Quote:
Originally Posted by DFO
That was such a stupid move on the Liberals' part - pure politics with no practical understanding of the consequences.
Some great info and opinions in here Captain, thanks. Do you have an opinion on the debate over the arctic so far as the navy is concerned? I remember there being talk about a deep water port and some new ships capable of dealing with ice. Would these be navy or coast guard ships? With the potential of the passage opening up Canada has to exercise some sovereignty do they not?
|
The white paper on arctic defense was pretty specific on the construction of a deep water port to support three new armed heavy ice breakers that will be run by the coast guard but the Canadian Forces will supply armed boarding parties for each ship. In theory the first one is supposed to roll off of the line in 2010 and will feature a rapid fire 76 mm cannon, and they will in theory have a helicopter landing capability. In the meantime Canada is purchasing 8 coastal patrol vessels with light ice breaking capabilities, these will probably be staffed by the Navy.
The other additions to our coastal defense strategy is the construction of a long airstrip that would allow Canada to ferry troops and vehicles north in a big hurry using the new C-130's, and the C-177. One thing that happened recently is that the Army has increased its exercise and training of regular troops up there to assist the Rangers.
The long airstrip could also allow Canada to stage Aurora maritime patrol craft which are very good sub hunting platforms. The Air strip could also be used as a staging area for the CF-18 or the JSF when that comes into play.
To bolster the use of maritime patrol craft and ice breakers, Canada will use the MALE UAV as well even though a UAV doesn't really enforce sovereignty unless its armed like the U.S. Predator.
The other thing that Canada is doing is establishing their own version of the Sosus line in our arctic waters by dropping deep water sensors that can monitor subs and surface ships.
As I mentioned before this is a decent plan but it really misses the punch of a submarine. Someone from another nation trying to assert their own claims can see a ship or plane, and probably knows about the sensors, but the rumor of a submarine is highly effective, even if its not there.
The U.S. used to let slip to the media that they had submarines patrolling the waters between China and Taiwan even when they weren't there since the Chinese know that they can't track American submarines effectively.
As far as my opinions outside of technical ones, with the amount of resources that are up there, and with the melting of the ice making it easier to get at it, it would also open up faster sea lanes which Canada needs to control, you have to assert your claim and have the strong ability to back it up.
When the Danes sent their Frigates into our waters, it would have been nice to have a ship with a 76 mm canon to dissuade them, or to hear the sound of a active submarine sonar ping off of their bow to make them think twice.
When the Danes landed and planted their flag, it would have been nice to have someone to meet them there.
Canada has laid claim to the NW passage, but the American's the Danes and the Russians don't accept that claim, but from a strategic point of view that water is too valuable to allow other nations to plant their flag, or sale through with impunity, or to put a Russian Flag on the bottom of the ocean. I'm not saying that we should sink them, or seize their ships, but Canada needs to show that it has muscle behind its claims, and they need to show the American's that they're serious about that part of the world.
