KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 27,105
- Points
- 1,260
Except folks under the ice…
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
so we fire on sound from a stone frigate.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 27,105
- Points
- 1,260
I keep pointing out Possession is 9/10th the law.
Don’t occupy it year round and someone else will.
You can't possess it from 250 meters below sea level. And if the automated system does its job, you will never surface to claim the land. Our maintaining possession does not require the U.S.S. New Jersey. It requires roads, railroads, runways and financial reasons for those to be built.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 27,105
- Points
- 1,260
It isn’t an either or.
Yes to need to significantly expand and develop the northern lands.
I was pretty sure we just debunked the automated defense systems above. The ice pack needs year round patrolling or you will end up with squatters.
- Reaction score
- 7,553
- Points
- 1,210
Those automated mines can be air dropped. So IF you needed to do some mining that's the way you would do it. Probably a just push them out the back of a herc or something at this point. You wouldn't have a permanent presence of mines.
Persistent sensors or attritable sensors that are UUV's, seafloor sensors, floating sensors or whatever, that can highlight issues/contacts, that's the way to go.
Its ok for a submarine to sail through Canadian water, innocent passage and all that... (lol), but it's not ok for us to not know about it. And of course if you choke point the access to the Canadian arctic with our own submarines as well, you have a pretty good setup.
Persistent sensors or attritable sensors that are UUV's, seafloor sensors, floating sensors or whatever, that can highlight issues/contacts, that's the way to go.
Its ok for a submarine to sail through Canadian water, innocent passage and all that... (lol), but it's not ok for us to not know about it. And of course if you choke point the access to the Canadian arctic with our own submarines as well, you have a pretty good setup.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 27,105
- Points
- 1,260
Not through multi year pack ice.
Detection doesn’t necessarily equal deterrence.
What Submarines
IMHO you need Heavy Icebreakers something like the old Polar10 Nuclear that can operate year round in the Arctic Circle.
I’d like for Canada to have SSN’s as well, but that is secondary to having a surface presence.
- Reaction score
- 7,553
- Points
- 1,210
No one is going under multi year ice in the Canadian NWP. Perhaps north of Elsmere. I think you underestimate the challenges of ice even for submarines. Particularly when the ice dams can reach all the way to the bottom of the ocean, and the iceburgs regularly scrap along.
Perhaps there is some bunker busting ordinance that can penetrate through ice and release a torp. That would be interesting... Maybe something for BOREALIS to work on! lol
Its the first step, and letting them do stuff without knowing that we know they are there, isn't the worst idea.
No need for the nuclear ship, but the Polar class' being built at Davie and Seaspan will be enough for now. Not that they are going to be able to see subsea either. You can't do that with an iicebreaker overly well. Maybe release some things via the moonpool (UUV's).
- Reaction score
- 1,347
- Points
- 1,160
I would say throw some of that 5% into a SOSUS type listening post at the narrow parts of the passage.
- Reaction score
- 10,294
- Points
- 1,160
IIRC, when we were discussing the AOPS and seasonality, one of the problems that kept being raised was scouring. There were parts of the southern channels of the NWP that were so shallow, and those parts shifted with the tides and the seasons, that bergy bits moving through the channels regularly scoured the bottoms. This was seen as a threat to cables and minefields. It is the reason I suggested that any enduring fields would have to be resown seasonally. It is also the reason I proposed the stone frigate notion of launching torpedoes from dry land through tubes. I figured that the tubes could be engineered to be berg/scour proof.
As to the sensors. The old sensors were permanently installed cables with microphones. The new sensors can be microphones on UUVs attached to the forts by fibres. They can manoeuvre around obstructions, or get out of the channel, or just be replaced by another one if it gets dammaged.
If those chunks of ice are in the channel and scouring the bottoms I doubt it any CO is going to risk his command in those waters.
...
PS
It occurs to me that a stone frigate is not restricted to passive sensors. Ships are careful with active sensors because they give away their position. The position of a stone frigate is known. There is nothing to give away. It can ping freely.
In fact, it seems to me that its pinging, and reflections, could by picked up by third party sensors and used to image a field.
As to the sensors. The old sensors were permanently installed cables with microphones. The new sensors can be microphones on UUVs attached to the forts by fibres. They can manoeuvre around obstructions, or get out of the channel, or just be replaced by another one if it gets dammaged.
If those chunks of ice are in the channel and scouring the bottoms I doubt it any CO is going to risk his command in those waters.
...
PS
It occurs to me that a stone frigate is not restricted to passive sensors. Ships are careful with active sensors because they give away their position. The position of a stone frigate is known. There is nothing to give away. It can ping freely.
In fact, it seems to me that its pinging, and reflections, could by picked up by third party sensors and used to image a field.
Similar threads
