The Globe and Mail has published a handy dandy map to the Arctic as part of its explanation of the Federal Government's assertions of "Arctic Power" status:
"Canada is an Arctic nation and an Arctic power," Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon told European leaders in Tromso, Norway, at the end of April, while directing his diplomats to adopt an assertive new language around Canada's Arctic possessions. Under his instructions, the new phrase "Arctic power" has begun appearing in communiqués and speeches. The message for Europe's leaders and citizens is simple and abrupt: The Arctic is not up for grabs. "Through our robust Arctic foreign policy," Mr. Cannon said, "we are affirming our leadership, stewardship and ownership in the region."
Do we own the medium green bit to the right of Ellesmere Island? Would you fight over it? I suppose it would help if "Arctic Power" were not a brand name of a discount laundry detergent to most Canadians. But wouldn't it also have helped if steps had been taken by the Government to fulfill the 2006 election promises "to build three heavy, armed icebreakers, an Arctic deepsea port and a surveillance system to keep watch over the North" or the 2007 promise of "eight Arctic patrol vessels". Are these projects well underway? Where are the Arctic paratroops we were supposed to have, our own version of the Thunderbirds or, even more to the point, Spectrum. I think I may be now with Babbling Brooks circa 2006 or at least am with his assertion that we need to have the capacity to match both our policy and diplomacy. It is a fine thing to talk of Arctic Power but ought that not correspond with, you know, a little power in the Arctic?
Comments
Chris Taylor - May 17, 2009 3:12 AM
Well, defence planning is (in real countries) based around potential adversary capabilities. In Canada it is based on rough calculations of political advantage and pork farming. None of those areas carries enough votes to make pork spreading politically rewarding, so in the grand scheme of political priorities, Canadian arctic combat capabilities will continue to be ranked well behind increased visa quotas for Romanian strippers.
But in a nation that was serious about its territorial defence responsibilities, we would take a look at what assets the Russians, Scandinavians, etc can throw up there, and then think about what might be required to counter it. I don't think icebreakers is it. What would be a whole lot better is fast, long-range SAR aircraft and a couple of air bases with snow removal equipment and the works. Lots of airliners fly over the north every day, and sooner or later an airliner is going to go down; It will take an awfully long time for the C-130 from Edmonton to get to the scene (about 8 plus hours). A lot of the survivors will perish from the cold, even if the stricken aircraft manages to put down perfectly with no loss of life.
I don't see a big role for an ice-capable navy as the best anyone can put up there is a few stronger-hulled frigates, which are rather easily dealt with via aircraft. Better to build some staging areas for Hornets (or their successor craft) with snow removal equipment and hardened, dispersed hardstands. And then train the hell out of our guys to use air-launched Harpoons. I believe that duty is shouldered by the Auroras right now, which are elderly, and would also have the crap kicked out of them by a modern guided missile destroyer with phased-array radars. Subs can deny the area to our boats and out subs are not ice-capable, so unless we are going to spring for expensive upgrades you had pretty well forget anti-sub ops up there. You will not be able to find them under the ice, and even if you can find them, you have to have a hole in the ice nearby to drop a torpedo it. Not very likely and not worth the time.
Troops are a reasonable idea but it should be a relatively small number of them, as the number of important facilities/cities that require arctic training to take and hold are small. But you still need boots on the ground to take them. We also need a better transport fleet, four C-17s will be flying nonstop and you have to assume some will become casualties. Britain has six and it is a tiny, tiny place next to us. We are a strat-lift sized country. Assuming we gets 130Js on schedule that will make things look better on the air mobility equation as well.
And most importantly you need high-endurance surveillance. A fleet of Global Hawks with every sensor we can possibly cram aboard them. They can be based at the SAR/Hornet facilities, with the SAR/ISR equipment being there all year, and the Hornets being rotated in periodically, like they do in Whitehorse present-day.
Chris Taylor - May 17, 2009 3:18 AM
Actually you will need subs. SSGNs are cheap and the Russians have quite a few. They can hammer an airfield or any land facility without much effort. So you will need an under-ice counter to track and kill them.
Alan - May 17, 2009 8:33 AM
Can we have solo, single operator subs? That would be cool. Not from any practical angle but I foresee great tales of lonely heroism coming out of a fleet of single operator Arctic stations submarines.
Ben (The Tiger) - May 18, 2009 3:35 PM
No comments on the swine flu post?
I'll make my comments here, then.
Yes, we were too quick to scoff -- the flu pandemics, historically, have an early wave that is relatively harmless, then a second wave which kills.
Wasn't expecting the second wave till the fall, though...