# New Coast Guard Ships



## Cloud Cover

Anyone have a link to the new CCG ships that are to be built? Here is what I gathered from the radio this morning:

Length :   ~ 160-175'

Numbers:  5 in the class

Location:  Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway

To replace 2 older ships,

Purpose: Border Security

Crew: ~ 16-18 + room for 12-20  heavily armed pers. 

Speed: greater than 28 knots.

Total cost of project for ship construction:  ~ 250 million, plus related attached systems.

I note the budget speaks of only 4 vessels, but the CIO of the Coast Guard is stating there will be 5 such vessels. Might there already be  one under construction?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

According to the budget 6 ships are suppose to be built for the CCG..2 will be research vessels and the other 4 will be some sort of patrol cutter.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_patrol.html

Here's one company's slate of offerings that might be in line.   

They supplied the Leonard J. Cowley for the Canadian Coast Guard, which meets the dimensional requirements.   It is also involved in the New Zealand Offshore Patrol Vessels, Irish and Finnish vessels.

All of them roughly in the 50-80 m zone with 15-35 knot speeds.     The Cowley seems to have been one of the slowest they built but that seems to have been more due to Canadian Government specifications and the Coast Guards sense of its role than any limitation inherent in the design that would prevent larger power plants and higher speeds.

Curiously the same company also offers a "double-acting" vessel that is an oil tanker that has a conventional hull-form going forwards and is an ice-breaker going backwards.

If the JSS programme were split into AORs and LPD/H vessels then these might make really interesting AORs for the Navy.  Especially if a helo deck and accomodation for 1-200 troops and some light vehicle storage space were added.  No floodable dodks though.  Leave those to the LPD/H.

http://www.masamarine.com/ship_tankers.html


----------



## Cloud Cover

Higher speed is apparently a desirable factor in this new vessel. The proposed uses are drug and customs interdiction, and responding to terrorist threats from the great lakes. The vessels are supposed to be specifically designed to embark and transport law enforcement and related pers.  SAR will be a secondary role. It appears these vessels will have negligible roles to play in the maintenance of navigable waters. 

These types of ships may have an enhanced role to play in the CDS plan for improving the CF contribution to homeland security. 

It is,IMHO, significant that they are not Navy ships- which appear to be reserved for war fighting.  

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed whiskey.

The higher speed as well as the accomodation for  "12-20 heavily armed persons" in addition to a crew of  about 16 watch-keepers.

It seems that just like the New Zealanders have made their OPVs multi-agency vessels we might be heading the same way.  But where they are Navy vessels with Army and Airforce personnel along with Police and Fisheries agents we are putting them under the Coast Guard's auspices.

Not a bad move actually IMHO.


----------



## mjohnston39

DFO press release: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/bckgrnd/2005/bg001_e.htm



> NEW VESSELS FOR CANADIAN COAST GUARD
> 
> FOUR NEW MID-SHORE FISHERIES PATROL VESSELS
> 
> These four new vessels will be used primarily for fisheries patrols for domestic overfishing infractions and conservation and protection enforcement.
> 
> They will also be multi-tasked to take part in search and rescue incidents when needed. The vessels will provide support to the Coast Guard's federal marine security partners and will work with the United States Coast Guard
> 
> The vessels will be equipped with state-of-the-art electronics for secure communications, will be less than 40 metres on the water-line and have a cruising speed of 25 knots.
> 
> A CCG crew of approximately eight will be on board with approximately two Fisheries and Oceans Canada fishery officers. There will be room for potentially 14 people on board.
> 
> The vessel will carry up to two fast rescue craft (rigid hull inflatables) for rapid response and boarding of fishing vessels.
> 
> The patrol vessels will have the capacity to sail out to 120 nautical miles.
> 
> 
> THE TWO NEW FISHERIES RESEARCH VESSELS
> 
> These new vessels will be used primarily for DFO fisheries science research into the quantity and health of various species of fish and shellfish
> 
> Like all CCG vessels, the research vessels will also respond to search and rescue incidents when needed.
> 
> The science vessels will be equipped with state-of-the-art wet and dry laboratories for research into comparative species analysis and will carry acoustics to detect fish density.
> 
> They will be approximately 65 metres long and have a cruising speed of 14 knots. An approximate CCG crew of 12 will be on board with the possibility for 10 scientists.
> 
> The vessels will have the capacity to sail out over 200 nautical miles.



and 



> FISHERIES MINISTER ANNOUNCES DETAILS OF BUDGET FUNDING FOR
> CANADIAN COAST GUARD AND OCEANS ACTION PLAN
> 
> VANCOUVER â â€œ The Honourable Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, visited the Canadian Coast Guard Station Kitsilano today to give further details of the Coast Guard funding announced in last week's federal budget and what it will mean for the Pacific Coast.
> 
> â Å“The Canadian Coast Guard needs a modern and efficient fleet of vessels to be able to provide its valuable services to Canadians,â ? said Minister Regan. â Å“I am very pleased that the Canadian Coast Guard will be receiving $276 million over the next five years to acquire six new vessels. The current plan is to base three of those vessels â â€œ a science research trawler and two mid-shore fisheries patrol vessel â â€œ on the Pacific Coast.â ?
> 
> The Minister was joined at the announcement by David L. Emerson, Minister of Industry, and co-senior Minister for BC, and Senator Jack Austin.
> 
> â Å“The Coast Guard plays a vital role in the lives of British Columbians,â ? said Mr. Emerson. "I'm extremely pleased to see the federal budget has recognized this fact and allocated significant new funds to upgrade the fleet on the Pacific Coast.â ?
> 
> The Government of Canada announced in the Budget that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive $276 million over the next five years to begin the modernization of its fleet. Nationally, this will involve the acquisition of two fisheries-research vessels and four mid-shore fisheries patrol boats. Although plans could change based on shifting regional requirements, the current plan is to locate a science trawler and patrol vessel in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; a patrol vessel in Quebec City, and the three new vessels on the West Coast.
> 
> In addition to the $276 million for the six new vessels, the Coast Guard is also receiving funding for the acquisition and operation of four new mid-shore patrol vessels that will be used for security on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The vessels will be jointly operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This funding is part of the $222 million (on an accrual accounting basis over five years) allocated to federal security agencies to increase security on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River system and will provide the means for the federal security partners to work together more effectively on these waterways.
> 
> The new funding will benefit Canadians by allowing the Coast Guard to better carry out its mandate of saving lives, supporting marine security, protecting fisheries, enhancing maritime safety, facilitating marine commerce and protecting the marine environment. It also enables the Coast Guard to fulfill its commitment toward the government's Oceans Action Plan including at-sea fisheries research and enforcement activities.
> 
> Further details of the Oceans Action Plan were also discussed by Minister Regan at Kitsilano Base today. The Plan, which focuses on improving the management, health and productive capacity of Canada's oceans, will receive an investment of $28 million over the next two years.
> 
> â Å“Our aims are to develop Canada's ocean resources for the benefit of coastal communities while protecting the marine environment,â ? Minister Regan explained. â Å“We will work with Canadians to develop integrated management plans in all three oceans that touch Canada, protect fragile marine ecosystems and species by moving forward with a national network of marine protected areas, and carry out marine ecosystem science to make better ocean management decisions.â ?
> 
> The Oceans Action Plan today consists of targeted actions over two years while Canada completes a long-term oceans management agenda. It is consistent with directions to pursue sustainable development, integrated management, marine protected areas and marine ecosystem science set out in the Oceans Act and Canada's Oceans Strategy.
> 
> The Oceans Action Plan also responds to specific commitments made by Canada and the Province of British Columbia when they signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the implementation of Canada's Oceans Strategy in September 2004. The Government of Canada wishes to explore similar MOUs with other provinces and territories.



Looks like a total of 10 new vessels with 4 being joint RCMP/CCG manned. 



Mike


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm glad to hear the CCG is getting more vessels, but did the following sentence seem strange to anyone else?

_"They will be approximately 65 metres long and have a cruising speed of 14 knots. An approximate CCG crew of 12 will be on board with the possibility for 10 scientists.

The vessels will have the capacity to sail out over 200 nautical miles."_

I may not be a naval genius, but this sounds like a truly clueless paperpusher (most likely bilingual   ;D) talking out of their rear end, and no one catching it.   A vessel of that size and with that mission should have a range well beyond 2000 miles, should it not?



M.     ???


----------



## Cloud Cover

The specs for the PB's are different than what the CIO for the CCG stated. He also didn't say anything about ships for the RCMP, but such vessels make sense. I have a hard time believing a 40 metere ship will have space for only 14!!!


----------



## Tach9

I don't believe that the Coast Guard should have theability to be armed or carry guns. They should be for search anfd rescue and not prevent people from coming to our fishing grounds. how can we keep our reputation as a peace-loving country that welcomes all immigrants if we are stopping people at the boarders!

We should be expanding our helthcare rather than arming the coast guard, or the police.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ummmm hello...where does it say the CCG is going to be armed. Pay attention to whats being said.


----------



## mjohnston39

> may not be a naval genius, but this sounds like a truly clueless paperpusher (most likely bilingual  ) talking out of their rear end, and no one catching it.  A vessel of that size and with that mission should have a range well beyond 2000 miles, should it not?



Perhaps the 200nm range was in reference on how far out the ship will patrol, not its endurance

Mike


----------



## DJL

> The vessels will have the capacity *to sail out over 200 nautical miles*."
> 
> I may not be a naval genius, but this sounds like a truly clueless paperpusher (most likely bilingual  ) talking out of their rear end, and no one catching it.  A vessel of that size and with that mission should have a range well beyond 2000 miles, should it not?



The passage makes perfect sense, with 200 nm being the boundary of our exclusive economic zone, thus the author notes that the vessels will have the ability to operate outside of our EEZ.


----------



## STONEY

The press releases made by the GOV. after the budget were just political grandstanding by politicians wanting to be re-elected and really don't stand up under scrutiny of the whole document and reading between the lines. The press releases talk only about the positive and don't mention the negative.

The Coast Guard is in fact being cut back once again in order to help fund these new Vessels. They are cutting back on the number of helo's in the fleet by selling them off , each region will lose a helo. The remaining Helo flight hours are restricted to save money. The ice Recco plane has been cut to save money. On any given day over half of the coast guard vessels are tied alongside with no or skeleton crews onboard because the Coast Guard cannot afford to run them. Several ships have been tied up for litterly years. The ships that are operating are operating with bare minimum crews standing 1 in 2 watches for 28 day cycle. For example the 83 meter 4000 ton medium icebreaker/buoy tender/sar cutter only carry 28 men counting cooks & stewarts so at any given time half of the crew is off sleeping while the other half , 10 or so are running the ship. The crew is changed every 28 days to rest them. 
Two of the new vessels will be fisheries research vessels,  they are essentially fishing trawlers being aquired to replace two old vessels that are in bad condition & maintenance nightmares.  Their operation is funded by research grants and hence the Coast Guard can afford to run them.  Four of the new patrol vessels are for patroling the US border in the great lakes & seaway so operational funding will come from RCMP, Customs & border security agencies.  The other 4 patrol boats are for fisheries enforcement and are meant for near shore coastal patrols only and are replacing old obselete cutters that only sail when there fuel budget allows. As for Coast Guard vessels being armed , remember that Fisheries Enforcement officers are peace officers and are trained at RCMP Depot in Regina and carry sidearms and are carried by CG vessels when on fisheries enforcement ops & the larger vessels have machine guns for their use. For any other enforcement ops RCMP are carried and do any boardings. CG ship crews are all civilan and are not armed. The CG has in the last few years has closed & sold many lighthouses and laid off the people who used to man them, the ones that remain are unmanned and when they malfunction are not repaired until a complaint is received . The CG is divesting itself of half of all its aids to navigation to private contractors , supposedly to save money. Some defective buoys and nav aids go months before repair due to vessel or spare parts shortages. Meanwhile headquarters with their swollen staff seems to be able to fly around the country on expence accounts holding meetings on how to save money by cutting at the sharp end. So you see the CF aren"t the only one's that have suffered cutbacks and they are still ongoing, as they have just announced more layoffs.

Cheers


----------



## Spartan

I'm just wondering if it would be better to have the Coast Guard  as a unit of the RCMP? the CF? DND? Would this complicate matters further? I, having very limited knowledge on the operations of the CG, I was just thinking that the variety of things that the coast guard does can fit under these other mandates like the RCMP, the CF or DND.


----------



## STONEY

The Coast Guard is already an amalgamation of several other government fleets. The Dept. of Transport ice breaking fleet, Marine Aids to Navigation fleet,Search &Rescue cutter fleet,  RCMP marine division fleet, Canadian Hydrographic Service fleet, Dept. of Fisheries research fleet and dept. of fisheries enforcement fleet . These services all cost money and it has been gov. policy to make services user pay or unload them to private sector just as they have unloaded the country's airports and harbours & ports. The trouble is that not all services can be made to make a profit so they will fade into oblivion like many small airports & harbours.


----------



## newfin

Just found this this morning.  There is some updated info on the specs of the ships and photos of some of the ones that the CCG considers suitable to meet their requirements.  It looks like the RFP is to be sent to the shipyards this month.  Total requirement is for 8 hulls.  This Powerpoint also names the vessels that will be replaced.



http://www.uscg.mil/d9/wwm/marinesafety/blomshield/MSPV.ppt


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A single point davit system for launch RIB's!!! 

I sure hope they arent' talking about a HIAB system. We used to launch our tiny Avon Searider that way. It was truely dangerous in any sort of sea state, even with lines securing it. Trying to launch a 733 that way is going to get someone killed! Always fun with the cutter rolling 15% to come alongside in the RIB and have the steel boom from the HIAB trying to spear you!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Post moved to this topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57488.0.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is what the Liberal Fisheries minister said early in March, 2005
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/p-releas/2005/nr009_e.htm



> The Government of Canada announced in the [2005] Budget that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive $276 million over the next five years to begin the modernization of its fleet. Nationally, this will involve the acquisition of two fisheries-research vessels and four mid-shore fisheries patrol boats...



This is what is in yesterday's 2007 federal budget:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/papemhe.html



> $324 million over 10 years to the Canadian Coast Guard for six new large vessels to support its role in fisheries science and enforcement...



So the same number of vessels over *ten years rather than five*.  And hardly "large".  At this rate the CCG is just going to go down the tube.

See this topic for the aging vessels:

Fraser slams Coast Guard in newest AG report
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57488/post-527793.html#msg527793

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

I sent Loyola Hearn, the Minister, an e-mail asking him to clarify if this announcement was for new money.  It is very hard to find any news on the internet regarding the older Coast Guard prject for 10 ships but I think I read recently that the contract would be awarded this spring.  If anyone has any more accurate info it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Happydiver

STONEY's info is right on the nose.  The way things work in the CCG is when you add something to one side, you take away from the other so that your budget always balances out.  To the public you look like you're moving ahead and modernizing but in reality you're taking services away elsewhere.  In some cases like the contracting out of servicing navigational aids and extending the service cycle out to 4 instead of 3 years this can be warranted due to better technology and better use of allocation of monies.  But in most cases, if the public doesn't scream for services, they'll lose what they've got.  That's how I got a job as a Rescue Diver with the CG while the rest of the Pacific fleet was left to rot.

The problems with the CG start from the 'yes' men from the commissioner on down.  A couple years back, we had a commissioner who said the CG was in a deplorable state and needed extra cash and couldn't stay on budget.  PM Martin lopped his head off and put someone in who wouldn't raise waves.  Everyone took notice and learned how to duck and cover.

This leads me to the idiocy of these joint crewed patrol vessels.  Taking CG personnel and pairing them up with RCMP makes no sense.  CG is civilian and unionized.  The two groups have no common backgrounds and the CG has a very poor record of wanting to harmonize with other government agencies.  They're too worried about what happens if something breaks or heaven forbid if someone gets hurt.  I've aided police forces and customs and in general they're all geared up for 'bear' and I'm standing up as coxswain in a bright red jacket as we come alongside a vessel to be boarded.  The CG personnel will be demanding adequate training and compensation which will probably never appear.  I worked as a CG rescue diver for four years and we're still in the process of settling an adequate compensation allowance.  Currently for my expertise and for risking my life, I receive an extra $1.40/day.  As for ongoing training, if we're lucky and are given the time to go, the CG puts on a 5 day drinkfest called Training Week once a year where the same courses like 'Chainsaw Safety' are given again and again.

The vessels themselves are needed.  The state of our security over the waters out in the Pacific is deplorable.  The CG does infrequent patrols and it's not our job anyways because we can't do anything other than call for help.  The Navy isn't around much.  The RCMP has a few vessels but they've got a lot of area to cover.  Fisheries officers just check for fishing licences.  The Vancouver area is just now trying to put together waterborne ERT teams and an effective waterborne Customs team.  The best security assest we've got out here is the marine radar used for traffic services.


----------



## newfin

Okay - here's a good piece of news.  Those ships that were so quietly announced in Budget 2007 are for new vessels to be purchased with new money.  There was a fear that this announcement was a re-announcement of old money spread out over 10 years instead of five.  I e-mailed DFO and here is the reply I recieved today:

-----Original Message-----
From: Daley, Cindy 
Sent: March 27, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Sue, Brenda; Peck, Steve
Subject: RE: clarification please on vessels for Coast Guard

Budget 2007 annouced new funding in the amount of $324M over the next 10
years to acquire 4 additional Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels (MSPV)(these are
in addition to the 8 approved in Budget 2005),1 additional Offshore
Fishery Science Vessel (OFSV) to replace the CCGS Teleost and 1 new
Offshore Oceanographic Research Vessel to replace the CCGS Hudson.
Budget 2007 is additional to the Fleet Renewal which commenced in 2005.
Hope this addresses your concern.
Cindy   




...and that is from Cindy Daley in the DFO (not sure of here position, the e-mail did not say).  The e-mail address that it was sent from is:  Sue, Brenda [sueb@DFO-MPO.GC.CA]


Good info - it means that the CCG is getting some more money for a total of 14 new ships.


----------



## MarkOttawa

newfin: This was the 2005 announcement:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/p-releas/2005/nr009_e.htm



> The Government of Canada announced in the Budget that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive $276 million over the next five years to begin the modernization of its fleet. Nationally, this will involve the acquisition of two fisheries-research vessels and four mid-shore fisheries patrol boats. Although plans could change based on shifting regional requirements, the current plan is to locate a science trawler and patrol vessel in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; a patrol vessel in Quebec City, and the three new vessels on the West Coast.
> In addition to the $276 million for the six new vessels, the Coast Guard is also receiving funding for the acquisition and operation of four new mid-shore patrol vessels that will be used for security on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The vessels will be jointly operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This funding is part of the $222 million (on an accrual accounting basis over five years) allocated to federal security agencies to increase security on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River system and will provide the means for the federal security partners to work together more effectively on these waterways.



The "mid-shore patrol vessels" for the St. Lawrence will clearly be different vessels from those to operate on the seas.  Only four of the latter were in the 2005 budget.

So one assumes the new money is for four sea-going MSPVs, to make a total of eight.   It seems to me dishonest to claim a total of total of twelve when four are very different (and not "large") fresh-water boats.

Spin, spin, spin.  Even four more sea-going vessels will be good but, put another way, four more MSPVs *over ten years* is not a great deal.  And meanwhile the other large vessels rust away.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Any thoughts on this?

Coastal defence a toothless 'hoax,' Senate report says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070328.warctic0328/BNStory/National/home



> Instead of the navy's being tied to Arctic patrol duties, the Coast Guard should be elevated to a national security agency that reports to Parliament and can enforce security both in the Arctic and along the rest of Canada's “woefully undermanned” 243,000-kilometre coastline, the committee says...
> 
> Instead of the navy's being tied to Arctic patrol duties, the Coast Guard should be elevated to a national security agency that reports to Parliament and can enforce security both in the Arctic and along the rest of Canada's “woefully undermanned” 243,000-kilometre coastline, the committee says...
> 
> Frigates are too big and costly for littoral patrols, while coastal patrol vessels have poor sea-keeping capabilities and are too slow and crews become seasick when the vessels are stationed off the Grand Banks for more than a few hours.
> 
> “Essentially, these are training vessels. They are not up to protecting Canada's coasts,” the 124-page report says.
> 
> The committee calls on the government to buy three year-round icebreakers [yes], to be managed by an armed Canadian Coast Guard with policing powers [no].
> 
> The report also recommends:
> 
> • The beefed-up Coast Guard be allocated eight new high-endurance, ice-tolerant cutters [for the West Coast?] for the East and West Coasts that can operate in high seas and maintain pursuit speeds...



One wonders if the eight MSPVs will meet the committee's wishes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

Mark - if you refer to the link I provided above on Feb 10th you will see that the oceangoing MSPV's and the Great Lakes going C&P vessels are one in the same design.  The Power Point presentation clearly states this.  The email I have included states that the new funding is for four _additional_ mid-shore patrol vessels.  That makes a total of 12 MSPV's.  From all of the published documentation from the government on this subject everything indicates that they are all to be of the exact same design. Also included in that Power point are photos of examples of acceptable, existing designs.  These ships are clearly designed to operate in the ocean environment.  ...And I made an addition error in my most recent post.  If we add up all of these announcements the total funding as it has been announced (and God knows that these plans are likely to change) covers a total of 16 hulls (12 MSPV's and 4 other ships).  If the CCG is really going to go on a building spree like that over the next 10 years and the JSS and FELEX programs for the Navy will be getting underway in the next few years then we all have to wonder if the Canadian ship building industry will be able to cope with so much business.  And I have not even included any of the SCSC future project or the Arctic patrol vessels or any replacement ice breakers for the Coast Guard.  I know that the new owners (not sure if they have taken control yet in light of the recent fatality) of Port Weller Dry Docks publicly mentioned in our local paper that they were hoping to get a piece of the Mid-Shore Patrol Vessel Project for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Looks like the domestic ship building industry is about to go on another one of their boom cycles courtesy of the Government of Canada.


----------



## Happydiver

In regards to Mark from Ottawa's quote about arming the Coast Guard, it ain't going to happen anytime soon due mostly to budgetary constraints in regards to the prohibitive cost of training.  We had a visit about a year ago from the Commissioner of the CG, John Adams and he went through why the CG won't be getting guns.  First you need a relatively (for the CG) massive initial outlay for the weapons and initial training.  Next you have to spend huge amounts of money on recurrent training so that you don't end up with a bunch of cases of friendly fire.  Unlike the military, the CG will never have the money to adequately fund the training budget required to safely be issued weapons.  Hence, these new patrol vessels will be joint manned by CG and RCMP.

On top of that, the general culture of the CG is one of being pacifist.  Most of the current ship board personnel don't want weapons and prefer to be thought of as the good guys, not the cops.  Out here on the West coast, I would say half of them are pot heads and most are hard drinkers.  They are not the type of people that should be given weapons.  Then on top of that you've got the union issues that would chronically pop up due to the fact that you've got people armed and specially trained and not adequately compensated for their special status.

The CG will be totally happy with it's role as buoy tenders, ice breakers, pollution response and SAR.  The current leadership has no desire to try to think out of the particular box they've built for themselves.

In my opinion, if you want to guard our coasts the best agencies available are the Navy and the RCMP.  With the RCMP, you've got the problem of too few personnel with sea going experience.  With the Navy, you might have certain legal issues that might be better suited to Customs or the police.  In the meanwhile, it would be pretty easy to sneak into Canadian waters.  I think it was only recently that the radar holes to the north of Vancouver Island were closed up but I'm not sure of that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Happy diver is spot on regarding the attitudes about being armed and the Comminsior is also against it. However events will likely force the change on to them slowly but surely. The training programs exist and could be implemented if required. DFO has armed C&P Officers and also their Non-enforcement types carry shotguns for bear defense. In this regard, DFO is actually further ahead in mindset and ability then CCG. It wasn't so long ago that DFO had armed vessels.


----------



## Kirkhill

Could the DFO be reconstituted and enhanced as an armed enforcement branch of the Coast Guard operating their own vessels, carrying Mounties or just being given all the same powers as Mounties?

I note that most, if not all, Coast Guard vessels up until this latest group of announcements were limited to a speed of about 15 knots, although the same hull forms in other fleets move faster. Was this to ensure that the vessels couldn't catch anything and thus would be useless for enforcement duties?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt it as the CCG and DFO are moving away from each other as much as possible. I also don’t think it’s a “plot” to prevent the CCG by designing slower ships. The traditional hull forms are cheaper to build run and maintain, plus they carry more and last longer. Getting more than 15 kts means Lots more HP, longer skinny hulls with poor slow speed maneuvering and lightly built. There not great for having a landing barges and navigation buoys banging against them, or going aground. (CCG ships have to get in close to pull/replace buoys so they do go aground on occasion) 
Also high speed vessels are generally hard on their crews and can be down right nasty in a beam sea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Case in point

http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/123.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Colin. Thanks.  

I was thinking primarily of the Crowley (single data point extrapolation  : ) and the fact that Kvaerner built similar vessels for other Coast Guards that operate at higher speeds.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Newfin:  Thanks for the correction; seems to me that the MSPVs would be rather big for the St. Lawence/Lakes but...

Nice point about shipyards.  Any government will make sure they are built in Canada for political reasons, and one wonders what extra costs and time that might entail.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Neill McKay

Happydiver said:
			
		

> On top of that, the general culture of the CG is one of being pacifist.  Most of the current ship board personnel don't want weapons and prefer to be thought of as the good guys, not the cops.



My feeling is that you think this is somehow bad, but the truth is that the Coast Guard is essentially a marine safety agency, not a security agency.  I would no more expect coast guard members to be interested in carrying weapons than I would expect it of firefighters -- and in fact most of the same arguments could apply.  People who want to enforce the law join the RCMP or other such agencies; people who want to keep the waterways safe join the coast guard.  They're not necessarily the same kinds of people.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> My feeling is that you think this is somehow bad, but the truth is that the Coast Guard is essentially a marine safety agency, not a security agency.  I would no more expect coast guard members to be interested in carrying weapons than I would expect it of firefighters -- and in fact most of the same arguments could apply.  People who want to enforce the law join the RCMP or other such agencies; people who want to keep the waterways safe join the coast guard.  They're not necessarily the same kinds of people.



I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets.  


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets.
> Matthew.



How is the CCG redundant? What other government agency provides pollution control, buoy tenders, navigational aids? I know the Navy does not.  We just must accept the fact that arming the CCG might not be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians and instead increase funding to the RCMP and the navy.


----------



## NCS_Eng

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I'm going to agree with Ex-Dragoon here and say that in no way are the CCG and the Navy redundant. As Ex-Dragoon has already outlined the responsibilities that the CG holds and the Navy does not, I would like to diverge a bit and add that in my opinion as a naval officer I would support arming/granting constabulary powers to the CG in some degree. I know when I sailed with the CG some time ago they were very keen on the opportunity to get into more of a security related role. I'm not talking about welding quad-pack Harpoons to the decks here... But giving the coast guard the tools to do maritime surveillance and interdiction would help a lot in Canada's coastal defences.

Having a large, armed frigate patrolling your interior waterways and coastlines performing SOV- and FISHPATs have always been, in my mind anyway, a waste of resources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don’t think that making the CCG a armed service as their primary task is useful. However I also think that it is wasteful not to start arming some of the larger vessels that operate in remote areas and are the only representatives of the Crown in the area. These vessels are helicopter capable and can have a RCMP/military boarding party attached to them fairly quickly. They should be properly equip to support these operations and the level of training to operate a couple of 50cals or even the 25mm is well within their abilities.
Boarding parties however are a different story.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> How is the CCG redundant? What other government agency provides pollution control, buoy tenders, navigational aids? I know the Navy does not.  We just must accept the fact that arming the CCG might not be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians and instead increase funding to the RCMP and the navy.



The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.

The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.

Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.

Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.
> 
> The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.
> 
> Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.
> 
> Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Which all could be accomplished by giving the Navy the resources(manpower, ships, training, doctrine, funds etc) to do that job.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: Quite.  Or giving the CCG the vessels, with necessary armarment, to carry RCMP or CF personnel, to the area in question.  And that is essentially an intelligence question.  I have never heard of a CCG vessel, by chance, coming across a bad guy and being unable to cope.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Neill McKay

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.
> 
> The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.
> 
> Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.
> 
> Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.



It's interesting to note that the CCG itself is the consolidation of essentially all of the federal government's civilian fleets.  There was a separate, armed, fisheries partol fleet until it was folded into the CCG in the 1990s.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Which all could be accomplished by giving the Navy the resources(manpower, ships, training, doctrine, funds etc) to do that job.



First, I disagree because I don't think the Navy can be everywhere, and second because if you do that, you're still creating a set of duplicate assets in every waterway/airway just because the existing force has objections about being armed.

The best analogy I can give you from my perspective is police vs armed forces in Britain....

If you have unarmed police all over Britain and you suddenly realize you have a growing terrorism threat in the urban areas where they are already deployed and increased crime to boot, what do you do?

Do you pay the military to create numerous urban units with new garrisons in every urban centre who are the only guys who carry guns and come running from whereever their distant posts are if there's a crisis (by which time it is likely too late to intervene effectively)?

Or do you tell your police that although they have hesitations about carrying firearms that they're strategically where the remote but deadly threat exists and they're going to need to be armed in their role as a civil servant to provide protection to the citizenry?


Matthew.   

P.S.   Job descriptions change all the time due to necessity.  I don't think anyone is entitled to "not to have to change" just because things were one way when they started their careers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt seeing how you brought up the aspect of security that is what I based my reply on. I agree the Navy cannot be everywhere at once, nor can every other organization. I will also maintain training a government organization for something they have no wish, no experience and no desire to do is not worth the hassle. Let them continue as they are and let the RCMP and the Navy do the security. We have the experience and desire to do so.

You start changing the job description too much as your advocate and you end up with mass walkouts not to mention strike actions. So who then does ice breaking, navaids, pollution control?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Cdn Blackshirt seeing how you brought up the aspect of security that is what I based my reply on. I agree the Navy cannot be everywhere at once, nor can every other organization. I will also maintain training a government organization for something they have no wish, no experience and no desire to do is not worth the hassle. Let them continue as they are and let the RCMP and the Navy do the security. We have the experience and desire to do so.
> 
> You start changing the job description too much as your advocate and you end up with mass walkouts not to mention strike actions. So who then does ice breaking, navaids, pollution control?



Based on your description of the CCG culture, I would propose the following solution:
IF the CCG decide they are unwilling to carry out armed security roles, and if we as a nation decide we need to re-task our maritime assets with a security role, then perhaps the solution is to re-flag both the vessels discussed in this thread as well as the larger ice breakers to the Navy (as well as take over the CCG budget for operations).

The Navy will be responsible of overall command of the vessel at all times.

The supplementary crew (and communications systems and bridge configuration) would be determined by the size of the vessel and its new role.  

For most vessels, I would include a Coast Guard detachment, an R.C.M.P. detachment and a Department of Fisheries detachment.  The Coast Guard crew would be specialists in their areas of expertise (navaids, ice breaking, pollution control), the Department of Fisheries would be specialists in their areas of expertise (counting fish stocks or whatever it is that they do).  A smaller group of R.C.M.P. officers also reporting to the Navy Captain would provide the law enforcement capability.  On smaller vessels they would be trained for boarding while on larger vessels you would carry a proper Navy boarding team.


Matthew.


----------



## Dale Denton

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Based on your description of the CCG culture, I would propose the following solution:
> IF the CCG decide they are unwilling to carry out armed security roles, and if we as a nation decide we need to re-task our maritime assets with a security role, then perhaps the solution is to re-flag both the vessels discussed in this thread as well as the larger ice breakers to the Navy (as well as take over the CCG budget for operations).
> 
> The Navy will be responsible of overall command of the vessel at all times.
> 
> The supplementary crew (and communications systems and bridge configuration) would be determined by the size of the vessel and its new role.
> 
> For most vessels, I would include a Coast Guard detachment, an R.C.M.P. detachment and a Department of Fisheries detachment.  The Coast Guard crew would be specialists in their areas of expertise (navaids, ice breaking, pollution control), the Department of Fisheries would be specialists in their areas of expertise (counting fish stocks or whatever it is that they do).  A smaller group of R.C.M.P. officers also reporting to the Navy Captain would provide the law enforcement capability.  On smaller vessels they would be trained for boarding while on larger vessels you would carry a proper Navy boarding team.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I completely agree with that solution. Being that I dont have any military, CCG or any other expertise on the subject, I still agree with this solution. Howcome this hasn't been implemented? What is wrong with this solution and howcome it hasn't come about (assuming it has been thought of by someone of importance in those fields).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't forget the present crop of senior mangers "grew up" under the Liberal leadership, so they are not interested in being armed mainly from a idealogical perspective. With a new majority government issuing new marching orders, you would see a turnover of senior staff and the willingness to adapt would also change. Much of the old CCG is getting ready to retire and a many of the newer staff will be more flexiable. Best to start with the smaller steps and start the change slowly so people can adapt better and intergrate the new tasks.


----------



## Neill McKay

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The best analogy I can give you from my perspective is police vs armed forces in Britain....
> 
> If you have unarmed police all over Britain and you suddenly realize you have a growing terrorism threat in the urban areas where they are already deployed and increased crime to boot, what do you do?



Let me take that and make a slightly closer analogy: same story, but instead of the police it's the fire department.  There are, after all, fire halls all over the place, and firefighters have vehicles with sirens and lights and the ability to move around quickly, they wear uniforms with stripes on their shoulders, and so on...

But security isn't on the radar for firefighters.  Their job is to put out fires, rescue people, and pull the occasional cat out of a tree.  That's what they're trained for, that's what they wanted to do when they applied to work in the fire dept., that's what their equipment is designed for, and their organization (in the fire hall and as a whole department) is set up to do.  Asking them to start doing security work just because they're around the area doesn't makse sense.

I would dare say that coast guard members have a lot more in common with firefighters than they do with cops.


----------



## Kirkhill

Problem with the fire fighter analogy is that they are a reactive force that operates from fixed bases in close proximity to their targets.  They don't deploy for weeks at a time, patrolling the streets looking for fires while waiting for someone to ring them up.

By operating as a separate service then you are requiring the government to supply two separate platforms (and crews) to patrol the same zone - or more if the platforms are divided amongst organizations with clearly defined areas of responsibility - back to needing a Coast Guard tender, an RCMP and DFO launch and a Navy vessel to cover all the threats in all patrol zones.

Doable but pricey.


----------



## Neill McKay

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Problem with the fire fighter analogy is that they are a reactive force that operates from fixed bases in close proximity to their targets.  They don't deploy for weeks at a time, patrolling the streets looking for fires while waiting for someone to ring them up.



I'm not sure that that's relevant to the analogy though.  But it's not a big deal.



> By operating as a separate service then you are requiring the government to supply two separate platforms (and crews) to patrol the same zone



The platforms are about as similar (back to my analogy again) as a fire truck and a police car.  The fire truck is slower and carries a certain type of specialized equipment -- just like a CG ship.  A warship is faster with a very different set of kit, like a police car.  A ship that's good at breaking ice and handling buoys is a very different thing from a ship that's good at chasing terrorists, smugglers, and such.


----------



## Blackadder1916

One of the difficulties (IMO) in reaching a consensus on the organization and structure of a Canadian Coast Guard is the proximity of perhaps the best known  (to Canadians anyway) coast guard, the United States Coast Guard (USCG).  Perhaps a lot of the proposals for organizing and equipping the CCG are coloured by a comparison between the two agencies.  Let's face it, the navies of a lot of other countries' (and maybe Canada should be included) are more comparable to the US Coast Guard in term of role, size and equipment rather than the USN. The USCG enables the US Navy to concentrate on its main mission —power projection — while the Coast Guard manages maritime security, port security, and coastal patrols.  

As well in some countries, functions such as the maintenance of seaways and seamarks, and search and rescue are not only done by a civilian agency of government but are also contracted to private civilian organizations.  

The sense I get from reading this thread is that many are urging a restructure of the CCG so that a greater emphasis is placed on the security and coastal patrol roles because they have ships that could be used to augment the Canadian Navy.  The question that should then be asked is, if there was an increase in the security role using these vessels, what would be the degradation of their other missions.

Do we need the functions currently performed by the CCG to continue? Yes.  Can they be done by other organizations?  Yes.  Can they be done better by other organizations?  Perhaps not.  By lumping diverse, unrelated functions under a command that traditionally was not responsible for those tasks, you are more likely to end up with a lot of things done in a mediocre manner.


----------



## Neill McKay

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> One of the difficulties (IMO) in reaching a consensus on the organization and structure of a Canadian Coast Guard is the proximity of perhaps the best known  (to Canadians anyway) coast guard, the United States Coast Guard (USCG).  Perhaps a lot of the proposals for organizing and equipping the CCG are coloured by a comparison between the two agencies.



Absolutely.

One person has described the USCG as the eighth-largest navy in the world, and (assuming the 8 is correct) that's not a bad comparison.  The USCG is, among other things, the domestic navy while the USN is the overseas navy.  The USCG also does other things not done by the CCG (licensing of mariners, ship safety functions, and others).  In Canada those are done by Transport Canada.



> Let's face it, the navies of a lot of other countries' (and maybe Canada should be included) are more comparable to the US Coast Guard in term of role, size and equipment rather than the USN.



I don't think that's quite right.  A better statement might be that the Canadian navy combines the overseas functions of the USN with the domestic military functions of the USCG.  But it has none of the other "coast guard" roles that the USCG has.



> By lumping diverse, unrelated functions under a command that traditionally was not responsible for those tasks, you are more likely to end up with a lot of things done in a mediocre manner.



That makes sense, and (ironically, perhaps) I've heard a similar comment made about the merging of the CCG and fisheries patrol fleets!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There has been much talk of using contractors to carry out many of the CCG's traditional tasks such as buoy tending and at the same time the number of fixed and floating aids has been slashed as well as the number of ships. Many of the lightstations have been reduced or automated, a trend that will continue. The CCG may end up having to look for new roles for it's large ships to stay viable.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I don't think that's quite right.  A better statement might be that the Canadian navy combines the overseas functions of the USN with the domestic military functions of the USCG.  But it has none of the other "coast guard" roles that the USCG has.



Aware of that, but my comment of "maybe including Canada" was meant to suggest that perhaps the Canadian Navy should beef up it's domestic military/security abilities first before looking to "project power".  Does this mean that the CCG (vessels and missions) should be absorbed by the CF?  No, because unless adequate funding for all the functions  that the government assigns to all its agencies is there you could have the hypothetical situation of a "Canadian Navy icebreaker" suddenly not putting to sea because the admirals in Halifax say they couldn't afford fuel.


----------



## Neill McKay

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> unless adequate funding for all the functions  that the government assigns to all its agencies is there you could have the hypothetical situation of a "Canadian Navy icebreaker" suddenly not putting to sea because the admirals in Halifax say they couldn't afford fuel.



Quite right (and sounds a bit familiar).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Let me take that and make a slightly closer analogy: same story, but instead of the police it's the fire department.  There are, after all, fire halls all over the place, and firefighters have vehicles with sirens and lights and the ability to move around quickly, they wear uniforms with stripes on their shoulders, and so on...
> 
> But security isn't on the radar for firefighters.  Their job is to put out fires, rescue people, and pull the occasional cat out of a tree.  That's what they're trained for, that's what they wanted to do when they applied to work in the fire dept., that's what their equipment is designed for, and their organization (in the fire hall and as a whole department) is set up to do.  Asking them to start doing security work just because they're around the area doesn't makse sense.
> 
> I would dare say that coast guard members have a lot more in common with firefighters than they do with cops.



Okay, I'll try to use your firefighter analogy.

40 years ago, they fought fires and that was it.....they were specialists in that field only.  But at some point someone figured out that if they could provide First-Responder Emergency Medical Services that we'd save lives.....and so we forced them to change, to add a new skillset.  

Now are they the capable of handling a multi-vehicle pile-up by themselves?  No.  When a higher-level emergency occurs, the specialist agency intervenes directly (Ambulance and Healthcare Networks).  But their ability to provide basic levels of emergency medical makes them exponentially much more useful.

To apply the CCG isolation model you propose to Firefighters would have Firefighters driving by car accidents and other obvious emergencies because "It ain't a fire.....and so we don't touch it."


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

With car accidents there always tends to be a risk of fire with fuel spills etc....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> With car accidents there always tends to be a risk of fire with fuel spills etc....



.....and so you would have the firefighters stand with firehoses extended (pun totally intended  ;D) ready to address a potential fire issue, but ignore medical treatment until the specialist ambulance arrives (which when applied back to the Navy could be 12+ hours).



Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have had my friend (he had night shift, I had day) sitting on a overturned fishing boat listening to 6 people (including children) pounding on the hull for help, with no way to help them, he finally got some diving gear and with the arrival of the SAR techs was able to extract the people. Unfortunately by this time they had succumbed to the diesel fumes and none survived. 

So sitting around awaiting someone else has happened to us far to frequently.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thats not what I said matthew and you know it....

Anyways....I am not going to comment further on this issue as I have made the same argument for well over 3 years, my recap is I am doubtful you will ever see the CCG change to an arm force and I am not sure why they would need to asume that duty as we do it already. It would be like the Navy assuming the CCG roles, nice to think we could but impractical. Keep the expertise with the CCG.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: Exactly.  About 99% of what the CCG does is not related to security or law enforcement.   How many navy or police would like to do that work almost all the time?   Readers should look at the CCG website:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/main_e.htm

CCG vessels (as often stated on topics here) are used as platforms for police when needed.   If faster, more capable vessels are needed for this role, then build them--but let police taken on board to do the enforcement work necessary.  If "security" in the serious, military sense, is involved, that is the Navy's job.

As for sovereignty, in the Arctic or anywhere, all that is needed is the presence of government vessels.  Military ships are irrelevant unless we want to start shooting at people such as Americans, Brits, Russians or French.  Armed fishery officers on CCG vessels are quite capable of shooting at other threats.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm#THE%20CONDITIONS%20OF%20EMPLOYMENT

In this case Senator Kenney's committee (which has been doing excellent work) has simply got it wrong.  Moreover, has anyone established that there is an identifiable and serious sea-borne security (non-naval) threat from the seas?

And note that for the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes vessels are to be built specifically to include RCMP personnel.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549930.html#msg549930
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-ccg-mid-shore-patrol-vessels.htm

Frankly, I'm still confused at to what the MSPV will be.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

The government has re-announced (this technique makes keeping track of things confusing) the new CCG vessels promised in the recent budget.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/papemhe.html

Ottawa spends $324M for 6 coast guard vessels
CBC News, April 12
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/04/12/coast-guard.html



> The federal government followed through on a major budget promise on Thursday [April 12], announcing it will spend $324 million to purchase six new vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.
> 
> The vessels, which will be phased into the existing coast guard fleet between 2009 and 2014 [the budget said they would be *acquired over ten years* - MC], will include four midshore patrol vessels, one offshore science vessel and one hovercraft [the budget promised "six new large vessels"--I don't see how a hovercraft qualifies - MC].
> 
> Three of the vessels are bound for British Columbia, two are destined for Nova Scotia and one will go to Quebec.
> 
> *All six will be built in Canada, which should boost the country's shipbuilding industry* [emphasis added], said Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn...
> 
> The government will also redeploy two of its icebreakers from the Maritimes to Newfoundland and Labrador over the next two years.
> 
> Including this latest $324-million announcement, the federal government has now spent $750 million on the coast guard since February 2006, purchasing a *total of 16 new vessels* [emphasis added]. Eleven are being bought to replace aging vessels, while five are entirely new...



The penultimate sentence above is rather disingenuous since 10 of the 16 vessels were a Liberal commitment--see below.

I think I now understand where the sixteen vessels (12 MSPVs) are coming from:

The Liberal government announced in 2005 that it would acquire 8 MSPVs (4 for the St. Lawrence/Lakes to be operated in conjunction with the RCMP, plus 2 research vessels: total 10
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/p-releas/2005/nr009_e.htm



> The Government of Canada announced in the Budget that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive $276 million over the next five years to begin the modernization of its fleet. Nationally, this will involve the acquisition of two fisheries-research vessels and four mid-shore fisheries patrol boats. Although plans could change based on shifting regional requirements, the current plan is to locate a science trawler and patrol vessel in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; a patrol vessel in Quebec City, and the three new vessels on the West Coast.
> 
> In addition to the $276 million for the six new vessels, the Coast Guard is also receiving funding for the acquisition and operation of four new mid-shore patrol vessels that will be used for security on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The vessels will be jointly operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This funding is part of the $222 million (on an accrual accounting basis over five years) allocated to federal security agencies to increase security on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River system and will provide the means for the federal security partners to work together more effectively on these waterways...



The Conservative government has added 4 MSPVs, 1 research vessel, and 1 hovercraft: total 6.

Overall total: 16.

Plus jobs and the expectation of votes.  Surely it would be faster and cheaper to buy the vessels abroad.

Newfin has already clarified much of this
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549767.html#msg549767
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549930.html#msg549930

but I just wanted to work it out for myself.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

Have a look at this link.  It is useful for clarifying how many of each type are to be built, where they will be stationed, what functions they are to perform and even which vessels are to be replaced.  The really good info can be found by following the four links under the heading "Fact Sheets"

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac16_e.htm

George


----------



## MarkOttawa

Newfin: Thanks, very helpful.

The CBC story I quoted
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/04/12/coast-guard.html

missed the third fishery science (research) vessel, since with the hovercraft the total number of acquisitions is 17, not 16 as CBC reported.  They simply did not report Minister Hearn's announcement accurately (surprise).
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2007/hq-ac15_e.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gunnz23

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The specs for the PB's are different than what the CIO for the CCG stated. He also didn't say anything about ships for the RCMP, but such vessels make sense. I have a hard time believing a 40 metere ship will have space for only 14!!!



The thing about space for only fourteen is because the rcmp are demanding that their officers all have single cabins , they want a fridge in each as well as a flat screen monitor with nav inputs from the bridge and for tv use and sink , each cabin will be separated by a single washroom/shower. The CCG officers will also have to have their own cabin if the rcmp do, so that is why they will have space for only 14. It also eats up space when every surface in the vessel must be panelled or covered with something to hide wiring /piping etc. THey could probably save 100million in total if they cut back on the carpeting,interior finishings /leather couches for the officers etc.


----------



## gunnz23

Tach9 said:
			
		

> I don't believe that the Coast Guard should have theability to be armed or carry guns. They should be for search anfd rescue and not prevent people from coming to our fishing grounds. how can we keep our reputation as a peace-loving country that welcomes all immigrants if we are stopping people at the boarders!
> 
> We should be expanding our helthcare rather than arming the coast guard, or the police.
> 
> It's not about stopping immgration, it's stopping illeagle overfishing in canadian waters by foreign fishing fleets that don't abide by canadian catch limits. And yes the coast guard ,as canada's federal on water presence 365 days a year in the great lakes and coastal regions should have law enforcement duties and be armed up to the task at hand.


----------



## gunnz23

STONEY said:
			
		

> The Coast Guard is already an amalgamation of several other government fleets. The Dept. of Transport ice breaking fleet, Marine Aids to Navigation fleet,Search &Rescue cutter fleet,  RCMP marine division fleet, Canadian Hydrographic Service fleet, Dept. of Fisheries research fleet and dept. of fisheries enforcement fleet . These services all cost money and it has been gov. policy to make services user pay or unload them to private sector just as they have unloaded the country's airports and harbours & ports. The trouble is that not all services can be made to make a profit so they will fade into oblivion like many small airports & harbours.


The Coast Guard is not an amalgamation of other fleets , at one time is was under control of Transport Canada , The fleet consists of ships dedicated to SAR , Aids to Nav work/ice breaking, when the merger with dfo happened science along with fishery patrols was added by changing the dfo fleet over to Coast Guard, Coast Guard has always done hydro graphic work for CHS and the CCG has nothing to do with the rcmp marine division they are there own unit, we are not amalgamated with them.


----------



## Neill McKay

gunnz23 said:
			
		

> The Coast Guard is not an amalgamation of other fleets , at one time is was under control of Transport Canada , The fleet consists of ships dedicated to SAR , Aids to Nav work/ice breaking, when the merger with dfo happened science along with fishery patrols was added by changing the dfo fleet over to Coast Guard, Coast Guard has always done hydro graphic work for CHS and the CCG has nothing to do with the rcmp marine division they are there own unit, we are not amalgamated with them.



If you go back farther (early- to mid-20th century) the Coast Guard was established out of other existing fleets.  More recently it was amalgamated with the DFO fleet when the CCG moved from Transport to Fisheries and Oceans.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There was the department of Marine transportation, it and most of the RCAF crashboats fleet were turned into the CCG in 1964.


----------



## gunnz23

I realize it was the dept of transport , before that the services that the coast guard now provide were provided by the dept of marine and fisheries. What I was trying to get across is that there was certain fleets that were listed that coast guard has never been part of to date.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A little history
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/usque-ad-mare/main_e.htm

When they combined the white, grey and red fleets, there was much gnashing of teeth, everyone suffered, although the level of crew training and personal equipment improved on the old Fisheries boats under the CCG fleet polices. I remember when we tied up alongside the Sinclair. My buddy who was decking on her showed us their cruiser suits and lifejacket, not much more than tattered rags, I told my Capt, who took a look and then he called the Marine Inspectors who ordered the ship tied to the dock until they replaced the gear. DFO treated their crews like dirt.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good grief!  The government can't even run a ship-building competition (shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act):
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=849097



> The delivery of new ships for the coast guard has been delayed by about nine months.
> 
> Ottawa announced in April plans to build new midshore patrol vessels that would be based in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.
> 
> "The midshore patrol vessel contract was cancelled, and that is for the acquisition of eight midshore patrol vessels," said Canadian Coast Guard spokesman Dan Bate.
> 
> "Public Works identified some issues that needed some clarification and those were strictly around the evaluation criteria in the contract."
> 
> The ships, which were supposed to be delivered in 2009, are now slated to arrive in 2010, he said.
> 
> The request for proposals closed in March, but none of the four bidders complied with the government’s mandatory requirements, Public Works spokeswoman Lucie Brosseau said in an e-mail.
> 
> "Review of the four proposals that were received showed that there was a common problem with bidders demonstrating compliance with the government’s mandatory requirements. This, in turn, would have resulted in all of the bids being declared non-compliant. (*In other words, we had not clearly articulated our mandatory requirements in our RFP* [emphasis added]). These are specialized vessels with unique requirements and they are not simple off-the-shelf purchases, both in terms of technical specifications and in terms of value of the purchase."
> 
> The federal government cancelled the existing procurement process July 13. An industry briefing will be held Aug. 2.
> 
> *"A new procurement process will be launched once an in-depth review of the request-for-proposal documents is completed,"* [emphasis added] Ms. Brosseau said. "It is anticipated that a contract will be awarded in early 2008."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

There is a short 2 minute piece on the CBC website stating that the government has included in the budget over $700 million to replace the CCGS Louis St. Laurent which is due to be decommisioned by 2017.  I find it amazing that in our times the government can decide to spend that kind of money and it barely recieved any attention.  I'm happy but surprised.

Also, has anyone heard any news if the Mid-shore patrol vessel project is ready for re-tendering?  September 11, 2001 was 6 and a half years ago and we still have not issued a contract to buy ships for the Coast Guard and RCMP to patrol the Great Lakes with.  God help us if we ever find ourselves in a full-scale war.


----------



## newfin

The last post by MarkOttawa was just over a year ago and at that time the government was saying that they would reissue the tender in 9 months.  I have looked on the Net and have not found anything.  Has anyone here heard any news on these 12 ships for the Coast Guard?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Newfin: This was the plan at the end of March, 2007:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/0708/fo-po/fo-po03-eng.asp#Major_Crown



> Major Milestones
> 
> Major Milestones 	Date
> Preliminary Project Approval (PPA) 	August 2005
> Price and Availability 	September 2005
> Letter of Interest to Pre-qualified Suppliers 	October 2005
> Effective Project Approval (EPA) 	June 2006
> Requisition from CCG 	June 2006
> Issue Request for Proposal 	November 2006
> Contract Award 	May 2007
> Commence Construction of First Vessel 	May 2007
> First Vessel Delivery 	August 2009
> Delivery of 4 Maritime Security Vessels and 4 Fleet Renewal Vessels 	May 2011



From the equivalent 2008-2009 document:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/dfo/dfo01-eng.asp#Table_1_4



> Despite some procurement process difficulties in 2007-2008, a new Request for Proposal was issued in December 2007 for the eight mid-shore patrol vessels approved in Budget 2006. The Coast Guard will finalize procurement strategies for the new vessels approved in Budget 2007 (four additional mid-shore patrol vessels, one offshore fisheries science vessel and one offshore oceanographic science vessel) and begin the procurement process in 2008-2009. The delivery of the first mid-shore patrol vessel is targeted for 2009-2010. Similarly, the first new offshore fisheries science vessel is expected to be delivered in 2011.



From the December 2007 RFP:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2006-2007/inst/dfo/dfo10-eng.asp



> Progress Report and Explanations of Variance: An RFP for MSPV detailed design and construction was issued 8 Nov 2006. Federal Budget 2007 approved funding for 4 additional vessels for C&P, for a total of 12 vessels. Proposals from Industry have been received and are under evaluation. Delays have been caused by the extended period required for evaluation due to clarifications required by the evaluation team.



At the same time the same page has under "Major Milestones":



> *Contract Award  	Oct 2007* [!!! emphasis added]
> Commence Construction of First Vessel 	April 2008
> First Vessel Delivery 	Oct 2009
> Delivery of 4 Maritime Security Vessels and 8 Fleet Renewal Vessels 	May 2011



Go figure, but things sure don't seem to be going anywhere fast.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gunnz23

I am pretty sure there has been no contract handed out to any yard yet as there has been some legal disputes on the past now cancelled tendering process. That legal stuff must be cleared before they can hand a contract to another yard. Yeah I'll believe 2010 when I see one sailing past.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Back to the drawing board:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/78466/post-747363.html#new

"[The Conservative government] has also cancelled a tender call for the purchase of 12 mid-shore patrol ships for the Coast Guard."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Mid-shore patrol vessels--fewer, less capable, more delivery slippage (usual copyright disclaimer):

To cut costs, coast guard considering fewer, slower ships
Tories scrapped original order for 12 ships when bids came in high
http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1078086.html



> The coast guard is considering buying 10 mid-shore patrol vessels instead of the dozen originally planned to reduce costs.
> 
> It’s also looking at a cost-cutting measure that would mean the ships get slower as they age.
> 
> "They are looking for ways to make the project more affordable," a source involved in the project said Wednesday.
> 
> "Have we asked for too much? Have we given the vessels too many bells and whistles?"
> 
> The Conservative government quietly scuttled a plan last month to build 12 mid-shore patrol vessels for the coast guard. Bids had been received for that program, but they exceeded the anticipated $340-million cost, according to Public Works.
> 
> Estimates from shipyards interested in building the vessels were between 30 and 40 per cent higher than that price, said the source.
> 
> "So you need a lot of savings."
> 
> The Tories are still promising the ships will be built, but now experts are looking at ways to shave money off the project.
> 
> One possibility would be to change the specifications for the propulsion systems, said the source.
> 
> The coast guard had asked the ships operate at their peak speed at 90 per cent power when they are new. Changing that to 100 per cent would mean the vessels would be cheaper to build. But they would also get heavier when more equipment is inevitably added, said the source. Without the extra power in reserve, that means the vessels would slow as they age.
> 
> "Each time you add weight, it slows the boat down," said the source.
> 
> Three companies, including Irving Shipbuilding, were interested in building the vessels.
> 
> Eight of the coast guard patrol vessels were announced in the federal 2006 budget and four were part of the 2007 budget. They were to be up to 43 metres in length and travel at speeds up to 46 km/h.
> 
> They were meant to provide criminal and fisheries enforcement, monitor and patrol the ocean and protect sovereignty.
> 
> They were to have a crew of eight to 10 and carry RCMP or Department of Fisheries and Oceans enforcement officers.
> 
> The first of the new ships were to go into service in 2009 and the remaining in regular intervals up to 2014.
> 
> Now it’s looking like if the project does go ahead, the first ship won’t be ready until 2011, said the source.
> 
> "You might get them in 2010, but there’s reality, too," said the source.
> 
> The coast guard offered no comment by late Wednesday on questions about the proposed changes...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin

Here are some links to follow regarding the awarding of this contract.  It looks like 12 ships became ten and eventually nine.  It does not say if the capabilities were reduced to stay within budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/coast-guard-to-be-beefed-up-with-nine-new-ships/article1274099/

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1140758.html



Here's the official news release

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?crtr.sj1D=&mthd=tp&crtr.mnthndVl=&nid=478909&crtr.dpt1D=&crtr.tp1D=1&crtr.lc1D=&crtr.yrStrtVl=&crtr.kw=&crtr.dyStrtVl=&crtr.aud1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=&crtr.yrndVl=&crtr.dyndVl=

And here's the backgrounder with a small photo

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2009/hq-ac36-eng.htm


----------



## canuck101

New vessels ordered for Canadian Coast Guard

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00032.html

September 3, 2009

New vessels ordered for Canadian Coast Guard
Canada has now placed the much anticipated contract for the Canadian Coast Guard's new mid-shore patrol vessels. 

Originally it was planned that this would be a 12 ship program. However Canadian government planners hit an obstacle familiar to their American counterparts--shipbuilders wanted more money for the ships than the government wanted to pay. 

A new draft RFP for the program was issued February 26 and comments were received from 9 companies. A revised RFP--still for 12 vessels--was issued on April 1. 

Yesterday, Canadian ministers announced that a C$194 million contract for nine new mid-shore patrol vessels has been awarded to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., based in Halifax, Nova Scotia. 

Preliminary work on the vessels is to begin immediately. The first vessel should be ready for service in 2011. All nine vessels will be delivered by 2013. 

Halifax Shipyard estimates up to 155 people will be employed by the project over the next four years. For the greater Halifax community this means an added $35 million in payroll. As well, the company estimated that approximately 50 local Nova Scotian suppliers will benefit from about $32 million in purchases of local goods and services. This is in addition to 130 estimated suppliers from the rest of Canada. 

The new mid-shore patrol vessels will replace existing vessels nearing the end of their life expectancies. Five of the vessels will be used primarily to support Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation and protection programs in the Maritimes, Quebec and Pacific Regions. 

The other four vessels will be used in a joint program with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enhance the maritime security along the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway system. 

Nova Scotia premier Darrell Dexter said yesterday that the province is providing Irving Shipbuilding a C$12.2 million performance guarantee through its Industrial Expansion Fund. He said the contract will provide 50 Nova Scotian suppliers with the opportunity to bid on goods and services totalling $32 million. 

Nova Scotia has a long history of working together with Irving Shipbuilding. All partnerships with Irving have been successful resulting in major economic benefits for Nova Scotia. 

Yesterday's various announcements were light on technical details, but the RFP's were for medium sized vessels of 37 Ð 43 m that can operate up to 120 nm offshore on a 24/7 watch-keeping basis for up to 14 days. The RFP's called for a top speed of at least 25 knots an carriage of two RHIB's. 

The RFP's called for a steel monohull based on an exist-ing proven parent design that has been used in the construction of vessels that have been in service for a minimum of two years and a minimum of 1,000 hours in-service operation. As this requirement concerns the procurement of goods to be used for the national security of Canada, a National Security Exception [NSE] has been invoked, and as such trade agreements do not apply. 

Although Canadian official sources have not said much about the parent design, and only released the tiny little graphic in the insert, two hawk eyed Marine Log readers recognized it as a Damen Stan Patrol 4207. Among agencies using it are the Albanian Coast Guard and the U.K. Border Agency (created in its present form in 2008). 

Four of the agency's five cutters are Stan Patrol 4207 vessels, built by Damen Shipyards in Holland, and commissioned at a rate of one a year, in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. At 42 m long and with a top speed of more than 26 knots, says the agency "this vessel boasts sophisticated surveillance and navigation equipment. It can accommodate up to 16 crew and can remain at sea for long periods in heavy weather conditions." 

Each of the U.K. cutters can deploy a 7.4 m RHIB. 


MOTOR LIFEBOATS, TOO 

No mystery as to the parentage of five 47 ft motor lifeboats that Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd. is to build for the Canadian Coastguard under a Canadian $19.6 million contract announced Monday. 

These vessels will be the latest additions to the existing fleet of 31 47-foot motor lifeboats, introduced to the Canadian Coast Guard in 1999 and later. The basic design was obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) following their extensive testing. The USCG design was modified to best fit the needs of the Canadian Coast Guard. 

Funding for the five new vessels is provided under Canada's Economic Action Plan. 

The new vessels will be used by the Canadian Coast Guard for Search and Rescue operations across the country. Two of the vessels will be based in British Columbia and one each in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.


----------



## kratz

This is being discussed already in the [ I've merged them- Bruce] forum. Keep in mind, the Canadian Coast Guard is not part of the Navy, they are a civilian government organization.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 47' are a great design, the US Coast Guard designed some very good small boats mainly as they took in a lot of input from their crews.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Some great looking designs on the Damen website.... 

www.demen.nl 

Apparently what we're looking at: 







Other very interesting looking options: [






















Matthew.


----------



## gcclarke

Of course, the problem with all the "more interesting" options you posted, is that they all come equipped with weapons, and thus our Coast Guard, not being a part of the military unlike many other nations, cannot use them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

gcclarke.  Vessels can be purchased without weapons installed.  RCMP and Fishery Officers will be armed when on board.

From Damen's news release:
http://www.damen.nl/News/Mid_Shore_Patrol_Vessel_contract_awarded_to_Irving_Shipbuilding_Inc_.aspx?mId=8565&rId=544



> On the 2nd of September 2009 it was officially announced that Irving Shipbuilding Inc got awarded a contract by the Ministry of Public Works and Government Services of Canada for the construction of a series of Stan Patrol 4207 for the Canadian Coast Guard. The contract envisions nine vessels with an option for another three [not mentioned in the government news release],
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/npress-communique/2009/hq-ac36-eng.htm
> of which the first vessel is to be delivered within 24 months after contract award. Irving Shipbuilding Inc contracted Damen for the basic design...



How odd that the material our government released never mentioned the foreign design.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let's hope they fit them with the hard points which would allow weapons to be fitted if required.


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> How odd that the material our government released never mentioned the foreign design.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Aye, and "Recently Damen has been awarded similar contracts, of which the most significant involve the design for the Coastal Patrol Boat and the Fast Response Cutter-B for the United States Coastguard, which are being built by Bollinger Shipyards. "


----------



## Newt

1st steel plate cut for new Coast Guard ships.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/09/02/ns-patrol-vessels-ceremony.html

Apologies for the necro post, but it made more sense than a new topic.


----------



## 57Chevy

Tories to consider arming Arctic-bound coast guard ships
article link

The Conservative government has revealed that it will consider arming the Canadian Coast Guard's icebreakers as a way to bolster Arctic sovereignty.

The commitment to study the option of placing guns on coast guard ships was the highlight of the government's tabled response this week to recommendations in a report from the Senate fisheries committee about strengthening Canada's presence in the North.

The government has also indicated that it will review new shipping regulations in the Northwest Passage and other Arctic waters with an eye to extending mandatory registration of foreign vessels — which currently applies only to large freighters and other heavy ships — to all foreign-ship traffic in the region, regardless of size.

Read more at link.

                   (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oh god Mike Byers and I are agreeing on something, ugh I feel like I have just been slimed.....


----------



## chrisf

57Chevy said:
			
		

> The Conservative government has revealed that it will consider arming the Canadian Coast Guard's icebreakers as a way to bolster Arctic sovereignty.



Hah! Good luck with that!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Arming the ships with a couple of .50cals is easy to do. Training the crews to use them is easy to do. Changing the attitudes of the Captains to place their vessels and crews at risk, hard to do.
Boarding parties would require a significant change in job descriptions, training, attitude, physical fitness and resources, along with the change in the Captains.


----------



## chrisf

It's not just the captains, if you said tommorow that the coast guard ships were now fighting ships, you would have a substantial turn over in crew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Back in the 90’s I would agree with you as we had lot’s of the old gang left at least out here on the left coast, many having started on the weather ships. Today I see a different type and with the DFO influence via the Fish Cops I think you would have less issues at the deck level than at the bridge level. Plus once they get to shoot the .50cal, they will want more.
 I guessimated that it would cost about $50,000 to arm a 1100 class buoy tender. 3 MG’s, (1 spare), spare parts, barrels, two mounts either side of ship, already partial protected, just add a plate of armour onto the existing steel, secure storage locker for guns and one for ammo and some protective clothing. Hardwired comms to both mounts from the bridge will be the hardest part.

Training could be provided by the Regular or Reserve navy, Initial training and subsequent annual requalification’s can all be done aboard ship in regular working hours, so training costs other than ammo are minimal.

Again the real issue is forcing the Captains to adjust their thinking.


----------



## chrisf

Mounting a .50 maybe, when they said "armed" I was thinking somthing more substantial, in a turrret at least. But a.50, maybe.

You'd still need major cultural changes in the organization though to make it a standard for all ships. 

The CCGS Cowley had two .50s mounted during the early 90. However, there was no real chance of anyone shooting back. Under similar cirumstances, you might be able to get away with arming the fleet.

But the coast guard is not a fighting force, they don't large enough crews to act as a fighting force, and the crews didn't sign up to fight. To turn the coast guard into even the slightest sort of fighting force, you'd have a long road ahead.

I guess it all comes down to needing a clear definition of what sort of force the coast guard would be expected to project.

As far as the actual fitting of guns, machine guns at least, not a problem. Deck space is always at a premium though, but a removable pedestal mount would work. Running comms, also not a problem, could easily be done through the ships telephone system, or even a direct line, quite easily.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: At least it wasn't St Steve Staples  ;D (who doubtless would howl at any more guns for anyone).  Could not any weapons--and some sort of smallish cannon would be required for a real sovereignty role I think--be manned crewed by Navy personnel (reserves?) on some sort of secondment with other useful duties?  Pity in a way we don't have marines in the old shipboard sense.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly if it was up to me the armament would be a RWS mounting a 35mm or 40mm in a self-contained turret, along with the 2 .50cals on each side. Not to mention test firing Hellfires, Javelins, etc from them

The same arguments being put forth are the same we heard when we introduced the concepts of Rescue Specialists onboard Coast Guard ships. Many of the Seniors Officers were horrified at the thought of “Deck Apes” treating pregnant woman or putting a Rescue swimmer into the water. But now I doubt a Captain would want to sail without at least one RS aboard. 
Crew turn over on the deck is fairly steady as they are not on contract. Working in the use of shipboard guns into the job description would prove to be interesting, but could also be taken over by a Fish cop, who only makes about $40-50,000 a year and could multi-task while onboard. 
I suggest the heavy MG’s because as Sig Ops rightly points out a culture shift must occur and a large weapon system will have no value at this point. Even if they armed the ships next season it will mostly be for propaganda and training purposes. On the bright side DFO won’t be using them to shoot Marine mammals like they used to. (DFO did plan on mounting a .50cal in Georgia Strait to get rid of the nuisance Killer Whales and used to ram them as well) 

Mark you are right, at least Byers knows a bit about the Arctic, nothing about the military. Byers is like wrestling with a pig in clean mud, Staples is like wrestling with a pig in a cesspool.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Mounting a .50 maybe, when they said "armed" I was thinking somthing more substantial, in a turrret at least. But a.50, maybe.
> 
> You'd still need major cultural changes in the organization though to make it a standard for all ships.



Besides the culture shock, wouldn't there be a legal problem as the Coast Guard is not a law enforcement agency or something like that??


----------



## Monsoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Colin P: At least it wasn't St Steve Staples  ;D (who doubtless would howl at any more guns for anyone).  Could not any weapons--and some sort of smallish cannon would be required for a real sovereignty role I think--be manned crewed by Navy personnel (reserves?) on some sort of secondment with other useful duties?  Pity in a way we don't have marines in the old shipboard sense.


I don't think the real difficulty would be in the operation of the weapons, but in training the organization to "do" use of force. Some degree of command and control is required, and the Coast Guard as a whole would need to be trained up on the employment of force in a domestic context.


----------



## chrisf

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Besides the culture shock, wouldn't there be a legal problem as the Coast Guard is not a law enforcement agency or something like that??



It's a government agency. Government says they get guns, they get guns.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Brilliant:



> ...Byers is like wrestling with a pig in clean mud, Staples is like wrestling with a pig in a cesspool.



But in the end both are porcine oinkers (I has a word starting with "wa" instead of "oi" in mind actually).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## canuck101

Well Could they not setup a detachment of R.C.M.P that could deploy on the coast guard ships when they leave for Northern duties. They have the authority to arrest and could be training to fire the weapons.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be cheaper to use Fish cops and perhaps 1-2 RCMP with the Fish cops backing them up and normal crew manning the MG's. This would be for normal inspections and not semi-hostile boardings.

They could create a new speciality from the standard crew for the gunners, just as they did for the Rescue Specialists and divers. Likely DED 3 perhaps with a small bonus, similar to dive pay. You are looking at 2 gunners, 2 loaders and 2 gun commanders and perhaps another loader. The gunner and loaders would be from Deck crew, the engine room or support staff. The commanders could be 4th and 3rd Officer or even one of the leading seaman, the bosun would be busy looking after the deck. Quite a few ex-navy types join the CCG and they could be tapped. A 28day and off cycle might appeal to them. After a few years the CCG might even have it's own Instructors and Armourers for the MG's.


----------

