Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Military Developing Stealth Snowmobile

innocent_white_lamb writes "The Canadian military is currently testing a $620,000 hybrid-electric stealth snowmobile. Testing includes speed, towing capacity, endurance, mobility, usability, and of course, noise emissions. The testing and most other information about the stealth snowmobile is secret and very little information has been released other than the fact that it does exist. One document reads 'The noise level of an internal combustion engine cannot be reduced to an acceptable level for missions where covertness may be required, especially given the increased propagation of sound in cold, dry, Arctic air.' Therefore, National Defence's research agency is 'pursuing the development of a "silent" snowmobile for winter operations in Canada, specifically in the Arctic.' Michael Byers, an Arctic policy expert, questions the need for a stealth snowmobile. 'I don't see a whole lot of evidence that criminals and terrorists are scooting around Canada's North on snowmobiles and that we have to sneak up on them,' he said."

187 comments

  1. Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch out! I hear their hockey sticks will be killer!

    1. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, we are already working on a defense, called global warming.

    2. Re:Canada soon invades the US by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      i know more than a few hundreds fellow canadians that would love the opportunity to burn your white house down again

      Don't flatter yourself. That was the British, who were your masters.

    3. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who were your masters.

      still are our masters tyvm,

    4. Re:Canada soon invades the US by gagol · · Score: 1

      Not really, no. The Queen have a delegate who have no power what-so-ever and is subject to very strict budget control, even if disabled.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    5. Re: Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but he also is privy to almost all communications in the house of commons. I'm sure phone calls could be made.

    6. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't masters, they were just one nation at the time.

      The correct response is that was people who lived two hundred years ago. Odds are high that none of them were his ancestors or ever met his ancestors.

    7. Re:Canada soon invades the US by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The Queen [has] a delegate who [has] no power what-so-ever...

      So how does the Canadian system handle a double dissolution? - Not saying you're wrong, I'm genuinely interested because here in Oz it's the job of the Queen (as represented by the GG) to force a new general election should one be required to break a budgetary deadlock. Surely you don't use the idiotic government IOU's the US uses to work around the occasional budgetary deadlocks brought on by zealous ideologues staring each other down in the house and senate?

      Note that the Aussie GG is appointed by the Aussie parliament and rubber-stamped by the Queen. The prime-minister has the (on paper) power to sack him/her without notice or reason, so the power is not solely invested in either the GG or the PM. However it is virtually a political impossibility for a PM to sack the GG in a double dissolution situation and then fail to immediately call a general election. The accepted protocol for a double dissolution is to give the PM ample opportunity to call an election before contemplating sacking him and installing a caretaker government. Any PM willing to go as far as sacking the GG to hold onto power would almost certainly lose their job in a no-confidence vote, either in their own caucus, in the house of reps, or in the next election.

      At the end of the day the Queen is a ceremonial head of state in Australia, she has one very specific political duty of any consequence, the role of a non-partisan "umpire" in the rare cases where the senate has rejected the government's budget at least twice in a row (aka: "blocked supply").

      More than a few of our mates in the US cannot wrap their head around the 'ceremonial' qualifier but most of the commonwealth can see the difference and actually strongly prefer it to a US style republic. Thing is, US politics is so ubiquitous in the mass media that until the recent round of revolving PM's in Australia, many Aussies firmly believed they voted for a PM in the same way that the US votes for a president, in fact I'm sure there's more than a handful of Aussies that still hold that misconception.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Canada soon invades the US by gagol · · Score: 1

      For respect with traditions, we do the same. However we rapatriated ALL constitutional rights in 1982.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    9. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know more than a few hundreds fellow canadians that would love the opportunity to burn your white house down again

      Judging from the amount of education you've demonstrated, you're lucky if you can dress yourself in the morning.

      Remember something Canadians, you exist only because the US allows it. When your utility is diminished or gone, you might find yourselves cleansed from the land and new tenants coming over the border for your precious oil, timber, and water. You can keep your mad cows, however.

    10. Re:Canada soon invades the US by flyneye · · Score: 1

      This will be handy for going to war with Moose.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember something Canadians, you exist only because the US allows it. When your utility is diminished or gone, you might find yourselves cleansed from the land and new tenants coming over the border for your precious oil, timber, and water. You can keep your mad cows, however.

      If Canada stopped supplying the US with oil the US economy and society would collapse within two weeks. Even the strategic oil reserve cannot meet the medium-term demand and the Middle East via their al Qaeda sympathizers in Washington would welcome the opportunity to boost the profits in their private bank accounts.

      Captcha: torches (appropriate)

    12. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know more than a few hundreds fellow canadians that would love the opportunity to burn your white house down again

      Judging from the amount of education you've demonstrated, you're lucky if you can dress yourself in the morning.

      Remember something Canadians, you exist only because the US allows it. When your utility is diminished or gone, you might find yourselves cleansed from the land and new tenants coming over the border for your precious oil, timber, and water. You can keep your mad cows, however.

      Plus the U.S. is full of religious nutbags with guns. They are just like the worshipers of the Ori in Stargate.

    13. Re:Canada soon invades the US by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The Queen have [sic] a delegate who have [sic] no power what-so-ever

      Incorrect. A recent example is BC's Lieutenant Governor Lam, who stated he would have removed Premier van der Zalm from office, had van der Zalm not resigned.

      During a recent federal election, when the polls suggested a possible NDP / Liberal coalition the question was raised to to whom the Governor General would select as Prime Minister - The minority house leader, or the coalition leader. The GG would, in effect, select Her Majesty's Prime minister.

    14. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Judging from the amount of education you've demonstrated, you're lucky if you can dress yourself in the morning.

      Remember something Canadians, you exist only because the US allows it

      This from someone whose entire nation only exists because the French allowed it.

    15. Re:Canada soon invades the US by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      > Not saying you're wrong

      He is wrong:

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4102779&cid=44606969

    16. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes its not worth trying to "one up" someone. If they want to believe that Canada exists because the US allows it, let them...

    17. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who didnt do so well last time they went to war with Canada (no matter what the US history books make up^h^h^h^h^h^h^h say).

    18. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Holmwood · · Score: 1

      That's silly stuff. I am a firm Canadian nationalist, but the idea that we hold the US to ransom when it comes to oil is ludicrous (and thankfully so). True, their SPR is a mere 100 days or so at peak capacity, but that's more than your two weeks, and that's completely ignoring their ability to bring new domestic and international resources on line and use pricing if they were blockaded.

      The idea that Canadians' cutting off supply could cripple the US in 2 weeks is beyond silliness. True, cutting the US off would cause the US to pay great attention to us, though not necessarily in a good way. But keep in mind Canada would suddenly be deprived of 80%+ of her exports, since the US would surely retaliate. If we said 'F U USA' during a cold winter (which a great many Canadians would disagree with, for we tend to regard the US as close relatives, albeit annoying ones) do you serious believe the USA would not retaliate?

    19. Re:Canada soon invades the US by gagol · · Score: 1

      Ok, I am in Quebec. It may well be different around here. And yes, I can be wrong.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    20. Re:Canada soon invades the US by Optali · · Score: 1

      van der Zalm?

      hebben jullie geen eigen politici en moeten deze vanuit Nederland importeren?
      Is er misschien nog een plekkie vrij voor me? zo iets als Minister van financiën zou me goed bevallen...

      Stuur me een email als jullie geïnteresseerd zijn!

      Groeten uit Holland (Noord-Holland, hoor, het echte dus)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  2. They did the impossible! by Dj+Stingray · · Score: 5, Funny

    Step 1.

    Paint it white.

    Step 2.

    Have a beer eh!

    1. Re:They did the impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian Military it self being as stealthy as can be, anything it makes should be stealthy, no?

    2. Re:They did the impossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada FUCK YEAH!

  3. Three Canadians are in a boat fishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of them falls in and sinks. Another one goes in and pulls him back into the boat and starts giving him mouth-to-mouth. He stops and says "Phew! I don't remember Stosh smelling this bad!". And the other one says, "Yeah, and I don't remember him wearing a snowmobile suit, either."

    1. Re:Three Canadians are in a boat fishing by AJWM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not entirely unbelievable. A dive buddy of mine was doing some part time commercial dive work. One spring he was helping inspect the cooling water intakes for a steam plant in downtown Ottawa, near the river. Guess what he found up against one of the gratings. Yeah, a guy who'd gone through the ice on a snowmobile that winter.

      Put him right off diving for a while, it did.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Three Canadians are in a boat fishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or one of those trying to do those snowmobile water skipping stunts? See plenty of those on youtube - successful and unsuccessful.

    3. Re:Three Canadians are in a boat fishing by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      He found it grating, eh?

    4. Re:Three Canadians are in a boat fishing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Back in the 60's large storm water grates in my little part of Oz were not padlocked, as kids we used to ride our bikes through miles of roughly 6' diameter bone dry storm drains, it was great fun to us at the time and a cool place to escape the summer heat. I shudder to think what would have happened if a summer storm had sprung up on the nearby mountains while we were underground. Padlocks did appear a couple of years after the drain was installed and killed off our new summer sport. Not sure what prompted the locks, I didn't read much news as a 8yo :) Maybe some kid was not as lucky as my friends and I, or maybe it was just an inquisitive parent with half a brain?.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. Tonight on Top Gear by Velex · · Score: 3, Funny

    I attempt to cross Nunavut in a Range Rover. Captain Slow takes a rather novel approach. And Hammond uses a state of the art stealth /snow mobile/. Tonight on Top Gear. *cue theme*

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    1. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Funny

      And then halfway through they completely fake the snowmobile failing and spend the rest of the episode poo pooing it over something that never actually happened.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by Velex · · Score: 1

      Nicely played, sir.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    3. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it like to suck Elon Musk's cock? Do you get half way in then get freaked out, thinking, "What a minute. His name is Elon...." or do you slurp all the way to the finish and wipe your chin, saying, "Mmmm.... best South African I ever tasted."?

      Why don't you tell us?

    4. Re: Tonight on Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you have a lot of experience sucking on the top gear hosts' dicks so why don't you tell us?

    5. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      wipe your chin, saying, "Mmmm.... best South African I ever tasted."?

      I find your implication that connoisseur status be awarded those fond of fellatio to be enlightening. Perhaps making possible reality TV mashups where sex acts are constructed and sampled a-la Iron Chef. Oh sure, like any porn, it's all staged... That's the point though isn't it? Illuminating that vehicle porn is just as hokey as slice-of-life porn (reality TV), or any other such media with the label of porn.

      See also: Geek Porn, like Myth Busters... Who's faux science is more fun to watch than anything. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not kid ourselves here.

      Or, perhaps you mean to liken a blow job to a form of praise... Ah yes, that does explains a few priestly pedophiles, though the victims never quite share the same vantage point of worship as the deranged who cause such acts. Now, that's not to say you've the mentality of a pedophile, but since we're making the analogies so fast and loose I'd say it's hard not to make the shoe fit.

    6. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, for proving that Linux zealots are socially awkward.

    7. Re:Tonight on Top Gear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh HAH! now I know what happened to Job's RDF after he shuffled off!

  5. Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Snufu · · Score: 2

    Commies to her right, stealth snowmobiles to her left. Does DEFCON go to 11?

    1. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, but her IQ does.

    2. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If I'm mistaken, Sarah Palin is in Alaska. That would put the Commies (Russian, I guess China more recently) on her left, and the stealth snowmobile on her right. I guess that's assuming she's facing north. But as far as maps go, that's usually the way things are oriented.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The tragic fact is, Sarah quit and went away; "you betcha. 8D"

    4. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I just can't understand why it's so fashionable among Lefties to hate on her.

      If she did something bad I would understand. Is that what pisses you off? That there's no real skeleton in her closet? Like you've been cheated out of a REAL reason to hate her so you have to make them up? Maybe it makes you feel superior? I just don't get it.

      What did she do to you to earn your ire?

    5. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      No, but her IQ does.

      No, it doesn't. How she retained enough brains to keep breathing is beyond me.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > I just can't understand why it's so fashionable among Lefties to hate on her.

      Her family is the kardashians of national politics.

      Really hard working (yes the kardshasians work their asses off behind the scenes for their little empire), trades mostly on their looks and completely empty-headed when it comes to anything besides the pursuit of fame and fortune.

      Palin does deserve credit for (mostly) putting the oil companies back in their box in Alaska. They were taking obscene advantage of public natural resources before she came into office. With the Murkoswskis out, Palin reduced that exploitation to nearly reasonable levels. But once that was handled she had nothing left to do, so idle hands and all that...

    7. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Ya see??? That's "what's wrong with this country these days", tards can't tell the difference between "hating on" retards and "making fun" of retards.

    8. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Y-Crate · · Score: 3, Informative

      Commies to her right, stealth snowmobiles to her left. Does DEFCON go to 11?

      DEFCON 11 would be a state of peaceful tranquility unlike anything the world has seen since the dawn of humanity.

      You're looking for DEFCON 1.

    9. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that's being rather generous

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by BForrester · · Score: 1

      Considering that DEFCON counts *down* as danger becomes more imminent, level 11 (comatose) probably applies in her case.

    11. Re: Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean self-hatred, right?

    12. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Yes, and Sarah Palin would bite, hook line and sinker.

      DEFCON 11: Let's disband the U.S. military! We could start with the NSA.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong is too many people think it's cool to make fun of "retards".

    14. Re:Has Sarah Palin been alerted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you got your right and left backwards, and DEFCON gets worse as it counts down, not up. As usual, when liberals make fun of a conservative being stupid they look dumber. Hey, why not finish off with some Down's Syndrome jokes to prove what a caring individual you are?

  6. Snow Mobile by Meoshewu24 · · Score: 1

    I hope the Mounties gets first dibs!

    1. Re:Snow Mobile by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Easier than breeding stealth horses...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  7. Cross Country Skiing by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    has been used for arctic warfare for hundreds of years as a cheap, effective way of stealthily moving a snowy environment. Hopefully the stealth sled won't ruin those capabilities.

    1. Re:Cross Country Skiing by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      has been used for arctic warfare for hundreds of years as a cheap, effective way of stealthily moving a snowy environment. Hopefully the stealth sled won't ruin those capabilities.

      Presumably they want something faster and with greater cargo capacity(with the expensive-but-punchy missiles you can get these days, a tank-killer wouldn't be out of the question), or with better margins for the contractor. Maybe both.

    2. Re:Cross Country Skiing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Plus, you can tow 10 skiers behind a snowmobile. And a dog team seems to meet most of your requirements. Depending on the size of missile you can strap to a dog.

    3. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Arker · · Score: 1

      Arctic troops have been dragging anti-tank weapons around on sleds since... well the first time the Russians showed up in Finland with tanks. In the winter war they used a 20mm lahti which weighs about 150lbs with a few rounds of ammo on the sled. Modern anti-tank missile systems like the Spike weigh in the same class or less, and arctic troops are already familiar with transporting them on sleds.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    4. Re:Cross Country Skiing by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dunno if you have any experience pulling an ahkio sled for several miles with a squad in rucks and overwhites, but it freaking SUCKS. Tennis rackets or white rockets, it doesn't matter, it is an awful experience. There has been no experience in my life (which has experienced some exhausting things) that made me more exhausted.

      When some Canadian "Arctic policy expert" opines that no one needs a small, quiet, efficient prime mover because of a lack of "terrorists", I am reminded why no one asks "Arctic policy experts" about military matters. Same reason I don't ask soldiers about environmental policy.

    5. Re:Cross Country Skiing by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Plus, you can tow 10 skiers behind a snowmobile. And a dog team seems to meet most of your requirements. Depending on the size of missile you can strap to a dog.

      In Soviet Russia, if you have the dog and the warhead you can skip the missile...

    6. Re:Cross Country Skiing by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      The Fin's used bicycles to the regret of the oncoming Russians.

    7. Re:Cross Country Skiing by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Cross-country skiing also takes a fair amount of training and practice, and there are going to be times when somebody you need on your team doesn't have either the skill or the time to learn it. Having some quiet way to get them where they need to be sounds like a good idea.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      It's not snow-related, but the Japanese used Lots of bicycles to move infantry quickly through certain parts of Asia

    9. Re:Cross Country Skiing by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. I was a hired mercenary for the dark ubergovernment of illuminati jews involved in countless illegal wars to advance the agenda of... i forget who. they gave us this big briefing and explained it all but they lost me when they started talking about how the CIA / Kennedys was trying to kill all the Christians AND topple the Godless regimes too. The intro video was good though.

      Anywho... on the topic of military equipment and its use in advancing my jew banker / ubergovernment christian / corpotocracy / and communist new world order (which is tricky, as you can imagine) I would think my opinion SHOULD carry a little bit of weight. More so than say... yet another batshit insane conspiracy theorist or arctic policy expert. At least as it pertains to the ground soldier.

    10. Re:Cross Country Skiing by grcumb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      has been used for arctic warfare for hundreds of years as a cheap, effective way of stealthily moving a snowy environment. Hopefully the stealth sled won't ruin those capabilities.

      Not always useful in the Canadian Arctic. Pack ice sometimes extends for miles out to sea. It's a maze of 3-10 metre ridges that are an absolute bitch to navigate. Trying to pull ammo and supplies through on skis would be absolute torture. Hell, just crossing on a snowmobile through the pack ice on each side of the bay in Cape Dorset (maybe a kilometre and a half) left me sweating like a horse in -25 degree weather.

      There's not a lot of pack ice on the old Finnish/Soviet border....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    11. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Having been in the high arctic (Baffin Island), in December, I have to say nothing beats a snowmobile pulling a komatik for moving across snow...

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    12. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When some Canadian "Arctic policy expert" opines that no one needs a small, quiet, efficient prime mover because of a lack of "terrorists", I am reminded why no one asks "Arctic policy experts" about military matters. Same reason I don't ask soldiers about environmental policy."

      When we've got small, effcient prime movers already, and the military has complained that they don't have enough of them to do patrols now, we're spending money developing fancy "stealth" versions? The priorities are messed up. That's the issue. It may be cool to have a stealth snowmobile, but $620k buys a lot of ordinary ones that the military has been waiting for since 2011:

      "Internal army documents warned in late 2011 that there were "insufficient numbers of (snowmobiles) in the Army to meet the needs of (Arctic Response Company Groups) and the training requirements." Officials discussed the possibility of renting equipment.

      The response units, a key pillar of the army's plan to enforce Canadian sovereignty in the North, could not be formed until they had over snow transport and even then, "there were insufficient numbers in the field force to enable cold weather training," said the Nov. 3, 2011 memo to former army commander, the now-retired lieutenant-general Peter Devlin.

      Since then, the defence department has replaced 310 snow machines, out of a total fleet of 963, including 69 allocated to the Rangers. It has also purchased 310 small all-terrain vehicles."

      It's the usual nonsense. There's an obvious and urgent military need, and then procurement spends years trying to find the perfect, advanced solution (read: experimental) instead of just buying the vanilla ones available now.

    13. Re:Cross Country Skiing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I shot a lahti at the Reno machine gun shoot a few years ago.

      Awesome rifle. Huge brass Finnish balls had to interfere with cross country skiing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      When some Canadian "Arctic policy expert" opines that no one needs a small, quiet, efficient prime mover because of a lack of "terrorists", I am reminded why no one asks "Arctic policy experts" about military matters.

      I don't think the "policy expert" is arguing against snowmobiles. I think the "policy expert" is questioning the value-for-money of 'stealth' snowmobiles costing a hundred times as much as the regular kind. The number of likely (or even unlikely) missions that can be fulfilled with a $600,000 snowmobile that couldn't be completed with a $6,000 snowmobile seems to be rather small.

      At best, this is an attempted distraction from the current government's utter failure to adequately fund and equip the country's search and rescue forces, particularly for work in the Canadian north. $600,000 snowmobiles are an inexpensive figleaf compared to icebreakers and SAR helicopters.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    15. Re:Cross Country Skiing by D1G1T · · Score: 1

      The "expert" isn't very clear on what he's saying, but to someone who was in the Canadian military just before the end of the cold war, I read his statement like this: Concentrating on fighting against a large-scale land-based invasion of the North is cold war thinking. Development budgets should be spent on fighting current threats. BTW, I always looked forward to winter exercises.

    16. Re:Cross Country Skiing by Arker · · Score: 1

      It would punch right through early Russian tanks. I have never shot one but I imagine they must kick like the proverbial mule.

      Still, if you want to talk about Finnish brass balls you should look to the air war. The Finns relied on the Brewster Buffalo as their best fighter. And averaged something like 30:1 with it.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    17. Re:Cross Country Skiing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The owner warned me; if I didn't have it snug against my shoulder it would break my collar bone.

      It didn't kick as hard as I expected.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Just remember by Sarin · · Score: 1

    All efforts are lost if you're carrying your iPhone on a stealth-snowmobile. (It's a sticker)

  9. "Expert" ? by arisvega · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Michael Byers, an Arctic policy expert, questions the need for a stealth snowmobile. 'I don't see a whole lot of evidence that criminals and terrorists are scooting around Canada's North on snowmobiles and that we have to sneak up on them,'

    Then Michael Byers is not quite the expert: when the ice cap in the North Pole shrinks or disappears completely, a whole new theater will come into play. Claims have already been filed for integration of the North Arctic Ocean into their exclusive economic zones from several countries, including Canada.

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    1. Re:"Expert" ? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      That might be why he said 'criminals and terrorists'.

      If the various other disputed aquatic zones are anything to go by, it's a lot of dick waving and diplomatic grandstanding, the occasional shootout between somebody's probably-illegal fishing boat and somebody else's quite-possibly-trigger-happy coast guard, and not too much else.

      There's a first time for everything, of course, but it'd have to be a pretty juicy territorial claim to be worth getting into an actual war over.

    2. Re:"Expert" ? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Some pretty juicy contracts are floating around too for a new version of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line
      http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/darpa-wants-ultimate-technology-sensor-network-monitor-vast-arctic (03/20/12)
      "DARPA wants the ultimate technology, sensor network to monitor the vast Arctic"
      Under-ice awareness, surface awareness, unmanned autonomous systems, anti-submarine warfare - guess Canada is doing its part with snowmobile upgrades.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:"Expert" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your reading comprehension needs work. People are well aware of that motivation, especially in Canada.

      It still doesn't mean it's an issue usefully addressed by a stealth snowmobile, which was Byers' point. It would make a lot more sense to deploy, say, ice-capable military ships (Canada doesn't really have any, yet), subs that can actually work under ice (the very modest Canadian sub fleet is diesel, and ill-suited for polar work), or long-endurance manned planes and/or aerial drones. The biggest problem in the Canadian Arctic is the sheer distance and the endurance required to cross it in harsh conditions. Snowmobiles are useful, but over short distances. They are still logistically challenging because you have to get them there, get fuel in place, they have to work in tough conditions, be maintainable, etc. The technology is pretty well developed for internal combustion engined ones. Will a stealth snowmobile help with any of these practical issues? I doubt it. Maybe if it's a whole lot more fuel efficient, reliable, or something like that. But if it isn't *way* beyond the normal specs somehow and still as reliable or better than a normal one (especially for $600k!!!!), then I can't see the point either. Who cares about "stealth" capability if it has half the range or is more tempermental (for example). To me this thing doens't make any more sense than a military-grade stealth Zamboni.

    4. Re:"Expert" ? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      How many of those disputed aquatic zones contain some of the richest untapped oil deposits on the planet? Not to mention extremely lucrative new trade routes.

      Make no mistake, there's going to be some serious guns brought to play in the fight to claim this newly accessible territory, both metaphorical and quite possibly literal.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:"Expert" ? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about a war. It's about establishing sovereignty, and to maintain control over a territory you need to be police it.

      The northwest passage is a big issue over whether it's international waters or Canadian waters. Not just because of potential oil drilling or fishing, but shipping is a big issue. It's a lot easier to ensure the shipping is done safely so a ton of oil isn't dumped on our coastline if we can police the waters. Security is also a concern as there's a lot of unpopulated places for smugglers to drop cargo or illegal immigrants.

      A military grade stealth snowmobile is part of the bigger picture, it makes it easier to patrol the territory and search for smugglers or other criminals as well as shows we're taking that part of our territory seriously.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:"Expert" ? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And you're gonna be damned glad they have that technology when this new uber-smart network becomes self aware, taps into the local cable feed and decides that it better stomp out the human race before something really bad happens.

      You'll definitely want a stealth snowmobile. Mark my words.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:"Expert" ? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Umm, que joke about not bringing a snowmobile to a gun fight?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:"Expert" ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How about an USV Unmanned Snow Vehicle? They are part of Skynet. The only safe place to be is somewhere without snow. Everyone, to Qatar!.

    9. Re:"Expert" ? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      They're Canadian carrier-based fighters, but probably without the fighting.

      Considering the sheer size of Canada's thermally-hostile northern regions, patrolling a territory with anything ground-based is impractical because of the amount of space to cover, and patrolling from the air leaves too long a delay between seeing something suspicious and being able to investigate it. What's effective is a combined force, using aircraft to survey the landscape for anything suspicious, and using ground craft for targeted investigation.

      Of course, ground vehicles offer poor choices. You get to pick two qualities, of fast, quiet, or maneuverable. By the time a Canadian patrol arrives at the site, the potential enemy has already had a chance to prepare for the arrival. A stealth snowmobile with an electric motor, careful design, and an appropriate paint job, would be able to observe a target without being detected, once the aircraft gives it a destination. It can also be carried on a larger vehicle, allowing it to cover more of the aircraft's territory.

      That is, I suspect, the ultimate goal: A small team of 2-6 people, driving a rugged transport across the rough terrain, periodically launching a drone to spot targets, then making sorties on one or two stealth snowmobiles to check out anything of particular interest. From a single unit, Canada can maintain reconnaissance over a fairly large territory.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:"Expert" ? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      It seems likely that the stealth snowmobile would only be used for the last leg of any journey, or at least you wouldn't need the stealth mode until you got rather close. I can easily see a mission plan that has the team fly in from wherever's appropriate, land outside of any possible observation and use the snowmobile with stealth off (for greater speed) until they're almost close enough to be heard, then turn on the stealth for the final approach. In fact, it might be a case of several regular snowmobiles carrying supplies, personnel and one stealthed snowmobile being towed to a fairly close location where they set up a forward base so that the strike team doesn't have to carry enough supplies to make it back on their own. It may sound more cumbersome, but it gives the team a much better chance of escape if they only have to have enough fuel to get back to their base.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re:"Expert" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me this thing doens't make any more sense than a military-grade stealth Zamboni.

      I think you're underestimating the importance of hockey.

    12. Re:"Expert" ? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How many of those disputed aquatic zones contain some of the richest untapped oil deposits on the planet?

      We don't actually know because it's difficult to do a marine seismic survey when there is ice getting in the way.

    13. Re:"Expert" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we did it Hunger Games style in an arena, yeah. But with global warming I'm afraid the days of military Zambonis are numbered.

    14. Re:"Expert" ? by gagol · · Score: 2

      Dude, the Far Canadian North is NOT used for smuggling anything in the country, it is just not economical. You also have to move the stuff to consumer centers. As we speak, you need to transit via Greenland by plane to reach the far north, and you cen expect delays if there is a storm on the way.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    15. Re:"Expert" ? by mirix · · Score: 2

      This is the same army that isn't equipped with enough parkas and the like to monitor the north.

      Besides that, it's just too bloody big and cold to effectively monitor. Canada and the US can't even secure the southern border well, it's much shorter, has civilization, better weather.

      The biggest island up there is 3/4 the size of texas, with 10k population total (with over two thirds of that in one town). That works out to one person per every 20 square miles, if they were distributed evenly. In the middle of november, the sun goes down and doesn't come up for TWO MONTHS! How do you defend something like that, without a ton of cash and manpower... and fuel!

      If it was just the couple big islands, it might not be as daunting either. There is a ton of them!

      The archipelago consists of 36,563 islands, of which 94 are classified as major islands, being larger than 130 km2 (50 sq mi), and cover a total area of 1,400,000 km2 (540,000 sq mi).

      So almost as much area as alaska, spread over 36000 islands. And you'd still have to defend the mainland shoreline, in addition to that, which is also gigantic, but at least contiguous.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    16. Re:"Expert" ? by grcumb · · Score: 1

      As we speak, you need to transit via Greenland by plane to reach the far north, and you cen expect delays if there is a storm on the way.

      Uh, no. We have domestic service. You can get charters to pretty much anywhere in the eastern Arctic from Iqaluit as well.

      Some military flights to CFB Alert do pass through Greenland, but aside from that....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    17. Re:"Expert" ? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 2

      I think that's why he failed. He's just an Arctic policy expert. Snowmobiles are excellent vehicles in any place where snow falls... and in Canadian winters, that's just about freakin' everywhere. It's not about the Arctic, this is about being able to fight a war in the wintertime better than anyone else can. Afghanistan gets snow in the winter, and snowmobiles get to drive just about anywhere, so avoid roadside bombs. They could have been very useful in Afghan winters for swift strike teams. If it snows, and it's wartime, this is a good idea. Everyone always complains how our soldiers don't get the gear they need, and when the government tries to change that, people whine and complain again. I'm Canadian, and I think this is a great idea.

    18. Re:"Expert" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing. If your military need were down south in areas with plenty of roads, and your military was screaming for a vehicle to drive on those roads, would you spend the money to develop a "stealth car", or just buy a made-in-Canada conventional car off the shelf and tweak it a bit?

      Of course snowmobiles are essential in the north. That's not the point. Buy the damn things. Don't waste years developing a "stealth" version and leave the military without enough *regular* snowmobiles in the meantime. That is what is going on right now: our soldiers have had less snowmobiles than they needed for arctic training for a couple of years now. The solution? Spend $620k on "stealth" snowmobile development while leaving them without enough of them. It's like the lunacy a couple of years ago where the military didn't have enough parkas to do their winter training. How in the !$%@$& does that ever happen in Canada? Because military procurement is screwed up, not because people are loath to give the military what they need to do their job.

      Let me put it another way. Spending $620k on experimental snowmobiles could buy a heck of a lot of regular snowmobiles that you don't currently have enough of.

    19. Re:"Expert" ? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So does my brain hurt or are you starting to talk about tracking naughty planes with stealth electric snowmobiles, WHY?

      This sounds more like a designed tender to feed money to an insider family company, already associated with the Canadian government, basically a tender only one company can win and where the research conducted can be used in other areas.

      Seriously $620,000 dollar snowmobiles. OK so say a company of high tech snow mobilers. So say five thirty man platoons, each one needing a snowmobile and say 20% spare snowmobiles, that's already $111.6 million dollars. No maintenance, no troops, no base etc. I seriously think cheaper ways can be found.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:"Expert" ? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      smugglers to drop ... illegal immigrants.

      I'm not sure you thought this all the way through. This is the arctic circle we're talking about, not Vancouver.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:"Expert" ? by D1G1T · · Score: 1

      For which the players will need ships not snowmobiles.

    22. Re:"Expert" ? by hey! · · Score: 1

      It would make a lot more sense to deploy, say, ice-capable military ships

      These kinds of criticisms seem to assume that Canada is doing this because it plans to base its entire defense on fleets of stealth snowmobiles. Canada is still acquiring new ships, attack aircraft, AFVs and the like. In fact it's spending billions of dollars on such programs. The question is whether spending a few million mre to investigate the potential of a stealth snowmobile makes sense given the marginal contributions such a weapon might make toward the nation's defense.

      The Canadian Army already uses snowmobiles, presumably because it finds them practical for the missions they must prepare for and the conditions they must operate in. A few million dollars to test the potential of a quiet snowmobile seems very reasonable to me, and I'm a left-winger with little tolerance for corporate welfare for defense contractors.

      A unit cost of $620,000 for a custom-designed, hand-built engineering prototype just doesn't seem all that extravagant to me. That might be too high for a production vehicle, but when you add up the cost of a team of engineers, mechanics and artisans it'd be very easy to spend a million dollars apiece if you're only building two or three.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:"Expert" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Die Hard 2? That joke?

    24. Re:"Expert" ? by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Dude, the Far Canadian North is NOT used for smuggling anything in the country, it is just not economical.

      Load a pallet of drugs onto a ship. Coast guard can't do anything because it's international waters.

      When the coast is clear send in a smaller boat (or rendezvous with one) and dump it on the shore. Then hire a bunch of guys to ride in on snowmobiles and take it down south.

      If you're shipping enough drugs or other contraband the low risk could make it economical.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    25. Re:"Expert" ? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      smugglers to drop ... illegal immigrants.

      I'm not sure you thought this all the way through. This is the arctic circle we're talking about, not Vancouver.

      Illegal immigrants from Siberia?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    26. Re:"Expert" ? by gagol · · Score: 1

      "Then hire a bunch of guys to ride in on snowmobiles and take it down south". The north is very, VERY, large... anyway, we grow good stuff around already...

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    27. Re:"Expert" ? by quantaman · · Score: 1
      --
      I stole this Sig
    28. Re:"Expert" ? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      I'm having doubts you've ever seen or heard snowmobiles in their natural environment. They scream their presence and it's heard loud and clear even kilometres away. The only thing I can think of with a comparable sound is rigs using their engine retarder brakes. Good luck hearing a car even a block away. When the only really effective snow vehicle advertises it's position like that, any snowmobile that doesn't do that is going to mean the difference between victory and defeat in a snowy battlefield. There can be no more important military spending than to make sure that the Canadian army can win a war on home turf. Even if they don't build many of them, it's important for them to do the research so that they can build them quickly if the need arose. If that means some soldiers have to go without for the short term, so be it. We're not fighting a war at the moment.

  10. Really? by meerling · · Score: 1

    I guess they painted it white and put a muffler on it. :D

    Well, if you wanted it quiet, I don't think a muffler would really do it.
    I suspect you'd have to put in a completely different engine.
    I'm not giving a large probability to a pure electric for two reasons:
    . . First, most batteries don't seem to do that well in the really cold environments. You know, like Canada and Alaska, among many others.
    . . Second, batteries, especially ones designed for really cold places, just wouldn't give it much range, which would be a vital concern for the locations you'd primarily be using a snowmobile.

    1. Re:Really? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Probably end up with a small internal combustion engine generator of some sort feeding and electric motor. Shouldn't be too hard to muffle the noise if you can keep the RPMs down to a reasonable range. I'm not sure how you block the IR signature. Any combustion based motor is going to bright lite a FLIR system. Maybe the Canadians will get clever - use it to heat beer* (or is that just the English?).

      *Beer is consumed, IR blocked by body and whatever insulation the human is wearing. Added bonus is that course becomes more random over time, confusing targeting systems.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In the snow, it would be easily identifiable on FLIR with a battery/electric system and a human sitting on it. In a snowmobile, the tread throwing snow on the radiator helps cool it, so long use on a packed trail could cause over-heating. The same thing could be considered for a stealth machine. Have it kick up snow to cover the engine, exhaust, and rider, so there's always an insulating covering of snow, which would go far in hiding one from FLIR. I've not ever messed with one, but my understanding is that they are designed to pick out people and such. Picking out the 0 C snow from -20 C snow is not how they are calibrated, so currently would not show up. But a reasonably quick re-tune of the FLIR would result in better results.

    3. Re:Really? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure how you block the IR signature"

      Probably the same way aircraft deal with limiting their thermal signature, they pull in air and mix it with their jet exhaust. I believe they also try to extend some bulkheads or cowlings over the engines to prevent them, or the exhaust immediately exiting the engine, from being directly seen. And not that I particular like the hybrid-electric rig for a snowmobile, but pairing a rather small but efficient electric generator (running gas/diesel/kerosene/etc) with some super-capacitors (which I don't believe lose performance in cold weather) and an electric engine would make a halfway decent stealth snowmobile.

  11. I'm all for it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    As long as they don't have to cancel the F-35 contract to fund it... :-/

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:I'm all for it by WoodenTable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope they do decide against the F-35 contract. It's ridiculously overpriced for our military, especially given that the F-35s aren't even all that well designed for frozen-weather operations.

      Personally, I think Boeing's Super Hornets are a much better offer. Half the projected price, bigger control surfaces for easier landings on ice and better agility in the air, and two engines so that if one stalls in the cold the other can keep the plane going.

    2. Re:I'm all for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are getting ready for that "cold day in hell" when criminals or terrorists actually try to steal the north pole.

  12. Stealth schmealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a totally ridiculous waste of money.

    We need to start developing stealth moose STAT!

    1. Re:Stealth schmealth by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stealth moose already exist. And they can be more effective at taking out an unsuspecting vehicle than a Predator drone...

    2. Re:Stealth schmealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Sarah Palin can find them, they can't be THAT stealthy...

    3. Re: Stealth schmealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Stealth beer!

    4. Re:Stealth schmealth by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      If Sarah Palin can find them, they can't be THAT stealthy...

      You don't get it. After living around Sarah Palin, that moose decided to commit suicide.

    5. Re:Stealth schmealth by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Or it failed in its mission...

    6. Re:Stealth schmealth by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2

      Stealth moose already exist. And they can be more effective at taking out an unsuspecting vehicle than a Predator drone...

      My money's on the stealth polar bears.

    7. Re:Stealth schmealth by dywolf · · Score: 1

      That was it's mission: to destabilize the political climate by giving her an aura of expertise that would appeal to her voter base. A false flag political self-martyrdom.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    8. Re:Stealth schmealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A stealth moose bit my sister once....

    9. Re:Stealth schmealth by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      The Arctic policy analyst responsible for this program has been sacked.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    10. Re:Stealth schmealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we're going back in time for political jokes..
      That William Howard Taft was one FAT dude!

  13. Positives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always nice when militaries do their part for the environment. Lead by example, also in the issues sounding to the community you work in. Please excuse the pound.

    1. Re:Positives by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Yep, I think it's probably a waste of money for the military, but I'm glad they're doing it because the technology will spin off to commercial snowmobiles for civilian use. I'm all for quieter snowmobiles.

  14. Bow before the power! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    After the dual poutine cannons find their mark, targets will feel sluggish and satisfied. Canuck tech rules the globe.

  15. Here's a tip to move this along... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Paint it white....just don't you canucks forget where you park it.

    1. Re:Here's a tip to move this along... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      The money was spent finding the right shade of white.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Here's a tip to move this along... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Actually, the frigates are a specific colour of grey to hide optically in Canadian waters.

      From a distance you can't see them.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  16. Greetings from the Frozen North. by WoodenTable · · Score: 1
    I have mod points, but dangit, I just have to say this:

    I live in Canada, and I LOVE our government's goofy dedication to making sure we retain military capabilities in the frozen north. (bit less happy with everything else the gov does, but ehhhh, politics)

    Stealth snowmobile? FUND IT! More Icebreakers? FUND IT! New ice-base in the Arctic Circle? DO YOU EVEN NEED TO ASK?!

    Honestly, it beats the heck out of invading Iraq.

    The story is a bit misleading, by the way. $640,000 is the cost of the development contract, not the price per machine (which will be significantly lower, obviously).

    1. Re: Greetings from the Frozen North. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Not to be mean but the USA exported some government procurement accountants to Canada. That is why Canada spent $250 million modifying an ice breaker design that they bought the plans for $20 million for a boat most shipyards spend $100 million building.

      $640,000 to design it but each sled will cost $3 million and require a $1 million dollars annually for maintence.

      By the way thank you for purchasing our exported talent.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re: Greetings from the Frozen North. by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

      By the way thank you for purchasing our exported talent.

      Just repayment for all those ex-Avro aerospace engineers that helped put Apollo on the moon.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re: Greetings from the Frozen North. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      $250 million modifying an ice breaker design that they bought the plans for $20 million for a boat most shipyards spend $100 million building.

      There's one government near me that's spent more than all that put together try to fix an IBM provided payroll system.

    4. Re:Greetings from the Frozen North. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $620k (I know, I know, it should be $640k just for the lols) would buy a lot of regular snowmobiles, and apparently it's been a struggle to get enough of the regular ones to the relevant military units. I'm all for developing cool stuff too, but if it means the military doesn't get the regular stuff that they need right *now*, then the priorities are whacked. It's like the F-35 -- one damn cool plane, if it worked, but given the problems and the cost we'd probably be a hell of a lot better off just buying Super Hornets at half the cost, sooner delivery, and twice the engines (single-engine in the far North just seems like a bad idea). I don't think the military should work with crap second-rate gear, but a weapon in the hand is worth two in the lab.

    5. Re:Greetings from the Frozen North. by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Not to point too fine a point on it, but our "friendly" neighbour to the south thinks it owns part of the arctic and can operate there without impunity.

      We need to be able to patrol it. Helicopters and Snowcats are not cost-effective patrol vehicles. We also need under-ice sensing and patrol capabilities.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  17. Canadian soverignty by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Canada has concerns about protecting the sovereignty of its arctic territories. Snowmobiles could prove useful in that.

    Battle for the Arctic heats up
    Defending our sovereignty in the Arctic
    Why everyone wants a piece of the Arctic

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  18. As long as it has... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    frickin' laser beams I'm OK with it.

  19. Well, of course . . . by hduff · · Score: 1

    You don't poke a turd without getting shit on your finger,

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:Well, of course . . . by hduff · · Score: 1

      Wrong thread . . . . 8(

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    2. Re:Well, of course . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use a stick. Works every time.

    3. Re:Well, of course . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically, in the Arctic, you actually can.....

  20. When they invade Minnesota... by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    What will be said is, "Sooo, you didn't hear us coming, sorry, eh."

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  21. $620,000 U.S. by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1

    ($640,000 CAN) ought be enough for eveybody to have one eh?

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  22. Snowden-mobile !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, more fast and secure that nSSaSSmobile.

  23. This has got to be a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am waiting for Rick Moranis to show up.

  24. Where's the beaver ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show yer beaver, Canajians !!

    1. Re:Where's the beaver ? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Show yer beaver, Canajians !!

      Are you sure you want to see it?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  25. I am just so proud of my government right now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't even describe it. It's a feeling of visualizing my tax dollars being fed to a guy in a quanza hut working on the snowmobile, with large flakes of snow falling, and at least one or two two-four's of Canadian being slowly consumed late into the night, with Neil Young music playing in the background.

  26. In relared news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the Canadian Armed Forces have undertaken a $2.5 million dollar (CDN) program to develop a tuque not visible from space.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  27. Re:I am just so proud of my government right now.. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Quonset hut, you fucking retard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quonset_hut

  28. Take into account... by XB-70 · · Score: 2

    April Fool's is actually celebrated August 18th in Canada.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
    1. Re:Take into account... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      That's one long running joke. We sure fooled them!

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  29. Test your gullibility! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call bullshit.
    $620,000.00 for testing maybe.
      620 grand for the snowmobile itself?
    No way.

  30. Hybrid-Electric? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    A hybrid-electric snowmobile seems a bit excessive if you're just trying to make it more stealthy. Switching up from a two cycle to a four cycle, adding some soundproofing and extending the muffler system would make one pretty quiet but not cost much as most of it would be off the shelf tech and would probably extend the range by using a more efficient engine and keeping the weight low. You're going to lose a bit of performance but that is always to be expected when going for stealth.

  31. not RADAR stealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that flat terrain, stealth MUST include radar stealth. Apparently not:
    "Soldiers wielding a radar gun also tested the stealth snowmobile's acceleration as it raced 100 metres"

    1. Re:not RADAR stealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the terrain is much less flat than it appears at a distance, if you look at the ocean the horizon looks flat but there are many swells easily 10-20m high that could obscure a small craft

  32. Snowmobiles are incredibly noisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They use expansion chambers to boost their power, (a number of small engines do this, this is why, in theory at least, why so many motorcycles are so noisy).

    Also, for anyone wondering about the lack of specificity about the engine type, it is a military project, so of course they are keeping a lot of the information to themselves.

  33. Stealth Snowmobile by OVDoobie · · Score: 2
  34. Value for money ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just know it will be worth all those tax dollars as soon as our military wizards work out a few issues ... for example right now it's just too exhausting for the dogs to pull it for more than 1/8 mile or so..

  35. Only $620,000 by maliqua · · Score: 1

    I mean we're canadians we should have the best damn snowmobiles for our army money could by, i'd rather spend the cash on that than those crappy jets the US is pushing on us or spending the money sending our people to some 3rd world shit hole helping solve problems created by americans

  36. Mystery solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally the disappearing of the ice cap on the north pole makes sense! It's not caused by global warming, and it's not melting at all.

    Canada needs a stealth snowmobile because they turned the ice cap into stealth snow.

  37. Sneak up on Black Helicopters' breeding grounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what else could it be for?

  38. The strategic maple syrup reserve... by vjoel · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
    1. Re:The strategic maple syrup reserve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part is that in 2012 some people where apparently able to steal about 1000 tons of the stuff. How do you steal 1000 tons of anything without anybody noticing ?

  39. Man, they can *have* Alaska. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't even have to ask twice.

  40. Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > The noise level of an internal combustion engine cannot be reduced to an acceptable level for missions where covertness may be required, especially given the increased propagation of sound in cold, dry, Arctic air.

    Snowmobiles generally use Wankel-type internal combustion enginee. This is because total failure is not an option. If the engine quits in the middle of nowhere you either freeze into an iceball or Mr. Polar Bear gets a de luxe supper... Multi-rotor Wankel engines, even if they lose tight sealing, will continue to spin and provide a rreduced level of power for some time, usually allowing the riders to reach refuge. Piston engines, while less noisy and more economical on lubrication and fuel oils, do not have this level of extra safety.

    It is very dubious, if a hybrid snowmobile could be made safe enough for SOLAS reqs, considering the risk of short circuits and the various problems with battery cell capacity loss at below-freezing temperatures. Maybe a Stirling engine (external combustion weirdness) could be utilized, which is silent and has most benefits of a steam engine without the risk of boiler explosions. I think Canada already has non-nuclear submarines with LOX-based Stirling engines for air independent submerged propulsion?

    1. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      There are Wankel-type sleds, but I think to say that they are the norm is misleading in the extreme. I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't either a two or four stroke piston engine.

      Are there even Wankel engines that have seals good enough for EPA/CARB besides that gem in the Mazda RX-8?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    2. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Point me to a wankel snowmobile? Most are 2 stroke, 2 and 3 cylinder piston engines.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  41. Why isn't this a private industry project? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Snowmobiles are irritatingly noisy. for homeowners in Arctic regions, for animals in their native habitats, for hunters or photographers exploring those regions, and even for kids and hobbyists tooling around for fun, reducing the noise impact of snowmobiles would be very useful. A much quieter snowmobile would have a ready market, as long as it wasn't ridiculously expensive.

    That raises the question of "Why isn't there already a privately built such vehicle?". Do they face the problem we in IT constantly see, of people who think we're spending too much money because it takes us so long to do the first version of a new system, to test it, and to make sure it actually works in wet snow?

  42. The reason the drains were padlocked is simple by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Pennywise doesn't like uninvited visitors.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  43. It's a success! by Kinwolf · · Score: 1

    After injecting millions into the project(that's like, billions for us Canadians), we've still seen nothing, it's a total success!

  44. Protect the syrup by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    After Spectre or whoever heisted their Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve last year, it only makes sense to beef up their military. To do any less would be irresponsible.

    After all, next time it might be C.O.B.R.A. Make sure to load those snowmobiles with parachutes.

    1. Re:Protect the syrup by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Cobra Commander: Their ssssssyrup sssssshalll be all ourssssss for the taking!

  45. Just asinine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Michael Byers, an Arctic policy expert, questions the need for a stealth snowmobile. 'I don't see a whole lot of evidence that criminals and terrorists are scooting around Canada's North on snowmobiles and that we have to sneak up on them,' he said.

    Canada spends less (as a % of gdp) than most any other developed nation, and we have an unusually vast territory to assert sovereignty over. Is it really so fucking hard to see the desire to research inexpensive arctir force multipiers?

  46. Re:I am just so proud of my government right now.. by Yannic · · Score: 1

    ...Or a Quinzee?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinzee

    Don't piss on the walls. They'll melt.

  47. I'll take two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as the inevitable breach of that technology becomes oldhat.

  48. Re:I am just so proud of my government right now.. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Kwanza Hut?
    Isn't that your one-stop shop for all your African-American Winter harvest festival decorations?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  49. Put Red Green on it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can make a stealthy snowmobile on a budget with just a roll of duct tape and some bailing twine!

  50. Stealth Beer Containers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised no one mentioned stealthy beer drinking. SCTV is forgotten,,,,

  51. Snow problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eskimos, take note.

  52. Need to question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who wish they thought of something always question other's initiatives. In this case the Canadians are mimicking polar bears

  53. Snowmobiles? I know why! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada is afraid Ted Cruz will try to sneak back into the country and I really can't blame them! BUT why do you dislike America so much you gave him to US? He is good for a laugh, but, he is tiring!

  54. Sovereignty by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    OK only half joking here:

    If trying to establish Sovereignty in the north, "stealth" snowmobiles is the last thing you need. Heck take the mufflers off! The problem of the north is it is big, and empty. You need to let everyone know that "Hey we have been here, and are doing stuff, etc...". Being stealthy about it and no one knows.

    Anyway this is just more DOD lunacy and Harper/Conservatives pro-military agenda. This couldn't be more of a funnel money to military for no reason if they tried.

    This is just like the "hardened" warships they ordered (frigates I believe) for billions. Unless the evil master plan is to use the tar sands pollution to melt the arctic enough so that they might actually be able to go there (Watch youtube videos of actual icebreakers getting stuck, wonder how long a frigate might last)... No to mention there is no one to fight there ever, nor will their ever be.

    What Canada should have spent its money on was Nuclear Icebreakers and Helicopters capable of rescue missions. If you want to show you control a certain area, that would be the way to do it. Look at the biggest heavy hitter in the whole group, Russia, how many Nuclear Ice Breakers do they have compared to Canada. Not to mention the good they would do for remote communities. Anyway its crazy.

    1. Re:Sovereignty by quantaman · · Score: 1

      This is just like the "hardened" warships they ordered (frigates I believe) for billions. Unless the evil master plan is to use the tar sands pollution to melt the arctic enough so that they might actually be able to go there (Watch youtube videos of actual icebreakers getting stuck, wonder how long a frigate might last)... No to mention there is no one to fight there ever, nor will their ever be.

      To be fair I think that might be the plan. The arctic warships become relevant when the ice clears and people start using it.

      --
      I stole this Sig