1  2  Next

With the potential opening up of the North West Passage, how many of you think that we need to spending a little more money on our military presence in the Far North? Does the Coast Guard need to construct new ships or is this something the Armed Forces should handle. How feasible or practical would it be to start construction of military facilities (bases, airfields or dockyards) near the mouth of the Mc Kenzie River delta or closer to Inuvik? Rather than depending on the Americans, who claim it is an international waterway, shouldn't we assert our sovereignty and establish a permenant presence there now or soon?

   

Now, the Feds get alot of money from the north lately. Start using the money to make a presence.. I'd say Start by making Bases and then make ships that can travel or stay there year round.

We need more then the Rangers up there

   

Something like this would be great for the muskeg and swamp, however I'm not so sure how the curtains would handle the icing and sub zero temperatures of the winter.

   

There was a station...CFS Inuvik...up until the mid 80's when it closed.
It was a communications research facility

http://jproc.ca/rrp/inuvik.html

I believe there are a pair of CF-18's sitting in a hanger at the Inuvik airport at
any given time.

Part of Canada's commitment to NORAD is to defend northern approaches to continental North America. To maintain the capability to operate our CF-18 fighter squadrons in this environment, our NORAD committed squadrons ,such as this 441 Squadron CF-18, are flown north to operate out of one of the Air Force's four active Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) on an annual rotation. Canada maintains FOLs at Yellowknife, Inuvik, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit, Northwest Territories.
CF Photo

   

Absolutely. Many here rant and rave against the Americans but one of the main forces there are US Nuke Subs. If we want to keep the Maple Leaf flying over the high north, we need to pony up some money and maintain a presence.

   

Well, we already have a limited (very limited) presence in the Arctic known as the Rangers, a reserve unit of Inuit. And we do send planes over the Arctic on SAR missions, fighter patrols and such. DND is also investing in UAVs to patrol the airspace over the Arctic. And every couple of years, the navy sends a frigate up there do do a quickie patrol.

I do think however we need to maintain a better presence up there. My suggestion would include the construction of a SOSUS network and a couple of armed icebreakers for year round patrols of the Arctic. I think expanding the base at Alert would also help. If the government is planning on spending an extra $3-4 billion a year on the armed forces, then it should be easy to pay for at least one of these options. I suppose that a couple of AWACs or JSTARs planes would also be nice to help keep track of planes and ships in the Arctic.

   

Annual Land Force exercises in conjunction with the Canadian Rangers take place with each Brigade Group supplying units in turn. CFS Alert is too far north to be of much real use in establishing a presence along the Northwest Passage. Iqaluit on Baffin Island and say maybe Paulatuk/Inuvik cover off the entrances. A couple of decent icebreakers would certainly help big time.

   

Ideal platform

   

That would be a start wouldn't it?

   

This might be practical for patrolling from the Bering Strait to Whiskey 601, but the heavy sea ice in Winter would hinder its effectiveness. Hell, in the summer, you could double its use as a floating hospital for the isolated communities in the Far North, or for scientific research, as it would be able to access the Beaufort no problem.

   

Oops! I meant Resolute! My bad...

   

The argument that the waterway is international is valid in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas treaty to which Canada is a signatory. The argument is valid in that the passage can be transited without coming within 12 nautical miles of Canadian territory. As the passage will be open several months a year in the near future Canada can expect US, Chinese, and European ships to transit the passage.

The arguable way for Canada to legally block the passage is to establish artificial islands in the passage that will be Canadian territory and therefore making it impossible to transit the passage without violating the 12 mile limit.

The US Navy performs freedom of the seas operations all over the world to enforce the GCHS treaty and while I would hope the US would ask Canada for permission to use the passage first, I doubt that "no" would be an acceptable answer even from an ally. If Canada said no to the request then the Libyans, Iranians, North Koreans, and Russians may be inclined to do the same. Too much is at stake and I'd hope that Canada would appreciate that.

   

Lots of good points! We would not be able to claim the passage as territorial waters (IAW Geneva), however, we could control it if we monitored and maintained the passage year round with an practical and effective force patrolling it. A group of patrol aircraft and a sea element comprising of arctic capable ships and icebreakers could control the passage. Much as the USGC stopping and searching vessels for contraband, we could do the same. We may not be able to deny passage under the Geneva convention, but that doesn't mean we can't protect our shores, right? Given the unique situation of the passage and the close proximity to a large chunk of our coastline, it would behoove us to keep a careful watch wouldn't it?

   

No one would argue with you on any of these points.

   

The forces were once considering establishing a base at Nanisivik, on Baffin Island. Time to dust off those plans...

   

1  2  Next