The US Isn't Ready For Conflict in the Arctic

[MARS]

Two of my four deployments were with Chief Stoker.  Inhospitable is a chabitable way to describe the operating environment, at least in a ship, even with the changes in ice I have witnessed over the last 10 years. 

That is just my first-hand observation as a former Commanding Officer,  I haven't actually been published or anything like that.

 

[Infanteer]

I've done two major exercises in the Arctic in February.  It sucks and weather is 80% of the battle, with resupply being another 15%; you can spend the last 5% worrying about the enemy.  These numbers are unscientific and I haven't published on this either.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its definitely a bleak inhospitable place. I had the pleasure of parachuting onto the polar ice cap,didnt see Santa though.
Another time was spent on Barter Island.It was so called adventure training. We jumped in skied around the icy rock.Surprised a polar bear and all we had for self defense was a 45  :

 

[George Wallace]

Its definitely a bleak inhospitable place. I had the pleasure of parachuting onto the polar ice cap,didnt see Santa though.
Another time was spent on Barter Island.It was so called adventure training. We jumped in skied around the icy rock.Surprised a polar bear and all we had for self defense was a 45  :

And once again; I am guessing that you are also not "published"; but an "experienced 'End User' ".

 

[tomahawk6]

And once again; I am guessing that you are also not "published"; but an "experienced 'End User' ".

My brief experiences up there and elsewhere in Alaska gave me experience with the power of mother nature.It would be hell and ill advised to fight a ground war in that region. Of course just look at the Aleutians campaign in WW2. I get that you have to prepare to fight in all environments but give me the blazing desert any day.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The main challenge is related to logistics, not tactics, of course which is the realm of professionals beyond my ken.

I assume that if we spend money now upgrading the infrastructure of our most northern communities we will not only improve the lives of the Inuit et al, but will help prepare ourselves for more complex operations in the high north should the need arise. Investing in improved port facilities, accommodation, all weather landing strips, health care services, and radio and other communications networks (WiFi for all!) would be a better bet than basing a battalion up there, or something equally less 'strategic'.

 

[George Wallace]

My brief experiences up there and elsewhere in Alaska gave me experience with the power of mother nature.It would be hell and ill advised to fight a ground war in that region. Of course just look at the Aleutians campaign in WW2. I get that you have to prepare to fight in all environments but give me the blazing desert any day.

Although quite different, there are quite a few similarities.  In many cases, the landscape is same; just replace drifting sand with drifting snow.  :warstory:  Both are locations that you have to know how to dress to regulate your body temperature.  Both are locations that you have to watch exposure of your skin to the elements.  Both are locations that you have to keep hydrated.  Both are locations where most of your battle will be with Mother Nature, not the enemy.

 

[George Wallace]

The main challenge is related to logistics, not tactics, of course which is the realm of professionals beyond my ken.

I assume that if we spend money now upgrading the infrastructure of our most northern communities we will not only improve the lives of the Inuit et al, but will help prepare ourselves for more complex operations in the high north should the need arise. Investing in improved port facilities, accommodation, all weather landing strips, health care services, and radio and other communications networks (WiFi for all!) would be a better bet than basing a battalion up there, or something equally less 'strategic'.

During the construction of the DEW Line, there were a large number of airstrips built in the North.  What condition they are in today, is another question; but I believe many are still used by researchers and prospectors.  DND used to monitor the old DEW Line sites and conducted environmental cleanup of those sites in the past two decades, so many of those strips must still be in relatively good shape to be upgraded as necessary. 

The RCAF used to have Forward Operating 'Bases' in the North.  Yellowknife has a small Detachment, so it is quite feasible if the will and money were there to have RCAF elements in the North.  Anyone thinking of Goose Bay again?

 

[Stoker]

I could never understand why as a Northern nation we wouldn't build more infrastructure in the North to support the people over the years and support a more robust military presence. Having the opportunity to visit northern communities, its almost criminal the neglect. As previously mentioned we did it with the building of the DEW line in the 50's, so it can be done. It would take lots of money as building anything in the Arctic is at least three times the price and a very short building season, just look at the delays in building a small refueling depot at Nanisivik. We must also have the political will to do so, unfortunately we seem more enthusiastic in providing hundred's of millions for foreign governments just to look good.

 

[PuckChaser]

After the 50s the money dried up for military infrastructure (predominately what northern stuff would be used for). Peace dividend hammered our ability to build proper Arctic force projection infrastructure. With our budget increases frozen by the new government, I don't see any increases in that regard.

 

[brihard]

During the construction of the DEW Line, there were a large number of airstrips built in the North.  What condition they are in today, is another question; but I believe many are still used by researchers and prospectors.  DND used to monitor the old DEW Line sites and conducted environmental cleanup of those sites in the past two decades, so many of those strips must still be in relatively good shape to be upgraded as necessary. 

The RCAF used to have Forward Operating 'Bases' in the North.  Yellowknife has a small Detachment, so it is quite feasible if the will and money were there to have RCAF elements in the North.  Anyone thinking of Goose Bay again?

Whitehorse, Yukon can take mid sized airliners with normal loads, and a 747 can get in and out in emergency circumstances. Decent amount of ramp space if needed. The reg force detachment there is miniscule, but as Op Nanook this year showed, they can stage a lot more if needed. It's not 'extreme' north (similar latitude to Yellowknife), but it's also one tactical bound from Alaska.

 

[Kirkhill]

After the 50s the money dried up for military infrastructure (predominately what northern stuff would be used for). Peace dividend hammered our ability to build proper Arctic force projection infrastructure. With our budget increases frozen by the new government, I don't see any increases in that regard.

Our northern development has, in large part, been paid for by the Hudson's Bay Company and the US taxpayer.

Alaskan Highway
Pinetree Line
DEW Line
North Warning
Joint Arctic Weather Stations (Resolute, Eureka, Alert)

And a few privately funded mines.

 

[daftandbarmy]

IIRC that Iqaluit has the biggest airfield up there, used as a FOB by F-18s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport

 

[dimsum]

IIRC that Iqaluit has the biggest airfield up there, used as a FOB by F-18s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport

Inuvik is used as well.

 

[Stoker]

IIRC that Iqaluit has the biggest airfield up there, used as a FOB by F-18s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit_Airport

That's interesting, its part of Canadian NORAD Region Forward Operating Locations which include Rankin Inlet, Yellowknife and Inuvik. They can accommodate 6 fighters and 200 support personnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_NORAD_Region_Forward_Operating_Locations

 

[OldSolduer]

I could never understand why as a Northern nation we wouldn't build more infrastructure in the North to support the people over the years and support a more robust military presence. Having the opportunity to visit northern communities, its almost criminal the neglect. As previously mentioned we did it with the building of the DEW line in the 50's, so it can be done. It would take lots of money as building anything in the Arctic is at least three times the price and a very short building season, just look at the delays in building a small refueling depot at Nanisivik. We must also have the political will to do so, unfortunately we seem more enthusiastic in providing hundred's of millions for foreign governments just to look good.

No one wanted the North. It's very inhospitable as I'm sure we all know. What makes it more palatable now is the discovery of natural resources that others now want.

 

[Stoker]

No one wanted the North. It's very inhospitable as I'm sure we all know. What makes it more palatable now is the discovery of natural resources that others now want.

I think the government suspected the North as a vast storehouse of natural resources, however technology and the warming trend we're seeing now has put everything to the forefront. Even back in the 50's the north was important to the government in the sovereignty sense. In fact the government at the time uprooted Inuit families, lied to them and dropped them in the middle of no where to survive to say we have a habitation.