# A Canadian Rangers reset would help Armed Forces keep pace with a changing North



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2020)

Good article ...

A Canadian Rangers reset would help Armed Forces keep pace with a changing North

In the face of this changing North, the Canadian government needs to properly train and professionalize the Rangers to the basic military standard of our Army Reserves. Or, following the military lead of our smaller Scandinavian allies (not to mention the Russians and Americans), permanently station combat military units that specialize in surmounting the unique challenges involved in operating, navigating, surviving, and fighting in the cold, inhospitable Arctic climate.

A re-organized and better trained, equipped and armed Canadian Ranger contingent could certainly be a valuable part of safeguarding Canadian sovereignty in the North. Provided, of course, that Canadian Rangers are willing to train as soldiers – and that the Forces are willing to train them.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-canadian-rangers-arctic-sovreignty-1.5763215?fbclid=IwAR0AqGYCXFOzKJ0XvetjHDCpdMQsIq76AIl_jMxGgYKe7TO651l0Mp4R80w


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Oct 2020)

Not sure I agree with mr Smol. 

I have worked with Rangers on ex before. They have a role that is key and realistically if we train them for combat, we would probably lose at least 50% of them (a 55 year old first nations man is not interested in digging trenches, section attacks or manning OPs).

If we gave them more training, I would agree with more range time, train to handle and fire other weapons such as shotgun, pistol and C7A2. Additional mountain ops training, more advanced casualty care training, additional survival training.


----------



## FJAG (25 Oct 2020)

I'm with you ArmyRick.

I view the Rangers more in the nature of WW2 era ANZAC Coastwatchers and local scouts which involved many individuals who had only rudimentary military training at best. 

Their dispersion makes them impractical military combat units but excellent sources of local knowledge and eyes on the ground. No objection to more specialized training as you suggest but to provide military training on a par with primary reserve training is impractical and unnecessary and, most probably, counter productive.

 :cheers:


----------



## Stoker (25 Oct 2020)

Every time I see an opinion piece from Robert Smol I cringe, pretty much the same as opinions from Ken Hanson on the naval side of things. I worked with the rangers a number of times during Arctic deployments and they could teach us a thing or two on Arctic survival which they do. Like others have said if we apply the same standards to them as the reserves many would be able to pass as many of them are over 50 and are considered elders, not realistic.

The CF have talked about having a permanent northern regiment however the infrastructure requirements would be expensive and who would really want to do that? A possible solution would to have 6 month rotations with each regiment taking a turn with tax free benefits perhaps to make it more palatable.

I do believe we should be giving them as some have said more familiarity of our weapons and systems. Perhaps provide them with more equipment such new comms, clothing and that sort of thing. I would love to see the RCN get involved this by providing them with some sort of short range civilian patrol craft that rangers could expand from their communities to observe and report and to conduct SAR from.


----------



## Haggis (25 Oct 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> The CF have talked about having a permanent northern regiment however the infrastructure requirements would be expensive and who would really want to do that? A possible solution would to have 6 month rotations with each regiment taking a turn with tax free benefits perhaps to make it more palatable.



Did we not toy with an Artic Reserve Company Group idea recently?  What came of that?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Every time I see an opinion piece from Robert Smol I cringe, pretty much the same as opinions from Ken Hanson on the naval side of things. I worked with the rangers a number of times during Arctic deployments and they could teach us a thing or two on Arctic survival which they do. Like others have said if we apply the same standards to them as the reserves many would be able to pass as many of them are over 50 and are considered elders, not realistic.
> 
> The CF have talked about having a permanent northern regiment however the infrastructure requirements would be expensive and who would really want to do that? A possible solution would to have 6 month rotations with each regiment taking a turn with tax free benefits perhaps to make it more palatable.
> 
> I do believe we should be giving them as some have said more familiarity of our weapons and systems. Perhaps provide them with more equipment such new comms, clothing and that sort of thing. I would love to see the RCN get involved this by providing them with some sort of short range civilian patrol craft that rangers could expand from their communities to observe and report and to conduct SAR from.


I always thought that two naval Reserve units, one in the western Arctic and one in the Eastern Arctic would be a big help, give them a 50' patrol craft that can be hauled out and hangered over winter.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Did we not toy with an Artic Reserve Company Group idea recently?  What came of that?



I'm guessing that because it was connected to the (evil) Conservative's 'Canada First Defence Strategy that it was quietly sidelined.

They've got a wiki entry though, so they must be legit  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Response_Company_Group


----------



## YZT580 (25 Oct 2020)

Perhaps re-building the buffaloes since they are significantly faster then training the rangers to operate them would be a worthwhile expenditure.  They have the range and the simplicity needed for northern operations and they would fill a huge void particularly in SAR.  It would also provide a number of full-time man years in the north.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Perhaps re-building the buffaloes since they are significantly faster then training the rangers to operate them would be a worthwhile expenditure.  They have the range and the simplicity needed for northern operations and they would fill a huge void particularly in SAR.  It would also provide a number of full-time man years in the north.



Which part of the RCAF would you transfer the PYs and O&M money from, to operate and maintain an upgraded CC-115 fleet?


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Which part of the RCAF would you transfer the PYs and O&M money from, to operate and maintain an upgraded CC-115 fleet?



I'll start with culls from 2 CAD HQ and CRCAF and go on from there to reducing 431 to 5 plane formations...


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'll start with culls from 2 CAD HQ and CRCAF and go on from there to reducing 431 to 5 plane formations...



Or get the Rangers onboarded (see what I did there?) to the Transport Canada drone program 

"Drones can improve surveillance because they’re able to fly longer and farther than manned aircraft. This is vital during an environmental incident such as an oil spill. Drones reach areas manned aircraft cannot, cost less to operate and are more environmentally friendly.

Drones may be added to our fleet of planes in the National Aerial Surveillance Program. The program watches the Canadian Arctic to:

detect oil spills
survey ice and marine habitats
monitor activity on the oceans"

https://tc.canada.ca/en/programs/national-aerial-surveillance-program/drones-canadian-arctic


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2020)

Our rangers will be even less of a speed bump than our light infanty and ATM-less mech infantry.

Upgraded comms, optics and drones for our rangers would be brilliant.

1 month patrol ex's up north for platoon or company strength (w/rangers) would be pretty slick.

Tie it in with the AWW course or an intermediate winter warfare qual.


----------



## dimsum (25 Oct 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> "Drones can improve surveillance because they’re able to fly longer and farther than manned aircraft. This is vital during an environmental incident such as an oil spill. Drones reach areas manned aircraft cannot, cost less to operate and are more environmentally friendly.



If you're talking about ones that can patrol the Arctic, you're probably talking about ones that need satellite comms.  That costs $, plus the fact that right now, satellite comms at the bandwidth you need in the Arctic is limited right now.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Oct 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Our rangers will be even less of a speed bump than our light infanty and ATM-less mech infantry.
> 
> Upgraded comms, optics and drones for our rangers would be brilliant.
> 
> ...



This completely defeats the purpose of the Rangers; they are an easy way for the GoC to say we have military patrols as part of our various Artic claims, while giving some folks a bit of income and also generally being a really excellent way to establish a relation with folks that live up there and letting them do the stuff they are already really good at (like Artic survival and surveillance).

If someone wants an Artic unit, set one up and have them do cross training with the Rangers, but they work really well for what they are meant to be.

This guy definitely seems like the equivalent to Ken Hansen (who can always be counted on for a misleading/inaccurate/outdated opinion on pretty much anything ship side grey).


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Oct 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Did we not toy with an Artic Reserve Company Group idea recently?  What came of that?



Yeah, didn't 3VP Para Coy jump into the Arctic in the last few years? The Russians seem pretty capable of doing this sorta stuff...not sure why we need to reinvent the wheel all the time.


----------



## YZT580 (25 Oct 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Which part of the RCAF would you transfer the PYs and O&M money from, to operate and maintain an upgraded CC-115 fleet?


Why not take it from the northern development fund separate from the military budget and then add it in as part of the 2%.  There are myriad things that could be done under the ranger umbrella that are desperately needed in the north and they really don't have to cost that much but all could be attributed to the military budget but paid for from other pockets.  SAR is only one of many services that are lacking.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why not take it from the northern development fund separate from the military budget and then add it in as part of the 2%.  There are myriad things that could be done under the ranger umbrella that are desperately needed in the north and they really don't have to cost that much but all could be attributed to the military budget but paid for from other pockets.



Then treat it as a Northern security issue, and not thin logic for imposing on a system that reasonably hits the mark of mandate (formal presence to reinforce sovereignty), resources and engagement balance. 



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> SAR is only one of many services that are lacking.



In the North specifically?  What are the others?  High bandwidth polar comms?  Replenishment in the North? Etc.? 

Are there specific statistics you have that indicate that Canada should significantly increase funding, staffing and equipping its Northern-based SAR response? 

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2020)

Or really go crazy and assign one of our gazillion armd recce regiments to a northern flank ‘sensing’ role, to include the Rangers’ assets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Oct 2020)

You want to boost our presence in the Arctic, we need a Polar 5 version of something like this.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCTPSoaUtwk

Also start pumping a lot more money into runways, aviation infrastructure and marine ports and infrastructure. Start connecting northern communities with roads, even if the roads don't yet connect with the south.


----------



## blacktriangle (26 Oct 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or really go crazy and assign one of our gazillion armd recce regiments to a northern flank ‘sensing’ role, to include the Rangers’ assets.



Have them provide something akin to UK Light Cavalry or RMASG...


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Oct 2020)

The value that yourRangers is important. Our equivalent are the Eskimo Scouts. They would conduct patrols on snow machine or ski after being dropped off by helicopter. They have been downsized through the years but I remember the stir that a Scout patrol caused when they brought back Russian C ration cartons and cans from a Russian commando visit to a beach on Alaska's west coast.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The value that yourRangers is important. Our equivalent are the Eskimo Scouts. They would conduct patrols on snow machine or ski after being dropped off by helicopter. They have been downsized through the years but I remember the stir that a Scout patrol caused when they brought back Russian C ration cartons and cans from a Russian commando visit to a beach on Alaska's west coast.



Dude... don’t make us start ‘Eskimo’ shaming you now


----------



## YZT580 (26 Oct 2020)

I don't know what form of statistics you are looking for, but how about common sense?  For SAR, compare the flight time for an aircraft from any current base to anywhere on the Arctic shore: particularly since our new aircraft can't get there without a refueling stop in some cases and a very limited search time before time out in another.  Use the same search parameters for any community on Hudson Bay.  Hours different from those same bases to anywhere else in Canada.  Those communities are entitled to the same degree of response as is the boater in Lake Huron and they need it more with survival times measured in minutes and hours and the greater possibility of a mishap.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also start pumping a lot more money into runways, aviation infrastructure and marine ports and infrastructure. Start connecting northern communities with roads, even if the roads don't yet connect with the south.



This. Lots of it  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I don't know what form of statistics you are looking for, but how about common sense?  For SAR, compare the flight time for an aircraft from any current base to anywhere on the Arctic shore: particularly since our new aircraft can't get there without a refueling stop in some cases and a very limited search time before time out in another.



Does not SAR have performance expectations associated with statistics that for example X% of SAR requests must be addressed within a specific response time?

If not, then what kind of response do you believe ‘common sense’ dictate?

So, how many additional bases and where, do you advocate we need with your proposed refurbished Buffalo’s speed and endurance?



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> Use the same search parameters for any community on Hudson Bay.  Hours different from those same bases to anywhere else in Canada.  Those communities are entitled to the same degree of response as is the boater in Lake Huron and they need it more with survival times measured in minutes and hours and the greater possibility of a mishap.



What is the longest acceptable time to respond to a SAR request in the North?  30 minutes over top?  And furthermore, do you propose that Canada need increase only its aeronautical incident response capability, ie. that which Canada’s National Search and Rescue Program mandates the CAF to provide?  Should not the GoC also increase maritime and ground SAR assets?

Regards
G2G


----------



## lenaitch (26 Oct 2020)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> . . . Those communities are entitled to the same degree of response as is the boater in Lake Huron . . .



I'm not sure that would be a great benchmark.  I think that the first aviation asset and possibly even the maritime asset to a SAR incident on Lake Huron would come from the USCG.


----------



## YZT580 (26 Oct 2020)

G2G, your points are valid and require addressing as well.With respect airborne SAR having bases in the north equipped with hercs or the airbus for the task to ensure over the top within the same time frame as a ship in trouble within the Gulf of St. Lawrence or perhaps Fort Nelson BC for a downed aircraft would be the ideal.  It isn't going to happen as the requirements for a/c would probably double.   Equipping and training the rangers and distributing the aircraft across the north would at least help to fill the gap.  Dedicated aquatic assets whether military, coast guard, or attached to a settlement would be of at least equal value and probably easier to sell to the tax payer.  Expanding the rangers to ensure the availability of qualified personnel seems a logical solution.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (1 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If you're talking about ones that can patrol the Arctic, you're probably talking about ones that need satellite comms.  That costs $, plus the fact that right now, satellite comms at the bandwidth you need in the Arctic is limited right now.



If I was to slap something together on a budget and I wanted to avoid sat comms I would:

Have it fly a pre-programmed path (hard to get hijacked if it doesn't listen to anybody anyways). Record, and return for review / high bandwidth transfer at another location (COTS hardware already exists). Slap a spot tracker on it in case it crashes.
or
Have two drones. One to hover at 10,000feet (200Km line of sight from a base station). The station keeping drone can relay information back and forth from base to the drone doing the mission. 

Have them send back telemetry encrypted UHF and/or HF.

Recommended reading:
Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control by Medea Benjamin
Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution by Richard Whittle
pm me if you would like a copy of the book

Getting a little off topic  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Nov 2020)

materialpigeonfibre said:
			
		

> If I was to slap something together on a budget and I wanted to avoid sat comms I would:
> 
> Have it fly a pre-programmed path (hard to get hijacked if it doesn't listen to anybody anyways). Record, and return for review / high bandwidth transfer at another location (COTS hardware already exists). Slap a spot tracker on it in case it crashes.
> or
> ...



:nod:

HF comms are not well understood by most, and are significantly under appreciated.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If you're talking about ones that can patrol the Arctic, you're probably talking about ones that need satellite comms.  That costs $, plus the fact that right now, satellite comms at the bandwidth you need in the Arctic is limited right now.



And, depending on how far North you want the UAVs to go and how low you want them to fly you may need satellites in non-geostationary orbit which means you need more of them ... but it is a great way to go for a lot of Arctic operations, military and civilian. It is easy to 'partition' satellite-based systems, channel-by-channel, _ µ_second by _ µ_second to keep secure military signals separate from insecure civilian ones i.e. it doesn't have to be a military or even a government system. A 'carrier' like _Telesat_, could, *if it could make a profit*, operate a constellation of low-earth-orbit or highly-elliptical-orbit satellites that would cover ALL, every square cm of Canada, 24/7 ...*if it could make a profit*.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Nov 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> HF comms are not well understood by most, and are significantly under appreciated.



What’s the HAM radio network like up north? I recall chatting with various folks from around the world on our Clansman 320 HF set, in our Coy CP, in Arctic Norway many years ago.

HAM operators might be able to fill in some gaps in the surveillance web.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2020)

ALL radio propagation is more complex in polar regions because of the aurora effects ~ lots of good reading in your local university library and on Google if you're so inclined. LF and HF (below about 10 MHz) work well through what is often called the "do-nut" ~ in fact, the Army ran a Low-Frequency link from Alert to the South using a dual diversity ring-radiator antenna system for years. The problem with both LF and HF is very low bandwidth < 3kHz. You can operate a low speed (<100 words per minute) telegraph (data) channel on HF if you have good, stable links and if (Big IF) the propagation gods are smiling. LF can carry only hand-speed Morse code.

Microwave (1.9 ~ 2.1 GHz) works well in the North as the High Arctic Data Communication Systems (HADCS) demonstrates.


----------



## materialpigeonfibre (9 Nov 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, depending on how far North you want the UAVs to go and how low you want them to fly you may need satellites in non-geostationary orbit which means you need more of them ... but it is a great way to go for a lot of Arctic operations, military and civilian. It is easy to 'partition' satellite-based systems, channel-by-channel, _ µ_second by _ µ_second to keep secure military signals separate from insecure civilian ones i.e. it doesn't have to be a military or even a government system. A 'carrier' like _Telesat_, could, *if it could make a profit*, operate a constellation of low-earth-orbit or highly-elliptical-orbit satellites that would cover ALL, every square cm of Canada, 24/7 ...*if it could make a profit*.



You mean this one?  
https://www.telesat.com/leo-satellites/

Edit:
Sure it would be great to operate via satellite. I think it should be part of the Primary Alternate Contingency Emergency. 

I see mesh-networking to get to a gateway as a supplement to the PACE.
See:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/indago-vtol-uav.html
"MANET MESH network capable"


----------



## lenaitch (9 Nov 2020)

Between all the Low Earth Orbit satellites coming on line, higher orbiting ones, geostationary ones and just plain space junk, terrestrial astronomy is quickly becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## cyber_lass (10 Dec 2020)

materialpigeonfibre said:
			
		

> You mean this one?
> https://www.telesat.com/leo-satellites/
> 
> Edit:
> ...



I am a bit late to the conversation. MESH typologies are great for many cases, but their signals do eventually degrade after subsequent hops (+-9, in the last research I read). You have one huge advantage in the high north, very little ground cover.  Ground cover, Something systems I have worked on/built have had issues with. And the arctic is huge. So you could to a series of gateways that gather and send with a more robust mode of transport, like satellite... Towers need maintenance and are susceptible to tamper and environment. Radios are becoming better though and multiple (double digits) kms ranges are becoming more realistic and robust.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Dec 2020)

Dutch adding to their winter warfare gear with armed sleds

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38220/dutch-marines-prepare-for-arctic-warfare-with-new-machine-gun-armed-sleds?fbclid=IwAR3lXB6yQKOZ5ujaFsd2SkPFgNWEBs-F6L6VriamFU8ubgWJdMQkYK2ZUWk


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Dutch adding to their winter warfare gear with armed sleds
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38220/dutch-marines-prepare-for-arctic-warfare-with-new-machine-gun-armed-sleds?fbclid=IwAR3lXB6yQKOZ5ujaFsd2SkPFgNWEBs-F6L6VriamFU8ubgWJdMQkYK2ZUWk



We were using pulks like that in the 1980s. So did the Dutch Marines AFAIK. 

I wonder how this is net new? It might be because it seems to be part of a 'system' of man hauled pulks...


----------



## FJAG (18 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We were using pulks like that in the 1980s. So did the Dutch Marines AFAIK.
> 
> I wonder how this is net new? It might be because it seems to be part of a 'system' of man hauled pulks...



I seem to recall winter exercises with the RCR in Petawawa back in the 70s and am pretty sure that they had their GPMGs strapped into toboggans.

And just to show how old the idea goes back, here's a WW2 adaptor for the older 30 Cal.







https://www.warmuseum.ca/collections/artifact/1044178/

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I seem to recall winter exercises with the RCR in Petawawa back in the 70s and am pretty sure that they had their GPMGs strapped into toboggans.
> 
> And just to show how old the idea goes back, here's a WW2 adaptor for the older 30 Cal.
> 
> ...



It's a good idea, but the best vehicle for deploying a machine gun, in arctic warfare, is actually a BV 206 or a tank. 

Preferably a German tank becasue they built them with Russia in mind, of course


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's a good idea, but the best vehicle for deploying a machine gun, in arctic warfare, is actually a BV 206 or a tank.
> 
> Preferably a German tank becasue they built them with Russia in mind, of course



I kid you not. At the time, mid-60s, when the Germans winter trialed Leos and a number of wheeled vehicles in Shilo, they acknowledged the same.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I kid you not. At the time, mid-60s, when the Germans winter trialed Leos and a number of wheeled vehicles in Shilo, they acknowledged the same.



Skijoring behind a Leo 1 is an interesting experience. Just be careful if they head downhill, and have a universally acknowledged command like 'Jump!' if it gets too hairy


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Dec 2020)

Trick question why does the CF consider mortars as artillery ?


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I kid you not. At the time, mid-60s, when the Germans winter trialed Leos and a number of wheeled vehicles in Shilo, they acknowledged the same.



This is why German trucks had very high wheelbases long before we did.

 ;D


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trick question why does the CF consider mortars as artillery ?



We don't.

We merely went through a phase that we seem to be out of now. Maybe?

 :facepalm:


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> We don't.
> 
> We merely went through a phase that we seem to be out of now. Maybe?
> 
> :facepalm:



Its a flimsy excuse because the C3s are falling apart


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2020)

Are artillerymen assigned to mortar crews ?


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Are artillerymen assigned to mortar crews ?



There was a period of time where we restricted manning the infantry mortar platoons with infantrymen and reserve artillery were training as mortarmen. Things are trending back to mortars being infantry.

Personally, as a former gunner, I have very strong conviction that mortars in the 81-120mm class should be purely an infantry weapon. There's a lengthy discussion about this in the C3 Howitzer Replacement thread https://army.ca/forums/threads/122373.0.html

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2020)

I can see some value using artillerymen in the FDC and as forward observers.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Dec 2020)

The Canadian Rangers were never intended to be soldiers.  Two positive things about the Rangers is that they are there and we are not.  Pretending otherwise serves no-one.  Anyone who thinks the Arctic is the next South China Sea worries way too much.  If there's a serious problem we would borrow an Airborne Division or two from friends but the odds of that ever happening approaches nil.  For the last 153 years we have had no foreign threat whatsoever in the Arctic and there is no reason to believe that will change.  As if someone would travel 6,000 miles to a totally inhospitable climate and start mayhem.  Not only not likely, it's impossible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2020)

The Chinese believe otherwise, they are paying good money to have a satellite track shipping and ice coverage in the Arctic regions and they have deemed themselves "Near Arctic nation". They have invested heavily in icebreakers and have already gone into our arctic waters. So I am not sure how much more they need to telegraph their intentions before we get off our lazy ass and actually do real concrete things about our arctic. To keep it in the coming century, we need a "Whole of government" approach, everything from military, social, cartography, infrastructure and environmental. I would keep the rangers as they are, but expanding their resources and recruiting where it makes sense. I would bolster them by creating army and naval reserve units in the North that have the mission to defend our Arctic sovereignty and infrastructure.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Dec 2020)

Do we really need the navy, unless it is to man (person) armed ice breakers.  Definitely need army units but properly equipped air force transport units would be a better use of limited funds.  And why are they reserve units?  It would require the entire population of Yellowknife to provide the manpower to equip even a battalion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2020)

Naval Reserve, yes. Small units built around two patrol boats, perhaps based on the CB90, these can be hauled out and maintained in a hanger in the winter, I would base one unit in the Western Arctic and one in the Eastern Arctic. They could share resources with the CCG auxiliary. for army, I doubt you could get more than a Platoon sized unit. These would be specialised troops meant to back up the Rangers and support southern units operating in the North. Remember I said "Whole of government", these units are as much about improving the social conditions as they are about sovereignty. Proper ports, better runways and airport facilities, more roads, railways, greenhouses, energy self-sufficiency, among other things.


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I can see some value using artillerymen in the FDC and as forward observers.



Re the FDC, not necessary. I've dealt with several infantry mortar platoons in the past and they are good at what they do. Re forward observers, in our system the artillery provides forward observation officer (FOOs) and the infantry mortar fire controllers (MFCs). In my day that gave an average infantry battalion three FOO parties (who are also JTAC trained) and two MFC parties to spread across their front. At the battalion the mortar platoon commander and the artillery battery's direct support battery commander are collocated in the Fire Support Coordination Cell. Long story short this provides quick access to and coordination of all indirect fires support to the battalion. (It's a bit different from the US Fire Support Teams)

We tend to prefer our FOO concept to your FST concept in that in the Canadian artillery, lieutenants start in the various FDC, recce etc jobs at the gun line and after experience gained there and after promotion to captain are made FOOs meaning that they are more experienced with the overall capabilities of fires support than the new lieutenants that fill the FSO positions in US battalions.

And now ... back to the Rangers.

 :cheers:


----------



## YZT580 (19 Dec 2020)

Activate even a small group full time in the north. We keep bases open in the south for no other reason than political expediency surely to goodness opening and staffing a base on our only frontier should be a no-brainer. The territories are a part of Canada and having uniformed presence walking the streets should be a common occurrence and not the result of a calamity of some nature.  Certainly they should activate reserve groups as suggested but a full time troop of a legitimate size should also be present.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2020)

Make a year long Arctic posting a requirement for promotion to general and you get troops up there and nice base.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Dec 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Make a year long Arctic posting a requirement for promotion to general and you get troops up there and nice base.



Doesn't JTF-N have a permanent presence in White Horse and yellow knife? Perhaps expanding white horse and have a single battle regularly rotate in and out of there.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Doesn't JTF-N have a permanent presence in White Horse and yellow knife? Perhaps expanding white horse and have a single battle regularly rotate in and out of there.



One way other countries maintain a local presence in contested, remote areas (without building expensive and permanent barracks etc) is to run regular exercises, live fire and otherwise, based in these contested locations.

Some kind of field firing complex based in Yellowknife, Resolute Bay, Iqaluit, or something like that, would help ensure a continuous CAF presence in the area. We could then rotate Battle Groups through there on a regular basis, year round.

Who knows, we might even increase our ability to shoot at bad guys in Arctic conditions, as required


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Dec 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Make a year long Arctic posting a requirement for promotion to general and you get troops up there and nice base.



All that would do is increase the number of bgen led "HQs" with an appropriately ranked staff whose sole function is to while away a year up north doing "liaison" or "planning".  What would they be planning?  How to get the f*** back down south.


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> One way other countries maintain a local presence in contested, remote areas (without building expensive and permanent barracks etc) is to run regular exercises, live fire and otherwise, based in these contested locations.
> 
> Some kind of field firing complex based in Yellowknife, Resolute Bay, Iqaluit, or something like that, would help ensure a continuous CAF presence in the area. We could then rotate Battle Groups through there on a regular basis, year round.
> 
> Who knows, we might even increase our ability to shoot at bad guys in Arctic conditions, as required



Yes to that and then there's this:



> The Sirius Dog Sled Patrol (Danish: Slædepatruljen Sirius), known informally as Siriuspatruljen (the Sirius Patrol) and formerly known as North-East Greenland Sledge Patrol and Resolute Dog Sled Patrol,[1] is an elite Danish naval unit. It conducts long-range reconnaissance patrolling, and enforces Danish sovereignty in the Arctic wilderness of northern and eastern Greenland, an area that includes the Northeast Greenland National Park, which is the largest national park in the world.[2] Patrolling is usually done in pairs and using dog sleds with about a dozen dogs, sometimes for four months and often without additional human contact.



See article here.

 :cold:


----------



## infant (7 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> What’s the HAM radio network like up north? I recall chatting with various folks from around the world on our Clansman 320 HF set, in our Coy CP, in Arctic Norway many years ago.
> 
> HAM operators might be able to fill in some gaps in the surveillance web.


I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to throw out that the CAF Auxillary Radio Network exists and I think is basically this (Ham operators supporting gaps in milcoms using their HF rigs)





						CFARS - Operations
					

Canadian Forces Affiliate Radio System




					cfarsoperations.ca
				








						Canadian Forces Affiliate Radio System - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Mar 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Doesn't JTF-N have a permanent presence in White Horse and yellow knife? Perhaps expanding white horse and have a single battle regularly rotate in and out of there.


I spent a summer in Whitehorse on while waiting for courses; the 'permanent presence' is used as an Army Cadet camp in the summer and the Rangers use it the rest of the time.  It apparently used to be some kind of monitoring post but was basically a collection of wood cabins around a parade square about half an hour outside town IIRC.  That was about 15 years ago now (holy crap!) but believe it's still the same. There is some kind of presence in Yellowknife, which I understand includes some planes and similar under 440 sqn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_Northern_Area_Headquarters_Yellowknife


----------



## Northalbertan (8 Mar 2021)

Haggis said:


> Did we not toy with an Artic Reserve Company Group idea recently?  What came of that?


Apologize for the necro post.  C Company LER is in Yellowknife.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Naval Reserve, yes. Small units built around two patrol boats, perhaps based on the CB90, these can be hauled out and maintained in a hanger in the winter, I would base one unit in the Western Arctic and one in the Eastern Arctic. They could share resources with the CCG auxiliary. for army, I doubt you could get more than a Platoon sized unit. These would be specialised troops meant to back up the Rangers and support southern units operating in the North. Remember I said "Whole of government", these units are as much about improving the social conditions as they are about sovereignty. Proper ports, better runways and airport facilities, more roads, railways, greenhouses, energy self-sufficiency, among other things.



Bump

CB90 is still in production and is being upgraded









						Saab’s CB90 next-generation military assault craft - Global Defence Technology | Issue 128 | October 2021
					

Saab demonstrated its upgraded CB90 assault craft at DSEI




					defence.nridigital.com


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Bump
> 
> CB90 is still in production and is being upgraded
> 
> ...



The Inuit already make do quite well with boats like these...









			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/iqaluit-hunters-get-their-bowhead-whale-1.4785318


----------

