An RCAF CC-177 took part in Operation Boxtop in early February, open sources confirm

One of the Canadian Forces' yearly operations is #OpBOXTOP, which refuels Canadian Forces Station Alert, and it takes place ~twice a year, using transport aircraft from 8 Wing / Trenton. Since the Government of Canada bought 5 CC-177 Globemaster III heavy transport aircraft (from 2007-2014), they have supplemented the CC-130 Hercules fleet which make frequent flights to CFS Alert. In order to fly in and land the extremely heavy plane, laden with fuel, they have to wait for the ground to be sufficiently frozen to accomodate the extra weight.

On February 11th 2021, Canadian Forces Operations (@CFOperations) published the following message on Twitter.

"From Jan 31 to Feb 5, a @RCAF_ARC CC-177 Globemaster III delivered ~78 000L of DF-8 fuel to Canadian Forces Station Alert to sustain station operations at the northernmost permanently inhabited place on earth! #OpBOXTOP"

-@CFOperations

This caught my eye because the number on the plane pictured is clearly visible, and all the aircraft's timelines should be well defined using open sources. Let's verify the flight history of the CC-177 fleet and figure out which of the five RCAF CC-177 Globemaster IIIs was used in early February to ferry fuel to CFS Alert.

We know Joint Task Force North (JTFN), with a presence in Whitehorse and Yellowknife, will be involved as part of the CFS Alert resupply mission, as would be 440 Transport Squadron, attached to 17 Wing / Winnipeg, but I hadn't noticed previous #OpBOXTOP missions going West, I usually see them fly North from Trenton. 

🇨🇦 Where have the transponders of the #RCAF CC-177 Globemaster III fleet been heard or triangulated, in the past day, by the global #ADSBexchange network of aircraft transponder receivers?

📡https://t.co/27PYR6QgLq

📸 2018-04-12 by @tattuineehttps://t.co/g6YO3dkN8H

— Steffan Watkins 🎙️ (@steffanwatkins) February 8, 2021

The tweet above contains a link which shows you, using the ADSBexchange web page, where all the Canadian Forces CC-177s have been today. Using those same identifiers you can use any aircraft tracking site you like to research their history. Below I provide links to Radarbox, which provides a history of the aircraft which is easily readable, then use ADSBexchange to confirm the data. That's two sources using different networks of physical receivers, ensuring redundancy and accuracy.

Radarbox
177701 (C2B3D7)
177702 (C2AFC7)
177703 (C2B3EB)
177704 (C2B3F5)
177705 (C2B3FF)

ADSBexchange
177701 (C2B3D7)
177702 (C2AFC7)
177703 (C2B3EB)
177704 (C2B3F5)
177705 (C2B3FF)

If you spend the time compiling that data into something usable, you map out the schedule like this; the yellow dates are when #OpBOXTOP's shipments were said to be taking place.

#OpBOXTOP	2021-01-28	2021-01-29	2021-01-30	2021-01-31	2021-02-01	2021-02-02	2021-02-03	2021-02-04	2021-02-05	2021-02-06	2021-02-07	2021-02-08	2021-02-09
177701	CFC3638								Trenton	CFC4044
177702	CFC4001	Trenton											CFC4041
177703	Trenton
177704	CFC4002	Trenton	CFC3646										Trenton
177705	Trenton								CFC4052

From this analysis the only flight that could possibly have been used is CFC3646, but that seemed unusual for #OpBOXTOP because it headed in the wrong direction for CFS Alert, at least for the part of the flight we could track using open-source tools.

On 2021-01-30 ~15:30 Z RCAF CC-177 177704, call sign CFC3646, took off from CFB Trenton

177704 landed at Eielson Air Force Base ~22:45 Z, 2021-01-30

Radarbox independently confirms the data

They departed 2021-01-31 ~02:00Z, and headed in the direction of Whitehorse, YT, not overtly towards Alert, but could have been picking up personnel for the trip.

No additional data was available from RadarBox

177704 doesn't reappear until 2021-02-08, in a direction that looks like they're coming from Yellowknife or Whitehorse, both locations of Forward Operating Locations.

ADSBexchange confirms the findings.

Flights to Alert are common, flights to Alert with the CC-177 are less common, only taking place ~twice a year. Callsigns used are usually CFC85 and CFC86. That information can be found in aircraft incident databases, like this one. 

If we feed those callsigns back into the Radarbox database, we have a list of all the Boxtop missions (and others to Alert, not just Boxtop missions) CFC85 and CFC86 (even CFC87 once)

Here is a flight by 177705 which I believe was an #OpBOXTOP mission flown on 2021-01-04; it's heading in the right direction for Thule or Alert.

Again confirmed by ADSBexchange, CFC85 returned 2021-02-06 as CFC86 (which seems to be routine)

Based on all that flight data I was unconvinced that the flights mentioned went to Alert, not just Yellowknife or Whitehorse; I needed something else to correlate with. What about previous years?

On May 1, 2020, the spring iteration of #OpBOXTOP officially came to a close. Over the past 2 months, CC-177 Globemasters successfully airlifted over 1500 kl of fuel from Yellowknife to Nunavut as part of our biannual mission to bring supplies to CFS Alert. pic.twitter.com/xB6Yw0LLtA

— Canadian Armed Forces Operations (@CFOperations) May 4, 2020

I learned that indeed part of #OpBOXTOP is being flown from Yellowknife to Alert, but I am sure part of the mission has previously been flown in from Thule, Greenland. I'm not sure what principally decides if they're going to fly supplies in from Thule vs Yellowknife, or both. At least I know for next time, and will keep an eye out for an authoritative answer regarding the difference between #OpBOXTOP via Yellowknife, vs via Thule. I still don't know why they went to Alaska along the way, that also seemed unusual to me.

My apologies to @CFOperations for not understanding where the mission was taking place, I had expected them to fly direct from Trenton as they had before. Public affairs do a great job and are frequently under appreciated by the public and the press.

"A Hercules C-130J is being off loaded as a C-177 Globemaster III lands at Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert. Both aircraft carry supplies for the station in support of Operation BOXTOP"

Photo: MCpl Shilo Adamson (April 25, 2012)

IS2012-4006-7

Is HMCS Charlottetown being overhauled in the French Riviera?

HMCS Charlottetown on October 19th 2016 in the Port of Bergen Norway ( loc: 60°24'04.9"N 5°18'36.9"E )

Photo credit (used with permission): Magne Turøy, originally published in nordhordland.no

Last year, on the way to two multinational exercises, the Royal Canadian Navy Iroquois-class destroyer HMCS Athabaskan ran into engine trouble and had a new engine installed while overseas in the UK (ref: here). There has been no Department of National Defence press release (here), and no mainstream media announcement (here) that there is any issue with the HMCS Charlottetown, however, I believe signs point to there being a serious problem with her, and major repairs are likely underway at the French Naval yard in Toulon (arsenal de Toulon).

Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd (@Comd_RCN) posted to Twitter on October 22nd that the HMCS Charlottetown was the vanguard of the mission to escort the Russian Task Group headed to the Mediterranean.  In case you were unaware, the Russian Navy is making a major show of force in the Mediterranean by deploying a sizeable flotilla of ships, and reportedly submarines, in the Mediterranean, and off the coast of Syria. During their transit from the home of the Russian Northern Fleet (Murmansk) to the Mediterranean, a flotilla of NATO ships shadowed them for political as much as military reasons.

BZ CHARLOTTETOWN for brilliant re-deployment across 2 seas in 24 hrs & being in the van of the escort of the Russian Task Group #NATOSTRONG

— VAdm/Vam Ron Lloyd (@Comd_RCN) October 22, 2016

Publicly, an unknown number of NATO ships shadowed the Russian Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Missile Cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov and its flotilla of escorts and auxiliary ships.  However, we may be able to extrapolate what NATO deployed from the evidence they have made available by OSINT / SOMINT sources.

There are two Standing NATO Maritime Groups (SNMGs) which conduct patrols with NATO interests in mind.  The second (SNMG2) is actually split in two parts, and HMCS Charlottetown is the lead ship of "SNMG2 TU02" (Standard NATO Maritime Group 2 Task Unit 2).
SNMG2 TU02 is comprised of three ships:

• Royal Canadian Navy HMCS Charlottetown, Halifax-class frigate
• Royal Danish Navy HDMS Absalon (L16), lead vessel of the Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship
• Spanish Fleet Replenishment Ship SPS Cantabria (A15), a Patino Class Auxiliary Oiler and Replenishment Ship

Since VAdm Lloyd specifically touted the HMCS Charlottetown, commanded by RCN Commander Andrew Hingston, as the vanguard keeping an eye on the Russian carrier task group on the 22nd, and the HMCS Charlottetown left port at Bergen on Oct 19th, I find it extremely interesting that after only ten days at sea, they came into harbour at military port of Toulon, where 60% of the French Navy is stationed, including their aircraft carrier, and nuclear attack submarines.  Toulon is also where heavy refurbishment and dry-dock operations are performed.

As far as I understand, the HMCS Charlottetown, since October 29th, is still in the French Navy port of Toulon.  While I'm sure the crew aboard the ship are very excited about having a vacation in the French Riviera after only ten days at sea, I suspect that wasn't the plan.  I suspect that one of the engines or turbines blew either when it was conducting exercised before going to Bergen, or on the way from Bergen to the Mediterranean, either way, I strongly believe the HMCS Charlottetown is sidelined in Toulon until they can replace whatever major component is needed.

I also suspect that if a turbine or engine is needed that it won't be available in Tulon, and will need to be airlifted from Halifax or Esquimalt which will take time, and a CC-177.  I'm still looking to see if I can find out if a CC-177 flew into the Toulon airport recently, but haven't found any data to confirm or deny.

This is complete conjecture of course, I don't *know* she is undergoing heavy maintenance, but my angle is simple:

• The lead ship of a Task Unit would not sit back while the Danish command vessel stood toe to toe with the Russian flotilla.
• No Navy deployment schedules a stop for this long after only ten days at sea.
• They could have stopped anywhere for fuel or to restock, but they went out of their way to stop at a large military port with full repair facilities.
• The crew are getting shore leave and seeing the local sites, showing they're still there, or have been up until very recently.

These four things together lead me to believe the ship is laid up, and incapable of performing it's job for NATO, at the moment.

Location Data Provided by HMCS Charlottetown AIS beacon transponder: (Zoom out for more)

Russian Open Skies observation flights are doing nothing unexpected over Canada

Canadian crew members performing a flight under the Open Skies Treaty over Russia,
pose next to their C-130H aircraft (29 May 2003)
Credit: OSCE/Unknown Photographer

On the heels of American military leaders and American congressional representatives accusing Russia of conducting espionage under the guise of treaty defined observation flights over the United States, in the most anti-climatic way possible, there are no indications that Russian observation flights over Canada are doing anything outside of what they should be.  The Russians  are observing Canadian military posture, and dual-purpose civilian infrastructure coast to coast, and confirming we're not readying an invasion force, or helping anyone else amass one either.  In fact, all indications suggest the Russians are doing exactly what the Canadians say they do over Russia; observing and reporting on activity that could be suspicious, and base-lining behaviours that aren't suspicious in locations that could be military or have military value.  I strongly suspect the American military leadership and Republicans who are against the Open Skies Treaty are doing so for disingenuous reasons (and my previous blog post about that is here)

Over six months ago I requested all flight plans, mission plans, reports and certifications regarding the Russian flights, and equipment used, over Canada.  The Canadian Department of National Defence will send you a copy of what I received on a CD, if you request it.  Once the file is closed (I'm still arguing a couple of points).  You will be able to search for it here; look for document # A-2015-01490.  The request is currently 392 pages (and 264.1Mb) of reports, mostly text, with some pictures and diagrams.

You're a weirdo; why would you want all that?

Well, Canada is a signatory to the Open Skies Treaty; as are the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Belarus, Russia, etc... Every year the Royal Canadian Air Force flies observation missions, using wet film photography, and a CC-130 Hercules, over Russia, and potentially other signatory states.  Really tho, it's mostly Russia.  Russia reciprocates by flying their Tu-154M Lk-1 Open Skies aircraft over to Canada, and conducting observation flights of their own with RCAF representation on the flight.

I wondered, since I'm Canadian, and feel our air-photographable military activity is rather boring, what could they possibly be taking pictures of? So, I filed an Access to information and Privacy request with DND requesting the documents that are are mandated by the treaty.  Until now, no details have been available about Russia's overflights Canada conducted under the treaty; the information was labelled "TREATY SENSITIVE INFORMATION", and some of the documentation was classified "NATO RESTRICTED" (NR).

From this ATIP request, we know there have been ten Open Skies overflights performed by the Russian Federation over Canada between 2002 and 2014 (inclusive). There was an 11th overflight in December 2015, but that was outside of the scope of my request, since I made my request in November.

When and where were these overflights, and what were they looking at?

The following are the arrival dates, departure dates, official Open Skies flight reference numbers, and relative order of flights  While the treaty was implemented in 2002, the Russians were unable to fly over Canada until they had a certified plane that could fly the extended distances over Canada (and the US) in 2004.

Arrival Departure     Reference ##
2004.09.07 2004.09.11 OS-04-022 01
2006.10.26 2006.10.31? OS-06-035 02
2007.03.08 2007.03.13? OS-07-004 03
2008.05.24 2008.05.29 OS-08-016 04
2009.10.28 2009.11.03 OS-09-041 05
2010.05.16 2010.05.21 OS-10-012 06
2011.06.05 2011.06.09 OS-11-012 07
2012.06.25 2012.06.30 OS-12-018 08
2013.06.15 2013.06.20 OS-13-020 09
2014.10.13 2014.10.18 OS-14-032 10

This confirms that Russia is over flying Canada almost yearly, but where are they going, and what are they taking pictures of? This is where things get very difficult for me to convey, because the data sent to me from my Access to Information and Privacy request is full of coordinates and locations, but none of them are in text; each page has been reproduced as an image, probably due to paranoia about disclosing metadata. I would like to map out the route digitally on Google Maps and SHOW you where they went, but for now I'll just tell you some of the locations which were highlighted in the formerly NATO Restricted after-mission reports.  At about 5000Km per flight, the Russian Open Skies flights cover a lot of ground.  The overflights clearly targeted many sites, such as...

(Former) Pinetree Line Long Range Radar Stations

I'm thrilled to see the Russians are photographing old Cold War Pinetree Line sites; we have some common interests!  If you think aerial photography of a decommissioned Cold War site is a pretty ridiculous idea, think of it this way; from a Russian military point of view, why wouldn't we re-use those places for new bases?  They are already levelled, most still have access to rail and highways, they have power nearby,  telecom, etc.. From my Russian research I can tell you many of their old Soviet-era military bases have been re-purposed and are still military bases - I speculate they figure we'd do the same.

Canadian Chemical and Biological Weapons Research Facilities

The Russians also overflew Suffield, Alberta, where the Defence Research and Development Canada Suffield Research Centre is located and the Canadian National Single Small-Scale Facility (SSSF) is located; where Canada keeps it's small amount of Schedule 1 Chemical weapons, that are allowed under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), for research purposes.  Examples of Schedule 1 Chemical weapons are: VX, Sarin, Ricin, Mustard gas...  I can't find record of having Bio-safety Level 4 (BSL 4) pathogens stored there, but Bio-safety Level 3 (BSL 3) pathogens are.

CFAD Dundurn, CFAD Angus, CFAD Rocky Point, and CFAD Bedford

They checked up on all of our Canadian Forces Ammunition Depots, coast to coast.  I would think that was fairly predictable, since activity at those sites would indicate we were getting ready to move weapons somewhere.  Also, good pictures of those facilities might provide clues as to what kinds of ammunition we are storing at some of those sites.

Signals Intelligence Stations?

Between Masset, Leitrim, Gander, and Alert I only see overflights and pictures of Leitrim; maybe with additional analysis of their flight plans I can determine if Masset and/or Gander were also photographed.  They did not fly all the way to Alert, nor do I expect they will, since it would take a long time to get there, and they might overshoot their treaty defined maximum distance. Plus, like Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, the Russians can "see" Alert from their side of the Arctic.

Some Republicans in the United States Congress, factions within the US State Department, and some senior members of the US Military want the American people, and NATO allies, to believe that the Russian Open Skies Treaty overflights are being abused by the Russians, used as an intelligence gathering apparatus, spying on civilian infrastructure without any military merit.  These forces in the government and military ultimately want the program shut down.  To those who would believe them, I say - Well of course they're gathering intelligence; that's the whole purpose. Intelligence on whether industrial areas are being militarized would signal an uptick in military hardware production.  Intelligence on rail and road networks to see if they are being used to transport large amounts of military gear.  Intelligence on uranium mining and processing facilities, to see if production might signal the fabrication elsewhere of nuclear weapons.  Intelligence on Canadian military ammunition depots, bases, and all sorts of military facilities would show a direct correlation to preparations for deployments.  These are the things that are shown to be getting photographed; we should expect it, and welcome it, because we do the same thing over Russia.

Transportation

Let's take the railway as an example of civilian Infrastructure they are likely observing and taking pictures of.  Canadian rail is privately (civilian) owned, and stretches coast to coast.  It is used for everything; wheat from the prairies, bulk chemicals, oil from Alberta, cars from Southern Ontario, Aluminium from Quebec, freight from everywhere.... oh, and heavy military equipment.  While the Canadian rail system could be called civilian infrastructure, it certainly isn't something they'd want to skip when photographing Canada - that's how he armies of the world usually ship their gear!


Is this an example of the "infrastructure" the Americans promoting the new Red Scare want you to be afraid of the Russians photographing?  If you study history at all you'll notice almost anything civilian becomes a military asset during a war, or during the preparations for war.  Monitoring "infrastructure" is very much in-line with the spirit of the treaty, if you consider what preparing for war would look like.  Civilian factories can start pumping out green trucks and weapons.  Vehicles being moved around by rail could be getting deployed to harbours for trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific deployments.  Green trucks parked in parking lots could be waiting for supplies.  Air bases could be preparing planes for operations... anything goes.  Furthermore; how would you know if something was or wasn't out of the ordinary? You'd need a baseline; pictures "before" suspected preparations started, to compare with.  Nowhere in almost 400 pages of reports and flight plans did I see any mention by the Canadian Forces Arms Control Verification team that any of these flights by the Russians were out of character for an Open Skies overflight.  Maybe they missed that detail?  I think that would be unlikely.  The mission reports are extremely detailed; including the mention of walking tours in Ottawa on the Russians' day off, a tour of Kingston on a rain-day at Trenton, and how they very much appreciated the accommodations and food they were provided during their stay.  While the American military would like us to believe these are the Boogeymen, and increase defence spending for this grave threat, I see no indication of any suspicion or apprehension in any of these reports, written by the Canadian Forces, and distributed to our NATO partners, which would back that narrative up.

Use commercial satellite imagery, they said.  It's good enough, they said.

The American military would like the people of the world to believe that commercial satellite imagery would be good enough for the signatory nations who are part of the Open Skies Treaty to rely upon, and use it for national security verification purposes. Doing so would raise a major problem that strangely hasn't come up in the Congressional meetings so frequently quoted in the American media; tampering.  The Open Skies Treaty defines a framework of tamper-proof cameras and procedures for handling wet film that ensure no tampering by any nation can take place; a representative of the overflown country is even present while the wet film is processed.  The same cannot be done with commercial satellite imagery.  Considering the budget of world's intelligence agencies, not just the American ones, it is inconceivable that they would be unable to tamper with the digital imagery before, or after, they are downloaded to a satellite ground terminal.  You can also be assured that the American National Reconnaissance Office, who have spent untold Billions on spy satellites, will not be using that commercial imagery for anything at all.

Reciprocity

What isn't spoken of very much is we do the exact same thing back at them; The United States, Canada, and other Western-aligned nations routinely fly over Russia and take pictures of the same types of facilities as they do to us.  Don't we all have the same objectives, and aren't we looking for the same things?  The Open Skies Treaty is as relevant today as when Ike proposed it originally, and former Republican President George HW Bush revived in 1989.  I propose that factions of the US Government and US Military are deliberately trying to mislead the American people, and those of the world, into believing the treaty is no longer of any use.  I don't believe their arguments hold up under scrutiny, but I have yet to see anyone ask questions which are critical of the positions of the Admirals and Generals who are trying to destroy the treaty.  Why is that?

The Royal Canadian Navy upgraded to Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles. Hooray?

Naval Ensign of Canada
-Wikipedia

The Royal Canadian Navy put out a very interesting press release last week.  I spend more time looking at Russian naval movements and their ships that our own, so this proved very enlightening.

Royal Canadian Navy marks first-ever missile test against shore-based targets
April 8, 2016 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
HMCS Vancouver made history recently as it became the first modernized Canadian frigate to successfully test surface-to-surface missiles against a shore-based target, utilizing the Harpoon Block II surface-to-surface missiles.
This is the first time in history the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has exercised such a surface-to-surface missile launch capability. The launches were part of a Joint Littoral Training Exercise (JoLTEX.)
JoLTEX 16 is a training exercise that was recently completed by the RCN at a United States Navy missile firing range off the coast of California. The Exercise was held from March 30 to April 1, 2016.

(whole press release here)

I admit I had no idea that any Harpoon anti-ship missile *could* strike shore based targets, but I guess a ship-to-shore missile is a new capability, and a distinguishing feature between the old variants of the Harpoon and the new Block II.  What about the deck gun? According to Wikipedia the deck gun "is a 57 mm 70 Mark 3 gun from Bofors. The gun is capable of firing 2.4 kg shells at a rate of 220 rounds/min at a range of more than 17 km. The Bofors is a multi-purpose weapon usable against surface and air targets. The 57 mm main gun has limited ship-to-shore bombardment capability."  As I haven't looked very closely at the Canadian Navy armament before, this surprised me as well.  I was unaware we has such a (relatively) small gun on our largest naval vessels; heresy you say? Let me elaborate.  The Russian Navy (1962 design) Kashin-class Destroyer has a multitude of armaments, including two twin 76 mm guns.   But a destroyer is usually bigger than a Frigate; so to compare apples-to-apples, the Russian frigates are the Krivak-class, Neustrashimyy-class and the new Admiral Grigorovich-Class - all of which have more, and bigger, deck-guns.  I'm sure I've drawn the ire of many Royal Canadian Navy fans, but now that I'm looking closer at the armament of our flagship-class, I'm rather horrified.  Yes, I understand it isn't just the size of the gun; it's how you use it.  But I'm getting off topic.

Libya
Credit: Google Maps

I think it's great that Canada now has the capability to "reach out" and hit land-based targets (at least) ~124 km away with the Halifax-Class frigates.  Those frigates already had the launchers for the Harpoon Anti-Ship missile, so this new capability doesn't add any significant weight or space (which is always at a premium onboard a ship).  It makes me wonder though, ~124 km isn't very far when you consider ship of this size likely wants to stay away from shore to avoid anti-ship missiles itself, unguided rockets, or drawing artillery fire - as Saudi Arabia has tragically learned off the coast of Yemen recently. Meaning, if Canada wanted to strike at a group of insurgents from the sea, it might have permission from a National government (as might be the case with Libya), or it might not (Syria?).  If a Halifax-class frigate was striking from outside a territorial limit, would it be 22Km or 44Km away from shore?  Either way, it reduces the inland strike range to ~80-100 km.  If we look at Libya as an example of a State where the reach of a Harpoon Block II might come in handy, you'll notice most of the country is inland.  While the Harpoon II might be able to strike targets in the coastal cities (as deep inland as Garyan), the rest of the country would be out of reach.  Don't we need cruise missiles if we're going to get into ship-to-shore strikes?

Range of Harpoon II
Credit: Google Maps

The US Navy and Russian Navy have cruise missiles which have an significantly longer range.  The US Tomahawk can reach between 1300-2500 km depending on the variant.  The Russian (Калибр) Kalibr variants have a similar range, and were used to strike Syrian targets from Russian Navy ships in the Caspian Sea (a 1500 km flight).  But aren't cruise missiles more expensive than the Harpoon Block II?  They're about the same cost; in the area of $1.5M each.

Range of Russian Kalibr Cruise Missile
Credit: Google Maps

Let's look at range again, in Canadian terms that Canadians can visualize.  A Halifax-Class ship in the Royal Canadian Navy can fire it's Harpoon Block II missile across Nova Scotia from the Halifax Harbour.  Impressive!

A Russian Navy Ship or Submarine, armed with their new cruise missiles, might be able to hit Winnipeg from Halifax.  That's a little more impressive, and a little frightening.

So, why did we upgrade our Harpoon to the Harpoon Block II?  Well, the Harpoon was originally fielded in 1977.  The Harpoon II, while not the most recent block, has undergone a significant set of improvements, and performs better than it's predecessor. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have upgraded them, but maybe we need to look at what we have in the end; what can the Halifax-class Frigate accomplish, compared to other warships of the world?  Was this refit worth the money spent?

Canadian Forces smuggling illegal arms into Northern Iraq? Not exactly.

The Mediterranean. 6 September 2014
A technician signals a CC-130J Hercules aircraft to stop on an airfield during Operation IMPACT
in the Mediterranean on September 6, 2014.
(Photo: MCpl Patrick Blanchard, Canadian Forces Combat Camera)
(Used without Permission)

This is a first; I've never felt any compulsion to post anything about Canadian Forces' OP Impact; the Canadian contribution against ISIS/ISIL/IS.  However, November 7th there was a buzz on the Twitterverse about the Iraqi Ministry of Defence claiming they caught both a Canadian Forces and Swedish Armed Forces cargo flights with "illegal" weapons aboard, insinuating they were smuggling them to Kurdish forces in Northern Iraq - a no-no, especially when the Iraqi Government is supposed to be our friend. (ref: http://mod.mil.iq/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1738 )

Specifically there were silenced weapons aboard the plane that were not on the shipping manifest, and therefore considered by the local Iraqi General at the Martyr Mohammad Alaa-air base to be contraband, and worthy of confiscating.  It seems the Canadian Forces crew didn't agree, and the CC-130 Hercules transport stayed for four days (October 28 - October 31) before being allowed to fly back to Kuwait.

Further reports arose that the planes were carrying light and medium weapons destined for Northern Iraq, but the ones that were objectionable were silenced "MP4" sub-machineguns.  Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an MP4; there is an H&K MP5, and a Colt M4 carbine (Colt Canada C8SFW); both of which could come in a silenced variant.  I'm guessing the objectionable silenced weapons were MP5s, as they were referred to as "pistols" not "rifles", and the M4 looks (to me) like it would be called a rifle before it would be called a pistol.

From what I gather, all flights to Northern Iraq need to stop in Baghdad for an inspection and to confirm the manifest fits the cargo that's being transported.  The Iraqi government still isn't cool with the Kurds up North having their own independent state, but they are both pretty busy fighting ISIS/ISIL/IS at the moment, so they are too busy to fight each other (good).

KAC MP5-SD / silencertalk.com

Besides the fact this was a little embarrassing, and gave Canada a black mark momentarily as an arms smuggler, it seems cooler heads prevailed and our diplomats have made up; we're friends again, and the arms that were turned away will fly on through to our JTF2 team in Northern Iraq, as they should have initially.  I guess a local Iraqi General was flexing his muscles, and without the right forms he made a stink insinuating the arms were going to the Kurds, and they don't want the Kurds to have silencers.

So what happened really?  Who knows, but I have a guess.  JTF2 was sent last year to Northern Iraq to act in an advisory capacity, and NOT be involved in toe-to-toe fighting with ISIS/ISIL/IS.  We can assume that their mission has changed (mission creep), and they are planning for close quarters fighting, maybe a rescue mission or something on the horizon.  To do that, they want their favourite bits of close quarters kit from back home; like the silenced H&K MP5.  If this cargo flight was scheduled months in advance, this might have been a last minute "just throw it in the back", after all, it's only EIGHT sub-machine guns.  Given that these silenced MP5s are being sent to our forces in Northern Iraq it's safe to assume they have an operational need for them (ie, kicking in doors).  The official excuse from one of the Kurdish officials was they are training Kurds near towns and don't want to spook the locals with loud sounds, so they needed silenced weapons.  If you believe that, well... good luck.

2015.11.10 Update: The Ottawa Citizen and Toronto Star have FINALLY picked up this story (still with no in-depth analysis), and CBC still hasn't touched it.  Incredible.

NRT / Nalia Media Corporation (Nov 3)
http://www.nrttv.com/EN/Details.aspx?Jimare=4011
Voice of Iraq (Nov 3)
http://www.sotaliraq.com/newsitem.php?id=304769#axzz3qqBCKTJp
Iraqi Ministry of Defense Press Release (Nov 6)
http://www.mod.mil.iq/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1737
Iraqi Ministry of Defense Press Release (Nov 7)
http://mod.mil.iq/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1738
Swedish Press (Nov 7)
http://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/uppgifter-svensk-vapentransport-stoppad-i-irak
Ottawa Citizen (Nov 9)
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/iraqis-sieze-canadian-forces-aircraft-accuse-military-of-moving-weapons-to-kurds-without-permission
Toronto Star (Nov 10)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/10/canadian-military-plane-detained-in-iraq-for-several-days-defence.html

DND CANADA - GENERATOR SET - GASOLINE ENGINE [ PU-5025/U ]

I made a new acquisition that I can't find a lot of information about.  It seems like it's a 1970s 28 Volt, DC, 17.9 Amp, 500W generator powered by a 1 cylinder, two stroke, gas engine, with a rip-cord pull start (not recoil!).  This seems very similar to the US Department of Defense MEP-024A, but you can see from the diagrams it's slightly different.  Searching for all variations of the part numbers on  the label has yielded surprisingly little.  YouTube video has found some videos of similar, but not identical, rigs.

Since this only puts out 28 VDC @ 17.9 AMPS (0.5 KW), and from what related equipment I found with it's NSN, I'm pretty sure this rig would have been used to power auxiliary equipment like signals / communications gear.  I believe it would be called a "tactical" generator set, as it's portable.

DND CANADA

GENERATOR SET - GASOLINE ENGINE

NSN: 6115-21-872-5718     |     PU-5025/U

SER.NO.: 

MFR: AIRCRAFT APPLIANCES & EQPT. LTD     |     MOD: MG 0528

CONTR.NO.: 2PF76-00010

KW: 0.5     |     RPM: 3600

VOLTS: 28 VDC     |     AMPS: 17.9

ENG: MOTOSACOCHE     |     MOD: 1006-SRBX9

LG: 22 1/2     |     WIDTH: 15 1/2     |     HEIGHT: 18 1/2     |     WT: 95LBS