The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

[vigillis]

The Rangers cannot act as a military force, their role is well defined as "the eyes and ears of the North".  The are only required to serve 12 days of annual training their first year, and then it is somewhat optional after that.  They are issued a .303, a ballcap, a sweatshirt, and T-shirt.  After their basic issue, there are some differences between Ranger Groups but that sums it up nicely.  Formed soldiers no, good recce for their own back yard great.

As to your remarks of changing their way of life Ex RCAC, it has already changed dramatically.  Kids surf the net, dress like rap stars, and the little girls wear cut off shirts that just cannot be warm, although not in winter. 

As for a deep water port in Iqualuit, it would be great for the local economy seeing that a can of coke goes for roughly $ 2.50 a deep water port would increase the flow of goods year round thus possibly lessening the cost.

School on Resolute great, I just do not know who will man it, cause I do not see a lot of people lining up to do my job and it is the farthest way from a school like mentality. 

 

[geo]

Scotty,
a deep water port in Iqualuit or Kuujjuaq sounds wonderful in concept BUT,  keeping the darned thing open long enough for it to be worthwhile is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Sealift never comes early....

Resolute ?... nice place to visit (but wouldn't want to be there without a ticket in hand for a flignt out.

 

[orange.paint]

As to your remarks of changing their way of life Ex RCAC, it has already changed dramatically.  Kids surf the net, dress like rap stars, and the little girls wear cut off shirts that just cannot be warm, although not in winter. 

Your absolutely right.I happened to find my fathers old store online as well.
http://www.niagara.co.uk/home/homeImages/gwr4.jpg

However are there still area's that are not under large Canadian influence?I remember Bob( one of our rangers )telling us not to listen to the next guy we were going to see,cause he was a "city slicker".And actually you could tell the large difference in demeanor between Bob and the other guy.Bob along with most of the rangers was more(hard to find a word)but I'll say shy.While the other guy was quite full of himself.

They provide us with a great resource.A past poster pointed out 14 training days a year.However they live their
role everyday,as the eyes and ears.And darn good shots I might add.

 

[geo]

Ahhh... (GWR4) Great Whale River store.  Been there - though one of the loals did burn that particular store down.... something about "it" blocking her view of the coast ???

They built a bigger & better one.  Whites & Inuit at one end of town and Amerindians at the other end.... it just works better that way.

The youth in most communities have lost many of the traits of their fathers & grandfathers.  Some communities have implemented "traditional" courses into the school curriculum - Igloo building & survival on the tundra - tought by some of the elders.... 

But you are never too far from contact with the south - thus, city slicker attitudes are creeping north.

 

[GAP]

Churchill offers the most logical place. It has the airport capability, deep sea port, and a longer ice free season.

edited to add: Just because it is a NDP riding does not mean it should be ignored.....that's been most of the problem with Churchill. Historically it has been NDP provincially, thus the various governments chose to ignore it.
Federally, I think Tina Keeper is the member.

 

[STONEY]

Churchill I thought was in Manitoba.  I wouldn't exactly call Manitoba the Arctic although the winter tempatures mayseem like it.

Cheers

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ahhh... (GWR4) Great Whale River store.  Been there - though one of the loals did burn that particular store down.... something about "it" blocking her view of the coast ???

They built a bigger & better one.  Whites & Inuit at one end of town and Amerindians at the other end.... it just works better that way.

The youth in most communities have lost many of the traits of their fathers & grandfathers.  Some communities have implemented "traditional" courses into the school curriculum - Igloo building & survival on the tundra - tought by some of the elders.... 

But you are never too far from contact with the south - thus, city slicker attitudes are creeping north.

My friend was hired to teach Kayak building up North, he enjoyed the summer up there, but I don’t think his wife did.

 

[NCRCrow]

Tina Keeper is she the Mountie from North of 60?

Wasn't Churchill a Station that closed in the 80's.

I would not wanted to be posted to a Naval Station up north. Like to visit not to live. ( I am a nomadic Army Brat and sailor so that argument will not work)

Maybe keep a MCDV up for the summers in Iqaluit.

 

[vigillis]

Ex RCAC I agree with what you said, the ones that talk a good line are often just that, a good line.  A deep water port in Iqualuit is feasible I assume that our icebreakers can do in the year old ice that accumulates there, but have a harder problem with the old ice in less travelled areas.  Kuujjuaq is just not in the cards, a river town is all it will ever be.

Resolute is the best possible place, when you are in your office, warm and looking at a map.  It is in the middle of the Northwest passage, thus any base there is equidistant from both entrances.  Reality on the other hand is something different.  I have to say though that First Air does service the community weekly from Ottawa, so maybe the MND will be making trips out to boost morale.  I jest, however it would be cheaper to use commercial air, and it is large enough for jets.

What I find interesting is who will be doing the manning??  PRes?  Regs??  I know it cannot be the Rangers due to their status in DND.  Oh well, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[NCRCrow]

PMQ's, Naval Maintenance Infastructure, Schools, Ammo Magazines, POL, Barracks, Sports & Rec, Force Protection the list goes on and on.

I am curious to what the Rangers will man. A warship??

I am confused with your post.

 

[geo]

Rangers man Kayaks & small fishing boats.... 

Infrastructure & facilities aren`t all that difficult to prepare.  If we base ourselves on how they did it for the mine on Little Cornwallis island, they built everything on a couple of barges in a place like Marystown, Halifax, St John, Quebec City (Sorel) or wherever.  Float everything up north (along with a couple of years worth of basic supplies).  Park the barges, possibly dam and pump dry to have facilities on dry land or let the ice lock everything in place.... at a later date, if necessary, you can either move the whole thing eleswhere or rotate components out....

Infrastructure is "dooable".... the question is, do you really want it & what are you going to do with it once it's there?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Double tap or perhaps I just post-whoring....sorry 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can have small patrol boats based up there and haul them out in the winter like ATL did with it's Northern fleet. 2 small patrol boats, 2 in the West and 2 in the Eastern Arctic, manned by mainly by locals. I also believe there should be at least 2 small bases up there close to the vessels, larger towns and airfields that would be stockpiled with ammunition, supplies, some heavier weapons for rapid deployment. these bases and vessels will also help cement our sovereignty claims.

 

[geo]

Colin,
There are some forward bases for the air assets to drop in and occupy.  Iqualuit (aka Frobisher Bay) is one of em.  Hangars, quarters, etc... not enough for a large force but as a scramble base, serves it's purpose.

 

[observor 69]

Rangers man Kayaks & small fishing boats.... 

Infrastructure & facilities aren`t all that difficult to prepare.  If we base ourselves on how they did it for the mine on Little Cornwallis island, they built everything on a couple of barges in a place like Marystown, Halifax, St John, Quebec City (Sorel) or wherever.  Float everything up north (along with a couple of years worth of basic supplies).  Park the barges, possibly dam and pump dry to have facilities on dry land or let the ice lock everything in place.... at a later date, if necessary, you can either move the whole thing eleswhere or rotate components out....

Infrastructure is "dooable".... the question is, do you really want it & what are you going to do with it once it's there?

Man talk about coincidence! A friend of mine who lives in my apartment building was the individual in charge of developping and managing exactly what you just described. I believe he built the barge up in Montreal where he was employed by Bechtel. One of his favorite war stories he never tires of telling.
Speaking of war, he was RCD in WWII , part of a Staghound crew. Now there's a story I would love to get my hands on in the archives in Ottawa.

 

[geo]

Staghounds?... many units had the big beasties.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would love to hear a personal account of the Staghound, get him to give the general view of whether they liked, loved or hated them and why?

 

[geo]

Hijack wng!

Last fella I know who drove one passed away last fall - can't help ya

Back to discussion.....

 

[MarkOttawa]

A certain journalist doesn't like the MND's spelling (full text subscriber only):

O'Connor denies abandoning defence of North
Promised icebreakers become 'patrol ships'
Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 08
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2d2d4be2-3a99-43e2-af0f-f853613fbb6e

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is sending mixed signals about the government's policy on the North, say Arctic specialists and opposition MPs.

Under fire for apparently retreating on the Conservatives' election promise to purchase three armed icebreakers for the navy, as well as building a deep-water docking facility in the Arctic, Mr. O'Connor told the Commons this week the government will indeed honour the commitments it made to the North.

But in a separate e-mail to the Citizen, Mr. O'Connor stops short of that, only going as far as stating that he has asked the Canadian Forces to look at options and make "recommendations to enhance our naval presence in the North."

"DND officials are exploring options to improve the Canadian Forces surveillance and response capabilities in the North," Mr. O'Connor added. In addition, there will be an "enhanced" military presence in the region, according to the defence minister...

...The Conservatives' election platform promised a Conservative government would also build a civilian-military deep-water docking facility in the region as well as provide an army emergency response capability for the Arctic through a new airborne battalion. It would also install an underwater surveillance system in the region.

But a leaked copy of the government's Canada First Defence Strategy does not include anything about an airborne battalion for the Arctic or heavy icebreakers. Instead it notes the military will be outfitted with Arctic patrol ships. The deep-water docking facility is instead described as a forward operating location for refuelling and berthing military vessels. In addition, the Canadian Forces will "investigate options" for the development of an underwater sensor system...

...in his e-mail, Mr. O'Connor says the defence strategy is not yet finished and it is inaccurate to claim the Conservatives are changing their views on the Arctic. "Defending Artic [sic] Sovereignty is part of Canada's New Government's Canada First Defence Strategy," adds Mr. O'Connor. In his e-mail he misspells the word Arctic several times [emphasis added]...

In any event this is a non-story.  The reporter already covered it on Feb. 03.  What is the motive for recycling old news?

Conservatives to boost Arctic defence
Promised port, armed icebreakers not in new plan
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=9f754787-c560-4f3f-8a7b-bf0e9461ed4d&k=95220

Also as a matter of reporting priorities, I wonder why the possibility of using new Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers to assert Arctic maritime sovereignty is not mentioned.

See: Arctic: Give the Canadian Coast Guard the icebreakers
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/08/arctic-give-canadian-coast-guard.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Bearpaw]

I think placing a civilian/military deep-water port in the Arctic is a fine idea but is it cost-effective given the distribution of population in the Arctic? Right now the only place that really needs a port is Iqaliut.  From a military point of view, probably the most strategic location of a northern base would be Resolute.
 
Perhaps a better idea would be to first build an all-weather railway from Hay River to Yellowknife and then to the mouth of the Coppermine River(Kugluctuk) on the Coronation Gulf.  With decent port facilities there, one could logistically support several bases(Resolute included) if needed.  There is a real civilian benefit from this as well---there are several diamond mines along with other potential mine sites that could benefit from such a railway.  The railway would be expensive but the side-benefits would make it more likely to be done than just talked about.  I suspect the local governments would be quite enthusiatic about this.  A couple of ships operating from Kugluctuk could move much more equipment and supplies in a summer season than by the methods used now.  When the Coronation Gulf is impassable, the railway could build up stocks for the summer shipping season.

A realistic plan for protecting our claims in the Arctic is about 30 years overdue---some of the infrastructure could have been built long ago.
In any case this is an idea that should be considered---I think that the politicians would find it much more palatable than plunking down a small naval base at Pond Inlet or Resolute or somewhere else where there are no significant civilian side benefits.