• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

AOR Replacement & the Joint Support Ship (Merged Threads)

It's of significantly more use outside the Arctic increasing our global presence and capabilities.

We have a lot more pressing issues than the Arctic. Politicians will mention Arctic sovereignty, but in real terms it's an afterthought and niche capability.

Even the AOPS have spent more time patrolling the Caribbean than the Arctic. Focusing on a lens of "everything must be Arctic capable" misses the point. And if something really went down, we would fly troops up to Iqualuit or Alert.
So if the Russians or Chinese decide to "claim" Borden Island or Mackenzie King island or Prince Patrick Island etc (and don't say they wouldn't, it is what they've done in many other locales) and set up a token base to solidify that claim what can troops in Iqaluit or even Alert do? Unless there's updated airports able to handle C17's then how else do you get there? Or do we whine and beg the US to defend us...... again..
 
So if the Russians or Chinese decide to "claim" Borden Island or Mackenzie King island or Prince Patrick Island etc (and don't say they wouldn't, it is what they've done in many other locales) and set up a token base to solidify that claim what can troops in Iqaluit or even Alert do? Unless there's updated airports able to handle C17's then how else do you get there? Or do we whine and beg the US to defend us...... again..
Alert is C-17 capable. We fly them in twice a year for Op Boxtop.


cc177-1.jpg


Troops would be landed by helicopter either way, whether from ships or out of Alert or Iqaluit. And if the Russians did manage a foothold, we would airstrike them by fighter jet.
 
Alert is C-17 capable. We fly them in twice a year for Op Boxtop.




Troops would be landed by helicopter either way, whether from ships or out of Alert or Iqaluit. And if the Russians did manage a foothold, we would airstrike them by fighter jet.
They are more likely to land "Civilian Researchers" with armed "guards" to protect them from polar bears, penguins and unicorns.

Where are our troops, helicopters going to come from? Where is the fuel and food to sustain them in the field coming from? The Russian and Chinese can get there by their larger icebreakers long before any of ours can get up there. They could have 2-3 months headstart.
 
They are more likely to land "Civilian Researchers" with armed "guards" to protect them from polar bears, penguins and unicorns.
Yes, and? That would be very obvious what they're attempting, which would be a colossal failure on our part to allow it to happen.
Where are our troops, helicopters going to come from? Where is the fuel and food to sustain them in the field coming from?
Again, Alert has those facilities. It would be a straightforward matter to transport everything there on a turbocharged Boxtop. There's also Yellowknife. And we have tankers for extended range.
The Russian and Chinese can get there by their larger icebreakers long before any of ours can get up there. They could have 2-3 months headstart.
Which is why any response based around ships would be doomed to fail. We have fighter jets carrying land attack cruise missiles and the new P-8 will carry Harpoon anti-surface missile. We also have a surveillance network, which would reveal something like that almost immediately. We have the technical capability to find and destroy anything someone puts in our Arctic that we don't want, we're not stuck in the period of the Battle of the Denmark Strait when it comes to searching for enemy ships.
 
Your going to take out a "Civilian" icebreaker loaded with "Civilians" with Anti-ship missiles, yep that's going to happen in Canada, for sure.....

More likley a strongly worded letter to the UN and confronting their ambassador. That's assuming we realize they are even there.
 
As much as the Government loves to issue press releases about what a wonderful job they're doing on Surveillance . There are gaps and pretty large one's.
Some of those are on our border with the Americans.
A lot more of them are in the Far North..
We're closing those gaps and every year they get a little smaller. However there will always be surprises. Historically the best/ worst example may be the infamous German weather station on the Labrador coast. Which was only discovered when a German pensioner wrote the Canadian Government asking for any documentation they might have in order to bolster his claim. That was in the 90s .
 
Your going to take out a "Civilian" icebreaker loaded with "Civilians" with Anti-ship missiles, yep that's going to happen in Canada, for sure.....

More likley a strongly worded letter to the UN and confronting their ambassador. That's assuming we realize they are even there.
If it's a civilian ship that presents no obvious threat, but isn't supposed to be in the Arctic, then it would be an interdiction mission by the AOPS, which would reveal if it was carrying military equipment and personnel.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. That we should use our already limited resources and personnel to build an ice-strengthened LPD and have it stationed and crewed full time in the Arctic "just in case"? Despite the army not having any plans for amphibious warfare capability.
 
It's of significantly more use outside the Arctic increasing our global presence and capabilities.
For aircraft carrier type ship, yes I would agree.
We have a lot more pressing issues than the Arctic. Politicians will mention Arctic sovereignty, but in real terms it's an afterthought and niche capability.
I disagree with this. Priority one defence of Canada. Priority two is defence of North America. So our first two priorities include the Arctic. The paradigm has shifeted and not everyone here has noticed yet. The Arctic is our security responsibility for North America and one of our cards to play with the US.

That being said, ice strengthend doesn't make sense for any warships. You're not going to risk a warfighter in constrained waters that could just as easily damage you. Given the dominance air power will have in the arctic you need to be able to move.

Its "a willing foe and sea room to fight". Not "stuck in ice being a sitting duck:".
 
If it's a civilian ship that presents no obvious threat, but isn't supposed to be in the Arctic, then it would be an interdiction mission by the AOPS, which would reveal if it was carrying military equipment and personnel.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say. That we should use our already limited resources and personnel to build an ice-strengthened LPD and have it stationed and crewed full time in the Arctic "just in case"? Despite the army not having any plans for amphibious warfare capability.
China/Russia will play in the gray areas and that is what we will have to respond to, a threat that is militaristic but disguised as civilian. The LPD/LST I spoke about earlier is based in the south, but can go into the arctic in the open water months. It's primary task is to land heavy equipment and support any ops or exercise up there. The army just did a amphibious training ex with the French. It's going to have to accept that small scale, unopposed landings are part of the game in the Arctic. Having an LST means that you can land a lot more equipment, than a few ATV or a pickup.

That LST can be manned by Fleet auxiliary or even swap a crew from a AOP's
 
Go Bold does a video on the JSS, the hanger is huge! Not as much touring other spaces, but I guess they are all being worked on.

 
Back
Top