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

Deja VU (Armed IceBreakers)

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
1
Points
430
From the Globe and Mail
dec 23/2005

Harper breaks ice on Arctic sovereignty
By JANE TABER

Friday, December 23, 2005
Posted at 7:45 PM EST

WINNIPEG -- A Conservative government would build three icebreakers and arm them as part of an Arctic strategy to protect Canadian sovereignty, Stephen Harper said yesterday.

The Tory Leader said that as prime minister, he would make it clear, even to the United States, that naval ships could not travel the Northwest Passage without his government's permission.

The icebreakers, which would be made in Canada and could go through six metres of ice, and the docking facility would cost $2-billion over eight or nine years. The first would be ready by the end of a five-year Tory mandate, said the party's defence critic, Gordon O'Connor.

The "Canada First" northern strategy would also increase the country's military presence in the Arctic, placing 500 troops in the Iqaluit area and building a new military and civilian deep-water docking facility.

Advertisements






The Tories would also let the military use underwater listening posts to track foreign submarines and ships. Last week, Mr. Harper promised a Conservative government would create a new airborne battalion based in Trenton, Ont. It would provide emergency response, such as dealing with a jumbo-jet crash.

The Arctic initiative is part of a $5.3-billion boost in defence spending over five years that Mr. Harper promised last week in Trenton.

"It all comes down to sovereignty," he said at a news conference in Winnipeg yesterday. ". . . Sovereignty is something you use it or you lose it."

He refused to say what action he would take against a country that trespassed in Canadian waters.

He also would not indicate what weapons the icebreakers would have, saying only that the vessels would "give some weight" to Canada's presence in the Arctic.

"It's once again not a matter waving your arms like a helicopter," he said. "You actually have to have the military presence that says you believe in your claims and that you are prepared to treat your land and your water as your own sovereign territory."

News reports have said that a U.S. submarine recently sailed through the Northwest Passage.

"Even the United States, an allied government, is currently making incursions into our territorial waters without even notifying us, let alone seeking permission," Mr. Harper said, adding that other countries, such as Russia, Denmark and Britain have sailed through the area without asking permission.

"Obviously, the first thing we have to have is the capacity to know who is in our waters," Mr. Harper said. "We obviously want and expect foreign countries to tell us when they're in our waters. They are currently not doing that."

He said that an "aggressive approach" would persuade countries to respect Canadian sovereignty.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin attacked Mr. Harper's Arctic plan at great length yesterday, saying it appears the Tory Leader crafted it at the last minute.

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Mr. Martin dodged a question about whether the U.S. had in fact sailed a submarine through Canada's Arctic waters, then conceded he does not know.

"Up to now, I have not had a confirmation," he said.

Mr. Martin said in Gatineau that his own government's Arctic strategy has already included greater Arctic surveillance and military expeditions to Nunavut and Hans Island. He also chided Mr. Harper for saying he would require that foreign vessels notify Canada before entering Canadian waters.

"Guess what? That is the status quo. We've got that agreement with the United States and other countries. Nobody comes into Canada's waters without notification," he said.

He accused Mr. Harper of failing to provide details on what size of icebreakers he would buy, while dismissing the Conservatives' call for underwater listening devices.

"The fact is that they are incredibly expensive and I think Mr. Harper has clearly not done his costing," he said.

The defence strategy was Mr. Harper's last major announcement before Christmas after a stretch of policy proposals including a two-percentage-point cut to the GST and payments to parents for child care. Mr. Harper will celebrate Christmas in Calgary, but is expected to be touring ridings in British Columbia right after Boxing Day.

He said in an interview yesterday that he doesn't think he could "sit still for eight days." His national campaign will resume just after New Year's Day.

Liberal Defence Minister Bill Graham dismissed the icebreaker plan as an expensive response to a non-existent military threat.

Mr. Graham said he does not believe the Americans are secretly sending nuclear-powered submarines through Canadian waters.

A protocol is in place by which the Americans notify Ottawa when their subs want to transit Canadian waters, Mr. Graham said in an interview. "They would have told us."

He said the Liberal government has taken steps to protect northern sovereignty with satellite surveillance.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who on Wednesday night in Yellowknife said Ottawa needs to do far more to protect its sovereignty in the Arctic, expressed cautious support for the Tory plan.

"We have indeed recommended that sovereignty does need more protection [in the Arctic], including a physical presence," he said.

With reports from Jeff Sallot,

Bill Curry, Michael Den Tandt

and Campbell Clark

Like I said before maybe the Conservatives have been reading my thread on the Ideal Navy as I mentioned 3 armed icebreakers as well.

 
I posted this on Troops.ca and ported it over here.  Wanted to pick a fight with Ex-Dragoon
over the hoidays.    ;D

>
The Conservative announcement is far from a white paper or technical description so only
so much can be extrapolated from it.  However, the document doesn't discuss anything
truly useful in my opinion.

The entire arctic area around the islands is HUGE.  Three noisy slow moving ice-breakers
(even armed) are simply impractical for "defensive" or military purposes.  Especially without
massive support.  Likely one would ever operate at sea at any time.

Having lived in the north for many years, the Nunavut government isn't going to let 500
military personnel reside permanently in or near Iqaluit.  Perhaps during occasional exercises
but it would be separated from the general population.  Ports will offer military and civilian
sea traffic more flexibility but once again winter and ice makes it less practical.  Areas of
port locations may be more south of pack ice on the west or east coast of Canada,
capable of most surface and sub-surface entry all year around.   

Another issue may relate to what part of the arctic is really of interest to any country. 
Personally, I doubt any country would argue Canadian sovereignty over most of the interior
islands especially those with obvious Canadian citizens and high traffic activity.  Most incursions
for economic development would be more remote islands or waters around the arctic islands
but within "Canadian" zones.

Since the waters around the arctic islands are shallow and even dangerous for sub-surface
movement, a deep water port would likely not exist in the area unless near the continent
shelfs and theres not much there now.

The Canadian government has its ear to the ground and would observe the intentions of various
countries towards the northern region.  Those intentions would point to the what and how
the government should react to economic and military threats to non-aggressive incursions. 
Alot of speculation has occurred but most incidents historicall relate generally sub-surface incursions
and issues over Hans Island.  Not alot of dead of winter activity.

I agree that if Canada wants to enforce its sovereignty in the arctic, it must make its presence
known.  Better integrated systems like satellite and air surveillance, sensors at bottle neck areas,
rapid reaction of expeditionary forces, more military exercises, and subs patrols near areas of
Canadian-side bottlenecks provides the military presence.  Once a sub gets pinged or discovers
its location has been found, its less likely to venture into that area again.  Economic expansion
and support of various northern communities, culture, and tourism will mean more civilian
activity and traffic though the idea has been contentious for decades.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see how the story develops in the next few years.
<
 
Not to agree or disagree but the Danish and Norwegians both have naval Icebreakers.  The Danish like to play steal the Islands up north too.  the thing with ships is it no problem to base them out of established area like HFX and EQM.  You just plain patrols and deployments north.  Now it remains to be seen who gets the PM's job and how he will keep these promises.  Forget cutting ice they will need to cut red tape to get a ship in the water in five years.  The military has been on a huge recruiting drive for what seems like forever.  Numbers are still not great in all three branches and we're expected to man ice breakers now too.  If they build em I'll man them I just wont hold my breath.

later

:)
 
reinforce the hull of HMCS Fraser with some titanium plates and kick out all the pigeons then sail her down from Bridgewater and man her with some Commissionaire's and then go up North to Iqualit.

Arrive Iqualit: Man her 24/7 -365 (w/ Commissionaire's and North of Sixty Cadets) in Harbour and raise the Sunday ensign everyday. Sail her once a week around (2 hrs tops), flash up every radar in its most powerful mode. Transmit on all HF freqs loud.

Have so much lighting on her that even Sputnik can see her and now we have a presence in the North.

"Its Canada, they decided to wake the frig up"
Coverage All year around for pennies a day and no salesman will call. Except the US and sneaky Danes,

Just a bit of sarcasm! Not directed at anybody just the slack, embezzeling liberals"
 
Actually the Canadian navy did have an icebreaker - HMCS St Laurent I believe, and it made many trips north in the 50's, including to CFS Alert - the captain being a chap named Pullen. and there were listening cables stretched between Greenland and the Canadian islands, although I don't know if they have been deactivated. Mention of these were made in a Science article on whale tracking. then there were the DEW Line sites - were these all deactivated. the point i am making is these items are in place....albeit the icebreaker was broken up - Pity, it should have been made a museum ship.
 
That Polar Ice-breaker by T.C. Pullen
http://www.carc.org/pubs/v14no4/5.htm

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/explore/icebreak.htm

Shipping in the Canadian Arctic
Other Possible Climate Change Scenarios
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/KW_IGARSS04_NWP.pdf

The Icebreaking Fleet
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/ice-gla/fleet_e.htm

Soviet Arctic Marine Transportation
by Lawson W. Brigham
http://www.dieselduck.ca/library/articles/russian.htm

 
JackD said:
Actually the Canadian navy did have an icebreaker - HMCS St Laurent I believe, and it made many trips north in the 50's, including to CFS Alert - the captain being a chap named Pullen. and there were listening cables stretched between Greenland and the Canadian islands, although I don't know if they have been deactivated. Mention of these were made in a Science article on whale tracking. then there were the DEW Line sites - were these all deactivated. the point i am making is these items are in place....albeit the icebreaker was broken up - Pity, it should have been made a museum ship.

It was HMCS Labrador actually
 
yes - I was able to find the name later - a pity that there was no follow-up on that work. I believe the good Mr. Pullen passed away a few years ago. There is a hill named for him-  or is it for his family? - near CFS Alert - beside Crystal Mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Labrador_%28AW_50%29. Wasn't there metal cut in Vancouver for a new fleet of icebreakers - sometime in the 80's -  a cancelled project...
 
from reading those grand web sites I'd say that Finland has far greater expertise iin ice breaker and probably ship design than Canada - I guess that says something about the Canadian psyche doesn't it?
 
JackD said:
from reading those grand web sites I'd say that Finland has far greater expertise iin ice breaker and probably ship design than Canada - I guess that says something about the Canadian psyche doesn't it?
Finland's ports ice up every year, so they need icebreakers to crunch through that ice. Not to mention the Russians with their nuclear icebreakers, the Scandinavian countries have a very strong ship building industry, especially with large ships like cruise liners.
 
We could learn a lot from the Scandinavians and how they do northern ops.
 
Wasn't there metal cut in Vancouver for a new fleet of icebreakers - sometime in the 80's -  a cancelled project...

I don't know if steel had been cut, but the Polar 8 icebreaker (s??) were to have been built here in Vancouver. The project was canceled and to make up for it the Gov. had the CCGS LSL modernized, which ultimately cost the the same or more than a new ship... ::)

Mike.
 
And in the end West Coast shipyards suffered. Hence the reason why BC Ferries purchased their new Super C class ferries from a German shipyard...
 
If we have a coastline that the Military is required to patrol, then there is a clear requirement to have the icebreakers within the military to do so. Unlike our US counterparts where the coast guard is an element of there service, ours is not.
 
Armymatters said:
And in the end West Coast shipyards suffered. Hence the reason why BC Ferries purchased their new Super C class ferries from a German shipyard...

The main reason for that is that it's very expensive to have a ship built in Canada.  Even with the 25% import duty on ships, it's still usually cheaper to go offshore for one.
 
If these ice-breakers go ahead I see their value not so much as "combat" vessels but as relocatable bases supporting helicopters, boarding parties and shore excursions. 

Their ability to break ice would be more beneficial just in terms of being able to move themselves around those seas instead of clearing paths for others - although that too would be a useful capacity.  It is likely to be a few years before the Northwest Passage is truly open, if, in the mean time, we offer transit rights to vessels using the route but only on the basis that we will supply "safe conduct" through the ice,  then that will enhance our claim to those waters at a later date.  It will also allow us to control shipping in the meantime. 

Consider it like building a four-lane highway to encourage people to use the government road, then fine those that wander off trail.  This controls traffic, restricts access and protects the areas off trail.

Having troops and helos on board would be similar to  having a highway patrol with a SWAT team on call.
 
Back
Top