# Force Protection failure in Greece: RCN ship vandalized



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505298830379601926
> NST had provided security the last time an HMC ship was in that port. Apparently no measures in place this time around.
> 
> Facebook comment from a former NST NCO:
> ...


If it were an American Ship there would probably be a few dead Greeks.

I am wondering where the Upper Deck Sentries were?


----------



## Furniture (19 Mar 2022)

Sounds like it was a failure of the locals to do their job... I sailed before the NST was a thing(their trial run in Busan was my last trip), we counted on the local police or military to secure the jetty before we came alongside.


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

Furniture said:


> Sounds like it was a failure of the locals to do their job... I sailed before the NST was a thing(their trial run in Busan was my last trip), we counted on the local police or military to secure the jetty before we came alongside.


Yep. Liaising with local LE seems to be something NST takes to heart. It's possible a less FP-aware Ops department/Command may have left that on the backburner.

I won't go too far on the armchair quarterbacking here, but at a time where guerrilla tactics are openly shared in support of Ukraine, that ball of paint could've easily been a more deadly weapon. What then?


----------



## Furniture (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Yep. Liaising with local LE seems to be something NST takes to heart. It's possible a less FP-aware Ops department/Command may have left that on the backburner.
> 
> I won't go too far on the armchair quarterbacking here, but at a time where guerrilla tactics are openly shared in support of Ukraine, that ball of paint could've been a more deadly weapon. What then?


My experience is a few years old now, but the RCN didn't take FP seriously at all when I was sailing. 

It was always a bit soul crushing to see the UDS carrying their rifle around at the shoulder arms, apparently terrified of the thing...


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

Furniture said:


> My experience is a few years old now, but the RCN didn't take FP seriously at all when I was sailing.
> 
> It was always a bit soul crushing to see the UDS carrying their rifle around at the shoulder arms, apparently terrified of the thing...


The RCN as a whole might be a bit more FP-aware, what with standing up NST and NTOG and reimagining the NBPs, but we've still got a ways to go.

Sailors outside of those three FP organizations are generally not briefed and trained properly on the matter. Superiors often rely on rumours as source materiel.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

If the RCN were smart the Integral Boarding Party would do all alongside and underway force protection.

This would excuse them from other duties but then again, why are we even training them if we aren't going to employ them?


----------



## dimsum (19 Mar 2022)

My question is why there isn't an NST element there?  Wasn't that the whole point of that organization?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> My question is why there isn't an NST element there?  Wasn't that the whole point of that organization?


I thought it was to give the crew vacations 😁


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> My question is why there isn't an NST element there?  Wasn't that the whole point of that organization?


Resources are limited. Naturally, they can't deploy to every Port Visit, so some decisions have to be made. Why wasn't it deployed to this port if it had been 2 years ago? I don't know.

Something I also do not know the answer to: if ships are deployed to actually risky ports, will CJOC send NST over or would: 1. the GC rather not risk Reservists' lives, and 2. Command teams rather trust their own ship's company to provide security for itself?

I only did a short stint with NST years ago, so perhaps those questions have been answered, I'm sadly not up to date. What I do know is that not much was done during the two years of COVID due to obvious (though some may describe as questionable) reasons, so I doubt that much has evolved in that timeframe.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If the RCN were smart the Integral Boarding Party would do all alongside and underway force protection.
> 
> This would excuse them from other duties but then again, why are we even training them if we aren't going to employ them?


You need a place to keep all the people with Norse Pagan chits...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> The RCN as a whole might be a bit more FP-aware, what with standing up NST and NTOG and reimagining the NBPs, but we've still got a ways to go.
> 
> Sailors outside of those three FP organizations are generally not briefed and trained properly on the matter. Superiors often rely on rumours as source materiel.





TacticalTea said:


> Resources are limited. Naturally, they can't deploy to every Port Visit, so some decisions have to be made. Why wasn't it deployed to this port if it had been 2 years ago? I don't know.
> 
> Something I also do not know the answer to: if ships are deployed to actually risky ports, will CJOC send NST over or would: 1. the GC rather not risk Reservists' lives, and 2. Command teams rather trust their own ship's company to provide security for itself?
> 
> I only did a short stint with NST years ago, so perhaps those questions have been answered, I'm sadly not up to date. What I do know is that not much was done during the two years of COVID due to obvious (though some may describe as questionable) reasons, so I doubt that much has evolved in that timeframe.


Interestingly one of NTOGs stated missions is "enhanced force protection".

Sounds like a great job for them with possible Russian meddling in our potential Ports of Call.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2022)

Why would a ship sail without a dedicated Security Team?  I really don't get the idea that is should be a secondary duty - given you might need to be doing a slew of different things all at once on a ship.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Why would a ship sail without a dedicated Security Team?  I really don't get the idea that is should be a secondary duty - given you might need to be doing a slew of different things all at once on a ship.


Especially a warship.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Especially a warship.


Yeah I was thinking fight the ship might be a bit of a priority - but I never was in the Navy


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Yeah I was thinking fight the ship might be a bit of a priority - but I never was in the Navy


Well anyone who has a schmick about that is busy selling themselves out to Ambery or Seagull Maritime at the moment 🤣

Especially with the sudden exodus of cheap Ukrainian and other Eastern European SSOs to "greener" or muddier pastures.


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Yeah I was thinking fight the ship might be a bit of a priority - but I never was in the Navy


Not to worry. They'll hold a BOI and in a year or two there'll be a recommendation or two to ponder.

😉


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Why would a ship sail without a dedicated Security Team?  I really don't get the idea that is should be a secondary duty - given you might need to be doing a slew of different things all at once on a ship.


As I alluded to in the Ukraine thread a week ago, the RCN is largely a diplomatic tool and more concerned about pleasing the international community and the Canadian public. (see how, similarly, we are overextended operationally because it is politically beneficial, to the detriment of the entire FG org and people's mental health)

Neither the military towards the Canadian public nor Canada towards international peers have the leverage to go in ''guns blazing'' wherever we go, as the US would. We have to be gentle and avoid any sort of incident, otherwise we risk UNSC votes (that we don't get anyway, hah!), favourable trade negotiations, and DND funding.

The US is influential enough not to be bothered as much by those considerations and the NDAA will be passed every year, rain or shine, with bipartisan support.

Perhaps (read ''God, please, I can't bear seeing my people unnecessarily in harm's way for bullshit politics anymore, so hopefully'') the current geopolitical situation will shift global and domestic views and permit a change in posture.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> Not to worry. They'll hold a BOI and in a year or two there'll be a recommendation or two to ponder.
> 
> 😉


Sadly I suspect you are correct.
  Way back when the putting Infantry onto the ships for that role - was simply so they didn't have a secondary job.
Sure they could learn some Damage Control and have that as a secondary duty - which to me makes sense...
The primary role of the Security Force needs to be security, or they will often find themselves with competing tasks.


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> As I alluded to in the Ukraine thread a week ago, the RCN is largely a diplomatic tool and more concerned about pleasing the international community and the Canadian public.
> 
> Neither the military towards the Canadian public nor Canada towards international peers have the leverage to go in ''guns blazing'' wherever we go, as the US would. We have to be gentle and avoid any sort of incident, otherwise we risk UNSC votes (that we don't get anyway, hah!), favourable trade negotiations, and DND funding.
> 
> ...


TO me that is simply a mentality fail from the top of the CRCN on down - it is a warship, not a commerce vessel - while it may have secondary duties - the primary role is a warship...


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> TO me that is simply a mentality fail from the top of the CRCN on down - it is a warship, not a commerce vessel - while it may have secondary duties - the primary role is a warship...


I don't disagree.

I pride myself in my focus on FP and UoF in the Navy, precisely because attention to those domains seems sorely lacking.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2022)

So when is the Captain going to be fired for negligence, I wonder?


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> So when is the Captain going to be fired for negligence, I wonder?


Huh? And who's gonna replace him?!

Inb4: ''I'm sorry, I thought this was America!''


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> So when is the Captain going to be fired for negligence, I wonder?


Not a GOFO


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Huh? And who's gonna replace him?!
> 
> Inb4: ''I'm sorry, I thought this was America!''



Good point. There's no way they could leave a strategic desk empty in Ottawa....


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> So when is the Captain going to be fired for negligence, I wonder?


NDA 124 - Negligent Performance of Duty; 104 Negligently Hazarding a Vessel

As an analogy from the UCMJ


> This means to put a (vessel) (aircraft) in danger of loss or injury. Actual damage to or loss of the (vessel) (aircraft), though not required, is conclusive evidence that the (vessel) (aircraft) was hazarded but not of the fact of culpability on the part of any particular person



🍻


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> NDA 124 - Negligent Performance of Duty; 104 Negligently Hazarding a Vessel
> 
> As an analogy from the UCMJ
> 
> ...


This seems like a perfect opportunity to bring out the ole faithful:

"In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time *to encourage the others*."
-Voltaire


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> NDA 124 - Negligent Performance of Duty; 104 Negligently Hazarding a Vessel
> 
> As an analogy from the UCMJ
> 
> ...


In fact, you can probably speak on that. Summary trial numbers (perhaps, presumably GCMs too?) are down considerably from previous years and decades, what sort of an effect has that had, in your opinion?


----------



## dimsum (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Yeah I was thinking fight the ship might be a bit of a priority - but I never was in the Navy


It is a priority.  The third priority.

Float, move, fight.


----------



## FJAG (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> In fact, you can probably speak on that. Summary trial numbers (perhaps, presumably GCMs too?) are down considerably from previous years and decades, what sort of an effect has that had, in your opinion?


No idea. I'm too far removed in both space and time (13 years now) from any access to detailed statistics. I could take a wild assed guess, but I try to refrain from that.

😁


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Mar 2022)

Do the KKE folks not realize that Russia is just about the farthest thing away from a Communist Utopia, on the Planet?


----------



## Kilted (19 Mar 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> You need a place to keep all the people with Norse Pagan chits...


My unit had a pretty high conversion rate...until beardforgen...then it dropped to zero.


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

Kilted said:


> My unit had a pretty high conversion rate...until beardforgen...then it dropped to zero.


Lol. Brings me back in time to my BMQ... where everyone had suddenly become a devout Christian on the second Sunday...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Mar 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Do the KKE folks not realize that Russia is just about the farthest thing away from a Communist Utopia, on the Planet?


 Marxism, Leninism, Autocracy, Kleptocracy, Mafiocracy.....

Potatoes! Patatas!


----------



## Lumber (19 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Why would a ship sail without a dedicated Security Team?  I really don't get the idea that is should be a secondary duty - given you might need to be doing a slew of different things all at once on a ship.


It's simple. We don't have enough bunks aboard to have a dedicated security team aboard, that's why security is a secondary duty. We spend the majority of our time _at sea_, so if you're aboard, you need to be contributing to all the many things that needs to be accomplished at sea. We can't have people literally doing nothing but PT and cleaning their rifles between port visits. That's where the concept of NST came from. A dedicated security component that doesn't take up bunk space (plus it gives the crew more time off, and it gives reservists something to do).


----------



## brihard (19 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> It's simple. We don't have enough bunks aboard to have a dedicated security team aboard, that's why security is a secondary duty. We spend the majority of our time _at sea_, so if you're aboard, you need to be contributing to all the many things that needs to be accomplished at sea. We can't have people literally doing nothing but PT and cleaning their rifles between port visits. That's where the concept of NST came from. A dedicated security component that doesn't take up bunk space (plus it gives the crew more time off, and it gives reservists something to do).



“Did it work?”


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Mar 2022)

It's funny t the Brits never seemed to have a problem with having Royal Marine dets aboard their destroyers and frigates.


----------



## dimsum (19 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> It's funny t the Brits never seemed to have a problem with having Royal Marine dets aboard their destroyers and frigates.


Well I guess the answer could change depending if you were asking one of the Marines, or one of the sailors.


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Well I guess the answer could change depending if you were asking one of the Marines, or one of the sailors.


Heh! 😆


----------



## TacticalTea (19 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> It's funny t the Brits never seemed to have a problem with having Royal Marine dets aboard their destroyers and frigates.


So, hum, the consensus seems to be that paras are going the way of the battleship so... take the airborne companies and make them naval infantry?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> So, hum, the consensus seems to be that paras are going the way of the battleship so... take the airborne companies and make them naval infantry?


Only when you do daylight mass drops at a stupid altitude with no SEAD...


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> So, hum, the consensus seems to be that paras are going the way of the battleship so... take the airborne companies and make them naval infantry?



That's all been done before, of course....










						2 PARA move by landing craft from Fitzroy to Bluff Cove. | ParaData
					






					www.paradata.org.uk


----------



## RangerRay (20 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Lol. Brings me back in time to my BMQ... where everyone had suddenly become a devout Christian on the second Sunday...


When the choice is hanging out at the shacks with the MCpl doing tasks or kicking back and listening to the Padre…🤷‍♂️


----------



## Furniture (20 Mar 2022)

RangerRay said:


> When the choice is hanging out at the shacks with the MCpl doing tasks or kicking back and listening to the Padre…🤷‍♂️


When I went through BMQ the Padres only really got upset if you snored too loud...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> It's simple. We don't have enough bunks aboard to have a dedicated security team aboard, that's why security is a secondary duty. We spend the majority of our time _at sea_, so if you're aboard, you need to be contributing to all the many things that needs to be accomplished at sea. *We can't have people literally doing nothing but PT* and cleaning their rifles between port visits. That's where the concept of NST came from. A dedicated security component that doesn't take up bunk space (plus it gives the crew more time off, and it gives reservists something to do).


So like the entire right side of the Ops Room for half my last deployment.

There is ample room to embark NTOG should the need be required.  Having them on board is great, they'll pull all the UWFP, Alongside FP and they will also act as CCT and do stuff like slipping party. 

They were tremendously helpful during my last deployment.  Certainly more helpful than some of the Operators that would sleep through Pipes and be woken up in their racks with chocolate bar wrappers all over themselves 🤣

NTOGs job is to be fit, keep fresh and up to date on their primary tasks, which is being proficient with small arms, TCCC, etc.  

The Navy has no idea how to think outside the box and employ people to their full potential.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Navy has no idea how to think outside the box and employ people to their full potential.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Mar 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 69580


I got triggered the past few days LOL


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I got triggered the past few days LOL


You don’t say…


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I got triggered the past few days LOL


Yup, brother, there’s a time when it’s best to move on to look after self and family, if the machine is just going to chew you up and spit you out anyway.


----------



## Lumber (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> So like the entire right side of the Ops Room for half my last deployment.
> 
> There is ample room to embark NTOG should the need be required.  Having them on board is great, they'll pull all the UWFP, Alongside FP and they will also act as CCT and do stuff like slipping party.
> 
> ...


That's the difference between an ARTEMIS deployment and a REASSURANCE deployment.

I can assure that the right side of my ops room was very busy during the later, and an NTOG team would have been utterly useless _except_ as a dedicated FP component.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> That's the difference between an ARTEMIS deployment and a REASSURANCE deployment.
> 
> I can assure that the right side of my ops room was very busy during the later, and an NTOG team would have been utterly useless _except_ as a dedicated FP component.


My point wasn't to emphasize that the right side never did anything.  My point was to emphasize that different components are needed at different times.  

Another solution would be to bring a reduced team (this is what the French do) or use the Ship's Integral Boarding Party.

The French bring on a handful of Naval Infantry and they are responsible for leading the security team and training the sailors in weapons handling, advising the Commander, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2022)

What does the right side of an ops room do on a ship?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Mar 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> What does the right side of an ops room do on a ship?


Underwater Warfare


----------



## dimsum (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The French bring on a handful of Naval Infantry and they are responsible for leading the security team and training the sailors in weapons handling, advising the Commander, etc.


So...these guys (and gals).


----------



## dimsum (20 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> My point wasn't to emphasize that the right side never did anything. My point was to emphasize that different components are needed at different times.


Here's an off-the-wall idea:  

If, for example, the ship is going on an ARTEMIS, bring a skeleton Underwater Warfare (and whatever they don't usually do) and leave the rest at home, but on a 24hr NTM or something.  Use those spots for NTOG or elements thereof. 

If the ship transitions to something like REASSURANCE, fly in the rest of the required crew, fly out the NTOG folks (or whoever they don't need).  



Or an even more off-the-wall idea:  

Have those departments not be part of a specific ship.  Call it MARPAC and MARLANT Underwater Warfare Teams or whatever, and deploy a crew of them to whatever ship is going out to REASSURANCE, like what MH does.  



These options assume that airlift is readily available to get those teams to the ship promptly when needed, of course.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2022)

The fact that the Navy doesn’t think a Security Group would be needed going into/near a war zone is a little worrisome to me. 

@Lumber did you miss the change in situation?


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Mar 2022)

Some young Canadian made a split second decision to not engage those protesters and escalate this into a bigger problem.  

Imagine, Canadian sailor kills Greek protesters for throwing paint.  

The real question is how did the get past the local security and get access to the jetty ?


----------



## Lumber (20 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> The fact that the Navy doesn’t think a Security Group would be needed going into/near a war zone is a little worrisome to me.
> 
> @Lumber did you miss the change in situation?



I didn't say the navy didn't need a security team, I said they didn't have room aboard for a dedicated security team. We have a very large and robust "security team" whenever we go in and out of port, and the alongside component cna be scaled to meet the threat, all by using the ship's company. Also, we have traditionally not needed a dedicated boarding team (I e. NTOG) for Op REASSURANCE, because there's almost no one with ships in that area for which we would ever get the ROE needed to board.


----------



## brihard (20 Mar 2022)

So what led to there _not_ being an NST? Who makes that call?


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> I didn't say the navy didn't need a security team, I said they didn't have room aboard for a dedicated security team. We have a very large and robust "security team" whenever we go in and out of port, and the alongside component cna be scaled to meet the threat, all by using the ship's company. Also, we have traditionally not needed a dedicated boarding team (I e. NTOG) for Op REASSURANCE, because there's almost no one with ships in that area for which we would ever get the ROE needed to board.


My concern is that the situation drastically changed in the last 30 days - and it seems to me, like the RCN has more of less ignored that.
  Agin my point is that Security needs to be a stand alone primary task - as a secondary duty on a warship means they most likely will be doing primary functions when being a warship...


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> My concern is that the situation drastically changed in the last 30 days - and it seems to me, like the RCN has more of less ignored that.
> Agin my point is that Security needs to be a stand alone primary task - as a secondary duty on a warship means they most likely will be doing primary functions when being a warship...



I suggest hanging this photo of the 'Cole Hole' in the Ops Room of our warships.

Maybe it'll remind people about what can happen when other people don't like us which, given our support for Ukraine, might be numbered in the millions these days.












						USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## TacticalTea (20 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I suggest hanging this photo of the 'Cole Hole' in the Ops Room of our warships.
> 
> Maybe it'll remind people about what can happen when other people don't like us which, given our support for Ukraine, might be numbered in the millions these days.
> 
> ...


100%.

I talk about it every time I get the chance.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I suggest hanging this photo of the 'Cole Hole' in the Ops Room of our warships.
> 
> Maybe it'll remind people about what can happen when other people don't like us which, given our support for Ukraine, might be numbered in the millions these days.
> 
> ...



So would that mean wifi isn't the biggest priority, and we should maybe follow basic commercial rules (if we can't follow our own) for things like wall coverings? Not sure if anyone notices, but usually when there are PR photos of ships the lounges and COs cabin have floor to ceiling plywood paneling and a lot of wood trim, like some kind of 16th century Lord's hunting lodge..


----------



## WestIsle (20 Mar 2022)

Seems like the RCN needs something like this









						Deployable Operations Group - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Checks off all the boxes including enforcement teams, port security, as well as shoreside security. The goal with the navy reserves seems to already cover off this partially. But maybe we should just let the Navy continue to live out their dreams larping as SF while they can't crew or protect their own ships.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Mar 2022)

WestIsle said:


> Seems like the RCN needs something like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could be a dedicated role for NAVRES.

Let the Reg Force do the sailing and they can minor in augmenting the fleets with an major role in expeditionary harbour security and force protection.


----------



## TacticalTea (20 Mar 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Could be a dedicated role for NAVRES.
> 
> Let the Reg Force do the sailing and they can minor in augmenting the fleets with an major role in expeditionary harbour security and force protection.


It was on the way out when I joined but, that used to be the case.

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, highlighting NavRes tasks circa 2003

NST is definitely an approximate return to that. Plus, NavRes isn't burdened with running the Patrol squadrons (MCDVs) anymore, so I suspect there is room for it to take on a greater share of that role.


----------



## GK .Dundas (20 Mar 2022)

QUOTE="daftandbarmy, post: 1731063, member: 21227"]
I suggest hanging this photo of the 'Cole Hole' in the Ops Room of our warships.

Maybe it'll remind people about what can happen when other people don't like us which, given our support for Ukraine, might be numbered in the millions these days.


View attachment 69605









						USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



[/QUOTE]
But,but everybody loves Canada! You're making stuff up ! Someone make him stop saying mean things.
Sadly you will have to contend with the above attitude and from a large number of people who should know better.
 Including I am both sorry and simultaneously annoyed to say within the Canadian profession of arms .


----------



## GK .Dundas (20 Mar 2022)

Btw has anybody seen anything at all on the major news stations ?


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

Honestly, the reaction in this thread to what amounts to petty vandalism is rather concerning. Suggestions that the CO be fired because someone got paint on a ship? Questions of "Where were the upper deck sentries?" 

So, how exactly do people think the upper deck sentries should have responded to this? Because, here's the thing; if you're on the upper deck with a rifle, and someone tries to throw paint on the ship, the only thing you can do with a rifle is either shoot them or threaten to shoot them. 

Is anyone here really of the opinion that things would have turned out better for the CO or the UDS or the OOD or the CAF as a whole if we had awoken instead to the headline "Canadian Navy fires upon unarmed protesters in Greece, 2 killed 4 wounded" or something of the sort?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly, the reaction in this thread to what amounts to petty vandalism is rather concerning. Suggestions that the CO be fired because someone got paint on a ship? Questions of "Where were the upper deck sentries?"
> 
> So, how exactly do people think the upper deck sentries should have responded to this? Because, here's the thing; if you're on the upper deck with a rifle, and someone tries to throw paint on the ship, the only thing you can do with a rifle is either shoot them or threaten to shoot them.
> 
> Is anyone here really of the opinion that things would have turned out better for the CO or the UDS or the OOD or the CAF as a whole if we had awoken instead to the headline "Canadian Navy fires upon unarmed protesters in Greece, 2 killed 4 wounded" or something of the sort?








This time it was paint, next time it will be an incendiary device.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Honestly, the reaction in this thread to what amounts to petty vandalism is rather concerning. Suggestions that the CO be fired because someone got paint on a ship? Questions of "Where were the upper deck sentries?"
> 
> *So, how exactly do people think the upper deck sentries should have responded to this?* Because, here's the thing; if you're on the upper deck with a rifle, and someone tries to throw paint on the ship, the only thing you can do with a rifle is either shoot them or threaten to shoot them.
> 
> Is anyone here really of the opinion that things would have turned out better for the CO or the UDS or the OOD or the CAF as a whole if we had awoken instead to the headline "Canadian Navy fires upon unarmed protesters in Greece, 2 killed 4 wounded" or something of the sort?



The way the CO trained them to be ready to address such threats, I would say, including employing a range of appropriate measures that reflect the correct application of the use of force principles. Which might have involved more crew than just the sentries.

Or something like that


----------



## stoker dave (21 Mar 2022)

When I was OOD on 'active service' deployment to the Middle East, I don't recall getting ANY training in this area at all.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> The way the CO trained them to be ready to address such threats, I would say, including employing a range of appropriate measures that reflect the correct application of the use of force principles. Which might have involved more crew than just the sentries.
> 
> Or something like that


I can certainly tell you, doing nothing was never part of the training.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


>


Ok, so a crowd of people has a few of them sprayed down, and the paint still gets on the ship. Cool beans? 


Humphrey Bogart said:


> This time it was paint, next time it will be an incendiary device.


Or, the next time it'll still be petty vandalism because that's by far the most likely scenario when visiting a NATO port. Regardless, reacting with violence in the face of a protest does not ever look good for us. Explaining away at your court martial how you were paranoid and assumed that the paint can was a bomb, despite it looking nothing like a bomb and there being no real indication that was the case is not going to go well for you.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can certainly tell you, doing nothing was never part of the training.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

stoker dave said:


> When I was OOD on 'active service' deployment to the Middle East, I don't recall getting ANY training in this area at all.


Hence why some of us here have said that's a clear problem that needs to be rectified.

At a minimum, this should have triggered a response to increase the Ship's force protection level.

Additional sentries should have been brought up to the upper decks and fire hoses should have been deployed.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I can certainly tell you, doing nothing was never part of the training.


I can also tell you that assessing the potential threat was part of the training. Looks to me like the UDS did so, and reacted accordingly. 



Humphrey Bogart said:


> Hence why some of us here have said that's a clear problem that needs to be rectified.
> 
> At a minimum, this should have triggered a response to increase the Ship's force protection level.
> 
> Additional sentries should have been brought up to the upper decks and fire hoses should have been deployed.



I don't know why you're assuming they didn't do so after the event occurred. But it's not exactly like that's a response which can occur during the span of "the time it takes for protesters to run down the jetty with paint cans".


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Hence why some of us here have said that's a clear problem that needs to be rectified.
> 
> At a minimum, this should have triggered a response to increase the Ship's force protection level.
> 
> Additional sentries should have been brought up to the upper decks and fire hoses should have been deployed.



And then break out the shields and batons and have 'Phase 3' ready below decks....


----------



## McG (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> And then break out the shields and batons and have 'Phase 3' ready below decks....


If the ship's security is going to step one boot onto the jetty, there had better be a SOFA that allows the use of force or Canadian sailors may find themselves in the local prison. The ship is sovereign. The jetty is local.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> I can also tell you that assessing the potential threat was part of the training.


Part of that assessment would involve Ship's staff, aka the OOD and the FPO, actually going to the upper decks and making an assessment.

There is a longer video I've already seen of this.  You can see the UDS on the foc'sle doing absolutely nothing while this is going on.  Not even a pipe gets made.  At a minimum the Force Protection level should have been elevated.

There are so many things the Ship could have done well before the need to engage:

Pipes, closing the brow, alarms, loud speakers, verbal commands, additional sentries, water hoses.

The fact they did nothing speaks volumes to their lack of preparedness for this situation.  It's a training deficiency that needs to be rectified.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

McG said:


> If the ship's security is going to step one boot onto the jetty, there had better be a SOFA that allows the use of force or Canadian sailors may find themselves in the local prison. The ship is sovereign. The jetty is local.


This is correct.

There would be no confrontation on the jetty; however, the Ship Staff would be within their rights to engage from the Ship if they were targeted from the Jetty.  

If someone crossed the Brow, we can detain them on the spot.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Ok, so a crowd of people has a few of them sprayed down, and the paint still gets on the ship. Cool beans?
> 
> Or, the next time it'll still be petty vandalism because that's by far the most likely scenario when visiting a NATO port. Regardless, reacting with violence in the face of a protest does not ever look good for us. Explaining away at your court martial how you were paranoid and assumed that the paint can was a bomb, despite it looking nothing like a bomb and there being no real indication that was the case is not going to go well for you.


Sounds like someone is scared to make the wrong call so they think it's better to make no call.  😉


----------



## stoker dave (21 Mar 2022)

This has been a really useful discussion.   Anecdote and some thread drift. 

I was OOD on 'active service' in the Middle East.  The ship's duty watch was about 120 individuals including armed soldiers.   

As OOD, someone notified me that divers were going into the water about 100 m from the ship.  I ran to take a look - yup, that is what was going on.   One of the soldiers asked if he should shoot them as he was worried the divers might try to place a bomb on the ship.  A reasonable concern given the conditions.  I told him to hang on for a minute.  I called the local harbour master and asked if they knew about the divers.  Yes, they said, there is some repair work being done, all was authorized and apologized for not notifying the ship.  All worked out ok, but it might not have.  

I think I might have been 27 years old at the time and probably over my head in what I was being asked to do.   Certainly some training and awareness in this area is justified.


----------



## dimsum (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Explaining away at your court martial how you were paranoid and assumed that the paint can was a bomb, despite it looking nothing like a bomb and there being no real indication that was the case is not going to go well for you.


What does a bomb look like these days?  Afghanistan is known for IEDs, which also look nothing like what we'd expect as a bomb.

Hell, in airports there are warnings about not leaving your bags unattended, or else they could be destroyed.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

Here is another headline for you . 
Canadian warship burning dozens feared dead many more injured or missing!
Fuck court martials,
1st line of defence fire hoses pepper spray , 2nd line batons and shields,  non lethal weapons, 3d line   lethal force.
And for the record no, I don't give a fuck about dead Greek communists or live ones either.  I do give a fuck about Canadian service personnel.
If you think that makes me a cold son of a bitch....I can live with that.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

stoker dave said:


> This has been a really useful discussion.   Anecdote and some thread drift.
> 
> I was OOD on 'active service' in the Middle East.  The ship's duty watch was about 120 individuals including armed soldiers.
> 
> ...


You did fine ,you did what training and common sense told you to do.
Mind you I 'll bet your stomach was tight and knotting slightly while this was happening.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> And for the record no, I don't give a fuck about dead Greek communists or live ones either.  I do give a fuck about Canadian service personnel.
> If you think that makes me a cold son of a bitch....I can live with that.


Yes, I do think that makes you a bad person. Or at the very least one whose moral compass is not aligned with the CAF Ethos.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yes, I do think that makes you a bad person. Or at the very least one whose moral compass is not aligned with the CAF Ethos.


Ah context is everything I notice that you didn't quote the the earlier part. 
My duty as a Canadian soldier was explained to me as close with and kill the enemy I suppose that's against the CAF ethos now.
You're right of course it's only paint and and you don't shoot people for that. But what if hadn't been paint .Thermite and gasoline and frag grenades could have caused a terrible disaster.


----------



## Czech_pivo (21 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505298830379601926
> NST had provided security the last time an HMC ship was in that port. Apparently no measures in place this time around.
> 
> Facebook comment from a former NST NCO:
> ...


Good thing is was only paint and not Molotov's. 

Question, would an individual lighting a Molotov, instead of opening the lid of a paint can, meet the requirements for lethal force protection?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yes, I do think that makes you a bad person. Or at the very least one whose moral compass is not aligned with the CAF Ethos.


You realize reactions to a FP event are codified in SSOs. There is a set of reactions you are supposed to take when something like this happens.

The Ship didn't do that, that's a problem.

You've also continued to ignore everything that's been said in this thread that elaborated on the issue.

Now you're just being willfully ignorant.  It has me questioning whether you actually have any experience in these matters.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> Good thing is was only paint and not Molotov's.
> 
> Question, would an individual lighting a Molotov, instead of opening the lid of a paint can, meet the requirements for lethal force protection?


Your first tool is your voice.

UoF situations are all circumstantial and will depend on ROE + three things:

Proximity, capability and intent.  All three of those things must be satisfied before lethal force can be considered.

Every CAF member has the inherent right to self-defence.  This must be proportionate and satisfy the above.


----------



## Czech_pivo (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Your first tool is your voice.
> 
> UoF situations are all circumstantial and will depend on ROE + three things:
> 
> ...


1) Intent - check, lighting Molotov
2) Capability - Yes, I believe they have the ability to light said Molotov and throw it the distance needed to hit my ship
3) Proximity - Yes, I believe the thrown Molotov will hit my ship 

So, if _paint_ was changed to be _lit Molotov_, then lethal force would have been justified.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> 1) Intent - check, lighting Molotov
> 2) Capability - Yes, I believe they have the ability to light said Molotov and throw it the distance needed to hit my ship
> 3) Proximity - Yes, I believe the thrown Molotov will hit my ship
> 
> So, if _paint_ was changed to be _lit Molotov_, then lethal force would have been justified.



Incorrect. No Judge will give you a pass for shooting someone throwing a petrol bomb. You, the trigger puller that is, will likely be tried for murder.

A good example of why these kinds of things need to be rehearsed


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Ah context is everything I notice that you didn't quote the the earlier part.
> My duty as a Canadian soldier was explained to me as close with and kill the enemy I suppose that's against the CAF ethos now.
> You're right of course it's only paint and and you don't shoot people for that. But what if hadn't been paint .Thermite and gasoline and frag grenades could have caused a terrible disaster.


Uhh yeah, you're supposed to kill the enemy. You're not supposed to kill peaceful protesters in an allied nation.

Paranoid "what if" scenarios without any reasonable justification aren't sufficient reason to murder someone.


----------



## Czech_pivo (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Incorrect. No Judge will give you a pass for shooting someone throwing a petrol bomb. You, the trigger puller that is, will likely be tried for murder.
> 
> A good example of why these kinds of things need to be rehearsed


I appreciate you explaining that.  I would have thought that an individual throwing a lit Molotov onto a ship would warrant the use of lethal force against that individual.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Uhh yeah, you're supposed to kill the enemy. You're not supposed to kill peaceful protesters in an allied nation.
> 
> Paranoid "what if" scenarios without any reasonable justification aren't sufficient reason to murder someone.


USS Cole .


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> USS Cole .


The USS Cole... was a completely different scenario in a completely different context. You appear to be willfully ignoring the notion that we actually need to _assess the threat of the scenario we find ourselves in_, and not blindly react to every possible scenario based upon whatever imagined worst case scenario your could come up with in your head.

The fact that there exists some scenarios where use of lethal force is appropriate is not in any way shape or form an excuse to escalate to lethal force (or even any force) in all scenarios. Your use of force needs to be appropriate based upon the situation that is actually unfolding. Using violence to prevent petty vandalism is not appropriate.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> I appreciate you explaining that.  I would have thought that an individual throwing a lit Molotov onto a ship would warrant the use of lethal force against that individual.



I know, right? 

Sounds crazy but, when you actually have a chance to get hit with a few, you realize pretty quickly that they're not all that lethal unless you really screw up.

Which is why the 'good guys' need to be able to demonstrate a proportionate use of force. A plastic bullet to the upper chest, for example, was a pretty good trade for a petrol bomb as I recall 

Which reminds me of an awkward (for me) conversation I once had with a Navy 2 1/2 ringer, during a mess function, around the time of the USS Cole incident. The discussion focused on 'what would you do if' type stuff in situations short of General War. 

As I recall, one of the questions we threw out there was something like 'What would you do if you were alongside and a bunch of rioters turned up?'.

His - a little too confident - response was along the lines of 'I'd crank that main gun of ours around and introduce them to the wonders of naval gunfire', or words to that effect.

Me and another (Army) guy just kind of stared at him for a bit wondering when he was going to blurt out 'Gotcha!', or some similar. But it was pretty clear that he was serious.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Yes, I do think that makes you a bad person. Or at the very least one whose moral compass is not aligned with the CAF Ethos.



Please enlighten us on your knowledge of CF ethos. 

I’m curious


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> As I recall, one of the questions we threw out there was something like 'What would you do if you were alongside and a bunch of rioters turned up?'.
> 
> His - a little too confident - response was along the lines of 'I'd crank that main gun of ours around and introduce them to the wonders of naval gunfire', or words to that effect.


Setting the disgusting propensity to murder aside, this is also showing an appalling lack of understanding of how his own weapon systems work.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Please enlighten us on your knowledge of CF ethos.
> 
> I’m curious


I rather feel like murdering peaceful protesters in order to prevent them from enacting petty vandalism is not exactly respecting the dignity of all persons, nor is it obeying and supporting lawful authority, or showing discipline, courage, and integrity.

I mean, I get that it's annoying to have to clean paint off the side of the ship, but it's better than blood off the jetty.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> I rather feel like murdering peaceful protesters in order to prevent them from enacting petty vandalism is not exactly respecting the dignity of all persons, nor is it obeying and supporting lawful authority, or showing discipline, courage, and integrity.
> 
> I mean, I get that it's annoying to have to clean paint off the side of the ship, but it's better than blood off the jetty.



You’re absolutely right in this regard. However do you know why we have a CAF?

The primary purpose is to kill people who would do grievous harm to your country. 

Like some of the others have said what if it’s a Molotov cocktail?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Setting the disgusting propensity to murder aside, this is also showing an appalling lack of understanding of how his own weapon systems work.



To be fair, he admitted that they didn't do too much training about this kind of thing. But he didn't seem to mind.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> You’re absolutely right in this regard. However do you know why we have a CAF?
> 
> The primary purpose is to kill people who would do grievous harm to your country.


We are here for the controlled application of violence, against the enemy. Not against protesters in an allied nation. The key part of your phrase there would be "who would do grievous harm to your country" part, not just "kill people".


OldSolduer said:


> Like some of the others have said what if it’s a Molotov cocktail?


Even assuming that was the case, which again it wasn't so you don't murder people for stuff that they didn't do, that'll damage the paint job.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> The USS Cole... was a completely different scenario in a completely different context. You appear to be willfully ignoring the notion that we actually need to _assess the threat of the scenario we find ourselves in_, and not blindly react to every possible scenario based upon whatever imagined worst case scenario your could come up with in your head.
> 
> The fact that there exists some scenarios where use of lethal force is appropriate is not in any way shape or form an excuse to escalate to lethal force (or even any force) in all scenarios. Your use of force needs to be appropriate based upon the situation that is actually unfolding. Using violence to prevent petty vandalism is not appropriate.


I was working on the concept you  understood that some from of assessment would have occurred before docking or entering port or even departing Halifax.
Oh and generally speaking Greek politics tend to be a little rougher and more " hands on".
Molotov cocktails are not unknown.
I keep wondering why you consider the possibility using a firehose on people with clear intent to commit not vandalism but terrorism as an over reaction.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2022)

Czech_pivo said:


> 1) Intent - check, lighting Molotov
> 2) Capability - Yes, I believe they have the ability to light said Molotov and throw it the distance needed to hit my ship
> 3) Proximity - Yes, I believe the thrown Molotov will hit my ship
> 
> So, if _paint_ was changed to be _lit Molotov_, then lethal force would have been justified.


Don't try that in Ontario, apparently even firing a warning shot as people firebomb your house will give you years of misery in the courts.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2022)

The question here is how the got access to the jetty ?  

Sure we can red herring this to death, but in the end the lesser of two evils was chosen. 

And again the real question is how did they get access to the jetty ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I know, right?
> 
> Sounds crazy but, when you actually have a chance to get hit with a few, you realize pretty quickly that they're not all that lethal unless you really screw up.
> 
> ...


Naval ships should have never gotten rid of the 68lb Cannonade, highly useful for that sort of thing.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Naval ships should have never gotten rid of the 68lb Cannonade, highly useful for that sort of thing.


 Trying to wrap my head around the concept of  ......Rubber grapeshot ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

@btrudy  you're focusing on one isolated comment to justify your initial response.

The fact is the Ship failed at Force Protection in multiple ways.

The first one is stand-off.

Actual Jetty Security is provided by a third party, usually local police, port authority or private security.

This is a CAZ and the members would have had to breach that first layer, which the Ship should have confirmed was in place before accepting the Jetty.

The next layer is Jetty Sentries.  These are unarmed members of the Ship's Company that are early warning for the Ship's Company on the Jetty or their should have been.

Jetty Sentries should have warned the Upper Deck Sentries that these people were approaching the Ship.

Once they are at the Ship, there are about 25-50 things that could have been done that don't involve shooting someone or lethal force.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> @btrudy  you're focusing on one isolated comment to justify your initial response.
> 
> The fact is the Ship failed at Force Protection in multiple ways.
> 
> ...



Like sarcasm, which the CAF does really well


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Incorrect. No Judge will give you a pass for shooting someone throwing a petrol bomb. You, the trigger puller that is, will likely be tried for murder.
> 
> A good example of why these kinds of things need to be rehearsed


I've shot people for both rocks and Molotovs - both are lethal attacks from which you have every right to use lethal force to protect yourself and others from.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> *I've shot people for both rocks and Molotovs* - both are lethal attacks from which you have every right to use lethal force to protect yourself and others from.



But not in Europe, I would guess


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> But not in Europe, I would guess


Quickly checks map.
   No I have never shot anyone in the continental confines of Europe.
Yet 

I have seen Italian forces shoot folks in Italy however for Molotovs...


----------



## tomydoom (21 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> But not in Europe, I would guess


I was going to guess Arnprior, but....


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

McG said:


> If the ship's security is going to step one boot onto the jetty, there had better be a SOFA that allows the use of force or Canadian sailors may find themselves in the local prison. The ship is sovereign. The jetty is local.


I would hope there already a Status of Forces Agreement in place for any country where one is planning on doing a port visit.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

tomydoom said:


> I was going to guess Arnprior, but....


Hey Bro statue of limitations and all that


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

Q :Have you ever killed any one ?
 A: No, but I once hurt someone's feelings.
Extra points for what film and whose speaking?


----------



## OceanBonfire (21 Mar 2022)

Those who were wondering how far the ship is from the public area (video):









						Greek communist party KKE supporters throw paint over HMCS Montreal at Piraeus Port, Greece. 19 March 2022. "With a symbolic intervention, the KKE and... | By Royal Canadian Navy Today and Yesterday | Facebook
					

8.2K views, 12 likes, 0 loves, 36 comments, 65 shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Royal Canadian Navy Today and Yesterday: Greek communist party KKE supporters throw paint over HMCS Montreal at...




					www.facebook.com


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

So 7 personnel got over the fenced perimeter - crossed the visible red line - and no action was taken...

Fail.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Trying to wrap my head around the concept of  ......Rubber grapeshot ?


Oh boy, a paper bag full of those dollar store super bouncy balls shot out of the Air Farce chicken canon would be... Ah May Zingg!!


----------



## TacticalTea (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> I would hope there already a Status of Forces Agreement in place for any country where one is planning on doing a port visit.


Nope.

NST and the organizations that support it actively work on SOFAs precisely for that reason, but sometimes fail, such as was the case when they went in Korea and couldn't actually arm their jetty sentries.

Thankfully, that Korea deployment was just an IOC/Proof of concept endeavour, so the lessons that had to be learned were learned, which is why we do training. They conducted the training with plastic guns instead.

And I'll comment more generally on the UoF regarding this week's incident here:

We all know that UoF is a spectrum. For that reason, I think the ''Proximity'' factor makes no sense. 1. AFAIK It's not even in our CF joint doctrine. 2. You want to start using force before the threat is in proximity. That doesn't necessarily mean lethal force. Presence is UoF. Verbal/Non-verbal commands are UoF. Demonstration of weaponry (unholstering, chambering firearms, rigging and charging fire hoses) is UoF.

Building on that, the footage we have shows there was zero UoF employed. No horns, no one telling them to get away. The only visible sentry is up on the foscle, slouching, apparently on the outboard side. Not much deterrence there.

I will refrain from speculating here, but there is plenty room for concern.


----------



## lenaitch (21 Mar 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Those who were wondering how far the ship is from the public area (video):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the phallic statue commemorates . . . ?


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Those who were wondering how far the ship is from the public area (video):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm thinking the RCN may want to investigate a little thing called LRAD...
LRAD Products - Genasys Inc.
 It's less messy than a water cannon and more effectible without the whole injuring people knocked off their feet thing.


----------



## TacticalTea (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> I'm thinking the RCN may want to investigate a little thing called LRAD...
> LRAD Products - Genasys Inc.
> It's less messy than a water cannon and more effectible without the whole injuring people knocked off their feet thing.


Very nice.

Although the Canadian public might not appreciate.

I remember back in 2012, during Quebec's student protests, the SPVM started using similar technology. Branded as sound cannons, it was described as auditory torture by some in the SPVM's target audience as well as in the medias, and caused a bit of an outroar.

Personally, I know I would greatly appreciate the ability to use such a system as a communication tool.


----------



## Weinie (21 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Q :Have you ever killed any one ?
> A: No, but I once hurt someone's feelings.
> Extra points for what film and whose speaking?


Ronin


----------



## Furniture (21 Mar 2022)

Why train in FP when we can do an alongside fire EX in the Wardroom flats at 1605 every day? No need to change tradition and include FP....


daftandbarmy said:


> Incorrect. No Judge will give you a pass for shooting someone throwing a petrol bomb. You, the trigger puller that is, will likely be tried for murder.
> 
> A good example of why these kinds of things need to be rehearsed


Can't be rehearsed, on the seventh day God decreed that the duty watch exercise be a Class A fine in a living space at 1605 every weekday, and between 1300-1600 on Weekends. 

FP didn't make it into Genesis, so the navy refuses to practice it.


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

We have a winner 🏆
Every film should have at least one line that even if the.film is a complete dog (I loved Ronin) that should be able to outlive and occasionally transcend it.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Nope.
> 
> NST and the organizations that support it actively work on SOFAs precisely for that reason, but sometimes fail, such as was the case when they went in Korea and couldn't actually arm their jetty sentries.
> 
> ...


I prefer ROE 

Half of the IMHO idiotic aspect of that doctrine need to go.

1) Presence - it's a fucking warship - the fact it is there is already presence, it's got missiles and guns - anyone who thinks that you need more presence than that needs a kick in the teeth (IMHO).

 Weapons - there is no point in a non loaded and readied weapon, I don't know where people still cling to Cyprus era ideas that making a dramatic aspect of getting ones weapon into. state it should have been already in makes sense.
  A Pistol or Rifle/Carbine etc is a Lethal Weapon - it shouldn't be used for jacking around threatening the potential for Force - it is just used when needed - period.

What needs to occur is decent threat assessments, and a decent amount of less lethal options, as well as range band option for both lethal and less lethal engagement 

1) Visual and Audio Commands:
    Loud Hailer: Stop and Stamatá (Greek for Stop - okay technically stops - but it is used as a stop command, see I did retain something from Cyprus back in the day) 
    Perhaps a Dazzler - on the individual(s) GLARE LA-9/P
    LRAD 

  DMR Team for precision application of lethal force is needed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2022)

Furniture said:


> Why train in FP when we can do an alongside fire EX in the Wardroom flats at 1605 every day? No need to change tradition and include FP....
> 
> Can't be rehearsed, on the seventh day God decreed that the duty watch exercise be a Class A fine in a living space at 1605 every weekday, and between 1300-1600 on Weekends.
> 
> FP didn't make it into Genesis, so the navy refuses to practice it.



You mean the daily exercises shouldn't just be about DC ? 

And every EO just proclaimed:


----------



## TacticalTea (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> I prefer ROE
> 
> Half of the IMHO idiotic aspect of that doctrine need to go.
> 
> 1) Presence - it's a fucking warship - the fact it is there is already presence, it's got missiles and guns - anyone who thinks that you need more presence than that needs a kick in the teeth (IMHO).


Eh, sure, but while alongside, those aren't manned and don't mean much. Difference between Presence at the FP level and operational/strategic level.


KevinB said:


> Weapons - there is no point in a non loaded and readied weapon, I don't know where people still cling to Cyprus era ideas that making a dramatic aspect of getting ones weapon into. state it should have been already in makes sense.
> A Pistol or Rifle/Carbine etc is a Lethal Weapon - it shouldn't be used for jacking around threatening the potential for Force - it is just used when needed - period.


I generally agree with those points, but that's not how the RCN operates at present, so... can't really blame the bottom rung for not doing what they're told not to do!

Edit: I would add, some applications of UoF can be more useful in determining intent than actually deterring the threat.


KevinB said:


> What needs to occur is decent threat assessments, and a decent amount of less lethal options, as well as range band option for both lethal and less lethal engagement


Yep, but that requires putting in the work to get those tools, train and equip our people with those tools, and get the SOFAs so we can legally use those tools.


KevinB said:


> DMR Team for precision application of lethal force is needed.


----------



## QV (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> So 7 personnel got over the fenced perimeter - crossed the visible red line - and no action was taken...
> 
> Fail.


This whole scenario is symbolic of the general culture and attitude towards FP in the CAF/DND/GoC. I don’t want to trigger myself, so that’s all I have to say...today.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2022)

Sword bayonets for Jetty sentries might make the point as well.


----------



## Furniture (21 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Sword bayonets for Jetty sentries might make the point as well.


My preference would be to go straight to the 1900 Pattern Cutlass. Update it with a scabbard made of modern materials, and call it the RCN 2022 Pattern. Then we can get the sailors doing sword fighting as PD and PT.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Sword bayonets for Jetty sentries might make the point as well.



I have think for Martini actions and two foot bayonets.  Can we compromise somewhere ?


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Eh, sure, but while alongside, those aren't manned and don't mean much. Difference between Presence at the FP level and operational/strategic level.


I’d argue that’s perception not reality. 
  Most of the opposition is going to be shocked (if they even realize what someone is doing chambering a round) that one wasn’t already ready.   
  Any serious attack is going to reveal itself at the last possible moment and having to insert a mag or just rack the changing handle (or slide for pistol) is moments too long. 



TacticalTea said:


> I generally agree with those points, but that's not how the RCN operates at present, so... can't really blame the bottom rung for not doing what they're told not to do!


I place the blame at the institution and those who command it.  Plus Ships Captain, XO, and anyone else in the FP chain 

Edit: I would add, some applications of UoF can be more useful in determining intent than actually deterring the threat.
Hitting them with the dazzler and LRAD makes it pretty clear if they come closer they are determined to eat lead…



TacticalTea said:


> Yep, but that requires putting in the work to get those tools, train and equip our people with those tools, and get the SOFAs so we can legally use those tools.


Without a SOFA one can argue you are actually under blanket immunity by the RCN 
   They have been a lot of legal arguments on what occurs without a SOFA, but it’s best for both Nations to have one in place so there aren’t larger misunderstandings


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> I’d argue that’s perception not reality.
> Most of the opposition is going to be shocked (if they even realize what someone is doing chambering a round) that one wasn’t already ready.
> Any serious attack is going to reveal itself at the last possible moment and having to insert a mag or just rack the changing handle (or slide for pistol) is moments too long.
> 
> ...


There's a serious IMO lack of SA training amongst the CAF at large. Hear me out.

As I said before everyone is responsible for their own defence. I noticed in my 35+ years of service that many non combat arms trades were not confident with their own weapons handling. In some instances I heard through the grapevine gate guards in operational theatres were told to remove the bolts from the C9 to prevent NDs. This is not confirmed. If this is true its a huge breach.

Many support trades - you know I love y'all - always argue "the infantry will protect us"> Not so sunshine - they are out engaging the enemy. You have to learn to protect yourselves.


----------



## Lumber (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> What needs to occur is decent threat assessments, and a decent amount of less lethal options, as well as range band option for both lethal and less lethal engagement


1. How do you know we don't get decent threat assessments?
2. I would argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since the Cole bombing means were doing a pretty good job. (I'm not counting this as an attack)


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

Seriously. "Some paint got on the ship" is not in any way shape or form indicative of a lack of adequate intelligence or accurate threat assessments. I really don't get why everyone seems hell-bent on treating this event like it's some sort of major catastrophe.


----------



## TacticalTea (21 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> 1. How do you know we don't get decent threat assessments?
> 2. I would argue that the fact that we haven't been attacked since the Cole bombing means were doing a pretty good job. (I'm not counting this as an attack)


1. TAs aren't infallible. And his point included less-lethals, which we really don't have any of. NBPs and NTOG are trained on those, however, which kinda supports his earlier point that such assets should be further leveraged in naval FP.
2. A. That's not actually true, but I can't go over that here. B. That's the sort of thinking the Navy is infamous for. Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean everything is fine and daddy, with no room for improvement.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seriously. "Some paint got on the ship" is not in any way shape or form indicative of a lack of adequate intelligence or accurate threat assessments. I really don't get why everyone seems hell-bent on treating this event like it's some sort of major catastrophe.



You have got to be kidding us with that post?  We were just freakin' LUCKY that it was just paint.....please tell me you don't plan on leading by 'luck'?


----------



## Furniture (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seriously. "Some paint got on the ship" is not in any way shape or form indicative of a lack of adequate intelligence or accurate threat assessments. I really don't get why everyone seems hell-bent on treating this event like it's some sort of major catastrophe.


If the ship took no steps to defend itself, even just saying "Hey, get away from the ship!", or "Don't approach the ship!" that is a failure of the basics of FP.

I haven't sailed since 2017, but even way back then the FP duty watch was briefed on what to do. Hell, as a Duty Cox'n I knew part of my job was to to rig the upper deck firehoses if there was a FP threat that didn't need C8s, or Sig P225s.


----------



## btrudy (21 Mar 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> You have got to be kidding us with that post?  We were just freakin' LUCKY that it was just paint.....please tell me you don't plan on leading by 'luck'?


I don't plan on leading by assuming that literally everything is a deadly threat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't plan on leading by assuming that literally everything is a deadly threat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


Sounds like there's a place for you on that bridge then.....


----------



## suffolkowner (21 Mar 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> You have got to be kidding us with that post?  We were just freakin' LUCKY that it was just paint.....please tell me you don't plan on leading by 'luck'?


this is what im curious about how did they know for 100% that it was just paint?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't plan on leading by assuming that literally everything is a deadly threat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


You're going to do well on your ColRegs exams 😁


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> I don't plan on leading by assuming that literally everything is a deadly threat, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.


I’m glad your omniscient and have the foresight to know all.


----------



## Underway (21 Mar 2022)

1.  The RCN does take force protection seriously.  I can only speak to my experience on that same deployment.

Every single duty watch on the East Coast you are required to do a force protection exercise AND a damage control exercise once per day in home port.  This isn't always done in foreign ports because there is a second, more robust force protection component normally stood up and run by either the PlansO, WpnsO or OpsO, and they are not part of the duty watch.  ROE is read and briefed by the FP officer at the start of every watch for the duty watch and the FP component.  There are three C7 armed sentries on deck at all times, and the brow watchkeeper carries a pistol.

2. Normally in a foreign port you rely upon locals to provide the external security line and deal with locals themselves.

3. There's usually not much distance between you and the public if you are not at a secure jetty.  Just some fencing.

4.  No idea if NST was at the port, it might have been only ships company.

5.  ROE requires the threat triangle to be closed.  You do not shoot people for crossing a red line even if they are protestors (the red line is for work safety not ship security).  You close the jetty and keep them off the ship.  You do not shoot foreign civilians who are carrying plastic bags.  

6. What other actions did the FP take, maybe they did use loud hailers, or the ships horn, or yelling warnings to get away, closing the brow, going to emergency stations etc...  Did they take no actions at all?  Were they to slow to respond or unaware of the situation.  If the protestors casually sauntered up to the ship were FP asking them what they were doing or calling the police?  I don't know.

7.  During RAMP we has NST onboard and they were very slick.  As the initial post pointed out check point at the bottom of the jetty and sentries along the ship.  Very professional and thorough.


Final thoughts on this:

Yes, this is very concerning and embarrassing. I'm looking forward to the investigation report and finding out what really happened.

Whoever had the rifle in their hands did the right thing to not pull any triggers.  Canadian warship shooting civilian protestors would not have provided the best outcome to this situation for all involved.

However, if FP had pulled the trigger I would also have considered that the right decision until further investigation proved otherwise.   Like all ROE situations, the person behind the rifle makes the decision based on the information they have at hand.  They are the commander on the ground.  I will not armchair general them.


----------



## Lumber (21 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> My concern is that the situation drastically changed in the last 30 days - and it seems to me, like the RCN has more of less ignored that.
> Agin my point is that Security needs to be a stand alone primary task - as a secondary duty on a warship means they most likely will be doing primary functions when being a warship...


I don't mean this in any way to be insulting, but I don't think you understand how a ship operates; we don't do Force Protection and "warshippy things" at the same time. We have, and we can, such as in a narrow strait transit in a large body of water, but just generally, it doesn't happen.


----------



## Lumber (22 Mar 2022)

People seem to be getting really worked up about this event and sharing a lot of strong opinions, when in reality you have no idea all the events that lead up to this happening.

The posture of the ship, both in terms of what FP component elements were stood up as well as the "posture"/mindset of the individual members of the team, would have been highly influenced by the threat assessment and the briefing of the FP officer (the OpsO).

If you are claiming to know what the content and quality of those threat assessments is, then you are either lying and should stay in your lane, or you are telling the truth, in which case you should be shutting you mouth for OPSEC reasons.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> People seem to be getting really worked up about this event and sharing a lot of strong opinions, when in reality you have no idea all the events that lead up to this happening.
> 
> The posture of the ship, both in terms of what FP component elements were stood up as well as the "posture"/mindset of the individual members of the team, would have been highly influenced by the threat assessment and the briefing of the FP officer (the OpsO).
> 
> If you are claiming to know what the content and quality of those threat assessments is, then you are either lying and should stay in your lane, or you are telling the truth, in which case you should be shutting you mouth for OPSEC reasons.


It's true and all we have to go off is the video footage.  The video footage isn't very flattering though and I have a lot of questions.  I am certain they will be answered in due course.

I don't think anyone here knows what the TAs actually say.  We can take an educated guess though 😎.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seriously. "Some paint got on the ship" is not in any way shape or form indicative of a lack of adequate intelligence or accurate threat assessments. I really don't get why everyone seems hell-bent on treating this event like it's some sort of major catastrophe.


Holy fuck, man, a breach is a breach. Yes, it was just paint. This time. And what if next time it's something slightly more volatile? I have no idea what your intent is when you cross three different lines of escalation headed toward my position.


----------



## MJP (22 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> People seem to be getting really worked up about this event and sharing a lot of strong opinions, when in reality you have no idea all the events that lead up to this happening.
> 
> The posture of the ship, both in terms of what FP component elements were stood up as well as the "posture"/mindset of the individual members of the team, would have been highly influenced by the threat assessment and the briefing of the FP officer (the OpsO).
> 
> If you are claiming to know what the content and quality of those threat assessments is, then you are either lying and should stay in your lane, or you are telling the truth, in which case you should be shutting you mouth for OPSEC reasons.






Underway said:


> 1.  The RCN does take force protection seriously.  I can only speak to my experience on that same deployment.
> 
> Every single duty watch on the East Coast you are required to do a force protection exercise AND a damage control exercise once per day in home port.  This isn't always done in foreign ports because there is a second, more robust force protection component normally stood up and run by either the PlansO, WpnsO or OpsO, and they are not part of the duty watch.  ROE is read and briefed by the FP officer at the start of every watch for the duty watch and the FP component.  There are three C7 armed sentries on deck at all times, and the brow watchkeeper carries a pistol.
> 
> ...



There have been very few on point comments in this thread and in true Army.ca fashion the forum has blown up, analyzed, and criticized the FP actions (or lack thereof) surrounding the incident with no real clue what went went down. Nothing wrong with healthy discussion but some in this thread seem to think the sky is falling because of some incident.

Thanks to Lumber & Underway for some great reality check posts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Mar 2022)

MJP said:


> There have been very few on point comments in this thread and in true Army.ca fashion the forum has blown up, analyzed, and criticized the FP actions (or lack thereof) surrounding the incident with no real clue what went went down. Nothing wrong with healthy discussion but some in this thread seem to think the sky is falling because of some incident.
> 
> Thanks to Lumber & Underway for some great reality check posts.


All true but Kat has the bottom line...



Kat Stevens said:


> Holy fuck, man, a breach is a breach.


----------



## MJP (22 Mar 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> All true but Kat has the bottom line...


Meh such a hot take...shite happens, pretty sure the RCN can figure this one out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

MJP said:


> There have been very few on point comments in this thread and in true Army.ca fashion the forum has blown up, analyzed, and criticized the FP actions (or lack thereof) surrounding the incident with no real clue what went went down. Nothing wrong with healthy discussion but some in this thread seem to think the sky is falling because of some incident.
> 
> Thanks to Lumber & Underway for some great reality check posts.


You're right, some of these comments are unfair.  Some of them haven't been taken well.  Some of them are overly critical.

But......

Some of us have been critical of the way the Navy does this stuff before.  The problem we have is that it always gets downplayed and the Navy ends up reverting back to status quo. 

This is the attitude that has the Force teaching and using antiquated UoF techniques, Using antiquated equipment and not following Industry Best Practices. 

The Navy has spent some money WRT NST and NTOG to improve some things but it seems to always be a case of one step forward, two steps backward.


P.S.

For the record, nobody needs to be fired over this.  It would be a lot better if the Navy adopted more of a culture like the Air Force has WRT Flight Safety.   

Rather than seeking to blame someone, figure out what we did and didn't do well and figure out how to do better next time.  It's not about assigning blame, it's about improving performance.


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It would be a lot better if the Navy adopted more of a culture like the Air Force has WRT Flight Safety.


Bingo.

But, that would take a complete re-work of the "naval" culture.  I've been on both sides and I know it's far better to do so, but when some people say "the Air Force has habits, not traditions" with a straight face, I'm not holding my breath that change will come.


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> I don't mean this in any way to be insulting, but I don't think you understand how a ship operates; we don't do Force Protection and "warshippy things" at the same time. We have, and we can, such as in a narrow strait transit in a large body of water, but just generally, it doesn't happen.



So you have never had to put a hostile boarding team over somewhere while conducting other operations?

I get the shore FP is different as you probably aren’t going to conduct an opposed docking. But the point I’ve been trying to make is yes, you do need a separate ‘red shirt’ security team, who is trained and positioned for both LL and L responses.  

The other aspect is unlike other nations Navies you don’t have LRAD or Dazzlers as LL stand off options.  I’ve seen the firehose teams work, and I think it’s a poor facsimile of a valid LL response. 

My experience with RCN boarding work is very dated (90’s) and I was equally appalled back then.

There was a 12’ fence and 50m of jetty between the original crowds and the ship. 
  The fact no one did jack shit throughout the incident is pretty telling.


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

MJP said:


> Meh such a hot take...shite happens, pretty sure the RCN can figure this one out.


Doubt for $100


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> So you have never had to put a hostile boarding team over somewhere while conducting other operations?
> 
> I get the shore FP is different as you probably aren’t going to conduct an opposed docking. But the point I’ve been trying to make is yes, you do need a separate ‘red shirt’ security team, who is trained and positioned for both LL and L responses.
> 
> ...



So right now a CPF holds around 254 bunks, give or take with configuration. 

We already take on secret squirrels, Air Det and NTOG (for portions) and a chaplain and a JAG and a PAF O during deployments. Which cuts about 50 people of the core crew.  

We also no inject lots of trainees which taxes the watch rotation further. 

What more do we cut ?  To make room for more good idea ferry positions. 

We have the teams for this already NTOG and NST.  Utilise them.

The question here is primarily how the protesters got access to the jetty.  I've been to Piraeus a few times.  Its always been closed and guarded.  

The response of the ship will come out in the report, but the fact we don't have a half dozen dead Greeks for some thrown paint is a small victory.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So right now a CPF holds around 254 bunks, give or take with configuration.
> 
> We already take on secret squirrels, Air Det and NTOG (for portions) and a chaplain and a JAG and a PAF O during deployments. Which cuts about 50 people of the core crew.
> 
> ...


No need to create other positions, improving how we currently operate is easily achievable with present human resources.


Halifax Tar said:


> We have the teams for this already NTOG and NST.  Utilise them.


Agreed, also ensure Ships have a fully trained and appropriately equipped boarding party.  The boarding party should form the QRT and be flagged for security duties alongside.


Halifax Tar said:


> The question here is primarily how the protesters got access to the jetty.  I've been to Piraeus a few times.  Its always been closed and guarded.


How did they get access to the Jetty? Why didn't the second layer of Jetty Sentries (which belong to the Ship) alert the Duty Watch on board and what reactions were taken if any?  



Halifax Tar said:


> The response of the ship will come out in the report, but the fact we don't have a half dozen dead Greeks for some thrown paint is a small victory.


Agreed on the latter part.  I doubt the response will be forthcoming in the report.


----------



## Swampbuggy (22 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Q :Have you ever killed any one ?
> A: No, but I once hurt someone's feelings.
> Extra points for what film and whose speaking?


Ronin, baby! And...De Niro, FTW!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Bingo.
> 
> But, that would take a complete re-work of the "naval" culture.  I've been on both sides and I know it's far better to do so, but when some people say "the Air Force has habits, not traditions" with a straight face, I'm not holding my breath that change will come.


I also think this is the exact reason no lessons will be learned or applied from this experience 😉

I don't doubt it that some report will get produced, it will get buried and will not be disseminated.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I also think this is the exact reason no lessons will be learned or applied from this experience 😉
> 
> I don't doubt it that some report will get produced, it will get buried and will not be disseminated.



Hopefully one of the recommendations from any BOI will be the issue of Lewis Guns to the deck watch and shore parties.

For no other reason than I like the old 'Record Player'


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Hopefully one of the recommendations from any BOI will be the issue of Lewis Guns to the deck watch and shore parties.
> 
> For no other reason than I like the old 'Record Player'
> 
> View attachment 69628


I'm a fan of billy clubs myself because nothing says dealing with criminals like pressing them in to service of her majesty 😁

Anyone can be a line handler, even Greek Communists 👹


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2022)

btrudy said:


> Seriously. "Some paint got on the ship" is not in any way shape or form indicative of a lack of adequate intelligence or accurate threat assessments. I really don't get why everyone seems hell-bent on treating this event like it's some sort of major catastrophe.


It’s not BUT vandalism was performed on the ship. What if next time it’s a bomb? 

Food for thought.

Just a question; do you have ANY real world experience?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Hopefully one of the recommendations from any BOI will be the issue of Lewis Guns to the deck watch and shore parties.
> 
> For no other reason than I like the old 'Record Player'
> 
> View attachment 69628



When did the "Love Boat" mount weapons?   😉


----------



## Remius (22 Mar 2022)

I’m no expert on FP for ships. 

In my land based brain, I see this for what it is.  A breach.  Who cares if it’s paint, crayons, a lost 4 year old or a bomb.  Something got through that shouldn’t have.  It should be treated seriously and hope it is. 

Fix it.  That way if it’s just paint wielding commies they won’t get shot if they can’t get close.  And the guys with bombs won’t get close because they’ll get shot because they’ll have to deal with the first layer of protection to get to where they want to cause shenanigans. 

Whether that’s the host nation or us.

I just think if we are deploying a ship to what is essentially a potential war zone the likes of which we haven’t seen that the posture should be high the moment they leave our ports.   But maybe they are, I’m unfamiliar with the SOPs the RCN has. 

Our Naval experts here have chimed in and I’ll defer to them as I know sweet eff all about this sort of thing.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> When did the "Love Boat" mount weapons?   😉


Given the alleged conduct of senior naval officers aboard some of those ships, that's probably not the most fitting name for the class.


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> good idea ferry


Now you got me thinking of something like BC Ferries, but at RCN HQ.


----------



## Underway (22 Mar 2022)

In the words of Letterkenny let's all take about 20% off here.

I've thought about this overnight and came to this conclusion.

What exactly did the ship do wrong here?  Nothing as far as I can tell from the information we have.

Responses to security situations like this, particularly in the civilian context _must be proportional to the threat (if any) and non-escalatory.  _Law enforcement can escalate if necessary, we don't do that.

From what we could see the response by the ship was proportional and non-escalatory.

If the ship's response was something along the lines of...

1. Close the brow
2. Make an informative pipe, stand up the off-watch FP elements.
3. Warn the protestors verbally/visually away from the ship,
4. don't physically interact, let them throw the paint,
5. take pictures, watch them get arrested, provide evidence, do AAR, lessons learned, SI etc...
6. Paint ship evolution.

_*SAT response.  *_

The only failing that for sure we know about is the civilian authorities.  The point of the outer security is to stop the ship from having to put up with this crap in the first place.

Now before we assume I'm a homer (I am but I'm generally a realist) I'm sure not everything is rosy and perfect.  Guaranteed some response or action could have been more proactive or done better, just like a "SAT" DC exercise, there is always, always room for improvement.
Hell for all we know the ship could have been oblivious of the situation until the paint hit the ship and the CO is seething with his shitty duty watch/FP element.  They might have bumbled into the best outcome! (though doubtful, foreign port there are lots of eyes looking out on the upper deck)

Finally, any of this talk about burying this and forgetting doesn't know the current RCN very well.  This is the preview of Sea Training and they don't let anything go.  Everything will be gone over and the lessons will be passed through Sea Training to the fleet because the next people in the seat at Sea Training are always the ones who just came off of deployment.  The folks who were there will ensure that this situation makes it into an exercise and discussion when the FP elements undergo training (actually dealing with protests is one of the exercises that are on the docket, its a classic problem).


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

Underway said:


> From what we could see the response by the ship was proportional and non-escalatory.
> 
> If the ship's response was something along the lines of...
> 
> ...


I will caveat this with the fact we don't know if they had forward knowledge this would just be a paint attack.
  If they did, I would still disagree with the response, simply because we have seen time and time again that reported nuisance attacks, are often used by other more nefarious groups to launch lethal attacks.

Given the couple of OS videos released on this - 2 and 3 didn't occur.

 All the OPFOR has learned now, is you can get to grenade/Molotov/breaching charge range of a RCN vessel with no problems, and yes there are elements in Greece with all of those options who don't like NATO and don't have a problem killing or maiming it's members, and would love to sabotage a warship.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should have been lethally engaged by what occurred -- what I am saying, is that I think the RCN could use some additional items - mainly 1-2 LRAD/ship, and a few B. E. Meyers dazzlers - I've seen both employed operationally and they have saved a lot of lives.


----------



## TacticalTea (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Bingo.
> 
> But, that would take a complete re-work of the "naval" culture.  I've been on both sides and I know it's far better to do so, but when some people say "the Air Force has habits, not traditions" with a straight face, I'm not holding my breath that change will come.


Hah! Tried that once. Went about like this:

Me: Look, way it works in the Air Force, when something goes wrong, the point is not to blame someone, but to be transparent about what went wrong so they can be clear-eyed about what needs to happen to prevent it reoccurring.

Oxygen Thievery Officer: Why are you talking about the Air Force, we're not in the Air Force!

_Cue mental facepalm_


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Hah! Tried that once. Went about like this:
> 
> Me: Look, way it works in the Air Force, when something goes wrong, the point is not to blame someone, but to be transparent about what went wrong so they can be clear-eyed about what needs to happen to prevent it reoccurring.
> 
> ...


Any entity that doesn't hold open and honest AAR's just dooms themselves to failure.
  It doesn't need to be public - but the lessons do need to be disseminated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Hopefully one of the recommendations from any BOI will be the issue of Lewis Guns to the deck watch and shore parties.
> 
> For no other reason than I like the old 'Record Player'
> 
> View attachment 69628


I have a interesting report where in 1922, DFO borrowed a Lewis Gun and found a Vet that used use one in WWI. Whereupon they went and massacred a Sea lion colony, going ashore to finish off the pups with revolvers. The report ended with "This experiment was a great success and DFO should acquire some of these guns to carry on this work to protect salmon stocks" . Different times.......


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Hah! Tried that once. Went about like this:
> 
> Me: Look, way it works in the Air Force, when something goes wrong, the point is not to blame someone, but to be transparent about what went wrong so they can be clear-eyed about what needs to happen to prevent it reoccurring.
> 
> ...


----------



## GK .Dundas (22 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have a interesting report where in 1922, DFO borrowed a Lewis Gun and found a Vet that used use one in WWI. Whereupon they went and massacred a Sea lion colony, going ashore to finish off the pups with revolvers. The report ended with "This experiment was a great success and DFO should acquire some of these guns to carry on this work to protect salmon stocks" . Different times.......


Different times  indeed. I can remember when the British Foreign Office borrowed one and the destroyer it came with and almost started an international incident. While almost inducing a collective stroke in the Canadian PMO.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Mar 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have a interesting report where in 1922, DFO borrowed a Lewis Gun and* found a Vet that used use one in WWI*. Whereupon they went and massacred a Sea lion colony, going ashore to finish off the pups with revolvers. The report ended with "This experiment was a great success and DFO should acquire some of these guns to carry on this work to protect salmon stocks" . Different times.......



W.E. Maiden









						Killing Sea Lions to Save the Salmon | Maclean's | February 1, 1925
					

Scientific destruction of a pest of the sea means real money to B. C. canneries.




					archive.macleans.ca
				





> . . .
> 
> In the summer of 1922 the Canadian Government Fisheries Protection steamer Givenchy, with a picked crew aboard and commanded by Captain Laird, steamed through the early morning mist of Vancouver harbor, bound for Hope Island, one of a group at the northern end of Vancouver Island. *The situation called for a technical expert and W. E. Maiden, of New Westminster, a member of the Fishermen’s Association and a graduate from the Imperial College at Hythe, England—Lewis gun instructor and first class gunner in the recent war— was put in charge of operations.*
> . . .


----------



## Underway (22 Mar 2022)

KevinB said:


> Any entity that doesn't hold open and honest AAR's just dooms themselves to failure.
> It doesn't need to be public - but the lessons do need to be disseminated.


 Counterpoint to some of the comments here:

For warfare and damage control that's the case right now.  Everything is recorded (voice, video, sensor data) and analyzed and briefed back.  There is an initial assessment done by the "range staff" for a missile shoot or DC issue and then all the data is analyzed.

I was in an amazing AAR for a missile shoot, the Combat Sytems Team was there as was the whole OPS Room, CO.

They ran back a reconstruction of the shoot, from both the enemy and friendly sides and picked out where performance could be improved. Where certain decisions were made they asked why those decisions were made, and in one case it lead to a direct change in training for the ARRO ( Jr position).  The Jr told them why they did what they did and were listened to with no blame. Their training for how to use a certain sensor wasn't as clear as it should have been, so I saw the training chief leave with notes to fix that.

And as the warfare centre does the training for the OPS team you can believe it went right back into their program.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> W.E. Maiden
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Columbia River fishery is culling them right now...









						It's now legal to kill sea lions that are threatening salmon in the Pacific Northwest | CNN
					

Animal control in the western United States just got more extreme.




					www.cnn.com
				




BC wants to follow suit...



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/group-calls-for-commercial-cull-on-seals-sea-lions-1.5255221


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2022)

So I assume the BoI for Protecteur is available for every sailor to review and learn from?


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So I assume the BoI for Protecteur is available for every sailor to review and learn from?


----------



## Rd651 (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


>


Great point!! That BOI was VERY hard to see and I was a Snr FFtr collecting many hats on different CPFs at the time!!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

dapaterson said:


> So I assume the BoI for Protecteur is available for every sailor to review and learn from?


Some of the lessons learned I was taught as a consequence have already been struck from the curriculum..... 😉


----------



## Rd651 (22 Mar 2022)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Some of the lessons learned I was taught as a consequence have already been struck from the curriculum..... 😉


Sad and that BOI was VERY telling to say the least!


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Mar 2022)

Underway said:


> Counterpoint to some of the comments here:
> 
> For warfare and damage control that's the case right now.  Everything is recorded (voice, video, sensor data) and analyzed and briefed back.  There is an initial assessment done by the "range staff" for a missile shoot or DC issue and then all the data is analyzed.
> 
> ...


Counter-counter point; find an unclass version of the PRO BOI (hint, doesn't officially exist). Or the PRE allsion BOI, or any of the major fire/flood events. They are all confidential and buried.

We learn our real life DC LL from the USN, RAN, RN, Norway etc. If you want to know what happened on the USS Cole, or any other major incident it's all posted online and unclass. Even the Bonhomme Richard fire report was put out as soon as they were allowed, and only got delayed because of the charges.

The recent FRE fire report should at least be unclass though, but is written from the fire marshall perspective, not the RCN. That one is delayed because the people involved are triple hatted, but at least the draft was kicked out to the fleet within a week.

The RCN is appallingly bad at actually keeping track of these things and distributing lessons learned from real incidents. The really shitty part is that people's careers were killed by PRO and other incidents, but was done in a backdoor way, so they didn't even get any kind of fair representation.


----------



## dimsum (22 Mar 2022)

Navy_Pete said:


> Counter-counter point; find an unclass version of the PRO BOI (hint, doesn't officially exist). Or the PRE allsion BOI, or any of the major fire/flood events. They are all confidential and buried.
> 
> We learn our real life DC LL from the USN, RAN, RN, Norway etc. If you want to know what happened on the USS Cole, or any other major incident it's all posted online and unclass. Even the Bonhomme Richard fire report was put out as soon as they were allowed, and only got delayed because of the charges.
> 
> ...


Those things should be Flight Safety reports - completely UNCLAS and online.


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Those things should be Flight Safety reports - completely UNCLAS and online.


I don't disagree, and really like the flight safety report culture that I saw with the air det. Once in a while people should still get held accountable, but I'm sure there is a happy middle ground where we can have unclass versions of BOIs and other reports, and still hold people accountable when required.

The USN does a great job of that, and the Westralia report is another great example. You can identify people by position so the context makes sense, but it's pretty easy to drop names etc for an unclass version, and just have a withheld annex with a 'decoder key' that is PRO B for the full report.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Those things should be Flight Safety reports - completely UNCLAS and online.


Hence my point about adopting a culture of safety 😉


----------



## Rd651 (22 Mar 2022)

dimsum said:


> Those things should be Flight Safety reports - completely UNCLAS and online.


Yes agreed it should've been released  least to the fleet to actually use /train 'LL and reconmendations, very telling and many fails occurred, I've read the report, but only after many,  asks to someone in the know at the time that allowed me to see it, on a computer screen, only because of my position as a Snr FFtr (privilege) at the time....no copies, private viewing, etc. Very Controlled


----------



## Dana381 (22 Mar 2022)

Rd651 said:


> Great point!! That BOI was VERY hard to see and I was a Snr FFtr collecting many hats on different CPFs at the time!!



As a civillian that is shocking, how can you learn from mistakes if you don't know what they are. Whoever suppresses information that can save lives will someday be guilty of murder! 

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” *Winston Churchill*.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Mar 2022)

Dana381 said:


> As a civillian that is shocking, how can you learn from mistakes if you don't know what they are. Whoever suppresses information that can save lives will someday be guilty of murder!
> 
> “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” *Winston Churchill*.


Complain to your elected officials.  Ships are political, military procurement is political.

Now retired Admirals have been charged for not following the orders of said elected officials in relation to the Ship file.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-case-explainer-1.5127752
		


I don't know what said report stated.  Maybe it stated Ship X was a stinking pile of poop and should have been replaced decades ago?

We will never know 😉


----------

