# Navy Will Have to Learn to Fight Terrorists and Pirates:-Admiral Drew Robertson



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Sep 2007)

Navy will have to learn to fight terrorists and pirates: admiral

By MURRAY BREWSTER

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian navy needs to learn how to fight terrorists and pirates, says the top commander. 

As the army has been forced to fight a brutal counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan, Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson says the navy must prepare itself for conflicts where "threats are whatever your imagination can conceive." 
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Robertson said an attack on an Israeli warship last year was the wake-up call. 
Most of the 80 crew members of the Israeli corvette Ahi-Hanit were having dinner below deck on a sweltering, sleepy Friday evening 14 months ago when - seemingly out of nowhere - a Chinese-designed sea-hugging missile slammed into the warship's helicopter deck. 

The explosion and fire killed four sailors, but the shock waves of the surprise attack by Hezbollah could be felt well beyond the waters of Lebanon. 
It was the nightmare scenario that had kept commanders in established navies all over the world awake at nights. 
"Here we have a group that's not a nation, armed with mach-(speed), sea-skimming missiles," said Robertson. 

"A year ago, no one had foreseen the idea that weapons of that kind could have proliferated to a non-state actor." 
Sophisticated armaments in the hands of violent militias and even terrorist organizations represent the biggest emerging threat not only to 21st century navies, but to merchant shipping as well, say experts in maritime warfare. 

Hezbollah fired three radar-guided shore-to-sea C-802 missiles that day. One exploded just after takeoff, the second struck the Ahi-Hanit and the third exploded and sank a Cambodian-flagged cargo ship. The high-tech weapons, with a range of 120 kilometres, were apparently supplied by Iran. 
In case anyone believed the July 14, 2006, missile strike was a fluke, or even a lucky shot in the dark, U.S. intelligence agencies recently reported that the Shiite militia in Lebanon was boasting openly that it had tripled its store of Iranian-built C-802 missiles. 

The threat of seaborne terrorism came brutally into focus in October 2000 with the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole as it sat in berth in the port of Aden, Yemen. 
The suicide bombing killed 17 American sailors, but it was carried out with a relatively unsophisticated speed boat packed with explosives. 
Rob Huebert, a defence analyst, says Hezbollah's landmark attack heralded a new and more dangerous age of maritime warfare. 

"Most of the anti-missile capability our frigates and destroyers have is predicated on shots being taken at them by enemies who are over the horizon. But what happens when you get small vessels within sight - or even disguised?" he said. 
"I'm thinking of a scenario where you've got all of these little Iranian speedboats and all of a sudden everyone on cue stands up and lets loose with small, cheap missiles. Can you overwhelm the system with numbers?" 

Huebert said defence planners will have to pay more attention to so-called close-in weapons systems. 
"It's going to be challenging to meet that kind of threat," said Huebert, a University of Calgary conflict studies professor. 
Robertson said that from a planning point of view the navy can do that by setting to sea with the "right mixture of surface ships and submarines." 

Beyond the hardware, said Dan Middlemiss of Nova Scotia's Dalhousie University, improvements in naval intelligence will be needed. 
"You work with your allies to know where this stuff is and where it's going." 
There is already a strong network to track weapons of mass destruction, but Middlemiss said NATO and other Western allies may need to extend those intelligence-gathering efforts to "lesser weapons." 

In the Ahi-Hanit incident, Israeli commanders blamed the crew for not being vigilant. But there were also lingering questions about why the country's extensive and high-tech intelligence network didn't pick up the existence of the missiles beforehand. 
Just as pressing a concern is a perceived increase in high-seas piracy, especially in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 
A series of well-timed precise attacks on container ships in crowded shipping lanes could lead to economic chaos in countries, such as Canada, that depend on maritime trade. 

A month ago pirates seized a vessel chartered by the United Nations World Food Program in waters off eastern Africa. 
"Piracy is enabled by the current state of the government in Somalia," said Robertson. "You've got pirates operating in a relatively unsophisticated manner in those calm waters of the tropics (and) they've been able to have quite an effect." 
He said NATO recognized the menace a few years ago and recently dispatched a multinational task force to cruise the waters off the Horn of Africa, the first time the ships of the North Atlantic alliance have ventured there as a group. 

Halifax-based HMCS Toronto is part of that fleet.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Sep 2007)

This is a very odd statement. In the Post-911 world I can't believe that our Navy aren't already prepared to/ engaged in fighting terrorists etc. The Vancouver Olympics is only a couple of years away, so I certainly hope so!

Can someone enlighten us on this without blowing OpSec?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2007)

Old habits die hard.  The Army's experience in the FY republics and now in Afghanistan is forcing certain changes in mindset.  The Navy is only now coming to grips with what changes will mean to them; and the fighter jocks in the Air Force are still itching for a high-tech enemy they can go mano a mano with, with full afterburners.  I'm not sure what it will take to change the Air Force's air superiority mindset.


----------



## kratz (16 Sep 2007)

Some of the issues are cost and image related.

The extra manpower and inconveniance at gates and on the water.  How dare you stop me? or why pay the extra hours if the threat is low?

With extra manpower, comes additional operational costs that deplete the current budget strain. If the patrol boats, weapons, or Tac vests are used more, there is more wear and tear on them. This all sounds like nickle and dime stuff, but it is factored into the choices made.

All these costs have to accounted for. The general public see this defense standing around. They do not hear of the success stories. So questions are asked and answers are worked on.

It's a work of defense in progess.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Old habits die hard.  The Army's experience in the FY republics and now in Afghanistan is forcing certain changes in mindset.  The Navy is only now coming to grips with what changes will mean to them; *and the fighter jocks in the Air Force are still itching for a high-tech enemy they can go mano a mano with, with full afterburners.  I'm not sure what it will take to change the Air Force's air superiority mindset.*



Many have tried, none has ever succeeded...even amongst those "on the inside of Big Blue."

G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Sep 2007)

O----MI----GOD (finding a happy place now)

I hope that those with the common sense in the Air Force and Navy can be supported by the Army to overthrow the internal forces of darkness!


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 Sep 2007)

Dealing with pirates is nothing new for the Navy, I know that when I sailed through high piracy zones, there is a certain state of readiness that was stood up to deal with the pirate threat....

Now may this pirate thing is something new for the east coast hence the news article.......    But most ships destined for the gulf from Esquimalt do sail through high piracy areas.

Besides most pirates have one leg and one eye, how dangerous can they be.... Although I have heard that if you piss the parrot off you could have your hands full.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2007)

I suspect the real thrust of the article was more for a change in mindset away from "big honking ships" so something more appropriate for dealing with unconventional threats.

The Res Publica Roma had built a powerful fleet of quinqueremes to deal with rival naval powers, but after the defeat of serious rivals and the conversion of the Mediterranean to Mare Nostrum, ("Our Sea"), the large ships were found to be no longer useful against the pirates who were the main threat to Roman shipping and coastal towns, so by Imperial times the fleet evolved around a smaller warship known as liburnae, well suited for chasing down pirates.

The Royal Navy underwent a similar evolution millennia later, the great "Line of Battle" ships which were so useful during the Napoleonic wars became irrelevant when the Royal Navy began it's decades long mission to suppress the slave trade from Africa or to root out the pirates who infested the Carribean. Frigates were the largest ship with any practical value in these missions, and often smaller ships were used with great success.

Even in the age of steam, the great Dreadnaughts were carefully husbanded in their ports ("break glass in case of Armageddon"), while the most successful ship that I can think of was the light cruiser SMS Emden; a German commerce raider which operated in the Indian Ocean, capturing 30 merchantmen and tying up dozens of Allied warships of various classes while on her cruise in 1914.

The US Navy is moving towards a more balanced composition of "Blue" and "Brown" water ships, with the small Littoral combat ship to deal with these sorts of threats. While the specific model of the Littoral combat ship might not be appropriate for the Canadian Navy, it seems something along those lines may be needed in the future, to better carry out the sorts of anti terrorism missions the navy does now and for Piracy suppression missions in the future.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Sep 2007)

Ship types aside, you would expect naval intelligence capabilities to be fully up to speed on the COIN/ CT side. This guy doesn't seem to think so, and good for him for speaking out about it. If the navy hasn't got their intelligence act 'ship shape' by 2010 in Vancouver, especially within the realm of CANADACOM, we're in the hurt locker.


----------



## eerickso (17 Sep 2007)

Pirates are a new threat? Could this be a new role for the Coast Guard or RCMP?

What in particular is irrelevant about our navy? 

A brown water navy? What does this mean in term of weapons/sensors?

If our admiral is thinking long and hard about pirates, how about the 50 cal?

How about Afghanistan. Who was providing ground support in the early part of the war. Who was launching cruise missiles? 

Here is suggestion for our navy: cruise missiles 

Oh yes, the last time I checked, the Olympics will be taking place on Terra ferma so why are so many naval officers worrying about it?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Sep 2007)

On the subject of pirates:

Please remember that this Wednesday is International Talk Like A Pirate Day

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Sep 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> Here is suggestion for our navy: cruise missiles
> 
> Oh yes, the last time I checked, the Olympics will be taking place on Terra ferma so why are so many naval officers worrying about it?




Suggestion for our Navy: PT

Because Vancouver is a port city, some in the Navy think they will be an integral part of the security force, not to mention its also the 100 year party for our sailors.......


----------



## Greymatters (17 Sep 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Because Vancouver is a port city, some in the Navy think they will be an integral part of the security force, not to mention its also the 100 year party for our sailors.......



Certainly 'part' but I wouldnt put any money on 'integral'...


----------



## cobbler (18 Sep 2007)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This is a very odd statement. In the Post-911 world I can't believe that our Navy aren't already prepared to/ engaged in fighting terrorists etc. The Vancouver Olympics is only a couple of years away, so I certainly hope so!
> 
> Can someone enlighten us on this without blowing OpSec?



I doubt he has made this comment to tell the navy anything new. 

I'd say its got more to do with putting the issue out there for the public to realise. So that nobody thinks the Navy is useless in todays environment.


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

> A year ago, no one had foreseen the idea that weapons of that kind could have proliferated to a non-state actor."
> Sophisticated armaments in the hands of violent militias and even terrorist organizations represent the biggest emerging threat not only to 21st century navies, but to merchant shipping as well, say experts in maritime warfare



Huh?  the PLO has the fancy stuff years ago - Tamil Tigers, Hezbolah, the various african freedom fighters has some as well - often with Soviet/Cuban  advisors....

We have been sending our ships into the Indian ocean, the Persian gulf, etc ... and they have always been looking out for pirates of any size 24/7.  If a small boat comes into sight, they've been keenly alert - what's all this bumph about then?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Sep 2007)

> Because Vancouver is a port city, some in the Navy think they will be an integral part of the security force, not to mention its also the 100 year party for our sailors.......



Only an idiot would not see what kind of resources the Navy can bring to the table....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Sep 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Only an idiot would not see what kind of resources the Navy can bring to the table....



...or maybe someone like me, whom the closest I ever got to a ship/Navy person was on the one tied up at Ontario Place years ago.

Easy there big fellow..........


----------



## eerickso (23 Sep 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Only an idiot would not see what kind of resources the Navy can bring to the table....



You're talking about the important resources we used after 911?


----------



## NavyShooter (29 Sep 2007)

Don't forget the GTS Katie.....the guys in the jumpsuits hopping down from the Sea King were not the "black ski-mask" people.  They were a NBP from a ship.

Also, when discussing what we bring to the picture, don't forget the beer.  

NS


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Sep 2007)

No doubt!  In terms of security there is plenty to offer, especially since most of our Army brothers will still be in Afghanistan.


----------



## Shad4now (7 Jan 2008)

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Pirates are a new threat? Could this be a new role for the Coast Guard or RCMP?
> 
> Oh yes, the last time I checked, the Olympics will be taking place on Terra ferma so why are so many naval officers worrying about it?



The Canadian Navy has no juristiction within local waters, if the priates are in Canadian waters, it would have to be a Coast Guard issue.  Though the Coast Guard vessels don't have mounted weapons... the navy would be assisting the coast guard.

The venues for the Olympics are very close to water, port security would play a big part in the event.


----------



## Neill McKay (7 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> The Canadian Navy has no juristiction within local waters, if the priates are in Canadian waters, it would have to be a Coast Guard issue.



I'm curious as to what makes you think that?  The Coast Guard doesn't have maritime security of that sort as part of its mandate, nor is there any restriction (to the best of my knowledge) against the navy taking action in Canadian territorial waters.  (In fact, port security is among the Naval Reserve's roles.)

What you're saying sounds as though it could be the case in the US, however.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> The Canadian Navy has no juristiction within local waters, if the priates are in Canadian waters, it would have to be a Coast Guard issue.  Though the Coast Guard vessels don't have mounted weapons... the navy would be assisting the coast guard.
> 
> The venues for the Olympics are very close to water, port security would play a big part in the event.



I beg to differ. The Navy has been involved in many ops in Local Waters, from anti drugs to soverignity to getting back vehicles from the GTS Katie. Not all those Ops had CCG or RCMP involvement. I guarantee if we started to get pirates in Cdn Waters (Yeah I know as ludicrous as it sounds) the Navy would be involved. I would like to see where it says that the navy has no jurisdiction in local waters....please tell me the publication.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. The Navy has been involved in many ops in Local Waters, from anti drugs to soverignity to getting back vehicles from the GTS Katie. Not all those Ops had CCG or RCMP involvement. *I guarantee if we started to get oirates in Cdn Waters (Yeah I know as ludicrous as it sounds) the Navy would be involved. *I would like to see where it says that the navy has no jurisdiction in local waters....please tell me the publication.



Courtesy - The Arrogant Worms

 The Last Saskatchewan Pirate

Well I used to be a farmer, and I made a living fine, 
I had a little stretch of land along the city line 
But times went by and though I tried, the money wasn't there 
And bankers came and took my land and told me "fair is fair" 

I looked for every kind of job, the answer always no 
"Hire you now?" they'd always laugh, "we just let twenty go!" (Ha-haa!)
The government, they promised me a measly little sum 
But I've got too much pride to end up just another bum. 

Then I thought, who gives a damn if all the jobs are gone? 
*I'm gonna be a PIRATE on the river Saskatchewan!!!*

The Last Saskatchewan Pirate


----------



## Shad4now (7 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. The Navy has been involved in many ops in Local Waters, from anti drugs to soverignity to getting back vehicles from the GTS Katie. Not all those Ops had CCG or RCMP involvement. I guarantee if we started to get pirates in Cdn Waters (Yeah I know as ludicrous as it sounds) the Navy would be involved. I would like to see where it says that the navy has no jurisdiction in local waters....please tell me the publication.



GTS Katie was boarded in International Waters http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/08/10/katie000910.html 
I can not find the pub that states the CF Juristiction within Canadian Territorical Waters, but in this article it shows that no one really has juristiction over our coasts http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-senate2.htm . Also in the NDA, CFAO, QR&O, they all expressly state the situations in which the CF would provide Aid to Civil Powers, and that the CF would not replace the civil power. Only under those situations would the CF have Civil Power (juristiction). 

Also, as CF members, we can't just go around enforcing laws. We can't arrest someone for breaking the law, or give someone a parking ticket.  Even while under port security, we can only operation within a certain area, even in that area we have very limited power. Only during emergencies when we are designated as Peace Officers would we have Civil Power (ex. to detain someone...) (of course MPs follow a different set of rules)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> Also, as CF members, we can't just go around enforcing laws. We can't arrest someone for breaking the law,



Why not? All other Canadians can.....................


----------



## Shad4now (8 Jan 2008)

you mean citizen's arrest? But there are some limitations on it. It would either have to happen on your property or while they are committing a serious offence or escaping from police after having committed a crime. In all cases they would have to be turned over to the police immediately. Of course, other problems would occur, for example use of force, right to arrest etc.  One can very easily run in to trouble using citizen's arrest.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2008)

..and I said "Pardon?"

May I ask your experience with this legislation?

[Folks, sorry for the off-topic swerve but I think it might shed light on "Shads" presentation....]


----------



## Shad4now (8 Jan 2008)

Law class mock trial, I lost..... costed me to drop a letter grade... slightly bitter about it.... can you tell?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2008)

Should have studied the 'citizens arrest" theory more methinks.....

http://www.law-faqs.org/nat/cr-sho-09.htm
_After catching my daughter shoplifting, the store owner detained her in a back room of the store and told her he was going to call the police. Did he have the right to do that?

Yes. You may have heard the term "citizen's arrest". This means that any citizen has a limited right to arrest another person if they are seen committing an indictable offence or if they believe on reasonable and probable grounds that someone is committing a crime. The most common form of citizen's arrest involves shoplifting. These are usually made by store detectives or personnel. Having detained your daughter, the store owner must call the police immediately and let them take over as soon as they arrive._


Doesn't need to be serious and/or on your property at all. I'm not convinced that your arguement about what Navy personal can do holds any water whatsoever.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2008)

A law student.......yay !!!


----------



## Shad4now (8 Jan 2008)

The part of the crimial code regarding citizen's arrest is as such
 'In Canada, the law in regards to a citizen's arrest is codified at ¶494 of the Criminal Code as follows:

“Any one may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed a criminal offence, and is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

“Any one who is the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property, may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

“Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.”"

The store clerk has the right to detain because he is an operator of the property. I lost because I thought it was ilegal to escape from citizen's arrest. 

Which parts of the port security do you think is not correct?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jan 2008)

Your limitations that would apparently give the Navy less authorization to arrest/detain than the average Canadian has.

[and with that, I retreat from the Naval operating area of the site as I know my limitations]


----------



## Shad4now (8 Jan 2008)

It is not as simple as citizen's arrest, while performing port security, first you would ......edited for OPSEC reasons.


----------



## FSTO (8 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> It is not as simple as citizen's arrest, while performing port security, first you would...also edited.



That would already be covered in your ROE. When a boat is advancing on you at 20+ knots there is ZERO time to get permission from the tall foreheads to react to them. Trust me, I have done enough training with Force Protection that the time to react is minimal at best.


----------



## axeman (8 Jan 2008)

make sure you dont overstep yourselves making a citizens arrest


http://www.bcrevolution.ca/defending_yourself_a_crime.htm


----------



## Shad4now (8 Jan 2008)

You are right, FSTO.
That's why I don't like Citizen's Arrest, Axeman


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Jan 2008)

ANd if a naval vessel came across an act of piracy in Canadian waters and if lives were endangered you don't actually think a CO would wait? If you do give your head a shake....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> Law class mock trial, I lost..... costed me to drop a letter grade... slightly bitter about it.... can you tell?


.


----------



## vincent.escanlar (8 Jan 2008)

Shad4now said:
			
		

> The store clerk has the right to detain because he is an operator of the property. I lost because I thought it was ilegal to escape from citizen's arrest.



Would s129 cover that -



> 129. Every one who
> 
> (a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty *or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer*,
> ...
> ...


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_IV//en#anchorbo-ga:l_IV

- or is someone making a citizen's arrest, before the police being aware, not yet "lawfully acting in aid" of a police officer?  What if the citizen saw something happening, called the police first, offered to make the arrest, and the police gave the ok, and then proceeded to do so - would it then be illegal to resist?  (But I guess if it's a 911 operator on the phone and not an actual police officer, that might not work either.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jan 2008)

citizens arrest tangent aside, let me assure Shad that, in the unlikely event of piracy in Canadian waters, the Navy most certainly does have the jurisdiction and authority to act.  And that is about as far as I will go on that...


----------



## PB (20 Jan 2008)

And although small in numbers, the Navy has been present in "Outside the wire" jobs since ROTO 1. They have made up the bulk of certain teams, supported by Echo C/S. I know of five different "Outside the Wire" teams that Navy folks have assisted in. We are only a small % over there, and, as you have read, most do not even realize we are there; but we are. 
I have my name in for my 2nd ROTO right now. I have a new found respect for the Army thou, they know how to "Rough it." 
I hate BAT tents! lol ...Chimo,


----------



## mcdvnav (23 May 2008)

I found the discussion about ROE and the Navy's role inside territorial water interesting, but missing one serious aspect.

During any scenario with the navy providing force protection and security for an event, there is most likely a Memorandom of understanding between RCMP, Solicitor General and the CF. In this MOU these organisations request support from the CF. This would fall into the category of Aid to Civil Power. In this situation CF members can be granted the status of Peace Officers.

As for the Piracy question; I don't want to discuss standing ROE specifically, but this isn't the first time people have asked that question. However, the UN Convention On the Law of the Sea has provisions that allows any warship to take action against pirates or slave traders.


----------



## Greymatters (26 May 2008)

mcdvnav said:
			
		

> In this situation CF members can be granted the status of Peace Officers.



While possible, its usually not probable.  CF members can pave the way, but the LEO's like to make their own arrests within Canadian boundaries...


----------

