- Reaction score
- 22,085
- Points
- 1,260
Bingo.
Do I think the CA needs some BsV-10 type vehicles yes, but for any significant movement you’re better off with a lot more Hooks.
Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
Do I think the CA needs some BsV-10 type vehicles yes, but for any significant movement you’re better off with a lot more Hooks.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
How are you going to "remove" a civilian but very large and capable government owned vessel conducting a "research mission" in waters considered "International" by the other side? Not to mention we only have one icebreaker that comes close to matching theirs, if they choose to move in at the just prior to the beginning or just after the end of our arctic season. If China and Russia want to make such a move it will be very similar to some of their other moves. Mould Bay is a obvious choice, being on the edge of the archipelago, some infrastructure including a 4,000' runway and not normally manned.
Right now thanks to Ukraine, I see this scenario as very unlikely. Prior to 2022, it was higher. If Russia wins in Ukraine, I see the possibility of the two countries doing this in a joint op. I don't think either country would try it alone, but the two together could bring a lot of resources to bear and not just military, but political, civilian and international geopolitical games.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,196
- Points
- 1,160
Nobody in the world is disputing Canadian sovereignty over Prince Patrick Island. A Russian/Chinese force of "researchers" armed as you suggest with MANPADS and AT weapons backed by para-military Coast Guard vessels seizing Mould Bay would be just as much an Act of War as Soviet paratroopers landing in Colorado a la Red Dawn.
You "remove" them by invoking NATO Article 5 and sending their icebreaker to the bottom of the sea with airstrikes and if their invasion force doesn't surrender you destroy them and any Russian/Chinese forces attempting to assist them.
Now if you backtrack and completely change your scenario from what you originally suggested to a foreign-registered civilian vessel disembarking individuals of unknown nationality (presumably a PMC of some sort) with some sort of weapons illegally occupying Canadian territory then you treat it firstly as a criminal act.
Even for those states that consider the North West Passage as an International Straight the ship's right of "Innocent Passage" would be abrogated by their participation in an illegal act on sovereign Canadian territory and would be subject to boarding and seizure. If the criminals on either the ship or the land resist arrest by force then Canadian authorities would be fully within our rights to use whatever force is required to arrest the individuals up to and including the Emergencies Act.
If any foreign military/paramilitary forces were to attempt to intervene then then as above it would be cause to invoke NATO Article 5.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
It is truly amazing to me just how easy it is for Canadians to justify doing absolutely nothing north of the treeline. The southern treeline.
You lot bought the rights to Rupert's Land. You argued to take possession of the ice that the Brits, Norwegians and Danes were actively exploring. And once you have it, everyone of you seems to pine for the Turks and Caicos.
Maybe Trudeau is just following on from the French impulse that traded some acres of snow for Martinique and Guadeloupe.
If you don't want to do anything with it why don't you just hand it back free and clear to the Inuit, Dene and Cree?
You lot bought the rights to Rupert's Land. You argued to take possession of the ice that the Brits, Norwegians and Danes were actively exploring. And once you have it, everyone of you seems to pine for the Turks and Caicos.
Maybe Trudeau is just following on from the French impulse that traded some acres of snow for Martinique and Guadeloupe.
If you don't want to do anything with it why don't you just hand it back free and clear to the Inuit, Dene and Cree?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
So your going to sink an unarmed non-military vessel of a nuclear power? You might, but I highly doubt the politicians of Canada and the US will jump to that solution in the short term and possibly long term. It also does not matter what we or the west thinks, China and Russia have a history of defining what is right/legal in their own terms. Ask the Philippines how much China respect territorial claims.
Prairie canuck
Member
- Reaction score
- 177
- Points
- 780
Plane crash, satellite, foreign incursion, (from most to less likely). Taking ownership almost demands you physically are able to move about on a regular basis at any time doesn't it?
- Reaction score
- 22,085
- Points
- 1,260
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,366
- Points
- 1,260
Who’s “you lot” in this conversation. Last I checked you were Canadian, and given your age a lot closer to the people who took possession of the arctic than the rest of us.
There are realities to being up north that make long term deployment of ground forces extremely difficult to sustain. The cold will break anything and everything. Attempting large scale overland movement is a fools errand. Establishing far flung posts without being able to secure it is a fools errand. To Colin’s question, it’d blockade the island and wait a month for the people on it to with draw.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks for that Mark. I appreciate the recognition. There is a difference between having a government issued piece of paper and being accepted.
And you are right about my age. If I were to mirror my age backwards around my birthdate I would fall somewhen between Treaty 7 and Treaty 8. And the older I get, and the farther into the past that exercise takes me the more fascinated I become with the results.
Apparently there are people Up North that have deployed for the long term, that have established far flung posts and learned how to sustain them, that have learned how to accommodate the difficulties and have figured out when anything and everything has value and is worth replacing, or repairing, or just discarding.
It seems to me that all that is necessary is to convince those people that they want to be Canadians. That involves trade. And trade requires money and effort.
If access to the lands that they occupy has value to Ottawa then Ottawa should expect to pay for that value.
We(!) do not have to position our own ground forces Up North if we don't want to. We would only have to do that if one thing happened, if the territory were occupied by people inimical to Canada. That could be the locals or it could be people inimical to the locals.
It seems to me that the cheapest solution to any perceived threat is to keep the locals sweet on Ottawa and support them with the goods and services that they want to make their lives better and their positions more secure.
We are doing pretty well in moving down those paths with the treaty and land claim processes, and the Rangers, and the development of local investment, and airports and ports. The locals seem to appreciate generators and fossil fuels as improvements over whale oil lamps. They also have taken a liking to snow machines and boats with motors over dog sleds and muscle powered kayaks and canoes. They have a good sense of the things they like because they work for them adequately. They really liked the old Lee Enfield. I understand some of the locals have even learned how to fly. They also seem to see the advantages of radio, TV and the World Wide Web.
If we think that a listening post, or a radar station, or launch site is useful Up North then job one would be convincing the locals that there is mutual benefit to having that there, and that it is to their benefit to assist in securing it.
We don't need lots of southerners to do that. But the southerners that go north need to want to be there, even if it is only for short terms. And they need to want to get to know the locals.
The other thing we can do is ensure that we can offer assistance everywhere in a timely fashion, and that includes armed assistance that can be rapidly deployed and sustained for as long as it is needed and wanted.
We can offer a lot to make Canada an attractive proposition to the locals. Infrastructure is a big part of that. But locally appreciated and locally appropriate infrastructure. In the south our communities have buses and ambulances and fire trucks and delivery trucks and taxis, all connected by blacktop that we all exploit personally in our own vehicles, bicycles as well as cars. In the north the cost of establishing all that blacktop is cost prohibitive for a small population, but helping them acquire buses, ambulances, fire trucks, delivery trucks and taxis that don't require blacktop is well within our capability and our purse.
Supplying the locals with airplanes, helicopters, boats and ground crawlers to serve and connect the local communities as buses, ambulances, fire trucks, delivery trucks and taxis seems to me to be a good place to start. And that infrastructure could also be used to assist in rapidly moving southern military forces and accommodating them for long term deployments.
A reasonable course of action.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,281
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 1,432
- Points
- 1,160
And who is going to do that - make the decision and take the action?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,702
- Points
- 1,260
Hahahaha surely you jest? Making a decision that doesn't involve lining their own pockets? Not bloody likely.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
That would be a reasonable response, although I don't doubt the willingness of Russia and China to allow their people to suffer till the weather and ice breaks the blockade and large Russian icebreaker relieves them, when our ships are unable to contend with the ice.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,366
- Points
- 1,260
Take a page out of Chinas book and aggressively use boats to force an armed response.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,196
- Points
- 1,160
I'm simply responding to your scenario of a Russian/Chinese Coast Guard vessel landing a heavily armed (ATGM's and MANPADS) military force to seize the sovereign territory of a NATO country.
A Russian Coast Guard vessel is NOT a non-military vessel. The Russian "Coast Guard" is actually the "Coast Guard of the Border Services of the FSB" (i.e. the Russian Federal Security Service - the successor of the KGB). It would be like the United States Coast Guard - a branch of the United States Armed Forces - landing an armed CIA force to seize a Russian town. A clear Act of War. I wonder that the Russian response to that would be? Why would you expect NATO's reaction to be any different?
If NATO did not respond to a Russian military invasion of Canadian territory then NATO would cease to exist as no member nation would be able to trust that the rest of the alliance would come to their aid should Russia seize some of their territory.
And I'm not sure if @Kirkhill 's comment about "doing absolutely nothing above the treeline" was at least in part directed at me in response to this line of conversation but just because I think that a more suitable response to the specific scenario presented doesn't involve primarily CA Arctic forces doesn't mean that I'm not in favour of both Arctic military capability or heavy investment in the North.
I'm on record elsewhere on these forums strongly supporting arctic-capable platforms (like the BvS10) for the CA and have suggested that a CA Light Brigade train to be able to be integrated as the 3rd Brigade for the US 11th Airborne Division in Alaska.
I also strongly favour major investment in the Canadian North. It's just that in my opinion the risk of direct invasion of the Canadian Arctic is extremely low so the bulk of our investment should be on developing the civilian (and dual-use) infrastructure of the North (deep water ports, improved airfields, government services, roads/rail lines, housing, medical services, telecom infrastructure, etc.) that will improve the lives of our Northern residents and in turn unlock the economic growth potential of this vast region.
I just think those kinds of investment (along with some strengthening of our military's Arctic capabilities - including the Rangers) will do more to enforce our sovereignty of the North than a massively increased permanent Arctic military presence to face a pretty unlikely direct military threat.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
Thanks again for that recommendation OGBD!
Just finished watching the first episode and looking forwards to the rest.
First impression: there seems to be a need for more ships with more capabilities. And Marine Atlantic isn't the only fleet that would benefit from a programme of subsidies to build more capable sea lift.
desgagnes.com
www.marineatlantic.ca
www.fednav.com
www.inf.gov.nt.ca
And of course the Coast Guard Fleet.
More ships that combine the capabilities of these?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
.jpg?sfvrsn=66c9d145_4)
General duties ships that have immediate commercial value, as well as military utility, that can make the north more accessible, move the military internationally on demand and reduce the demand on the Coast Guard. Every ship with a helideck.
Just finished watching the first episode and looking forwards to the rest.
First impression: there seems to be a need for more ships with more capabilities. And Marine Atlantic isn't the only fleet that would benefit from a programme of subsidies to build more capable sea lift.
Flotte - Desgagnés
Tous nos navires sont conformes au Code International pour la sûreté des navires et des installations portuaires et sont certifiés par Transports Canada.
desgagnes.com
Our Maritime Atlantic Ferry Fleet | Marine Atlantic
Our Maritime Atlantic ferry fleet is made up of four modern, comfortable, safe and reliable vessels—each has its own unique character, history and charm.
Fleet | Fednav
Our fleet comprises approximately 120 owned, long-term chartered, and spot chartered vessels and includes a significant number of St. Lawrence Seaway-max-sized bulk carriers, Supramax, and Panamax vessels. Among the youngest fleets in the world, our ships feature safer, cleaner, more...
www.fednav.com
Marine Transportation Services | Infrastructure
Reliable cargo transportation on the Mackenzie River and Arctic Ocean supply route.
And of course the Coast Guard Fleet.
More ships that combine the capabilities of these?
Umiak I - Wikipedia
MV Asterix - Wikipedia
MV Blue Puttees - Wikipedia
Double Acting Technology (DAT)
During winter tests of the Artic tanker UIKKU, it was found that a ship with an Azipod and well designed stern generally performs much better in heavy ice condition when going astern.
www.wartsila.com
Double-acting icebreaker FESCO SAKHALIN
An important new stage in the advance of the Finnish double-acting concept has been reached with the handover by Aker Finnyards to the Russian Far Eastern Shipping Co of the combined icebreaker/offshore supply/support ship FESCO SAKHALIN.
www.wartsila.com
General duties ships that have immediate commercial value, as well as military utility, that can make the north more accessible, move the military internationally on demand and reduce the demand on the Coast Guard. Every ship with a helideck.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,992
- Points
- 1,160
Lets break it down how this might happen:
China and Russia declare they are going to do research in the Arctic prior to the spring season, they spend a few weeks doing so near their boundary, interest in them falls off. They are roughly 3 day sail from Mould Bay
Next, either a satellite has picked up a ship in vicinity of Mould bay or a Inuit hunting party has bumped into a bunch of strangers who have threatened them and told them to leave the area as they are conducting "research". That party contacts a Ranger patrol or RCMP.
The CAF dispatches an Aurora/P-8 (if then equipped) to examine the area, they see a large Russian and Chinese icebreakers near the installation. They also see several new temporary structures erected and being erected. Possibly a Ranger Patrol is organized and dispatched to monitor on the ground.
Canada summons the ambassadors of each country for explanations, both respond that it's nothing but a temporary camp to further their arctic research for the benefit of the world.
Meanwhile several transport aircraft have been detected flying into the area and dropping off supplies and equipment.
Canada and the US have talks and then make a formal protest to China and Russia and the UN, by now weeks have passed. Canada and the US organize a response with the 1100 Class icebreaker Lauier, 1 AOP's and the US has manged to get 1 ice breaker operational. The Louis St Laurent is dispatched to the west coast via the Panama canal as follow up.
US subs have confirmed that Russian subs are to the west of the area but keeping a distance.
China and Russia issue a statement to the UN that the threats, warnings and actions of the west are unwarranted and have proposed that the UN should consider the northern portion of the Archipelago and adjunct waters should be international and that Canada has never bothered to properly use them and their claim should be rejected. Using some of their political capital, enough votes are cast to have the question "reviewed"
Canadian and US ships enter the area and attempt to land, the authorities are rebuffed and kept from landing. Negotiations settle on a CCG officer and scientist are allowed to tour the area and confirm that indeed some research is going on, but the camp, equipment and personal are in excess of whats needed. It's noted that the "bear guards" are heavily armed and appear to be wearing military body armour.
At this point at least a month and half have passed since first sighting. The Canadian government is in crisis and realize it has limited capability to respond and is more or less running in circles. The US has said it will back Canada, but needs the government to come up with a plan.
Russia and China are running a massive disinformation campaign both in social media and at the UN. While continuing to land more supplies and equipment. They have appeared to established a ATC and beacon for the airport and are building a jetty/pier nearby. They are also offering talks with the "nations" of Arctic Indigenous people in the region.
I leave it at that for now.
China and Russia declare they are going to do research in the Arctic prior to the spring season, they spend a few weeks doing so near their boundary, interest in them falls off. They are roughly 3 day sail from Mould Bay
Next, either a satellite has picked up a ship in vicinity of Mould bay or a Inuit hunting party has bumped into a bunch of strangers who have threatened them and told them to leave the area as they are conducting "research". That party contacts a Ranger patrol or RCMP.
The CAF dispatches an Aurora/P-8 (if then equipped) to examine the area, they see a large Russian and Chinese icebreakers near the installation. They also see several new temporary structures erected and being erected. Possibly a Ranger Patrol is organized and dispatched to monitor on the ground.
Canada summons the ambassadors of each country for explanations, both respond that it's nothing but a temporary camp to further their arctic research for the benefit of the world.
Meanwhile several transport aircraft have been detected flying into the area and dropping off supplies and equipment.
Canada and the US have talks and then make a formal protest to China and Russia and the UN, by now weeks have passed. Canada and the US organize a response with the 1100 Class icebreaker Lauier, 1 AOP's and the US has manged to get 1 ice breaker operational. The Louis St Laurent is dispatched to the west coast via the Panama canal as follow up.
US subs have confirmed that Russian subs are to the west of the area but keeping a distance.
China and Russia issue a statement to the UN that the threats, warnings and actions of the west are unwarranted and have proposed that the UN should consider the northern portion of the Archipelago and adjunct waters should be international and that Canada has never bothered to properly use them and their claim should be rejected. Using some of their political capital, enough votes are cast to have the question "reviewed"
Canadian and US ships enter the area and attempt to land, the authorities are rebuffed and kept from landing. Negotiations settle on a CCG officer and scientist are allowed to tour the area and confirm that indeed some research is going on, but the camp, equipment and personal are in excess of whats needed. It's noted that the "bear guards" are heavily armed and appear to be wearing military body armour.
At this point at least a month and half have passed since first sighting. The Canadian government is in crisis and realize it has limited capability to respond and is more or less running in circles. The US has said it will back Canada, but needs the government to come up with a plan.
Russia and China are running a massive disinformation campaign both in social media and at the UN. While continuing to land more supplies and equipment. They have appeared to established a ATC and beacon for the airport and are building a jetty/pier nearby. They are also offering talks with the "nations" of Arctic Indigenous people in the region.
I leave it at that for now.
- Reaction score
- 8,324
- Points
- 1,160
My comment was a frustrated response to a rich country that doesn't seem to know what to make of itself.
In Rick's Napkin II I suggested that there are alternatives to buying a large fleet of nucular subs to control passage through our arctic. I am always looking for the LCF - Least Cost Formulation (not Look Cool Factor). In response to the suggestion that passage could be controlled at a handful of chokepoints, and for a relatively modest investment in hardware (permanent torpedo tubes), it was noted that leaving military hardware lying around unattended was not good practice. From that it became a case of having to build garrisons and then trying to find southerners willing to man said garrisons.
My take is that there are people living in the neighbourhood of the choke points. A lot of them are engaged by a department of the Canadian Armed Forces. My intention would be to use them to secure the installations.
These would be the models.
Coupled with this,
Nasittuq wins $592M contract to help run North Warning System
Newspaper of record for Nunavut, and the Nunavik territory of Quebec
nunatsiaq.com
If the US can leave ICBMs scattered around farmers' fields with minimal attention, then why can't we adopt a similar strategy for underwater listening posts armed with torpedoes and UUVs?
The permanent "fortress" would link under water comms with air comms through hardwire on land.
....
And the logistics necessary to build and sustain those "fortresses" could be put to the benefit of the local communities.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,742
- Points
- 1,160
They will have clearly violated Canada's firearms laws and the full weight of the government would be brought to bear./s
Similar threads
