A former upper naval commander and several experts in defense have scratched their heads after the recent grocery grocery stores and conservatives of the opposition to give the Rompehielos of the Royal Canadian Navy and the armed breaks to defend the Arctic.
They question the military sensitivity of the construction, possibly at a cost of billions of dollars, one, two or even three 10,000 tons of 10,000 tons or more polar class with weapons and missiles, containers with possibly limited utility that would be vulnerable both to air attack and submarine attack.
“I am baffled, because I do not know what we are trying to achieve apart from the political objective of demonstrating a commitment to Arctic’s sovereignty. Verify. I understand it. However, it must be sensitive and, more importantly, it must be practical,” said the vice -limitic brand withdrawal Norma in a recent interview.
Canada’s defense at the northern end was an issue raised when Prime Minister Mark Carney met with US President Donald Trump in the Oval office on Tuesday. A senior official of the Canadian government said the two leaders spent a lot of time talking about the Arctic.
During the recently concluded federal electoral campaign, the liberals promised to “expand the capacities of the Navy with new submarines and additional heavy breakwells”, while the conservatives were more explicit, saying that they would build two additional polar breakwoods for the military.
If the promise of the militarized large breakers sounds familiar, it is because it was done before. In 2006, the former conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper rode for the power of a promise to build large military breakwinds for the Navy.
Ultimately, the high construction cost and the fact that ships would be useful only four months a year led to the design and creation of Arctic Patrol boats and on the high seas (AOPS), light breaknights that can operate and patrol the three coasts of Canada. The Navy plans to display six AOP and the Coast Guard is expected to receive two.
For Norman, there is a feeling of déjà vu About the renewed debate.
“We went through this same problem in 2007-08 until the 2010-12 term, where we had a government of the day that was quite explicit about what they wanted, but they could not explain why they wanted it,” Norman said.
“I understand it, the government decides. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t make much sense.”
The Coast Guard is usually the home of the unarmed ice fleet of Canada. However, the liberals have promised to rewrite the mandate of the service to perform maritime surveillance and integrate them into the NATO defense capabilities of Canada. If that means assembling them is not clear.
Norman said there must be a clear division of responsibilities between the Navy and the Coast Guard.
“We need to decide what we are trying to achieve. If it is surveillance, there are many other ways to achieve vigilance,” Norman said. “I worry because as soon as we list the things we want to buy, we lose the notion of what we are trying to achieve. And then all the machinery [of government] He focuses on buying something that may or may not make sense. “
Canada, with 18 boats with registered ice, has the second largest number of breakwinds in the world after Russia, which, according to the reports, has 57. And only one of those Russian ships, the Ivan Papanin, is specifically built for combat and has recently entered service. China has a handful of medium -sized breaks in its Navy.
In general, however, the big pink ones, with reinforced helmets and special arches, are good to open distant channels from the north. They are slow and noisy, not exactly qualities you want in a combat container.
‘Offers in Vacuum’
If the objective is surveillance and deterrence at the north end, said Defense Expert Rob Huebert, Canada would be better to serve in submarines with ice capacity.
“If you are really in a shooting conflict, you will discover where the Rompehielos is immediately,” said Huebert. “If you are going to put money into something, put it in a submarine and give it some form of antimile capacity perhaps.”
Wesley Wark, one of the country’s main experts in intelligence and surveillance, said that Canada’s approach to the Arctic must be rooted in what makes sense for the country’s defense, not what is seen well for Americans, especially the current administration that seems not to have a general plan.
“I think it is dangerous for Canadian officials, for the current government, imagine that there is a master plan and try to discover ways in which they can respond to that master plan,” Wark said.
“Because I think that ends up being what I would call offerings to vacuum.”
He pointed out the decision of the Trudeau government to lease the old Black Hawk helicopters for border surveillance after the imposition of Trump administration rates, a decision that Wark described as a political theater.
However, there are those who say that the presence of Canadian ships in the north is essential. The more Canada the flag shows, the better, said Dave Perry, president of Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
“I think it is necessary to have a more significant and more permanent presence throughout our Arctic archipelago,” Perry said in a recent interview.
“That could come in a naval navy navy or a painted boat of the red and white coast guard, as long as it has the ability to significantly increase our presence throughout the territory and help us understand what is happening there.”
