The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

[blueboy]

I'm just wondering what the feel is on Harpers' proposal to open a new base in the high Arctic and to have both the Army and Navy positioned to protect Canada's interests in the region? I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit is probably the best site available. Any comments?

Modified to correct thread title

 

[Jarnhamar]

I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north.

Who likes icecream? Put your hand up...

GOTCHYA!

 

[Kirkhill]

How do they find staff for Alert or Yellowknife?

 

[Arctic Acorn]

Pretty much the same way they do it for any other base. If you're a regular they post you. If you're in the 'Mo you apply for a gig (normally a 3-year contract).

Main difference is that you have to do a screening (both are considered an 'Isolated Post').

:dontpanic:

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Alert is a 6 months posting plus bonus and you get a medal....indeed you are. I know that Alert is mostly civilian and researcher now.
Yellowknife? well I know that my boss wants to go. He's crazy enough or his wife but whatever. I guess also are intitle to bonus over there but I might be wrong.
cheers

 

[dutchie]

Alert is a 6 months posting plus bonus and you get a medal....indeed you are. I know that Alert is mostly civilian and researcher now.
Yellowknife? well I know that my boss wants to go. He's crazy enough or his wife but whatever. I guess also are intitle to bonus over there but I might be wrong.
cheers

You know your living in a shitty place when soldiers get a medal for being there.

Sorry, just an observation.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Man I hope my home port division stays East Coast vice the Arctic.....*shudder*

 

[Kat Stevens]

HMCS Archangel has a nice ring to it...

 

[Armymedic]

A posting up north to Whitehorse, Yellowknife or Fobisher Bay (sorry don't remember its new name of hand) would be ok for 2-3 yrs. People who go up North for postings usually enjoy thier time up there.

 

[HItorMiss]

Post me up North and I might just kill myself or likely someone else  ;D

I havent the constition for 10 months of winter ex.....Oh how I loath winter ex :rage:

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Wisecracks aside... as can only be expected from uninformed individuals.

It doesn't seem like there would be much, in terms of personnel strength, that would be necessary to maintain a staff level if there is to be a deep water berth at Iqaluit.

If you read the proposal from the economic development officer of Iqaluit (Google it), the proposal calls for 1 (ONE) deepwater berth with a draught of something like 10 meters along with one hydraulic refuelling boom. I must re-emphasize that the proposal calls for one berth only and maps of Innuit head indicate that there isn't alot of extra space. One berth means no permanent moorage for anyone, let alone the CF.

Such a tiny facility implies minimal staffing requirements that are best filled by regional staff, perhaps an all-Inuit corps that supports Ranger activities. Along with basing (read warehouse or the like) support for surge activities there would only be a need for a very small strength that would only grow during training or sovereignty patrol by Naval forces (probably more Kingston's). The best way to look at it is as a long term lease arrangement with the port, possibly defrayed by in kind exchanges ie: Fuel from Ship's tanks, or extra cargo shipments via CF aircraft or boats. Economic development in Iqaluit is drastically hindered at this point in time by the nature of Cargo and fuel offloading and anything which ameliorates the current situation would be looked upon favourably by the Nunavut government.

Iqaluit is more interested with bringing in economic activity that promotes growth and employment within their existing population base. A CF involvement would be welcomed but only if it doesn't interfere with the identified needs that are currently in demand by its' populace.

cheers,

 

[Glorified Ape]

I'm just wondering what the feel is on Harpers' proposal to open a new base in the high Arctic and to have both the Army and Navy positioned to protect Canada's interests in the region? I was speaking to some Army Senior NCO's about it and they said it appears that it will be a tough go to find the personnel to go north. They were also stating that the site at Iqualuit is probably the best site available. Any comments?

I understand that the pay up there is pretty decent. I'd go - I like money and it'd be an experience.

 

[3rd Horseman]

We have Alert...YellowKnife....Goosebay....Cold lake do we really need another Northern base? Can anyone remember Churchill nice base in its day, we closed it as it was not required. No need for another northern unit. Have any of these wise crackers who thought this up ever patrolled up there? Arctic defense tactics dont require that we have a forward base up north.  All that is required for Arctic patrols is a navy with Ice breaker capability and nuc subs to go under the ice, that is why the last Conservative government was buying them. Instead we got the next best thing that will not go under the ice thus the subs we bought are useless to us(well not completely) .

 

[Slim]

Wisecracks aside... as can only be expected from uninformed individuals.

Cool it.

Staff

 

[Kirkhill]

3rd Horseman:

You seem to agree that the 3 ice-breakers are not an undesirable purchase.  The proposal calls for 500 personnel to man them and support them.  The Norwegian Icebreaker discussed here
( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html )has a crew of 52 (including air det).  Port and Starboard crews for 3 vessels would result in a manning requirement of ~300 PYs, allow another 100 for forward support and 100 for command and rear area support and you have 500 PYs.

Those ships need local forward support otherwise they are going to spend a lot of time off station.  Therefore they need a useable port in their AO.  Iqaluit and Nunavut generally could use port facilities.  There doesn't seem to be a conflict of needs there to me.

I have mentioned before that I have worked a lot in the past with the American fishing fleets in Alaska.  These vessels are homeported in Seattle, roughly the same size as a frigate or one of these icebreakers (American Triumph is typical of the large trawlers. She was built by the same yard that built the Svalbard for a fishing company owned by the owner of the yard -Kjell Inge Rokke - has a gross tonnage of 4294 tonnes , a Length Over All of 285 feet and carries a crew of 130 - 80% processors and 20% ships crew at a guess http://www.atsea.org/association/amsea.html) and operate out of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians on a seasonal basis.  Dutch Harbor supplies the forward operating location (FOL) while Seattle supplies the fleet maintenance facility (FMF).  Dutch is lightly manned on a year round basis with surge man-power added during operational periods.  It seems like a reasonable plan to me for operating the 'breakers.

As to the Cambridge Bay base - the PY allocation there is supposedly 100 persons to maintain the facility for training purposes.  Is there anything to say that all those 100 persons have to be there year round or could they float in and out depending on usage.

Finally, wrt sovereignty patrols and training it seems to me that they go hand in hand.  Rather than running up and down Shirley Road or doing circles around Wainwright why not do more training in the back of beyond sending out platoon/coy teams for a week or two?  The time spent in isolation and dependent on the radio would do more to teach junior leaders about management and logistic skills than all the running around bases ever could.  It would also quickly demonstrate who the leaders were.  This would be done in a taxing but non-threatening envirionment.  Tactical skills can be taught on controlled bases.  It would be expensive but it would also demonstrate that we consider this turf ours - we can deploy the government's forces here anytime without asking permission.

I don't get the sense that we are talking about recreating something like Pet or Valcartier above the Arctic Circle.  Perhaps something more like Dundurn.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

All that is required for Arctic patrols is a navy with Ice breaker capability and nuc subs to go under the ice, that is why the last Conservative government was buying them. Instead we got the next best thing that will not go under the ice thus the subs we bought are useless to us(well not completely) .

I don't recall Kim Campbell ever mentioning SSNs...

 

[Journeyman]

It would also quickly demonstrate who the leaders were.  This would be done in a taxing but non-threatening point. 

I agree completely with Kirkhill's post, with one minor point.

If you can command and lead in a hostile, austere environment like the arctic, then Wainwright is a cake-walk and A'stan is do'able. Although suicide bombers and IEDs are pretty much unheard of in the arctic, it is far from a non-threatening environment! That's why it makes for such a great training AO.

Way back when....when I did the arctic survival portion of my SAR Tech course, we had to go up the following year to complete it since we got weathered out. While I don't want to inflate SAR Techs' egos any more  , if SAR figures the weather's too inhospitable for "Igloo Architecture 101," your average infantry company may find it a rather threatening environment.

While I assume you meant incoming rounds, please don't think that just because no one is shooting at you that you're in a non-threatening environment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for the tip of the hat Journeyman and your point about non-threatening is well taken and understood.  I was indeed just referring to incoming rounds.

Cheers

 

[Praetorian]

Arctic Sovereignty is essential for Canada
However an Army Det would do little good
The Americans want to use the north as a passage for maritime commerce
Kinda like a Northern Panama.
The North is the Navy's primary concern, the Army cant do much against ships dozens of miles out to sea.
It is also a well documented fact that USN SSN regularly do under ice transits, which is why strong pressure was put on the grits to halt a Canadian SSN project by the yanks .
Additionaly Denmark is making noise over Hans Island ( a 2 km sq. rock)
Once again only Warships are capable of defending that land (we've boarded Danish vessels in the past)
The only time the army could be needed is in an invasion of Greenland  

So what we need for the North is not a base, but a Navy capable of getting up there.

 

[Kirkhill]

Praetorian:

The concept of marching your borders is as old as time and it is still the only sure cure for recognition of claims in international law.  It is for that reason that Denmark has their Sirius patrols doing circles around the coast of Greenland securing the world's second largest ice cube. If we can kill two birds with one stone: supply effective training that makes for more capable leaders and troops as well as firm up our sovereignty claims then I see no harm.

Cheers.