Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS

[Halifax Tar]

That is... unusual.

I suppose if you're going to spend $35 billion for actual proper ports and your current ships that sail through the Arctic don't actually need a refueling station in that location.

Money and effort better spent in other places makes sense.

Looking back at my enthusiasm for Nanisivik (with 20/20 hindsight) it was a "on the cheap" solution for a different time. Probably should have tempered my expectations. But on the other hand... that's boring. I like dreaming big!

Nanisivik was BER when I was in F4 LOGOPs planning HDWs initial navigation of the Artic.

 

[Stoker]

Glad to see that someone finally had the testicular fortitude to stand up and make this decision.

https://archive.ph/KYvWZ

Ottawa to pull plug on Arctic naval facility​

That decision was made several years ago. It was a good idea but poorly executed.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That decision was made several years ago. It was a good idea but poorly executed.

It was a good idea that was executed with the extremely limited funding it actually received, rendering it not useful. The replacements they are talking about will be in other locations, but also cost far more now than if we did Nanisivik properly then. But at least the CCG is getting heavy input now, as they will be the ones using it, so will actually support icebreaking without leaving them stuck on the other side of the ice where they can't touch it due to hunting patterns.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It was a good idea that was executed with the extremely limited funding it actually received, rendering it not useful. The replacements they are talking about will be in other locations, but also cost far more now than if we did Nanisivik properly then. But at least the CCG is getting heavy input now, as they will be the ones using it, so will actually support icebreaking without leaving them stuck on the other side of the ice where they can't touch it due to hunting patterns.

Hopefully someone with some clout and ability will be charged with the authoring of a 'lesson's learned' document from all of this. One that will be included/referenced in future decision making processes. All mistakes and missteps can and should be learned from.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Hopefully someone with some clout and ability will be charged with the authoring of a 'lesson's learned' document from all of this. One that will be included/referenced in future decision making processes. All mistakes and missteps can and should be learned from.

I think the LLs here are pretty easy; building and maintaining things in the Arctic is hard, and if you give someone a dime don't expect something that costs a dollar.

The amount of money earmarked for the Arctic base expansion with all the announcements is in the 10s of billions of dollars though, with a lot of clout behind it right to the PMO, cabinet etc, so it's really an affordability question.

A lot of benefit to the communities is built in with a lot of Vote 10 funding, dual use assets etc so think a lot of people will get onboard just for that, which is what got NSS over the line and still supported, so pretty optimistic.

Even if CAF/CCG don't really use it, things like a deep water port, infra investment in basic municipal services and a lot of other things the CAF would need to operate in these communities would be there, so makes a lot of sense economically with the changes to the Northern passages and what that will open up commercially generally. Much easier to do any work up there if there is a good option for a port on each northern coast, runways able to take heavier cargo, Polar icebreakers, etc. Still remote AF in a harsh environment, but much more manageable.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the LLs here are pretty easy; building and maintaining things in the Arctic is hard, and if you give someone a dime don't expect something that costs a dollar.

The amount of money earmarked for the Arctic base expansion with all the announcements is in the 10s of billions of dollars though, with a lot of clout behind it right to the PMO, cabinet etc, so it's really an affordability question.

A lot of benefit to the communities is built in with a lot of Vote 10 funding, dual use assets etc so think a lot of people will get onboard just for that, which is what got NSS over the line and still supported, so pretty optimistic.

Even if CAF/CCG don't really use it, things like a deep water port, infra investment in basic municipal services and a lot of other things the CAF would need to operate in these communities would be there, so makes a lot of sense economically with the changes to the Northern passages and what that will open up commercially generally. Much easier to do any work up there if there is a good option for a port on each northern coast, runways able to take heavier cargo, Polar icebreakers, etc. Still remote AF in a harsh environment, but much more manageable.

Understood.

I was questioning more along the lines of the initial assessments in terms of the status of the existing facilities back when this was kicked off - the status of the airfield, the status of the docks/wharf, the road beds/status to Arctic Bay, etc.

Have a read of this 2013 document.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiy3Jb28KeUAxVorisGHQH5IxsQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nirb.ca%2Fportal%2Fdms%2Fscript%2Fdms_download.php%3Ffileid%3D273166%26applicationid%3D123958%26sessionid%3Dc3i2nmoi4do5m3bsr79le67501&usg=AOvVaw0UsYRfWdR0x13MfpQe7m0i&opi=89978449

Here's an interesting snippet: