RCAF eyes Resolute Bay for new Arctic base


dumpthemonarchy
#1
It's about time. Ooooh, those boys in unform are so bold, going up north all alone!! But don't panic, they're still in snooze mode, it won't happen for few years yet. The North is only about the size of BC, Alta, Sask, they ought to quicken things up. This is a key part of national security in the future.

Signs of improvement here, better than spending millions on planning for the "rescue" of convenient Canadians from Arab countries.


RCAF eyes Resolute Bay for new Arctic base (external - login to view)


RCAF eyes Resolute Bay for new Arctic base







By DAVID PUGLIESE, The Ottawa Citizen December 26, 2011







A man on skis travels across frozen sea past the Canadian Arctic settlement of Resolute Bay, Nunavut April 9, 2006. The settlement was founded in 1953 when the Canadian government dumped 14 aboriginal Inuit people on the frozen, stony beach. The Inuit say Ottawa tricked them into moving and some want an apology for the way they were treated. Picture taken April 9, 2006. To match feature CANADA RELOCATION REUTERS/David Ljunggren

Photograph by: STRINGER/CANADA, REUTERS




The Royal Canadian Air Force has looked at a major expansion of Resolute Bay as it considers transforming it into a key base for Arctic operations, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.
The construction of a 3,000-metre paved runway, hangars, fuel installations and other infrastructure has been proposed 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. That 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 those aircraft could include NORAD jets.
Resolute Bay currently has a 1,981-metre gravel runway, according to information provided for pilots by the federal government.
Resolute Bay should be considered for expansion to become a main operating base because it is “the geostrategic center to the Arctic and NW Passage” and is an “existing regional supply hub with a permanent population/sea access,” according to the briefing.
It would be seen as a “key Arctic regional development and sovereignty centerpiece,” the records add.
The presentation followed a February 2010 Arctic planning directive issued by the Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps who called on the air force to become “a more relevant, responsive, and effective Arctic capable aerospace power.”
In an email to the Citizen, the Royal Canadian Air Force 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.
The Conservative government has received kudos from some for paying more attention to the Arctic, but critics have raised concerns that much of that is based on a military presence while the government continues to cut back on science and research in the North.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has emphasized that Canada will increase its military presence in the region, announcing a series of initiatives, ranging from the construction of Arctic and offshore patrol ships for the navy, an Arctic training centre for troops, and the expansion of the Canadian Rangers.
The Conservatives have also highlighted their decision to spend more than $14 billion on the F-35 stealth fighter as an initiative to protect the country’s Arctic airspace.
Many of the initiatives, however, are still years away from becoming reality.
The RCAF briefing also examined establishing a forward operating base on central Ellesmere Island by expanding the current facilities at Eureka. That initiative proposed adding new facilities and turning the location into a regional asset for government departments. Also included in the “FOB Eureka” concept is the proposal that the existing airfield be expanded.

Creating a Forward Operating Base Eureka could allow the military to downsize or rebuild the existing Canadian Forces Station Alert, according to the presentation.
CFS Alert is on the northeastern tip of Ellesmere Island and is used for the interception of communications.
The presentation noted that Eureka would be easier to sustain, as it could be resupplied by sea while Alert has to be resupplied by air. Making Eureka the main Canadian Forces “very high” Arctic station would also allow the military to separate the missions of sovereignty enforcement and the role of communications intercepts, it added.
The presentation suggested the possibility of a rebuilt CFS Alert, including an artists’ concept of the site.
The email from the RCAF stated that “no major construction projects involving the runway at Eureka are planned.”
The email did not discuss the proposals to build new facilities at Eureka or rebuild CFS Alert.
The RCAF email, however, did note “the Government of Canada has made Canada’s North a cornerstone of its agenda through an integrated strategy that promotes sovereignty, economic and social development, environmental protection, and improved governance in the region.”
The U.S., however, has a different view, dismissing many of the Arctic announcements by the Conservative government as having little to do with enforcing sovereignty in the North and are instead designed to attract votes.
“Conservatives make concern for ‘The North’ part of their political brand and it works,” according to a diplomatic cable produced last year by the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa. The cable was made public by WikiLeaks.







Read more: www.ottawacitizen.com/news/RC...#ixzz1hnoD59Mz (external - login to view)
 
petros
#2
First they need to solve the communications issues. We don't have a satellite far enough north yet.
 
Cliffy
-1
#3
We are on the verge of one world government, we haven't been a sovereign nation for decades, what do we need an air force base in the artic? To protect the holdings of our puppet masters? Let them build the damn thing,. They have all the money.
 
dumpthemonarchy
+1
#4
So negative. And its spelled Arctic.

And we need two more bases at the entrances of the Northwest Passage by Greenland and the Yukon to monitor shipping. They don't have to be hardcore, expensive, formal military bases, they can be coast guard bases run by civilians in govt and businesses. The military could only be a supplementary aspect of the new bases. Soveriegnty is more than a military presence.

Sending up a satellite shouldn't be a problem.
 
petros
+2
#5  Top Rated Post
Quote:

Sending up a satellite shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah we'll just buy one at Satelliites R Us and rent a U-Haul to put it up.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Yeah we'll just buy one at Satelliites R Us and rent a U-Haul to put it up.

Well, satellites are pretty old tech too. If India can launch rockets, why can't we? Think of all the good engineering jobs that would be made in Canada, for Canadians. Our military right now has to ask other countries to send up satellites. It's a joke.
 
taxslave
#7
Won't happen. Our fly boys only stay in 3 star or better hotels. Tents north of 60 are out.
 
Kakato
#8
I had sat service at the arctic circle,also sirius radio but depending on the time of day the signal would come from north half a day and south for the rest.Your right at the tip of the "cone" up there.
 
Spade
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Won't happen. Our fly boys only stay in 3 star or better hotels. Tents north of 60 are out.

Royal Canadian igloos?
 
Kakato
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Royal Canadian igloos?

These are what we stayed in and they are heated by a small 220 heater and are very cozy even when it's minus 80 celsius with windchill.

 
MHz
+1
#11
Shouldn't they have pre-built 'tunnels' going from building to building, bug-screens in the summer an strong enough to hold 5 ft of drift snow in the winter.
 
Kakato
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Shouldn't they have pre-built 'tunnels' going from building to building, bug-screens in the summer an strong enough to hold 5 ft of drift snow in the winter.

Some camps do and it's called an arctic corridor. Cabins and tents are sealed very good as Arctic snow is very cyrstalline and will blow throw a pinhole.The doors also should open to the inside.
The pic of the cabins I posted are the warmest I have ever been in.
I've seen lots of military in the north for project Nanook,they can handle it and the flyboys dont get any better treatement then anyone else.
Your either a team player in the north or your gone,simple as that,no prima donnas allowed.
 
coldstream
#13
I think its a good idea. It should be able to handle specifically the RCAF CF35, and should be flexible enough to be able to provide for an Army contingent of quickly deployed and well equipped light infantry that could be activated in an emergency.

With the Global World Order quickly falling apart, we are on the brink of a chaotic period which will see aggressive forms of 'nationalism' (really 'tribalism' to separate the term from that of a constructive and peaceful nation state) rampant. They will seek weakly protected, richly resourced areas on which to plant their flag. That threat could come from Russia.. from China.. from a post EU European alliance, likely of northern European countries (the EU itself is on the verge of collapse).. or from the U.S..

Even a clear statement of willingness to fight for our sovereignty, could in fact provide a crucial anti-incentive to viewing the Canadian north as open territory.. up for grabs. They will view this as such because they'll know we can form alliances against any aggressive forces.. with others who wish to avoid the same threat.
Last edited by coldstream; Dec 28th, 2011 at 05:21 PM..
 
dumpthemonarchy
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

I think its a good idea. It should be able to handle specifically the RCAF CF35, and should be flexible enough to be able to provide for an Army contingent of quickly deployed and well equipped light infantry that could be activated in an emergency.

With the Global World Order quickly falling apart, we are on the brink of a chaotic period which will see aggressive forms of 'nationalism' (really 'tribalism' to separate the term from that of a constructive and peaceful nation state) rampant. They will seek weakly protected, richly resourced areas on which to plant their flag. That threat could come from Russia.. from China.. from a post EU European alliance, likely of northern European countries (the EU itself is on the verge of collapse).. or from the U.S..

Even a clear statement of willingness to fight for our sovereignty, could in fact provide a crucial anti-incentive to viewing the Canadian north as open territory.. up for grabs. They will view this as such because they'll know we can form alliances against any aggressive forces.. with others who wish to avoid the same threat.


Denmark wishes to see China join the Arctic Council as an observer. Greenland sees potential with China. And an admiral from China has made a territorial claim to the Arctic. The world sees opportunity here, and we don't have a base there yet.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-11/05/c_131230851.htm (external - login to view)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Arrival+China+Arctic+puts+Canada+alert/5625461/story.html (external - login to view)

China (external - login to view)
 
lone wolf
+2
#15
Chinese territorial claim? What's he thinking? If he digs a hole deep enough he'll hit Canada?
 
Johnnny
#16
It would be nice to have Another military base to be more assertive on our behalf. There is alot of potential there and alot of stuff to get hard about up there too.... Hugs and kisses arent as a good a deterent as a established Canadian Military base monitoring the area.
 
lone wolf
#17
Trenton is a long way from a rescue in the NW Passage
 
dumpthemonarchy
+1
#18
It would be nice if countries weren't aggressively looking for resources too. Unless you occupy an area, with regular patrols and habitation, and someone else wants it, then bullies will try to get it. Superpowers and those on their way to such status tend to do very pushy things, and if there's no pushback then the patsy gets a well deserved beating.
 
lone wolf
+1
#19
A roaring mouse is still a mouse
 
dumpthemonarchy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

A roaring mouse is still a mouse

A roaring mouse needs big ships that can fire big rockets. Power is what nations respect, if you don't give displays of hard power, and a williingness to use it, nations step on your face as they trod over you. Soft power is fine for diplomats, but out in the open, soft power equals weakness. Not everything is decided in meeting rooms, not everyone or nation in the world is reasonable all the time.

========

An article about China and the Arctic on the al-jazeera website. Interest is growing. You buy gunboats to show you mean business, then commerce becomes easy as everyone knows the rules.

The dragon looks north - Opinion - Al Jazeera English (external - login to view)
 
Ariadne
#21
It seems to me that without Harper, the Northern shores were pretty much ignored. All those waters, communities and land masses need to be protected because the US has the idea of running a shipping channel through the middle somewhere and claiming everything North. That would be a tragedy for the Canadians in those Northern communities.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

It seems to me that without Harper, the Northern shores were pretty much ignored. All those waters, communities and land masses need to be protected because the US has the idea of running a shipping channel through the middle somewhere and claiming everything North. That would be a tragedy for the Canadians in those Northern communities.

Yes, you have to give Harper some credit for visiting the north and trying to generate interest in a part of the world the Chinese govt cares about greatly too. Except, we own it, don't we? The USA is very keen on it too. The whole world wants to use the Northwest Passage for shipping, are we going to be able to stop them? No. But we have to regulate and control traffic through it. For security purposes, the USA will demand it.
 
Cliffy
#23
Sun activity and the warming trend are supposed to end in 2012. Then a cooling trend where the NW passage is frozen over again. Much ado about nothing. This cycle is ending and a new Ice Age is on its way. Just another little trick by Mama Nature to put us in our place.
 
Ariadne
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Yes, you have to give Harper some credit for visiting the north and trying to generate interest in a part of the world the Chinese govt cares about greatly too. Except, we own it, don't we? The USA is very keen on it too. The whole world wants to use the Northwest Passage for shipping, are we going to be able to stop them? No. But we have to regulate and control traffic through it. For security purposes, the USA will demand it.

If it runs through the country, we own it. They can run their shipping channel further north ... maybe around the northern coast of Russia ... if they want control ... too bad about the ice in between. If they want to run a shipping channel through Canada, then Canada makes all the rules ... none of this warship perched in Canadian waters because they want their way no matter what.
 
Cliffy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

If it runs through the country, we own it. They can run their shipping channel further north ... maybe around the northern coast of Russia ... if they want control ... too bad about the ice in between. If they want to run a shipping channel through Canada, then Canada makes all the rules ... none of this warship perched in Canadian waters because they want their way no matter what.

Ya! Nuke em!
 
Ariadne
#26
I suggest blocking each end of the proposed channel and taking it from there.
 
lone wolf
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

A roaring mouse needs big ships that can fire big rockets. Power is what nations respect, if you don't give displays of hard power, and a williingness to use it, nations step on your face as they trod over you. Soft power is fine for diplomats, but out in the open, soft power equals weakness. Not everything is decided in meeting rooms, not everyone or nation in the world is reasonable all the time.

========

An article about China and the Arctic on the al-jazeera website. Interest is growing. You buy gunboats to show you mean business, then commerce becomes easy as everyone knows the rules.

The dragon looks north - Opinion - Al Jazeera English (external - login to view)

...and you think Canada has that capability?
 
dumpthemonarchy
#28
Of course we do. Russia, with a smaller economy, has more and bigger icebreakers, and they are nuclear. What do we spend our money on? We need ships more than jets to patrol the Arctic. Time is being wasted in Ottawa. We lack national objectives here.

World News: Canada well behind Russia in race to claim Arctic seaways and territory - thestar.com
"Losing control over access to the waterway could cost Canada any chance of profiting from escort fees and other tolls if climate change permanently opens the meandering route through often tight channels."

"Ottawa still hasn’t set a start date for construction of a new Polar class icebreaker promised in 2008."
 
Ariadne
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Of course we do. Russia, with a smaller economy, has more and bigger icebreakers, and they are nuclear. What do we spend our money on? We need ships more than jets to patrol the Arctic. Time is being wasted in Ottawa. We lack national objectives here.

World News: Canada well behind Russia in race to claim Arctic seaways and territory - thestar.com
"Losing control over access to the waterway could cost Canada any chance of profiting from escort fees and other tolls if climate change permanently opens the meandering route through often tight channels."

"Ottawa still hasn’t set a start date for construction of a new Polar class icebreaker promised in 2008."


What exactly are Russian or US icebreakers doing in Canadian territory? Are these countries threatening Canada to the extent that Canada requires defences against the US and Russia? Not sure how to block the entrances, but two ships should work for starters ... one at either end.
 
lone wolf
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Of course we do. Russia, with a smaller economy, has more and bigger icebreakers, and they are nuclear. What do we spend our money on? We need ships more than jets to patrol the Arctic. Time is being wasted in Ottawa. We lack national objectives here.

World News: Canada well behind Russia in race to claim Arctic seaways and territory - thestar.com
"Losing control over access to the waterway could cost Canada any chance of profiting from escort fees and other tolls if climate change permanently opens the meandering route through often tight channels."

"Ottawa still hasn’t set a start date for construction of a new Polar class icebreaker promised in 2008."

The biggest of icebreakers can't move any of those islands far enough apart to have the passage declared international water. As far as anything around the North Pole goes, the closest Canadian territory is some 500 km away.
 
no new posts