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

The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

milnews.ca said:
Reviving necrothread with update:  maybe not as quickly as first hoped.More in the Canadian Press story here, and at the Nunavut Impact Review Board (environmental screening documents) here.

It's atypical that project timelines fail to take in account the various EA requirements (CEAA is normally only for south of 60) and never seems to allow for consultations with First Nations. I get anguished pleas to speed up a project review that was submitted in February with funding that runs out in March 31. but if we have to consult, they are generally screwed. If a FN does not respond to a agency letter, another 3 letters are generally sent, 30 days apart. Often the last letter elicits a response that further delays the review will the agencies grapple with the comments. Now I wonder if the navy will  do a Termpol review as well?
 
Painting with a broader brush, the Toronto Star discovers a September 2010 DRDC report outlining, among other things, where bases could end up:
"It is costly to operate in the vast and inhospitable Arctic. But the Canadian military is exploring a way to cut costs and speed up the movement of troops and equipment by building several new northern bases.  Along the way it could help to strengthen the country's Arctic sovereignty claims by placing additional boots on the tundra throughout the year.  The plan, sketched out in a study that was commissioned by the force's operational support command, is a variation of the one put in place for overseas operations.  Barebones transportation hubs — essentially a suitable landing strip and storage facility — at strategic spots around the globe make it more efficient when soldiers are called out to a global hot spot in a pinch .... The plan could result in remote bases and a small-but-permanent military presence in far-off communities.  Locations could include Alert, Inuvik, Whitehorse, Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit or Nanisivik, according to the technical memorandum prepared by the research wing of the military last year.  The Canadian Forces says no decision has been made to go ahead with the construction of new hubs.  That could change.  “The hub concept referred to in this report is just one of many ideas being examined at the time to enhance our capabilities up in the North,” said Navy Lt. Greg Menzies ...."
Since the Star doesn't see fit to share said study with its readers, you can download it (150 page PDF) here or here.

A more recent call for someone to summarize Canada's Arctic defence research in a previous thread here.
 
Taking another step forward, a DRDC paper out this week narrows things down - this from the executive summary:
.... The study indicated that the RSOM-hub concept could offer potential cost avoidance and response time reduction on deployment lift for MAJAID operations in the North and could be a potential strategy for improvement of the CF domestic support capability. For a single RSOM-hub solution, Yellowknife would be the time effective RSOM-hub location. From a cost avoidance perspective, Iqaluit would the optimal hub location. Both airfields have the required capability and resources (e.g., fuel, maintenance) for supporting strategic lift aircraft (CC-177) and tactical helicopter (CH-146) operations. For a multiple RSOM-hub solution, the analysis indicates that the optimal number of RSOM-hubs would be two, corresponding to Iqaluit and Yellowknife, when response time and cost avoidance are both considered ....
Source:  "Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations: A MAJAID Scenario Analysis" (PDF), released 12 Aug 11 - abstract and executive summary attached
 
From CBC news,

Canadian Forces may need U.S. help supplying Arctic
The Canadian Press
Last Updated: Nov 14, 2011 7:08 PM ET
The Canadian military will have to look to commercial contractors and possibly even exchanges with the Americans in order to sustain itself when forces are built up in the country's far North, a series of internal Defence Department documents show.

All three branches – the navy, air force and army – have begun to grapple with the specifics of the enormous, logistical challenge presented by the Harper government's Arctic policies.

A series of reports, briefings and planning directives, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, show that the biggest concern isn't getting forces into the harsh region, but the ability to keep them supplied with fuel, ammunition, food and shelter.

Documents dating back to 2008 suggest the annual operating cost could run between $843 million and $1 billion. But more detailed records – all from 2010 – show it's going to be a complicated exercise.

A slide presentation, given to the head of the Royal Canadian Navy last year, says its patrols and operations to enforce the country's sovereignty will be a challenge and there will be a need to reduce the logistical footprint in the Arctic by seeking "collaboration" with other branches, the military, other government departments and "allies."

The navy's yet-to-be-constructed Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, due to distance and lack of local resources, "must be self sustained, either onboard (more storage, reduced waste, easy maintenance) and supported from the South," said the Nov. 22, 2010 briefing.

In order to be refuelled, the Corvette-sized warships will rely on a deep water port at Nanisivik, 750 kilometres north of the Arctic circle on Baffin Island. But getting the fuel up there is what preoccupies navy planners.

Options under consideration include hiring a tanker to haul fuel from Halifax to Nanisvik, relying on a contractor to deliver it directly – or asking the U.S. Navy to it under a long-standing exchange agreement.

Going the commercial route means the Defence Department would compete for space with the semi-annual sealifts meant to sustain northern communities – something that has the potential of driving up the cost of living for northerners.

Arctic expert Rob Huebert, of the University of Calgary, said the economic impact of the military buildup on northern communities is something the government needs to pay close attention to as the strategy unfolds.

"The north is always more expensive than you think it's ever going to be," said Huebert. "With the lack of infrastructure, flights; we always have a tendency to under-estimate what we're doing."

Potentially irritating residents by driving up their costs – or bumping supplies off civilian charters – is something military planners have recognized and an undated internal army planning document says they're hoping to find ways to "minimize adverse impact on the limited resources of local communities."

Delivering spare parts or changing crews on the patrol ships will require air force or commercial transport, but documents show the vessels will have to transit to Resolute Bay in order to do that. The gravel runway at the navy's principle northern base is unable to accommodate either C-130-J transports – or the mammoth C-17 lifters.

The air force, according to a March 26, 2010 planning directive, is concerned about the state of the runways and what kind of resupply schedule the army will need for its Arctic warfare centre in Resolute Bay.

The documents did not address potential search and rescue needs.

Huebert said the fact the military was just getting into such details four years after the initial policy statements suggests to him that there was uncertainty on the resolve – or the ability – of the Harper government to deliver on its commitments.

He said he wonders whether elements of the strategy will get scaled back in light of the wobbling global economy and Ottawa's extended deficit battle.

The military's overall dilemma was underscored by the chief of defence staff in a recent appearance before the House of Commons defence committee.

"We are challenged more by operating in our own domain than in operating around the world," the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk said on Nov. 3. "It is harder to sustain operations in our High Arctic than it is to sustain operations in Kandahar or Kabul because in the Arctic, it's what you bring."
© The Canadian Press 2011
 
So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?
 
Chief Stoker said:
So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?

Psssst C130...
 
Chief Stoker said:
So upgrade the gravel strip to accommodate the type of aircraft we have and build a tank farm. Does the CF have any aircraft with a rough strip capability?
Ex-Dragoon said:
Psssst C130...

And the C-17
 
If that's the case we could still do the crew swaps at Nanisvik, instead of going to Iqaluit which is a pita to land personnel. Chartering an aircraft like we did for the crew swap trial during the last OP Nanook is very expensive so using our own assets would be better.
 
Just to be my usual obnoxious self  >:D :

If it is possible to fly Generals and Ministers for free because Air Force crews need training and the aircraft would otherwise be flying empty, why is it not possible to fly supplies to the arctic for free with crews undergoing training?

Presumably those aircraft and flying hours would be logged somewhere in Canada at some time.

Just wunderin'.  :)
 
Ive flown in (and over due to weather) to Nanisivik 2 dozen times in the past few years, the last time being in 2008,  and I cant see what the issue is. The runway was built with 737s- albeit with gravel kits on- in mind, so im surprised that the hercs would have difficulty getting in there.
 
Some of the obstacles being quoted are sound like there's a political agenda in making this as difficult as possible....
 
<hobby horse>
GAP said:
Some of the obstacles being quoted are sound like there's a political agenda in making this as difficult as possible....
Interesting point, especially re:  this bit from the story....
mad dog 2020 said:
.... A series of reports, briefings and planning directives, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, show that the biggest concern isn't getting forces into the harsh region, but the ability to keep them supplied with fuel, ammunition, food and shelter ....
.... unless we can see the briefing notes in question, we can't tell how big the "biggest concern" really is.  In an exchange with the reporter in question, he seems willing to share in principle, but the Canadian Press doesn't look like it's doing much (like setting up a page to access such documents, or using document-sharing sites such as Scribd.com) to make that happen.
</hobby horse>
 
Personally, my biggest problem with the briefing notes, if that is where that part of the press report came from, is calling a 6000 tonnes ship "corvette size".

Heck, next thing you know, we get 10,000 tons frigates, and we're right back where the Americans were 50 years ago when they insisted on calling their cruisers "frigates".
 
Supplementary here:

As I understand the concept of ops for the AOPS, they will spend their "summer" in the Arctic and the "winter" patrolling on the Grand Banks or off the Queen Charlottes (or did I miss something).

If that is the case, they may need very little in terms of up north support. At their size (about same as the Coast Guard research icebreakers that "park" themselves in the ice up there of six months at the time) and given their small crew size (40 to 60, including air group as they are "patrol" vessels barely armed - not combat ships), each person can have their own cabin and you still have more than enough cubic meters of space left to carry fuel for 15,000 NM range of operations plus dry, cool and cold storage to carry 6 months of  food and spare parts (p.s.: that is what the Coast Guard does). If so, then you need only provide for one crew change in mid-summer and most of the resupply can be done from Halifax/Esquimalt or St. John's/Prince Ruppert just before and after "summer" arctic ops as you switch patrol areas.

P.s.: Shouldn't this whole discussion be switched to  the AOPS thread, or create a new "Supporting Arctic Operations" thread ?
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Personally, my biggest problem with the briefing notes, if that is where that part of the press report came from, is calling a 6000 tonnes ship "corvette size".

Heck, next thing you know, we get 10,000 tons frigates, and we're right back where the Americans were 50 years ago when they insisted on calling their cruisers "frigates".

Well the Arleigh Burkes are as big as some classes  battleships of WW1.... ;)
 
MJP said:
And the C-17
While the American C-17s can apparently land on gravel strips, according to a recent DRDC/CORA report (Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations; A MAJAID Scenario Analysis, Annex A: Northern Airfields), only aspshalt runways in the north are suitable for CC177s.

It's news to me too.  :dunno:
 
Journeyman said:
While the American C-17s can apparently land on gravel strips, according to a recent DRDC/CORA report (Optimal RSOM-hub Locations for Northern Operations; A MAJAID Scenario Analysis, Annex A: Northern Airfields), only aspshalt runways in the north are suitable for CC177s.

It's news to me too.  :dunno:
Report's attached here a few messages back
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/39074/post-1067692.html#msg1067692
if the link above doesn't work.
 
milnews.ca said:
Report's attached here a few messages back if the link above doesn't work.
That's where I got it. I'm not above stealing utilizing your research efforts for my own projects.  ;D
 
Journeyman said:
That's where I got it. I'm not above stealing utilizing your research efforts for my own projects.  ;D
Good to hear - that's why I share the stuff.  Glad SOMEONE found it even just a bit useful  ;D
 
Back
Top