Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/09/arctic-cda.html

The Conservative government is expected to announce the purchase of six new Arctic patrol vessels Monday, following through on a promise to defend the country's northern regions.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make the announcement during a ceremony at the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt on Vancouver Island.

While this announcement is good for the north, it is a long ways off from what was promised in the election..

Harper pledged during the federal election campaign to defend the Arctic, promising to spend billions to buy new underwater sensors, build an army base in Cambridge Bay, construct a deepwater port near Iqaluit and buy three naval ice-breakers.

Monday's announcement won't be the purchase of ice-breakers, but of six smaller Arctic patrol vessels.

I happened to agree with his icebreakers policy, didn't agree with the deepwater port for Iqaluit, agreed with his sensor policy and was uncertain on his army base policy.

It seems we'll get none of the things that were actually promised.

There is still a need for icebreakers and sensors. A deepwater port has to be closer to the passage that what he promised. Arctic patrol vessels are going to need those icebreakers and a port if they are to fulfill their mandate.

[weaponeer]

What Canada needs is a third naval fleet, the arctic fleet based somewhere up north. That means another naval base somewhere north of 60, there will be fights galore over where, and who gets it. It will mean more naval ships capable of operating and fighting in the arctic. It means more naval helicopters, the 28 we are getting do not support the tiny navy we have now. It also means Search & Rescue assets. You need good SAR assets if you really want to operate there.

An army base in the arctic would be a great idea, if you want to spend the $$. You could base a battle group in the north somewhere, but you would need additional helicopter and transport aircraft to move it where it is needed when it is needed. We have the arctic, we should be the world best arctic warriors.

It is all about $$, I cannot foresee any Canadian govt spending the 30+ billion in defence each year for any of it....

[weaponeer]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/

Here's a link with some good suggestions....

[Bonam]

We have the arctic, we should be the world best arctic warriors.

Don't think Canadian "might" in the arctic will ever be much competition for Russian power there ;p

[White Doors]

We have the arctic, we should be the world best arctic warriors.

Don't think Canadian "might" in the arctic will ever be much competition for Russian power there ;p

I'm not sure that is reason enough for us not to have a good level of competence in the north as a country with alot of territory there?

[Bonam]

Oh I fully agree we should have some presence there, after all, the arctic makes up much of our territory. Just pointing out that weaponeer's idea of us being the "world's best arctic warriors" is pretty unlikely.

[White Doors]

Oh I fully agree we should have some presence there, after all, the arctic makes up much of our territory. Just pointing out that weaponeer's idea of us being the "world's best arctic warriors" is pretty unlikely.

Not sure about that. Most of Russia's capability is rusting away. Maybe not match, but we should be credible.

[jdobbin]

What Canada needs is a third naval fleet, the arctic fleet based somewhere up north. That means another naval base somewhere north of 60, there will be fights galore over where, and who gets it. It will mean more naval ships capable of operating and fighting in the arctic. It means more naval helicopters, the 28 we are getting do not support the tiny navy we have now. It also means Search & Rescue assets. You need good SAR assets if you really want to operate there.

An army base in the arctic would be a great idea, if you want to spend the $$. You could base a battle group in the north somewhere, but you would need additional helicopter and transport aircraft to move it where it is needed when it is needed. We have the arctic, we should be the world best arctic warriors.

It is all about $$, I cannot foresee any Canadian govt spending the 30+ billion in defence each year for any of it....

I totally agree on the helicopters component. I also agree on Search and Rescue. At present, they often have to scramble as far south as Winnipeg to get to the north.

The north needs ice breakers, heavy ice breakers.

Harper had said during the election that his Arctic campaign had been well thought out. Today, he said "plans change."

We still have an incomplete program that is described here. You're correct that it will require dollars but the north represents a large economic investment. The first part of that investment is securing the territory, the next is to increase accessibility.

[Canuck E Stan]

Harper had said during the election that his Arctic campaign had been well thought out. Today, he said "plans change."

From Dion speech in Edmonton on August 28 2006.

The Conservative government simplistically thinks that by investing in weapons we’ll able to impose our sovereignty on a territory that is as huge, almost, as Europe. You will never have this capacity

Dion: We Must Assert our Arctic Sovereignty by Caring

I wonder if Dion's "caring" Arctic defence plan will also "change"?

Edited July 10, 2007 by Canuck E Stan

[weaponeer]

Oh I fully agree we should have some presence there, after all, the arctic makes up much of our territory. Just pointing out that weaponeer's idea of us being the "world's best arctic warriors" is pretty unlikely.

Canadian volunteer soldiers vs Russian conscripts, my $$ is on Canada...if we could operate up there, had the troops and equip.... right now Denmark has more arctic capability than we do..

[jdobbin]

I wonder if Dion's "caring" Arctic defence plan will also "change"?

Your link doesn't actually go to Dion's speech.

Edited July 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[Bonam]

Canadian volunteer soldiers vs Russian conscripts, my $$ is on Canada

I'm sure our Canadian volunteers would have higher morale, but not only would they be vastly outnumbered, they also would lack extremely important pieces of technology. For example, a fleet of nuclear submarines that can operate in the arctic, including under the ice. Try selling the idea of building a fleet of nuclear submarines to Canadians, would never happen.

Anyway, no point arguing on this issue further really, as we probably won't be engaged in a military conflict with Russia in the arctic any time soon, and I do agree that Canada could use more presence there.

Furthermore, here's some good news on this front:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/09/arctic-cda.html

The federal government will fund the construction of six to eight new Arctic patrol ships to help reassert Canada's sovereignty over the North, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.

Harper also said the government will construct a deepwater port somewhere in the Far North, with the location to be announced soon. The port will be used as an operation base for the new patrol vessels.

Sounds like you're gonna get that port you wanted.

[Michael Bluth]

For the first time in over 50 years Canada will have a naval presence on all three coasts. Seems like the actions of a Government intent to protect our sovereignty and support our military.

[geoffrey]

For the first time in over 50 years Canada will have a naval presence on all three coasts. Seems like the actions of a Government intent to protect our sovereignty and support our military.

With ships that can only be used a few months of the year, the Russians or Danes or whoever we fear will just wait until the ice is there and then only their ships will operate in our economic areas.

[Bonam]

That gives us a vested interest in global warming, keep the ice away year round! ;p

[AngusThermopyle]

The answer to Canada's Arctic sovereignty has already been mentioned. Nuclear powered submarines. We should have bought the Amethyst Rubis instead of the Trafalgars. The Ruby is a superb sub and has an extended under ice capability. Unfortunately it was passed over because of it's nuclear power plant.The Liberals figured that Canadians would never go for that so we ended up with substandard subs.

[jdobbin]

With ships that can only be used a few months of the year, the Russians or Danes or whoever we fear will just wait until the ice is there and then only their ships will operate in our economic areas.

Sadly, you are correct. The policy of not having heavy ice breakers is a bad one. We are an Arctic nation. We can't assert ourselves part-time in the area.

[jdobbin]

The answer to Canada's Arctic sovereignty has already been mentioned. Nuclear powered submarines. We should have bought the Amethyst Rubis instead of the Trafalgars. The Ruby is a superb sub and has an extended under ice capability. Unfortunately it was passed over because of it's nuclear power plant.The Liberals figured that Canadians would never go for that so we ended up with substandard subs.

I would have settled for the Conservatives original policy of heavy icebreakers. A nuclear sub does not assert authority on the surface. The primary thing a sub does is hide and strike. It doesn't carry the flag like a surface ship does. It doesn't cut through the ice to assist the passage of other ships. It doesn't rescue people. It doesn't carry helicopters.

[AngusThermopyle]

Nuclear subs most certainly do assert a presence. Believe me, when you're at sea on a skimmer and know they are down there somewhere you are very conscious of what their very presence means.As for the pont about rescue, who exactly are you going to rescue? It's not exactly a popular vacation spot.

The problem is that the US and Russia already run boats under the ice, so we're a little late stepping up so to speak. Patrol boats sound good and I guess something is better than nothing but if it came down to Brass Tacks they'd be pretty useless.

These patrol boats have some ice capability, up to a meter thick. It doesn't matter how big your Icebreaker, in the winter the passage is closed and cant be opened. The ice freezes up to 15 meters thick in spots, You'd need one hell of a big icebreaker to keep a passage open in that. I've done ice patrol before when I was still with the Navy, unless you've been there and seen it you cant imagine it. It's incredibly awesome.

[Xman]

Russians? The Americans have been poking their noses around up there for a while.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nuclear subs most certainly do assert a presence. Believe me, when you're at sea on a skimmer and know they are down there somewhere you are very conscious of what their very presence means.As for the pont about rescue, who exactly are you going to rescue? It's not exactly a popular vacation spot.

The problem is that the US and Russia already run boats under the ice, so we're a little late stepping up so to speak. Patrol boats sound good and I guess something is better than nothing but if it came down to Brass Tacks they'd be pretty useless.

Agreed....nothing puts the poop in skimmer pants like the possibility of an enemy nuclear submarine. We used to make attack runs on surface ships for training including firing point procedures with water slug sabots from the torpedo tubes. Drove 'em nuts!

It was so unfair.

[Canuck E Stan]

With ships that can only be used a few months of the year, the Russians or Danes or whoever we fear will just wait until the ice is there and then only their ships will operate in our economic areas.

Sadly, you are correct. The policy of not having heavy ice breakers is a bad one. We are an Arctic nation. We can't assert ourselves part-time in the area.

CTV.ca

What the Liberal Defence critic says........

"We need to have global vision ... because climate change will force Canada to have true arctic sovereignty position," Denis Coderre said. "I don't think the policy promoted by the prime minister today is sufficient. We need to have a more aggressive domestic arctic strategy."

.......which doesn't say anything about anything,especially how the Liberals would do it.

Maybe Dion's plan of building more national parks is part of the "more domestic arctic strategy"

Speaking of Dion, where are his comments on this defence plan?

The Navy people think it's a good deal,getting more ships to cover more area.

"Although (they're) not the armed icebreakers the Conservatives had promised ... I'm told by people who know in the navy that these are very good ships," Fife told CTV Newsnet.

"The armed icebreakers would have cost about $1 billion each ... the patrol vessels which are about $300 million each and they will be able to operate for a fair chunk of the year."

Fife said the ships will still be watching Arctic waters when it counts -- in the summer months when there is less ice cover and more ships can navigate the frigid area.

Overall, Fife said the plan is a step in the right direction, because any patrols will mean improved defence in the region.

"Right now we have no capability whatsoever to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic," he said.

Rob Huebert, associate director of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies:

Huebert also said the government will eventually have to bite the bullet and invest in more expensive ships to penetrate and guard the entire region.

"We are going to need, ultimately, one or two icebreakers for the coast guard to get through the third year ice," he said.

Huebert echoed Fife's approval -- he said if Harper keeps his commitment, he'll be the first Canadian leader to address the pressing issue.

"The fact that we're actually getting to the stage where we might be spending money on defending the arctic is ... of a magnitude that I just simply haven't seen before," Huebert said.

"Traditionally, we've seen all Canadian parties saying yes, this is important -- until they're actually asked to put money forward ... the fact that Harper actually raised this as an election issue is probably the first time I heard (of it) since Diefenbaker."

And since the days of Dief the Chief, we've had a lot of Prime Ministers.About time for real defence action for the Arctic.

By the way,do the Liberals have a Defence plan?

[AngusThermopyle]

By the way,do the Liberals have a Defence plan?

They most certainly do. They plan for everyone to stand in a big circle, pat each other on the bum and sing "We Are The World" If that doesn't work they'll follow it up with a rousing rendition of "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing".

Edited July 10, 2007 by AngusThermopyle

[ScottSA]

Since Canada claims large chunks of the arctic by virtue of a treaty not many other countries have signed, it will take a significant presence in the arctic to make the slightest difference. In fact, a few cities or at least civilian occupied outposts would be a good idea, as long as the next Liberal government doesn't give them away to some Indian with a tenuous claim to it afterwards. The presence of civilians who claim allegiance to canada will go a lot further than a military presence. A couple of frigates bobbing about isn't going to stop a concerted effort by anyone to occupy and utilize sites in the artic.

[geoffrey]

A couple of frigates bobbing about isn't going to stop a concerted effort by anyone to occupy and utilize sites in the artic.

International reaction will though. The US couldn't go in an seize a possible gas or oil site because of international pressure. The US can act unilaterally against common enemies of the West, but pushing that agenda against a G8 nation surely would be unproductive. The cost to the US would be far greater than whatever benefits a company would get from a gas well. An invasion of Canada's claimed land by force would be massively condemned throughout the world.

If the Russians did it, the US would be there in a heart beat taking our side. The US will never tolerate Russians on our side of the pole.

The Danes, well, they have about as much power as we do so I can't see them taking measures beyond diplomacy.