Derek 2.0

A solution to what? NORAD, the RCAF and the USAF binned central interceptor sectors over 40 years ago for a reason.......

Who cares? The Russians don't have Klingon cloaking devices that allow them to just appear over central North America Seriously though, that is why we're in NORAD and why NORAD, if the Russians decided to turn Winnipeg into a glass parking lot, would draw resources from the South Dakota or Minnesota Air National Guard........to defend Winnipeg.

The transportation of fuel to the base....only one sealift a year.....the search and rescue for a crashed airliner in the Arctic would use up all kinds of resources.

To transport larger/more vehicles, helicopters, fuel, munitions and other expendables.....Cold Lake to Resolute would take longer then that, ~ two hours to Cambridge Bay..............but its a moot point as its unlikely to ever happen.

Unless we were taking on a NATO tasking, outside of additional attrition aircraft, I don't see a reason why.

Good.....own it........and how do you suggest to pay for such an idiotic idea? Have you considered why the US and Canada didn't consider it before.....you know......when there was a far larger Russian bomber threat?

You do if you want to operate fully loaded C-17s, Polaris, KC-10s or the Galaxy.....not to mention, larger combo/freight civilian aircraft.

Read your links. Big difference between operate (ala land and refuel in an emergency when conducting Northern intercepts) and basing.....none the less:

I can quote your post if you like?

Weren't you the one suggesting we base fighters in the high Arctic? You don't think that will cost more money?

Logistics and Search & Rescue for Arctic operations......not to base Hornets or their replacements from.

So? The Russians have nuclear standoff missiles with that range or better.

Cold Lake->Yellowknife ~ 1 hour flight......Yellowknife to "the Arctic" another hour.........versus a Russian supersonic, nuclear tipped, standoff missile launched from within Russian airspace at your Northern fighter bases........results in aircraft from the South, where everything worth defending is, attempting to intercept said bombers anyways. There is a reason interceptors aren't based in the High Arctic........much the same reason the RAF didn't base Spitfires and Hurricanes along the Channel Coast.

Cambridge Bay has a surplus of facilities left over from DEW, probably could fit an infantry company without the staff there knowing, what is lacking is a reason to.

Cambridge Bay has full time staff that maintain the Western Canadian Arctic radar sites, and they operate year round.........but you're right, everything is a fortune up there, like $8 for a can of Coke fortune.......in the Western Arctic, North of Yellowknife everything is VFR and gravel........there is no reason to base interceptors next to their search radars......

Not quite, there are still full time members in the Arctic, both military and civilian employees, maintaining the North Warning System in several locations........and of course the Rangers throughout each tiny hamlet.

So? That has been the case for nearly 70 years, yet didn't necessitate (absent a brief period in the 50s when aerial refueling was in its infancy) basing interceptors, piecemeal, throughout the high arctic. I would consider terrorism, unrestricted naval warfare, cyber threats, nuclear war, and aggression against allied states overseas, interdiction of sea lanes etc all as credible threats........outside of nuclear war, all threats that we've already faced and could very well face once again.

To what end? There is no reason, other then emergencies, to base (or even land) fighters in the high Arctic........once you go further North then year round rail or roads, the cost of transporting fuel (and glycol) is prohibitive for no added benefit...forget weather conditions, that will ground said fighters for weeks on end, Yellowknife to the Western High Arctic is all of ~45 minutes flight time....

My proposal, with regards to funding (as I stated, but you did not quote) could be achieved ~within our current annual funding, +/- procurement dollars and costs of any future deployments. Currently, ~60-70% of DND's annual funding goes towards costs associated with personal, ergo, you reduce the number of regular force personal in the army there would a substantial savings within the department.......which would be offset by increased funding for the army reserve (along the lines of the US National Guard systems) and with increased operational costs to both the RCN and RCAF. A "Blue Water navy" is what we've had since the Second World War, diminished with recent forced retirements presently, and is doable within our current framework as outlined above. "Power/Force projection" is a political question, with regards to our navy, and has been used by the GoC since St Laurent and all Governments since.....renewing what we currently have and a modest expansion of capability is not out of line of what we've done historically and is fully within the bounds of realism, especially as we move forward into the 21st century. With regards to "domestic", the very nature of our three coastlines and ocean approaches necessitates a "blue water" ocean going force......likewise, with the above capability increase as mentioned above, the GoC would not only be better able to address future conflicts, but short term humanitarian/disaster response (including domestic disaster), evacuating Canadians overseas and contending with overseas hostage situations involving Canadian citizens. Going forward, reducing the size and capability of our regular force (mechanized) army (with keeping a smaller dedicated regular force, expanded if required with the use of reserves), in favor of a smaller (lighter) army, well expanding the navy and air force, is also a better reflection of the forces used by the GoC on international missions that are supported by the majority of the public.

Hold on a sec........where have I ever suggested, outside standalone purchases or expenses (like deployments) that the defense budget should be increased? I have said countless times that it should be frozen until greater efficiencies are found, likewise a serious look at reducing the size of the regular army in favor of a greater reliance put upon the reserves........such a move would limit the ability for Canadian Governments to easily sign on for overseas adventurism, as the Trudeau government is currently doing in Europe. I have numerous times before, but yet again, an approach that starts with the defense of Canada (and its interests) and expands outwards, with the full understanding that defending Canada proper (and its interests) is best achieved by starting outwards into the World and reverting back to Canada proper. A modern day revision of how the British defended themselves and their overseas interests.......an influential blue water navy (combined with a modern air force) and a minuscule regular army, more of a cadre of a force able to train and lead a "local force overseas" and/or our own reserve army............... Such a defense policy, a revamp of Victorian gunboat diplomacy, ensures that no Canadian Government will be able to partake in foreign conflicts and open ended deployments sans local support in said countries and/or the expenditure of huge amounts of political capital as the Government "calls-up" the citizens army.

I don't follow.

Ukraine and Georgia aren't NATO nations, if the Russians started dicking around in NATO nations, like was done during the Cold War, there would be a reciprocal level of NATO dicking around with Russian interests.........if they invaded Latvia with a mechanized army the end result would be the same, regardless if there were ~1000 Canadians in the country or not...........add a couple of zeros to the back end of the proposed ~4000 manned NATO brigade and the Russians might take notice.

Nor do the Russians........, forget the 1st Guard (tank) Army (The same historic Army Group that won at Stalingrad and rolled over Hitler) all ready based in Western Russia, in direct response to this NATO move of setting up a "brigade" of ~4000 personal (sounds more like a regiment), the Russians are reestablishing three Motor Rifle Divisions (~30k personal, ~300+ MBT, ~1000 IFVs, ~12 artillery batteries, 3 squadrons of Hinds and Frogfoot etc) to counter this NATO move............again forgetting the entire Army Group already present, three motor rifle divisions is a larger force, with far more firepower, then what the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with........ Where in the Liberal defense review did the Trudeau Liberals plan to revisit such historic Canadian military (failures) missions as Hong Kong or Dieppe?

Exactly, so why is Trudeau sending our own underfunded army to do an ineffective job, that really is pointless with the proposed force levels, and not letting the Europeans take care of the window dressing? Was Trudeau bullied into the role? Why are Canadians (and Americans) subsidizing European security........where are the French? The Dutch? The Italians? The Spanish? Is this an attempt by the Trudeau government to right a wrong done when he left our allies holding the bag with ISIS? Is this a low risk token mission, lower risk then sending Canadians "Peacekeeping" in some backwater African shithole filled with Islamic extremists? Will Trudeau increase the defense budget, not only to pay for the mission, but to equip the force going? (not holding my breath) How does this fit into the Liberals "defense review"...........is there an itching desire by the Canadian public to return to a potentially nuclear battlefield in Europe?

Everything.........the majority of the European NATO members refused to carryout combat missions in Afghanistan................and now, as you've suggested, Canada is being asked (I don't know if that is true or what the actual context was, but we'll ride with your baseless assumptions) to send forces back to Europe.........why aren't the Europeans doing the heavy lifting in Europe? In a great many cases, the Europeans have armies better equipped for such a role then Canada.........so why is Trudeau sending the poorly equipped Canadian army to Europe, to defend Europeans, well the Europeans are gutting their own forces?