Author Topic: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty  (Read 311234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,857
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #600 on: December 01, 2019, 23:09:52 »
Is there any reason that the Auroras/replacements, Swordfish and Herc palletized sensors could not be the same?  Would that not allow the sensor operators to move between airframes?

It's not just the sensors, it's the other things in the aircraft like safety equipment, etc. 

You're qualified on an aircraft type, not the sensor (or whatever equipment).  You then have to maintain those quals on every aircraft type (assuming anyone is qualified on more than one type) which are a mix of flying x hours per month, simulator time, etc. 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,025
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #601 on: December 02, 2019, 12:53:49 »
And note the Danes and Greenland--and US wanting Danish fighters (F-35As will be replacing F-16s) there [Thule one assumes--under NORAD?]:

Mark
Ottawa

Quote
Now from Danish defence minister with NATO London meeting in mind--no specifics:

Denmark’s defense minister: Shouldering our responsibilities in multiple cooperative frameworks
...


In our region — to the north — the situation in the Arctic is changing rapidly. This is due to climate changes. The opening of the Arctic Sea provides new opportunities. It has also led to increased military presence and interest from Arctic as well as non-Arctic states.

Russia is increasing its military presence. It is our understanding that Russia is still committed to keeping the Arctic a region of low tension. But the military buildup, in particular its offensive elements, is of concern. The increasing interest from China is directed toward access to trade routes and resources. But we should not be naive about China’s strategic interests and the potential security risks of Chinese presence in the region.

Denmark remains committed to the goal of low tension. With this in mind, Denmark will increase its situational awareness in the Arctic and strengthen its presence. We also welcome the increased focus by the U.S. on the security of the north Atlantic and the Arctic...
https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/denmarks-defense-minister-shouldering-our-responsibilities-in-multiple-cooperative-frameworks/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 236,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,204
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #602 on: December 02, 2019, 16:57:14 »
Thanks for the info EITS, lots to think about that's for sure.

It sure seems like a "cheaper" ISR platform is a non starter just from the sensor operator standpoint, but we will be adding the king airs so I guess that is our low end?

If the Aurora's can continue to be life extended/upgraded what are we missing by not replacing with the P-8? I would have thought with a 40year old platform we were pushing things

The only KingAirs we're getting in the near future are going to the CANSOF world;  I doubt they will have the sensors or 'task sets' that pertain to maritime warfare.

ISR platform doesn't equate to "effective maritime airpower platform".  Transport Canada, PAL, etc have maritime ISR platforms (DASH 8s, basically) but they are what I'll call above water systems (and *sense* only ones, at that).  True MPAs have to be able to fight in the underwater, surface and air battle spaces, and fit into the 'system of systems'. 

Is it important to have maritime patrol aircraft?  I think so;  just for starts, it's part of our NORAD mission.  We also need a sub surface capability.  Personally, I'd rather see Canada procure some under-ice capable subs over a new MPA fleet.  :2c:
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 18:05:02 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 392
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #603 on: December 02, 2019, 19:01:34 »
EITS I was more thinking that the sensor suites/skills would be similar and that transitioning would not be that difficult from say the globaleye/swordfish to the Aurora, and that other "cheaper" platform would take some stress off the Aurora fleet. much like the light fighter discussion and maybe it's the same response from those of you in the know?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 236,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,204
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #604 on: December 02, 2019, 20:07:10 »
Understanding that I'm a line squadron operator, I always want the ability to find, fix and if required, destroy the enemy.

Showing up with a sensor platform that can't reach out and touch is the same, to me, as having a police force that isn't armed.  When they respond to an alarm for a break-in, they can show up and confirm "yup...there's a break-in in progress here", leave and then call the armed cops, who then have to go respond to the crime scene.

Part of the effectiveness of a platform is its 'deterrence' effect.  I mentioned subs;  when they are away from port, would you really know where if they were submerged?  No, so you'd have to assume they are anywhere/everywhere.

Planes have to take off and land and we're actually pretty easy to shadow unless we're under 100% EMCON.  We sorta have to talk to ATC so...

If you have a fleet, make it a fleet of actual MPAs.  We don't have the money and numbers to frig around with un-armed and armed cops.  They should all be armed;  you can't expect the bad guy to sit tight and wait for your armed cops to show up once the "mall cops" have found him.

 :2c:
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,857
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #605 on: December 02, 2019, 22:31:25 »
Understanding that I'm a line squadron operator, I always want the ability to find, fix and if required, destroy the enemy.

You couldn't have used some alliteration and said "finish" or "f***-up"?   ;D
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 236,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,204
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #606 on: December 03, 2019, 15:29:13 »
You couldn't have used some alliteration and said "finish" or "f***-up"?   ;D

I'm only a NCM...I was stretching my literary abilities in that sentence just by using a 4 sill-la-bull word!
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,025
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #607 on: February 28, 2020, 15:53:04 »
Note italicized bits--companies have basically given up on natural gas in Canadian arctic, on land and undersea:
Quote
Russian Arctic shipping up 430 percent in three years
A total of 31,5 million tons of goods was shipped on the Northern Sea Route in 2019.

The goods volumes delivered to and from ports on the Arctic shipping route has never been close to the current level.

According to Nikolay Monko, the Acting Director of the the Northern Sea Route Administration, a total of 31,5 million tons of goods was shipped on the route in 2019. That is an increase of 56,7 percent from 2019, and 150 percent from 2018.

Over the last three years, NSR volumes have hiked by more than 430 percent. The ship traffic on the route is now several times higher than in the Soviet period. The Soviet-era record was set in 1986 when 6,455 million tons was shipped in the area.

It is liquefied natural gas (LNG) that constitutes the lion’s share of the goods volumes [emphasis added]. A total of 20,5 million tons of LNG was sent out from natural gas terminal Sabetta in Yamal, Nikolay Monko told TASS. In addition comes 1,5 million tons of ores sent from Dudinka, company Nornickel’s port on the Yenisey River, and 7,7 million tons from Gazprom Neft’s Novy Port field, news agency Korabel reports.

Transit shipments constitutes only a minor share of the goods [emphasis added]. In 2019, a total of 697,200 tons was shipped from the east to the west or vice versa on the route, an increase of 42 percent from 2018. A total of 37 ships last year made transit voyages across the remote and icy Arctic route.

The Northern Sea Route includes the waters between the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya and the Bering Strait, a distance of about 5,600 km. It is a significant shortcut between markets in Europe and Asia, but is covered by ice major parts of the year and ships need icebreaker escort for maneuvering through the area [emphasis added, a major reason Russia is building all those icebreakers--to advance its economic interests].


Ice-class tanker "Shturman Skuratov" is one of the ships carrying oil from Gazprom Neft's Novy Port field in Yamal. Photo: Atle Staalesen

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/02/russian-arctic-shipping-430-percent-three-years

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 83,815
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,025
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty
« Reply #608 on: March 15, 2020, 15:16:09 »
US has not followed up on Arctic FONOPs noises they were making last year, Russia's Northern Sea Route no threat to Suez traffic for at least quite a while to come--start of a post, note legal matters regarding Northwest Passage at end:

Quote
Shipping in Russia's Northern Sea Route no Big Deal for Some Time, Ditto for Northwest Passage

Further to this post,

Quote
Arctic: NW Passage Commercial Shipping Long Way Off/No Shell

here’s a generally sensible piece on Russia and the Arctic (perhaps not published where on might expect to find it):

Quote
Cold truth about Russia’s Arctic ambitions and Northern Sea Route
...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/15/shipping-in-russias-northern-sea-route-no-big-deal-for-some-time-ditto-for-northwest-passage/


Mark
Ottawa



Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.