# Airfield defence role for PRes? (From: "Re-Royalization")



## dimsum (19 May 2015)

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> RCAF is trying to learn and retain a semblance of Army fighting skills and there is still no dedicated base defence unit like the RAF Regt.



<tangent>

We have fighters and other expensive hardware in bases and deployed in QRAs.  Who provides the security for that?  

Note:  I'm not advocating for the start-up of an "RAF Regt" or "RAAF Airfield Defence Guards".

</tangent>


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> <tangent>
> 
> We have fighters and other expensive hardware in bases and deployed in QRAs.  Who provides the security for that?
> 
> ...




Think _Gulf War I_ in Qatar: we used regular Canadian infantry to defend the airfield. It's a legitimate task for infantry and air defence artillery.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2015)

Or outsourced to private American companies.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Think _Gulf War I_ in Qatar: we used regular Canadian infantry to defend the airfield. It's a legitimate task for infantry and air defence artillery.


Agreed and I'm sure that there are enough PRes troops who would be interested in a tasking like this.



			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Or outsourced to private American companies.



Sadly.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Agreed and _I'm sure that there are enough PRes troops who would be interested in a tasking like this_.
> 
> Sadly.....




And _I think _airfield defence is a task for which a _regional battalion_ could train so that it could have a platoon ready to go on short notice (say 10 days) and the rest of a company ready in another 20 days. And _I suspect_ the equipment table for such a task is manageable for a reserve unit.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And _I think _airfield defence is a task for which a _regional battalion_ could train so that it could have a platoon ready to go on short notice (say 10 days) and the rest of a company ready in another 20 days. And _I suspect_ the equipment table for such a task is manageable for a reserve unit.



Thank you Mr Campbell. It`s a task the Army has not thought of AFAIK. We did send a platoon way back when to Mirage....2004 IIRC.


----------



## medicineman (19 May 2015)

I remember doing AAG medicals on a lot of Naval Reservists that were with Port Security who did time in Khandahar as part of the A/F Security Force there.  I get the impression that "they" get whoever "they" can to fill the slots for this sort of thing - be they Reg Force/P Res infantry, Naval Reservists, MP's, or whoever can be rustled up.

MM


----------



## dimsum (19 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And _I think _airfield defence is a task for which a _regional battalion_ could train so that it could have a platoon ready to go on short notice (say 10 days) and the rest of a company ready in another 20 days. And _I suspect_ the equipment table for such a task is manageable for a reserve unit.



Thing is, could a PRes Bn be tasked at short notice though?  Say, if a mission happened tomorrow and C-17s were to roll into place X, one of the first units to deploy ahead of the first plane would be the Airfield Defence pers.


----------



## FJAG (19 May 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Thing is, could a PRes Bn be tasked at short notice though?  Say, if a mission happened tomorrow and C-17s were to roll into place X, one of the first units to deploy ahead of the first plane would be the Airfield Defence pers.



Easy fix.

Send in a Reg force element and seven days later rotate them out for their P Res replacements who have the long term task.

These are not issues that are difficult to solve. The problem is that there is very little will within the Reg F military establishment to assign standing tasks to P Res elements based on the fiction that they are not reliable and that you can't count on volunteers to show up when needed and that the administration to get them deployed takes too long. All self-inflicted wounds.

The power to call up reservists exists in the NDA but we've developed a culture within the government and especially the DND hierarchy to not use that power; this leaves us with a tradition of calling for individual volunteers from the P Res for each and every op or tasking -- basically a system that fosters uncertainty and so called unreliability.

I don't point at the US NG as THE model to replicate but it does show that one can have a low cost stand-by force that can be counted on to be there when a surge capability is needed. 

But, I'm rambling again. If I don't watch out I'll be blithering on about why do we have Reg F armoured and artillery regiments when we only use them every half century? Wouldn't these be perfectly appropriate tasks to give to the reserves?

 :bla-bla:

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Easy fix.
> 
> Send in a Reg force element and seven days later rotate them out for their P Res replacements who have the long term task.
> 
> ...



The other 'fiction' is that Reservists can't deploy because of full time jobs and family.

80% of my unit are kids at school, or employed in a variety of temporary/ low wage jobs. 

Most would fight tooth and nail for a Class B or C position, doing anything.


----------



## George Wallace (19 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Easy fix.
> 
> Send in a Reg force element and seven days later rotate them out for their P Res replacements who have the long term task.
> 
> ...



Or perhaps create a "DART" type Class B for Reservists to fill to supplement Reg Force QRF


----------



## cupper (19 May 2015)

Bring in legislation that will protect a reservist's job when called up, and I suspect you will get a lot of those members who have full time jobs making themselves available as well.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (19 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Bring in legislation that will protect a reservist's job when called up, and I suspect you will get a lot of those members who have full time jobs making themselves available as well.



That already exists in most provinces and territories... 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-reservist-support/job-protection-legislation.page

I work full-time, the issue is not that my job isn't protected but whether or not it is financially feasible for me to deploy. Those with wives and children will be more hard pressed, especially in Alberta where wages and salaries are much higher than the norm and a CAF salary may not always be enough. Therefore, I think most simply choose not to because of their finances.


----------



## mariomike (19 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Bring in legislation that will protect a reservist's job when called up, and I suspect you will get a lot of those members who have full time jobs making themselves available as well.



We had job and seniority protection written into our collective agreement: "Leave of absence shall be granted to employees to serve in the Armed Forces during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada. Seniority will accumulate during such leave."

But, we had no protection for loss of income. Benefits and pension would also be affected. Not sure how many would volunteer to go.

We also have a 20-page  "Reservists Job Protection Superthread".


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Bring in legislation that will protect a reservist's job when called up, and I suspect you will get a lot of those members who have full time jobs making themselves available as well.



If you can let soldiers know far enough in advance that they will be going on a high readiness cycle, for a specific period of time at the same time of year, many could work that into their schedules. If this were to happen according to a regular routine, people can work their lives and occupations around it.

However, if it's all ad hoc/ on again off again... it will collapse like a house of cheap cards.


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2015)

As long as we are paying ~68000 people to be ready 24/7, I do not understand the ongoing desire to offload a rapid reaction task to those who are not compensated for that level of readiness.  Reserves are not intended as a QRF.  If we are to pay roughly 5000 Reg F infantrymen, I'd hope we can pull together a company of 150 for a rapid deployment to hold an airfield.  Ramp up the Reserves for follow-up, certainly; but first out the door should be those paid to be ready.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 May 2015)

If we are going to talk about air field defense, shouldn't we have Anti-aircraft weapons in our inventory? last I checked on the DWAN and Canadian Defense review we are still atleast 5-7 years out on even the initial phases of procuring new ground based air defense systems. That said perhaps having a platoon level sub-unit in the arty for air defense, with Pres AD regiments for augmentation would be the right way to go. Oh and buy MANPAD's and have every trade trained how to use them.


----------



## Underway (20 May 2015)

Assuming we are operating on our own and not with allies which NEVER happens....  

Immediate (aka: 5 min ago) AF security you would send someone from CANSOFCOM.  JTF probably would provide their own security for their own birds to start, or CSOR would be involved.  JTF often provide their own security as they traditionally don't trust anyone else.  It all depends on the mission and where.  

For a week or so notice any of the Infantry Btn's can fill the shoes.  

For longer term with more lead time or multiple rotations you could issue a class C.  Plenty of NAVRES sailors provided base security in KAF and with the SOF units (as I was told they didn't have to "relearn" anything that was taught them by the SOF guys, blank slates and all, that unlike combat arms PRES), any combat arms PRES units like in Camp Nathan Smith.  

Class C's for these sort of tours that get you a medal are gold to PRES.  They love them, get a good paycheck, break from school, work, life etc...and get a shinny to show off in the mess.  For the platoon sized org that is required for airbase security you could probably get Class C's for an infinite amount of time.  During the heydays of Afghanistan it never seemed like we were ever short of reservists volunteering to help out.

We can't do AAW defence for airfields aside from MANPADS AFAIK anymore.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2015)

My battalion defended RAF Greenham Common as part of a Brigade tasking for several weeks.

Our main task was to keep these 'women' from being killed by the US Air Force security team defending the site where they had stored the nuclear tipped cruise missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenham_Common_Women%27s_Peace_Camp

Of course, being activists, they were busy trying to squirm their way through the concertina on a regular basis, VC sapper-like, to cause the US troops to do just that in front of the world press.

We did not have weapons beyond pick axe handles, but in all other respects we were an airfield defense battalion working closely with the RAF Regiment, amongst others.

It was boring. Really, really boring and I am sure that a contracted civilian agency of some kind could have done the majority of the work. We hated it, of course.

Reserves doing this job? Not unless you have them on a Class B or C contract IMHO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 May 2015)

At least one Reserve Arty unit should be tasked with AD as a role, give them simulators for the missile systems and some basic smaller calibre AD guns to practice on and keep interest up. Also create positions where you can send someone overseas to work with an allied AD unit for a period. It would be great that the Reserve AD unit be near a Regular Force Artillery unit also with a AD troop so they can work together.


----------



## Loachman (20 May 2015)

Unfortunately, we apparently can't even afford to give them regular guns, let alone re-establish another role.


----------



## Harris (20 May 2015)

Before we look at giving Pres Units another role, how about we sort out the basics first?  For example there are no C6's in Newfoundland.  None.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> At least one Reserve Arty unit should be tasked with AD as a role, give them simulators for the missile systems and some basic smaller calibre AD guns to practice on and keep interest up. Also create positions where you can send someone overseas to work with an allied AD unit for a period. It would be great that the Reserve AD unit be near a Regular Force Artillery unit also with a AD troop so they can work together.



Already been tried. Reserve Bird Gunners in Pembroke. Didn't work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 May 2015)

Recceguy, I am afraid to ask why, but why? 

Harris, since we don't have guns either, maybe a good time to re-roll them into something we may need?


----------



## Harris (20 May 2015)

Don't get me wrong, if a re-role is necessary, I'm good with it.  What I fear is that if we can't even get the basics right equipment wise, how would making a Unit re-role help?  Still not likely to get the proper equipment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Recceguy, I am afraid to ask why, but why?
> 
> Harris, since we don't have guns either, maybe a good time to re-roll them into something we may need?



I'm not sure. Was on deployment with one of them and he was saying there was no real and\ or usable equipment, the relationship with the Arty in Pet was near non existent, and a lot of external interference.

Can't vouch, but that's what I recall being told.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 May 2015)

sounds quite believable  :facepalm: Thanks


----------



## dapaterson (20 May 2015)

There were three Res AD units; Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.  With the divestment of our AD systems (other than CF-18s, missiles on frigates, and the ever-popular all-arms air defence (aka spray wildly with whatever you've got on hand)) those three units were re-roled to artillery.

With the C3 howizters now following the MLVW/LSVW self-divestment program, it's unclear what the future holds for Reserve artillery units.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With the C3 howizters now following the MLVW/LSVW self-divestment program, it's unclear what the future holds for Reserve artillery units.



As far as I know the LG-1 is still in use, as the plan still is to train reserve weapons techs on them. that said those plans change atleast once a month so god only knows whats going on any more


----------



## GnyHwy (20 May 2015)

I don't think anyone is denying the requirement for an AD capability. 

The bigger question is where does it stack up against the 200+ other projects that are competing for the same money... long range ground to ground missiles would also fall into this quagmire.

From what I understand the Arty School is maintaining a very small set of persons that are expected to keep up on the technology and procedures or our allies.  Probably the best they can do given other competing priorities. 

Asking our Res F and/or other arms to take on a SHORAD task is probably a huge stretch, even in the best of circumstances.  Even if we hand selected Reg F persons, they would probably have massive difficulties.  I don't think it is a simple as looking or listening for tiny black dots in the sky and then shooting at them. 

That all said, we should get an MRR in the next couple years, and it should be better than this!   
At least we will be capable of anticipating the pain!!! :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (20 May 2015)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Asking our Res F and/or other arms to take on a SHORAD task is probably a huge stretch, even in the best of circumstances.  Even if we hand selected Reg F persons, they would probably have massive difficulties.  I don't think it is a simple as looking or listening for tiny black dots in the sky and then shooting at them.



In the eighties the CIA provided stingers to the mujahideen to shoot down Russian helicopters and such. If they could make that work why couldn't we get a bunch of kids already fluent in computer games to learn to operate missiles?

I keep saying it over and over: it isn't the lack of talent, it's a lack of will within the Reg F to make things work with the PRes. It's all about protecting Reg F PYs.

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09 (20 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I keep saying it over and over: it isn't the lack of talent, it's a lack of will within the Reg F to make things work with the PRes. It's all about protecting Reg F PYs.
> 
> :cheers:



always has been, and always will be the case IMO, to few people who desire change actually are in positions to make change


----------



## RedcapCrusader (20 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure. Was on deployment with one of them and he was saying there was no real and\ or usable equipment, the relationship with the Arty in Pet was near non existent, and a lot of external interference.
> 
> Can't vouch, but that's what I recall being told.



There was also AD in Lethbridge. Same fate. As soon as they started getting rid of the ADATS, they changed over to Field Arty.


----------



## GnyHwy (20 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It's all about protecting Reg F PYs.
> 
> :cheers:



I don't agree with that.  The Res have ample PYs.  What we don't have is the money to employ them.  

I do agree that a shooter could be trained pretty easily (any open source stats on Mujahideen successes?).  Also, shooting lumbering heavy helicopters may not be a good comparison for our potential problems.

Lastly, the planning, coordination, deconfliction, ROE and safety are whole other problems that aren't resolved on a 1 week operator course. 

 :cheers:


----------



## blacktriangle (20 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> In the eighties the CIA provided stingers to the mujahideen to shoot down Russian helicopters and such. If they could make that work why couldn't we get a bunch of kids already fluent in computer games to learn to operate missiles?
> 
> I keep saying it over and over: it isn't the lack of talent, it's a lack of will within the Reg F to make things work with the PRes. It's all about protecting Reg F PYs.
> 
> :cheers:



Do we really have to make this a Reg vs Res thing? This is not a cap badge or res/reg problem. The problem is our lack of any credible AD system, and the lack of political/military will to procure one.


----------



## Ostrozac (20 May 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> As far as I know the LG-1 is still in use, as the plan still is to train reserve weapons techs on them. that said those plans change atleast once a month so god only knows whats going on any more



And the LG-1 doesn't exactly have a reputation as the most robust weapons system in the world. Specifically, it doesn't seem to enjoy the winter that much. And Canada has a lot of winter.

There is a project for a future indirect fire capability -- but like most projects it is late, vague on the deliverables, and the impact on the reserve force is unknown.  The reserve component will probably either be tacked on at the absolute last minute, like the Engineers Corps recently did with their proposed reserve Geomatic and Bridging capability, or not included at all, as with the most recent overarching plan for the Armoured Corps.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2015)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> There was also AD in Lethbridge. Same fate. As soon as they started getting rid of the ADATS, they changed over  back to Field Arty.



That was my Militia Battery, 20th Ind. Fd Bty that was re-roled.  The flirting with the AD role came after my time there and was not a success.  It's not the first time the Militia were bird gunners.  When my dad came back from  overseas to Calgary after the war he stayed active in the Militia.  The had three batteries in operation at the same time consisting one each of field, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And the LG-1 doesn't exactly have a reputation as the most robust weapons system in the world. Specifically, it doesn't seem to enjoy the winter that much. And Canada has a lot of winter.



I don't know, they never gave us any trouble in winter shoots in Suffield.  And the system has it's roots back to the second world war.  That is longer than it's predecessors the 25 pdr, or 18 pdr.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (20 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That was my Militia Battery, 20th Ind. Fd Bty that was re-roled.  The flirting with the AD role came after my time there and was not a success.  It's not the first time the Militia were bird gunners.  When my dad came back from  overseas to Calgary after the war he stayed active in the Militia.  The had three batteries in operation at the same time consisting one each of field, anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns.



Interesting, I had no idea. Thanks!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> In the eighties the CIA provided stingers to the mujahideen to shoot down Russian helicopters and such. If they could make that work why couldn't we get a bunch of kids already fluent in computer games to learn to operate missiles?
> 
> I keep saying it over and over: it isn't the lack of talent, it's a lack of will within the Reg F to make things work with the PRes. It's all about protecting Reg F PYs.
> 
> :cheers:



The problem with this statement is that the "act" part of the AD system is the easy part, but the "sense" and "command" elements are the difficult part. While we could easily teach reservists to shoot a stinger it is infinitely harder to train someone in effective aircract recce, hostile act criteria, airspace coordination (as this is a critical element of the shooter aspect of AD), and planning. With limited training days I would suggest that the integration of this capability into any sort of complex multinational operation that involved Air, Ground, and Naval assets, Tactical data links, etc would be beyond their scope.

Also, for the crowd, if you are looking at an airfield air defence role for a GBAD (the proper acronym, as "AD" includes Air and Naval AD assets) system than MANPAD is definately not where you want to look for a capability. MANPADs are optimized for short range defence of manouevre units and generally speaking are used to engage helicopters and POSSIBLY a larger UAV that could be picked up with the mk 1 eyeball or a TA suite of some sort of the MANPAD. Even aircraft, because of the longer reach of their weapons (8-15 km vs a MANPADs 2-8km range) are likely out of a realistic target pack for those systems. That's why in the old days the MANPADs were in the reserves... to provide the integral AD assets to a Bde. If you want an airfield air defence task than you would be better to go with a Gun/C-RAM system more akin to the twin 35mm or the CWIS to protect the airfield against munitions or a larger SHORAD asset with longer range.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2015)

Dad also said when they turned the Bofors against German ground troops, they had the biggest machine gun in the world.  Can't do that with a MANPAD when they're trying to breach your perimeter as they did at KAF.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I don't agree with that.  The Res have ample PYs.  What we don't have is the money to employ them.
> 
> I do agree that a shooter could be trained pretty easily (any open source stats on Mujahideen successes?).  Also, shooting lumbering heavy helicopters may not be a good comparison for our potential problems.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

No offense to reservists but the planning, coordination, deconfliction, and ROE are almost too much for a regular force AD unit. Plus add in the fact that if Canadians were going into an environment that required a GBAD capability (Cruise missile, aviation, UAV, etc) than it would be expected that the GBAD would be one of the first assets into theatre to establish a protected zone for the remainder of the task force to deploy into. AD needs to stay in the Regular force (and for the record I believe that the whole 4 GS Regt thing is a mistake) but having a small reserve force to augment it, particularly if the plan to only have 1 x regular force GBAD battery comes to pass, would be great to provide augmentation at the shooter level.


----------



## McG (20 May 2015)

So, Airfield GBAD is not a good fit for PRes but the defence force is.  
Like the NSE force protection company, the PRes could generate a base defence force starting on either roto 1 or 2 of a future mission.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2015)

Harris said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, if a re-role is necessary, I'm good with it.  What I fear is that if we can't even get the basics right equipment wise, how would making a Unit re-role help?  Still not likely to get the proper equipment.



Boots would be nice for a start... and some LBE that doesn't suck ass  ;D


----------



## FJAG (21 May 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> No offense to reservists but the planning, coordination, deconfliction, and ROE are almost too much for a regular force AD unit. Plus add in the fact that if Canadians were going into an environment that required a GBAD capability (Cruise missile, aviation, UAV, etc) than it would be expected that the GBAD would be one of the first assets into theatre to establish a protected zone for the remainder of the task force to deploy into. AD needs to stay in the Regular force (and for the record I believe that the whole 4 GS Regt thing is a mistake) but having a small reserve force to augment it, particularly if the plan to only have 1 x regular force GBAD battery comes to pass, would be great to provide augmentation at the shooter level.



Stop making up problems instead of finding solutions. If there are elements of the job that require more training and experience then make those positions regular force.

The point here is that in trades that are pure time-of-conflict roles, your salary and benefits overhead can be drastically reduced if some or many of the individuals who reservists who are trained and called up as needed rather than being there 24/7. 

This was my earlier point about PYs. Reduce Reg F (and civil service) PYs by replacing positions with reservists where practical and appropriate and you'll free up cash for equipment. The trouble is rather than even considering such options, the Reg F tenaciously hangs on to every PY and keeps cash flowing for salaries to sustain pensionable military careers.

Guys, the writing is on the wall. We can't afford to sustain either the full-time force in the manner that we might like. Nor the existing model of P Res. We need to think outside the box and really get serious about creating a force that provides a small core of high-readiness/high-competence elements and a larger mobilizable force to cater for more long term operations.

We can all crank out numbers and make up org charts but in general I see JTF2/CSOR and one brigade/TF (less arty and armour) as that Reg F core. Two or three additional Bdes/TF, all armour and arty and a Div/TF HQ and Div troops (mixed Reg F and P Res) as the mobilizable component. And yes, I see all the P Res bde HQs and most of the bn/regt HQs with their glut of senior and redundant staff get eliminated. And yes, it won't happen overnight.

 :stirpot:

 :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 May 2015)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Stop making up problems instead of finding solutions. If there are elements of the job that require more training and experience then make those positions regular force.
> 
> The point here is that in trades that are pure time-of-conflict roles, your salary and benefits overhead can be drastically reduced if some or many of the individuals who reservists who are trained and called up as needed rather than being there 24/7.
> 
> ...



The AD system requires that the shooters be linked to the AD sensor, coordination, and planning network, which in a major theatre would include Army, Air Force, and navy elements. A reserve unit just doesn't have the time to learn the intricacies of an Integrated Air Defence System with Link 16 capability and a sensor to shooter real time element. The old reserve AD units failed because of budget cuts AND because the reservists didn't have time to really learn the ADATS or twin 35 in enough detail to deploy them effectively. Thats why the Javelins went to the reserves. As noted, the reserves could easily be called upon to augment the shooter role. In reality, you can delink the ASCC and Corps/Div AD from the shooters as this would be akin to the regular force artillery units providing FOOs, FSCC, RCP, and BCPs and the reserves manning all the guns.

Offer a solution? Ok- we are tasked to provide 1 x full time Brigade with force multipliers for full scale operations. We could go to a system with regular force artillery regiments providing 1-2 x Howitzer batteries, 1 x STA Bty, 1 x Ground to ground battery, and 1 x AD Battery and divest 4 GSR. With newer arty systems such as the HIMARs, C-RAM, and PzH 2000 manning requirements are greatly reduced. But there would be no divisional level force multipliers. For the GBAD side, reservists could provide some augmentation on the "trigger puller" side, but they would likely be limited to that as there is little chance that the higher level officers/NCO could receive an adequate level of higher level training (ASCC, Data Links, integration into an IADS, etc) to deploy into the job on day 1. With the speed in which air engagements occur there really is no time for error and the strategic effects of a mistake are huge.

On an academic level, I think that warfare in the near future will be more akin to warfare seen in the 17th century than the 20th, with small regular armies fighting smaller pitched battles for limited gains with logistics serving as a key element of force projection vice an all out war. For this, we require a cadre of personnel capable of deploying at a moments notice and fighting on arrival. If you read ADO 2021 the real challenge is trying to get reservists to a level to fight networked, dispersed warfare so that they can integrate with the regular force IOT truly complement that force without a requirement for 6-9 months of work up training. On that, aside from making reserve training more extensive I dont see how in 1 night a week you can get there. 

Higher level solution- all second line functions go civilian (base side support, etc), regular force army centralize into combat or CSS units ready to deploy (Svc Bn only military, ready to deploy), and reserve force be rationalized to provide roto 1-2 pers (ie- eliminate reserve armour, eliminate reserve arty outside of units close enough to use digitalized equipment, merge infantry units, merge reserve supply and transport functions, etc) and create a force focussed on what we can do. Cold war reserve AND regular force structures dont make sense for a quick deployment force, but SOME functions do need to remain regular force heavy, and I suggest GBAD is one of those.


----------



## Loachman (21 May 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> always has been, and always will be the case IMO, to few people who desire change actually are in positions to make change



This is balanced by having too many people who desire wrong/useless change in positions to make change.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2015)

Proper GBAD these days requires so much specialized manpower and equipment that it would indeed be a full time/rapid deployment tasking.

Of course proper GBAD in todays environment would have to include long range systems capable of neutralizing AA/AD systems (a good example would be "David's Sling", the IDF system), some medium range systems which have the ability to hit UAV and UCAV's and a short range system. IF you want a capable short range system which can double for airfield defense than a combined system like the "Blazer" (USMC system mounting 8 "Stinger" SAM's and a 25mm Gatling cannon on a LAV 25 chassis) would be needed. The 25mm cannon would be particularly useful in the ground defense of the airfield...

If we were in a situation like Israel, it might be possible to have Reservists train up and rotate in to man fixed systems like "Iron Dome", which cover a particular city or piece of important ground; the local Regiment could train one troop, have one troop "active" for 30 days and one troop in reconstitution (and continue this rotation for each battery, meaning reservists would not be out of their civilian jobs for long periods of time), but while this sort of territorial defense role would be suited for a local reserve in that particular situation, it has limited relevance for here.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, Airfield GBAD is not a good fit for PRes but the defence force is.
> Like the NSE force protection company, the PRes could generate a base defence force starting on either roto 1 or 2 of a future mission.



Well said.

When the GBAD troop is deployed who is going to protect the guns, missile launchers, radars and CPs from ground assault or sabotage? Especially with the tendency being to distribute them over a wide area. Or hold the perimeter? Or protect the aircraft and the mechanics on the ground?


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2015)

I have spoken to many reservists who were deployed to AFG as gate guards.... for the whole tour. 

They were not deployed outside the wire for months largely, they believed, because it was a lousy job that the Reg F didn't want to do. But it was the only way they could deploy into theatre to get operational experience.

It sucks to be part of that kind of 'inside vs. outside the wire' apartheid campaign.

In NI we rotated troops regularly through a variety of tasks such as field ops, base guard force and other duties. As a result, they got a good mix of experience, and a break, during the course of the tour. It also made sure that we were 'all in this together' and shared the crappy jobs with the cool stuff.

If you want to have available a well trained reserve that can augment the Reg F then the idea of giving them a lame, single role, tasking like base/ airfield defence is not a good one IMHO.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 May 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I have spoken to many reservists who were deployed to AFG as gate guards.... for the whole tour.
> 
> They were not deployed outside the wire for months largely, they believed, because it was a lousy job that the Reg F didn't want to do. But it was the only way they could deploy into theatre to get operational experience.
> 
> ...



I have often wondered if the NSE FP platoon wouldn't have been better employed being given to the "battle group" as a fighting asset and let the Log/REME folks stand up their own FP platoon made up of LOG/REME folks, who for the duration of the deployment would be solely FP.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In NI we rotated troops regularly through a variety of tasks such as field ops, base guard force and other duties. As a result, they got a good mix of experience, and a break, during the course of the tour. It also made sure that we were 'all in this together' and shared the crappy jobs with the cool stuff.



Intelligent commanders rotate their troops to ensure a variety of roles and that stressors are shared.



> *If you want to have available a well trained reserve that can augment the Reg F* then the idea of giving them a lame, single role, tasking like base/ airfield defence is not a good one IMHO.



That is a big assumption.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2015)

Doesn't conducting an area defence imply the ability to do more than just manage check points?

How about siting the defence? Siting Claymores? Preparing a fire plan? Managing the OPs?  Conducting offensive patrols?  Providing a QRF capable of mounting a hasty attack? Relief in place? Preparation of defensive works (horizontal and vertical)?

The RAF Regiment seems to find enough to occupy themselves and find ways to employ WMIKs, ATGMs and even Mortars to assist them.

Perrin Beatty's Vital Point militia meant more than just standing outside Federal buildings checking ID. (Or at least it could have).

Frankly, when we (Calg Highrs -1981) were tasked with Defence and Duties for 1 PPCLI we could have much more effectively used that as a basis for training than we did.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 May 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In NI we rotated troops regularly through a variety of tasks such as field ops, base guard force and other duties. As a result, they got a good mix of experience, and a break, during the course of the tour. It also made sure that we were 'all in this together' and shared the crappy jobs with the cool stuff.



The local UDR reservists aside, was reserve augmentation (either with individuals or sub-sub units) of regular units a common practice?


----------



## quadrapiper (21 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Doesn't conducting an area defence imply the ability to do more than just manage check points?
> 
> How about siting the defence? Siting Claymores? Preparing a fire plan? Managing the OPs?  Conducting offensive patrols?  Providing a QRF capable of mounting a hasty attack? Relief in place? Preparation of defensive works (horizontal and vertical)?


Feels like a good training task, too: plenty of opportunity for developing leadership, etc. in a meaningful and varied setting.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The local UDR reservists aside, was reserve augmentation (either with individuals or sub-sub units) of regular units a common practice?



Yes we had reservists with us, but not that many. About 5-10 individual augmentees per company I would think. 

Our work up training for each deployment was only about 6-8 weeks long, which was forced by the high level arms plot for the army at that time, so it was tough to get reservists up to scratch in that short period. Some really suffered, some did well.

The longer on-ramps the CF used for AFG seemed much better in comparison.


----------



## Calvillo (13 Jun 2016)

Pardon to reactivate an old thread, but I am curious:

So I take it that the CF does not have ground units equivalent of RAF Regiment or USAF Security Forces? That is, units tasked for force protection of air assets and base defense.

If that is the case, how is base defense done daily in peaceful times for high-value air assets? More specifically perhaps, how is the guard and defense of CFB Cold Lake and CFB Bagotville?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jun 2016)

Base defence is conducted IAW threat assessments using appropriately trained and equipped resources.  Anything beyond that veers into the realm of operational security, and should not be discussed on open forums.


----------



## captloadie (13 Jun 2016)

Calvillo said:
			
		

> Pardon to reactivate an old thread, but I am curious:
> 
> So I take it that the CF does not have ground units equivalent of RAF Regiment or USAF Security Forces? That is, units tasked for force protection of air assets and base defense.
> 
> If that is the case, how is base defense done daily in peaceful times for high-value air assets? More specifically perhaps, how is the guard and defense of CFB Cold Lake and CFB Bagotville?


Does not have yet. But possibly coming to an Air Reserve Flight near you in the not to distant future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2016)

It would make sense to task Reserve units near major airbases with a airbase defense task. What that would allow is for RCAF and Reserve army to work together and cross educate. If I went up to a young reserve infantrymen and said “FOD is dangerous, don’t let FOD happen” He likely won’t have a clue what I am talking about. It does not have to be the only task, but it’s a easily defined task and if nearby very budget doable. Plus the Reserves can help teach basic fighting skills to the airmen. You end up with a ever refreshing cadre of people who have some corporate knowledge on both sides of the equation.


----------



## McG (13 Jun 2016)

Can have ugly army uniforms imposing on air bases.  Better to make a few squadrons of infantry in Air Force uniforms.  Right?


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jun 2016)

Plus, you'd likely start bleeding troops.

"OK folks, your options are going to an Air Force base for the summer, where they call each other Goose and Maverick, play beach volleyball all day, and the Mess Hall is always BBQ steak......or you go to Meaford to dig in the clay until it's time to go to Pet to get beasted by CSM Duke's Coy for the way you're dressed.  Any takers?  Beuller?"


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Jun 2016)

biggest problem is, if you want to defend an airfield, you also need to defend it from air treats, that requires a government willing to purchase new kit to do that task, last I checked that project wont even see tender till 2019


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Plus, you'd likely start bleeding troops.
> 
> "OK folks, your options are going to an Air Force base for the summer, where they call each other Goose and Maverick, play beach volleyball all day, and the Mess Hall is always BBQ steak......or you go to Meaford to dig in the clay until it's time to go to Pet to get beasted by CSM Duke's Coy for the way you're dressed.  Any takers?  Beuller?"



That's ridiculous.



The name is spelled Bueller.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> biggest problem is, if you want to defend an airfield, you also need to defend it from air treats, that requires a government willing to purchase new kit to do that task, last I checked that project wont even see tender till 2019



I purposely left that out as to far distance. Of course you could just get a console and create a game where the camera feeds in a real world picture onto a screen. You move the crosshairs onto the target and a virtual missile intercepts the crosshairs. That way we can pretend to have Manpads.


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 Jun 2016)

If you want to do on the quick as well as cheap and nasty as I recall the Jerries have something on the order of 1500 plus RH 202  twin mounts in storage. 
The only problem I can see aside from it being an actual solution as opposed to a long term study complete with weekly power point briefings. Is that we've already rejected the gun at least three times before if memory serves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2016)

It would be a great gun for teaching Reserve AD roles. Cheap and fun and still useful for anti-drone and ground attack.


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be a great gun for teaching Reserve AD roles. Cheap and fun and still useful for anti-drone and ground attack.


 Ah! And yet another strike against it ! ( you will note that there are no smileys attached  I'm being serious .


----------



## Zoomie (13 Jun 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Does not have yet. But possibly coming to an Air Reserve Flight near you in the not to distant future.


 :nod: look for a new MOSID to come forth for those wanting to join the Air Reserves.  I'm still unsure of how their application will benefit a Wing - since most reservists are available during evenings and weekends - two time periods that are quietest on a Wing.


----------



## GK .Dundas (13 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> :nod: look for a new MOSID to come forth for those wanting to join the Air Reserves.  I'm still unsure of how their application will benefit a Wing - since most reservists are available during evenings and weekends - two time periods that are quietest on a Wing.


Because an enemy would never attack an airbase on either a weekend or an evening. :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Jun 2016)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Because an enemy would never attack an airbase on either a weekend or an evening. :nod:



I thought if we went to war, the last diplomatic message would be "please only attack during office hours"


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2016)

That’s ok, the reserves can practice their base defense without inconveniencing the air wing personal, except for any poor sod who is on extra duties. The Reserves could generate some extra bodies to take part in base defense exercises during the week day.


----------



## GK .Dundas (14 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be a great gun for teaching Reserve AD roles. Cheap and fun and still useful for anti-drone and ground attack.


 And you could with out a great deal of effort mount an or tow it behind a Milverado .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2016)

Now your just getting technical  [


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Jun 2016)

What's wrong with mounting a weapon system on the back of a milcot?


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2016)

We could finally put the TAPV's in their proper environment (seeing as they are descent red from the Commando-150, designed and purchased as an airfield defense and security vehicle....).


----------



## Zoomie (14 Jun 2016)

I'll be sure to order a couple TAPVs when they hit the system - the CA doesn't quite know what they're going to do with them anyways.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What's wrong with mounting a weapon system on the back of a milcot?



Nobody said that it was. The common term for an improvised armed pick-up truck, Somali-originated, I believe, is a "technical".

Better platforms are available, though. We should not be as desperate as other third-world countries.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Jun 2016)

You call'n us a third world country?  Tough crowd.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You call'n us a third world country?  Tough crowd.



Just wait for a few more "sunny" years.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Jun 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Just wait for a few more "sunny" years.



I already have the idea for the c6 mount for the milcot ready for when those sunny days rust out the rest of our parked trucks


----------



## Haggis (14 Jun 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Nobody said that it was. The common term for an improvised armed pick-up truck, Somali-originated, I believe, is a "technical".



Like those used by other "militias"?


----------



## CBH99 (14 Jun 2016)

Pretty sure a lot of 3rd world countries have access to Toyota Hilux pickup trucks with some big powerful weaponry mounted on the back.  Which, sad to say, is a vast improvement over what a lot of Reserve units have access to!

So 3rd world might actually be a bit of an upgrade...


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That’s ok, the reserves can practice their base defense without inconveniencing the air wing personal, except for any poor sod who is on extra duties. The Reserves could generate some extra bodies to take part in base defense exercises during the week day.



I have guarded air bases under threat of ground attack from real, live infiltrators that wanted to blow things up. Me and my troops spent weeks on duty doing this task, off and on.

It was really, really boring and had absolutely nothing to do with being an infantryman, and even less to do with being a member of a large military formation.

In peace/ low intensity conflicts the right people for the job are probably Commissionaires, or equivalent. Real cops if you want to stretch it a bit.

In war time? Armed Commissionaires, or more heavily armed cops. Go ahead and layer on the electric dart teams if you like, of course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2016)

You could spice it up a bit by using them to fly up North with an advance team to provide security for a remote airfield. I realize it will be boring and certainly would not want them condemned only to that task, but it does make sense to have some experience doing it and it would encourage some cross connection between the RCAF and the local reserves that might generate other more interesting tasks in the future. I am big believer in putting different orgs together and encouraging ground level relationships to form.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jun 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Pretty sure a lot of 3rd world countries have access to Toyota Hilux pickup trucks with some big powerful weaponry mounted on the back.


The US government had  bit of a flinch  about there being so many ISIS' Hillux, without understanding that there are LOTS of them throughout the Middle East and South Asia....many supplied by US $$,


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could spice it up a bit by using them to fly up North with an advance team to provide security for a remote airfield. I realize it will be boring and certainly would not want them condemned only to that task, but it does make sense to have some experience doing it and it would encourage some cross connection between the RCAF and the local reserves that might generate other more interesting tasks in the future. I am big believer in putting different orgs together and encouraging ground level relationships to form.



It's a good role for the MPs and Armoured Recce, for sure.


----------



## McG (15 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> [Airfield defence] had absolutely nothing to do with being an infantryman...


Maybe depending on the threat.  If the threat is more than infiltrators, then infantry is what you want.  If your enemy will launch overt attacks against the facility, then you need an organization that can conduct aggressive patrolling within and around the facility to find/deter the preparations or to counter-attack and defeat any attempts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2016)

Plus if the Airfield is nearby, they could do a weekend exercise with minimal costs and use it as a basis to build certain skills on. You could also have the field engineers build some bunkers around it


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In peace/ low intensity conflicts the right people for the job are probably Commissionaires, or equivalent. Real cops if you want to stretch it a bit.
> 
> In war time? Armed Commissionaires, or more heavily armed cops. Go ahead and layer on the electric dart teams if you like, of course.


This presumes the area of operation has reliable cops to do the job, though.  In Canada, not a problem.  Overseas?  Depends where ...


----------



## Zoomie (15 Jun 2016)

Airfield security is not within the skillset of the Commissionaire Corps - certain aircraft require an armed response with 100% coverage.  This is a role that currently the MPs and WASF conduct - the introduction of a PRes element into a Wing would enable weekend and overnight security taskings, without depleting a lodger unit of a trained member.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Airfield security is not within the skillset of the Commissionaire Corps - certain aircraft require an armed response with 100% coverage.  This is a role that currently the MPs and WASF conduct - the introduction of a PRes element into a Wing would enable weekend and overnight security taskings, without depleting a lodger unit of a trained member.



We already tap into our PRes element on a 24/7 basis for security for some of our functions, augmented by WASF when needed.  It works great.  These reserve members are all in the Air Reserve.  There is an Army PRes Unit in the city and I always wondered why (besides the who's going to pay question) we don't tap into this as well.


----------



## Ostrozac (15 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could spice it up a bit by using them to fly up North with an advance team to provide security for a remote airfield. I realize it will be boring and certainly would not want them condemned only to that task, but it does make sense to have some experience doing it and it would encourage some cross connection between the RCAF and the local reserves that might generate other more interesting tasks in the future. I am big believer in putting different orgs together and encouraging ground level relationships to form.



As a veteran of several Sov Ops, I fundamentally disagree with the use of primary reservists in the Arctic, as when they are (inevitably) snowed in, it has a direct bearing on their civilian employment when the CF can't get them back to their day jobs on schedule. I know that this makes me a heretic, especially when the ARCG concept comes up for discussion, but I've sat for days on Ellesmere Island waiting for a window to fly home -- it was no big deal for me, just another few days on exercise, but for reservists it directly threatens the goodwill of their employers when we can't get them back to their jobs.

I do question whether we need an entire career path for airfield security, though, as has been suggested -- if there aren't enough MPs and infantry, then wouldn't using whatever tradesmen you do have, but using them in a force protection role, be a better stopgap rather than creating a whole career path from Pte to CWO for a bit of a niche role?  I've seen the Navy's force protection teams -- but I think the RCN was just using regular sailors, without a specialized course, the same Cooks/Bosuns/Naval Communicators that guard Her Majesty's Canadian Ships when they are alongside in foreign lands.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jun 2016)

It's a fair concern, basically identify that you may be a away week or maybe 2. Some will be able to do that and others won't. Of course it would play hell with the unit's budget.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I do question whether we need an entire career path for airfield security, though, as has been suggested -- if there aren't enough MPs and infantry, then wouldn't using whatever tradesmen you do have, but using them in a force protection role, be a better stopgap rather than creating a whole career path from Pte to CWO for a bit of a niche role?



How dare you insult a whole regiment in the RAF 'Through adversity but not smart enough for the stars' 


The ground fighting force of the Royal Air Force. The RAF Regiment provides a range of Force Protection effects underpinned by its air-minded ground fighting capabilities. Whilst providing Force Protection throughout the world for UK Air Asset, the RAF Regiment maintains high-readiness, flexible and increasingly potent contingent capability, be that from Tactical Air Control Parties, contributions to Special Forces operations (Special Forces Support Group), Joint Counter-Terrorism Training and Advisory Group or Delivering the core CBRN for UK defence.

Our Corps is a diverse organization that provides internationally recognised first-rate worldwide Force Protection to UK air assets. Our Officers and Gunners have been deployed on operational service every day since our formation in 1942 and have a proud history that is best characterized by the Regiment's motto 'Per Ardua' - Through Adversity

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafregiment/


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Plus if the Airfield is nearby, they could do a weekend exercise with minimal costs and use it as a basis to build certain skills on. You could also have the field engineers build some bunkers around it



Just have the engineers build and airfield, find a big open field say, hey this is the OP, we need to defense this airfield while it's being built so we can get hurcs in to supply reinforcements/humanitarian/ what ever flavor you want


----------



## Monsoon (16 Jun 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I've seen the Navy's force protection teams -- but I think the RCN was just using regular sailors, without a specialized course, the same Cooks/Bosuns/Naval Communicators that guard Her Majesty's Canadian Ships when they are alongside in foreign lands.


So they are, although the RCN's in process of addressing the lack of specific training, which was always a risk. There will still not be a standing unit let alone a specific trade for the capability, however.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Jun 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I've seen the Navy's force protection teams -- but I think the RCN was just using regular sailors, without a specialized course, the same Cooks/Bosuns/Naval Communicators that guard Her Majesty's Canadian Ships when they are alongside in foreign lands.



Are referring to the Enhanced Naval Boarding Parties or The PRes folks who were employed as gate sentries and harbor patrols or just the regular BDF/BASF force that all CFBs have ?


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Jun 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Are referring to the Enhanced Naval Boarding Parties or The PRes folks who were employed as gate sentries and harbor patrols or just the regular BDF/BASF force that all CFBs have ?



I was specifically talking about the second example (PRes folks employed as gate sentries and harbor patrols) as those are the guys I've personally seen and interacted with. It was, I think, a fine example of using available personnel in an "All Arms" force protection role. Not everyone is or needs to be an infantryman, but everyone, regardless of MOS/trade can serve in a force protection role. I'm just not sold on 'force protection' as needing to be a separate career path -- I think that using infantry or MP in force protection duties is fine, using tradesmen in force protection duties is fine, but if you have service members that can only do force protection, then they are kind of a one-trick pony.

And yes, daftandbarmy, I'm talking about the RAF Regiment as an example of what not to do. The UK has the equivalent of 3 battalions of infantry that are not actually trained and organized to operate as infantry if required. That is a severe limitation on the flexibility of the force if the UK is involved in a war that doesn't require airfield force protection. The UK would be way better off rotating the airfield protection task through three light-role infantry battalions by disbanding the RAF Regiment and adding extra battalions of guards, rifles and scots. That way the airfield defence role battalions could eventually rotate through on operations. I don't think a RAF Regiment battalion ever did a roto in Bosnia, Iraq or Afghanistan in an actual infantry brigade -- that seems to be mismanaged manpower.

Or if you want, the RAF Regiment could be badged as two extra para and one extra marine commando battalion. If they are already so elite, they'll have no problem earning their wings and daggers, right?  [


----------



## Zoomie (16 Jun 2016)

The Air Force MOSID PRes "Force Protection" trade is coming - it's been debated and discussed at much higher levels than these august forums.

It's not as easy as you might imagine to employ Militia members by the RCAF.  We only do this as a last resort and usually a FPL change warrants it.  Most militia BDEs are hurting for soldiers right now and can barely flush out their CFTPO taskings - it's time for us (RCAF) to have our own fighting force to deploy domestically/internationally.  Before you roll your eyes at my "fighting force" comment - consider that the training of these PRes members would be expected to be on par with a MOSID qualified militia soldier - except the whole living in a trench life.  Consider who acted as gate guards to Mirage, Kandahar, etc - dedicated, training members would file that niche. Needless the say, the next couple of years will be interesting....


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jun 2016)

Sounds like a permanent red trade to me. "What's your trade?" "Gate guard."


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2016)

Is this a case of the MPs not wanting to grow to fill the function, or the RCAF not wanting MPs because they don't own the trade & personnel?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jun 2016)

My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....



First traffic control and PW handling gone, then force pro, soon all that's left is handing out speeding tickets on the main Garrison drag...


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jun 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> First traffic control and PW handling gone, then force pro, soon all that's left is handing out speeding tickets on the main Garrison drag...


Good thing they get spec pay!


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....


Some years ago I was shocked to find how many military duties they had abandoned .And dumped on those that it had become clear were considered 2nd class citizens,the Reserve units.
I had thought that Afghanistan should have provided the shock that should changed their course .
Nope! Apparently they are convinced that the future requires them to be a third rate municipal police force. :facepalm:


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jun 2016)

Just asking out of curiosity...

I know the MP trade does a lot of unique taskings that do require people.  (Embassy security, protection details, NIS, special units, etc.)

Is this a case of the MP trade wanting to allocate as many people as possible to their unique functions, while still providing policing services to bases - and therefore not wanting to do force protection due to a perceived lack of people?

Or is this a case of culture change, in which they really just want to be a Police force and try to abandon as many Military functions as possible?


----------



## Zoomie (18 Jun 2016)

Ever since the MP trade made the move towards Peace Officer status - their war time role has disappeared.  PW, force protection, airfield defense, etc - these are all exceptions.  They need to be trained on how to do this - vice already come trained out of Borden.  We've taken it as a challenge and have included the MPs when we activate WASF - get them to be the immediate response and get relieved in place by the follow-on WASF.  Everyone has manning issue these days - MPs are not immune.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I have guarded air bases under threat of ground attack from real, live infiltrators that wanted to blow things up. Me and my troops spent weeks on duty doing this task, off and on.
> 
> It was really, really boring and had absolutely nothing to do with being an infantryman, and even less to do with being a member of a large military formation.
> 
> ...



Or...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafregiment/forceprotection/

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

What occupation gets it PYs cut for this new occupation? Pilots? Maintainers? Clerks?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sounds like a permanent red trade to me. "What's your trade?" "Gate guard."



Take a look at the RAF and RAAF 'gate guard' trades.  They seem to be just a little bit more high speed than a current WASF type is.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Just asking out of curiosity...
> 
> I know the MP trade does a lot of unique taskings that do require people.  (Embassy security, protection details, NIS, special units, etc.)
> 
> ...



Or maybe it doesn't pad their resume well enough for them to jump to civi police work.  MPs aren't interested in the M part, just the P part.   :nod: 

As a potential end-user of airfield in austere locations, I would be looking forward to some RAF Regiment Gunners or RAAF ADG types securing the perimeter of the ramp while I am sitting fat, dumb and happy in the tube getting ready for a mission.  Or, some decently motivated cbt arms troops with some specialized leadership types embedded.

Having seen how the USAF and RAF do security (domestic and deployed), I think we take our security as a joke.


----------



## brihard (18 Jun 2016)

MP involvement would vary in merits depending on the nature of the threat. Domestically we're most likely to see a Ft Hood style 'active shooter' situation. As much as us combat arms types might gripe about it, they will be the guys who will be on duty, with a radio, with guns and ammo, presumably with C8s accessible, and my understanding is some flavor of IARD/active shooter training. Some disenfranchised nutsack tries to snackbar CFB Trenton, it'll probably be a gaggle of MPs in active shooter response who will stop the threat. That's my view of the status quo. It does baffle me that we don't have proper armed perimeter security around our major bases, and it still seems a no brainer to have a suitable sized sub unit providing security at any given time with at least a section sized QRF playing x-box somewhere but ready to grab and go... TAPV anyone?

I am no expert on the MPs and won't stray from my arcs further than that. But domestically they need to remain a primary player in base security/defense; they DO have the training to properly deal with the post-threat transition to a criminal investigation once the threat is stopped. A combat arms unit, quite understandably, would not be expected to have such a skill set.

I'm curious regarding the RCAF Force Pro trade (also, "farce pro". I'm coining it now just so I can take credit later). I wonder how they envision utilizing a PRes organization that will probably be class A reliably provide a security force. I envision this turning into a lot of Cl B positions that will attract a lot of mediocre remusters from the army reserve career Cl B types...


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jun 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> MP involvement would vary in merits depending on the nature of the threat. Domestically we're most likely to see a Ft Hood style 'active shooter' situation. As much as us combat arms types might gripe about it, they will be the guys who will be on duty, with a radio, with guns and ammo, presumably with C8s accessible, and my understanding is some flavor of IARD/active shooter training. Some disenfranchised nutsack tries to snackbar CFB Trenton, it'll probably be a gaggle of MPs in active shooter response who will stop the threat. That's my view of the status quo. It does baffle me that we don't have proper armed perimeter security around our major bases, and it still seems a no brainer to have a suitable sized sub unit providing security at any given time with at least a section sized QRF playing x-box somewhere but ready to grab and go... TAPV anyone?
> 
> I am no expert on the MPs and won't stray from my arcs further than that. But domestically they need to remain a primary player in base security/defense; they DO have the training to properly deal with the post-threat transition to a criminal investigation once the threat is stopped. A combat arms unit, quite understandably, would not be expected to have such a skill set.
> 
> I'm curious regarding the RCAF Force Pro trade (also, "farce pro". I'm coining it now just so I can take credit later). I wonder how they envision utilizing a PRes organization that will probably be class A reliably provide a security force. I envision this turning into a lot of Cl B positions that will attract a lot of mediocre remusters from the army reserve career Cl B types...



Second hand recollections from a long past era, but in the early sixties much of the RCAF security police role was involved with security of nuclear warheads on the bases at home and abroad that housed the devices. While I am not suggesting there is some plot to accept nukes again, I wonder if there is some residual thinking going on? 

Things are be a bit different now, especially for expeditionary forces. Still, I wonder if this is a real solution?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jun 2016)

I am not sure, OS.

Usually, when ideas like this come up, we need only look to the USAF. If they have something, the RCAF usually wants it- regardless if it is a good fit for Canada or not.


----------



## childs56 (18 Jun 2016)

I am thinking they are planning for the future of the Airforce deployments. Trying to fill a major gap to which the Airforce has, and that is BDF. You can not expect Aircraft Mechanics and Pilots to perform security functions when they are busy fixing, arming and flying planes. They cannot rely on the Army providing a platoon plus to supply a security detail. The Army does not have the manning for it. Nor does the Airforce have control over the who what where when or how if the Army is running the show. 
It makes logical sense, the Navy stood to their own Force Protection group over the past few years. Now it will turn into a trade, and each element will get new manning lists and trade classification. 

Some of our Allies have had successful Airfield security teams, so why cant we. 

I honestly think in the near future our Jets will be deployed where we need integral teams.  I guess only time will tell.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Jun 2016)

By that logic, needing to directly control supporting assets, maritime air should belong to the RCN and tac hel to the army. This smells of empire building.


----------



## McG (18 Jun 2016)

The army has nine infantry battalions.  That is more infantry than there is CS and CSS to support it on operations.  The CAF has more than enough infantry to allocate to operational airfield defence if there is a requirement.  We don't have a big enough military to allocate PYs for RCAF infantry.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By that logic, needing to directly control supporting assets, maritime air should belong to the RCN and tac hel to the army. This smells of empire building.



 ???

The AF has other, unique units designed for deployed ops;  8 ACCS, the Radar Sqns.  At homeplate, the WASF is made up of mbr's for Wing units.  Deployed ops, who is going to do it?  We have other small trades in the CAF (mine included, 200 pers give or take) that are specific to the AF.  Why not train folks specifically for the same thing the RAF Regiment and RAAF ADG units do?  

No offense to anyone who is WASF but it is only a secondary duty.  If we deploy somewhere away from Big Brother USAF and their cap's, I'd like to have someone protecting my carcass when I am getting ready to go who's takes it as more than a secondary duty.  Same goes for ASF org as well.  I've seen how seriously the USAF takes security and IMO we are behind the curve.

As an potential end-user of this capability, I say go for it.  Planes and the people who operate them cost lots of $ to replace.  A little insurance is never a bad thing.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

WASF is just like BASF, Army does it as a secondary duty too. RCAF infantry is just like RCN Marines, why do we need them when it can be accomplished via secondary duty or enhanced training for our big infantry manpower. There's nothing special about guarding the outer perimeter of an airfield to warrant an entire trade. Concur with the empire building comment. The chance we'll deploy somewhere in a high risk environment and need to secure our own airfield is next to none. Let the big countries handle it when they deploy 50 aircraft to our 6.


----------



## childs56 (18 Jun 2016)

There is more to WASF or BASF then just getting some people together once or twice a year to carry a rifle and go bang bang. If in the near future the Airforce wants to deploy in a far off land. We might not see the US Airforce deploy their planes.  It might be part of a UN force and we might want to have dedicated trained people to work around the Aircraft and their security. 

It seems to be a simple task that the one of those under supported Infantry Units can full fill. Yet when the Navy seeked out the Army for their BDF they were told figure it out yourself. 

If you look at the British Airforce security, or the US set up. They identified a major issue with using Army Forces. That was command and control, When the Army needs them back they take them. Not to mention having to train Army people from doing Army things around Aircraft that may make them go boom, or damage them beyond repair. 
The issue of training rotating units in and out of the role becomes a bigger issue. Just because of the shear amount of people they would have to retrain when the tasking changes to another unit. You always have that issue when the Army wants their troops back for what ever reason they will. If they are in a hostile zone they will no doubt turn the Airfield Security task to a secondary role. Which the Airforce wants as a primary role. 

You can argue it all you want and say it is empire building, at the end of the day all Elements should have their own security forces. If it was such a failure or such an issue why did most of our Allies go this way?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's nothing special about guarding the outer perimeter of an airfield to warrant an entire trade.



The chances we'll have some CBRN attack in Canada, based on history is...how low?  Yet, we've created a trade specifically for that.

The USAF, RAF and RAAF all seem to think there is indeed something special about securing airfields.



> Concur with the empire building comment. The chance we'll deploy somewhere in a high risk environment and need to secure our own airfield is next to none. Let the big countries handle it when they deploy 50 aircraft to our 6.



Speaking for myself not the RCAF, I think having folks like that would be the ones we SHOULD deploy to augment the 'big countries' at airfields, rather than letting them pull all the weight and pay all the bills.  But I guess, why not use the same mentality for RCAF deployed ops that we do for our NATO commitments, right?  Someone else can pick up the cheque.   ^-^

As an ex-army guy, I always laugh a little when army folks seem to know more about what the AF needs and how it should conduct ops.  Yet, if an AF type has an opinion about army stuff, they get told to STFU because what would they know about the Army?  RCAF funded and managed security forces would come out of the RCAF coffers wouldn't it?  What difference?  Why can't maintainers and aircrew do it?   Would you want the guy who serviced your West Jet flight to be operating on 2 hours sleep when he made sure the system were good to go?  how about the folks flying?  I know...people think "fuck, how tiring can flying be?".  I used to think that too.  Now I do it, and you get bagged.  You train crews to fly aircraft, and maintainers to maintain them.  That is enough to keep them busy, and we are like everyone else, we have shortages.

Maybe the 'trade' will be stood up like some to the SOF Supporter ones are;  you go to a selection, you get selected, you get moved to Unit X for 3-4 years.

There places aircraft go sometimes that aren't safe, for either the aircraft or crew.  The ride to where you are sleeping isn't always in a big yellow taxi, with your head stuck out the window like a tourist.  It would be nice to have some folks who are alert and awake and watching out for your ass when you just landed from a long flight and are mentally bagged.  Planes aren't easily replaced.

Fuck, if this thread was about the Army being tasked to provide round the clock security of airfields/aircraft/crews people would be bitching the exact opposite; why can't the RCAF support its own GD airfields, I didn't join the army to sit around looking at zoomies  :blah:...


----------



## McG (18 Jun 2016)

It is empire building, and confusing the CAF for another nation does not change that truth.



			
				CTD said:
			
		

> If in the near future the Airforce wants to deploy in a far off land.


It does not matter where the Air Force wants to go.  That is not how we do business.

The government decides where the military will be deployed.  Then CJOC gets the mission - neither Army nor Air Force can decide they are going to take their toys to pursue their own agendas in theater.  If a base defence force is needed, then the Army gets tasked to provide the organization to do it.

We have done this before.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

CTD said:
			
		

> You can argue it all you want and say it is empire building, at the end of the day all Elements should have their own security forces. If it was such a failure or such an issue why did most of our Allies go this way?



Because those air forces are capable of pushing enough aircraft into an area to require their own airfield. In what future scenario do you see us ever deploying to a theatre of sufficiently high risk of ground attack that we wouldn't be attached to a 5-eyes air task force, where those much larger and properly budgeted military's provide the Force Pro? You have infantry chomping at the bit to deploy, who are very good at conducting defensive operations. Why do you need to have your own group to man a fence-line and check IDs at a gate? 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> frig, if this thread was about the Army being tasked to provide round the clock security of airfields/aircraft/crews people would be bitching the exact opposite; why can't the RCAF support its own GD airfields, I didn't join the army to sit around looking at zoomies  :blah:...



The Army wants your aircraft, and will give you the security you need to support their operations if required. They'll also provide that security if tasked, because they have the manpower to do it.

I'll ask again: How many AESOP PYs are you willing to cut to create this capability? Pilots? ACS Techs? You think the Army is going to give up PYs for a task they are more than capable of providing with Infantry?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is empire building, and confusing the CAF for another nation does not change that truth.
> It does not matter where the Air Force wants to go.  That is not how we do business.



So...we can't change how we do business?



> The government decides where the military will be deployed.  Then CJOC gets the mission - neither Army nor Air Force can decide they are going to take their toys to pursue their own agendas in theater.  If a base defence force is needed, then the Army gets tasked to provide the organization to do it.
> 
> We have done this before.



You seriously think that is 'having an agenda'?   :facepalm:

How quickly would the army respond to a 'fast ball tasking' the AF gets?  There have been people I know who've been out the door from the phone call in well less than a day, with an aircraft.  Mine 'personal best' was just over 16-18 hours or so from the 'pack' to 'wheels up' time.  Like LRP or SAR units, we could have a flight of these folks on Ready status 24/7 and they'd be out the door with us, if needed.  Having this capability built right into the air force, under air force command, just makes sense.  They would (should) be embedded at the ATF level, under ATF command.  

Empire building...would be the army insisting they are the only ones who are capable of securing something.   :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

Considering 8ACCS couldn't support IMPACT and CFJSR had to deploy to provide the CIS support, I don't think your readiness argument works out all that well.

You're also not going to project a 6-pack of fighters into a high risk, non-secure airfield until its secured, so 18 hour wheels up doesn't matter because you don't have a place to land until the security is there.


----------



## McG (18 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You seriously think that is 'having an agenda'?   :facepalm:


CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.

As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jun 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.
> 
> As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.


QFTFT


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because those air forces are capable of pushing enough aircraft into an area to require their own airfield. In what future scenario do you see us ever deploying to a theatre of sufficiently high risk of ground attack that we wouldn't be attached to a 5-eyes air task force, where those much larger and properly budgeted military's provide the Force Pro? You have infantry chomping at the bit to deploy, who are very good at conducting defensive operations. Why do you need to have your own group to man a fence-line and check IDs at a gate?



You can't understand this, because you know nothing about some of the ops the air force does and where they do them.  And the few real examples I'm thinking of I can't talk about on here.



> The Army wants your aircraft, and will give you the security you need to support their operations if required. They'll also provide that security if tasked, because they have the manpower to do it.
> 
> I'll ask again: How many AESOP PYs are you willing to cut to create this capability? Pilots? ACS Techs? You think the Army is going to give up PYs for a task they are more than capable of providing with Infantry?



I'll let the RCAF Commander decide things like that.  My job is different and so is my SME area.  I'll also let the GOFOs argue over PYs and all that.  But remember IF this goes ahead, it will be with an Army CDS and VCDS at NDHQ.  Maybe these Army Generals see the value in it as well.

I see a value in this, and its because I am thinking of real world things other than "OP IMPACT" and big USAF run facilities - because I've see this from the inside out, not the outside in.  Not much more I can say, but if this happens I think it will be a good thing.  The AF should have this capability, much the same as CANSOF should have CBRN Operators.  There is a need for them, or for that 'insurance'.  It never does any good to get insurance on your car 'after' an accident.  You've got to pay for it every day so you have it when you need it.  

Empire building.  Jesus.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

In what sort of scenario are we pushing aircraft and aircrews that far forward, and without any sort of coalition support, and in such great numbers that the Army would be unable to provide this task? You link to CBRN Op is dubious at best, it appears to be a real small trade, providing coverage on a task that no one else was really capable of. A little bit of proof for that: http://www.queensu.ca/kcis/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.kciswww/files/files/2014/Faulkner_P4web_KIS2014.pdf No one else can provide what those guys can, Infantry can and would provide your airfield defense.

The "I have secrets" card doesn't work either, we all know about TTPs and OPSEC that can't go on a public forum.

IF this goes ahead, how many AESOPs are *you* willing to lose to make it happen?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jun 2016)

EITS,

The problem with your line of thinking is, despite the magical thinking by a bunch of people trying to relive the 1950s- we are actually one Canadian Forces and not separate services.

Each environmental Chief is a force generator, within their area of competency. CJOC is the force employer.

To say that the RCAF needs its own deployable infantry force is bollocks. There already exists a deployable infantry force.

All of these boutique capabilities have cost. In a perfect, unconstrained resource environment the Army would have an air corps; the Navy would a fleet air arm and the RCAF would have an infantry force. That is not the world we inhabit.

So- what are you now prepared to trade in to make this happen? PYs are a zero sum game.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.



Unfortunately, you didn't leave much of his post in your quote.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/119416/post-1441283.html#msg1441283

Certainly not the part you are referring to above, and I didn't read CTD's suggestion.  When you quote a post, you should consider including the portion you are responding to, so that follow on readers can understand the context of your post.  



> As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.



Note what I said above; if this is actually moving forward, it is while the CDS and VCDS are both army.  I'll have to trust that they know the facts and realities driving this and see them as valid.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Note what I said above; if this is actually moving forward, it is while the CDS and VCDS are both army.  I'll have to trust that they know the facts and realities driving this and see them as valid.



If it's even made it to them yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering 8ACCS couldn't support IMPACT and CFJSR had to deploy to provide the CIS support, I don't think your readiness argument works out all that well.



JTF-I.  Why wouldn't that be a JSR task?  8 ACCS has a different function.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In what sort of scenario are we pushing aircraft and aircrews that far forward, and without any sort of coalition support, and in such great numbers that the Army would be unable to provide this task? You link to CBRN Op is dubious at best, it appears to be a real small trade, providing coverage on a task that no one else was really capable of. A little bit of proof for that: http://www.queensu.ca/kcis/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.kciswww/files/files/2014/Faulkner_P4web_KIS2014.pdf No one else can provide what those guys can, Infantry can and would provide your airfield defense.
> 
> The "I have secrets" card doesn't work either, we all know about TTPs and OPSEC that can't go on a public forum.
> 
> IF this goes ahead, how many AESOPs are *you* willing to lose to make it happen?



You don't get it, and you won't.  But I'll try.

Planes go to places and sometimes the reason why they are there is makes other people mad.  These places aren't just Kuwait.  You don't know about them, fuck most of the people on the Wing the plane is leaving from don't know about them.  And they won't, or shouldn't.

Some of those places are secured like the big coalition airfields are.  Sometimes not, maybe even MOSTLY not.  Sometimes the threat might not be to the plane.  It might be to the crew.  Or both.  

You are thinking big, planned in advance events or ops;  because that is the only thing you can think of.  What else is there, right?  Lots, and likely none you'll ever know about, and none I'll talk about here.  If you think I am just being a drama queen, not much I can do about that.  I'm giving you my opinion from reality as I know it.  Not guessing at shit, from my experience doing the job I do.  

PYs?  Not my job man.  Regardless of all that, I know what my min crew and max crew is and I can operate both, overland or maritime.  I am a crew level creature, someone else gets paid to deal with Sqn level stuff.  Am I willing to give up PYs?  Yes, I am.  operators...not likely.  Aircrews are the F Ech in the air force.  You don't give up _tooth_, you give up _tail_.  And there's LOTS of that to give up in the CAF and that would be someone else's job to decide.  My job is to upgrade B cats, operate sensors, provide the TAC with advice and stuff like that.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

So who's doing the security now? Clearly we have this massive capability gap.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> EITS,
> 
> The problem with your line of thinking is, despite the magical thinking by a bunch of people trying to relive the 1950s- we are actually one Canadian Forces and not separate services.
> 
> ...



I am thinking of a smallish size unit, that would not necessarily be centrally located but dispersed in teams, a small flight perhaps.  Not some big org like the RAF Regiment or RAAF ADG, but with people that have the same training and job.

Years ago, crews went to airshows with the 'force protection' people tasked to them, some in civies.  To protect the crew and, secondly, aircraft.  That was inside Canada.  The force protection people weren't MPs, Infanters or reservists.  I know, BS right?  I would likely say the same thing; except I was there and witnessed it first hand.  Relevance?  That was inside Canada.  What are the possible threats to aircraft and crews today and from who?  Where?  I would say, outside of North America and even then...its iffy...who knows?  A flight of these guys securing aircraft...insurance.  

I could explain more of my thoughts but that would have to be a high side email at the least.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So who's doing the security now? Clearly we have this massive capability gap.



Don't be fuckin' stupid man.  Seriously.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jun 2016)

EITS,

I am not saying the deployable FP function shouldn't exist.

I am saying that for it to exist within the RCAF as a boutique capability is a waste of resources.

As for domestic armed FP- a complex issue that has many overlapping, Criminal Code, NDA and ROE issues (I had to look into this a few years back). I hope Comd RCAF got good legal advice....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> The Air Force MOSID PRes "Force Protection" trade is coming - it's been debated and discussed at much higher levels than these august forums.



I'll accept that as fact.  So...a unique trade...PRES...small numbers.  Sounds like the Port Inspection Diver NAVRES deal?  Empire building on the RCNs part, or the RCN saw a real need and created the small specialized group to fill it without affecting Reg Force billets and PYs??

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/navy-life/careers-reserve.page

Port Security Units

Port Security is one aspect of Maritime Coastal Operations conducted to ensure the maritime security of the nation. Port Security Units work in conjunction with Port Inspection Diving Teams (PIDT) to ensure the sovereignty and safety of Canada’s numerous ports and harbours. The PIDTs can accomplish a number of tasks, including: underwater searches and surveys of the ocean bed, underwater inspections of jetties and ships' hulls, locating, surveying and salvage of military aircraft, mine recognition and countermeasures, underwater demolition, underwater photography, repairs to ships' hulls, exercising ships in defence against underwater attack, and body searches.

Well, how fuckin stupid of the Navy.  Why didn't they just get the Army to do it, tasked by CJOC??  What a bunch of retards!  How would the RCN know what the RCN needs to do to meet some type of requirement the RCN has?   ;D



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is this a case of the MPs not wanting to grow to fill the function, or the RCAF not wanting MPs because they don't own the trade & personnel?





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....



So, obviously the opinion here is the MPs don't want to do a RCAF Force Protection gig.  No one disagreed with SKTs assessment of the MP branch's willingness to take this on.

Some of you are thinking big deployed ops like IMPACT and the like.  Yup, they could augment the SF in place at those locations and be seen as Canada's commitment to the USAF/Coalition forces doing that stuff.

From my community and experience, I see a WHOLE other use for them above and beyond the big CJOC stuff; the smaller CJOC stuff I know of that most people don't and won't.  Take my word for it, don't take my word for it, I don't give a fuck either way.  

I could see this working, and Christ almighty, its Force Protection for multi-million dollar assets and crews that cost a lot of time and take a lot of money to replace.  Am I special because I am an AESOP? I'd like to think I am to my Skipper and crew.  Same as they all are to me.   What I am for sure is EXPENSIVE to train.  It costs money to fly ME and aircraft around.  You can take an recruit, put him thru BMQ and then BIQ and put him in a section inside of what, a year?  Take a AESOP Recruit, to get him/her trained to be a shiny new B Category AESOP on a 140 Sqn...BMQ.  QL3.  QL5.  AMT.  Air Ops Land Survival.  Sea Survival.  Then 6 months on MOAT.  $$$$$$$$$$$$

So, if we are 'special' its because we are shiny and expensive.  And we are the 'cheap' ones on the crew.  The same can be said for all fleets.  The airframes and crew(s) are expensive.  How much money got sunk into Globemasters?  Cyclones?  Chinooks?  How much $$ did the RCAF spend on aircrew training alone last FY?

Adding some ARAF Force Protection, that's just a little insurance IMO.  If I drove a beater, I'd have minimum insurance on it.  A new BMW..I'll have that insured better, because it will cost me more to replace it.  It's going to be a small PRES MOSID.  

The RCN did it for a niche they needed filled; PIDs.  Neither the world nor the CAF came to a crashing fucking halt.

That's all I got on this one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> EITS,
> 
> I am not saying the deployable FP function shouldn't exist.
> 
> ...



Would it not be kinda safe to assume, guess that whoever is running this file in the RCAF world approached the C Army/Comd PRES, etc about their ability, interest, willingness to take this on?

I wish I would have mentioned what I did in the post just before this, about the RCN and NAVRES with the PID and PID Teams.  I see it as the same 'idea', a specific, fairly small unit but one felt required specifically for that environment.  There are very few folks in Canada that have PID Dolphins IIRC.  Heck the RCAF might have copied the PIDT as their COA for the ARAF FP stuff.  They are small, specialized and spawned into existence for a identified security concern within the CAF but specific to the RCN.  I have ideas in my head about when this FP would be sweet to have along for the trip, where, when...not made up shit, just from experience but NOPE...its empire building!  BS!  Its doing a little extra to protect assets; ones that leak POL and ones that leak red blood. 

Why am I so against this "use Reg Force infantry only" idea?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And _I think _airfield defence is a task for which a _regional battalion_ could train so that it could have a platoon ready to go on short notice (say 10 days) and the rest of a company ready in another 20 days. And _I suspect_ the equipment table for such a task is manageable for a reserve unit.



10 days 'short notice'?  

I've been wheels up in -18 hours from the first call from Ops, deployed, transited back home and been sitting in my living room by the time the 'short notice 10 day dudes' were getting on their Herc or WestJet flight.  And yes, a CJOC gig.

10 days short notice is UNSAT.  This is exactly what would happen 'if the army was tasked to it' solely.  

I can explain this til I am blue in the face, and the people who I call _PAX_ will still tell me the what-for's and how-to's of any and all things air ops.


----------



## McG (19 Jun 2016)

If the Air Force wants to convert bits of its reserve force to RCAF Infantry, then I expect the results will fall short of the ambition.  But, the individuals will still be available along with all other PRes infantry to support CJOC operations.

However, what you have described as the requirement is not something that is met by PRes.  You want rapid reaction.  That was your argument against using existing Army owned infantry.


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How quickly would the army respond to a 'fast ball tasking' the AF gets?  There have been people I know who've been out the door from the phone call in well less than a day, with an aircraft.  Mine 'personal best' was just over 16-18 hours or so from the 'pack' to 'wheels up' time.  Like LRP or SAR units, we could have a flight of these folks on Ready status 24/7 and they'd be out the door with us, if needed.  Having this capability built right into the air force, under air force command, just makes sense.


Something like this will take PYs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> However, what you have described as the requirement is not something that is met by PRes.  You want rapid reaction.  That was your argument against using existing Army owned infantry.Something like this will take PYs.



I'd like there to be people on the ground, sometimes, as things in the world change.  I am not sure where Ditch got his info, but I've no reason to doubt it isn't credible.  How the ARAF intends, or how the RCAF intends to manage these PRES folks, I've no idea.  I've some idea but based on personal WAGs.  I have, however, had friends who were B/As go to Class C in a heartbeat to deploy outside of Canada for operational stuff.  So I know it can happen and fairly quickly.

You can't fault a guy like me for liking the idea of a few sets of eyes who are tune into the local world and people that have their wits about them when I am coming down the ladder after a 24 hour crew day...

That's all I've got, for real.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Jun 2016)

Sounds like you are following the RCN lead and creating a unit to specialize in the security needs that are specific to your environment ETIS.  

We did this with the ENBP.  A large portion of which is reservists on class C (I think, but not sure) contracts.  We employ them not just for boardings but for force protection in various scenarios.  And not one of them is an infanteer or even Army for that matter.  There are growing pains as this new establishment shakes out but I suspect when it is all said and done it will be well worth the $$$ spent on it.  Although I don't remember the Army folks droning on about how the ENBP should be an Army job. 

I say good on the RCAF.  If this is a capability the leaders in the RCAF have determined is needed then give it to them, irregardless of what a bunch of pongos think is best.


----------



## GR66 (19 Jun 2016)

My take-away from this is that the CF is really a "Joint" force in name only.  Either the Elements have never lost the mentality of being their own separate services with their own unique needs that only they can properly fill, or the integration at the top of the CF was never sufficient to allow the leadership to truly understand the unique needs of each Element.  

I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough to comment on which is the best way to fix this mess, but it certainly seems to me that this fundamental problem is the source of many of the capability (and equipment) issues faced the by CF.  No clear understanding of specific requirements.  This specific airfield defence issue is just a symptom of a much bigger issue.

 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

ENBP is wholly different than what we're talking about. No new trade created, found a way to enhance training on a secondary duty to improve operational success. No one in the Army was complaining, because you can readily see the necessity based on the good work done in CARIBBE, etc and the lack of operational skillsets in the Army to conduct that unique of an operation. Guarding fences in an open field isn't unique, and doesn't require specially trained troops.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ENBP is wholly different than what we're talking about. No new trade created, found a way to enhance training on a secondary duty to improve operational success. No one in the Army was complaining, because you can readily see the necessity based on the good work done in CARIBBE, etc and the lack of operational skillsets in the Army to conduct that unique of an operation. Guarding fences in an open field isn't unique, and doesn't require specially trained troops.



The opinion of a Sig Op Sgt.  Sorry dude, but do you have any air or navy training, experience or knowledge to base this opinion off of? Have you ever been on or even seen a NBP?  How about an ATF?  



> It has long been recognised that often it is far easier to prevent the application of air power by attacking it on the ground rather than in the air. Hence, from its early inception the RAF has needed to protect its operations on the ground.
> 
> Air power effects are delivered by ever more individually capable but collectively fewer air platforms. They require protection, as do their essential enablers such as personnel, logistics, and information and communications, both at home and when deployed. The loss of even a small number of our combat aircraft or their enablers could significantly impact the successful application of air power, whilst the destruction of a single fully-laden passenger aircraft would have implications of strategic magnitude.
> 
> ...



The opinion of the RAF.



> Airfield Defence Guards (ADG) are non-commissioned Air Force members who provide the specialist ground (combat)  force required to protect air power assets from the effects of hostile ground action in and around Air Force Bases and Installations, both in Australia and overseas during peacetime and on operations;. During peacetime ADGs support Air Force Security (AFSEC) and Air Base Protection (ABP) by conducing routine security tasks, including vehicle and foot patrols, static guarding and control of entry points. On operations ADGs form the basis of the Air Force's ground combat force, protecting Base assets, infrastructure and personnel against attack from enemy ground forces both inside and outside of the airfield perimeter. They also instruct other Air Force personnel in relevant ground defence techniques.
> 
> ADGs live and work as a team, normally in groups of five to ten personnel. Some typical tasks performed by ADGs are:
> •foot and vehicle patrolling by day and by night in and around both established and bare base airfields and through vegetated or urban environments in all extremities of weather conditions and locations within or outside of Australia;
> ...



The opinion of the RAAF.

I am actually _more_ curious, at this point, to hear why you think you are qualified to speak to RCN and RCAF ops and FP measures.   op:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jun 2016)

EITS,

You are being deliberately obtuse.

Airfields need defending. Stipulated.

I am saying that RCAF does not need, nor can it afford its own infantry.

The RCAF is the air power provider to the CF (much as the Army and Navy might wish to own their own helicopters).

In the same vein, the Army is the land/ground effects provider to the CF. there are 9 Reg F and 50 Res Inf units (yes, I know that the Res units are closer to Pl-Coy) strength. There is no shortage of infantry in Canada.

Do you now see what I am saying?

All of the comparisons to Port Inspection Divers and Enhanced Naval Boarding Party are false ones, because they do things which do not exist as a function anywhere else in the CF. Securing a piece of ground? Check- pretty sure that exists already in the CF.

This is madness. This is a one trick pony that will consume PYs to no good effect, much like 2 AEW did. If your Sqn is anything like mine, we are so short of bodies we can barely hold together our peace time flying. And we are not at war. Make no mistake- the VCDS ain't handing out PYs for free. The bill has to be paid for some how.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

I am not being obtuse at all.  I am using facts and examples.  ERC suggests 10 days for the high readiness infantry and I've said I've done the CJOC mission and been back home in that timeline, or less.  I believe in the 'better to have and not need, than need and not have" stuff.

How is that being obtuse?  I understand the way the army FGs and the AF FGs etc and CJOC FEs.  I am saying, clearly I thought, that model doesn't always work and this would be a way to fill a hole.   

You want to do it with Reg Frce infantry?  Fine, just convince the Comd C Army to post a few folks to Wing.  It would be a jammy go, I'm sure they'd love it.  Heck would could even train them to be Obs/spotters.

However, according to Ditch this was debated discussed and is going to happen.  If it is, I say 'great' and hope there is some aspect of it that will be part of away trips.  I don't consider security for the crew I am on, or the really expensive ride over we took, a 'waste of PYs'.  _Not all of us land on ships with all the FP that offers_.

If that changes, things will just be ops normal as they are now.  We take security with lip service IMO.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

RCAF can have it's own infantry. We'll just buy helicopters for the Army and Navy and duplicate effort. We're desperately trying to remove redundancies in the CAF to stretch dollars, and you're advocating we make a completely redundant unit just so they can wear a blue beret while guarding gates? The RCAF doesn't have a monopoly on needing rapid reaction units. Rest assured, if there was ever a need for force pro at an austere and high risk airfield, I can think of a couple units in the Army and CAF that would get that task.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> RCAF can have it's own infantry. We'll just buy helicopters for the Army and Navy and duplicate effort. We're desperately trying to remove redundancies in the CAF to stretch dollars, and you're advocating we make a completely redundant unit just so they can wear a blue beret while guarding gates? The RCAF doesn't have a monopoly on needing rapid reaction units. Rest assured, if there was ever a need for force pro at an austere and high risk airfield, I can think of a couple units in the Army and CAF that would get that task.



More than guarding gates dude.  That's the part you don't understand, or won't.  You ignore what I'm saying.  Less than 18 hours from a phone call to wheels up, and that was with a X hour pause.  It can be quicker.  SOF tasking?  Sure, that's what we train them for.  I think its a little below their skillset and reason for existing but...hey wait...why don't they do that now??  Hmmm.

I'm talking like, 10 people per wing on a half dozen Wings for FP, deployable and employed at homeplate.  Something like that.  If THAT breaks us as a military...well we're fucked and might as well start putting white gitches on mop handles.

If the RCAF want protection of their big shiny toys that aren't parked in our own driveways and people think that is retarded, they can think its retarded.  I hope those same people cancel their home, car and life insurance, because nothing has happened yet and they still drive their car to their home and they didn't die today.  No need for insurance, because each and every day is the same.  The crystal ball of tomorrow says so.

RLS on this thread starts....now.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

The RCAF isn't guarding anything so unique that it requires specially trained pers in a special trade to go do it. If it was an actual operational requirement CJOC would have units tasked from the Managed Readiness plan on call to provide that coverage. Like it or not, we're a unified military. That means guys with green berets will guard your airfields, and guys with blue berets are fixing up wounded at a CCP 500m from the X. We all get to pitch in for mission success. If that means some Army guys get to go hang out in a hotel and guard things on short notice, I'm sure they'd prefer that to sweeping floors in the Coy lines.

Needing something to happen fast once in a blue moon isn't a reason to dump money into a trade. I've even got a manning pool to task as a secondary duty: http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/rcaf-band/index.page


----------



## dangerboy (19 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm talking like, 10 people per wing on a half dozen Wings for FP, deployable and employed at homeplate.  Something like that.  If THAT breaks us as a military...well we're fucked and might as well start putting white gitches on mop handles.



Those 60 PYs have to come from somewhere.  The 3rd BNs in the Infantry lost an entire rifle platoon per battalion to free up 100 PYs as the CAF created a new capability. The word from Ottawa is if you want a new capability you have to find a way to do it without increasing the size of the CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ENBP is wholly different than what we're talking about. No new trade created, found a way to enhance training on a secondary duty to improve operational success. No one in the Army was complaining, because you can readily see the necessity based on the good work done in CARIBBE, etc and the lack of operational skillsets in the Army to conduct that unique of an operation. Guarding fences in an open field isn't unique, and doesn't require specially trained troops.



Make sure to use your blinker and check your blind spot if you are going drift out of your lane there jimmy. 

I say we fold one battalion from each Reg force infantry regiment and give those billets and monies to the RCAF for security.  Whoops I didn't use my blinker...


----------



## Zoomie (19 Jun 2016)

Ok - lots of good opinions out there...

1 CAD has recently stood up its own SSO-Force Protection - this shows how serious the RCAF is at security.  We have deep pockets in Ottawa through DGDS and are getting the funding and results we need.

The ARAF project is moving ahead and has an implementation phase to it - this means it has already been approved and is moving ahead.

Currently - we use WASF and MPs for facility/aircraft FP.  The MPs have a specialty called TASO - basically deployed armed security for airplanes when they land in scary airfields.  We don't have the luxury of 6 months prior to train up people and enter them into CFTPO.  Earthquake hits today, we roll tonight into whatever country that is - with whatever security issues might be at hand.  Russians are being frisky, we deploy armed fighters to XXX FOL and send armed WASF to guard them.

We have armed RCAF personnel out there right now - not MPs, not Infantry.  We want to make those RCAF personnel not just qualified but specialized to conduct these duties.  We don't have the luxury of waiting days for a tasking of unfamiliar Green Berets to show up.  Quite frankly, I don't want green watching over blue assets - unless they are seconded by the blue side and indoctrinated, without "buy in" and mission focus - they are useless.

Lots of PY discussion going on - how about PY neutral?  ARAF has plenty of job openings, as does the Militia - we are short in the thousands right now for manning our Primary Reserves.

Infantry are excellent at what they are trained to do - "Close with and destroy the enemy" - that doesn't necessarily equate to armed domestic ops in the defense of RCAF assets.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jun 2016)

Ditch,

I get that this a done deal, but the whole argument that green beret guys don't get our particular RCAF requirements, so we need our own blue berets infantry guys can also be used to state something like this:

What particular expertise does the RCAF (at the institutional level) have at providing shipboard and Army aviation to the RCN and Canadian Army? Should they not own their own capability, since we (the RCAF) are actually pretty dismal at understanding their needs?

I have been in the Army. I have guarded airfields while in the Army (for real and on Ex). It is not rocket surgery.

I suggest that if the CDS, VCDS, or Comd CJOC agreed that this was a real problem, each year Inf BN X would be tasked to have a Pl  to Coy sized element on 24hrs NTM.

And I  will categorically state that the Wings relying on reservists for this task (as seems to be the line of attack) will not get you deployable guys in a time line that any Reg F infantry Bn cannot beat today.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jun 2016)

Isn't an airfield just a really big Vital Point?

How about training, equipping and tasking troops to secure generic Vital Points.  You could even put some of them on High Readiness.

I hear echoes of the Advanced Naval Boarding Party debate here.  

They are both "army" jobs except the Army doesn't want to do them without their LAVs and their Leos.  Hard to get a Leo into a RHIB.  They could get a pair of Leos into C17s in a hurry.... but that would be to penny-packet armour and we couldn't do that.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

Glad we had to stoop to attacking personal experience based on a forum profile. 

HFT: If you're going to block out stuff on your profile, the term is PERSEC or OPSEC. COMSEC would imply your location and unit are Cryptographic devices that require safeguarding, and I doubt you work inside a KG175D. I can flippantly read a profile as well. I'll stop defending ENBP and start refering to it as a waste of PYs desperately trying to be CANSOF.

Screw it, make a RCAF infantry unit. Don't stop there though. They'll clearly need BPara and Freefall courses as an insertion method. As well as dive training to seize the airfield if its near littoral areas. You can call them Joint Task Force Hotel, because of the mad rappelling skills from a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Glad we had to stoop to attacking personal experience based on a forum profile.



In case that was directed at me...man, I tried to show you what some countries include in this task so you could see it was more than 'standing at a gate'.  You ignored that and went with the 'standing at a gate' stuff.  I gave you examples of why having "a platoon of Inf tasked" doesn't really work so well with real world examples of people going out the door really quickly.  I said what little I can say, which wasn't much but that aircraft can go out the door quickly and not always to a 'coalition' airfield.  You just chose or wanted to ignore it and stick to the 'why do you guys think you're special snowflakes, Army Managed Readiness can fit the entire bill'.  I know it can't the way things are done now, because of my experience while in the flying part of the air force.  OPSEC dictates I go into no more detail than I did.  Not a personal choice of mine...OPSEC.

I wasn't trying to attack your personal experience, but tried to show you the experience of others (in air ops) didn't match with 'your' idea of what reality is.  Common sense would seem to lead me to believe that you'd concede and say "okay...I don't necessarily buy everything being said but I don't have any solid experience to prove otherwise".  You just didn't want to see what I was saying.  At all.  I don't make shit up, I'm too old and don't have the energy to just make shit up.

We don't need Para qual'd Airfield defence commandos.  We do need a group of people who's corporate knowledge and day to day "thinking" is around this stuff.  If they cut the band to make it happen, well that's what needs to be done to enhance operational ability.  No tears shed on my part.  Cut the tail, not the tooth.

I haven't been home lots the last 6 months, and none of it was spent in a hotel.   :2c:


----------



## Eaglelord17 (19 Jun 2016)

Four points.

First point, this trade you are talking about for airfield defence is literally infantry which does less training. Look up the Force.ca Infantry page and compare it to the Airforce Defence Guards basic summary you posted here, and you will see they are basically the same except the Airforce Defence Guards do less. I see no need to create a new trade when you already have all the training for the trade in existence. I also couldn't give a flying fuck what 'element' it is considered, this isn't the 50s and we are all members of the CAF not the Canadian Army, RCAF, or RCN. If it is such a critical role you can easily post a infantry platoon or two to a Airforce base for quick reaction.

Second point, Port Inspection Divers and such, filled capabilities that previously no one filled. The training was unique, and not provided for in a other trade. It does make sense to make a new trade when there is a hole which no one else fills, however in the case of a 'Airforce Defence Guard' we already have a trade that does basically 100% of the stuff and more, we call it Infantry.

Third point, in regards to quick readiness, you can easily task a infantry platoon or two for being quick reaction. Its not like the Airforce is the only part of the military which has ever had to be on short notice. When I was in the Navy my ship, when we were ready duty ship, went from sitting in harbour with only the duty watch on board to sailing at sea in 3 hours (showed up as soon as possible then flashed up and went). It is not rocket science, you order your troops to be ready to move in potentially 'x' hours and that's that. 

Fourth point, if this was to become a Reservist trade you realize your quick reaction force concept would literally be shot to shit? Reservists only have to show up once a month, and to expect a force capable of deploying in couple hours short notice isn't happening. People have jobs, other commitments, and you can't order them to show up (unless they call up the Reserves which isn't happening unless something really big happens).


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jun 2016)

Eaglelord 17

Agree on all points with one minor variation on point 4.

The Reserves as currently constituted can't do High Readiness Taskings.  However that doesn't mean that the Reserves couldn't sustain a High Readiness Tasking IF the VOLUNTEERS new what they were volunteering for upfront and had the time to organize their lives so as to meet their commitment - or be prosecuted for failure to show.

Other foreign forces and other Canadian civvies do manage such taskings.

But, yeah, if you want a High Readiness Airfield Defence Force then set aside PYs from the reg force infantry (and lt armour) to meet the task.  And don't double hat them.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Reserves as currently constituted can't do High Readiness Taskings.  However that doesn't mean that the Reserves couldn't sustain a High Readiness Tasking IF the VOLUNTEERS new what they were volunteering for upfront and had the time to organize their lives so as to meet their commitment - or be prosecuted for failure to show.
> 
> Other foreign forces and other Canadian civvies do manage such taskings.



Those countries have job protection legislation. Its a non-starter if we don't modernize the PRes that way.


----------



## MARS (19 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they cut the band to make it happen, well that's what needs to be done to enhance operational ability.  No tears shed on my part.  Cut the tail, not the tooth.



Thats a pretty big assumption, that does't appear to totally jive with the experience of the other two elements.

Just for argument's sake: would you feel differently about this if it did indeed require (or end up) cutting more tooth than tail?  Are you ready to give up operating capability for this?  Not trying to be obtuse - serious question.

From an operational planning perspective, the only prudent Assumption is: "Operational PYs will be used, in whole or in part, to make this capability a reality."

Assuming the band/support element PYs will be used is fine for COA 3, which is your throw away COA anyhow, but COAs 1 and 2, the Enemy's Most Likely  (PYs from the teeth AND tail) and the Enemy's Most Dangerous (PYs from the teeth) are far more realistic and require more prudence.  And they both have overlap (PYs from teeth).

Ditch's idea of PY neutral growth implies that this tasking isn't a priority - it takes time to grow an occupation that way, so you are looking at months to years between IOC and FOC for this occupation.

Dangerboy's observation re: 3 Bn PY cuts mirrors the RCNs various COAs over the years (tying up ships alongside when NP funding dried up; now deliberately undermanning ships and thus sailing without the full spectrum of operations capabilities).

Would the RCAF be any different?  Possibly, but hope is not a valid COA and the realities of empire building, in addition to the other restraints and constraints faced by senior leadership dictate that you at least be prepared to accept the possibility of cuts to your teeth.  I think it is pie in the sky-delusional to think otherwise.

my two cents


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those countries have job protection legislation. Its a non-starter if we don't modernize the PRes that way.



Not necessarily in all cases. There are seasonal and self-employed individuals who can commit chunks of their lives to activities such as those we are talking about.  They get paid for standing ready.  They are then obligated to turn out when called.  

If their personal circumstances change then they have to make accommodation.

But, at base, I agree the Canadian system as constituted can't handle any kind of Reserve deployment effectively.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Four points.
> 
> First point, this trade you are talking about for airfield defence is literally infantry which does less training. Look up the Force.ca Infantry page and compare it to the Airforce Defence Guards basic summary you posted here, and you will see they are basically the same except the Airforce Defence Guards do less. I see no need to create a new trade when you already have all the training for the trade in existence. I also couldn't give a flying fuck what 'element' it is considered, this isn't the 50s and we are all members of the CAF not the Canadian Army, RCAF, or RCN. If it is such a critical role you can easily post a infantry platoon or two to a Airforce base for quick reaction.
> 
> ...



Hey sure!  What could the senior leadership of both the CAF and RCAF know right?  Especially compared to your extensive knowledge of the subj!



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> As someone who did a short stint in the Navy until recently...as a former jr Stoker)



Not going to waste my time repeating everything.  But suffice to say, you're opinion isn't worth the spots and marks it took to create.


----------



## brihard (20 Jun 2016)

I wonder where the Airfantry NCOs are gonna come from? You can knit a platoon of troops in a few months at the lower level, but I'm curious what the plan is to bring in *good* NCOs to backbone this? This thing has to be envisioned as at *least* a rifle company...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Ok - lots of good opinions out there...
> 
> 1 CAD has recently stood up its own SSO-Force Protection - this shows how serious the RCAF is at security.  We have deep pockets in Ottawa through DGDS and are getting the funding and results we need.
> 
> ...



http://army.ca/forums/threads/119416/post-1441348.html#msg1441348  The RAF and RAAF, among others, DISAGREE with non-SME's opinions that 'its just guarding a fence' and all the other  :blah: being spewed.  

As for this being a PRes Army task...have a read at the link to the right.  They have their own issues.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1411698.html#msg1411698  The link starts on Page 95 of what...107 pages now...and only covers the posts from Jan 2016.  A PRes Armd Recce task.  Yup, 'cause they have zero veh or comm's issues.  

IF I was the RCAF Comd, and I wanted this cap, I'd have it embedded where it will be, inside the Div and likely distributed across a handful of Wings.  So you can use it when you need it.  What a crazy idea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jun 2016)

As I recall both the SAS and RAF regiment maintain a territorial arm to help beef up numbers and give a place to help keep talent that does not want to deploy as much anymore.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jun 2016)

For interest....RAF Greenham Common, 1984.

Proof that even the strongest security force, specifically trained in airfield defence (RAF Regiment, 1 PARA, MOD Police etc) can't keep unarmed vegbians off of an operational airfield stuffed with nukes.


----------



## Calvillo (20 Jun 2016)

A bit off topic question.

If the RCAF does not have its own ground troops, who provides terminal attack control to a typical Army unit in a CAS situation?


----------



## LightFighter (20 Jun 2016)

Calvillo said:
			
		

> A bit off topic question.
> 
> If the RCAF does not have its own ground troops, who provides terminal attack control to a typical Army unit in a CAS situation?



In Afghanistan, and on exercise I've only seen Artillery Officers and NCOs filling the FAC/JTAC role. 

AFAIK, some Pilots and AECs are qualified, but they work at the Brigade TACP level.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jun 2016)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> AFAIK, some Pilots and AECs are qualified, but they work at the Brigade TACP level.



They have started opening JTAC/TACP up to ACSO as well - at least one has been posted as one to the Army.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (20 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hey sure!  What could the senior leadership of both the CAF and RCAF know right?  Especially compared to your extensive knowledge of the subj!
> 
> Not going to waste my time repeating everything.  But suffice to say, you're opinion isn't worth the spots and marks it took to create.



Thanks for the personal attack. If you are going to refute what I say do so, otherwise your ad hominem attack shows how little you can actually defend against my points. I have made my arguments, and you have instead tried to insult me. Needless to say, your refusal to actually respond in a positive manner really reflects poorly on yourself. I am done trying to have a debate with you, clearly you are not worth my time.


----------



## Zoomie (20 Jun 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> First point, this trade you are talking about for airfield defence is literally infantry <snip> If it is such a critical role you can easily post a infantry platoon or two to a Airforce base for quick reaction.


Where are all these RegF platoon elements of Infantry coming from? Lots of RCR posted at 8 Wing Trenton?  How about Winnipeg - how far is the drive from Shilo?  Do I need to worry now about transport, R&Q etc?


> Second point, <snip> however in the case of a 'Airforce Defence Guard' we already have a trade that does basically 100% of the stuff and more, we call it Infantry.


Then we'll have a great source of trained troops for our force.  I already have two PPCLI Sgts ready to head up the senior leadership.  


> Third point, in regards to quick readiness, you can easily task a infantry platoon or two for being quick reaction.


Everyone thinks that because we are the Canadian Armed Forces that we all share OPCON/TACOM of everyone, regardless of their beret colour.  To task a green element to work for a blue Comd and get paid by the blue budget is not as easy you might think.


> Fourth point, if this was to become a Reservist trade you realize your quick reaction force concept would literally be shot to crap?


QRF is a tricky concept - this I recognize from my time in the "Mo".  Most probably we can rely on a small number to be ready to go, with follow-on forces as they arrive.

FOC is a long way off folks - but we need to start somewhere.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> FOC is a long way off folks - but we need to start somewhere.



Not sure if it's covered in the thread and too lazy to search, but will there be Military Working Dogs as well?  The RAAF's ADGs also had those.

Incidentally, RAAF members can temporarily adopt said MWDs (Belgian Malinois) for a few months when they are puppies to get them used to humans, then return them to the Security Forces to start their training.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> FOC is a long way off folks - but we need to start somewhere.



Its called the IRU, combat arms troops ready to go on X hours NTM. Where X is the number of hours you need them in, if the current NTM status for the IRU is not acceptable to CJOC. Seems like someone's already started and finished the "capability gap", they just don't have the beret colour people want. Good thing CJOC doesn't see empires, it tasks capabilities.

Dimsum: Great idea, we just added another 25-30 PYs for the working dogs. I think if we tried real hard, we could cut AESOP in half and send all those PYs to RCAF Infantry.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jun 2016)

To be fair, the Army does not often play nice in the Joint world, so I can understand why the RCAF would rather build its own.  Hillier's original plan, to reduce the RCN, CA and RCAF to environmental advisors and place all forces under the RJTFs would have helped shatter some of those stovepipes; when the military leadership refused, we got the current setup which is suboptimal in so many ways.


----------



## captloadie (21 Jun 2016)

Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.



That actually makes sense IMHO. Does this mean that this new trade would provide an opportunity to engage reservists in a RCAF role not reserved for retired jet jockeys?

And, more importantly, could they have a sniper section?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jun 2016)

An entire trade dedicated to GD work? Domestic only? Capped at MCpl? Yikes, that has recruiting issues all over it.


----------



## captloadie (21 Jun 2016)

It is a reserve trade that hopes to attract a different demographic than the make-up of the current Air Reserves. Unlike the Navy and the Army, the majority of Air Reserves are retired annuitants. It works great to plug a guy into a similar desk he occupied as Reg F, but we don't have many positions for the guys/gals who want summer work, a couple of nights/days a month, etc. We're hoping to attract people into a trade that doesn't have a huge training bill and we get some return on investment.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Jun 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> . . . For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.



Trade badge?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jun 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the personal attack. If you are going to refute what I say do so, otherwise your ad hominem attack shows how little you can actually defend against my points. I have made my arguments, and you have instead tried to insult me. Needless to say, your refusal to actually respond in a positive manner really reflects poorly on yourself. I am done trying to have a debate with you, clearly you are not worth my time.



I noted your opinion against your experience and exposure to the subj matter.  In short, IMO you have none.  Unless they teach stokers such things.  I'd not wade into a stoker thread passing off my opinion as an informed opinion.   :2c:

I 'refuted' your opinion already in the previous pages, as have others with knowledge of the subj, including the opinion of 2 other Air Forces.  If you want to, skip back and re-read.

However, yah I was probably a little overboard in the delivery;  I apologize for that.  It's frustrating to see the same points being raised, ignored and the same party line about RCAF Infantry being repeated.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its called the IRU, combat arms troops ready to go on X hours NTM. Where X is the number of hours you need them in, if the current NTM status for the IRU is not acceptable to CJOC. Seems like someone's already started and finished the "capability gap", they just don't have the beret colour people want. Good thing CJOC doesn't see empires, it tasks capabilities.
> 
> Dimsum: Great idea, we just added another 25-30 PYs for the working dogs. I think if we tried real hard, we could cut AESOP in half and send all those PYs to RCAF Infantry.



This was addressed above.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/119416/post-1441557.html#msg1441557

It's not RCAF Infantry; its Force Protection.  

How is the Reg Frce Inf Bn's doing?  Here's an indication...



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> Those 60 PYs have to come from somewhere.  The 3rd BNs in the Infantry lost an entire rifle platoon per battalion to free up 100 PYs as the CAF created a new capability. The word from Ottawa is if you want a new capability you have to find a way to do it without increasing the size of the CAF.



So, where are the FP positions coming from then?  Already answered as well.



			
				Ditch said:
			
		

> Lots of PY discussion going on - how about PY neutral?  ARAF has plenty of job openings, as does the Militia - we are short in the thousands right now for manning our Primary Reserves.



Why do this?  Again, already addressed



> Currently - we use WASF and MPs for facility/aircraft FP.  The MPs have a specialty called TASO - basically deployed armed security for airplanes when they land in scary airfields.  We don't have the luxury of 6 months prior to train up people and enter them into CFTPO.  Earthquake hits today, we roll tonight into whatever country that is - with whatever security issues might be at hand.  Russians are being frisky, we deploy armed fighters to XXX FOL and send armed WASF to guard them.
> 
> We have armed RCAF personnel out there right now - not MPs, not Infantry.  We want to make those RCAF personnel not just qualified but specialized to conduct these duties.  We don't have the luxury of waiting days for a tasking of unfamiliar Green Berets to show up.



I don't know, but maybe the idea of using the IRU was already discussed and the Army said "no we can't respond in the time you need.  We can't post a platoon to locations X,Y and Z either.  Recommend you source this internally, ChairForce".

I mentioned PIDs before...they don't provide anything a Combat Diver or Clearance Diver couldn't do.  Maybe it was studied as well, and someone recommended creating the PITDs and PID MOSID to cover the 'gap', because the other guys capable of doing it (in terms of skillsets) weren't available to actually fill the task because of 'other priorities'.

The Air Force wants the ability to provide FP on multi-million dollar assets.  Some of us have said those assets can go out the door in extremely fast timelines, and that the best way to be able to provide FP is to have those FP pers co-located.

Ditch has provided fairly detailed 'hows and whys', that people just seem to want to turn a blind eye to, rather than seriously consider them.

 :dunno:      



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training.



Hopefully, that can change as time goes on.


----------



## Ostrozac (21 Jun 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> It is a reserve trade that hopes to attract a different demographic than the make-up of the current Air Reserves. Unlike the Navy and the Army, the majority of Air Reserves are retired annuitants. It works great to plug a guy into a similar desk he occupied as Reg F, but we don't have many positions for the guys/gals who want summer work, a couple of nights/days a month, etc. We're hoping to attract people into a trade that doesn't have a huge training bill and we get some return on investment.



Ah, now that makes some sense. Less like the RAF Regiment, more like the Military Provost Guard Service. And it's cool that the RCAF is trying to retain annuitants in a Class A role. We're bleeding guys out of the back of the Reg Force every day, any of them that we can retain as Class A reservists is a clear win.


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Jun 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.



GD reservists that don't deploy...so this helps guard deployed aircraft how exactly? Perhaps I missed the entire point of this thread.


----------



## Zoomie (21 Jun 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> so this helps guard deployed aircraft how exactly? Perhaps I missed the entire point of this thread.


So perhaps there are roles for armed FP of RCAF assets within Canada?  EITS, myself and few others are skating around OPSEC and other domestic RCAF capabilites that we won't/can't discuss here?

I repeatedly tell my guys when I send them out on their operational taskings "What other trade in the CAF involves me issuing you a C7A2 and magazines full of ball ammo - outside of a rifle range?" If you can't answer that question quietly and nod your head at my point - please understand that you don't know everything about what the CAF does inside Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jun 2016)

There are a whole host of issues (as I'm sure you're aware), with arming CAF members on domestic operations. Seems like we need less MPs driving around handing out speeding tickets, and more providing the force protection posture you require. If you're going to go the PRes route, what better source of pers than PRes MP units? Lots of corporate knowledge in there, some are probably better trained than RegF MPs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jun 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There are a whole host of issues (as I'm sure you're aware), with arming CAF members on domestic operations.



I think you are at least a decade late.  Like Ditch said, a Force Protection trade is being created for very good reasons.  And it won't deploy.


----------



## GK .Dundas (22 Jun 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think you are at least a decade late.  Like Ditch said, a Force Protection trade is being created for very good reasons.  And it won't deploy.


 There are very good reasons However I can all but guarantee that it will be deployed .
Sadly given our numbers and needs.....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I noted your opinion against your experience and exposure to the subj matter.  In short, IMO you have none.  Unless they teach stokers such things.  I'd not wade into a stoker thread passing off my opinion as an informed opinion.   :2c:
> I 'refuted' your opinion already in the previous pages, as have others with knowledge of the subj, including the opinion of 2 other Air Forces.  If you want to, skip back and re-read.
> However, yah I was probably a little overboard in the delivery;  I apologize for that.  It's frustrating to see the same points being raised, ignored and the same party line about RCAF Infantry being repeated.



I appreciate the apology. If you must know I haven't always been a Stoker. I am currently in Supply, and I have spent time doing such things as Force Protection (you actually spend a fair bit of time doing that in the Navy especially at a junior level), and being on call at a moments notice (I have had as little as 30 min notice for taskings before). So far my career has actually been fairly diverse in where I have been and what I have done (from spending weeks in the field to being at sea for months). 

Just from the outside looking in, this trade seems to be more a way to boost the Air Reserves than something that is urgently required, however I do understand the point of using your skilled tradesmen for there trade rather than Force Protection (one of my bigger complaints when I was in the Navy). I also understand it would actually help the Air Reserves preform the role of augmenting the Regular Force as you can actually feasibly train people to do those tasks as Reservists in a realistic timeframe. I am definitely interested to see how this turns out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> GD reservists that don't deploy....



Just like 80% of the rest of the reserve force, right?


----------



## Journeyman (22 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just like 80% of the rest of the reserve force, right?


And if we're bandying about numbers (for dubious reasons), what percentage of the RegF?

....oh, but that's not the topic.  Never mind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jun 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> GD reservists that don't deploy...so this helps guard deployed aircraft how exactly? Perhaps I missed the entire point of this thread.



It could also be baby steps where they are going to work out the bugs and then build on a tested framework. Plus having some more people for domestic work, may free up others to do the overseas work.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And if we're bandying about numbers (for dubious reasons), what percentage of the RegF?
> 
> ....oh, but that's not the topic.  Never mind.



Good point. I note that the miasma of peacetime irrelevance has once again descended upon many of our activities after the inconvenient, yet thankfully temporary, intrusion of Afghanistan into our usual reverie.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Jun 2016)

dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.

The Army has enough issues having nine RegF Inf BNs to cover off assigned Pri 1 taskings - arguing a Divisional IRU could be chopped responsively enough to deploy to guard an "hours NTM" deployed C-17 or Herc or Aurora or...does anyone think that would happen?  The Army had a hard enough time task tailoring a small responsive capability even when Govt is pressing it hard...we see Govt pick CANSOF not just once, but twice to send a small package abroad, then triple its size while the Army writ large was still trying to be responsive. 

Having worked closely to support the Army for more than a quarter century, I don't have any reason to believe that the Army would institutionally desire to even consider dedicating INF, let alone actually executing such a mission, to provide air task force (and smaller) force protection, all the grandstanding argumentation earlier in this thread notwithstanding.

New MOSID for the RCAF? Why not, if the Comd RCAF makes a cogent argument to the Department and either the internal offsets are provided, or an appropriately developed request goes into the MYEP.   Independent of employment specifics, that's exactly what Comd CANSOF of the day did for Spec Op MOSID, made the case and execute the Departmentally-approved plan.

The Army needs to spend more time on its own issues, including making sure it is adequately supported logistically before it starts arguing that it should be doing yet another task that would add to its already overburdened Infamtry Corps.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jun 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.
> 
> The Army has enough issues having nine RegF Inf BNs to cover off assigned Pri 1 taskings - arguing a Divisional IRU could be chopped responsively enough to deploy to guard an "hours NTM" deployed C-17 or Herc or Aurora or...does anyone think that would happen?  The Army had a hard enough time task tailoring a small responsive capability even when Govt is pressing it hard...we see Govt pick CANSOF not just once, but twice to send a small package abroad, then triple its size while the Army writ large was still trying to be responsive.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jun 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.
> 
> The Army has enough issues having nine RegF Inf BNs to cover off assigned Pri 1 taskings - arguing a Divisional IRU could be chopped responsively enough to deploy to guard an "hours NTM" deployed C-17 or Herc or Aurora or...does anyone think that would happen?  The Army had a hard enough time task tailoring a small responsive capability even when Govt is pressing it hard...we see Govt pick CANSOF not just once, but twice to send a small package abroad, then triple its size while the Army writ large was still trying to be responsive.
> 
> ...



But it COULD be an opportunity to sneak in a resurrected Airborne Regiment, as part of the RCAF, whose primary role would be Force Protection, airfield defence - and capture - and footprint security (and some other stuff like leading invasions and things...)


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But it COULD be an opportunity to sneak in a resurrected Airborne Regiment, as part of the RCAF, whose primary role would be Force Protection, airfield defence - and capture - and footprint security (and some other stuff like leading invasions and things...)



Might be be a better idea to pick a different name though, since everything that is old is new again, stand up the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2016)

You could sneak in a Glider assault battalion by incorporating the Air Cadet glider program  [


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could sneak in a Glider assault battalion by incorporating the Air Cadet glider program  [



Does that mean we will be using tetrarch's again? >


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2016)

The Weisel, which is the modern Tetrarch or universal carrier. Of course the large assault gliders program would over budget and being held up because it unfairly discriminates against engine manufacturers


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Weisel, which is the modern Tetrarch or universal carrier. Of course the large assault gliders program would over budget and being held up because it unfairly discriminates against engine manufacturers



Unless there is a glider company in Quebec that needs work in return for votes!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2016)

Well they did use furniture factories to build them before and it was ok for most of the time, except in one rather fatal PR event when the wings fell off.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jun 2016)

In WW2 the Germans stood up their Airborne Forces under command of the Luftwaffe, initiated by Herman Goering of course:

During World War II, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) raised a variety of airborne light infantry (Fallschirmjäger) units. The Luftwaffe built up a division-sized unit of three Fallschirmjäger regiments plus supporting arms and air assets, known as the 7th Flieger Division. Throughout World War II, the Fallschirmjäger overall commander was Kurt Student.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallschirmj%C3%A4ger


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.
> 
> The Army has enough issues having nine RegF Inf BNs to cover off assigned Pri 1 taskings - arguing a Divisional IRU could be chopped responsively enough to deploy to guard an "hours NTM" deployed C-17 or Herc or Aurora or...does anyone think that would happen?  The Army had a hard enough time task tailoring a small responsive capability even when Govt is pressing it hard...we see Govt pick CANSOF not just once, but twice to send a small package abroad, then triple its size while the Army writ large was still trying to be responsive.
> 
> ...



http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/dn-nd/D2-73-1987-eng.pdf

Further to the track record of the Army/Infantry with respect to novel approaches:

1987 and Vital Point forces, 10/90, 30/70 and 90/10 battalions, Bv206s and Bisons

Although it was Government Policy there was pitifully little evidence of anybody trying to make the policy work - because the real war was in Germany and needed Leos and Marders.

And the same thinking sank the CAST Brigade - nobody wanted it to work.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/dn-nd/D2-73-1987-eng.pdf
> 
> Further to the track record of the Army/Infantry with respect to novel approaches:
> 
> ...



As I recall, at the time there was all sorts of planning going on for VP protection. The whole thing, virtually the whole army, cam unstuck in the 1989 budget that slashed all sorts of things in the DND budget and the withdrawal from Europe a few years later finished the process. The Balkans commitment a few years later was the only thing that saved the army from a six battalion (plus three 10/90 ones) structure.

As for CAST, I went up for a social visit to Petawawa circa 1971 from CFHQ where I was the Sec to DG Plans. When I came back, the boss asked me what the troops thought of CAST. I thought he was going to cry when I told him they referred to it as Hong Kong Mk II. With his submergence in the Ottawa world, he could not understand why they did not accept it as government policy and get on with it.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2016)

No disrepect to your observations Old Sweat, or the tearful chap in Ottawa, but it was Government Policy.

Now the troops weren't wrong, in my opinion, to equate CAST with Hong Kong in the sense that both commitments were more about show than anything else.

That doesn't mean that CAST could have been a lot more than a Hong Kong showboat.  If the effort had been put behind CAST, rather than into airfields in Germany, then Canada would have had, again in my opinion, a force more compatible with Canada's domestic needs and also more useful in the current political environment.  The CAST force would have been no more "sacrificial" than was 3 RM Cdo with the Dutch, the USMC, the Norwegians and the Danes themselves.  But success would have meant diverting dollars and people from Leos and Marders (we wanted them but never got them) into ships and helicopters.

Likewise, wrt the militia/infantry reorganization - I don't believe any one in uniform wanted to make that work, with or without the budget.  It was as well that Yugoslavia came along after the wall came down because it permitted the relocation of the Canadian field force from Germany.

There is not a lot of flexibility in evidence in the Canadian Forces.  Just take a look at the summary of available forces in "Challenge and Commitment" and ask yourself how many new capabilities are in place now compared to those in evidence when Perrin Beatty took over.  I suggest that the structure then and now is identical with the sole differences being that there is a lot less of everything and the kit is a lot older.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> there is a lot less of everything and the kit is a lot older.



Hey man, I'm in the room


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hey man, I'm in the room



Ooops sorry.  I will stipulate that there is more of you now than there was in 1987.   >


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Jun 2016)

The difference I see here, like CAST, is that it's not that people didn't want it to work. It's that no one did anything to make it work, the government at the time seemed to use it as a token gesture to NATO. Any initiative will fail if no one helps to make it work.


----------



## FJAG (24 Jun 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The difference I see here, like CAST, is that it's not that people didn't want it to work. It's that no one did anything to make it work, the government at the time seemed to use it as a token gesture to NATO. Any initiative will fail if no one helps to make it work.



I guess it all depends on what level of participant one talks about.

In the early 1970's I was at Petawawa where our unit was a part of the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land) (AMF(L)) which, like CAST, was targeted at Norway. Being a battle group sized organization we were an even smaller speed bump than CAST however during those days (i.e. the dark days of Trudeau I) we relished having an operational role to fill and much of our training was directed towards ops in Northern Norway (I still recall fondly being on an exercise with the Italian mountain artillery in the alps.)

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jun 2016)

Ah si!

"We mussta taka tha two hours a break to have da six course meal, and digest the whole thing with a the gooda vino!"

 [


----------



## FJAG (24 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Ah si!
> 
> "We mussta taka tha two hours a break to have da six course meal, and digest the whole thing with a the gooda vino!"
> 
> [



Pasta and wine both came up the mountains in jerry cans on mule back. Still tasted good though.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jun 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Pasta and wine both came up the mountains in jerry cans on mule back. Still tasted good though.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



I was on the same exercise with FJAG. This was 1973 and some Italian officers told us they had just adopted the same ration scale for the officers and the non-commissioned members. Welcome to the 20th century! Agree that the wine was pretty good, even if of the chateau screwcap variety.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jun 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I was on the same exercise with FJAG. This was 1973 and some Italian officers told us they had just adopted the same ration scale for the officers and the non-commissioned members. Welcome to the 20th century! Agree that the wine was pretty good, even if of the chateau screwcap variety.



1 PARA were brigaded with the Canadians and the Alpini. Guess who always got stuck on the Bridge Demolition Guard? 

OTOH, it was fun swapping real (dehydrated) food for grappa and vino with the Alpini, who were always starving on their meagre conscript rations.

The Canadians? I seem to recall seeing the RCR emerge from their giant tents from time to time, usually with a steak sandwich in one hand and a bottle of coke in the other


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 1 PARA were brigaded with the Canadians and the Alpini. Guess who always got stuck on the Bridge Demolition Guard?



In 4 CIBG in the mid-sixties the service support units often were tasked for those sort of things for a variety of reasons. No duff, it was in the real plan as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jun 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In 4 CIBG in the mid-sixties the service support units often were tasked for those sort of things for a variety of reasons. No duff, it was in the real plan as well.



Holy cr#p. More reasons to count our blessings that the Cold War stayed cold... 

Infantry? We're relatively expendable. Echelon wallahs? They go, we all go....


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Jun 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Holy cr#p. More reasons to count our blessings that the Cold War stayed cold...
> 
> Infantry? We're relatively expendable. Echelon wallahs? They go, we all go....



These guards were often tasked for anti-Pegasus Bridge type envelopments on bridges not earmarked for demolition, and required for our own movement. Infantry did guard the more critical demolitions. It was fifty years ago this fall, so my recollections are a tad fuzzy. I do recall as a brigade LO being stationed on the key bridge over the Weser to pass word to brigade when the 1 PPCLI covering force withdrew, which I did. On order I then passed the applicable code words to a Danish battalion commander, who was the commander of the demolition guard, and hence to the commander of the firing party. That was the start of a very long night, and I won't bore you with the details.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jun 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> These guards were often tasked for anti-Pegasus Bridge type envelopments on bridges not earmarked for demolition, and required for our own movement. Infantry did guard the more critical demolitions. It was fifty years ago this fall, so my recollections are a tad fuzzy. I do recall as a brigade LO being stationed on the key bridge over the Weser to pass word to brigade when the 1 PPCLI covering force withdrew, which I did. On order I then passed the applicable code words to a Danish battalion commander, who was the commander of the demolition guard, and hence to the commander of the firing party. That was the start of a very long night, and I won't bore you with the details.



That's OK, I can watch the film on YouTube  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kspwZdqqCjg


----------

