U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

[Wizard of OZ]

Round one and it looks like the gloves are off already.

OTTAWA (CP) - Stephen Harper used his first news conference as prime minister-designate Thursday to warn the United States to mind its own business when it comes to Canada's Arctic.

The Conservative leader said he'll stick to his campaign promise to bolster Canada's military presence in the North and build big new military icebreakers. He was responding to comments Wednesday by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who criticized the plans, claiming the Arctic passage as "neutral waters."

Harper said Canada will do what it wants in its territory.

"The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said.

"It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

Harper has promised to mend strained relations with the U.S., while standing firm for Canadian interests.

Arctic sovereignty has been a sensitive subject for decades, with American submarines and even ships entering northern waters without asking permission.

It was reported last month that a U.S. submarine travelled secretly through Canadian Arctic waters in November on its way to the North Pole.

This was taken from the CNEWS website.

Could be an intresting 2-3 yrs if this stuff continues. 

 

[DG-41]

New arctic tents for everybody!

DG

 

[48Highlander]

We could lay a naval minefield in the straits to block the Americans from entering the Arctic  The Ottawa Treaty does not prohibit naval mines.

WHAT?!?!  That's outrageous!  :threat:  What about all the poor innocent baby seals?  :'(

New arctic tents for everybody!

DG

Will they be cadpat, and "modular"?  ;D


Seriously though, the first thing I thought when I saw these articles was "hrm, this is avfully convinient for Harper....".  And I'm not normaly a conspiracy theorist!  Being seen to be "standing up to the Americans" though will deffinitely make Harper more popular, while at the same time raising awareness of and creating support for the arctic-soverignty initiatives.  And it costs him nothing in either political clout or US-Canada relations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tess:

You suggesting that this is the reverse of Frank McKenna inviting himself over to the State Department to be torn off a strip?

You are devious.

 

[medicineman]

Anyone remember a book by Richard Rohmer called "Exxoneration"?  This stuff sort of reminds me an awful lot of it.

Kind of a weird twist on the Americans deciding to take over Canadian oil/energy interests, mainly by force.  There was a rather amusing part in it that had Green Berets air assaulting into Pearson Airport or Downsview, can't remember which, and getting their buttocks thrashed.  It's kind of a neat read if you can find a copy of it - it was written during the oil crisis in the 70's.

Oh, yes do we need more presence up North.  Dare I say it, some REAL submarines - ie nuke boats - are about the best bet really, due to the ice.  And we do need surface ships too - if the ice clears up more, someone's gotta get a grip on what could become a potentially serious pollution problem.  And of course, you need boots on the ground, so get your DEET out dudes/etts, you'll need it there in the "summer".    ;D

MM

 

[Armymatters]

Anyone remember a book by Richard Rohmer called "Exxoneration"?  This stuff sort of reminds me an awful lot of it.

Kind of a weird twist on the Americans deciding to take over Canadian oil/energy interests, mainly by force.  There was a rather amusing part in it that had Green Berets air assaulting into Pearson Airport or Downsview, can't remember which, and getting their buttocks thrashed.  It's kind of a neat read if you can find a copy of it - it was written during the oil crisis in the 70's.

Oh, yes do we need more presence up North.  Dare I say it, some REAL submarines - ie nuke boats - are about the best bet really, due to the ice.  And we do need surface ships too - if the ice clears up more, someone's gotta get a grip on what could become a potentially serious pollution problem.  And of course, you need boots on the ground, so get your DEET out dudes/etts, you'll need it there in the "summer".    ;D

MM

I remember reading that book 4 years ago... good book.

Nuclear boats? Too damned expensive. The British Astute class submarine costs around £3.5 billion for 3 ships. The American Virginia class submarines costs around 2.6 billion dollars each. You can get the same capabilites out of a AIP submarine for a lot less. The Type 214 and Type 212 submarines are just as capable, and they are hard buggers to catch acoustically compared to a nuclear sub (nuclear submarines require that their coolant pumps be running at all times, creating noise, while in a AIP submarine, they are virtually silent when they are not moving), and AIP subs, like their diesel-electric parents, have a smaller MAD signature compared to nuclear boats.

Edit: To boil down what I said, scrap the Victoria's and get the German AIP subs instead. We then have the capabilites of the AIP sub right out of the box instead of the proposed cut the Victoria's in half and install a AIP barrel later on.

 

[TCBF]

Okay class, what do we know about international waterways and right of passage?

This seems to be a Naval Control of ShippinS issue.  Any Naval Reserve swabbies out there who can espouse legally and rationally about this?

The rest of us - in the meantime - can look at a map of the world and look at the straights of Mallaca, The Dardannelles, The Kategut, and then read about what happens when you close the Suez canal.

Lets extend the runway at Iqualuit, solidify the FOB there (again), lay SOSUS lines underneath the NW Passage(s) and tweak our fleet.  Otherwise, relax.

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

Edit: To boil down what I said, scrap the Victoria's and get the German AIP subs instead. We then have the capabilites of the AIP sub right out of the box instead of the proposed cut the Victoria's in half and install a AIP barrel later on.

Thing is:  Is it ever worth learning to do things yourself?  If time allows and technologies are not mature I think there is a place for some government funded experimentation.

 

[George Wallace]

.....
Nuclear boats? Too damned expensive. The British Astute class submarine costs around £3.5 billion for 3 ships. The American Virginia class submarines costs around 2.6 billion dollars each. You can get the same capabilites out of a AIP submarine for a lot less. The Type 214 and Type 212 submarines are just as capable, ......

Not a 'Naval Type', but I'd like to call you on this.

To the best of my knowledge there are no Diesel-Electric Submarines in the world capable of operating for prolonged periods under the Polar Ice.  Nor are there any Diesel-Electric Subs designed to break through the Polar Ice.  I don't think your suggested subs are capable of doing any of the above.

 

[Armymatters]

Thing is:  Is it ever worth learning to do things yourself?  If time allows and technologies are not mature I think there is a place for some government funded experimentation.

In this case, no. Take the Australians as an example. The Australians decided to replace the Oberon class submarines that were in the fleet. They decided as well to design and build their own submarines, resulting in the Collins class submarines. However, the Australians ran into many snags and problems with the class, to the point where once, in Feb of 2003, during a test dive, seawater flooded into the engine room of one of the submarines, and almost sinking the submarine. In fact, had the flood continued for another 20 seconds, the submarine would have been lost. Other snags revolved around excessive noise, compromising the stealthiness of the submarine (the submarine's were jokingly referred by the press to be like a underwater washing machine : ), and massive glitches in the weapons software suite. In fact, it has been 10 years since the first one was commissioned, and they are STILL debugging the submarines. Futher issues with the Collins class submarines:

Design faults: The metal that had been selected for use in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

Water ingress problems: Initially the Collins Class had water ingress in excess of 300 litres per hour, flooding into the sub. This was eventually corrected to only 3 litres.

Vibration issues: The periscopes of the submarines suffered from vibrations, and as a result, they cannot focus properly on a target. This problem has yet to be resolved.

Also, initially, the submarines commissioned with a malfunctioning computer system. It is suspected that this problem will never be resolved. Costs have also inflated; from around 4 billion dollars Australian to now 6 billion dollars.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/collins.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s119023.htm
Heck, read the Ministry of Defence report on these subs and see what problems they have:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html

The lesson the ADF learned according to a few people within the ADF is to never design and build their own submarines in Australia again, and to leave submarine building to nations already well experienced with the building of submarines. The Germans are well experienced in designing modern submarines, and it is more economical to purchase off the shelf instead of designing our own submarines, as that will cause a situation where such submarines are 'strategic orphans' within NATO, meaning no one will share in the system upgrade/development costs, and no ally will be able to provide logistical support for the vehicle’s weapons systems in the field. Purchasing off the shelf meaning that someone else will be sharing upgrade/development costs, and they will also be able to provide logistical support in the field if needed.

And George Wallace: The Type 212 submarines can stay submerged for up to 3 weeks without snorkeling, and has a overall endurance of 12 weeks (roughly 3-4 months). That should be plenty of endurance for polar operations. The related Type 214 submarines have the same capabilites, but in a more updated design. What would be needed (in theory) is a ice-strengthened sail and bow planes to help break through the ice. Remember these submarines are German; the Baltic Sea frequently ices up during the winter, and the German subs have to operate in those conditions.

 

[George Wallace]

Not to nit pick, but I would imagine that a requirement would be to remain On Station (Submerged) for more than four weeks.  I would also not want to really compare the Baltic to the Arctic.

 

[Armymatters]

Not to nit pick, but I would imagine that a requirement would be to remain On Station (Submerged) for more than four weeks.  I would also not want to really compare the Baltic to the Arctic.

Should not be a problem as currently, thanks to Global Warming, the ice pack is receding, hence the increased interested in using the Arctic as a short cut for shipping goods between Europe and Asia. So occasionally, the subs can probally snorkel in some of the ice-free areas, prolonging the time spent On Station.

Edit: In fact, read a BBC News report on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
So travelling under the Arctic and being forced to stay under due to ice may be a moot point in the near future.

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, what exactly would be the under-ice mission(s) for this long-duration (2-4 wk) submerged deisel submarine?  Surely we're not perceiving a military threat from the US nuke boats transversing the passage, which by some estimates may be considered taversable year round on the surface in another decade or so (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/29/northwest.passage/).

So, setting aside any open intentions to blindly torpedo large sonar contacts under the ice cap, the submarine becomes a short term listening post. How many would we need for anything close to near continuous picketing? Wouldn't a monitoring task be better served by remote sensors? And perhaps open distribution of all contact data on detected vessels, partly to prove were getting it, partly as a deterrent because others may not want that data in the open. Why not regular ASW exercises on the fringes of the ice cap complementing sensor networks along the passage?

If it's a sovereignty exercise, how exactly does sailing undetected under the ice cap demonstrate that? Doesn't a visible presence (surface, land or air) do a better peacetime job of demonstrating a capability to exercise sovereignty, simply because others can see us doing it?

Before we start selecting kit based on undefined mission requirements, maybe those missions, based on national policies and defence policies, need to be explored and determined.

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

Okay class, what do we know about international waterways and right of passage?

This seems to be a Naval Control of ShippinS issue.  Any Naval Reserve swabbies out there who can espouse legally and rationally about this?

The rest of us - in the meantime - can look at a map of the world and look at the straights of Mallaca, The Dardannelles, The Kategut, and then read about what happens when you close the Suez canal.

Lets extend the runway at Iqualuit, solidify the FOB there (again), lay SOSUS lines underneath the NW Passage(s) and tweak our fleet.  Otherwise, relax.

Tom

I am not an international law expert by any stretch.

It seams to me that the ICJ (International Court of Justice) upholds Canada's claim based on a few criteria though.

'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' says that we can set pollution controls in our territorial waters (potentialy limiting even 'innocent passage' of merchant shipping). It also changes the definition of territorial waters to extending 12 nauticle miles offshore (The USA claims 24 nauticle miles and we might do well to follow suit). Based on Inuit occupancy international law would seam to dictate that the entirity of the NW passage were infact Canadian territorial waters.

This is all well and good, however with no enforcement mechanism, it is unrealistic.

The way I see it, Canada has more than a few bargaining chips and Harper is a relatively shrewed man. He'll go forward with his plan, and some sort of mutual use agreement will be made under the auspices of pre-existing treaties between Canada and the US.

 

[Armymatters]

1. Remember the Type 212 and 214 submarines have a max endurance of 12 weeks, or around 3 months. Blocking off one entrance to the NW Passage would be enough, and using a combined sensor strategy (airborne, surface, and submerged), we can watch any ship or submarine that may enter or be in the passage. Airplanes and ships can provide top and surface cover throughout the passage (airborne and surface ships also have the abilities to detect submarines as well in a limited fashion), while submarines can operate as a covert watch post that no one will see or suspect. I am estimating that 3 submarines on the East Coast will be enough; one on station, one in base, preparing to transit to the patrol zone, and one in repair/refit. If we replace our Victoria's on a 1-1 basis (4 submarines), the one based on the West Coast can in transit to or from patrol. That means that in theory, the NW Passage can be patrolled year around by submarines, which will complement the surface and airborne patrols in the region.

2. Being able to watch what is going on is one matter; doing something about it is another. If you can observe whatever enters your territory and do something about it if needed, you have control over that territory. Submarines play into that strategy very well as they can operate as the hidden eyes and ears in the territory that no one will suspect may be lurking nearby. This is different from say a line of listening devices; the submarine in theory can do something about whatever is detected immediately upon detection (most likely, to alert whatever is detected that it is being watched and should leave is either the submarine surfacing nearby or lash that ship with sonar). If you can project power into a territory that you claim, you have sovereignty over that area. Even if it is hidden, you are still exerting power into the area. If you can plunk some men and equipment into the Arctic and keep it there to watch the area, we got de facto sovereignty of the region.

 

[TCBF]

Is the NW passage not more than 24 NM across at it's narrow point?  I think the para we need is the one dealing with inland waters of archipelagos.

One thing for sure, if we claim to own it, we have to prove - not just talk about it, but prove - that we CAN militarily control it.

Might be too late.

Tom

 

[Armymatters]

Is the NW passage not more than 24 NM across at it's narrow point?  I think the para we need is the one dealing with inland waters of archipelagos.

One thing for sure, if we claim to own it, we have to prove - not just talk about it, but prove - that we CAN militarily control it.

Might be too late.

Tom

Perhaps send the Coast Guard icebreakers up there with a 25mm gun lashed onto the bow as a temporary Arctic patrol boat?  : 

Better yet: Lash a tank to the deck of an icebreaker. Has been done before in World War II. Read the story of Convoy PQ-17 during World War II when they used tanks lashed on the decks of merchant ships to help defend the covoy.

 

[TCBF]

"Better yet: Lash a tank to the deck of an icebreaker. Has been done before in World War II."

- I bet it would get some miserable sleeping in the Timberline 4-Man on the back deck of THAT tank.

;D

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Slight digression back to submarines; buying out of the box only works when the product matches your requirments. Canada's experience with the "Victoria" class submarines is a case in point. For Diesel boats, these are quite a bit larger and more capable than anything the Germans or Swedes produce, since the UK is an ocean going Power and needs to be able to operate all its ships in the Atlantic. In fact, it is often described as a nuclear submarine without the reactor. Since they were designed in the 1980s or so, AIP was not a mature technology and no provisions were made to incorporate it.

By some really wierd coincidence, Canada also requires a Navy capable of operating in the open oceans, so when the British put them on the market, it was the logical way to go. (The fact they had to sit on blocks for several years while the Liberal government hemmed and hawed is outside the scope of this discussion). Australia's submarines and Navy ships operate in a somewhat different environment, both open ocean and littoral environments, but the Australians do not see themselves operating at such great distances as we need to. I am speculating the German and Swedish boats were not close enough to what the Naval staff was really looking for, which gave the politicians a wedge to create a home grown "Collins" class boat. Lack of experience and probably changing requirments during building probably had a lot to do with the difficulties they are having, don't forget a submarine is only slightly less complex than the Space Shuttle.

Back to Canada's Arctic waters, even having a squadron of surveillance aircraft making regular patrols would be an important first step, and the more capability we put up there, the more options we will have. Someone can pull up the reference, but back in the 80's a Soviet "Scientific" station was discovered drifting on the pack ice inside our waters. The only thing we could do at the time was to fly a CF-5 or CF -18 (can't remember) to "show the flag". It would have been even better if a transport plane had landed and disgorged some Customs officials and Canadian "Scientists" (hey Boris, we're here to help out with these really interesting radio experiments....) to do a bit of flag waving.

 

[Armymatters]

a_majoor:
I was told that the reason the Victoria's were purchased was due to a couple of reasons, and they all revolve around price. Purchasing the 4 submarines was considered a 'bargain' by many people in the government to maintain the submarine service in Canada. The reason why Swedish or German submarines were not considered (even though the Germans and the Sweds had submarines with AIP in the same size range as the Victoria's or bigger, i.e. Germany's Type 212, was due to price, although they had similar or superior capabilites. That is what I have been told and what I have read about the reasons behind the Victoria's being purchased.