Now about the north....

The two posts below were, of course, making an assumption that a few people had trouble with:

Alberta would continue to run between 49°N and 60°N latitude, same as before. Only now instead of the eastern border being at 110°W, it would be at 99°W. And the western border would run along the Pacific Ocean (except for the State of Alaska) rather than ending at 120°W or along the Rocky Mountains that existed today. (Bear in mind this map should technically be showing Ontario and beyond, I just needed to crib this map for the purpose of demonstration... of course, ignoring Ontario is a fun side effect of this sort of map making).

So the question arises: what happens if Alberta goes beyond simply taking over Saskatchewan and British Columbia?

Well, the map at the right shows you what it would look like if Yukon and the NWT were absobed into Canada. But what difference(s) would it make?

Well, the obvious one is the air force: covering that extra territory would be a serious drain on the airforce I mentioned in this post. Likewise the armed forces will have to be expanded slightly, with some additional armoured vehicles that are designed for the use in frigid northern climes. Finally, the Royal Alberta Navy would definitely require icebreaker warships such as the kind Stephen Harper has recently discussed -- not to mention additional nuclear submarines. The Marine Corps should be unaffected.

Changes to the Air Force:

  • Rather than 18-23 CTOL F-35A fighters, an even 25 F-35s.
  • An additional fleet of 15 F-16U (F-16 C/D Block 50/52 Plus, similar to the warplanes used by the Danish Air Force. In a simulated battle over Hans Island last year, I read that Canada's CF-18 fleet barely had the range to make it to Hans Island, but also noted that the F-16 has shown itself to be a superior plane in northern operations (typically ground operations, but also low-altitude northern flights). These would be handy to have around. On the other hand, 15 MiG-35s might do the trick instead, but that depends on their cold-weather reliability
  • 25 RQ-1 Predator drones
  • Two additional Raytheon Sentinels
  • One additional A330 refuelling plane
  • A total of 6 H-92 choppers instead of 3-4
  • 12-15 Chinook H3s instead of 8-12

Changes to the Navy:
  • Two Arktika-class icebreakers, both of which would need to be modified to carry an armament package, including deck guns, surface-to-surface missiles, and SAMS
  • Three additional icebreakers, with a small armament package (SAMs only) with helicopter-support capabilites. The Healy, Endurance, or Aurora Australis are models of the sort of ship that would be required (and might require building ourselves)
  • 5 additional Norwegian Ula-class diesel subs for Arctic patrol
  • Three extra Virginia-class subs for a total of 8

Changes to the Army:
  • 25-30 FV 432s instead of 20-25
  • 15 M6 Bradleys instead of 5, and 15 M2A3s instead of 10
  • 30 Patria XA-360s: the Finns developed this vehicle for work up north and we should be prepared to follow suit
  • 20 "Stridsfordon 90" light tanks. CV9030 model seems like a wise idea

So this is the variation if Alberta takes control of the north. The diamonds and the Artic Ocean are included.

So this will require an additional base of operations. Paulatuk seems like the best choice, but Tuktoyaktuk is another useful choice. Tuktoyaktuk is an interesting choice seeing how the DEW line is positioned there. The Beaufort Sea is frozen much of the year, so the naval capacities are reduced. However, a sub pen built there with underwater access would be a handy thing: if its possible. Sub pen information is fairly sketchy: there was one hollowed out of a mountain in Sevastopol, Ukraine; the Americans had one in Florida. Other than them, nothing much about submarine docking ports is known: the potential to build one in the far north is questionable, but definitely worth it.