# Proposal: Joint Marcom and CCG crews on CCG ships



## CougarKing (29 Jan 2007)

Alright, since the issue of whether to arm the CCG has already been turned inside-out on this other thread, http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32547.0.html, I chose to start this new thread since it deals more with having naval personnel on Coast Guard ships.  I request that the moderators to please not move this thread to a related thread just because it was covered before.

I was talking with this person one day who works for the Coast Guard and he said that soon we'll be having at least 2 new 30-knot cutters with joint CCG and RCMP crews with 3-inch guns. I am not sure how much truth there is to this since I couldn't find anything about this on the net. (Colin, if you were wondering who that guy was, I remember his name simply was Brett and claims he works on the base at Victoria and he used to be a crewman before being assigned to a shore installation where he works now) 

Still, this idea of joint crews also gave me another idea. Still, being a civvy myself who doesn't yet work in the maritime industry, but who will soon work in it, I DON'T claim to know more than those with more experience on this forum. 

Since it was repeatedly emphasized in that other thread that the CCG will be resistant to having a fully-armed fleet and militarized personnel, I therefore make another proposal that perhaps the CCG should allow naval personnel on their ships modified with naval weaponry such as 3-inch guns or helos that can be equipped with ASW torpedoes.

Before branding this idea as yet another WACKY proposal, have in mind that during World War II, American merchant ships travelling in convoys such as the Liberty ships may have had civilian. merchant marine crews, but the 4-inch and AA guns on these merchant ships were manned by US Navy or Coast Guard personnel. This was also true for British and other Commonwealth merchant ships whose defenses were manned by RNR or RNVR or RCNVR or other reserve personnel.

Now we come to the question of WHY we should have Naval personnel on CCG ships:

1.) Since the Coast Guard is the largest fleet WE HAVE at our disposal (around 40+ Marcom ships vs. 105+ CCG ships), instead of building more navy ships for maritime defense such as the Kingstons and the Orcas for maritime defense, why not kill two birds with one stone and have CCG ships do BOTH maritime defense and SAR/Fishery patrol/Icebreaking by having joint Naval and CCG crews. 

*The larger warships such as the Halifaxes would be for showing the flag abroad and would be more expeditionary in their role, such as escorting the JSS or other NATO surface groups.

2.) Since it's aparrent from the other thread, that militarizing or arming the CCG crew on a wider scale will face resistance, why not have Navy personnel assigned to CCG ships instead with them performing duties such as:
                     a.) manning the weaponry that could be installed on these cutters/icebreakers such as 4-inch mounts or 50 cal MG mounts
                     b.) dedicated NBPs stationed on these ships who could board suspicious vessels such as those smuggling in drugs or illegal immigrants.

3.) The personnel for manning these naval detachments would come from Naval Reserve personnel; the Kingstons could be retired/sold and their weaponry could be transferred to CCG ships.

4.) Since the CCG also operates in the Arctic, this could also be a way of enforcing Canada's Arctic Sovereignty by having Naval personnel on these ships while the CCG personnel do their usual ice-breaking and other duties.

5.) The CCG's large rotary fleet- especially the single Sea King on the West Coast and the BO 105s,- can be modified to carry ASW torpedoes to give the ships more of an offensive punch in addition to the SAR duties the helos now do.

Thoughts anyone?  Or is this thread doomed to be dropped into the realm of the trolls again?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> I request that the moderators to please not move this thread to a related thread just because it was covered before.



Thanks but we ( the mods) will decide what to do.



> I was talking with this person one day who works for the Coast Guard and he said that soon we'll be having at least 2 new 30-knot cutters with joint CCG and RCMP crews with 3-inch guns. I am not sure how much truth there is to this since I couldn't find anything about this on the net. (Colin, if you were wondering who that guy was, I remember his name simply was Brett and claims he works on the base at Victoria and he used to be a crewman before being assigned to a shore installation where he works now)



Yup...sounds like a reliable source to me  :



> Since it was repeatedly emphasized in that other thread that the CCG will be resistant to having a fully-armed fleet and militarized personnel, I therefore make another proposal that perhaps the CCG should allow naval personnel on their ships modified with naval weaponry such as 3-inch guns or helos that can be equipped with ASW torpedoes.



Oh boy here we go....Helos with ASW torpedoes eh ? Will those CCG ships also have TAS and active sonars to point those helos in the right direction ? Do you have any idea how ASW works ? Why would the CCG be doing ASW in the first place ?



> 1.) Since the Coast Guard is the largest fleet WE HAVE at our disposal (around 40+ Marcom ships vs. 105+ CCG ships), instead of building more navy ships for maritime defense such as the Kingstons and the Orcas for maritime defense, why not kill two birds with one stone and have CCG ships do BOTH maritime defense and SAR/Fishery patrol/Icebreaking by having joint Naval and CCG crews.



The ORCA class was not built for costal defense.



> *The larger warships such as the Halifaxes would be for showing the flag abroad and would be more expeditionary in their role, such as escorting the JSS or other NATO surface groups.



What do you think they do now ? But i gues your do-it-all CCG would also do sub-surface surveillance in Canadian waters too ?



> 5.) The CCG's large rotary fleet- especially the single Sea King on the West Coast and the BO 105s,- can be modified to carry ASW torpedoes to give the ships more of an offensive punch in addition to the SAR duties the helos now do.



Again with the ASW.  Do you not have any freaking clue ?  ASW is about more than carrying a torp and putting it in the water.  get back in your lane....you're about to hit oncomming traffic


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jan 2007)

Mixed crews would not work....not to mention who would decide when the gloves come off? What if the CG crews decide to go on strike?


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Mixed crews would not work....not to mention who would decide when the gloves come off? What if the CG crews decide to go on strike?



Ex-Dragoon,

There are many examples of joint military-civilian ventures where the end result was fruitful. You have the US military and NASA. And here locally, you have Aircom and Coast Guard coordinating in SAR on a few occasions. 

As for my World War II example, I did mention those US Navy/Royal Navy/RCNVR detachments for the 5-inch gun tubs/AA mounts of Allied ships in convoys? Is this not a good precedent that mixed crews will work? 

*Hell, the British armed merchant cruiser "Jervis Bay" did a fabulous, though nearly futile, job with a mixed navy-merchant marine crew defending a convoy from the Pocket Battleship "Admiral Scheer"!


----------



## Meridian (29 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What if the CG crews decide to go on strike?



Is the CCG not an essential service?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> Ex-Dragoon,
> 
> There are many examples of joint military-civilian ventures where the end result was fruitful. You have the US military and NASA. And here locally, you have Aircom and Coast Guard coordinating in SAR on a few occasions.



Apples to Oranges......Us coordinating with with the CCG doesnt mean we are working with them on the same aircraft. It is not a joint venture as you describe it.  If the CCG goes on strike, the AF still prvides SAR as we do not depend on the CCG for our capability.


Now...are you going to adress my questions to you on your ASW helos / ASW Coast Guard or are just going to avoid it ?


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Apples to Oranges......Us coordinating with with the CCG doesnt mean we are working with them on the same aircraft. It is not a joint venture as you describe it.  If the CCG goes on strike, the AF still prvides SAR as we do not depend on the CCG for our capability.
> 
> 
> Now...are you going to adress my questions to you on your ASW helos / ASW Coast Guard or are just going to avoid it ?



Just because I'm a civvy without maritime or naval experience doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I won't withdraw this part of the proposal until you spell it out for exactly why "it's not that simple".  I'm here to learn and please don't give me the usual rude "Stay in the lane" quote that I often hear on this forum just because wannabe civvies like us want to discuss things that you people do professionally. We're not imposing on you so therefore what's the problem?

Regardless, while this thread was started for the sake of discussion, it makes no difference what either of us says because neither of us are in the position to change the policy anyway- our MPs are.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jan 2007)

1) Who would be in charge
2) Would the civillian crewmembers be entitled to more pay if their was a risk of danger
3) In the event of said danger who decides to implement ROE
4) Why is the CG all of a sudden in the business of ASW?


----------



## medaid (29 Jan 2007)

If you've read the multiple posts, with regards to CCG and the Navy, you will know why it will not be that simple. Infact, you should go back to the previous thread and reread it carefully to see what's been said and the underlying problems/reasons why it will not work.

Most people when they're here to learn, they keep their opinions to a minimal and their reading glasses handy. This is merely my observation, but some of your posts have been borderlining confrontational on many occasions. When the mods say 'stay in the lane' it is generally a kind reminder that you need to read more and talk less. And no, they don't say that because people are 'wannabe civvies', they say that to any one who has swerved off the path (I will probably get a warning for this, because I've swerved off my path). 

On the topic of imposition. You're right, when you ask a question which has never been brought up before, or an opinion from a BRAND NEW perspective which cant be explained from answers already floating around, then you're quite right, that is NOT imposition. However, if you're asking questions which could be easily searched for and answered, then yes you ARE an IMPOSITION on the members' valuable time and energy.

....Just a thought...


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jan 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 1) Who would be in charge
> 2) Would the civillian crewmembers be entitled to more pay if their was a risk of danger
> 3) In the event of said danger who decides to implement ROE
> 4) Why is the CG all of a sudden in the business of ASW?




1.) That depends on the contingency. Of course any hostile threat would be the Navy's turf.
2.)Yes
3.) The ranking naval officer aboard will supersede the CCG captain in times of danger and it would be his decision to implement the ROE
4.)Who said it had to be the CG's responsibility? That's why there are Naval personnel aboard the CCG ships for the vessels' protection from any potential threat that could be more armed than the usual drug runner or merchant ship smuggling in illegal immigrants?

But as I said before, regardless of what any of us says, none of us is in a policy-making position when it comes to this matter.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jan 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> Just because I'm a civvy without maritime or naval experience doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I won't withdraw this part of the proposal until you spell it out for exactly why "it's not that simple".  I'm here to learn and please don't give me the usual rude "Stay in the lane" quote that I often hear on this forum just because wannabe civvies like us want to discuss things that you people do professionally. We're not imposing on you so therefore what's the problem?



ASW is what i do. My comment to "stay in your lane" was a very valid one, suck it up.  its not that simple because ASW operations are , IMHO, the most complex a naval force can undertake. It takes more than an ASW helo on board to have ASW....how is this helo going to know where to look for a sub ? Are you going to equip CCG ships with the ASW suite it needs to direct that ASW helo ?  Starting to sound like a FFH doesnt it ? Or are we going to put enough helos and crew on thses CCG ships to have a helo airborne 24/7 looking for subs that might not even be there ?



> Regardless, while this thread was started for the sake of discussion, it makes no difference what either of us says because neither of us are in the position to change the policy anyway- our MPs are.



Nice cop out mister....you are up shyte creek without a paddle...


----------



## medaid (29 Jan 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> 1.) That depends on the contingency. Of course any hostile threat would be the Navy's turf.
> 2.)Yes
> 3.) The ranking naval officer aboard will supersede the CCG captain in times of danger and it would be his decision to implement the ROE
> 4.)Who said it had to be the CG's responsibility? That's why there are Naval personnel aboard the CCG ships for the vessels' protection from any potential threat that could be more armed than the usual drug runner or merchant ship smuggling in illegal immigrants?
> ...




...just... stop.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jan 2007)

We showed you why it would not work....you are just not getting it....


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jan 2007)

Alright, I withdraw my position on ASW torpedoes since apparently it's an impractical idea.  

I thank you for your answers and your criticisms.  

I did not mean to insult any of you with my comments if they were seen that way. At least this topic was discussed at all and taken care of.


----------



## newfin (29 Jan 2007)

Seems to me I read somewhere a while back about posters treating each other with respect.  This thread is another example of enlisted people bullying a civilian with a question and an opinion or two.  His opinions, like mine, may not be as informed as people in the service but this is not a DND site.  This is a forum for people to discuss their ideas and opinions with others.  It should not be a place where a person has to be concerned about getting a verbal headbutt because he does not have the knowledge of the CDS!  I am one of those civvies that does a whole lot more reading on this site than I do posting and I think Cougar King has been very respectful.  Many of you need to learn to treat others with a lot more respect than you do. Do you always speak to people like that?  Do you teach your children to treat others like that.  I think you owe Cougar King an apology.


You might have a difficult time convincing a Captain of a Coast Guard Vessel that his authority will be superceded in times of danger by a Naval Officer that does not outrank him.   He is the captain of the ship and he would not likely take the position knowing that his authority to command might be undermined at the most critical of times.


...and these 2 paragraphs are _my 2 cents worth._


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2007)

I also think you need to delve into the thread itself. When someone won't listen to fact given to them by people who do this type of thing everyday and basically repeats the same discussion time and time again as was noted one gets tired of it. An apology is not warranted here.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Jan 2007)

Gentlemen, 

May we please get back to the topic at hand then, gentlemen? 

I already agreed that some of my comments may have been "out of line" as some of you have explained, but I appreciate all your criticisms and your taking the time to actually respond them.

I already WITHDREW my ASW torpedoes argument.

Now, how about the idea of 3-inchers being installed on CCG vessels? I am aware some of them already have 50 cals, especially those that were in the Fisheries patrol fleet before the CCG was transferred from Transport to Fisheries and Oceans. These batteries would be manned by a Naval detachment or even by Naval reserve personnel; perhaps arming every large CCG vessel with such a detachment would be preferrable to maintaining those 12 Kingstons- since we could cover more water with the larger CCG fleet.

But I leave this other argument to be dissected, analyzed or even shot with holes by you professionals.Thoughts?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2007)

Your naval reserve personnel would get zero training benefit if you got rid of their MCDVs and made them gun crews on civillian crewed and commanded vessels.


----------



## xo31@711ret (30 Jan 2007)

Having problems with this ancient s***box - nor am I very computer illiterate (showing my age) Seems to me I read somewhere a while back about posters treating each other with respect. Exactly. I thought this was a site to express a thought or an opinion, to seek information, broadens ones view. Myself, I find it thoughtful,interesting and entertaining when a thought or an idea is expressed upon a different element such as our Naval or Air brethren which I have very little knowledge about since I SPENT OVER 24 YEARS REGULAR FORCE STARTING AS INFANTEER RETIRING AS MED A IN THE FIELD: nor do I consider myself to be all-knowing fountain of knowledge with regards to the regular force, infantry or medical trade. (Soon to be reserves;'retirement' is not all it's cracked up to be, plus I miss the camaraderie).  Yes, I believe that blatant posers should be put in their place. But I have seen a (very) few times that: those voicing an opinion / theory / discussion; those with very little military knowledge or seeking knowledge (ie potential recruits) are basically figuratively slapped in the face, 'put in their place' as it were. (This is rare) But for, crissakes there are times when I would of liked to post a comment or opinion  but never did for fear of being brow-beatened by some some know-it-all and me posting something else in the heat of the moment. If it gets me banned: so be it...I just believe in showing a little decorum and respect without having some poor poster end up being belittled and feeling like an idiot. MY RANT

Sgt (ret) Gerard J Connors
1982 - 1988 infantry, 1RCR
1988-2006 Medical Assistant / Technician


----------



## x-grunt (30 Jan 2007)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> Now, how about the idea of 3-inchers being installed on CCG vessels?



I suspect this is an exaggeration of this initiative between the CCG and the RCMP:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2005/hq-ac66a_e.htm

I see absolutely zero evidence on the RCMP, DFO, CCG web sites and a google search of any plans to give the CCG armaments as you describe. I didn't think I would - the CCG is really not a military or paramilitary (police) service of any kind, far from it. I know this is a simplification, but think of them more like a maritime traffic control and road crew. Besides, a 3" with crew and fire-control radar is a fairly substantial piece of military kit. Other options would make more sense if something was planned.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jan 2007)

CougarKing: I'm pretty sure that no .50 calibres are permanently on CCG vessels.  Usually the only firearms are those carried by Fishery Officers if on board or by RCMP officers:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm#THE%20CONDITIONS%20OF%20EMPLOYMENT

"-Carry and use firearms and other restricted and prohibited weapons;
-Meet the DFO use of force proficiency standards; "

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing (30 Jan 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CougarKing: I'm pretty sure that no .50 calibres are permanently on CCG vessels.  Usually the only firearms are those carried by Fishery Officers if on board or by RCMP officers:
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm#THE%20CONDITIONS%20OF%20EMPLOYMENT
> 
> "-Carry and use firearms and other restricted and prohibited weapons;
> ...



Mark from Ottawa,

There is at least one CCG vessel that has 50 cals permanently installed- the CCGS Leonard Cowley, according to this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_Leonard_J._Cowley

But of course, some of may be leery of using wikipedia as a reliable source anyway.

from X-grunt:


> I didn't think I would - the CCG is really not a military or paramilitary (police) service of any kind, far from it. I know this is a simplification, but think of them more like a maritime traffic control and road crew.



X-Grunt,

YES, I am well aware that they are a uniformed, civilian service with crews much like merchant ships (with the exception of the MCTS people, who are said to mostly not wear uniforms on the East Coast, and not at all on the West Coast).  The subject whether this service should be armed was already beaten to death in this other thread about whether the CCG should be armed at all without RCMP or Navy support:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32547.0.html

Since there will be much resistance to further arming the CCG's ships and personnel according to this other thread, that is why the idea of placing naval detachments aboard CCG vessels came to me, however impractical it must seem to a number of you.

Again, thanks for all your responses.

Cougar


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jan 2007)

CougarKing: This CCG source makes no mention of machine guns, though: 
http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ccg/sheet14.htm



> The Cowley monitors fishing activities to fulfill Canada's commitment to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.  Since this often involves law enforcement, the vessel has an armed boarding team.  Though its primary task is fisheries patrol, the Cowley can also carry out search and rescue operations.



As I mentioned about Fishery Officers.

The Cowley did temporarily mount at least one machine gun during the  _Estai_ incident.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iec/iecorders/iec_iapplication_950328.html



> ...intimidation with warning shots fired from a 50-mm [_sic_]gun by the patrol boat Leonard J. Cowley, after, according to the Canadian Note of 10 March 1995, "the necessary authorizations" had been obtained.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Jan 2007)

Just to add my $0.02 - I thought the question was great.  I read the thread title/topic and opened it quickly looking forward to the debate that would ensue.

The fact that most of the responses basically came down to "Stay in your lane jagoff." and focused on belittling the initial poster was disturbing.

Everyone has their own "lane" in life.  

When people around me ask me questions about marketing, corporate identity development, human resources, finance, investing, web applications and database design, or some of the other numerous things I've learned over the years, the last thing I do is insult them.  

If you guys want to have a closed board where only the currently serving are allowed to discuss their areas of expertise with other serving members in the exact same area of expertise, then by all means, lock it down.  You can have a fixed wing aviator board (all others excluded).  You can have a CPF board (no MCDV crew allowed). Etc.  And you can lock them so that outsiders to their "lane" are only allowed to browse and not post in those threads.

But if this is intended to be a forum for military personnel, potential recruits, and people generally interested in Canadian military affairs (including journalists) to also learn about areas outside their lanes, I think you need to show more tolerance for those who know they are out of their lane and ask questions and propose 'models' in order to try to get a better grasp of how things really work.  

Bottom Line:  Before you harpoon some poor poster for asking a question you know based on experience is stupid, step back and imagine the shoe were on the other foot.  As a civilian I don't mind getting explanations that by their content demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt I was stupid....or ignorant....but at least have the courtesy to provide that clarification in an educational and not an insulting manner, because if any of you ever asked me a question, I would show you at least that much respect.


That's it....

Best wishes all,  Matthew.


----------



## newfin (30 Jan 2007)

Mr. Matthew Blackshirt: I can only wish I were as articulate as you.  Everything you said (and said well) is exactly what I was trying to say above.  Too many regulars on this forum come across as people with a chip on their shoulder and an attitude to ram it down someone else's throat. However, they are outnumbered by the rest of the regulars that treat others with respect.

As for the Coast Guard and the military doing joint patrols together I do not support the idea as a long term solution.  I think that is a solution that only offers a temporary fix to try and cover up much greater problems.  Like the new paint job you put on the car before you try to sell it.  I think the Coast Guard should be lightly armed.  Just as I think the Canadian Border Services should be armed (and will be over the next few years).  The Coast Guard should be armed with weapons suitable for vessels to use against other vessels so they can perform a constabulary role along with the other roles they currently carry out.  They should also be funded properly which we all know has been lacking for a few decades.  They are in the process of buying 8-10 (can't remember the exact number) of Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels, some of which are intended to be jointly manned with the RCMP on the Great Lakes.

And the Navy should also be tasked with fulfilling the role of patrolling all three coasts on a full time basis.  Again, they must have the funding and equipment to carry this out.  If the Kingston's are not suitable for the job then new vessels should be purchased.  If there aren't currently enough crew to man them then more should be hired.  If there isn't enough money in the budget then more should be allocated.  All of these issues can be solved by the will of the public and money.  Currently in this country money is not the problem but the desire of the public.  The truth is that in this country we keep electing governments that have National security as a low priority item.  The reason it's not on their priority list is because it's not on the public's priority list.  Hopefully we have begun to turn the corner on this issue in the last 12 months.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2007)

newfin said:
			
		

> Seems to me I read somewhere a while back about posters treating each other with respect.  This thread is another example of enlisted people bullying a civilian with a question and an opinion or two.  His opinions, like mine, may not be as informed as people in the service but this is not a DND site.  This is a forum for people to discuss their ideas and opinions with others.  It should not be a place where a person has to be concerned about getting a verbal headbutt because he does not have the knowledge of the CDS!  I am one of those civvies that does a whole lot more reading on this site than I do posting and I think Cougar King has been very respectful.  Many of you need to learn to treat others with a lot more respect than you do. Do you always speak to people like that?  Do you teach your children to treat others like that.  I think you owe Cougar King an apology.
> 
> 
> You might have a difficult time convincing a Captain of a Coast Guard Vessel that his authority will be superceded in times of danger by a Naval Officer that does not outrank him.   He is the captain of the ship and he would not likely take the position knowing that his authority to command might be undermined at the most critical of times.
> ...





			
				newfin said:
			
		

> Mr. Matthew Blackshirt: I can only wish I were as articulate as you.  Everything you said (and said well) is exactly what I was trying to say above.  Too many regulars on this forum come across as people with a chip on their shoulder and an attitude to ram it down someone else's throat. However, they are outnumbered by the rest of the regulars that treat others with respect.



Looks like your skin is rather 'thin'.  I find it funny that you have slammed a good number of experienced members for their responses to you, and yet by your above posts, you show that you are no better than them.  It would look like you don't want to accept the experience of others, unless they have matching ideas as yours.  That is a rather arrogant position to take.  As you said you are a civilian and not experienced in these matters, yet you get upset when people tell you the facts and they do not meet with your sensibilities.  Not usually a good sign of reasonable discussion. 

To put it bluntly, I find your above posts offensive.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jan 2007)

....and i'm politely going to ask everyone to get back on track, lest i politely shut this thread down...There are threads on how terrible the mods are, i'm more than willing to discuss that issue there.

Thanks


----------



## CougarKing (31 Jan 2007)

Getting back on track...



> Your naval reserve personnel would get zero training benefit if you got rid of their MCDVs and made them gun crews on civillian crewed and commanded vessels.



Ex-Dragoon,

Are you saying this because these gun crews would not have the support of a CIC and the supporting sensors that a Frigate/MCDV would have? (other than the civilian radar,sonars and GPS used on civilian ships)

Or is it because you believe that naval detachments mixing with a civilian crew would probably affect their cohesion and discipline since they would be staying with them for the whole length of the cruise?

BTW, I mentioned the US/British/Commonwealth naval/naval reserve detachments on board merchant ships in Allied convoys during World War II- isn't that a good enough precedent/past example that naval crews' training doesn't necessarily deteriorate just because they are mixed in with civilians?

A good World War II example would be the SS _Stephen Hopkins_, a US Liberty ship travelling alone in the Atlantic, whose naval "Armed Guard" gunners were able to defend the ship and even sink the German merchant cruiser/raider_Stier_ which attacked them.

http://www.usmm.org/hopkins.html

I know this example might not apply in the modern world, but still, having naval detachments placed aboard the larger CCG fleet would allow us to kill three birds with one stone: 
1.) Enforce Canada's sovereignty in the farther reaches of our waters (e.g the Arctic,) with the naval detachments aboard with the largest fleet already at our disposal- the CCG fleet.
2.) Some law enforcement missions (drug and illegal immigrant interdiction, which the US Coast Guard does)
3.) SAR and other normal Canadian Coast Guard duties such as fisheries patrol, ocean surveying and ice-breaking.

Of course, modifying the large CCG fleet with these weapons would not come without considerable cost since most of the current CG ships are not designed to have weapons installed, larger than the 50 cals of the CCGS _Cowley_, not to mention the ASW suite and other criticisms you pointed earlier, as well as a government (whether Liberal or Conservative or whoever) willing to foot the bill of permanently installing weapons on these ships.

However, this may be a change worth considering for _future_ Canadian cutters and icebreakers. They could more modelled on the US Coast Guard cutters such as the _Hamilton_ Class cutters which are designed for BOTH SAR and sovereignty/law enforcement missions mentioned above.  Even many of their smaller cutters are armed.

Since the Canadian Coast Guard is so resistant to "militarizing" as mentioned in the "Should the Canadian Coast Guard be Armed?" thread, why not just have Naval detachments aboard? 

You may answer this by pointing out that with only 9,000 active duty sailors already spread throughout the bigger warships and the 4,000 reservists for the MCDVs, YAGs, Orcas and across the nation, we might not have enough sailors left to man those CCG ships, unless the navy grows bigger, or unless the MCDVs are retired and the reservists are transferred to those detachments on the CG ships. 

In that case, one might then suggest that the RCMP instead increase the joint role it already enjoys with the CCG by having more permanent detachments aboard to be used in drug interdiction/illegal immigrant/law enforcement missions, along with permanently installed weapons such as 50 cals or possibly even training them to use 3-inch guns. This could also take care of the sovereignty enforcement function as well _without_ involving the Navy then.  But then again, this other suggestion of increasing the RCMP's joint ventures with the CCG even to the point of having the be gun crews would be the subject of another thread. (*if the Mounties don't have enough personnel, then how about arming some Border Guards and training them in the same fashion as mentioned earlier for the Sovreignty function).

I am surely going to get a lot of flak for this, but I await your responses and criticisms.  

Cougar

PS

Here's a little pic of one of the US Navy armed guard gun tubs in the _Stephen Hopkins_'s  gun duel with the _Stier_.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Jan 2007)

Sorry I am done answering questions as I might be seen as big and mean to other posters. Have your debate and discuss it to your hearts content....


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Jan 2007)

The Coast Guard already goes some distance towards enforcing Canadian sovereignty in the north just by being there and doing its normal job of maintaining the waterways (icebreaking, aids to navigation, etc.).  If it were necessary to use force, to the extent of 3" guns, then that would be a very different situation from what we have now.  (To date, nobody has ever sailed through our northern waters under circumstances that would make us willing to actually shoot at them).

3" is also a little on the large side for a gun; only three destroyers in the Canadian navy have such a thing.  (Canadian frigates have smaller guns, closer to 2".)  But if you do mount a gun with the intention of putting yourself in the position of having to use it, you need a warship with a naval crew.  It's one thing to place a naval gun crew in a civilian ship to fire the gun, but quite another to ask the civilian crew to put up with the possibility of their ship being fired on by others with similar weapons.  You're correct that it worked during the war, but sailing into harm's way was the norm for merchant service crews at that time -- the normal course of their work brought them literally into the sights of the enemy.

There are differences between what makes a good icebreaker and what makes a good warship, and some of them would be hard to reconcile within one vessel.  Damage control is an example (see the thread in the Navy forum on commercial vs. naval ship specifications for more on this).  The shape of the hull is another: a hull that's good at icebreaking is not necessarily good for speed, so a ship that aims to be a warship and an icebreaker will have to include some compromises that will make it less than optimal for either role.

As for the training aspect, today almost an entire ship's crew can receive training in an MCDV -- boatswains, stokers, cooks, MARS officers, and others.  If the Naval Reserve lost the MCDVs and replaced them with billets in CCG ships many of those opportunities would go as well.  Put another way, the crew of a warship do a lot more than aim and fire the guns.

Your comment on RCMP members in CCG ships is closer to the mark.  As you say, it's being done now (though I believe the mounties concerned are managing with small arms, not ship-mounted guns).


----------



## cplcaldwell (31 Jan 2007)

Perhaps the role of the CCG is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act (wrt Law Enforcement)?

Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom. In this way suspicious ships can be identified and assets with sufficient defence capabilities can be 'zeroed in' on the possible offender.

Perhaps the last role of the CCG in this regard is to provide a 'lift' for Fisheries Protection Officers and RCMP Constables who, once in reasonable proximity to a suspected vessel can debark the LEO's in a suitable craft, remain at arm's length and let the 'pro's' do the job.

Could it be that naval boarding parties are now (possibly) to be included to this list of 'perhaps'? 

*Is there a role that could be envisaged where naval boarding parties are required instead of/in addition to  of FPO's or RCMP's?

Is having naval boarding parties embarked on CCG vessels a reasonable role that fits an existing need?*

As mentioned before, the role of CCG as a combat force has been hammered to death, but could CCG make a viable transport option for naval boarding parties. 

As discussed, it seems that ASW and ASuW capabilities are a 'non starter', but is there any utility of adding naval boarding parties to CCG vessels in some cases...


_Trying to stay on track, here and narrowing the discussion to a rather specific "jointness", to wit, naval boarding parties 'lodging' on CCG vessels._


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jan 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom.



MarComm already has a set of eyes and ears t pinpoint ships, identify them and report on them...........The CP-140 Aurora.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jan 2007)

cdnaviator: How many for how much longer, if these plans go ahead?
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=22fbb1c1-2162-4a26-b721-f153a000e36e



> ...
> The cuts would include six Aurora maritime patrol aircraft...
> 
> As it gets rid of the Auroras, the air force will purchase approximately 12 aerial drones to be located at Canadian Forces Base Comox in British Columbia and CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia for domestic surveillance and overseas operations. The first of those will be in operation starting in 2008. The purchase of longer-range drones would be considered in the future.
> ...



With the reduction in Aurora numbers I would say the case is even stronger for more civilian maritime surveillance planes.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jan 2007)

I'm not at work today so i dont know if its made the rounds there yet.  I will hold off on commenting until i hear what the CO has to say about it


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Feb 2007)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The Coast Guard already goes some distance towards enforcing Canadian sovereignty in the north just by being there and doing its normal job of maintaining the waterways (icebreaking, aids to navigation, etc.).  If it were necessary to use force, to the extent of 3" guns, then that would be a very different situation from what we have now.  (To date, nobody has ever sailed through our northern waters under circumstances that would make us willing to actually shoot at them).
> 
> 3" is also a little on the large side for a gun; only three destroyers in the Canadian navy have such a thing.  (Canadian frigates have smaller guns, closer to 2".)  But if you do mount a gun with the intention of putting yourself in the position of having to use it, you need a warship with a naval crew.  It's one thing to place a naval gun crew in a civilian ship to fire the gun, but quite another to ask the civilian crew to put up with the possibility of their ship being fired on by others with similar weapons.  You're correct that it worked during the war, but sailing into harm's way was the norm for merchant service crews at that time -- the normal course of their work brought them literally into the sights of the enemy.
> 
> ...



Agreed. For a combined ships company you will also have jurisdictional issues up the ying yang and intergovernment departmental  battles that would accomplish little for the mission success.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Feb 2007)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Perhaps the role of the CCG is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act (wrt Law Enforcement)?
> 
> Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom. In this way suspicious ships can be identified and assets with sufficient defence capabilities can be 'zeroed in' on the possible offender.
> 
> ...



The problem here is if we embarked an NBP team on a CCG vessel the only real weapons you will have are what the teams are carrying. The CCG would be able to do little in providing covering fire especially when the team is in transit to and from the vessel that is to be boarded.


----------

