Canadian defense budget expected to rise to $20 billion.

[PhillTaj]

We have a new gov't in Canada, and rebuilding the military is one of their biggest priorities.

Combined, the previous government and the current government have ensured that the defense budget will be at least $20 billion Canadian by 2010- ensuring that our defense spending will be on par with Australia.
This week, Lockheed Martin will be presenting the C-130J to Ottawa and Boeing will pitch the C-17.

The new gov't supports the purchase of three C-17's, 16 Tactical lifters (the PM prefers the A400M) and 15 C-27J's.

Additionally, the new new conservative gov't has pledged (before election) new Main Battle Tanks, Chinook heavy lift choppers, three naval icebreakers, four new destroyers, two new replenishment ships, and a Strategic transport ship.

Additionally, a new Veterans Bill was introduced and passed today gives very enticing benefits for a career in the Canadian Forces.

However, the Conservatives wont announce their real intentions until the budget- they have promised at least 5.3 billion in increases, while the Defense Minister has hinted the increases may be significantly more substantial.

Note I do not have links for any of this- its just tid bits I've picked up over the last month.

[Pursuit Curve]

Well, lets hope that the new MBT's will be air transportable.

[ThunderBolt]

I seriously think that we need to get rid of the old school C8's last time i held one was only 3 years ago and man were they bulky. Maybe looking into H&K would be a nice change, their G36's are pretty sweat. Although C8's are more reliable than the M16's but still they are very much the same.

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

[Supe]

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

The Canadians have been doing a bit more of 'Peacemaking' rather than Peacekeeping, with clashes with Taliban in Kandahar.

Some cool images of the Canadian contingent to be found here (http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=77469).

[Pursuit Curve]

I seriously think that we need to get rid of the old school C8's last time i held one was only 3 years ago and man were they bulky. Maybe looking into H&K would be a nice change, their G36's are pretty sweat. Although C8's are more reliable than the M16's but still they are very much the same.

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

I first of all want to say I am not a sales rep for the CV90 IFV, CV90/120 and the AMOS 120 mm twin automatic mortar system but man oh man what a system, check it out, also the C8 is good, and honestly in aghanistan even the FN wold be good considering that the terrain is open and the engagement ranges are considerable.

[Michael RVR]

i'm sure the CDF (?) will find a way to spend the money on something decent. :)

I don't really see CV90's happening though, didn't you guys just buy LAVIII's ?

[Analyst]

Why would we need MBTs? I cannot conceive a scenario where we would actually need to use such weapon systems, since it is unlikely we are going to use them in any large-scale offensive-warfare operations. Furthermore, if we go to war and we need to use MBTs, we will be there with other countries that have more effective or a larger number of tanks than us, such as the U-S. (I know, it sounds really opportunistic, but I beleive that our military is only effective when integrated with other armies, expecially NATO armies).

I think the next conflicts will be done in 3rd world countries and will involve much more peace-building / insrugency-repression than conventionnal warfare operations. Thus, I think the money would be more wisely spent on intelligence :
-Human Intelligence
-Electronic-warfare equipment
-Reconnaissance equipement and vehicules

I might be wrong, tough...

[Pursuit Curve]

I see your point in regards to the coventional use of MBT's tp combat other conventional forces. But recently the overwhelming direct fire support offered by MBT's in direct combat in counter insurgency operations has saved many infanteers lives. While LAV's are nice, nothing says we mean business than a firepower demonstration by MBT's. I know, we can always depend on other countries for armour, but for how long?

[Snayke]

That's a very nice budget. Hope you spend it on decent stuff, not like the 74 dollar screws that the US buy. :P

But seriously, this allows the CDF to expand right? What branches and areas within those branches would you want expanded? Any extra plane? Increased capacity in the army?

[Rich]

Good for them. Canada has a tremendous military history and the recent draw down of its forces has been shocking. I'd say the new DDs and IBs will be particularly helpful. And news on the DDs being considered?

[PhillTaj]

That's a very nice budget. Hope you spend it on decent stuff, not like the 74 dollar screws that the US buy. :P

But seriously, this allows the CDF to expand right? What branches and areas within those branches would you want expanded? Any extra plane? Increased capacity in the army?

The Tories wish to recruit 13,000 for the regular forces and another 10,000 for the reserves. Some have said it cant happen- but last fiscal year, with no money, and an outdated recruitment system, the CF managed to acheive 106% of its stated goal, over 5,000 men and women. So its possible. I believe the army will be recieving most of the new recruits, although the Atlantic fleet will acquire 1,000 personnel.

Really, however, its a minority gov't- the Tories cannot everything it wants to do with the anti-military Socialist NDP and BQ on their assess the whole time, but the centre Liberals will def support new troops, new helicoptors, and new airlift.

The Navy is in the worst shape. Its currently suffering from massive rust out and personnel strain from constant deployments in support of the war on terror. Additionally, we have lost the ability to produce advanced warships, and until our procurement process is reformed, we wont be seeing any new destroyers (currently, too advanced and expensive to produce quickly after the Saint John shipyards were left out to dry). - although an LPD and Replenishment ships are very attainable.
The Navy

[fral]

The Tories wish to recruit 13,000 for the regular forces and another 10,000 for the reserves. Some have said it cant happen- but last fiscal year, with no money, and an outdated recruitment system, the CF managed to acheive 106% of its stated goal, over 5,000 men and women. So its possible. I believe the army will be recieving most of the new recruits, although the Atlantic fleet will acquire 1,000 personnel.

Really, however, its a minority gov't- the Tories cannot everything it wants to do with the anti-military Socialist NDP and BQ on their assess the whole time, but the centre Liberals will def support new troops, new helicoptors, and new airlift.

The Navy is in the worst shape. Its currently suffering from massive rust out and personnel strain from constant deployments in support of the war on terror. Additionally, we have lost the ability to produce advanced warships, and until our procurement process is reformed, we wont be seeing any new destroyers (currently, too advanced and expensive to produce quickly after the Saint John shipyards were left out to dry). - although an LPD and Replenishment ships are very attainable.
The Navy
Okay lets get a few goodies, let the army keep their current AFVs, but look at other nations AFVs. size comparison is the key, several small units like German's smaller weasels or UKs are perfect for upload to C17s or maybe a C171. For the navy, ST John shipyard can hump in the metal but remember it is the smaller companies that make the unit..EADS/CAE/Thales etc...when a FFH has engine (diesel ar turbine) the experts are used to fix it (French and German) all we need is the graving dock and muscle power....for the Naval air, we could have attempted to purchase seakings HAS 3 or 4 I can't remember the model. UK kept those units updated, so they got sold and money went towards their merlin, seaking has5/7 upgrades...remember it's all up to the people on the "purchasing" board.....the end user usually gets no say.....:coffee

[Analyst]

I agree with the importance of investing massivly into the navy. I con't say I know much about it, but investments seem well overdue. Especially for the aging naval helicopters.

I heard propositions about a Helicopter-carrier. Never heard of such ships. Could anyone tell me if they even exist and, if so, a general run-down of the specs, pictures, price-tag and any info you can share.
I think such ships could be very usefull for force-prejection and rapid troop deployment or extraction in the context of humanitarian missions.

Also I am wondering what the hell are our ships still doing in the Gulf? Primo, Afghanistan if landlocked and certainly didn't have much of a navy. Secundo, we were not at war with Iraq, thus we would not have engaged their ships or naval assets. Tiercio, we are not a war with Iran yet, and might very well not be in the near future. I know the official reason for this deployment was to provide support to the US navy, but I doubt it really needs our ships for picket-duty or patrol!
Would'nt it make more sense to bring them back to upgrade them or just to cut costs? I truly beleive Canada Navy cannot sustain a long-term deployment.

[Aussie Digger]

Why would we need MBTs? I cannot conceive a scenario where we would actually need to use such weapon systems, since it is unlikely we are going to use them in any large-scale offensive-warfare operations. Furthermore, if we go to war and we need to use MBTs, we will be there with other countries that have more effective or a larger number of tanks than us, such as the U-S. (I know, it sounds really opportunistic, but I beleive that our military is only effective when integrated with other armies, expecially NATO armies).

I think the next conflicts will be done in 3rd world countries and will involve much more peace-building / insrugency-repression than conventionnal warfare operations. Thus, I think the money would be more wisely spent on intelligence :
-Human Intelligence
-Electronic-warfare equipment
-Reconnaissance equipement and vehicules

I might be wrong, tough...

People have suggested ever since the tank was invented, that Army's would be better off without it. It's too heavy, too costly, too hard to deploy, too logistics heavy etc. Some even go so far as to say, that other vehicles provide greater capability. (CV-90120 v Abrams arguments for instance)???

The fact is tanks have proved time and time again they are the premier land warfare capability. No-one needs a tank UNTIL they get into a real stoush. Many people have suggested this for Australia too. "Why do we need tanks? we haven't even used them since Vietnam"... Well with the exception of some minor special forces, Naval gunfire support and F/-18 bombing operations in GW2, we haven't actually engaged in war fighting operations since Vietnam either. (Neither has Canada either, IIRC).

Peace-keeping and peace-making operations, often don't require heavy combat capabilities (including tanks, SPG's and "heavy IFV's). Wheeled motorised forces are acceptable at performing this role. However if you intend to be capable of deploying forces into "high intensity" warfare roles, they are simply and absolutely necessary.

With a $20 billion a year budget, a small purchase of tanks to equip a regiment or so (some would be dedicated for training/development/attrition purposes) with an MBT, is going to be a drop in the proverbial ocean. A regiment's worth, will allow you to deploy squadron sized battlegroups with your forces and rotate same nearly in-definitely or a brigade sized formation for shorter durations. Given the capability high quality MBT's provide is un-achievable by any other platform or combinations of platforms, is it really such a bad investment?

As to the helicopter carrier question, here's some links to existing vessels of this type:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

and here's a link to Australia's project to acquire 2x vessels of this type:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1104/topstories/story03.htm

[Big-E]

I think its great that CA is increasing her military spending, it shows they want to expand their roles in Joint Warfighting capability.

[Lancaster]

Defence minister 'O' Connor was on today with 'Politics with Don Newman'( a news program), he didn't want talk details but the 13,000 regulars and 10,000 reservists will take about 5 years to fulfill. He also said in a months time that the cabinet would approve some of the defence priorities of 6 to 8 capital projects , money approved from other years, the arctic icebreaker ships in 5 year plan.

[contedicavour]

Wow, the Canadian Navy must be so happy ! Replacing the good old Trump destroyers with new builds would be a huge step forward in their naval capabilities :)
When should this materialize however ?

cheers

[Lancaster]

Since the new government has minority of votes (seats), the budget needs a majority of votes to pass if not the government would fall, and a new election would be started. There is some support from opposition to give them the votes to pass the budget and will be in near future. Presently the Defense minister O’Connor has no details of the 6-8 projects but his first priority is the four airlift project (strategic, tactical, fixed wing SAR, helicopter), and later arctic icebreaker ships, no mention of destroyers, frigates upgrade, amphibious and support ships.
See below for statements made by Defense minister O’Connor.

1) http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=bd8e102a-25f6-48e5-8da2-99727a6a8715&k=86035

2) Valid until May 9th ,Defense minister O’Connor on radio, need Realplayer, go to Wednesday PM broadcast and click O’Connor is first on the broadcast.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

3) On Norad renewal and military equipment.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Gordon_Oconnor_May04.mp3

[Lancaster]

Canadian defence minister O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list' that is being close to reality, will ask this week for government to approve. In purchasing four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, 17 tactical C-130J transports , 20 new heavy lift helicopters, 18 new search and rescue planes, replacement of 24 year old logistics trucks, three joint support ships. See attached.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

[PhillTaj]

Canadian defence minister O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list' that is being close to reality, will ask this week for government to approve. In purchasing four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, 17 tactical C-130J transports , 20 new heavy lift helicopters, 18 new search and rescue planes, replacement of 24 year old logistics trucks, three joint support ships. See attached.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600


There is no way he'll be able to push that all through! Harper is far, far too concerned with winning the next election to approve a defense package that will end up costing over 14 billion. The NDP and Bloc will cry "right wing militaristic conspiracy' and the Fiberals will join the anti-military bandwagon.

Still, it'd be nice though...I think they should cancel JSS however. Too much ship for not enough capability.

[Ths]

PhillTaj very good post.

What I see in this information is:

A) A massive upgrade in light forces. All that wonderfull air transport capacity is just what you need for light forces - and they can keep considerable light forces supplied. The planned transports can keep about 500 tons in the air at the same time. We are talking about keeping a light force of 25.000 to 50.000 supplied by air - covering a vast area.

B) Three new icebrakers - which taken together with the Danish icebreaking patrollers give a new emphasis on the arctic.

Any links on the military Canadian Icebreakers ?

Very interesting - so that is a background for Hans Ø.

[Sea Toby]

It appears the Conservative government of Canada has got all of its ducks in a row to move on several military acquisition programs with the first item on the list being new transport planes, both Globemaster and new Hercules. There are other long overdue programs included in this year's budget: Replenishment/sealift ships, troop lift helicopters, heavy duty trucks, and search and rescue aircraft. Backbone material that should have been acquired earlier.

In the future, after a new defence review white paper, we'll see this government moving on new acquisition programs: tanks, frigates, fighters, and the new icebreakers. The second batch of programs will have more of a bite, beefing up the warfighting assets.

Outside of the Globemasters, the first batch should fly through cabinet easily. Canada's current difficulties supporting UN missions abroad will be tackled. Opposition will grow with the second batch, as the parties will have different agendas. The agenda which counts most is the agenda of the current government.

[contedicavour]

It appears the Conservative government of Canada has got all of its ducks in a row to move on several military acquisition programs with the first item on the list being new transport planes, both Globemaster and new Hercules. There are other long overdue programs included in this year's budget: Replenishment/sealift ships, troop lift helicopters, heavy duty trucks, and search and rescue aircraft. Backbone material that should have been acquired earlier.

In the future, after a new defence review white paper, we'll see this government moving on new acquisition programs: tanks, frigates, fighters, and the new icebreakers. The second batch of programs will have more of a bite, beefing up the warfighting assets.

Outside of the Globemasters, the first batch should fly through cabinet easily. Canada's current difficulties supporting UN missions abroad will be tackled. Opposition will grow with the second batch, as the parties will have different agendas. The agenda which counts most is the agenda of the current government.

It will be interesting to see how much time is needed to move towards the second batch... since the Tribal/Iroquois DDGs are now obsolete and need urgent replacement. The F18s need urgent updates. The army needs tanks that can belong on the battlefield and not in a museum...
Heck it's amazing what a decade of underspending can do to such good armed forces ! :shudder

cheers

[Sea Toby]

Yes, here is an example of underspending from the late nineteenth century. After the Civil War, the United States navy had hundreds of ships. Unfortunately, not one new ship was built for the navy over a period of almost 20 years. The United States spent much on its army, at first to occupy the South and then later fulfilling its Manifest Destiny, protecting pioneers opening up the West from the American Indians.

At the Samoan debacle in 1888, the US navy lost its entire Pacific fleet by a large typhoon, all three ships. The United States fleet had shrunk to less than 20 wooden hulled square rigged steamers, all of which were obsolete compared to British and German ironclads.

The US admirals were finally able to convince the government that their warships were obsolete. The reasoning of Mahan helped considerably. Because of the debacle at Samoa, American started to build a steel navy, the likes of which would win the Spanish-American war ten years later.

The Battleship Oregon had to sail all the way around South America to join the fight off Cuba and Puerto Rico from the Pacific. This warship did the most damage to the Spanish fleet. It wasn't long before President Teddy Roosevelt demanded a Panama Canal.

IF ONE COULDN'T GO 20 YEARS WITHOUT BUILDING NEW WARSHIPS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY WITHOUT FACING BLOCK OBSOLESCENCE, HOW COULD ANY MAJOR NATION GO 20 YEARS IN THE TWENTIETH OR TWENTY FIRST CENTURY?

[Ths]

Skimming the Canadian defence whitepaper it seem the target is light forces of 18,500. Good estimate.

The climate is changing in the Arctic, which leaves a long northern coastline where there few years ago was a continous hellish ice desert all the way to Russia.There is thus the possibility of an invasion - this must a decent defence plan take into account.
Now - climate chage not withstanding - it is hardly tank country, so the about the only option is light forces, and as distances are more than considerable - air transport is about the only viable option.
The coastline is apparently to be patrolled by icebreakers and a supply ships to land an operational reserve to crush a possible landing.

The possibility of an invasion might be remote; but when it can be countered in a reasonable cost/effective manner....

At the same time this plan gives the opportunity to send forces to troublespots all over the world - keep them supplied. AND we are talking light forces that is very much in demand for such tasks.

[Whiskyjack]

Skimming the Canadian defence whitepaper it seem the target is light forces of 18,500. Good estimate.

The climate is changing in the Arctic, which leaves a long northern coastline where there few years ago was a continous hellish ice desert all the way to Russia.There is thus the possibility of an invasion - this must a decent defence plan take into account.
Now - climate chage not withstanding - it is hardly tank country, so the about the only option is light forces, and as distances are more than considerable - air transport is about the only viable option.
The coastline is apparently to be patrolled by icebreakers and a supply ships to land an operational reserve to crush a possible landing.

The possibility of an invasion might be remote; but when it can be countered in a reasonable cost/effective manner....

At the same time this plan gives the opportunity to send forces to troublespots all over the world - keep them supplied. AND we are talking light forces that is very much in demand for such tasks.

I know you did say remote possibility, but who is going to invade the north coast of Canada? I can understand economic, terrorist and criminal threats but invasion? I didn't even think there was any infrastructure up there for an attacking force to use.

[Britalian]

John Lehman, Navy Secretary under Reagan, commented that Britain's failure to update and properly fund it's armed forces, particularly the Navy, during the 60's and 70's meant that they were "caught short" in many crucial areas when the Falklands War unexpectedly came upon them. "Caught short" more accurately translates as "people died un-necessarily".
Canada has neglected it's defences for years. More than any other nation, they have relied on the protection of the USA. It is way past time for them to correct this. They should be called on it, often and adamantly. One British officer said the motto of the Falklands War was "you never know". Invasion from the north, or, for that matter, from any bloody direction you wish? Unlikely, but not impossible. Buying weapons and increasing capabilities that frighten off would-be aggressors saves money that would otherwise be spent on a war.

[Grand Danois]

I know you did say remote possibility, but who is going to invade the north coast of Canada? I can understand economic, terrorist and criminal threats but invasion? I didn't even think there was any infrastructure up there for an attacking force to use.

I agree there isn't. Ivasion is not an issue. However, there may be issues with the Russians acknowledging either Danish or Canadian sovereignty over the North Pole thorugh the Lomonosov Ridge.

Denmark hopes to claim North Pole (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3716178.stm)

Note that both Denmark and Canada have ratified UNCLOS effective from 2004 and now have until 2014 to lay all their claims. Denmark and Canada are working cooperatively, in a friendly atmosphere ,and with mutually recognised criteria. I don't know the Russians stance, but judging from their behaviour in the Barents Sea, they aren't going to play nice.

Attachments from related seismic field work 2006.

[Whiskyjack]

Please do not read my comments as anti-spending, as I agree with the increased spending and that Canada needs the new equipment, it is a small world now days with Canada involved in combat ops in Afghanistan, which no one would have thought 6 years ago.

I just meant that defining your armed services to defend your country, when there is really no threat begs politicians and ‘interested parties’ to cut your budget based on the fact that no real threat exists. Base your defence on your interests on a global scale and what you really want to get out of it, then it gets harder to argue about!

[icelord]

I agree there isn't. However there may be issues with the Russians acknowledge either Danish or Canadian sovereignty over the North Pole thorugh the Lomonosov Ridge.

Note that both Denmark and Canada have ratified UNCLOS effective from 2004 and now have until 2014 to lay all their claims. Denmark and Canada are working cooperatively, in a friendly atmosphere ,and with mutually recognised criteria. I don't know the Russians stance, but judging from their behaviour in the Barents Sea, they aren't going to play nice.

Attachments from related seismic field work 2006.

So what your saying is that the Danes are going to invade Canada, with the Ruskis throwing in their assault force for a couple of Whales and Santa's shack:rolleyes:

[Grand Danois]

So what your saying is that the Danes are going to invade Canada, with the Ruskis throwing in their assault force for a couple of Whales and Santa's shack:rolleyes:

It's amazing what a couple of bottles of vodka can do. :D

We were that close to giving up Santas shack this year to the Finns. But that is another story...

[Whiskyjack]

So what your saying is that the Danes are going to invade Canada, with the Ruskis throwing in their assault force for a couple of Whales and Santa's shack:rolleyes:

In relation to Russia, while I don't think that they threaten Canada, they have repaid ALL debt this year and are awash with oil and gas money, I think they have even indicated a US$188 billion modernisation of their armed forces and want the army to be 70% regular by 2010.

Ambitious, but they now have the money.

[Grand Danois]

Forgot to add this attachment. The arctic is not only about mineral wealth and fish stocks...

SLOC's Europe to Asia.

[Ths]

I think we should cast our collective mind back to the Danish-Canadian controversy over Hans Ø (between Greenland and Ellesmere Island).

More or less from the start it has been clear that this piece of realestate is just about the most valueLESS rock on the planet. And the talk about oil-eksploration is more than threadbare. Denmark has searched for oil various places around Greenland - and found it! About 1 pint!

The controversy resultet in a trip from Greenlands Command Station Grønnedal by the cutter of the Adlek-class - whose most offensive weapon is the armpit orchestra and hefty armoury of smelly socks.

Without access to classified information this seem like an excersise designed to resolve a military debate. Apparently the Danish Navy contended the replacement of the Adlek-class with the new patrollers:

- Icebreaking ability 70 cm.
- Helipad
- transport of a platoon of marines/SEAL's or whatever.

would be adequate for the job of protecting Thule Air Base.

Before that the Canadian Navy had used a considerably vessel to claim Hans Ø.

For this outsider the controvercy boiled down to the Danish Navy finding the Canadian solution over the top, and invasion as such was not on the cards; but an intrusion - of say company size - could not be excluded. This "invasion" with sabotage intentions should - according to Danish estimate - be allowed to get very footsore and get spanked in a ambush-like interception.
The US solution was a company sized interception force of marines.

The Canadians could have a motive to enlarge the threat to make it fit the other requirements for the Canadian Army and Navy. Such as international operations. Apparently the Canadians have more or less stuck to their guns.

Whiskyjack raises the interesting point: What is there to attack in Northern Canada?
Here we are left with even flimsier evidence: But it could be pointed out that the melting of the Polar cap is (militarily seen) a mixed blessing: One hand it increases a coastline on the other hand it reduces the posibility of hiding subs under the polar ice.
In the last - say 10 years - we've seen a reduced threat from Russian submarines and this has meant that the patrol line has been pushed from Greenland-Iceland-Fairisles to north of Iceland (evidence: Keflavik on Iceland has been disbanded and Thetis-class has made recce in the Northern fiords of Iceland.

It is understandable that these thoughts provoke a certain sceptisism - and it is put forward as a theory that can be disproved as new evidence filter through. If people not "in the know" want to penetrate the official and sanitised version we have to go out on a limb and risk getting egg on our face - and I've had my share in the years past. On the other hand I've avoided some patronising hindsight.

[Ths]

Thank You Grand Danois: I had quite forgotten Jens Munks disasterous attempt to find a passage north of Canada.

[Grand Danois]

Some things I have different views on.


Hans Ø is an obscure artefact left over by mistake from earlier agreements on borders and EEZ.


The new patrol ships aren't meant for the protection of Thule Air Base. The best protection of Thule is the extreme isolated locality of the base in itself.


We (Denmark) have no intent nor posture towards deploying any forces towards Canada. Including long range patrol units.


There is oil on Greenland. It's seeping put of the rocks in some areas... USGS estimates 114 bn barrels in the 95% confidence interval offshore of Western Greenland alone. The areas you refer to had little potential even before prospective drilling.

[Whiskyjack]

I think we should cast our collective mind back to the Danish-Canadian controversy over Hans Ø (between Greenland and Ellesmere Island).

More or less from the start it has been clear that this piece of realestate is just about the most valueLESS rock on the planet. And the talk about oil-eksploration is more than threadbare. Denmark has searched for oil various places around Greenland - and found it! About 1 pint!

The controversy resultet in a trip from Greenlands Command Station Grønnedal by the cutter of the Adlek-class - whose most offensive weapon is the armpit orchestra and hefty armoury of smelly socks.

Without access to classified information this seem like an excersise designed to resolve a military debate. Apparently the Danish Navy contended the replacement of the Adlek-class with the new patrollers:

- Icebreaking ability 70 cm.
- Helipad
- transport of a platoon of marines/SEAL's or whatever.

would be adequate for the job of protecting Thule Air Base.

Before that the Canadian Navy had used a considerably vessel to claim Hans Ø.

For this outsider the controvercy boiled down to the Danish Navy finding the Canadian solution over the top, and invasion as such was not on the cards; but an intrusion - of say company size - could not be excluded. This "invasion" with sabotage intentions should - according to Danish estimate - be allowed to get very footsore and get spanked in a ambush-like interception.
The US solution was a company sized interception force of marines.

The Canadians could have a motive to enlarge the threat to make it fit the other requirements for the Canadian Army and Navy. Such as international operations. Apparently the Canadians have more or less stuck to their guns.

Whiskyjack raises the interesting point: What is there to attack in Northern Canada?
Here we are left with even flimsier evidence: But it could be pointed out that the melting of the Polar cap is (militarily seen) a mixed blessing: One hand it increases a coastline on the other hand it reduces the posibility of hiding subs under the polar ice.
In the last - say 10 years - we've seen a reduced threat from Russian submarines and this has meant that the patrol line has been pushed from Greenland-Iceland-Fairisles to north of Iceland (evidence: Keflavik on Iceland has been disbanded and Thetis-class has made recce in the Northern fiords of Iceland.

It is understandable that these thoughts provoke a certain sceptisism - and it is put forward as a theory that can be disproved as new evidence filter through. If people not "in the know" want to penetrate the official and sanitised version we have to go out on a limb and risk getting egg on our face - and I've had my share in the years past. On the other hand I've avoided some patronising hindsight.

Fully agree that the area needs patrol and surveillance, as mentioned criminal, economic and terrorist threats are more likely IMHO. Spec ops are also more likely than a conventional war as well. Also to claim territory you have to be able to patrol and prove you can control it. Which in my opinion is where the Danish and Canadians are headed.

To conduct conventional ops to the north would place a great burden on logistics, as mentioned what infrastructure is up there? The Australian bare base model may be a good start as it would provide a base of ops for SAR and intermittent patrol etc.

My original point, which I did not get across well is that no one really has the capability conduct conventional ground ops to the north.

[Ths]

Pertaining to Santa's Shack:

I think Santa moved, when the indiginious population of Greenland ate Santa's reindeer - about the best dish in the Greenlandic cuisine; but it impared Santa's mobility.

[Grand Danois]

My original point, which I did not get across well is that no one really has the capability conduct conventional ground ops to the north.

The Danish do long range patrol with dog sleighs all the way from Daneborg and up to the highest northern point you can reach on land - anywhere.

The ‘Sirius Patrol’ of Greenland – Danish Special Forces in the High Arctic

The topmost Northeast portion of Greenland is largely uninhabited. The territory is comprised of a large area of preserved parkland. For sixty years, the Danes have monitored and protected this icy land using special forces, traveling by dog sledge and sea kayak. Sirius Patrol keeps a two-man team present in the area year-round. These rugged men monitor Danish sovereignty.

The dogs are bred expecially to pull the sledges and work with the personnel of the Sirius Patrol. As they are being raised, the pups are judged by their disposition. Any young pup that shows the least aggression towards its human handlers is put down. No one on patrol in a polar winter can afford an injury while breaking up a fight. The Sirius Patrol, named after the ‘Dog Star’, never travels by powered vehicles. If you are pinned down by wind and cold for days at a time, you can’t eat a skidoo.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking5.htm

I do agree that Denmark and Canada should increase their control of the arctic.

Edit: Sorry. You meant conventional.

[Ths]

Grand Danois: This is Your turf, so I have a couple of questions:

1. If it is seeping out of the rock, why hasn't it been exploited?
2. If the prospect were low where they drilled, why didn't they drill where the probability was high?

[Grand Danois]

Pertaining to Santa's Shack:

I think Santa moved, when the indiginious population of Greenland ate Santa's reindeer - about the best dish in the Greenlandic cuisine; but it impared Santa's mobility.

I don't agree with the Greenlandic cuisine. The preservation and wildlife taste gives the food way to much character for my taste.

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois: This is Your turf, so I have a couple of questions:

1. If it is seeping out of the rock, why hasn't it been exploited?
2. If the prospect were low where they drilled, why didn't they drill where the probability was high?

1. Surveying must be comprehensive.

2. Environmental factors like sea ice vs technology.

3. World market price of oil determines what is commercially viable to extract.

[Ths]

Always expect the unexpected from the Royal Danish Navy: Dogsleigh cavalry fills very little in other navies manuals.

[Grand Danois]

Always expect the unexpected from the Royal Danish Navy: Dogsleigh cavalry fills very little in other navies manuals.

Wonder if anyone else is doing it...

[Ths]

Grand Danois:

I tend to agree with You on this one: I've had a whale steak that tasted of fish (didn't prepare it properly) - and I definate draw the line well before rotten seal gut.
Whaleskin taste like eraser rubber.

There are wonderfull exception though: Flunder rosted with sprinkle of lemon beats salmon in my view.
And I've had some wonderfull honeymarinaded birdsbreast.
And lamb with homemade cucumber salad.

Sorry I got stated on off topic!

[Grand Danois]

Fish is ok. And some of the whale is ok too.

[Ths]

Why is it that all discussion (no matter what subject) between Australians end up with beer and sports, and Danes end up exchanging recipies??????

[robsta83]

Other than sheila's to serve the food and drink what else is there? ;)

[Ths]

Robsta: Unfortunately the management of this board takes a dim view of highresolution double ended cleavage exhibition, display of profanity repertoire. So we'll have to stay in line.

[Big-E]

Fish is ok. And some of the whale is ok too.

Does whale taste like fish?

[Grand Danois]

Does whale taste like fish?

No it doesn't. Depending on how it is prepared it can taste like beef or like sh...

It does have a more rough texture.

The Faeroese conserve the blubber by salting it. Tastes ok, but I'm not a fan of eating it entirely raw.

[Big-E]

No it doesn't. Depending on how it is prepared it can taste like beef or like sh...

:onfloorl:

Ever had a whale burger?

[Ths]

I does - if is a poor cut, and not prepared properly. Some of the fatty fish oils find their way into whale tissue - especially in species that have a high fish contents in their diet.

The way to avoid it is to leeching it in milk for a day or two - same way you do it to make shark tasty - sharks is due to the high ammonia contents they have in tissue to keep osmotic pressure up - which they need as they have very rudimentary kidneys.

[Grand Danois]

:onfloorl:

Ever had a whale burger?

Never been that hungry, no. ;)

[Ths]

Whale burger? That would need a very,very large bun. But I've seen the accompanying lorry with coca-cola.