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

Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattoigta
  • Start date Start date
Kirkhill said:
Why wouldn't you establish your OTH OP as far forward as you can?
Click to expand...
Given the potential range of the technology, the costs of far north, remote siting may not be justified. I don't know the characteristics and limitations of the various types of radars - most of this is waaaay above my mental paygrade, but if this Wiki image is to believed and is current, as simply an early warning system I'm not sure what we need to install on out soil at all.

1656558995463.png
 
lenaitch said:
Given the potential range of the technology, the costs of far north, remote siting may not be justified. I don't know the characteristics and limitations of the various types of radars - most of this is waaaay above my mental paygrade, but if this Wiki image is to believed and is current, as simply an early warning system I'm not sure what we need to install on out soil at all.

View attachment 71718
Click to expand...
From that map it seems to me the neighbourly thing to do would be to place one at Resolute. Just to show willing if nothing else. On the other hand it would offer mutual support by overlapping existing arcs as back up.

Maybe we could place the interceptors at Eureka or Grise Fjord.
 
Kirkhill said:
From that map it seems to me the neighbourly thing to do would be to place one at Resolute. Just to show willing if nothing else. On the other hand it would offer mutual support by overlapping existing arcs as back up.

Maybe we could place the interceptors at Eureka or Grise Fjord.
Click to expand...
Yellowknife might be easier.
 
Thinking a bit more about the thought.

Suppose you had a Battery with a hardship posting. What would happen if you rotated three Troops through the post. The other two Troops could monitor the feed from the sensor or effectors from down south, and cover the night shifts. The deployed Troop covers the day shift and all field maintenance issues.
 
lenaitch said:
Given the potential range of the technology, the costs of far north, remote siting may not be justified. I don't know the characteristics and limitations of the various types of radars - most of this is waaaay above my mental paygrade, but if this Wiki image is to believed and is current, as simply an early warning system I'm not sure what we need to install on out soil at all.

View attachment 71718
Click to expand...
It depends on what you want to detect, which is why you use a variety of sensors.

It's not one threat we need to detect/track/identify its aircraft, ballistic missiles, ballistic missile decoys/countermeasures, cruise missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, just to name a few. Each one of those things are different.

This is likely why the proposed sensor net includes two radar lines, look-down satellites, and other sensors. When you optimize for a particular target with a sensor you can lose fidelity on things that are not the same as that target.
 
Kirkhill said:
From that map it seems to me the neighbourly thing to do would be to place one at Resolute. Just to show willing if nothing else. On the other hand it would offer mutual support by overlapping existing arcs as back up.

Maybe we could place the interceptors at Eureka or Grise Fjord.
Click to expand...
Seems like a lot of coin if the goal is to simply show willingness. I get the need for overlapping arcs, redundancy, etc. and s mentioned downthread, tailoring what you deploy and where to what you are looking for. Multiple layers and sensor types probably makes much sense. I don't know the power requirements of such things, but a site with grid power, decent year-round access and south-facing communications linkage would seem to be an advantage. IDK - just pulling thoughts out of my butt here.

Eureka or Grise Fjiord? Can I be there when you tell the missus that's your next posting? Given the comments on other threads about the horrors of being posted to some places we already have, I can imagine what the thoughts of these places would be. A lot might depend on how many people you need on site to run and maintain these things. Given the size of some of the trades involved, even a tasking rotation might become disruptively repetitive. If some kind of 'site security force' is needed, perhaps another role for the Rangers.
 
lenaitch said:
Seems like a lot of coin if the goal is to simply show willingness. I get the need for overlapping arcs, redundancy, etc. and s mentioned downthread, tailoring what you deploy and where to what you are looking for. Multiple layers and sensor types probably makes much sense. I don't know the power requirements of such things, but a site with grid power, decent year-round access and south-facing communications linkage would seem to be an advantage. IDK - just pulling thoughts out of my butt here.

Eureka or Grise Fjiord? Can I be there when you tell the missus that's your next posting? Given the comments on other threads about the horrors of being posted to some places we already have, I can imagine what the thoughts of these places would be. A lot might depend on how many people you need on site to run and maintain these things. Given the size of some of the trades involved, even a tasking rotation might become disruptively repetitive. If some kind of 'site security force' is needed, perhaps another role for the Rangers.
Click to expand...
It seems to me the definition of a colony is a place you are happy to exploit but can't imagine living there.

I spent the best part of a decade living two weeks on two weeks off visiting remote sites characterized by cold, rocks and ice. For that privilege I had to uproot the wife from Calgary and take her to Indiana. Not only didn't she see me she didn't see her family. And no government pension at the end.

As to tasking the Rangers... of course the Rangers should be tasked. To work alongside the Southerners. Remember those Rangers didn't ask to be in Resolute or Grise Fjord. All things considered I believe they would rather be in Kuujjuaq.


Grise Fjord and Eureka are unlikely to be much different than Akutan, Alaska.

Owning Canada is an expensive proposition that requires some effort. Not everything can be done from Wasaga Beach and the shores of Quinte.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Actually, not terrible, compared to Res Bay.

One on Iqualit; one in Tuk? powered by SMNRs that gives the locals free electricity?
Click to expand...
Why not Churchill? Once the rail line is operational again, you've got 3 methods of access in/out - rail, air and sea. Redundancy is good.
 
Kirkhill said:
As to tasking the Rangers... of course the Rangers should be tasked. To work alongside the Southerners. Remember those Rangers didn't ask to be in Resolute or Grise Fjord. All things considered I believe they would rather be in Kuujjuaq.
Click to expand...

Canada's Rangers have their limitations, including very limited military training of any type and terms of service that aren't all that different from a Class A reservist in downtown Toronto. For example, as I understand it, they receive a fraction of the training that a 18 year old college kid will get in their first year of militia service

If we want a reliable military presence in the high arctic, it will need to be Reg F resource commitment.
 
daftandbarmy said:
Canada's Rangers have their limitations, including very limited military training of any type and terms of service that aren't all that different from a Class A reservist in downtown Toronto. For example, as I understand it, they receive a fraction of the training that a 18 year old college kid will get in their first year of militia service

If we want a reliable military presence in the high arctic, it will need to be Reg F resource commitment.
Click to expand...
with respect to hardship wouldn't 2 on 2 off negate it? After all they reduced the off-shore commitments by shortening the time frame for deployment below the cutoff line if I heard correctly and you gotta believe that the TB does not have your best interests at heart
 
daftandbarmy said:
Canada's Rangers have their limitations, including very limited military training of any type and terms of service that aren't all that different from a Class A reservist in downtown Toronto. For example, as I understand it, they receive a fraction of the training that a 18 year old college kid will get in their first year of militia service

If we want a reliable military presence in the high arctic, it will need to be Reg F resource commitment.
Click to expand...

Why not just ask more of both the Rangers and Militia and properly employ the Class A, B, C tiers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Underway
    • Like
    • Love it!
    • Insightful
RCN Dead Reckoning
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
    • Like
Multi Domain Task Force - Canada
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
A
Life in the CAF (Infantry DEO)
Replies
15
Views
2K
Azaribe16
A
Kirkhill
    • Like
The Arctic
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
57K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
daftandbarmy
    • Like
More Than Half (56%) of Canadians Consider Canada’s Armed Forces to be Old and Antiquated
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
56K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Back
Top