Polar vessels are often very hard to manoeuvre are pretty terrible at everything else. It the artic likely being essentially ice free (certainly not enough ice for most of the summer to warrant a dedicate summer time icebreaker). I wonder.
It might be cheaper and less risk to be a dedicated polar research ice breaker type vessel. And a normal amphibious ship rather than roll the two duties together and get something not good at either.
Russians are building a LHD type ship. Other options would be smaller beaching ships, which may be more suitable, given stronger hulls etc.
Polar Classes are a sliding scale, the higher the Polar class and the more demanding requirements for Arctic operations which need to be met, and therefore the more extreme the tradeoffs required. GLAM is proposed as a Polar Class 4, which while more than capable of Arctic operations throughout the Summer and Fall months while also into the Spring/Winter to some degree, still isn't specialized to the point of say a Polar Class 3 or 2 heavy icebreaker where operations elsewhere become unduly compromised. Our Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships are designed to operate in the Arctic throughout the Summer and Fall, and are equipped to Polar Class 4/5 standards, they are still able to operate relatively well abroad and have deployed to Japan, Europe, Central America, South America and even down into Antarctica. It is not out of the realm of plausibility that GLAM can have Arctic capability, while still being usable as a sealift and resupply vessel by the RCN elsewhere.
I've stated previously the Arctic is not becoming ice free anytime soon and even in the Summer, icebreakers are required for safe work in many places. Canada already has a huge fleet of icebreakers coming in the future, there really isn't a need for any dedicated polar research icebreakers. We're looking at two PC2 Polar Icebreakers, six PC3 Program Icebreakers, up to sixteen PC4 Multi-Purpose Icebreakers and a total of eight PC4/5 AOPS for the RCN/Coast Guard.
It doesn't make sense for Canada to split this ship into two, when we really don't have a use for a traditional landing ship and something like smaller beaching ships are fundamentally not very workable in the conditions of the Arctic. A Russian LHD in the Arctic is frankly nothing more than a target for the RCAF.
Yes, but Australia has tried different strategies.
Australia was able to get on without amphibious capability of any note for a long time. As we had adopted continental defence. We stay here, and defend the continent. Nothing can touch us. Why worry. We have air superiority over our region, we have F-111 that could make long range strikes against, well anyone, particularly from Butterworth. A 2000lb jdam into window so to speak to quote an Indonesian turn of phrase.
We need to secure our region and our allies, particularly as the US might not be doing that at all. We certainly don't want another mighty powers to interfere into our region, our friends and our affairs. By taking up this space, the US doesn't have to be prevalent and where it is, it can be on our terms and flexible.
East Timor changed that.
The distance from Dilli, East Timor to Sydney is similar to the distance from Caracas, Venezuela to Ottowa. ~100km difference.
If we want the world to reflect in the values that we hold, we have to be able to influence world events.
Again as I stated, Canada and Australia have two deeply different geopolitical and geostrategic environments and thus a lot of the concerns really don't carry over. Australia is isolated into the Pacific away from the vast majority of any capable allies, Canada sits right beside the worlds premier superpower and is heavily integrated with them, while all of our European allies are across the Atlantic. Canada doesn't especially have regional security ambitions past our own territory at home, and the work we do abroad is alongside our various allies. The US will always be prevalent in our spaces, as we share a border and our territories with them by proximity. No major enemies are anywhere near Canada and they also do not have the ability to meaningfully encroach onto our territories. We aren't regional policemen and don't want to take up such a role.
Arctic Archipelago - Wikipedia
I dunno.. Seems like a big bit of territory to just let other people take. A large piece of territory with no amphibious capability. That Greenland space looks, interesting. Exactly how will the Americans determine which parts are Canada, which parts are Denmark and Which parts are the new US territory of Greenland.
You mention going into Europe. Does that include Greenland? Remote areas. What about Canadian interests in the Pacific?
The other aspect about East Timor that was a wild lesson. Is how incapable everyone is without the US logistics and backbone and Command and control. Even if you have 20 willing nations, you need someone to turn up and be that backbone. In SHTF situations, regular logistics and port facilities are often the first to go.
If people want to come into the Canadian Arctic and start taking territory, feel free. The RCAF will be out to bomb you or rescue you, likely both in most scenarios. The Canadian Arctic is an incredibly inhospitable environment with absolutely minimal infrastructure, the price to actually set up a force there to take and hold territory compared to the costs is laughable. The Arctic is largely a self reinforcing protection onto itself and when it needs assistance, we have an entire airforce and especially NORAD to enforce its sovereignty. Even a current US administration will not permit hostile powers to encroach into North America, and the response will be fairly swift.
Being able to land troops and Army resources in the Arctic is of very limited value, as conditions and infrastructure there are not conducive to any type of operation for any length of time, even by specialist forces. Future capabilities like HIMARS with land attack and anti-shipping capabilities can be quickly airlifted via the RCAF, and warships deployed further into the North can assist with sensors and anti-ship/land attack platforms. We do not need amphibious capability to defend the Arctic with the Army, the head of the RCN is largely talking about it for humanitarian and other purposes.
The Army is entirely involved with their large scale deployment to Latvia to square off against Russia, having sealift capability to make sure we have an avenue to move our equipment there on our own timelines is important. I don't see the CAF being particularly interested in Greenland as unlike the Europeans, we have to live with the Americans everyday and the friction likely isn't worth it. Canadian interests in the Pacific are entirely focused around the RCN, with maybe some expeditionary RCAF deployments in the future if required.
www.secretprojects.co.uk
