some funding issues? I have no basis for my claims, but to me it seems logical (I have no experience on the subject, but does it seem sound to you?)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Sep 2006)

The RCMP uses 5 fast patrol catamarans that would be useful for inshore ops, the CCG has some OPVs and icebreakers we could use but then those crews would have to be retrained to think and breathe navy. Most CCG members have no interest in becoming an armed service like the USCG (also previously discussed).


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2006)

Just give the Coast Guard the new icebreakers it needs and they can do the sovereignty job.

Arctic icebreakers aging, new ones to cost billions: Coast Guard
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2006/10/02/icebreakers-new.html



> Billions of dollars will be needed to replace Canada's aging fleet of Arctic icebreakers within the next decade, Canadian Coast Guard official Gary Sidock told CBC News.
> 
> Many of the seven icebreakers and three river-class vessels that ply northern waters from late June to early October are near retirement, said Sidock, who is the acting director general, fleet, for the Canadian Coast Guard in Ottawa...
> 
> ...


http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Why the CCG should get the vessels:

Arctic sovereignty's trapped in a policy ice jam
By ROB HUEBERT, Globe and Mail, August 17, 2006 (full text not online; Dr Huebert is Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, U. of Calgary)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20060817.wxconorth17%2FBNStory%2FspecialComment%2Fhome&ord=6365276&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false



> The Coast Guard has expertise in manning and operating icebreakers, which have proved to be the best presence in the North...
> 
> ...The Coast Guard will soon need to replace its icebreaking fleet: Canada's most powerful icebreaker was built in 1969, and its three medium icebreakers were built between 1978 and 1982...
> 
> Complicating the picture is the government's decision to make National Defence the main department to develop the capital program necessary to protect Arctic sovereignty. It is the DND that is to build three new icebreakers. While its operation of the HMCS Labrador in the mid-1950s showed it can do this, the navy is reluctant to embrace this proposed new task. It knows that by acquiring this new capability, it must surrender some other existing one. It also knows it will need to spend considerable resources to train its personal in skills the Coast Guard already has...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Oct 2006)

> It is the DND that is to build three new icebreakers.



Sorry did I miss something here? Seems to me the Govt has said it want to protect Arctic sovereignty and DND has a role in that. 

Not sure that means the DND will build Ice Breakers. _This issue still very much in the balance, no?_

Does this mean that the replacements to CCGS Louis St Laurent and CCGS Terry Fox will not work the St Lawrence system? Concentrating on Davis Strait instead. ???

Maybe it's just me but I think Mr Huebert (of the esteemed G&M :-X) is taking a bit of a leap here....


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2006)

Mark, you are determined to keep me battling on this one.  

By all means replace the Coasties' Ice-Breakers.  Somebody has to clear the snow from the highway.  And certainly building, and maintaining, and charging tolls for the use of said highway contributes to asserting sovereignty.

But I still want something that the Navy can use to operate up there with out worrying too much about tearing a hole in the hull, that can carry a few guys with rifles and that can land a helicopter.

Seeing as how Norway and New Zealand have managed to build vessels of that type for about 80 MCAD apiece then I don't see it as a major drain on the treasury.

We are not talking about chasing ships through the ice with ice breakers - at the rate those vessels advance dismounted troops could catch up to them running over the ice.

Our next class of patrol vessels should be larger, ice-strengthened and heli-capable.  Build to civ/mil standards like DNV and possibly even lease them for domestic duty the way the Brits are with their patrol vessels.  You break'em,  you buy'em.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill: Indeed  >.  The point is that the Conservative campaign promise to acquire armed naval icebreakers was an ill-thought out piece of electioneering.  In international legal terms there is no need for Naval vessels to assert sovereignty.  Civilian vessels of the government serve the purpose equally well (that is why the Mulroney govenment promised--but never delivered--a Polar 8 vessel for the CCG).  CCG  icebreakers carry helicopters and, if ordered, can carry people with rifles.  Other CCG vessels already carry armed Fishery Officers and sometimes the RCMP.

There is also the important ice-breaking role itself in the north (and the east, and the St. Lawrence); give the CCG the new vessels it needs and let them do the sovereignty business.

Now if a case in defence terms exists for ice-strengthened Naval vessels--sovereignty assertion aside--fine.  Your patrol vessel suggestion sounds good, if affordable.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Oct 2006)

> that is why the Mulroney govenment promised--but never delivered--a Polar 8 vessel for the CCG



... and eight to twelve SSN's for MarCom...


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2006)

cplcaldwell: True, but a rather silly way to do it; frankly I think the sovereignty role was a talking point basically cooked up to try and garner support--from a public horrified by the very word "nuclear"--for the acquisition of vessels the Navy wanted.  Rather like defending the current sub fleet by saying they can usefully help in fisheries enforcement.

Ships that are unseen serve no legal sovereignty purpose.  Polar 8 was a much better idea from that standpoint.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2006)

> The point is that the Conservative campaign promise to acquire armed naval icebreakers was an ill-thought out piece of electioneering.



I am going to go round this again, jus' 'cause.  To most folks, a vessel that can navigate through ice is an ice breaker.  The Norwegian's certainly feel that their Svalbard is an ice breaker despite it having been decided by the experts on this site that it is too light to be an icebreaker.  On the other hand there is apparently some sympathy for the notion it would make a useful northern patrol vessel.

As to the issue of carrying rifles and helicopters, I think Colin P has successfully, and repeatedly, argued that there would be labour issues (akin to those being experienced over arming the Border Guards), if the Coast Guard were to be employed on armed intercepts.

Further, wrt the Polar 8,  that was for a single vessel class.  Numerous times people have argued the inadvisability of only purchasing a single vessel, primarily on the grounds that it likely to be unavailable when you need it.  If there was a classic case of electioneering symbology that would be it.

Cheers sir.


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Oct 2006)

> cplcaldwell: True, but a rather silly way to do it; frankly I think the sovereignty role was a talking point basically cooked up to try and garner support--...--for the acquisition of vessels the Navy wanted.



Yup.

Okay now, I hate doing this because it always turns into one of those silly digressions on kit. But I think Kirkhill is trying to make a point about Svalbard and her sisters..... 

Are we talking about USCG WAGB (Polar breaker) for Marcom? Or are we talking about a sort of MRAV (a high endurance lightly armed patroller/multi role)for MarCom? 

The article seems to say that CCG needs a WAGB (or similar) and DND has to buy it. What Kirkhill seems to be saying is "whoppee for the CCG, maybe MarCom needs an ice strenghtened MRAV..."

Do you concur? 

_<edited to clarify obtuse STANAG's>_


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill: My post did not say arm CCG personnel; I know there are major issues there.  I just pointed out that CCG vessels already act as platforms for armed Fishery Officers and RCMP members doing armed intercepts.  I doubt there would be great difficulty in carrying people with rifles.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/1995/hq-ac29_e.htm



> March 9, 1995
> 
> OTTAWA-Fishery Officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and an RCMP emergency response team boarded and seized a Spanish fishing vessel, the ESTAI, after warning shots were fired, Brian Tobin, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, announced today.
> 
> ...



DFO vessels are now CCG vessels (the fleets having been amalgamated) and CCG vessels would perform the same mission in future.

More:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010344



> ...Last Thursday, a department of fisheries and oceans patrol vessel carrying a team of RCMP and fisheries officers cut through the icy water towards the Spanish vessel Estai. When the first boarding attempt failed, the Spanish crew cut their nets and fled. For four hours, the two vessels played hide-and-seek in the banks of thick North Atlantic fog. The chase ended when the *Canadian ship fired a burst of machine-gun fire across the Estai’s bow* [my emphasis]. Then, the seized boat was turned towards St. John’s, where the skipper faces charges under Canadian fisheries conservation laws and the crew will likely be flown home.



Cheers  ,

cplcaldwell: 





> What Kirkhill seems to be saying is "whoppee for the CCG, maybe MarCom needs an ice strenghtened MRAV..."



I concur  .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am going to go round this again, jus' 'cause.  To most folks, a vessel that can navigate through ice is an ice breaker.  The Norwegian's certainly feel that their Svalbard is an ice breaker despite it having been decided by the experts on this site that it is too light to be an icebreaker.  On the other hand there is apparently some sympathy for the notion it would make a useful northern patrol vessel.
> 
> As to the issue of carrying rifles and helicopters, I think Colin P has successfully, and repeatedly, argued that there would be labour issues (akin to those being experienced over arming the Border Guards), if the Coast Guard were to be employed on armed intercepts.
> 
> ...



Svalbard was either ice-strengthen or a "light" icebreaker, plus some are designed for rivers, vs ocean, thinking that all icebreakers are the same is like calling a Warrior/Bradely a tank because it has a turret, gun & tracks.

Actually putting light weapon systems up to 35mm on our existing ships would be fairly easy, but as mentioned the real issue is a sea change in management/ employees.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2006)

Mark, as you point out, at the time of the Estai incident DFO was separate from the Coast Guard.  You are correct that the DFO has had an armed intercept role (even if it was just pistols).  I also understand that that is a point of contention when it comes to mixing the two "cultures".  Ice Breakers came from the Department of Transport.

Frankly, as stipulated previously, I care a whit not what the vessel is called.  And as I have alse previously stated I am not even overly bothered by who operates the things.  I just want to make sure that when we build and maintain our "superhighway across the arctic" that we have traffic cops that can operate alongside the snow plows.

The other thing that bothers me is the constant tendency on the part of those that wish to find reasons not to take a course of action to inflate the cost of the project.  1 billion in 1980 dollars for a Polar 8 versus 240 MCAD in 2005 dollars for 3 Svalbard/Kiwi MRV type vessels.  I would rather do something than nothing, no matter what the limitations might be.

By the way - I am sure that there are those that could argue the legal usefulness of subs on sovereignty assertion.  

And Colin I take your point about nomenclature but I also accept that to most folks our LAVs are still "Tanks".  Actually Svalbard is about the same as the Terry Fox IIRC - 1 meter forwards, 4 meters using a bump and grind advance.


----------

