Liberals party defence review

[Derek 2.0]

No, but there is a need to intercept incoming aircraft before they are five hundred miles into your airspace. Our fighters are based way to far south to provide a timely presence in the arctic, they are based in places intended to defend southern Canada, not northern Canada.

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.

[Wilber]

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.

Cold Lake is 1200 NM south of Resolute and 1700 NM south of Alert.

[Derek 2.0]

Cold Lake is 1200 NM south of Resolute and 1700 NM south of Alert.

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

[Wilber]

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

So why is/was the airforce planning on extending the runway at Resolute to 9000 ft?

[Derek 2.0]

So why is/was the airforce planning on extending the runway at Resolute to 9000 ft?

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

[Peter F]

So why is/was the airforce planning on extending the runway at Resolute to 9000 ft?

For sovereignty patrols and making a show by transporting a company or two to the area. Like Derek 2.0 says the place wouldn't last 60 minutes in a shooting war.

[Smallc]

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.

And none of those require spending more money.

The only reason that the Russians have never done anything is the United States - we were speaking as if they don't exist.

[Wilber]

For sovereignty patrols and making a show by transporting a company or two to the area. Like Derek 2.0 says the place wouldn't last 60 minutes in a shooting war.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/royal-canadian-air-force-mulling-major-nunavut-base-expansion-documents-show

http://natoassociation.ca/canadas-resolute-outpost/

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674arctic_airbase_expansion_eyed_at_resolute_bay/

[Derek 2.0]

And none of those require spending more money.

The only reason that the Russians have never done anything is the United States - we were speaking as if they don't exist.

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

[Smallc]

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

I suggest that we drastically shrink the army, and focus more of our resources on the navy and airforce.

[Derek 2.0]

I suggest that we drastically shrink the army, and focus more of our resources on the navy and airforce.

I can quote your post if you like?

[Wilber]

For sovereignty patrols and making a show by transporting a company or two to the area. Like Derek 2.0 says the place wouldn't last 60 minutes in a shooting war.

The whole idea for having a strong presence in the arctic is to discourage behaviour that might result in a shooting war. You don't need a 9000 ft paved runway to transport a company or two of infantry to Resolute. Private operators have been operating Hercs, Electras and gravel gear B737's into Resolute for decades.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/royal-canadian-air-force-mulling-major-nunavut-base-expansion-documents-show

http://natoassociation.ca/canadas-resolute-outpost/

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674arctic_airbase_expansion_eyed_at_resolute_bay/

Read your links.

The construction of a 3,000-metre paved runway, hangars, fuel installations and other infrastructure has been proposed for the future as part of an effort to support government and military operations in the North.

Resolute Bay in Nunavut would be able to provide a logistics site for search-and-rescue operations as well as a base for strategic refuelling aircraft, according to the briefing from the Arctic Management Office at 1 Canadian Air Division, the air force’s Winnipeg-based command and control division. The briefing was presented in June 2010 and recently released by the Defence Department under the Access to Information law.

The long paved runway would allow fighter aircraft to operate from the site, with the suggestion in the presentation that could include Norad (North American Aerospace Defence Command) jets.

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

In an email to the Citizen, the RCAF stated “it does not have infrastructure or short term infrastructure projects at Resolute Bay.”

The email did not touch on the RCAF’s long-term plans for Resolute Bay or discuss the briefing from the Arctic Management Office.

[Derek 2.0]

The whole idea for having a strong presence in the arctic is to discourage behaviour that might result in a shooting war. You don't need a 9000 ft paved runway to transport a company or two of infantry to Resolute. Private operators have been operating Hercs, Electras and gravel gear B737's into Resolute for decades.

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.

[Smallc]

I can quote your post if you like?

You can go ahead - that's my position and has been for a long while.

[Derek 2.0]

You can go ahead - that's my position and has been for a long while.

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?

[Smallc]

Good.....own it........and how do you suggest to pay for such an idiotic idea?

I already told you - I'd significantly shrink the army.

Maybe you're right - maybe we shouldn't keep them in the north. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have more fighter aircraft.

[Wilber]

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.

And fighters. Why would you want to operate those aircraft into Resolute just to support a couple of companies? An F-18 would take a good 2 hrs to get from Cold Lake to Resolute.

[Derek 2.0]

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have more fighter aircraft.

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

[Derek 2.0]

And fighters. Why would you want to operate those aircraft into Resolute just to support a couple of companies? An F-18 would take a good 2 hrs to get from Cold Lake to Resolute.

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.

[Wilber]

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.

So more than two companies with no air presence. Why tankers if no fighters?

[Derek 2.0]

So more than two companies with no air presence. Why tankers if no fighters?

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.

[Smallc]

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

Well, for starters, we don't have air assets to protect Winnipeg or Quebec City, the 7th and 8th largest cities in the country, if continuous air patrols are required.

[Derek 2.0]

Well, for starters, we don't have air assets to protect Winnipeg or Quebec City, the 7th and 8th largest cities in the country, if continuous air patrols are required.

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.

[Smallc]

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.

And that's fine - some people seem to think it's a big problem though. I'm putting forward a solution within the budgetary framework.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Smallc