Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg
From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <1386@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 13:34:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1386
Posted: Thu Sep 12 13:34:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 14:10:55 EDT
Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John &)
Distribution: can
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 38

Well, it appears that the Honourable Members have received the message
about demonstrating our ownership of the Great White North.  For those of
you who have not read the Mop and Pail or equivalent, we will be building a
Class 8 icebreaker (i.e., one which can break 8' of new ice) at a cost of
about half a billion dollars.  In the five years that this will take, we
will draw straight baselines and hold naval exercises (but only during the
summer, since we have NO naval icebreakers).

These are all good things, and not even the Loyal Opposition had any valid
complaints to make.  However, it still leaves us without a meaningful
military presence in the arctic.  While (presumably stationary) listening
stations will be established at "choke points", we won't be able to do
anything about what we hear.  One COAST GUARD (not CF) icebreaker will not
be able to get to noisemakers in time, and couldn't do anything if it did
get there.  No, this is not a reversal of my earlier statements: I believe
that our flag-waving ships should be minimally armed, not unarmed.  And I
can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take
on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech.

The answer would seem to be a fleet of diesel subs as small as is
consistent with extended underwater operation.  I retract an earlier
statement: they should NOT be attended by icebreaker mother ships, as the
cost and speed of movement disadvantages would be too great.  Rather, they
should operate out of perhaps two or three strategically placed bases.

For a wild guess, a fleet of four could be built for the cost of our Polar
8 vessel.  (Please - I did NOT say in lieu of!)  This figure was pulled out of
the air, and assumes small, low-tech vessels.  I will see if I can back it
up.  The one obvious special arctic requirement is the ability to cut a
snorkel-hole through thick ice, presumably with a steam- or hot-water jet.

Any comments on a better or cheaper way of doing the job, or even a
question as to whether it needs doing?
-- 

John Hogg
Computer Systems Research Institute, UofT
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!hogg