• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
493
Points
930
Or bring back the Albatross ;)


Grumman HU-16 Albatross​


The Royal Canadian Air Force operated Grumman Albatrosses with the designation "CSR-110".


View attachment 72112
We've got those: DE Havilland makes them (415) but we got away from amphibs years ago. They are a good concept but paradrops from a water tight hull are problematic and the hull design makes palletized loads impractical. Bite the bullet and order new SAR aircraft on a sole source contract so as to put them in service sometime this decade and take the CC295 and station them across the north country in association with the rangers. Train up reserve squadrons of Inuit fly them as a combination coastal patrol, first response SAR for local incidents. I still like the dynamics of the KC390 but I am certain that DE Havilland could design and build a pressurized, modernized Buffalo style a/c for those who want to buy Canadian
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
553
Points
810
We've got those: DE Havilland makes them (415) but we got away from amphibs years ago. They are a good concept but paradrops from a water tight hull are problematic and the hull design makes palletized loads impractical. Bite the bullet and order new SAR aircraft on a sole source contract so as to put them in service sometime this decade and take the CC295 and station them across the north country in association with the rangers. Train up reserve squadrons of Inuit fly them as a combination coastal patrol, first response SAR for local incidents. I still like the dynamics of the KC390 but I am certain that DE Havilland could design and build a pressurized, modernized Buffalo style a/c for those who want to buy Canadian
I agree except for the CC295. A bush plane is what the Rangers need operationally, the CC295 would only be useful for inter community shuttle service (unless we will have distributed detatchments of SAR-Techs with them)

The question becomes rely on civilian charters or invest in some DHC6-400 with water drop capable floats or tundra tires in summer and wheelskiis in winter.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
493
Points
930
I agree except for the CC295. A bush plane is what the Rangers need operationally, the CC295 would only be useful for inter community shuttle service (unless we will have distributed detatchments of SAR-Techs with them)

The question becomes rely on civilian charters or invest in some DHC6-400 with water drop capable floats or tundra tires in summer and wheelskiis in winter.
OK. I was just trying to find some use for the 295. How about standing up a VIP transport squadron with them and use them to freight cabinet ministers (including JT) so they can learn to live with their errors.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,060
We won't be able to defend anything in a few years. You need a military to do that.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,006
Points
1,040
We won't be able to defend anything in a few years. You need a military to do that.
Sadly Arctic Sovereignty should be the low hanging fruit for even a Liberal government to address.
  • NORAD modernization
  • Arctic infrastructure improvements
    • Deep water ports
    • Airfield upgrades
    • Water and Power infrastructure
    • Roads
    • Accommodations & other support facilities
  • Improved/increased SAR, Coast Guard, DFO, Environment Canada presence/coverage
  • Establishment of a Light (Arctic Response) Brigade
All of these things would be looked upon positively by our US neighbours, would contribute toward our 2% of GDP defence spending target, would create jobs and improve the quality of life of our Arctic population, improve access for potential private sector investment opportunities and of course strengthen our sovereignty - all without having to buy the kind of high profile major weapon systems (tanks, IFVs, artillery, etc.) that make the Left side of the political spectrum have fits.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
186
Points
580
Sadly Arctic Sovereignty should be the low hanging fruit for even a Liberal government to address.
  • NORAD modernization
  • Arctic infrastructure improvements
    • Deep water ports
    • Airfield upgrades
    • Water and Power infrastructure
    • Roads
    • Accommodations & other support facilities
  • Improved/increased SAR, Coast Guard, DFO, Environment Canada presence/coverage
  • Establishment of a Light (Arctic Response) Brigade
All of these things would be looked upon positively by our US neighbours, would contribute toward our 2% of GDP defence spending target, would create jobs and improve the quality of life of our Arctic population, improve access for potential private sector investment opportunities and of course strengthen our sovereignty - all without having to buy the kind of high profile major weapon systems (tanks, IFVs, artillery, etc.) that make the Left side of the political spectrum have fits.

There are some answers and problems interspersed throughout all the forums regarding Canada defending the North. This question was posed and studied when the CAF had CANADA COMMAND (CANCOM) and CANADIAN OPERATIONS SUPPORT COMMAND (CANOSCOM). Numerous were produced and presented to the higher levels and eventually to the MND, but the overall questions remained : What do you want for defence of the North? The second questions that stops all politicians is the eye watering expense.

Most Canadians, including those in the military, don't have any concept of how big the North really is and the imposing challenges the vast barren geographic expanse, fridge climate, and the lack of communities / communications / commercial infrastructure. These factors poses significant engineering and well human resources challenges.

Should the defence be based primarily Air or Naval or Land Forces? This brings up other questions: is the F35 suitable for the north? How many Air Bases would be required? Should the Navy have nuclear powered submarines and Ice Breakers (what ice breaking capability? Does AOPs count?) For Land Forces, are the Canadian Rangers sufficient? Should there be an Arctic based army formation? How big should this formation be? Platoon? Company? Battalion? Brigade? Division? I think that you are starting to understand the immense challenges and cost.

Should we look to the USA, Russia, Norway, Sweden or Norway for their solutions?

At the end of the day, DND / CAF provides recommendations and the Government will decide. Note all the governments since I've joined the CAF (1978) have looked at this problem and all have: balked at the estimated cost for all options; or any consideration for the North have been over ridden by more immediate political concerns - deficit reduction; escalating health expenditures and so forth.

I would recommend that when the government decides what it means by defence of the North, they gradually builds up the government's (Federal, provincial, territory) capabilities (DND, Transport, Fisheries, Environment and so forth). This will be a generational (25 years or more) change.

I have been through Liberal and Conservative governments and at the end they are all the same. Despite what we may think of our political leaders and their staff, they are quite intelligent, capable and they have the country's interests at heart. We must remember that Defence considerations is just one of the many pressing issues that they must deal. In order to get consensus they are trying to herd cats.

Cheers
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
There are some answers and problems interspersed throughout all the forums regarding Canada defending the North. This question was posed and studied when the CAF had CANADA COMMAND (CANCOM) and CANADIAN OPERATIONS SUPPORT COMMAND (CANOSCOM). Numerous were produced and presented to the higher levels and eventually to the MND, but the overall questions remained : What do you want for defence of the North? The second questions that stops all politicians is the eye watering expense.

Most Canadians, including those in the military, don't have any concept of how big the North really is and the imposing challenges the vast barren geographic expanse, fridge climate, and the lack of communities / communications / commercial infrastructure. These factors poses significant engineering and well human resources challenges.

Should the defence be based primarily Air or Naval or Land Forces? This brings up other questions: is the F35 suitable for the north? How many Air Bases would be required? Should the Navy have nuclear powered submarines and Ice Breakers (what ice breaking capability? Does AOPs count?) For Land Forces, are the Canadian Rangers sufficient? Should there be an Arctic based army formation? How big should this formation be? Platoon? Company? Battalion? Brigade? Division? I think that you are starting to understand the immense challenges and cost.

Should we look to the USA, Russia, Norway, Sweden or Norway for their solutions?

At the end of the day, DND / CAF provides recommendations and the Government will decide. Note all the governments since I've joined the CAF (1978) have looked at this problem and all have: balked at the estimated cost for all options; or any consideration for the North have been over ridden by more immediate political concerns - deficit reduction; escalating health expenditures and so forth.

I would recommend that when the government decides what it means by defence of the North, they gradually builds up the government's (Federal, provincial, territory) capabilities (DND, Transport, Fisheries, Environment and so forth). This will be a generational (25 years or more) change.

I have been through Liberal and Conservative governments and at the end they are all the same. Despite what we may think of our political leaders and their staff, they are quite intelligent, capable and they have the country's interests at heart. We must remember that Defence considerations is just one of the many pressing issues that they must deal. In order to get consensus they are trying to herd cats.

Cheers

It requires an act of will and a national belief that there is value north of 55.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
I agree except for the CC295. A bush plane is what the Rangers need operationally, the CC295 would only be useful for inter community shuttle service (unless we will have distributed detatchments of SAR-Techs with them)

The question becomes rely on civilian charters or invest in some DHC6-400 with water drop capable floats or tundra tires in summer and wheelskiis in winter.
Well there is Buffalo Airways with Combat proven aircraft and they have demonstrated the ability to bomb dams as well.
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
553
Points
810
The problem with the Douglas aircraft is their engines P&W radials that use 110 low lead gasoline. While the FAA has issued a few STC's for unleaded converted engines, the fuel itself in the quantities needed to support a civilian cargo charter Arctic Airforce is already almost impossible to guarantee.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
659
Points
1,040
The problem with the Douglas aircraft is their engines P&W radials that use 110 low lead gasoline. While the FAA has issued a few STC's for unleaded converted engines, the fuel itself in the quantities needed to support a civilian cargo charter Arctic Airforce is already almost impossible to guarantee.
Well they do a few Lockheed Electras. In one of the episodes they even have a CP140 in the hanger to repair.
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
553
Points
810
Well they do a few Lockheed Electras. In one of the episodes they even have a CP140 in the hanger to repair.
Yep. Turboprop Jet A. And And Lougheed not Douglas.

Trivia point, how is that pronounced. Low-heed or Lock-eed?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,363
Points
1,160
Yep. Turboprop Jet A. And And Lougheed not Douglas.

Trivia point, how is that pronounced. Low-heed or Lock-eed?

If you're from Alberta it's pronounced 'Low-heed'... and it comes with great regret at having smashed into the piggy bank yet again ;)
 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
553
Points
810
If you're from Alberta it's pronounced 'Low-heed'... and it comes with great regret at having smashed into the piggy bank yet again ;)
Funny, am from northern Alberta and always heard 'Lock-eed" until I visited the lower mainland of BC where they use 'Low-heed'

And yes re letting the oil industry get an almost free pass on royalties at the same time we drained the piggy bank.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,517
Points
1,060
Funny, am from northern Alberta and always heard 'Lock-eed" until I visited the lower mainland of BC where they use 'Low-heed'

And yes re letting the oil industry get an almost free pass on royalties at the same time we drained the piggy bank.

Yer a' wrang! It's Loch Heed y' eejits! ;) :D
 
Top