• 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]

3rd Horseman said:
I said:
"The doctrine to fight in our arctic is to wait and let an army invade and cut their supply line and leave them to freeze on the ice."

Journeyman -  I challenge you to sum up your view of our tactics to fight an invasion in the high arctic in one short sentence.

3rd Horseman
Advanced Winter Warfare Instructor
1CMBG LO to the central arctic 86-89
Canadian Ranger

And I have, in two reasonably lucid posts now, tried to point out that you are talking out of your a$$. You keep referring to a "doctrine" which DOES NOT EXIST. I truely do not want this to devolve into the flaming posts that followed your previous attempt to tell us you were some "combat non-JTF...deep battle special ops..."  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/19990/post-285609.html#msg285609

Back up your " what if " with fact, add comment to news reports, critique policy statements. If you are not going to add informed value to discussions.....take it down to one of the threads in "The Mess" portion of this site. They are there for just such a purpose. If I had any interest in hearing your tactical theories, that's where I'd be - - but this is NOT the place.

(3 strikes - so much for trying to be polite)
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Armymatters... you are living up to your tag of armchair general quite aptly because while you might know the military through books you don't know the military at all.

What is being suggested is that we can get more effectiveness out of the Canadian Forces by looking within the Canadian Forces to find inefficiencies. There is always some inefficiencies that can be singled out to provide better value for the Canadian public. Finding more economical ways to do the same task is always a key goal for any organization, including the CF.
 
Armymatters said:
What is being suggested is that we can get more effectiveness out of the Canadian Forces by looking within the Canadian Forces to find inefficiencies. There is always some inefficiencies that can be singled out to provide better value for the Canadian public. Finding more economical ways to do the same task is always a key goal for any organization, including the CF.

Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.
 
Journey I guess that means no.

I humbly withdraw from the argument in the light of your vastly superior knowledge of Arctic warfare over me.

Don't use JTF in connection with my posts please....its degrading to me.
 
gnplummer421 said:
I like the idea of our Nortern Rangers looking after things up there.It's their home and they know how to survive. I hear they are pretty good shots too. Place the main headquarters of this unit near the deep water port, and with detached companies of Rangers throughout the region - 5000 sounds about right (thoughts?)

I think the rangers are the masterpiece of our northern defence and we should ''give them a bigger piece of the puzzle'' if you see what I mean. There are currently 4,000 Canadian Rangers in 165 communities across Canada. This number is expected to increase to 4,800 by March 2008, however, as expansion plans near completion.

According to their website, the Conservative Party plan to revitalize “ the Canadian Rangers  by recruiting up to 500 additional Rangers increasing their level of training, activity, and equipment”  Good idea , although that “up to”  bit is a concern.  Many Rangers units have waiting lists of willing recruits. So why limit expansion to under 500?  Focusing on units already intimately familiar with local terrain and conditions has obvious advantages – so does improving training and updating gear.  Even if recruiting is capped at 500, this is still an excellent idea. From http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-harper1-6.htm

I suggest you also have a look at:http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-articviking5.htm


 
Michael O'Leary said:
Sorry, that's just inarticulate fluff - if you have credible real-world solutions to offer, please do so, otherwise it's just more static. I can probably find an on-line mission statement generator that would produce equally valuable statements.

According to the Auditor General reports, the following have been singled out as wasteful, or could use better management:
Auditor General 2004 report, Chapter 3:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20041103ce.html
The Auditor General suggests that the project management tools could be better used, a risk management plan needs to be developed, a lack of fairness monitor by Public Works,the seemingly arbitary selection of 80 jets to be modernized to be questionable, the staffing limitations in the program, and a lack of standardized monthly progress reports to be a concern.

Auditor General 2002 report, Chapter 8:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0208ce.html
In short, we got a military satellite sitting in a warehouse that we never used, and was a waste of money seeing that the leased commercial satellites were more than up for the task.

Auditor General 2001 report, Chapter 10:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/0110ce.html
This one, the military has taken action with. But the gist of it was that the budget for maintaining military equipment could be spent better, had better planning been implemented.

The entire series of Auditor General reports on the DND can be found here:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/00nd_e.html
 
Ah, examples, why didn't you start with that. The previous remark is empty without such presentation of fact and had no value as a stand-alone statement.

Now that that diversion if out of the way, you still haven't continued your case that we can simply close 50% of our establishments - and what the end state and real savings might be.
 
Michael O'Leary said:
Ah, examples, why didn't you start with that. The previous remark is empty without such presentation of fact and had no value as a stand-alone statement.

Now that that diversion if out of the way, you still haven't continued your case that we can simply close 50% of our establishments - and what the end state and real savings might be.

I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.
 
Armymatters,
The Ontario Govt. of Mike Harris,[whom I voted for twice] went to "reports" to streamline and save vast amounts of money in my line of work, Corrections.
So far, the cost has been unimaginable even to us whom are still involved [I'm still putting in claims from my second paid move in 3 years] because they listened to "reports" from bean counters and not those involved  in the workings.

So, for Gods sake, stop posting links to subjects you have never been physical involved with from people whom have never been involved with from people whom ....etc....

Tell us what you know cause you have BTDT...........or listen.
Thanks...
 
Armymatters said:
I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.

So, start with the list of bases .... look at the major units and infrastructure they have ... then consider what can be "easily" moved for cost savings.  Don't forget to rationalize occupancy loads on training areas, ability of local economies to support and sustain the development, the requirements to duplicate 'surrendered' infrastructure with new, and continuing ability to meet all assigned tasks and missions from a narrower base of operations.  It's not a simple issue that can be wrapped up in a "if" we did this we "might" save ......  What you are suggesting would require a significant amount of detailed analysis.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9634ce.html#0.2.Q3O5J2.O25UY6.WJTLQE.G01

34.56  The Canadian Forces have 29 bases across Canada. The largest is Halifax, with a staff of 2,114, while the smallest is Moncton with a complement of 182. Each year about $2 billion dollars or 24 percent of the Department's operating budget is consumed by bases; about 26 percent of National Defence personnel work in base support. Our audit focussed on the 22 bases that the Department intends to keep open. The bases we selected represent about 82 percent of the Department's spending at the base level.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9426ce.html#0.2.L39QK2.6NA0GI.95SJQE.QN
26.47  We used the model with the assistance of Defence military personnel to assess the military and financial impacts of reducing infrastructure to the minimum requirement of 12 bases, as justified in the 1975 study. The modelling showed that military capability would be enhanced. As well, depending on the chosen configuration, savings of between $360 million and $970 million per year could result, chiefly by consolidating support staff. To achieve those savings, approximately $1.3 billion to $2.5 billion in new infrastructure would have to be built, assuming a cost of $2,000 per square metre. However, departmental officials cautioned that, in their opinion, the 1975 approach is obsolete in the context of current needs. Nevertheless, they agreed that there will be room for further rationalization once the reductions called for in the 1994 Budget have been implemented successfully.

Note the timeframe - 1996 for the first quote, and 1994 for the second.

I think there have been some changes in force structure and commander's intent since then that just might require a detailed re-examination of this estimate. It's old enough to be considered suspicious, if not invalid against current plans in effect  without a review of all the factors involved.

 
Armymatters said:
I haven't dug out that Auditor General (searching on the Auditor General report database is not easy) report yet, but I expect there will be costs savings of a significant magnitude to warrant the closures, otherwise, the Auditor General would not have made that observation.
Here's my thoughts and humble personal opinion on the matter of Base reductions/closures/cut-backs call it what you will. Those of us with some TI will recall the days when there were Bases, Stations and Dets spread throughout each Province and Territory of this great nation of ours. They have been 'amalgamated/slashed/cut-back' now throughout my career. Yes, we have experienced a volumuous cost savings in effecting these closures and consolidating our ever-shrinking resources.

"Ever-shrinking" leads me to my next point. There was a time when the great majority of Canadian taxpayers actually had a clue what was going on in their Armed Forces because we were visible in their Communities and were spread out nation-wide contributing to many local economies, endeavours. We were visible, had morale and experienced very high levels of recruiting.

Since our cutbacks/consolidation over the past decade...we have experienced a marked decrease in morale, a marked decrease in recruiting, a marked decrease in awareness amongst the general population of Canada. We are no longer visible or known on a regular and routine basis to those persons whose taxes justify and pay for our very existance. Why should they support something they don't see? Something they do not directly benefit from on a daily basis (oh sure in times of fire, flood and snowstorm....there we are)?

Yes we have funding now to purchase some new kit items and equipment (albeit very slowly) due to centralizing many small Unit locations into larger ones. But at what cost to the overall effectiveness and morale of the Canadian Forces? At what social and economic costs to those communities we have pulled out of? Was this factored into the equation anywhere? At what costs to recruiting and maintaining the personnel strength we desperately require in times like these?

No matter what the "monetary" cost savings to be realized by further infrastructure reductions; the means do not justify the ends.

The ends being a Canadian Forces even further out of sight and mind of those very voters who would justify our existance and determine or budgets and requirements with those votes and their voices.

I believe we need the opposite to occur. Get us back out into the communities. Make us visible (other than on the 6 o'clock news when a critical incident occurs) once again. Give us back the pride, morale and esprit de corps Armed Forces; and don't just give it back to me....give it back to the average Canadian out there.

There truley is no life like it and it's high time we were out visibly proving this on a routine and daily basis to all of Canada and throughout all of Canada, not just the select locations currently 'benefiting' from our presence.

By realizing the social, economic, morale-boosting and civic pride invloved in having us 'visible' at wide-spread locations, with a wide-spread support base from the populace, I believe we would soon learn that the costs associated with this far outweigh the savings associated with relegating us to our own little corner of the ring.

IMHO of course.
 
Personally, I've always thought that Churchill would make the best location for a permanent northern base.
Already has a 10,000-ish foot runway, rail sidings, a port which I've seen accomodate some bloody huge ships (plural), plenty of housing, and perhaps most importantly, it's got the largest major hospital in the region. Actually, it's the ONLY hospital in the Keewatin area (Nunavut et al). It's all just sitting there, not doing much (and not worth a whole lot in dollar terms to anyone other than the government).

A detachment at Inuvik is a good idea as well, but I don't think it's nearly as suitable from an infrastructure standpoint. Particularily with a view of being able to park a couple of ships there.

Churchill is also within commuting distance of Winnepeg, Cold Lake, Iqaluit (Frobisher), Rankin Inlet (which has also hosted temporary CF-18 detachments before), and a lot of the eastern arctic in general. A very convenient stepping stone from the places the CF is, to a lot of places that we want them to be.

And there's  still several square km of cleared ground next to the airport, from when the last base was scraped away, and various buildings in various stages of repair (fire hall, etc) are still in use (so far as I know, it's been a few years). There would need to be some construction, obviously, as with any new base, but Churchill already has surveyed, cleared, and level ground, right where a base would go. 

Did I mention the port? On the Arctic Ocean?

 
The problem with Churchill is that it is as far from the eastern end of the NW passage at Lancaster Sound as St. John's, NF and unlike St.John's it is iced in for much of the year.  Churchill is also well south of the Arctic Circle.  Despite its salt water access it is more of an inland port, similar in many respects to Thunder Bay.
 
Inuvik, Iqaluit, and Resolute have robust airfields capable of supporting a variety of aircraft.
Iqaluit has a general hospital and medical support to other communities is varied.
Other communities in the lower and high North can not support CF-18s or C-17s without
major expansions and paving.  Inuvik is within the MacKenzie delta and is limited by shallow
water and moving ice.  There may be communities on the east coast of Baffin Island,
Broughton Island, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord (Ellesmere), and the western Arctic like
Sachs Harbour or Tuktoyaktuk that are better locations for ports but have numerous handicaps.
Certainly military and civilian (air, port, government, commercial, social) infrastructure will have
to co-exist and integrate somewhat to become practical.  It would be interesting to get more
details on the Conservative intent.
 
There was a small article in the Vancouver province today noting that the Canadian Military will be conducting arctic patrols by snowmobile this spring,to reece two possible forward basing  locations.
 
Arctic patrols?.... the Ranger dets do patrols all the time.

WRT forward basing?.... I guess contingency planning is possible
Unlikely but possible
 
There was a short CP newswire article in many of today's editions:

Canuck soldiers plan epic series of Arctic trips

OTTAWA (CP) -- Canadian soldiers are planning an epic series of Arctic trips
this spring to reinforce sovereignty and prepare for emergencies arising
from increased use of northern skies and waters.
Up to 52 soldiers in five patrols will snowmobile 4,500 kilometres, building
airstrips on the sea ice, cataloguing buildings they spot on the way, and lay-
ing the groundwork for two High Arctic bases.
The patrols will be conducted by the Canadian Rangers, a largely aboriginal
reserve unit that is Canada's primary military presence in the North.
The patrols in Operation Nunalivut -- Inuktitut for "the land is ours" -- will
leave from different points in mid-March and converge about a week later
on a tiny island south of Lougheed Island.
 
Here's a fuller version.

Arctic military trips reinforce sovereignty
Updated Fri. Feb. 10 2006 6:30 AM ET

Canadian Press

Canadian soldiers are planning an epic series of Arctic trips this spring to reinforce sovereignty and prepare for emergencies arising from increased use of northern skies and waters.

Up to 52 soldiers in five patrols will snowmobile 4,500 kilometres, building airstrips on the sea ice, cataloguing buildings they spot on the way, and laying the groundwork for two High Arctic bases.

"The more military activities we have in that region, the better it is for assertion of sovereignty," said Col. Norman Couturier, commander of Canada's northern forces.

"Sooner or later, we know there will be emergencies in that region. We have to be ready to operate in that area."

The patrols will be conducted by the Canadian Rangers, a largely aboriginal reserve unit that is Canada's primary military presence in the North.

The patrols in Operation Nunalivut - Inuktitut for "the land is ours" - will leave from different points in mid-March and converge about a week later on a tiny island south of Lougheed Island.

Two patrols will leave from Mould Bay, an abandoned Environment Canada weather station on Prince Patrick Island. One of those will head east to Resolute Bay, the other will head east and even further north to another weather station on Ellef Ringnes Island, where it will be joined by a third patrol, resupply and start heading south.

A fourth patrol will be heading west from Grise Fjord on Ellesmere Island. A fifth will head west from Resolute.

Two of the patrols will rendezvous on Melville Island; the other three will meet somewhere near Edmund Walker Island, a rocky piece of nothing in the middle of a frozen ocean.

"It's going to be rough," said Maj. Chris Bergeron, commander of 1 Canadian Rangers Patrol Group.

"I'm talking about patrols meeting in the middle of nowhere on the ice."

Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean has been invited to the Edmund Walker rendezvous. Her office is considering the request.

Patrols will climb glaciers and cross remote mountain passes. Twin Otters from Yellowknife-based 440 Squadron will fly before them, warning of open water and scouting out the safest and most efficient routes through the sometimes towering jumble of ice.

The patrols can only carry enough supplies for a week, so they will have to build airstrips on the sea ice so resupply planes can reach them.

Along the way, they will catalogue any structures they see that may have been left behind by the generations of explorers, miners and oil drillers that have travelled the North.

Cameron Island, for example, has an old oil well that may still have a usable airstrip and dock.

"There are old mines, there are abandoned sites," said Couturier. "We just really want to know what's out there."

Such structures could be handy in an emergency, Couturier said.

Operation Nunalivut is also the first step in turning the two abandoned weather stations into "turn-key" base camps that could be quickly activated in an emergency.

Mould Bay, shuttered in 1997, still has snowplows and trucks. Its living quarters look as if they were abandoned yesterday, with someone's old guitar still leaning on the sofa.

"If we can make sure the runways are usable and make sure we have limited caches of fuel and so on, that would be great," said Couturier.

Commercial air traffic over the High Arctic has grown rapidly over the last decade. Transport Canada figures show 142,000 commercial flights in 2004, most of them passenger flights by large jets.

As well, many experts predict there will be increased shipping traffic as global warming reduces sea ice and opens navigation.

The rendezvous plans are also part of preparing for an emergency, said Couturier.

"We want to train them so if we give them a GPS co-ordinate, they can get to that point. If we had a plane going down, we could give the GPS co-ordinate to three or four patrols and say rendezvous at that point.

"We want to give them lots of practice."

Arctic issues surfaced in the recent federal election campaign, with Stephen Harper's Conservatives promising to boost Canada's military presence in the North with new icebreakers, a deepwater port in Iqaluit, new aircraft and a winter warfare school in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.

Couturier welcomed the government's northward gaze.

"The profile of the Arctic has been raised," he said.

"I don't think it would have mattered which government would have gotten into power, there would have been more emphasis on the North.

"This is something we've had in mind for quite some time."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060210/arctic_sovereignty_060210/20060210?hub=Canada
 
ayup. As some have said in the past............. use it or lose it.

Who knows... some may decide to start using TF 2 or 4 for sovereignity / show the flag activities in the High Arctic.
 
Back
Top