# The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]



## blueboy (27 Jan 2006)

I'm just wondering what the feel is on Harpers' proposal to open a new base in the high Arctic and to have both the Army and Navy positioned to protect Canada's interests in the region? I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit is probably the best site available. Any comments?

Modified to correct thread title


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jan 2006)

> I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north.



Who likes icecream? Put your hand up...

GOTCHYA!


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

How do they find staff for Alert or Yellowknife?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (27 Jan 2006)

Pretty much the same way they do it for any other base. If you're a regular they post you. If you're in the 'Mo you apply for a gig (normally a 3-year contract). 

Main difference is that you have to do a screening (both are considered an 'Isolated Post'). 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (27 Jan 2006)

Alert is a 6 months posting plus bonus and you get a medal....indeed you are. I know that Alert is mostly civilian and researcher now.
Yellowknife? well I know that my boss wants to go. He's crazy enough or his wife but whatever. I guess also are intitle to bonus over there but I might be wrong.
cheers


----------



## dutchie (27 Jan 2006)

TB said:
			
		

> Alert is a 6 months posting plus bonus and you get a medal....indeed you are. I know that Alert is mostly civilian and researcher now.
> Yellowknife? well I know that my boss wants to go. He's crazy enough or his wife but whatever. I guess also are intitle to bonus over there but I might be wrong.
> cheers


You know your living in a shitty place when soldiers get a medal for being there.

Sorry, just an observation.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Jan 2006)

Man I hope my home port division stays East Coast vice the Arctic.....*shudder*


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jan 2006)

HMCS Archangel has a nice ring to it...


----------



## Armymedic (27 Jan 2006)

A posting up north to Whitehorse, Yellowknife or Fobisher Bay (sorry don't remember its new name of hand) would be ok for 2-3 yrs. People who go up North for postings usually enjoy thier time up there.


----------



## HItorMiss (27 Jan 2006)

Post me up North and I might just kill myself or likely someone else  ;D

I havent the constition for 10 months of winter ex.....Oh how I loath winter ex :rage:


----------



## sheikyerbouti (27 Jan 2006)

Wisecracks aside... as can only be expected from uninformed individuals.

 It doesn't seem like there would be much, in terms of personnel strength, that would be necessary to maintain a staff level if there is to be a deep water berth at Iqaluit.

 If you read the proposal from the economic development officer of Iqaluit (Google it), the proposal calls for 1 (ONE) deepwater berth with a draught of something like 10 meters along with one hydraulic refuelling boom. I must re-emphasize that the proposal calls for one berth only and maps of Innuit head indicate that there isn't alot of extra space. One berth means no permanent moorage for anyone, let alone the CF.

 Such a tiny facility implies minimal staffing requirements that are best filled by regional staff, perhaps an all-Inuit corps that supports Ranger activities. Along with basing (read warehouse or the like) support for surge activities there would only be a need for a very small strength that would only grow during training or sovereignty patrol by Naval forces (probably more Kingston's). The best way to look at it is as a long term lease arrangement with the port, possibly defrayed by in kind exchanges ie: Fuel from Ship's tanks, or extra cargo shipments via CF aircraft or boats. Economic development in Iqaluit is drastically hindered at this point in time by the nature of Cargo and fuel offloading and anything which ameliorates the current situation would be looked upon favourably by the Nunavut government.

 Iqaluit is more interested with bringing in economic activity that promotes growth and employment within their existing population base. A CF involvement would be welcomed but only if it doesn't interfere with the identified needs that are currently in demand by its' populace. 

cheers,


----------



## Glorified Ape (27 Jan 2006)

blueboy said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering what the feel is on Harpers' proposal to open a new base in the high Arctic and to have both the Army and Navy positioned to protect Canada's interests in the region? I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit is probably the best site available. Any comments?



I understand that the pay up there is pretty decent. I'd go - I like money and it'd be an experience.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Jan 2006)

We have Alert...YellowKnife....Goosebay....Cold lake do we really need another Northern base? Can anyone remember Churchill nice base in its day, we closed it as it was not required. No need for another northern unit. Have any of these wise crackers who thought this up ever patrolled up there? Arctic defense tactics dont require that we have a forward base up north.  All that is required for Arctic patrols is a navy with Ice breaker capability and nuc subs to go under the ice, that is why the last Conservative government was buying them. Instead we got the next best thing that will not go under the ice thus the subs we bought are useless to us(well not completely) .


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Wisecracks aside... as can only be expected from uninformed individuals.



Cool it.

Staff


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2006)

3rd Horseman:

You seem to agree that the 3 ice-breakers are not an undesirable purchase.  The proposal calls for 500 personnel to man them and support them.  The Norwegian Icebreaker discussed here
 ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html )has a crew of 52 (including air det).  Port and Starboard crews for 3 vessels would result in a manning requirement of ~300 PYs, allow another 100 for forward support and 100 for command and rear area support and you have 500 PYs.

Those ships need local forward support otherwise they are going to spend a lot of time off station.  Therefore they need a useable port in their AO.  Iqaluit and Nunavut generally could use port facilities.  There doesn't seem to be a conflict of needs there to me.

I have mentioned before that I have worked a lot in the past with the American fishing fleets in Alaska.  These vessels are homeported in Seattle, roughly the same size as a frigate or one of these icebreakers (American Triumph is typical of the large trawlers. She was built by the same yard that built the Svalbard for a fishing company owned by the owner of the yard -Kjell Inge Rokke - has a gross tonnage of 4294 tonnes , a Length Over All of 285 feet and carries a crew of 130 - 80% processors and 20% ships crew at a guess http://www.atsea.org/association/amsea.html) and operate out of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians on a seasonal basis.  Dutch Harbor supplies the forward operating location (FOL) while Seattle supplies the fleet maintenance facility (FMF).  Dutch is lightly manned on a year round basis with surge man-power added during operational periods.  It seems like a reasonable plan to me for operating the 'breakers.

As to the Cambridge Bay base - the PY allocation there is supposedly 100 persons to maintain the facility for training purposes.  Is there anything to say that all those 100 persons have to be there year round or could they float in and out depending on usage.

Finally, wrt sovereignty patrols and training it seems to me that they go hand in hand.  Rather than running up and down Shirley Road or doing circles around Wainwright why not do more training in the back of beyond sending out platoon/coy teams for a week or two?  The time spent in isolation and dependent on the radio would do more to teach junior leaders about management and logistic skills than all the running around bases ever could.  It would also quickly demonstrate who the leaders were.  This would be done in a taxing but non-threatening envirionment.  Tactical skills can be taught on controlled bases.  It would be expensive but it would also demonstrate that we consider this turf ours - we can deploy the government's forces here anytime without asking permission.

I don't get the sense that we are talking about recreating something like Pet or Valcartier above the Arctic Circle.  Perhaps something more like Dundurn.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jan 2006)

> All that is required for Arctic patrols is a navy with Ice breaker capability and nuc subs to go under the ice, that is why the last Conservative government was buying them. Instead we got the next best thing that will not go under the ice thus the subs we bought are useless to us(well not completely) .



I don't recall Kim Campbell ever mentioning SSNs...


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It would also quickly demonstrate who the leaders were.  This would be done in a taxing but non-threatening point.



I agree completely with Kirkhill's post, with one minor point. 

If you can command and lead in a hostile, austere environment like the arctic, then Wainwright is a cake-walk and A'stan is do'able. Although suicide bombers and IEDs are pretty much unheard of in the arctic, it is *far* from a non-threatening environment! That's why it makes for such a great training AO. 

Way back when....when I did the arctic survival portion of my SAR Tech course, we had to go up the following year to complete it since we got weathered out. While I don't want to inflate SAR Techs' egos any more   , if SAR figures the weather's too inhospitable for "Igloo Architecture 101," your average infantry company may find it a rather threatening environment. 

While I assume you meant incoming rounds, please don't think that just because no one is shooting at you that you're in a non-threatening environment.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2006)

Thanks for the tip of the hat Journeyman and your point about non-threatening is well taken and understood.  I was indeed just referring to incoming rounds.

Cheers


----------



## Praetorian (28 Jan 2006)

Arctic Sovereignty is essential for Canada
However an Army Det would do little good
The Americans want to use the north as a passage for maritime commerce
Kinda like a Northern Panama.
The North is the Navy's primary concern, the Army cant do much against ships dozens of miles out to sea.
It is also a well documented fact that USN SSN regularly do under ice transits, which is why strong pressure was put on the grits to halt a Canadian SSN project by the yanks .
Additionaly Denmark is making noise over Hans Island ( a 2 km sq. rock)
Once again only Warships are capable of defending that land (we've boarded Danish vessels in the past)
The only time the army could be needed is in an invasion of Greenland  

So what we need for the North is not a base, but a Navy capable of getting up there.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2006)

Praetorian:

The concept of marching your borders is as old as time and it is still the only sure cure for recognition of claims in international law.  It is for that reason that Denmark has their Sirius patrols doing circles around the coast of Greenland securing the world's second largest ice cube. If we can kill two birds with one stone: supply effective training that makes for more capable leaders and troops as well as firm up our sovereignty claims then I see no harm.

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jan 2006)

> (we've boarded Danish vessels in the past)



Out of curiousity when?


----------



## GK .Dundas (29 Jan 2006)

Praetorian said:
			
		

> Arctic Sovereignty is essential for Canada
> However an Army Det would do little good
> The Americans want to use the north as a passage for maritime commerce
> Kinda like a Northern Panama.
> ...



 "The King's law only extends as far as the King's muskets"That is as true today as was back in the 17th century when that phrase was first uttered.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (29 Jan 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't recall Kim Campbell ever mentioning SSNs...



  It was Mulronys government he ordered them.....Kimmy didn't have a government she was just holding the tiller for a few months as the ship went down.

  I'm getting visions of "Ice Station Zebra".....Lets face it no army can fight on the high arctic, any one that does is domed to failure. The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade  and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice. The army's job in that is only to provide recce assets to monitor and fix in place if needed but not to defeat. The strategy for the Arctic has been and should continue to be Navy and air patrols with recce assets capable of maneuver anywhere in the high arctic. Yellow Knife and Goosebay coupled with Bagotville and Cold lake solve this issue less the Navy. The Navy need arctic war ships which they do not have, a Cdn war ship has too thin a skin to fight up there thus the Nuc subs and armed ice breakers. The navy can solve this issue from its current bases they just need the kit.


----------



## gnplummer421 (29 Jan 2006)

I like the idea of our Nortern Rangers looking after things up there.It's their home and they know how to survive. I hear they are pretty good shots too. I think we have lot of aboriginal folks up there who could use a decent paying job. Place the main headquarters of this unit near the deep water port, and with detached companies of Rangers throughout the region - 5000 sounds about right (thoughts?) Give them some nice snowmobiles that can hold enough stuff to live for a week. They could also respond to area domestic disputes in support of the Lawmen. It would inspire the young people as well, something to strive for. They would have a unique "Northern Command" patch on their shoulders along with trade and rank badges. Those who perform above and beyond the call of duty would get a medal unique to the Forces.  Maybe I'm getting carried away, but do you think this would be good?

Gnplummer


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jan 2006)

> It was Mulronys government he ordered them


Yes but it was specified the last Conservative government ordered them, might be just sematics but she was the last PC PM in power, even if holding the reigns for several months. And no they were never iordered, Perrin Beatty presented them as an option. No contracts were ever signed.


----------



## Jungle (29 Jan 2006)

If we want a permanent Army presence in the Arctic, maybe we should look at the Aussie example of RMAF Butterworth. They have a small permanent cadre in Malaysia, supporting Army sub-units on 3 months rotations.
See here: http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/organisation/info_on/bases/butterworth/history.htm
We could do the same, have a small cadre on a permanent installation, and rotate Army sub-units for sovereignty presence and Arctic training. In the same vein, the armed ice breakers could be built with the capacity to transport an Infantry Platoon, and land them anywhere in the Arctic.
The LIBs/ Para Coys should also train in Para insertions up there, in support of Cdn Arctic sovereingty.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jan 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade  and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice.



I've just gone through B-GL-300-001/FP-000 _Operational Level Doctrine for the Candian Army_, 
B-GL-300-002/FP-000 _Land Force Tactical Doctrine_ and 
B-GG-302-002/FP-001 _Specific Operations, Vol 2: Arctic and Sub-Arctic Operations_...

....your posting has no basis in published doctrine  (<--- that sounded so much more polite than "bull shite"    )


----------



## 3rd Horseman (29 Jan 2006)

Ex Dragoon - The government never changed just the leader

Journeyman (edit out jungle insertcorrect name) - don't think you will find any defense plans for any Canadian operation in any of those books.

Gunplum - good point on the Rangers but placing troops in Inuit towns would be too disruptive. Staging regs out of Yellowknife I would suggest is a better option, after all it is the Arctic and up there you have nothing but time even during an invasion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

no counter point to Journeyman?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (29 Jan 2006)

CFL   point 2 was the counter I put Jungle in by mistake it was meant for Journeyman edit correction thanks


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2006)

seen


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Journeyman...don't think you will find any defense plans for any Canadian operation in any of those books.



Ah, when you said 





			
				3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> The *doctrine* to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut there supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice.


...I thought you meant....well, *doctrine*.

Defence plans and doctrine are closely linked; doctrine spells out how you conceptualize conflict, and intend to fight. 

Granted, two doctrinal works cited ( _Land Force Tactical Doctrine _ and _Arctic and Sub-Arctic Operations_ ) do lean more towards Tactics, Techniques and Procedures than conceptual defence plans. 

But if the overarching plan is to not contest someone setting up camp on our territory, then there would be reference to that within _B-GL-300-001/FP-000 Operational Level Doctrine for the Canadian Army_.  If your plan was being considered, there would be a chapter on "Piqueting Shivering Enemy - Absent Logistic Support," which would inform such an option within the unpublished defence plans. The absence of anything even remotely resembling your statement within our doctrine suggests your strategy is based much more upon "Ice Station Zebra" than on any understanding of how the CF considers, trains, or fights war.

[less polite response, still not saying "BS"   ;D ]


----------



## Bert (30 Jan 2006)

blueboy said:
			
		

> I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a
> tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit
> is probably the best site available. Any comments?



In my opinion, the senior NCOs you are referring to make a good point.  It would be hard 
to find personnel to go North for extended periods as a posting.  If families go North, its 
hard to find good schooling, the social environment is much different, shopping is limited 
and the cost of living is expensive.  For singles, its just as difficult.  People from the South 
that live in the North accomodate and adapt to the environment.  There is the difficulty of 
mass military personnel living and working with a small civilian centre.  If you're interested, 
check out APTN on the TV and watch a few Inuit Broadcasting Corp (IBC) and TNI programs 
from Nunavut and northern Quebec to get a context.

Iqaluit is a good site in terms of a staging area and air operations.  Not so good for the navy.
There are no port or deep water facilities in Iqaluit.  Large vessels cannot move close to
town due to shallow water and powerful tides.  The ice edge in winter would smash anything.
Most of the water areas around the islands are shallow.  Most activity of interest to Canadian
soverignty takes place or originates outside of the islands in the Beaufort Sea, the Davis Strait, 
and the Arctic Ocean.  Usually far from populated arctic centres in the lower arctic.

Some posts talk of ice breakers, armed vessels, troops, the rangers, possible locations of army 
and navy resources in the North.  Its interesting to speculate on this in a tactical realm, however,
without a broader strategic and political context, it doesn't mean anything.   A few ice breakers
will not solve territorial incursions and may even make a nice slow moving noisey target.  Scenarios the
government may see are international corporates like fishing or natural resources, limited
air and naval incursions, small border disputes, to speculative large or full scale military invasions.
Each has a political, civilian, intelligence gathering, military, and diplomatic component that will
tailor the type of resources (and thus the response) the government will actually situate in the 
North.  The new government, dispite ambiguous news releases, has not been specific about their 
intentions.


----------



## OLD F of S (30 Jan 2006)

Bert we managed Inuvik and Aklavik for many years you and your family just adapt to the conditions.



                         Regards OLD F of S


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2006)

I think that if we establish some sort of permanent presence up in the North be it icebreakers or not, it would go a long way to indicating to the world we take our sovereignty seriously.


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jan 2006)

Well, we can close up to half of the 24 Canadian Forces bases across Canada without degrading the overall effectiveness of the force, according to the Auditor General... so close the 12 bases, and take the savings from closing those bases and invest it in the Tory Arctic base, and investment in new hardware (like new tanks or new supply ships)... that should resolve funding the presence up north quite nicely.
In fact, read this editorial:
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_Boostingdefence.htm


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2006)

And is the AG a military expert?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Jan 2006)

I said:
"The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut their supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice."

 Journeyman -  I challenge you to sum up your view of our tactics to fight an invasion in the high arctic in one short sentence. 

3rd Horseman
Advanced Winter Warfare Instructor
1CMBG LO to the central arctic 86-89
Canadian Ranger


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Well, we can close up to half of the 24 Canadian Forces bases across Canada without degrading the overall effectiveness of the force, according to the Auditor General... so close the 12 bases, and take the savings from closing those bases and invest it in the Tory Arctic base, and investment in new hardware (like new tanks or new supply ships)... that should resolve funding the presence up north quite nicely.
> In fact, read this editorial:
> http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_Boostingdefence.htm



So .......

Which ones do we close?
Which units do we move where?
At what cost?
What new infrastructure will we need to build?
At what cost?
How many service members and families will we have to move?
At what cost?

What savings will actually result?
And, after paying for the national shuffle, when exactly will the savings be realized that could then be put to building an arctic base?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2006)

Armymatters... you are living up to your tag of armchair general quite aptly because while you might know the military through books you don't know the military at all.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jan 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I said:
> "The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut their supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice."
> 
> Journeyman -  I challenge you to sum up your view of our tactics to fight an invasion in the high arctic in one short sentence.
> ...



And I have, in two reasonably lucid posts now, tried to point out that you are talking out of your a$$. You keep referring to a "doctrine" which DOES NOT EXIST. I truely do not want this to devolve into the flaming posts that followed your previous attempt to tell us you were some "combat non-JTF...deep battle special ops..."  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/19990/post-285609.html#msg285609

Back up your " what if " with fact, add comment to news reports, critique policy statements. If you are not going to add _informed_ value to discussions.....take it down to one of the threads in "The Mess" portion of this site. They are there for just such a purpose. If I had any interest in hearing your tactical theories, that's where I'd be - - but this is NOT the place.

(3 strikes - so much for trying to be polite)


----------



## Armymatters (30 Jan 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Armymatters... you are living up to your tag of armchair general quite aptly because while you might know the military through books you don't know the military at all.



What is being suggested is that we can get more effectiveness out of the Canadian Forces by looking within the Canadian Forces to find inefficiencies. There is always some inefficiencies that can be singled out to provide better value for the Canadian public. Finding more economical ways to do the same task is always a key goal for any organization, including the CF.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> What is being suggested is that we can get more effectiveness out of the Canadian Forces by looking within the Canadian Forces to find inefficiencies. There is always some inefficiencies that can be singled out to provide better value for the Canadian public. Finding more economical ways to do the same task is always a key goal for any organization, including the CF.



Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Jan 2006)

Journey I guess that means no.

I humbly withdraw from the argument in the light of your vastly superior knowledge of Arctic warfare over me. 

Don't use JTF in connection with my posts please....its degrading to me.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (30 Jan 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> I like the idea of our Nortern Rangers looking after things up there.It's their home and they know how to survive. I hear they are pretty good shots too. Place the main headquarters of this unit near the deep water port, and with detached companies of Rangers throughout the region - 5000 sounds about right (thoughts?)



I think the rangers are the masterpiece of our northern defence and we should ''give them a bigger piece of the puzzle'' if you see what I mean. There are currently 4,000 Canadian Rangers in 165 communities across Canada. This number is expected to increase to 4,800 by March 2008, however, as expansion plans near completion. 

According to their website, the Conservative Party plan to revitalize “ the Canadian Rangers  by recruiting up to 500 additional Rangers increasing their level of training, activity, and equipment”  Good idea , although that “up to”  bit is a concern.  Many Rangers units have waiting lists of willing recruits. So why limit expansion to under 500?  Focusing on units already intimately familiar with local terrain and conditions has obvious advantages – so does improving training and updating gear.  Even if recruiting is capped at 500, this is still an excellent idea. From http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-harper1-6.htm

I suggest you also have a look at:http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-articviking5.htm


----------



## Armymatters (31 Jan 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.



According to the Auditor General reports, the following have been singled out as wasteful, or could use better management:
Auditor General 2004 report, Chapter 3:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20041103ce.html
The Auditor General suggests that the project management tools could be better used, a risk management plan needs to be developed, a lack of fairness monitor by Public Works,the seemingly arbitary selection of 80 jets to be modernized to be questionable, the staffing limitations in the program, and a lack of standardized monthly progress reports to be a concern.

Auditor General 2002 report, Chapter 8:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0208ce.html
In short, we got a military satellite sitting in a warehouse that we never used, and was a waste of money seeing that the leased commercial satellites were more than up for the task.

Auditor General 2001 report, Chapter 10:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0110ce.html
This one, the military has taken action with. But the gist of it was that the budget for maintaining military equipment could be spent better, had better planning been implemented. 

The entire series of Auditor General reports on the DND can be found here:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/00nd_e.html


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Jan 2006)

Ah, examples, why didn't you start with that. The previous remark is empty without such presentation of fact and had no value as a stand-alone statement.

Now that that diversion if out of the way, you still haven't continued your case that we can simply close 50% of our establishments - and what the end state and real savings might be.


----------



## Armymatters (31 Jan 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah, examples, why didn't you start with that. The previous remark is empty without such presentation of fact and had no value as a stand-alone statement.
> 
> Now that that diversion if out of the way, you still haven't continued your case that we can simply close 50% of our establishments - and what the end state and real savings might be.



I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Jan 2006)

Armymatters,
The Ontario Govt. of Mike Harris,[whom I voted for twice] went to "reports" to streamline and save vast amounts of money in my line of work, Corrections.
So far, the cost has been unimaginable even to us whom are still involved [I'm still putting in claims from my second paid move in 3 years] because they listened to "reports" from bean counters and not those involved  in the workings.

So, for Gods sake, stop posting links to subjects you have never been physical involved with from people whom have never been involved with from people whom ....etc....

Tell us what you know cause you have BTDT...........or listen.
Thanks...


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.



So, start with the list of bases .... look at the major units and infrastructure they have ... then consider what can be "easily" moved for cost savings.  Don't forget to rationalize occupancy loads on training areas, ability of local economies to support and sustain the development, the requirements to duplicate 'surrendered' infrastructure with new, and continuing ability to meet all assigned tasks and missions from a narrower base of operations.  It's not a simple issue that can be wrapped up in a "if" we did this we "might" save ......   What you are suggesting would require a significant amount of detailed analysis.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9634ce.html#0.2.Q3O5J2.O25UY6.WJTLQE.G01



> 34.56  The Canadian Forces have 29 bases across Canada. The largest is Halifax, with a staff of 2,114, while the smallest is Moncton with a complement of 182. Each year about $2 billion dollars or 24 percent of the Department's operating budget is consumed by bases; about 26 percent of National Defence personnel work in base support. Our audit focussed on the 22 bases that the Department intends to keep open. The bases we selected represent about 82 percent of the Department's spending at the base level.



http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9426ce.html#0.2.L39QK2.6NA0GI.95SJQE.QN


> 26.47  We used the model with the assistance of Defence military personnel to assess the military and financial impacts of reducing infrastructure to the minimum requirement of 12 bases, as justified in the 1975 study. The modelling showed that military capability would be enhanced. As well, depending on the chosen configuration, savings of between $360 million and $970 million per year could result, chiefly by consolidating support staff. To achieve those savings, approximately $1.3 billion to $2.5 billion in new infrastructure would have to be built, assuming a cost of $2,000 per square metre. However, departmental officials cautioned that, in their opinion, the 1975 approach is obsolete in the context of current needs. Nevertheless, they agreed that there will be room for further rationalization once the reductions called for in the 1994 Budget have been implemented successfully.



Note the timeframe - 1996 for the first quote, and 1994 for the second.

I think there have been some changes in force structure and commander's intent since then that just might require a detailed re-examination of this estimate. It's old enough to be considered suspicious, if not invalid against current plans in effect  without a review of all the factors involved.


----------



## armyvern (31 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.


Here's my thoughts and humble personal opinion on the matter of Base reductions/closures/cut-backs call it what you will. Those of us with some TI will recall the days when there were Bases, Stations and Dets spread throughout each Province and Territory of this great nation of ours. They have been 'amalgamated/slashed/cut-back' now throughout my career. Yes, we have experienced a volumuous cost savings in effecting these closures and consolidating our ever-shrinking resources.

"Ever-shrinking" leads me to my next point. There was a time when the great majority of Canadian taxpayers actually had a clue what was going on in their Armed Forces because we were visible in their Communities and were spread out nation-wide contributing to many local economies, endeavours. We were visible, had morale and experienced very high levels of recruiting. 

Since our cutbacks/consolidation over the past decade...we have experienced a marked decrease in morale, a marked decrease in recruiting, a marked decrease in awareness amongst the general population of Canada. We are no longer visible or known on a regular and routine basis to those persons whose taxes justify and pay for our very existance. Why should they support something they don't see? Something they do not directly benefit from on a daily basis (oh sure in times of fire, flood and snowstorm....there we are)? 

Yes we have funding now to purchase some new kit items and equipment (albeit very slowly) due to centralizing many small Unit locations into larger ones. But at what cost to the overall effectiveness and morale of the Canadian Forces? At what social and economic costs to those communities we have pulled out of? Was this factored into the equation anywhere? At what costs to recruiting and maintaining the personnel strength we desperately require in times like these?

No matter what the "monetary" cost savings to be realized by further infrastructure reductions; the means do not justify the ends.

The ends being a Canadian Forces even further out of sight and mind of those very voters who would justify our existance and determine or budgets and requirements with those votes and their voices. 

I believe we need the opposite to occur. Get us back out into the communities. Make us visible (other than on the 6 o'clock news when a critical incident occurs) once again. Give us back the pride, morale and esprit de corps Armed Forces; and don't just give it back to me....give it back to the average Canadian out there.

There truley is no life like it and it's high time we were out visibly proving this on a routine and daily basis to all of Canada and throughout all of Canada, not just the select locations currently 'benefiting' from our presence. 

By realizing the social, economic, morale-boosting and civic pride invloved in having us 'visible' at wide-spread locations, with a wide-spread support base from the populace, I believe we would soon learn that the costs associated with this far outweigh the savings associated with relegating us to our own little corner of the ring. 

IMHO of course.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Jan 2006)

Well said.


----------



## FoverF (2 Feb 2006)

Personally, I've always thought that Churchill would make the best location for a permanent northern base. 
Already has a 10,000-ish foot runway, rail sidings, a port which I've seen accomodate some bloody huge ships (plural), plenty of housing, and perhaps most importantly, it's got the largest major hospital in the region. Actually, it's the ONLY hospital in the Keewatin area (Nunavut et al). It's all just sitting there, not doing much (and not worth a whole lot in dollar terms to anyone other than the government). 

A detachment at Inuvik is a good idea as well, but I don't think it's nearly as suitable from an infrastructure standpoint. Particularily with a view of being able to park a couple of ships there. 

Churchill is also within commuting distance of Winnepeg, Cold Lake, Iqaluit (Frobisher), Rankin Inlet (which has also hosted temporary CF-18 detachments before), and a lot of the eastern arctic in general. A very convenient stepping stone from the places the CF is, to a lot of places that we want them to be. 

And there's  still several square km of cleared ground next to the airport, from when the last base was scraped away, and various buildings in various stages of repair (fire hall, etc) are still in use (so far as I know, it's been a few years). There would need to be some construction, obviously, as with any new base, but Churchill already has surveyed, cleared, and level ground, right where a base would go.  

Did I mention the port? On the Arctic Ocean?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Feb 2006)

The problem with Churchill is that it is as far from the eastern end of the NW passage at Lancaster Sound as St. John's, NF and unlike St.John's it is iced in for much of the year.  Churchill is also well south of the Arctic Circle.  Despite its salt water access it is more of an inland port, similar in many respects to Thunder Bay.


----------



## Bert (2 Feb 2006)

Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Resolute have robust airfields capable of supporting a variety of aircraft.
Iqaluit has a general hospital and medical support to other communities is varied.
Other communities in the lower and high North can not support CF-18s or C-17s without
major expansions and paving.  Inuvik is within the MacKenzie delta and is limited by shallow
water and moving ice.  There may be communities on the east coast of Baffin Island, 
Broughton Island, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord (Ellesmere), and the western Arctic like 
Sachs Harbour or Tuktoyaktuk that are better locations for ports but have numerous handicaps.
Certainly military and civilian (air, port, government, commercial, social) infrastructure will have 
to co-exist and integrate somewhat to become practical.  It would be interesting to get more 
details on the Conservative intent.


----------



## blueboy (10 Feb 2006)

There was a small article in the Vancouver province today noting that the Canadian Military will be conducting arctic patrols by snowmobile this spring,to reece two possible forward basing  locations.


----------



## geo (10 Feb 2006)

Arctic patrols?.... the Ranger dets do patrols all the time.

WRT forward basing?.... I guess contingency planning is possible
Unlikely but possible


----------



## old medic (10 Feb 2006)

There was a short CP newswire article in many of today's editions:



> Canuck soldiers plan epic series of Arctic trips
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) -- Canadian soldiers are planning an epic series of Arctic trips
> this spring to reinforce sovereignty and prepare for emergencies arising
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2006)

Here's a fuller version.



> Arctic military trips reinforce sovereignty
> Updated Fri. Feb. 10 2006 6:30 AM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060210/arctic_sovereignty_060210/20060210?hub=Canada


----------



## geo (10 Feb 2006)

ayup. As some have said in the past............. use it or lose it.

Who knows... some may decide to start using TF 2 or 4 for sovereignity / show the flag activities in the High Arctic.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (10 Feb 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.



I think the writer of the first part is closer to the evolving stuff coming out of transformation


----------



## LeonTheNeon (17 Jul 2006)

I thought some of you might be interested in this.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14072006/2/national-defence-minister-wants-arctic-port-2007-pledges-arctic-army.html

Defence minister wants arctic port by 2007, pledges arctic army school 
Fri Jul 14, 6:04 PM



IQALUIT, Nunavut (CP) - Federal Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he hopes to know by the end of the year where to build an arctic deep-water port. 

ADVERTISEMENT
  



O'Connor also says he's considering a winter warfare school at Resolute, Nunavut, and is looking to improve Canada's northern naval capability. 


"On the advice of the Nunavut government, we're told there are seven possible locations for a deep-water docking facility," O'Connor told reporters in Iqaluit on Friday at the end of a northern tour. 


"Our military staff are going to look at all seven against our requirements. This would be a military-civil facility. 


"I'm hoping that by the end of the year we know where it's going to be." 


Canada is the only arctic country that doesn't have a deep-water port along its northern coastline. 


That not only hampers military operations - the Canadian navy must now refuel in Greenland - it also inhibits Nunavut's economic development. 


Ships in the territory's growing fishery have nowhere to land their catch. Arctic cruise lines make frequent inquiries about landing at Nunavut communities, but none has docking facilities. 


Currently, ships at Iqaluit are forced to anchor offshore at Frobisher Bay. All cargo - from food to building materials to bulk fuel - must be unloaded onto barges and run up the beach along the shoreline - a long and environmentally hazardous procedure. 


"We want to get the port," said Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik, who promised to co-operate with the federal study. "We don't have one. We need one." 


The community of Iqaluit has floated port plans of its own, but O'Connor said the proposed facility would be too small to meet military requirements. 


O'Connor did praise the proposed Iqaluit site, however. "It looks like a fine location. What we have to look at is how many months of the year can you use it (and) if we had to use it in ice, what problems would that cause?" 


Other communities likely to be in the running are Kimmirut on the southern end of Baffin Island, and Arctic Bay on its northern tip. A port at Cambridge Bay on Victoria Island in the central Arctic has also been proposed. 


Building an arctic port would deliver on one of the Conservative party's campaign promises from the last election. 


O'Connor also repeated pledges for an increased military presence in the Arctic. Surveillance from the air will be increased, he said, as will sovereignty patrols across the ice and tundra. 


"I want the navy, the army and air force operating up here so that our airspace, our waters and our land are all under the control of the Canadians so there's no question that if people went through our land, air or water they follow our laws," O'Connor said. 


"It's all part of sovereignty." 


But O'Connor was cautious when asked about another promise to build three heavy, armed icebreakers. 

"Whatever the most effective way is to get the navy operating in the North, we need to go with it," he said. "I'm looking at a range of options - ships that can cross the ice, smaller double-hulled vessels that could go through one-year ice." 

He did say new naval vessels would all have some ice capability. 

"Any major vessel original to the navy will have to go through first-year ice because we are respecting the fact that we have three oceans." 

As part of his trip, O'Connor also visited Resolute, a High Arctic community on Cornwallis Island, where military officials propose a northern warfare school - something that's long been on the army's wish list. 

"They are enthusiastic about having an arctic training centre," said O'Connor. 

"We had a look at Resolute Bay (Thursday) and the military officers with me will be taking the information back to Ottawa to make a decision." 

O'Connor wouldn't estimate the cost of the new facilities or how many military personnel they would bring to the Arctic. Iqaluit's smaller design for a port was estimated to cost about $50 million. 


(EDIT: As Big Bad John points out, I misspelled arctic as artic in the title.   I have fixed it.  Thanks for pointing it out.)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2006)

If you don't claim your sovereignty, you lose it.

Kudos to the Conservatives for looking for more than 5 minutes ahead in their planning....


Matthew.


----------



## big bad john (17 Jul 2006)

Perhaps one of the staff could help out on the spelling error in the title.


----------



## Guardian (17 Jul 2006)

Just an idea...

If we are serious about reinforcing our sovereignty up north, might it be practical to station some ground forces up there? More than just a training cadre at this proposed arctic warfare school, but actually a "rapid reaction force" of sorts. 

This would give some heavier backup to the Rangers and be useful in case of civil disasters up North (i.e., the increasingly-feared prospect of an airliner crash). They would be available most of the year for sovereignty patrols, too. They might even be able to act as an EN force for the school.

Such a force could probably be a reinforced company - sized organization. Let's say a recce platoon, two rifle platoons, a heavy weapons platoon (just in case), a support platoon, an "arctic mobility platoon" (snowmobiles and the like), just for the sake of argument (if someone has a better ORG idea, by all means).

For this force to be of any use, it would have to have a few large, air-to-air refuelable helicopters located with it. The company would be trained airmobile. Put a Buffalo up there as well, and the recce platoon could jump into an area of interest in advance of the rest of the force.

We might even be able to draw most of this force from the reserves, if we trained and rotated them through the tasking like any other op tasking. There have to be some reservists out there who would volunteer for a six-month tour of the Arctic - if given the proper incentives, anyway (the operational tax break? Some special pay arrangement? Even a medal (after all, Alert rates one, and it would be an operational task, I'd think)?

And after a few years of annually rotating a couple hundred reservists through the North, the training and experience gained and thus disseminated might be a general benefit to the Reserves. Best of all, the overtasked Reg Force might only have to provide a training cadre and some specialist positions - positions that would likely have to be resident at this school anyway. (I'm just thinking of the Army side, not the Air component that would be required).

Any thoughts? Or is this totally out to lunch?


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Jul 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Perhaps one of the staff could help out on the spelling error in the title.



Seems to have spelt it the way most people say it.  :'(


----------



## Remius (17 Jul 2006)

Guardian: Not a bad idea but maybe a reinforced coy might be a little too ambitious to start.  Maybe an enlarged platoon to begin with.  With reserves being deployed overseas now more than ever and other taskings such as training etc, it might be difficult finding enough reservists to man something like that year round.  Maybe a platoon size on the ground with others on standby able to deploy at a moments notice and integrate?

Don't know really.  But arctic sovereignty is becoming more relevant and Canada needs to make its presence felt.  And it has to be more than just the occasional exercise.

I also applaud the conservatives for taking this seriously.  This is one of the main reasons why I voted for them.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2006)

For more discussion and alternatives to icebreakers, see this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44203.0.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2006)

Civie Question: "How quickly could you integrate some of the younger Rangers into a number of dispersed active units?"

And for those with far more experience than I will ever have, how would you outfit them?

Thanks in advance,

Matthew.  

P.S.  Are the Griffon's Arctic-capable?


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

They don't get integrated, they get attached.  That is a formality; Orders.  They would act more or less as 'Guides' and 'Advisers' to the unit.

They come equiped with what they were issued so there would be no outfitting.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They don't get integrated, they get attached.  That is a formality; Orders.  They would act more or less as 'Guides' and 'Advisers' to the unit.
> 
> They come equiped with what they were issued so there would be no outfitting.



My bad....I must have written that poorly.

What I meant was "If you were to recruit currently trained Rangers to create a new active unit, how long would it take to train them to current active duty standards and if were to become an active unit how would you equip it?  In short, instead of bringing active personnel from other regions of the country, are there overwhelming hurdles to using the Ranger-trained force who know the environment better than anyone as the basis for a new active unit or units?"


Matthew.   ???


----------



## orange.paint (17 Jul 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> My bad....I must have written that poorly.
> 
> What I meant was "If you were to recruit currently trained Rangers to create a new active unit, how long would it take to train them to current active duty standards and if were to become an active unit how would you equip it?  In short, instead of bringing active personnel from other regions of the country, are there overwhelming hurdles to using the Ranger-trained force who know the environment better than anyone as the basis for a new active unit or units?"
> 
> ...


Although I agree with your comment on how they know the environment better than anyone else,you have to pause and look at their culture.Having said that what I'm about to say is only a personal view from working with the rangers personally and my father owned a Hudson bay company in great whale river northern Quebec.

The rangers provide a valuable asset to our forces and country,but lets not get them confused with reservist or regular force soldiers.You will find that if a ranger has nothing to gain from an experience he may not show up.He also has a life where hunting and fishing (in some areas)is still important to their communities and culture,therefore you cannot expect him to show up when there is stuff to be done in his family.

My father said they were really hard workers but when they received enough money from his company to get what they wanted to buy,you wouldn't see them again till they needed more.That's not lazy that's a way of life.Having said that I have served alongside one young man from great whale river (our fathers were buddies) and he served 3 years but decided to go back to his family.And one of the best shots I've ever seen I must add.

When I worked with them in raymore ontario they said the only ones who jumped right into the "army way" were city slickers.The ones in the country just didnt quite go that way.

To form a bat allion of Rangers is a silly thought.Not only would it not work due to cultural reasons,it could dramatically affect their way of life and destroy a culture by making them into a workforce.


----------



## GAP (17 Jul 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> My father said they were really hard workers but when they received enough money from his company to get what they wanted to buy,you wouldn't see them again till they needed more.That's not lazy that's a way of life.Having said that I have served alongside one young man from great whale river (our fathers were buddies) and he served 3 years but decided to go back to his family.And one of the best shots I've ever seen I must add.



Having worked with Inuit and lived in the north also, I can only agree with you. Great people, just not focused the same way we are. Nothing wrong with it, just different.


----------



## Missile Man (17 Jul 2006)

I completely agree with Guardian - let's send the Army up there to "defend our sovereignty" and stuff.  Someone needs to maintain vigilance on Hans Island, am I right?  So I vote the Army, and the Rangers, not the Navy.  We will stick to Victoria, Ottawa, and Halifax....


----------



## Navy_Blue (17 Jul 2006)

Navy and Air force are really the key assets we need up north.  Keep our Infantry well trained and able to work with rangers and we're good.  No real need to post lots and lots of people up north either.  Logistical service and support and maybe if you want to be really mean and nasty stick the ice breaker crews up north too.  If you think about posting anywhere from 150 to 500+ people north of sixty will be very very costly.  I've been up there with the ship and its another world.  Did I mention that you can only drink at lunch and supper till 11PM the horror!!! If the Coast Guard is smart enough to rotate crews out of more major centers like St John's.  We could rotate our crews up there for a few months on and a few months off.  With a rotation it comes down to Sea Pay only not PLD to cover a 10$ bag of potato's or 15$ for a head of lettuce.

So now it comes down to a Jetty with a Medium sized Warehouse/Maintainance facility with a few billets for Log/Traffic Techs, a Clerk and and some Local technical support.  Just a simple Jetty with an ability to accommodate medium sized freighters and tankers would be priceless to a place like Iqaluit

Now as far as Zoomies go, do we need more air bases than we already have??  Would UAV's and our patrol aircraft not have the range to fly out of Goosebay and Yellowknife to do the job.  Iqaluit would be able to handle a small detachment as well.  Again rotational basis only.

Why make all this more expensive than necessary?? I think you could get the same results without a large influx of personnel and save some money in the long run.

My 2 peanuts.


----------



## tempest77 (3 Feb 2007)

> Deep-water naval port in Arctic in doubt
> 
> David ********
> CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2007)

Jim Travers of the _Crvena Zvezda_ blows it.  Big time:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/177773



> ...After previously deciding wisely on equipment that would be useful in fighting wars among the people and foolishly on big-ticket items of dubious value, the defence minister is now potentially in the market for everything from tanks to fighter aircraft and Arctic icebreakers.



This appears today in the CanWest story above:



> ...the Harper government appears to be backing off election promises to build a deep water port in the Arctic and launch a fleet of armed icebreakers.
> 
> Instead, according to the government's Canada First Defence Strategy paper, it will construct a forward operating refuelling and berthing site for navy ships and build six Arctic patrol vessels.



Mr Travers refers to our "potentially" buying new fighters. Maybe around 2017, that is. He really should do some research.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/12/canada-signs-f35-production-phase-mou/index.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (3 Feb 2007)

Having lived & worked in the great white north..... didn't see this as a realistic goal in the 1st place.


----------



## JackD (3 Feb 2007)

Well, there's always Churchill.... On the other hand, by the time any new icebreakers - be it Coast Guard or Navy - are purchased, or for that matter ice-strengthened ships. global warming will have changed the parameters some-what...


----------



## NCRCrow (3 Feb 2007)

more election chaff.....yawn


----------



## vigillis (4 Feb 2007)

The Rangers cannot act as a military force, their role is well defined as "the eyes and ears of the North".  The are only required to serve 12 days of annual training their first year, and then it is somewhat optional after that.  They are issued a .303, a ballcap, a sweatshirt, and T-shirt.  After their basic issue, there are some differences between Ranger Groups but that sums it up nicely.  Formed soldiers no, good recce for their own back yard great. 

As to your remarks of changing their way of life Ex RCAC, it has already changed dramatically.  Kids surf the net, dress like rap stars, and the little girls wear cut off shirts that just cannot be warm, although not in winter.  

As for a deep water port in Iqualuit, it would be great for the local economy seeing that a can of coke goes for roughly $ 2.50 a deep water port would increase the flow of goods year round thus possibly lessening the cost.

School on Resolute great, I just do not know who will man it, cause I do not see a lot of people lining up to do my job and it is the farthest way from a school like mentality.


----------



## geo (4 Feb 2007)

Scotty,
a deep water port in Iqualuit or Kuujjuaq sounds wonderful in concept BUT,  keeping the darned thing open long enough for it to be worthwhile is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Sealift never comes early.... 

Resolute ?... nice place to visit (but wouldn't want to be there without a ticket in hand for a flignt out.


----------



## orange.paint (5 Feb 2007)

Doyle RS said:
			
		

> As to your remarks of changing their way of life Ex RCAC, it has already changed dramatically.  Kids surf the net, dress like rap stars, and the little girls wear cut off shirts that just cannot be warm, although not in winter.



Your absolutely right.I happened to find my fathers old store online as well.
http://www.niagara.co.uk/home/homeImages/gwr4.jpg

However are there still area's that are not under large Canadian influence?I remember Bob( one of our rangers )telling us not to listen to the next guy we were going to see,cause he was a "city slicker".And actually you could tell the large difference in demeanor between Bob and the other guy.Bob along with most of the rangers was more(hard to find a word)but I'll say shy.While the other guy was quite full of himself.

They provide us with a great resource.A past poster pointed out 14 training days a year.However they live their
role everyday,as the eyes and ears.And darn good shots I might add.


----------



## geo (5 Feb 2007)

Ahhh... (GWR4) Great Whale River store.  Been there - though one of the loals did burn that particular store down.... something about "it" blocking her view of the coast ???

They built a bigger & better one.  Whites & Inuit at one end of town and Amerindians at the other end.... it just works better that way.

The youth in most communities have lost many of the traits of their fathers & grandfathers.  Some communities have implemented "traditional" courses into the school curriculum - Igloo building & survival on the tundra - tought by some of the elders....  

But you are never too far from contact with the south - thus, city slicker attitudes are creeping north.


----------



## GAP (5 Feb 2007)

Churchill offers the most logical place. It has the airport capability, deep sea port, and a longer ice free season.

edited to add: Just because it is a NDP riding does not mean it should be ignored.....that's been most of the problem with Churchill. Historically it has been NDP provincially, thus the various governments chose to ignore it. 
Federally, I think Tina Keeper is the member.


----------



## STONEY (5 Feb 2007)

Churchill I thought was in Manitoba.  I wouldn't exactly call Manitoba the Arctic although the winter tempatures mayseem like it.

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhh... (GWR4) Great Whale River store.  Been there - though one of the loals did burn that particular store down.... something about "it" blocking her view of the coast ???
> 
> They built a bigger & better one.  Whites & Inuit at one end of town and Amerindians at the other end.... it just works better that way.
> 
> ...



My friend was hired to teach Kayak building up North, he enjoyed the summer up there, but I don’t think his wife did.


----------



## NCRCrow (5 Feb 2007)

Tina Keeper is she the Mountie from North of 60?

Wasn't Churchill a Station that closed in the 80's.

I would not wanted to be posted to a Naval Station up north. Like to visit not to live. ( I am a nomadic Army Brat and sailor so that argument will not work)

Maybe keep a MCDV up for the summers in Iqaluit.


----------



## vigillis (5 Feb 2007)

Ex RCAC I agree with what you said, the ones that talk a good line are often just that, a good line.  A deep water port in Iqualuit is feasible I assume that our icebreakers can do in the year old ice that accumulates there, but have a harder problem with the old ice in less travelled areas.  Kuujjuaq is just not in the cards, a river town is all it will ever be.

Resolute is the best possible place, when you are in your office, warm and looking at a map.  It is in the middle of the Northwest passage, thus any base there is equidistant from both entrances.  Reality on the other hand is something different.  I have to say though that First Air does service the community weekly from Ottawa, so maybe the MND will be making trips out to boost morale.  I jest, however it would be cheaper to use commercial air, and it is large enough for jets.

What I find interesting is who will be doing the manning??  PRes?  Regs??  I know it cannot be the Rangers due to their status in DND.  Oh well, back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## NCRCrow (5 Feb 2007)

PMQ's, Naval Maintenance Infastructure, Schools, Ammo Magazines, POL, Barracks, Sports & Rec, Force Protection the list goes on and on.

I am curious to what the Rangers will man. A warship??

I am confused with your post.


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2007)

Rangers man Kayaks & small fishing boats....  

Infrastructure & facilities aren`t all that difficult to prepare.  If we base ourselves on how they did it for the mine on Little Cornwallis island, they built everything on a couple of barges in a place like Marystown, Halifax, St John, Quebec City (Sorel) or wherever.  Float everything up north (along with a couple of years worth of basic supplies).  Park the barges, possibly dam and pump dry to have facilities on dry land or let the ice lock everything in place.... at a later date, if necessary, you can either move the whole thing eleswhere or rotate components out.... 

Infrastructure is "dooable".... the question is, do you really want it & what are you going to do with it once it's there?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2007)

Double tap or perhaps I just post-whoring....sorry


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2007)

You can have small patrol boats based up there and haul them out in the winter like ATL did with it's Northern fleet. 2 small patrol boats, 2 in the West and 2 in the Eastern Arctic, manned by mainly by locals. I also believe there should be at least 2 small bases up there close to the vessels, larger towns and airfields that would be stockpiled with ammunition, supplies, some heavier weapons for rapid deployment. these bases and vessels will also help cement our sovereignty claims.


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2007)

Colin,
There are some forward bases for the air assets to drop in and occupy.  Iqualuit (aka Frobisher Bay) is one of em.  Hangars, quarters, etc... not enough for a large force but as a scramble base, serves it's purpose.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Rangers man Kayaks & small fishing boats....
> 
> Infrastructure & facilities aren`t all that difficult to prepare.  If we base ourselves on how they did it for the mine on Little Cornwallis island, they built everything on a couple of barges in a place like Marystown, Halifax, St John, Quebec City (Sorel) or wherever.  Float everything up north (along with a couple of years worth of basic supplies).  Park the barges, possibly dam and pump dry to have facilities on dry land or let the ice lock everything in place.... at a later date, if necessary, you can either move the whole thing eleswhere or rotate components out....
> 
> Infrastructure is "dooable".... the question is, do you really want it & what are you going to do with it once it's there?



Man talk about coincidence! A friend of mine who lives in my apartment building was the individual in charge of developping and managing exactly what you just described. I believe he built the barge up in Montreal where he was employed by Bechtel. One of his favorite war stories he never tires of telling.
Speaking of war, he was RCD in WWII , part of a Staghound crew. Now there's a story I would love to get my hands on in the archives in Ottawa.


----------



## geo (7 Feb 2007)

Staghounds?... many units had the big beasties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Feb 2007)

I would love to hear a personal account of the Staghound, get him to give the general view of whether they liked, loved or hated them and why?


----------



## geo (7 Feb 2007)

Hijack wng!

Last fella I know who drove one passed away last fall - can't help ya

Back to discussion.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Feb 2007)

A certain journalist doesn't like the MND's spelling (full text subscriber only):

O'Connor denies abandoning defence of North
Promised icebreakers become 'patrol ships'
_Ottawa Citizen_, Feb. 08
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2d2d4be2-3a99-43e2-af0f-f853613fbb6e



> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is sending mixed signals about the government's policy on the North, say Arctic specialists and opposition MPs.
> 
> Under fire for apparently retreating on the Conservatives' election promise to purchase three armed icebreakers for the navy, as well as building a deep-water docking facility in the Arctic, Mr. O'Connor told the Commons this week the government will indeed honour the commitments it made to the North.
> 
> ...



In any event this is a non-story.  The reporter already covered it on Feb. 03.  What is the motive for recycling old news?

Conservatives to boost Arctic defence
Promised port, armed icebreakers not in new plan
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=9f754787-c560-4f3f-8a7b-bf0e9461ed4d&k=95220

Also as a matter of reporting priorities, I wonder why the possibility of using new Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers to assert Arctic maritime sovereignty is not mentioned.

See: Arctic: Give the Canadian Coast Guard the icebreakers
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/08/arctic-give-canadian-coast-guard.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw (8 Feb 2007)

I think placing a civilian/military deep-water port in the Arctic is a fine idea but is it cost-effective given the distribution of population in the Arctic? Right now the only place that really needs a port is Iqaliut.  From a military point of view, probably the most strategic location of a northern base would be Resolute.
  
Perhaps a better idea would be to first build an all-weather railway from Hay River to Yellowknife and then to the mouth of the Coppermine River(Kugluctuk) on the Coronation Gulf.  With decent port facilities there, one could logistically support several bases(Resolute included) if needed.  There is a real civilian benefit from this as well---there are several diamond mines along with other potential mine sites that could benefit from such a railway.  The railway would be expensive but the side-benefits would make it more likely to be done than just talked about.  I suspect the local governments would be quite enthusiatic about this.   A couple of ships operating from Kugluctuk could move much more equipment and supplies in a summer season than by the methods used now.  When the Coronation Gulf is impassable, the railway could build up stocks for the summer shipping season.

A realistic plan for protecting our claims in the Arctic is about 30 years overdue---some of the infrastructure could have been built long ago.
In any case this is an idea that should be considered---I think that the politicians would find it much more palatable than plunking down a small naval base at Pond Inlet or Resolute or somewhere else where there are no significant civilian side benefits.


----------



## cplcaldwell (8 Feb 2007)

WRT To Mark's second link, (above Posted on: Today at 12:05:14)

First lines of the article _"The Canadian army's part-time soldiers are expected to play a greater role in defending the Arctic with as many as 1,000 troops training in the northern region every year."_

I can see it now.....

"Warrant, does that mean that Windoc this year will be held in Alert instead of Borden? Should I pack my parka or will my field coat with a fleece inside it be okay???"


----------



## R933ex (8 Feb 2007)

Seeing as it is only -38 outside my window I would suggest that the fleece would just about do it  >  

Firstly as an isolated Yellowknifer a year round train would be a great idea to start with stronger benefits for the economy however we have been trying for 30 plus years to build a bridge across the Mackenzie, so doubt that will happen any time soon.

However when it comes to deep water arctic ports, one area where it would be beneficial would be Rankin, as that community has access to several smaller satelite communities, and could be used as a gateway for a proposed road to several proposed diamond mines which currently can only be supported by airlift! (Or a very long snow machine ride)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Feb 2007)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> I think placing a civilian/military deep-water port in the Arctic is a fine idea but is it cost-effective given the distribution of population in the Arctic? Right now the only place that really needs a port is Iqaliut.  From a military point of view, probably the most strategic location of a northern base would be Resolute.
> 
> Perhaps a better idea would be to first build an all-weather railway from Hay River to Yellowknife and then to the mouth of the Coppermine River(Kugluctuk) on the Coronation Gulf.  With decent port facilities there, one could logistically support several bases(Resolute included) if needed.  There is a real civilian benefit from this as well---there are several diamond mines along with other potential mine sites that could benefit from such a railway.  The railway would be expensive but the side-benefits would make it more likely to be done than just talked about.  I suspect the local governments would be quite enthusiatic about this.   A couple of ships operating from Kugluctuk could move much more equipment and supplies in a summer season than by the methods used now.  When the Coronation Gulf is impassable, the railway could build up stocks for the summer shipping season.
> 
> ...



Being involved in many Canadian Enviromental Assessment Reviews (CEAA) I can only imagine what a pain the review for the rail line would be, for sure it would go to a Panel Review to insure that the sex life of the spotted shrew is not harmed... :


----------



## Bearpaw (8 Feb 2007)

In reply to R933ex,

The problem with the bridge over the Mackenzie is exactly what I had in mind when I said some of these problems are 30 years or more in age.   As you well know, the cost of living in the north is very high, particularly in winter.....a decent rail system would reduce that quite significantly for most of the north.

In reply to Colin P,

I agree the environmental reviews would be bitterly fought---but if the local people see the benefits and the route is planned well, I think it might be a bit easier than you think---especially if the local politicians are supportive.

The route to Kugluctuk was not simply arrived at while I was sitting at my computer.  I started thinking about this problem in the 1960's when the Pine Point mine was being developed.  For several years I thought that a railway from Lynn Lake to the Boothia Peninsula would be best but there are not the side benefits of such a railway.  The route that I eventually thought best starts from Yellowknife towards Rankin Inlet for about 300km (going near some of the diamond mines) then turning northwest along the "ridgeline" toward Kugluctuk----this would minimize the number of bridges to be built.  I had looked at Rankin Inlet as a possible terminus until I read a Canadian Geographic article(had an excellent map which made me consider Kugluctuk) about the 8 people who live there and how narrow the inlet is----there was some talk of a port there but ships would be in peril from the wind in such narrow confines.   At Kugluctuk you have a town of about 1000 and sea access to both the mouth of the Mackenzie and to Coronation sound----the oil and gas developments of the future could use the railway to bring equipment of Kugluctuk thn barge it where needed----much as they do now on the Mackenzie. What I was not able to investigate is how deep the water is and the suitability of dock-sites at Kugluctuk--I could not find appropriate maps---I am sure they exist but I could not find them.

On a cost-benefit basis I am afraid that the Minister of Defence's deep-water port may well be strangled before birth unless a more integrated approach is taken.  The idea of the port at Iqaliut is a good one (and it should be built) but from a military point of view, it
is too far from the strategically important areas of the North-west passage.  A base at Resolute is probably the best answer, but it would be a real problem logistically now---at most a couple of ships per summer could supply the place---it is a long way to divert naval assets to supply the food, fuel, .... needed for an operating base of 300-500 servicemen. At any decent level of operations(land patrols and sea patrols supplemented by air patrols), probably at tanker load of fuel alone would be needed.   

Anyway just some more food for thought!


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is another perspective, from columnist Neil Reynolds, from today’s (9 Feb 07) _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070209.wxrreynolds09/BNStory/National/home 


> Arctic sovereignty? Cue the military
> 
> NEIL REYNOLDS
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...




*“Canada needs a permanent military presence in every part of the Arctic where we assert sovereign rights.”*

Not just a base, Reynolds asserts; not just a few vessels, aircraft and _scouts_, but, rather,  as I read it, a real, capable military force which can:


Maintain 24/7 surveillance over all of the territories and waters over which Canada claims sovereignty and over the airspace above them;

Detect all _intruders_ - authorized and not;

Identify all _intruders_;

Intercept _intruders_ and, as necessary, _arrest_ and either detain them or escort them out of our sovereign territory.

This is, in large measure, a _constabulary_ function which can, and in some (many) cases should be done by or shared with other _constabulary_ forces such as the RCMP.  But it is important to remember that, in our tradition, there is a strong _constabulary_ role for the Canadian Forces - a role which predates Confederation.

If Reynolds is right, and I think he is, then this is going to be an expensive proposition which is yet another reason why I have been harping about the inadequate levels of funding proposed in the *leaked* version (Draft?) of the so-called ”Canada First” _defence strategy_.  How we will build new bases - the Arctic is a big, big place, I’m assuming more than one will be necessary - and put properly staffed and equipped ships, and army and air units there and conduct sovereignty operations there and, still, be ready and able to protect and promote our vital interests around the world, à la Afghanistan, if the financial resources for our national defence actually *shrink* over the next 20 years?  That, a shrinking military capability, is what a mere *doubling* of defence spending by 2025 gives us - when adjusted for real, defence related rates of inflation.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (9 Feb 2007)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> Railway in the arctic



Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable. 

If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2007)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable.
> 
> If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.



The railway to Churchill is build, in some areas, on permafrost, and it is a nightmare to maintain, travel and put a decent load on the tracks. The grain cars going up to Churchill initially could only be partially filled to accommodate the weight restrictions. 

I am sure there are other rail lines built on permafrost, but in each case I think you will find it ain't easy.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Feb 2007)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable.
> 
> If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.



Hovercraft. Large ocean-going types like the Ruskies had/have

FYI, Hovercraft are far more effective for icebreaking than ships. (faster/breaks more/more economical/multipurpose platform) 

As far as the physical security of our arctic goes what really are we looking at?  I remember during the Hans Island nonevent a couple of years back knowing that the Danes were headed for and going to Hans Island for at least a week before they ever got there.  What points of entry are we looking at/

IMO there are 4 possible points of entry, East, West, airborne and Subsurface.  There are however a multitude of questions that need to be asked before we go of half-cocked...

Which point of entry is the greatest threat? Where do we put limited forces in order to maximize our control? Where do we trust to automation? What response is appropriate when it is our "allies" that defy our sovereignty, what about other nonaligned forces? What do we do when (not if) it goes pear shaped and we loose _de facto _ sovereignty over the NW Passage.

Our land territory is not the real issue here, the Arctic Archipelago is fairly safely Canadian, the NW passage however, could be declared an international Strait in fairly short order, and UNCLOS is not on our side.

IMO we should be paving the way for the larger sovereignty issues by resolving our border disputes with the US and Denmark.  Once, and only once our Western and Eastern borders are established by something more substantial than our ill advised and largely unrecognized use of straight baselines, then we will know exactly what our actual borders are and we can start worrying about what is inside them.


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2007)

Was not hovercraft covered thoroughly in another thread regarding the artic, and it was pointed out that they do NOT work very well in cold temperatures...


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Feb 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> it was pointed out that they do NOT work very well in cold temperatures...



Really?  There are civy, recreational HC that operate down to -32 c, while not suitable, I don't think that the company was realy trying for an arctic machine either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> ... we should be paving the way for the larger sovereignty issues by resolving our border disputes with the US and Denmark.  Once, and only once our Western and Eastern borders are established by something more substantial than our ill advised and largely unrecognized use of straight baselines, then we will know exactly what our actual borders are and we can start worrying about what is inside them.



It seems to me that our dispute with the USA is more complex than that and revolves, mainly, around the definition of the Northwest Passage: is it an international waterway or is it Canadian sovereign water?  The USA says international, we say Canadian.  It appears to me that compromise is unlikely.

For the moment, at least, the USA has the better hand in the game - they can demonstrate the 'right of innocent passage' whenever they want.  We, on the other hand, cannot prevent anyone from doing much of anything in and around the waters and lands  we claim as our own because we have no *force* to give authority to our words.  If we cannot *enforce* our claims to sovereignty then our sovereignty does not exist.

Thanks, M. Trudeau; thanks M. Chrétien; you’re creation of and pandering to our national _cult of entitlement_, at the expense of our national defence, has rendered us impotent.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Feb 2007)

I was refering to the Beaufort Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_Sea


----------



## Bearpaw (9 Feb 2007)

I agree with the comments that building a railway on permafrost has great challenges---there is a 1100Km railway in Tibet on permfrost that has some problems, the Canadian Arctic Railway proposal(to Fairbanks, Alaska) has looked at the problem, we also have the Murmansk railway in Russia, the Trans-Siberian railway, and others, the Churchill and Lynn Lake railways and Great Slave Lake Railway in Canada to draw experience from.  Weight and size restrictions on the trains should be expected----but a small train delivering say 2000 tons of cargo every 2 or 3 days can move a lot more cargo than 1 ship bringing maybe 10000-15000 tons once a year.

I suspect the best way to build such a railway would be to do it in early winter---let the rail embankment cool and freeze over the winter.  The real problem is the thermodynamic balance in the summer---there has been some mathematical modeling on this problem but no conclusions as far as I know---perhaps the embankments may have to be spray-painted or something like that to reflect heat---this is really a problem for engineers.

Here are some links with some interesting points and information:
http://www.whitehorsechamber.com/newsletter/march06/?nid=news...
http://www.croatianmall.com/lupic/arctic/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wcomment0209/BNStory/National/home
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0304109

What the government of Canada must do is pick a long-term sustainable strategy to achieve their sovereignty goals in the Arctic and work toward it by a careful development of infrastructure.  The infrastructure will be needed for other things than military purposes.
When in place we will have the capability to build whatever military presence we need in the Arctic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I was refering to the Beaufort Sea
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_Sea



I assumed that from your "straight baselines" comment and, on that issue I agree.

I wanted to comment on the bigger, more complex set of disputes and our lack of capability to give weight to our words.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Feb 2007)

Big hovercraft are hard to maintain and the Russians have mothballed most of theirs, although they did sell some to the Chinese recently (hmm, wonder why they would need them.....)

Hovercraft were used with success in the arctic, in fact one of the hovercraft I worked on in the CCG was based in the arctic for many years doing seismic work. Also ATL ran a couple of big Finish ones for moving supplies. Hovercraft are slope sensitive (car, ice, hill, you get the picture) they also can be inhibited by pressure ridges over 4' high. 

Like it or not we will need to build a port and make more of the roads up there year round (Mackenzie bridge should be built) if we want to hold onto the area.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that our dispute with the USA is more complex than that and revolves, mainly, around the definition of the Northwest Passage: is it an international waterway or is it Canadian sovereign water?  The USA says international, we say Canadian.  It appears to me that compromise is unlikely.
> 
> For the moment, at least, the USA has the better hand in the game - they can demonstrate the 'right of innocent passage' whenever they want.  We, on the other hand, cannot prevent anyone from doing much of anything in and around the waters and lands  we claim as our own because we have no *force* to give authority to our words.  If we cannot *enforce* our claims to sovereignty then our sovereignty does not exist.
> 
> Thanks, M. Trudeau; thanks M. Chrétien; you’re creation of and pandering to our national _cult of entitlement_, at the expense of our national defence, has rendered us impotent.



I think, as much as anything, the US and the US Navy in particular, are concerned less about the particulars of the Canadian claim and more about precedence.  Their concern is that the point-to-point theory could close up many choke points.  For example, if Britain gave back Gibraltar to the Spanish and the Spanish retained their islands on the south side of the strait then they might be tempted to close off the Med to the US the next time Israel got into a discussion.  Or it might encourage Iran to invade Muscat and close of the Arabian/Persian Gulf.  Or Malaysia or Indonesia to close off the Straits of Malacca......

It is all about maintaining freedom of movement and innocent passage.


----------



## Reccesoldier (9 Feb 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think, as much as anything, the US and the US Navy in particular, are concerned less about the particulars of the Canadian claim and more about precedence.  Their concern is that the point-to-point theory could close up many choke points.  For example, if Britain gave back Gibraltar to the Spanish and the Spanish retained their islands on the south side of the strait then they might be tempted to close off the Med to the US the next time Israel got into a discussion.  Or it might encourage Iran to invade Muscat and close of the Arabian/Persian Gulf.  Or Malaysia or Indonesia to close off the Straits of Malacca......
> 
> It is all about maintaining freedom of movement and innocent passage.



The crux of the matter deals with money and trade.   The NW passage as an open international strait cuts over 6000km off a journey from Asia to Europe.  It makes it possible to use larger ships than can be accomodated by the panama canal and would be safer than rounding the cape.


----------



## geo (9 Feb 2007)

why don't we make the Northwest passage into another "St Lawrence seaway".
I understand that the US and others want the freedom to move military vessels without obtaining permission but... WTF... there has to ba some sort of solution & international treaty that can be applied.


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2007)

Geo --If we had the spine and money to do it...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> why don't we make the Northwest passage into another "St Lawrence seaway".
> I understand that the US and others want the freedom to move military vessels without obtaining permission but... WTF... there has to ba some sort of solution & international treaty that can be applied.



I never understood why we didn't just sign an accord with the 'States.  They recognize it as sovereign Canadian territory and we give them special access rights for military vessels.  Tie that in with a threat that otherwise we fund an oilsand pipeline to Prince Rupert for the Asian Market, and I think they'd jump on it.


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The crux of the matter deals with money and trade.   The NW passage as an open international strait cuts over 6000km off a journey from Asia to Europe.  It makes it possible to use larger ships than can be accomodated by the panama canal and would be safer than rounding the cape.



That's a fact.  As to finding a solution - what is wrong with the solution for the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Dixon Channel?  Don't we agree to disagree and conduct joint patrols in those places?  Could do the same on the east with Denmark.  Agree that while we can't agree which one of us it belongs to we can agree it doesn't belong to anyone else.  Keep the squabbles intramural.


----------



## warspite (10 Feb 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I never understood why we didn't just sign an accord with the 'States.  They recognize it as sovereign Canadian territory and we give them special access rights for military vessels.  Tie that in with a threat that otherwise we fund an oilsand pipeline to Prince Rupert for the Asian Market, and I think they'd jump on it.


The problem is that it is not only the Americans who don't recognize our sovereignty. And we shouldn't have to make a deal in order to get another nation to recognize our sovereignty, they should know not to mess with us. Unfortunately years of Canada bending over backward to accommodate everyone hasn't left us with much clout in the world. Sovereignty isn't given it is earned.


----------



## Flip (10 Feb 2007)

"Sovereignty isn't given it is earned."
Amen to that!

The new C17 s are one tiny step in the right direction, but we have so far to go.

The American's beef is in part, that they expect to be the ones
to cover our butts should a dispute arise.

Canada has just not been credible in the last 40 years,
in the way we were before Trudeau.

I've actually heard a Canadian citizen suggest that we should simply sub-contract
defense to the US as "Canada isn't very good at it anyway".
I was angry with the guy - and in conversations since have had to explain
why combat ops were something that Canadians had to do in Afghanistan.

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us"- I forgot who said it.


----------



## Melietcetera (30 Mar 2007)

We need to have a major partnership between government/military/civilian to really assert our northern sovereignty.  If I had my wishes answered for this, we would have:  
- Major resources to improve what we already have up there
- The deep-water port the Tories promised us
- A scientific research centre for learning about the various climate change and migratory patterns of animals
- A major effort to help the housing crisis they have
- Improved hospitals for both the troops and the locals (for delivering babies to helping the TB, AIDS, and substance abuse problems northerners face)
- All troops to go through the arctic training talked about on other areas of this site

We would need drills for all military very frequently, not only to show that we were using the land, but because life up north is so different for where most Canadians live and, while I'm sure we all have joked about being Canadian = understanding winter better than anyone, part of proving our rightful claim is way more that the occassional tour and removing Denmark's flag.


----------



## GAP (8 Aug 2007)

I was listening to CBC radio on the way home and they announced the new deep water port promised is to be a former base on the southern tip of Baffin Island, but I cannot find anything in print confirming that.

Anyone know of any sources that confirm that?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2007)

There is a major Exercise going on around there right now.  They aren't confusing that, with building a Base there are they?


----------



## prom (8 Aug 2007)

Link

thats to the CBC article, and it doe not look like confusion at all

reproduced under fair dealings



> Far up north on the tip of Baffin Island, an abandoned mine is set to play out a crucial military role in Canada's mission to assert its sovereignty in the Arctic.
> 
> CBC News has learned that the federal government is proposing to refurbish the former lead-and-zinc mining site into a deepwater docking facility, and also plans to build an army training centre in the North.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (9 Aug 2007)

Nanasivik is just a hop and a skip from the town of Acrtic Bay.... A very remote place at the best of times

Sooo.... not only will we be staffing ALERT, and a skeleton staff at Iqualuit (air), now we'll be staffing Nanasivik?

Peechy!....


----------



## Cronicbny (9 Aug 2007)

Sign me up!


----------



## JackD (9 Aug 2007)

Have any of you noticed the wording in regard to the Northwest Passage? In the internet article; http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/08/08/arctic-setup.html - " The international strait remains free to all navigation, although Canada claims ownership over the  waterway and shipping route." So has the government reversed its position. Is this no longer Canadian inland waters? Or is this shoddy journalism? If the Northwest Passage is to be ceded as 'international waters', in view of its narrowness and its navigation hazards, does that not mean that the Strait of Georgia is now international waters?


----------



## YZT580 (9 Aug 2007)

The international strait remains free to all navigation, although Canada claims ownership over the much-coveted waterway and shipping route.  

Shoddy i.e. up to normal CBC standards journalism.  Note that it even contradicts itself.  To be factually correct it should read:"The status of the strait is currently under dispute although Canada has traditionally claimed ownership over......".  But what can you expect there isn't much national pride in our national communications centre


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2007)

Reading deeper etc, for the port, the area in question on the northern tip of Baffin Island was a site of a large mine which was closed in 2002, and the port facility is still being used part time by the Canadian Coast Guard (we have those?   ). When the mine was in operation, large cargo ships would dock there from May to Oct. With ice breaking capability it would could be a yr round port.

The mine site area just east of Artic Bay also has a hardened dirt runway which could be built up to accept aircraft as large as commercial 737s.

The only stumbling block would be populating such a remote area. 

Personally I say lets get it on and going.

As for an army training area near Resolute....we are way beyond the stage where we know we have a need for it. It has been too long since we were doing biannual above-the-treeline/Artic Circle winter exercises. As Canadian Soldiers, knowing how to fight in the desert and mountains is good, but fighting in the Artic should be one area we master.


----------



## JackD (9 Aug 2007)

Populating a remote area like this would be a great problem - unless there are incentives and unless the law is changed - it's been a long time, but i remember an article published in the Western Producer in the early nineties about  land ownership in the Northwest Territories being only possible by nonwhites - presumably first nations people.. The article in question dealt with the fact that those individuals who used to own land, did not anymore - hence big problems in selling their farms. I can foresee problems in setting up this base in regard to future land claim demands... I'm sure even at this very moment some law firm is rubbing its hands with glee......


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2007)

The land in question is already private property as it is currently owned by Breakwater mining.

Or thats how I read it.


----------



## old medic (9 Aug 2007)

> land ownership in the Northwest Territories



Counterpoint - Baffin Island is in Nunavut.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2007)

The article from CP

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/08/08/pf-4403144.html



> August 8, 2007
> 
> Harper visit suggests old mine site to be home to new Arctic military port
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (9 Aug 2007)

Just for background,  This is from last August:

http://arcticnet-ulaval.ca/index.php?fa=News.showNews&home=4&menu=55&sub=1&id=225

Deep-sea port location is big question as Harper heads to Arctic

(August 10, 2006)  Maclean's (Jennifer Ditchburn)



> OTTAWA (CP) - Nunavut is abuzz over the Conservative campaign promise of a deep-sea port for the territory as Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes his first official visit to the Arctic this weekend.
> 
> The port is the subject of furious lobbying and politicking in Nunavut, and people will be listening closely for any hints about where it might be located. The facility could bring in big bucks for its host community and provide better access to supplies for a number of areas. The increasing number of cruise ships in the Arctic could also find a new place to dock.
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (9 Aug 2007)

if links work, 

site of dock:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Arctic+Bay,+Nunavut,+Nunavut,+Canada&sll=45.42144,-75.69189&sspn=0.309409,0.63858&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ll=73.068158,-84.548507&spn=0.008024,0.039911&t=h&z=15&om=1

site of runway:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Arctic+Bay,+Nunavut,+Nunavut,+Canada&sll=45.42144,-75.69189&sspn=0.309409,0.63858&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ll=72.982396,-84.613395&spn=0.016127,0.079823&t=h&z=14&om=1

Artic Bay NU:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Arctic+Bay,+Nunavut,+Nunavut,+Canada&sll=45.42144,-75.69189&sspn=0.309409,0.63858&ie=UTF8&cd=1&ll=73.034242,-85.156059&spn=0.016079,0.079823&t=h&z=14&om=1


----------



## geo (9 Aug 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Reading deeper etc, for the port, the area in question on the northern tip of Baffin Island was a site of a large mine which was closed in 2002, and the port facility is still being used part time by the Canadian Coast Guard (we have those?   ). When the mine was in operation, large cargo ships would dock there from May to Oct. With ice breaking capability it would could be a yr round port.
> 
> The mine site area just east of Artic Bay also has a hardened dirt runway which could be built up to accept aircraft as large as commercial 737s.
> 
> The only stumbling block would be populating such a remote area.



Inuit populate Arctic Bay already.... 

When I travelled the north between 77 & 85, Nordair flew 737s into Iqualuit, Arctic Bay & Resolute Bay some 3 or 4 times a week.  The Arctic Bay airstrip is well capable of handling heavy loads, cause of the mining equipment that was being shipped in for the mine.


----------



## Strike (9 Aug 2007)

Hey, as long as I can get a permit for sustenance hunting -- I'M IN!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Aug 2007)

Well there is a road connecting the two, a smaller airstrip near Arctic Bay and a fuel facility at the town and minesite. Plus a small boat harbour at the town. The dock at the mine appears heavily built to withstand ice, and without much protection from ice pressure, would be a concern for any vessels caught in there for the winter.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (9 Aug 2007)

Just a point, Breakwater Resources doesn't "own" the land"; they have a mineral lease which is a different class of occupation. Once their clean up is complete including any monitoring the land will revert to the Crown. There is also probably provision for the Crown to take over the land with assumption of clean up etc.


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Aug 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> if links work,
> 
> site of dock:
> 
> ...




Interesting someone paid to have high res for that area on google maps!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Interesting someone paid to have high res for that area on google maps!!!



I had a chance to speak to an American with the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency recently, who said that a lot of the stuff (obviously not the most secret goodies) they look up at taxpayer expense is stuff their clients end up wanting Google to have.   Wonder if it's the same in Canada?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> if links work,
> 
> site of dock:
> 
> ...



And all "mashed" into one map here.


----------



## PO2FinClk (10 Aug 2007)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070810/canada_denmark_arctic_070810/20070810?hub=TopStories


> In an effort to strengthen territorial claims in the Arctic, Canada will build an army training centre and construct a deep-sea military port in the heart of the Northwest Passage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday while touring the region.
> 
> The 4,100-member Canadian Rangers force will also be increased by 900, Harper said in Resolute Bay, Nunavut.
> 
> The prime minister has been asserting Canadian sovereignty over the region while touring the far north this week.


More On Link

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/10/port-north.html


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday that a new deep-sea port and training site for the military will be created in Nunavut.
> 
> The military port will be built at a former mining site in Nanisivik, on northern Baffin Island, while the military training centre will be in Resolute Bay, Nunavut.
> 
> ...


More On Link


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2007)

Let's start knitting soldiers!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2007)

Already RSM's across the country are submitting recommendation of people they think should be sent to the new Gulag, I mean base... ;D


----------



## geo (10 Aug 2007)

Increasing the Ranger force on Baffin Island by 900 embers? - Yikes.  If wa talk to the local ladies, we might be able to grow the population and get that Ranger battalion in a couple of generations BUT, don't hold your breath...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2007)

From the Prime Minister's Web Site (http://www.pm.gc.ca/)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PRIME MINISTER ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF CANADIAN FORCES FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS IN THE ARCTIC


August 10, 2007
Resolute Bay, NU

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today unveiled three new initiatives to bolster Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Delivering on commitments made during a tour of the North last summer and during the last election campaign, Prime Minister Harper announced that a Canadian Forces Arctic Training Centre will be established in Resolute Bay, the Canadian Rangers will be expanded and re-equipped, and a deep water Arctic Docking and Refuelling Facility will be established at Nanisivik 

“Canada’s New Government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Today’s announcements tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic.”

The Training Centre will be a year-round multi-purpose facility supporting Arctic training and operations, accommodating up to 100 personnel. Training equipment and vehicles stationed at the site will also provide an increased capability and faster response time in support of regional military or civilian emergency operations.

The expansion of the Rangers by 900 members will enable more and larger Ranger patrols. The Rangers are the “eyes and ears” of the Canadian Forces in remote regions across northern Canada. They also assist and train Southern-based soldiers, sailors and airmen deployed in the provinces and territories where they are based. 

Establishing a deep water port in Nanisivik will extend the operational range of the Navy in the Arctic. Ships will be able to re-supply, refuel, embark equipment and supplies, and transfer personnel there. The location is strategically sited inside the eastern entrance to the Northwest Passage and it is equipped with docking infrastructure. The port’s main purpose will be military, but it will also have important civilian applications. 

“Taken together, the creation of the Canadian Forces Arctic Training Centre, the expansion and modernization of the Canadian Rangers and the development of Port Nanisivik will significantly strengthen Canada’s sovereignty over the Arctic,” said the Prime Minister. “These initiatives will also benefit communities throughout the region by creating jobs and opportunities and enhancing the safety and security of the people who live here.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Prime Minister’s Office - Communications
[Note: You are receiving this e-mail for information only, and because you have subscribed to our distribution list. To modify your subscription or to have your name removed from the list, go to: (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/subscribe.asp?login)]


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Already RSM's across the country are submitting recommendation of people they think should be sent to the new Gulag, I mean base... ;D



You may be right on with the Gulag guess.  Have you used Google Earth to find these places?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2007)

Geo:

The Ranger expansion is 900 more Rangers across the country, not just on Baffin Island.  Some existing Ranger patrols will grow, and some new ones will be stood up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You may be right on with the Gulag guess.  Have you used Google Earth to find these places?



Yea there is a link on the other threads. I can use Google maps here at work, but am blocked from Google Earth, unless my boss coughs up for the $400 a year per computer fee!


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Increasing the Ranger force on Baffin Island by 900 *embers*?



Wow, that's gonna be one BIG fire!!  ;D  

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

When I try to Google Earth Resolute Bay, I get Arctic Bay.  Is this the place?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2007)

You know this has been something of a Conservative _thing_ since Diefenbaker, in ’58, promised, _inter alia_, a highway to Tuktoyaktuk.  It’s not that the Liberals didn't do anything – quite the contrary, in fact, but Diefenbaker (very self-servingly) and Joe Clark (only slightly less so) both proposed bold projects (the Polar 8 icebreaker in Clark's case) designed to enhance Canada's claim to sovereignty over the Arctic.  That little came from anything – that Liberal _incrementalism_ worked just as well – reflects the fact, and I believe it is a fact, that the overwhelming majority of Canadians, now as 50 years ago, care nothing for our sovereignty because they *know* nothing about our sovereignty.  The average, university _educated_ Canadian appears to be an ignorant, careless, greedy sod – worried only about ‘free’ healthcare and a ‘pogey’ cheque.

Let us hope that the Russians and the Americans, the later being usually perceived to be more of a _threat_ than the former, can frighten enough Canadians into supporting some sensible sovereignty protection.

For a start, Jack Layton is right!  We need icebreakers, real icebreakers but we need them in addition to some _ice hardened_ multi-role patrol vessels.  We should assign specialist ships like icebreakers to specialists like the Coat Guard (if they are to be unarmed) or, perhaps, to  a reinvigorated RCMP Marine Service if they are to be armed.  (This supposes that we prefer, generally, to have an unarmed civil service and confine weapons to the military and law enforcement services (which must, perforce, include the Border Service).)

We also need reinvigorated surveillance – from space, from the air and by terrestrial systems – over *all* the territory we claim, including *all* inland waters, and our coastal waters out to and beyond 200 miles and throughout the airspace over both.  Just as engineers understand that “you cannot manage what you cannot measure” bureaucrats and soldiers must understand that “you cannot control what you cannot _see_.”

We need to _see_ anyone/anything approaching or entering out territory (including from under the water) and then we need to be able to identify it and/or intercept it and then we need to be able to _arrest_ intruders or, in some other form, “see them off.”  That implies that we have, *ready*, ships, aircraft and highly mobile ground forces – _light_ (probably air assault or parachute) units – which can get to anywhere in Canada, all over that vast, _empty_, hostile expanse of Arctic land, quickly.

That will not come cheaply but anything less tells the world, especially Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA, that we will not because we cannot control the territory we claim as our own.  We will, in short, surrender it to all comers.

We are not going to get there and build and maintain larger, globally deployable, combat capable and combat ready joint forces on a budget of $20 Billion per year in 2012.  But, it has been reported that most politicians think $20 Billion is all Canadians will bear for their national defence.  I wonder if something will have to give?  What will it be: our sovereignty over our own territory or our ability to exercise our Responsibility to Protect (our own vital interests and the lives of others) around the world?


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Aug 2007)

Time to comment on Edward's question. 

While some/most Canadians would nobly agree that we have a responsibility to protect, they have been conditioned to believe that can be accomplished by hugging people. Furthermore there is a visceral attachment to the north by southerners who have no intention of setting foot in the High Arctic, but are determined that it is ours, ours, ours! 

I suspect that spending money on icebreakers and northern training centres and rangers is acceptable to the chattering classes, as long as it does not detract from other things. If push comes to shove, little Canada - isolationist, selfish and delusional - will win out if it means the goodies keep flowing.

Mind you, the whole durn thing will come tumbling down over who gets to build what and who gets the industrial benefits, if we have the technical capability to build icebreakers in the first place.


----------



## Sc011y (10 Aug 2007)

Nanasivik probably wont come up on a Google Earth search, the mine closed down there about 5 years ago.  Arctic Bay is the community across the inlet, about 20 minutes away in a truck when the ice is in, an hour when its not.  I used to live in Nanasivik, and if its cold weather training they want, well, they are going to get it.  Also will make a great port, the ships that used to dock up there were huge.


----------



## GUNS (10 Aug 2007)

Sc011y- Did they close-in the mine when they shut down. The mine is huge and may be useful.


----------



## honestyrules (10 Aug 2007)

GUNS,

[quoteThe mine is huge and may be useful.][/quote]

Would you mind to elaborate on this? Well unless it's of a classified/OPSEC nature. I think I can see why...Shelter?


----------



## Armymedic (10 Aug 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Interesting someone paid to have high res for that area on google maps!!!



Nope...free from Google maps...got to Google.ca, tap on "maps".

You too can post cool map images.

(or maybe its just one of my super-secret-squirrel-Sr NCO-ninja-special forces-C8 sniper-medic skills the rest dream to have on something other than just a video game. ushup


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2007)

I think he was referring to the base information. Someone had paid for high resolution data for the area. Likely the mining company or the local government for the cleanup of the site.


----------



## Cronicbny (11 Aug 2007)

Or perhaps the Federal Government exploring for options in the North?


----------



## LakeSup (11 Aug 2007)

BBC World news  (TV) has a good piece on Harper and the new port/base plans today.


----------



## PO2FinClk (11 Aug 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> BBC World news  (TV) has a good piece on Harper and the new port/base plans today.


This one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6939732.stm


----------



## LakeSup (13 Aug 2007)

Looking at the map in that BBC link I don't hold much hope that Canada will have a hope at claiming more than our 200 mile limit, however, that area includes very critical shipping routes through the islands that I hope we will establish as our own territory.

One thing that really is a noodle scratcher is that they are saying that 25% of all the oil /gas in the world lies in this area around the north pole.  From what I have read about oil deposits, they are the result of accumulation of organic material over the eons that is buried, compressed and "cooked" at a fairly narrow temperature to create oil and gas.  It certainly makes you wonder what our planet must have looked like to have had huge forests  around the north pole at one time in our past.   Certainly puts global warming in perspective.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Aug 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> One thing that really is a noodle scratcher is that they are saying that 25% of all the oil /gas in the world lies in this area around the north pole.  From what I have read about oil deposits, they are the result of accumulation of organic material over the eons that is buried, compressed and "cooked" at a fairly narrow temperature to create oil and gas.



We'll leave aside the discussion of the organic vs inorganic origin of oil - a hotly contested issue when oil is being discovered in granite that solidified long before the first bugs showed up to capture carbon organically, although you might want to take a look at this from the UNB.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Earthscience/Geology/OilandGas/FormationHydrocarbon/OriginsofOil/OriginsofOil.htm

It is true that  oil is currently extracted from sedimentary zones where bugs and animals in water captured carbon and laid it down amongst the mud where it was concentrated over time.



> It certainly makes you wonder what our planet must have looked like to have had huge forests  around the north pole at one time in our past.   Certainly puts global warming in perspective.



Here's an interesting article on the petrified forests of Ellesmere Island which are dated to 55 million years ago.  Their existence demands the question how did they grow in the dark?  Did they make up for lost time in the summer? Or was the earth rotating around a different North Pole at that time?  Similar forests have been found on Axel Heiberg.

450 million years ago there were forests on Greenland.

"A 50-Million-Year-Old Fossil Forest from Strathcona Fiord, Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada: Evidence for a Warm Polar Climate"
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic41-4-314.pdf


----------



## LakeSup (13 Aug 2007)

Thanks, Kirkhall, interesting stuff.  I had read about the fossilized trees in Greenland.  
I remember reading about the potential of a large undersea oil deposit near the Falklands, too, which one theory had it, was the reason that the UK defended it at such great cost.  Very expensive to get at but, hell, 10 years ago they said that the Alberta tarsands were too expensive to be economic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2008)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/08/25/6570331-cp.html

Feds militarizing Arctic at expense of northerners: NDP

By Bob Weber, THE CANADIAN PRESS
     
INUVIK, N.W.T. - As Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to head North again with more spending announcements in his pocket, the federal New Democrats are saying he should stay home unless the Tories are ready to spend money on the needs of people who actually live in the North. 
"The focus on military measures is distracting the government from the crucial initiatives that are needed elsewhere," said Michael Byers, an academic and Arctic expert who was recently nominated as an NDP candidate from Vancouver. 

In recent years the federal Tories have racked up billions of dollars in promised military investment in the North. Those promises include a deepwater port on the north coast of Baffin Island, a winter warfare school in Nunavut and a series of Arctic patrol vessels for the navy. 
Observers anticipate that Arctic sovereignty will be a major plank in the Conservative election platform if there is a fall election. 
But Byers, along with leader Jack Layton and Western Arctic MP Dennis Bevington, said Monday that the needs of northerners have been ignored. 

None of Nunavut's 25 coastal communities has docking facilities. The location of the planned deepwater port will have very little civilian benefit. Airstrips are decaying and affordable housing is scarce. The Nunavut government is taking Ottawa to court over its failure to implement the Nunavut Land Claim, an accusation that was backed up by a conciliator's report by retired justice Tom Berger. 
As well, cancelled national programs such as the $17-million adult literacy programs have a disproportionate effect in the North. 

Byers accused Harper and Defence Minister David Emerson of trying to win electoral support by suggesting a crisis in Arctic sovereignty where none exists. 
"It is true that governments in different countries, when in elections, tend to push the Arctic sovereignty button," he said. I'm worried that Mr. Emerson and Mr. Harper are doing the same thing right now - ramping up the rhetoric, trying to get people concerned." 
At the same time, Byers said Canada has dropped the diplomatic ball on the Arctic. 

The Tories have failed to appoint an ambassador to the Arctic Council, a body that brings together all eight Arctic nations. Nor did Canada send its minister of foreign affairs to a recent Arctic summit in Greenland - a meeting that should have been in Canada in the first place, Byers said. 
"In Canada, Arctic diplomacy seems to be largely absent." 

Harper arrives Tuesday for a three-day visit that will take him from the heart of the Arctic's ever-hopeful energy industry to Tuktoyaktuk on the tip of the Mackenzie Delta to the historic gold rush town of Dawson in the Yukon. 
A senior government official said when the visit was announced that it demonstrates the significance Harper places on the North, especially the growing "geopolitical importance" of the melting Northwest Passage. There have been indications from officials that announcements will include one on infrastructure and another that would put "boots on the ground." 

N.W.T. Premier Floyd Roland has said he hopes Harper is coming with a promise to build a highway down the Mackenzie Valley corridor. 
Others will be looking for an announcement on the proposed $16-billion natural gas pipeline that would carry abundant supplies from the Mackenzie Delta to southern markets and open the entire basin to exploration and development. A possible role for Ottawa in refinancing the project's ballooning budget has been a subject of speculation for months. 

Others are hoping for money for a network of Arctic research centres to beef up the one that already exists in Inuvik.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Aug 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> "In Canada, Arctic diplomacy seems to be largely absent."



The Danes and Russians plant flags on (our) arctic soil so i would say that Arctic diplomacy is largely absent in those countries too. We say its ours, lets prove it and prove it big.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2008)

a quick google search of Michael Byers, Arctic, north only turns up articles no earlier than 2007, it seems that it only became a real issue for him when he realized it might be a stick to hit Harper with. The man never loses an opportunity to complain.


----------



## TacticalW (26 Aug 2008)

Some of these articles make my blood boil, does "the true north strong and free" mean anything to these guys?


----------



## geo (26 Aug 2008)

> Byers accused Harper and Defence Minister David Emerson of trying to win electoral support by suggesting a crisis in Arctic sovereignty where none exists.



Did I miss something here ???

I thought the McKay was the MND and Emerson was in Foreign affairs


----------



## T.I.M. (26 Aug 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Danes and Russians plant flags on (our) arctic soil so i would say that Arctic diplomacy is largely absent in those countries too. We say its ours, lets prove it and prove it big.



We're actually on good terms with the Danes.  It's mostly just good natured one-upmanship, and - unless something has gone badly off the rails in the last 16 months I've been gone - was all quietly and diplomatically resolved two years ago.  For both of us Hans Island is a very small rock that just signifies larger issues.  For us it's all about not setting a precedent of territorial concessions when we have unresolved disputes with the Americans and Russians, and for them its about Copenhagen not appearing to be selling out Greenlanders for convenience.

But it was fun while it lasted.  Like recovering the Danish flag from Hans Island, and then mailing it back to their embassy with the note "Is this yours? We found it on Canadian property."

Ahhhh, the memories.  I sorta miss the north.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Aug 2008)

T.I.M. said:
			
		

> We're actually on good terms with the Danes.



I'm well aware of that, having spent a few hours with a Dane MPA crew at an Airshow in Holland. We had a good chat about Hans island.




			
				T.I.M. said:
			
		

> I sorta miss the north.



I dont but the government's new focus on the north means alot more time up there for me.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Aug 2008)

Hans Island aside, none of our land in the north is under any dispute. The government's emphasis on a physical military presence on the land really is in many ways indeed grandstanding to a large extent.  The real dispute (sea-bed aside) is over the status of the Northwest Passage--and I believe the Canadian Coast Guard, not the Navy, is best placed to assert our claim that it is a sovereign internal waterway (a claim that may be dubious under international law).
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c73cfd5-d71b-4b28-8670-43f374e8dc88
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/icebreakers-we-should-build.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2008)

I can imagine that both DND and DFO will be fighting (possibly each other) for additional resources to carry out these plans.

PRIME MINISTER HARPER ANNOUNCES PLAN TO IDENTIFY AND DEFEND NORTHERN RESOURCES


Prime Minister kicks off northern tour by expanding geo-mapping program
August 26, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

The Canadian Government will use the full tools of modern geological science to encourage economic development and defend Canadian sovereignty throughout the North, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today.

As Ive said before, use it or lose it is the first principle of sovereignty in the Arctic, said the Prime Minister. To develop the North we must know the North. To protect the North, we must control the North. And to accomplish all our goals for the North, we must be in the North.

The geo-mapping program will combine field research and advanced scientific analysis to provide Canadians with a fuller assessment on the extent of mineral and energy resources in the Canadian North. This information will help generate additional investment and economic development in Canadas Northern communities.

We know from over a century of northern resource exploration that there is gas in the Beaufort, oil in the Eastern Arctic, and gold in the Yukon. There are diamonds in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and countless other precious resources buried under the ice, sea and tundra, said the Prime Minister. But what weve found so far is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Managed properly, Canadas share of this incredible endowment will fuel the prosperity of our country for generations. And geo-mapping will pave the way for the resource development of the future.

The geo-mapping announcement is the latest example of the Governments commitment to protecting Canadas North. In the past week, Minister of Defence Peter MacKay has participated in Operation NANOOK, a major Canadian Forces Arctic Defence exercise, and Minister of the Environment John Baird has announced three new National Wildlife Areas on or around Baffin Island. Also this week, Secretary of State for Small Business Diane Ablonczy will also be announcing a major expansion of broadband services throughout the North.

Prime Minister Harper Announces Government of Canada Will Extend Jurisdiction over Arctic Waters


Canadian Environment and Shipping Jurisdiction to be Enforced an Additional 100 Nautical Miles Offshore
August 27, 2008
Tuktoyaktuk, NT

The Government of Canada will extend its jurisdiction in the Arctic by doubling the range at which Canadian environmental laws and shipping regulations will be enforced, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today.

Whether it is the thawing of the Northwest Passage or the suspected resource riches under the Arctic seabed, more and more countries are taking an interest in the waterways of the Canadian Arctic, said the Prime Minister. We will be sending a clear message to the world that our environmental standards and sovereignty are not up for debate -- if you are in Canadas Arctic you will be playing by Canadas rules.

The Prime Minister announced that his government will be introducing changes to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act as part of its fall legislative agenda. Currently the Act allows the Canadian Government to regulate all shipping in zones up to 100 nautical miles from the nearest Canadian land in order to guard against pollution of the regions marine and coastal environments. Under the proposed new law, this jurisdiction will be extended to 200 nautical miles.

In addition the Prime Minister announced that his government will establish new regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 that will require mandatory reporting from all ships destined for Arctic waters within the same 200 nautical mile limit.

As an environmental matter, as a security matter and as an economic matter we are making it perfectly clear that not only do we claim jurisdiction over the Canadian Arctic, we are also going to put the full resources of the Government of Canada behind enforcing that jurisdiction, said the Prime Minister. We are acting today to protect our environment, improve the security of our waterways and ensure that all Northern residents  and, in particular, the Inuit  have a strong say in the future of our Arctic for generations to come.


----------



## FSTO (27 Aug 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> We'll leave aside the discussion of the organic vs inorganic origin of oil - a hotly contested issue when oil is being discovered in granite that solidified long before the first bugs showed up to capture carbon organically, although you might want to take a look at this from the UNB.
> 
> http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Earthscience/Geology/OilandGas/FormationHydrocarbon/OriginsofOil/OriginsofOil.htm
> 
> ...



Maybe it has more to do with plate tetonics and continental drift than with trees growing in the dark. Or is 50,000,000 years to short of a timeline.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Aug 2008)

The government is turning to the Canadian Coast Guard, in the NORDREG case at least.  More on why the CCG should have the lead role in trying to assert our maritime Arctic sovereignty at these _Torch_ posts:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/right-approach-to-arctic-sovereignty.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/job-for-coast-guard.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Bearpaw (3 Sep 2008)

For the origin of the oil and gas in the Arctic, something to remember is that 55 million years ago the North Pole was not where it currently is.  For various reasons the axis of rotation can suddenly move----in the 1870's or 1880's it moved about 25m.  I am not sure how often it does this but over millions of years it can add up to a lot of movement.  Since 1935, the "true mean" axis has moved nearly .4 arcseconds=about 40 feet.

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/plots/polarwander20.htm

Before the Atlantic Ocean opened up about 150 million years ago, Nova Scotia was adjacent to Morocco.

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0802/es0802page04.cfm

From 
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/13364

"The concept of pole wander and drift was the subject of a scientific research paper in the September-October edition of the Geological Society of America Bulletin. 

A geological team led by Princeton University´s Adam Maloof and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, claims that our planet did experience a significant pole rebalancing approximately 800 million years ago. 

Part of their research involved testing magnetic minerals within ancient rocks located in the sediment in Norway. 

Maloof and Halverson claim that the North Pole has shifted more than 50 degrees (approximately about the distance between the equator and Alaska) in less than 20 million years."


Bearpaw


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2008)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> For the origin of the oil and gas in the Arctic, something to remember is that 55 million years ago the North Pole was not where it currently is.  For various reasons the axis of rotation can suddenly moving the 1870's or 1880's it moved about 25m.  I am not sure how often it does this but over millions of years it can add up to a lot of movement.  Since 1935, the "true mean" axis has moved nearly .4 arcseconds=about 40 feet.



Don't you remember any of your lessons on Map and Compass?  How do you figure out how to set your Magnetic Declination on your compass?  You look at your map and find out what year it was printed, what the annual change in Magnetic Declination is, what date it is today and use those figures to calculate what your Magnetic Declination will be to set on your compass.  It never clued into you, any of you, that the Poles are moving?  How much would they have moved since the Dinosaurs (Not your Instructors) ?


----------



## Bearpaw (3 Sep 2008)

George----I am NOT talking about the Magnetic North Pole which wanders every day----I am talking about the axis of rotation of the earth---the true north pole----it moves too!  The first notice of it was in the late 1800's from the more accurate astrometry that became possible then.

The Magnetic North Pole has moved hundreds of miles since 1950---in fact over thousands of years the magetic poles will reverse----in the last million years the magnetic poles have swapped several times.  It is this swapping that allowed the verification of continental drift in the late 1950's-early 1960's.

The movement of both the poles make the geological positioning history of land masses quite complicated.

Bearpaw


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2008)

I know True North, Grid North and Magnetic North are all different.  You may remember a few years ago all our maps were updated.  Now if you have an old issue map, you will find that the Grids may be out by a few hundred meters.  All Three North's change.

Now let's look at the distant future.  You will never find the Magnetic poles at 90 degrees to the the Axis of the planet.  The Magnetic Poles will never be at the Equator.  Nor will True North and True South.  The Magnetic and True North (and South) are related physical phenomenon.  Grid North and Grid South, are man made calibrations and will be amended as required.

[Edit to add]

We probably are in agreement, but debating two different approaches to the same conclusion.  The earth's crust/plates are in constant motion and are affected by the rotation on its' axis.  The Poles will remain fairly much attached to the axis, but the movement of the plates will not.


----------



## PanaEng (22 Jan 2009)

Bearpaw is right, the magnetic pole is not "attached" to the axis of rotation (the true north which also wobbles a bit) and in fact has, on several times during earths life, totally switched polarity abruptly. The axis of rotation does not change much - like trying to change the orientation of a spinning flywheel.

anyway, here is an update to the initial story.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/22/arctic-forces.html#socialcomments

cheers,
Frank


----------



## 54/102 CEF (28 Jun 2009)

Ever wonder what's up there? Lots apparently

Here's a link to the Proteus Website at the US Army War College http://www.carlisle.army.mil/proteus/wfs-forecasts.cfm

Note item 9 (this is from an external source)

Now see this http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/03/24/the-canadian-army-s-push-into-the-arctic.aspx

Sounds like an action plan should be very visible to me..........


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2009)

Note 9 was obviously written by someone who has never been to the Arctic, nor read about it.  Trees?  What trees?


----------



## chrisf (29 Jun 2009)

I've been to Alert. There's no trees. There is a single tree. Not plurals.


----------



## GDawg (29 Jun 2009)

They are also predicting a "billion millionaires by 2025"  : which would basically mean that 1 in 7 or 8 would be a millionaire. They must have a loose interpretation of millionaire or they are not currency specific.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2009)

GDawg said:
			
		

> They are also predicting a "billion millionaires by 2025"  : which would basically mean that 1 in 7 or 8 would be a millionaire. They must have a loose interpretation of millionaire or they are not currency specific.



- Or they leave out the inconvenient fact that a loaf of bread will cost $5,000...


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jun 2009)

For the record, I am NOT a David Suzuki fan, but I found these programs quite interesting and informative... which means that my mind must have been manipulated in some subtle way which has not yet become clear to me. Hemp shirts anyone?

arctic mission

the great adventure - june 26
lords of the arctic - june 27
people of the ice - june 28 
washed away - june 29



The Great Adventure launches Arctic Mission, a five-part series on the effects of climate change and industrialization on the Arctic on THE NATURE OF THINGS WITH DAVID SUZUKI. 

In The Great Adventure, filmmakers Jean Lemire and Thierry Piantanida, and the crew of the Sedna IV undertake a five-month, 21,000-kilometer scientific mission to record the impact of global warming on the Arctic. In the stunning documentary, the crew navigates a three-mast ship through the legendary Northwest Passage - a treacherous, ice-filled channel that captured the imaginations of great explorers for centuries. 

 Award-winning THE NATURE OF THINGS director and wildlife specialist Caroline Underwood provides an in-depth examination of Arctic wildlife through the eight seasons of Inuit culture in Lords of the Arctic. The extraordinary footage of the region's seasonal and permanent residents - polar bears, thick-billed murres, bowhead whales, muskox, caribou and plankton - is a rare source of information on the effects of climate change on wildlife. 

People of the Ice is a remarkable exploration of climate change through the eyes of several generations of Inuit. For 4,000 years, the Inuit have lived in harmony with their Arctic environment but, today, global warming threatens the nature of their habitat. Can the extraordinarily resilient people adjust to such dramatic change? Directed by Carlos Ferrand. 

In Washed Away, filmmaker Patricio Henriquez visits communities struggling to save their ancestral land from the ecological impact of the industrialized world. Leading scientists talk about protecting future generations by reducing fossil fuel consumption but can they convince world leaders to act before it's too late? 

Climate on the Edge takes an objective look at the global impact of climate change. Director Alain Belhumeur talks to scientists who predict a series of upheavals with devastating results. In the Arctic, the most acute indication of impending disaster is the melting of the permafrost - resulting in the shoreline release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, putting the survival of the Arctic ecosystem at great risk. 

Arctic Mission was produced by Glacialis Productions in co-production with the National Film Board and Gedeon Programmes in association with CBC Television's THE NATURE OF THINGS; executive producer Michael Allder. 



http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/show_arctic.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2010)

Reviving necro-thread with the latest from MERX - looking for someone to build office and accommodation space in Nanisivik:


> DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION CANADA (DCC) #IE100682 The design, construction, delivery and installation of new modular housing units, Nanisivik, Nunavut
> 
> The work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the supply of labour, material, supervision and equipment necessary for the design, construction, delivery, installation and related site work of new modular housing units.
> 
> ...



A bit of background from one of the tender docs (PM me if you want a copy):


> .... Presently, Canada does not have permanent military facilities in the High Arctic. With the increased concerns regarding the eventual melting of the Arctic caps, permanent military facilities along the Northwest Passage (NWP) are deemed necessary.  The proposed modular housing units at the forward operating base (FOB) Nanisivik will contribute to provide Canadian Forces (CF) with support in Canadian northern waters ....



This from the Statement of Work (.zip file attached, exclusive to MILNET.ca):


> Work under this contract covers the design, supply, transportation, installation, and commissioning of a modular camp located north of the former Nanisivik mine site. The main function of the modular camp is to provide office, accommodation, and common spaces to support a six (6) person team.



Deadline:  May 4, 2010, 14:00 hours, local time (Eastern Daylight)

_Reference Number  	194600
Solicitation Number 	IE100682_


----------



## Snakedoc (12 Apr 2010)

The facility seems quite small (though it is only for 6 people working up there).  Interesting to note the date of completion is slated for the end of October 2010.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> The facility seems quite small (though it is only for 6 people working up there).  Interesting to note the date of completion is slated for the end of October 2010.



I would expect "Modular" housing to mean that they require only foundations built on site, and then "Modules" flown in and placed into position.  Something a little sturdier than an ACCO trailer or an ISSO Container.  Six months seems like a doable timeframe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> The facility seems quite small (though it is only for 6 people working up there).  Interesting to note the date of completion is slated for the end of October 2010.


Only a slight tweak in the work plan, this, from the original bid documents:


> .... The Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) for the new facility is September 15, 2010. Beneficial Occupancy is defined to be Substantial Completion ....


It appears, according to the attached amendment, they're giving vendors an extra month.  No change, though, to these dates:


> Building Occupancy Date - October 15, 2010
> Final completion of all works - October 31, 2010


----------



## Privateer (20 Oct 2010)

Does anyone have any info on how the work at Nanisivik is progressing, or a link to a site with such information?  Just curious.  Thanks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2011)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any info on how the work at Nanisivik is progressing, or a link to a site with such information?  Just curious.  Thanks.


Reviving necrothread with update:  maybe not as quickly as first hoped.


> Environmental and funding concerns are adding years to the construction of an Arctic naval port considered crucial to enforcing Canadian control of the Northwest Passage.  The Nanisivik port in Nunavut was originally supposed to be at least partially up and running by next summer, following a promise made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007.  But no construction is planned for this summer and defence officials admit that the refuelling station, intended to give the navy a permanent presence at the eastern gate of the contested passage, won't be operating for years.  "Construction work at the Nanisivik Naval Facility will begin in 2013," said a defence department spokesman in an email. "It is forecasted that the (facility) will be operational in 2016."  Officials weren't immediately available to explain why. But correspondence with the Nunavut Impact Review Board, which is conducting the project's environmental review, suggests the extra years have been added to the project through a combination of bureaucratic delays, funding problems and environmental liabilities lingering from the site's previous life as a lead-zinc mine.  "There are many challenges operating in the North and DND now has a better understanding of the site condition," wrote the spokesman ....


More in the Canadian Press story here, and at the Nunavut Impact Review Board (environmental screening documents) here.


----------



## chrisf (30 May 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would expect "Modular" housing to mean that they require only foundations built on site, and then "Modules" flown in and placed into position.  Something a little sturdier than an ACCO trailer or an ISSO Container.  Six months seems like a doable timeframe.



Foundations? You've been far enough north to know there's no trees, and you're asking about foundations? (Sorry, just noticed the first post was a little over a year old... either way, for anyone who's never been not many foundations up north...)


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 May 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Foundations? You've been far enough north to know there's no trees, and you're asking about foundations? (Sorry, just noticed the first post was a little over a year old... either way, for anyone who's never been not many foundations up north...)




Good reminder. Here is a picture of some fairly typical (at least it was a few years ago) housing in Inuvik. Note the "foundations" and, especially, the charachteristic _utilidors_ for hydro, water, sewage, cable and so on:







And lest someone think Inuvik is an isolated outpost, here is a picture of the toen of about 3,500 people, from the air:








Edit: typo


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2011)

If by "foundations" you mean a series of pilings driven into the ground to support a modular structure attached later, maybe you are on to something. OTOH, given the sort of specialized infrastructure needed as well (insulated and suspended utilidors etc), then the amount of extra effort to deliver and hook up modulars would probably be equal to having a permanent structure in the first place. The only exception would be if the "modular" was a ship, and you were willing to let it overwinter in the manner of arctic expeditions in the age of sail. (Thinking about the Franklin expedition dosn't make this seem like a good idea...)

The other alternative might be to follow the model of modern Antarctic bases, which are essentially space stations on stilts (and the stilts are extendable to allow smow to blow underneath the station). You can imagine the cost of such a program with multiple pods capable of housing hundreds of service members, tech staff and life support equipment. It can be done, if anyone is willing to pony up...


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Foundations? You've been far enough north to know there's no trees, and you're asking about foundations? (Sorry, just noticed the first post was a little over a year old... either way, for anyone who's never been not many foundations up north...)



In this case, you will notice that there are foundation supports/legs/whatever in place to support the structures.  The structures are not resting on the ground.  Please do not confuse "foundation" with "basement".


----------



## chrisf (30 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If by "foundations" you mean a series of pilings driven into the ground to support a modular structure attached later, maybe you are on to something. OTOH, given the sort of specialized infrastructure needed as well (insulated and suspended utilidors etc), then the amount of extra effort to deliver and hook up modulars would probably be equal to having a permanent structure in the first place. The only exception would be if the "modular" was a ship, and you were willing to let it overwinter in the manner of arctic expeditions in the age of sail. (Thinking about the Franklin expedition dosn't make this seem like a good idea...)
> 
> The other alternative might be to follow the model of modern Antarctic bases, which are essentially space stations on stilts (and the stilts are extendable to allow smow to blow underneath the station). You can imagine the cost of such a program with multiple pods capable of housing hundreds of service members, tech staff and life support equipment. It can be done, if anyone is willing to pony up...



"Buildings on stilts" are pretty much the defacto method of modern arctic construction. The "modular" concept isn't new either, right back to jamesway huts.

6 months for construction once the enviromental assement is done is a pretty reasonable time frame, spread over how many years depends on how the materials over moved to the site.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Reviving necrothread with update:  maybe not as quickly as first hoped.More in the Canadian Press story here, and at the Nunavut Impact Review Board (environmental screening documents) here.



It's atypical that project timelines fail to take in account the various EA requirements (CEAA is normally only for south of 60) and never seems to allow for consultations with First Nations. I get anguished pleas to speed up a project review that was submitted in February with funding that runs out in March 31. but if we have to consult, they are generally screwed. If a FN does not respond to a agency letter, another 3 letters are generally sent, 30 days apart. Often the last letter elicits a response that further delays the review will the agencies grapple with the comments. Now I wonder if the navy will  do a Termpol review as well?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2011)

Painting with a broader brush, the _Toronto Star_ discovers a September 2010 DRDC report outlining, among other things, where bases _could_ end up:


> "It is costly to operate in the vast and inhospitable Arctic. But the Canadian military is exploring a way to cut costs and speed up the movement of troops and equipment by building several new northern bases.  Along the way it could help to strengthen the country's Arctic sovereignty claims by placing additional boots on the tundra throughout the year.  The plan, sketched out in a study that was commissioned by the force's operational support command, is a variation of the one put in place for overseas operations.  Barebones transportation hubs — essentially a suitable landing strip and storage facility — at strategic spots around the globe make it more efficient when soldiers are called out to a global hot spot in a pinch .... The plan could result in remote bases and a small-but-permanent military presence in far-off communities.  Locations could include Alert, Inuvik, Whitehorse, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit or Nanisivik, according to the technical memorandum prepared by the research wing of the military last year.  The Canadian Forces says no decision has been made to go ahead with the construction of new hubs.  That could change.  “The hub concept referred to in this report is just one of many ideas being examined at the time to enhance our capabilities up in the North,” said Navy Lt. Greg Menzies ...."


Since the _Star_ doesn't see fit to share said study with its readers, you can download it (150 page PDF) here or here.

A more recent call for someone to summarize Canada's Arctic defence research in a previous thread here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2011)

Taking another step forward, a DRDC paper out this week narrows things down - this from the executive summary:


> .... The study indicated that the RSOM-hub concept could offer potential cost avoidance and response time reduction on deployment lift for MAJAID operations in the North and could be a potential strategy for improvement of the CF domestic support capability. For a single RSOM-hub solution, Yellowknife would be the time effective RSOM-hub location. From a cost avoidance perspective, Iqaluit would the optimal hub location. Both airfields have the required capability and resources (e.g., fuel, maintenance) for supporting strategic lift aircraft (CC-177) and tactical helicopter (CH-146) operations. For a multiple RSOM-hub solution, the analysis indicates that the optimal number of RSOM-hubs would be two, corresponding to Iqaluit and Yellowknife, when response time and cost avoidance are both considered ....


Source:  "Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations: A MAJAID Scenario Analysis" (PDF), released 12 Aug 11 - abstract and executive summary attached


----------



## mad dog 2020 (14 Nov 2011)

From CBC news, 

Canadian Forces may need U.S. help supplying Arctic
The Canadian Press
Last Updated: Nov 14, 2011 7:08 PM ET
The Canadian military will have to look to commercial contractors and possibly even exchanges with the Americans in order to sustain itself when forces are built up in the country's far North, a series of internal Defence Department documents show.

All three branches – the navy, air force and army – have begun to grapple with the specifics of the enormous, logistical challenge presented by the Harper government's Arctic policies.

A series of reports, briefings and planning directives, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, show that the biggest concern isn't getting forces into the harsh region, but the ability to keep them supplied with fuel, ammunition, food and shelter.

Documents dating back to 2008 suggest the annual operating cost could run between $843 million and $1 billion. But more detailed records – all from 2010 – show it's going to be a complicated exercise.

A slide presentation, given to the head of the Royal Canadian Navy last year, says its patrols and operations to enforce the country's sovereignty will be a challenge and there will be a need to reduce the logistical footprint in the Arctic by seeking "collaboration" with other branches, the military, other government departments and "allies."

The navy's yet-to-be-constructed Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, due to distance and lack of local resources, "must be self sustained, either onboard (more storage, reduced waste, easy maintenance) and supported from the South," said the Nov. 22, 2010 briefing.

In order to be refuelled, the Corvette-sized warships will rely on a deep water port at Nanisivik, 750 kilometres north of the Arctic circle on Baffin Island. But getting the fuel up there is what preoccupies navy planners.

Options under consideration include hiring a tanker to haul fuel from Halifax to Nanisvik, relying on a contractor to deliver it directly – or asking the U.S. Navy to it under a long-standing exchange agreement.

Going the commercial route means the Defence Department would compete for space with the semi-annual sealifts meant to sustain northern communities – something that has the potential of driving up the cost of living for northerners.

Arctic expert Rob Huebert, of the University of Calgary, said the economic impact of the military buildup on northern communities is something the government needs to pay close attention to as the strategy unfolds.

"The north is always more expensive than you think it's ever going to be," said Huebert. "With the lack of infrastructure, flights; we always have a tendency to under-estimate what we're doing."

Potentially irritating residents by driving up their costs – or bumping supplies off civilian charters – is something military planners have recognized and an undated internal army planning document says they're hoping to find ways to "minimize adverse impact on the limited resources of local communities."

Delivering spare parts or changing crews on the patrol ships will require air force or commercial transport, but documents show the vessels will have to transit to Resolute Bay in order to do that. The gravel runway at the navy's principle northern base is unable to accommodate either C-130-J transports – or the mammoth C-17 lifters.

The air force, according to a March 26, 2010 planning directive, is concerned about the state of the runways and what kind of resupply schedule the army will need for its Arctic warfare centre in Resolute Bay.

The documents did not address potential search and rescue needs. 

Huebert said the fact the military was just getting into such details four years after the initial policy statements suggests to him that there was uncertainty on the resolve – or the ability – of the Harper government to deliver on its commitments.

He said he wonders whether elements of the strategy will get scaled back in light of the wobbling global economy and Ottawa's extended deficit battle.

The military's overall dilemma was underscored by the chief of defence staff in a recent appearance before the House of Commons defence committee.

"We are challenged more by operating in our own domain than in operating around the world," the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk said on Nov. 3. "It is harder to sustain operations in our High Arctic than it is to sustain operations in Kandahar or Kabul because in the Arctic, it's what you bring."
© The Canadian Press 2011


----------



## Stoker (15 Nov 2011)

So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?



Psssst C130...


----------



## MJP (15 Nov 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?





			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Psssst C130...



And the C-17


----------



## wannabe SF member (15 Nov 2011)

Might also be an occasion to upgrade infrastructure sin the region.


----------



## Stoker (15 Nov 2011)

If that's the case we could still do the crew swaps at Nanisvik, instead of going to Iqaluit which is a pita to land personnel. Chartering an aircraft like we did for the crew swap trial during the last OP Nanook is very expensive so using our own assets would be better.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2011)

Just to be my usual obnoxious self  > :

If it is possible to fly Generals and Ministers for free because Air Force crews need training and the aircraft would otherwise be flying empty, why is it not possible to fly supplies to the arctic for free with crews undergoing training?

Presumably those aircraft and flying hours would be logged somewhere in Canada at some time.

Just wunderin'.


----------



## R933ex (15 Nov 2011)

Ive flown in (and over due to weather) to Nanisivik 2 dozen times in the past few years, the last time being in 2008,  and I cant see what the issue is. The runway was built with 737s- albeit with gravel kits on- in mind, so im surprised that the hercs would have difficulty getting in there.


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2011)

Some of the obstacles being quoted are sound like there's a political agenda in making this as difficult as possible....


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2011)

<hobby horse>


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Some of the obstacles being quoted are sound like there's a political agenda in making this as difficult as possible....


Interesting point, especially re:  this bit from the story....


			
				mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> .... A series of reports, briefings and planning directives, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, show that the biggest concern isn't getting forces into the harsh region, but the ability to keep them supplied with fuel, ammunition, food and shelter ....


.... unless we can see the briefing notes in question, we can't tell how big the "biggest concern" really is.  In an exchange with the reporter in question, he seems willing to share in principle, but the Canadian Press doesn't look like it's doing much (like setting up a page to access such documents, or using document-sharing sites such as Scribd.com) to make that happen.
</hobby horse>


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Nov 2011)

Personally, my biggest problem with the briefing notes, if that is where that part of the press report came from, is calling a 6000 tonnes ship "corvette size". 

Heck, next thing you know, we get 10,000 tons frigates, and we're right back where the Americans were 50 years ago when they insisted on calling their cruisers "frigates".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Nov 2011)

Supplementary here:

As I understand the concept of ops for the AOPS, they will spend their "summer" in the Arctic and the "winter" patrolling on the Grand Banks or off the Queen Charlottes (or did I miss something).

If that is the case, they may need very little in terms of up north support. At their size (about same as the Coast Guard research icebreakers that "park" themselves in the ice up there of six months at the time) and given their small crew size (40 to 60, including air group as they are "patrol" vessels barely armed - not combat ships), each person can have their own cabin and you still have more than enough cubic meters of space left to carry fuel for 15,000 NM range of operations plus dry, cool and cold storage to carry 6 months of  food and spare parts (p.s.: that is what the Coast Guard does). If so, then you need only provide for one crew change in mid-summer and most of the resupply can be done from Halifax/Esquimalt or St. John's/Prince Ruppert just before and after "summer" arctic ops as you switch patrol areas.

P.s.: Shouldn't this whole discussion be switched to  the AOPS thread, or create a new "Supporting Arctic Operations" thread ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, my biggest problem with the briefing notes, if that is where that part of the press report came from, is calling a 6000 tonnes ship "corvette size".
> 
> Heck, next thing you know, we get 10,000 tons frigates, and we're right back where the Americans were 50 years ago when they insisted on calling their cruisers "frigates".



Well the _Arleigh Burkes_ are as big as some classes  battleships of WW1....


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> And the C-17


While the American C-17s can apparently land on gravel strips, according to a recent DRDC/CORA report (_Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations; A MAJAID Scenario Analysis_, Annex A: Northern Airfields), only aspshalt runways in the north are suitable for CC177s. 

It's news to me too.  :dunno:


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While the American C-17s can apparently land on gravel strips, according to a recent DRDC/CORA report (_Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations; A MAJAID Scenario Analysis_, Annex A: Northern Airfields), only aspshalt runways in the north are suitable for CC177s.
> 
> It's news to me too.  :dunno:


Report's attached here a few messages back
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/39074/post-1067692.html#msg1067692
if the link above doesn't work.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Report's attached here a few messages back if the link above doesn't work.


That's where I got it. I'm not above stealing utilizing your research efforts for my own projects.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That's where I got it. I'm not above stealing utilizing your research efforts for my own projects.   ;D


Good to hear - that's why I share the stuff.  Glad _SOMEONE_ found it even just a bit useful   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2011)

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8w-8e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=10928

RCAF News



> Operation Boxtop 2010: the Globemaster’s grand debut
> 
> Aug. 31, 2010
> By Jill St. Marseille
> ...


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While the American C-17s can apparently land on gravel strips, according to a recent DRDC/CORA report (_Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations; A MAJAID Scenario Analysis_, Annex A: Northern Airfields), only aspshalt runways in the north are suitable for CC177s.
> 
> It's news to me too.  :dunno:


 Right ! The American C-17 is a completely different Aircraft from the CC-177 is what I'm reading here. The fact that it looks just like the C-17 and are built by the same Company and has all the same characteristics ( with apparently this one exception ) had me fooled !  :facepalm:
 Looks like there is an ongoing attempt here  to basically give northern defence  the death of a thousand cuts. ie: We can't do this or that it . or it far too difficult . I don't buy any of it .


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Nov 2011)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Looks like there is an ongoing attempt here  to basically give northern defence  the death of a thousand cuts. ie: We can't do this or that it . or it far too difficult . I don't buy any of it .



Concur: This could be the start of a campaign to justify saving more bases and materiel required in the South when the rounds of budget cuts come rolling in.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Nov 2011)

Keep in mind that the CC-177 has a huge envelope of what it can weigh upon landing. A heavy C-17 would most likely leave divots in the gravel strip. This may be what they are referring to as being unsuitable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Nov 2011)

I don't know how long the gravel airstrip, for the DEW line site, in Tuk was when we went in, in 76, or if it's longer now. What I do know is that we had a full load of survival cairns, a 5/4 ton pickup truck, two assault boats and motors, fuel, ration, tentage etc for the 25 of us, aboard the Herc, that would spend the next three weeks there. IIRC the runway deadended on the shore. The pilot went around three times saying he couldn't do it. Apparently, according to the crew, he had never done this kind of landing before and this was his cherry run. We came in off the water and touched down as soon as we had gravel under us. The gravel was scraping the belly and that truck wanted to get up into the cockpit in the worst way. We got to a stop and by the time we got off and wanted to congratulate the pilot, we found him by the nose gear puking his guts out. Then for laughs, the USAF Sgt from the site drove up and told us we weren't allowed to use HIS runway without HIS approval and we had to leave til we got it, but we had already landed and would again, three weeks later when we left ;D


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Nov 2011)

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Ottawa moves ahead with High Arctic military centre
(Centre will focus on disaster training)
CBC News, 27 Nov
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/11/27/north-high-arctic-military-centre.html

The federal government will move ahead with its planned military facility in Resolute, Nunavut.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised an Arctic warfare training facility in 2007. The facility looks like it will now become reality, but with a few changes to the original plan.

The new facility will focus mainly on training for disasters.

"I think the tragic event of this past fall highlighted the need for being able to have a facility that we can operate out of,” said Maj. Bill Chambré with the Department of National Defence.

In August, 12 people died when a 737-jet slammed in to a hill near the airport.

Soldiers responded right away and helped save three lives because they happened to be training in Resolute at the time.

Chambré says instead of a facility dedicated solely to protecting Canadian Arctic sovereignty, soldiers there will learn how to respond to accidents and disasters in the High Arctic.

"My focus is mainly building a training facility but to also have a facility where we can conduct operations."

The facility will be built on to the existing Polar Continental Shelf Project research base, which is already the largest in the community.

It will have a warehouse for 40 snowmobiles and ATVs, accommodations for 140 people, and a small infirmary. It will also have an operations centre and classrooms.

The building’s price tag is $18 million and the final design is expected to be complete by next month.

Chambré insists it is not the permanent search and rescue base northerners have called for because it’s unlikely the military will use the facility year round.

The government plans to work out of the facility mostly during winter, with people from other government departments working there mainly in summer.

“I certainly don't see this going idle, especially when we have two government departments sharing,” said Chambré.

Building materials will arrive in Resolute on the next sealift, and construction is scheduled to be complete by 2013.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
> 
> Ottawa moves ahead with High Arctic military centre
> *(Centre will focus on disaster training)* ....


And in line with the highlighted bit, it appears DND is looking for outside expertise to train people in how to plan arctic SAR missions - more details available from the Statement of Work (4 page PDF) downloadable here.  Note that the contractor's classroom lessons will be monitored and assessed on Interest, Comprehension, Emphasis, Participation, Accomplishment and Confirmation.  Rather appropriate to check arctic ops planning lessons using the ICEPAC mnemonic, no?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And in line with the highlighted bit, it appears DND is looking for outside expertise to train people in how to plan arctic SAR missions - more details available from the Statement of Work (4 page PDF) downloadable here.  Note that the contractor's classroom lessons will be monitored and assessed on Interest, Comprehension, Emphasis, Participation, Accomplishment and Confirmation.   Rather appropriate to check arctic ops planning lessons using the ICEPAC mnemonic, no?



In other words, all students will have to fill out the multiple choice critique sheet at the end of the class.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> In other words, all students will have to fill out the multiple choice critique sheet at the end of the class.


Ouch - "classroom monitoring and critiquing" has changed an awful lot since my Combat Leaders Course days ......


----------



## old medic (6 Dec 2011)

No surprises here:

Maps suggest Soviet subs cruised Canadian Arctic
The Canadian Press
06 December 2011
copy at: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111206/soviet-maps-canadian-arctic-111206/


> The old Soviet Union may have been just as familiar with Canada's Arctic waters as Canadians.
> 
> Sections of Cold-War-era nautical charts obtained by The Canadian Press suggest that Russian mariners have for decades possessed detailed and accurate knowledge of crucial internal waterways such as the Northwest Passage.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2011)

old medic said:
			
		

> No surprises here:


Only to those who, in the old days, thought "why would the Soviet Union ever be interested in Canada?"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2011)

I sent this article to our GIS tech, maybe she can send a request for funding to buy a set.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2012)

In the words of ipolitics.ca, it's reportedly being shrunk down to a "gas station" - this from the attached letter from DND to a panel doing the environmental screening for the project:


> .... The intent of the NNF (Nanisivik Naval Facility) will remain - a berthing and refuelling facility for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS), and other Government of Canada vessels, but the functionality of the site will be reduced. A brief summary of the scope changes is outlined in this letter.
> 
> Originally, there were plans to have capacity for a two (2) year supply of Naval distillate fuel. There will now be fuel for one (1) season of operation. This will result in a decrease of the number of fuel storage tanks on site.
> 
> ...



More from the hometown media here _(hat tip to MarkCollins for pointing this one out)_


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In the words of ipolitics.ca, it's reportedly being shrunk down to a "gas station" - this from the attached letter from DND to a panel doing the environmental screening for the project:
> More from the hometown media here _(hat tip to MarkCollins for pointing this one out)_



Wasn't that the same rationale used by the UK to retain sovereign toe holds in colonies that they could no longer fully occupy before the decline of the Empire? e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore and Cyprus retained as coaling stations


----------

