CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[KevinB]

I agree entirely on the need for a bigger boat. Where can I find one and how soon is it available?

You can’t afford it. Nor should you try.

What is that Ukraine plan? Or the Iran plan?

You constantly try to force Canada into situations it isn’t in.

I would like to believe that somebody, someplace has applied some thought to how to manage the situation when everything goes pear-shaped.
My sense is that we have wandered between "It will never happen" and "We can't do anything about it anyway".
We had a plan to invade the States once. Highly improbable. But we had a plan.

I’m sure there is a concept of operations for something like this - but it isn’t rush out and make 100 CUAS Batteries.

There is a rumour out there, along with the 20% pay raise, and a budget increase to 5% of GDP, of the Primary Reserve (to supply in-fills for the Regs) being expanded to 100,000 and a volunteer force of 300,000 being raised. About 1 % of Canada's population.

Lets assume that there are about 100 armouries and Naval Reserve Divisions available. The means that each establishment would have to track 1000 trained reservists and 3000 of the untrained but willing. Presumably each establishment would be tasked with generating a useful sub-unit of 100 or so out of those 4000 people on their roles.

I. I happen to like the rumour. I think it is heading in the right direction with the numbers.
2. How might a body of that strength be employed in different circumstances.
3. How do we build on that?

WW2 saw 1.1 million in uniform out of a population of 11 million - 10%.
Another million or so worked in defence industries - another 10%
Then there were the people on the government payroll.

We have a rumour of a notion to employ 1% of the population in an emergency
In WW2 we actually employed 10 times that.

Ukraine is believed to have an active force of 900,000 personnel and a reserve force of 1,200,000 personnel for a total of 2,100,000 or a bit over 5% of the population. Living in a hot war, and holding the enemy to a draw the Ukrainians are using half the amount of people that we employed in WW2 fighting a war in other peoples' countries.

Why shouldn't there be a plan?

Because Canada is a liberal democracy. It isn’t a police state.

Having a professional security detachment to guard facilities is a lot different than creating the appearance of an occupied country.

One should base plans against the most likely actions and work one’s way down the priority list as long as their are funds. What you shouldn’t do is jump onto one idea and rush blindly at it.

 

[Kirkhill]

You can’t afford it. Nor should you try.

Good enough. I'll stop worrying my pretty little head about it. We have professionals to manage that. And if they fail then Uncle Sam will sort it out.

You constantly try to force Canada into situations it isn’t in.

I don't worry about the situation Canada IS in. My concern is for the many situations Canada MIGHT BE in.

Your nation has a 400 year history of crisis management.

Your crisis management system begins with a stout house and a gun over the door.
It progressed to a rudimentary minuteman system where the locals gathered their guns in times of crisis.
The communities then started to engage some of their number on an on-going basis as rangers to patrol the outskirts.
Those elements all came together as the State Militias.
The collective State Militias became the National Guard.
That is your first "Army".

In 1775 an army formed from the State Militias was raised for the duration. It stood down in 1783.
The permanent force was reduced to a border force of about 3000 divided into four regional regiments and an artillery regiment.
The key elements of the crisis management system was a system of arsenals, a means of training all the militias to a uniform standard and a professional academy for the ordnance: guns and engineers.
Like the earlier rangers it was raised to manage the borders.
That was its primary function up until 1917 when Black Jack Pershing was pulled off the Mexican border and sent to France.

WWI was a bit of a stutter step in that after the war the army pretty much reverted to status quo ante.
But in 1941 the army got another shot and never looked back.
If it was still honouring its roots as a border force then the borders now covered the globe.

The Regular Army is your second "Army".

Like the rest of the Army the Marines were raised in 1775. They were raised for seagoing service with the Navy.
Like the rest of the Army they were stood down in 1783.

The Marines were re-raised in 1798 for foreign service with the newly formed Navy anticipating action against revolutionary France.
Ultimately the Marines and the Navy became permanent arms of the President's Department of State and instruments of foreign policy.

The Marines are your third "Army".

....

All these elements, from the citizen with the gun, through the Guard, to the Army, to the Marines are all available to your nation for crisis management.

My sense of Canada is that Canada is trying to manage crises on the cheap, without expending the cash, and without taking the personal responsiblity.

It is relying on a poor man's version of the Marine Corps, an essentially expeditionary force that can be applied by the executive in a discretionary manner to manage all crises, foreign and domestic.

And that is asking too much of what it is.

I’m sure there is a concept of operations for something like this - but it isn’t rush out and make 100 CUAS Batteries.

I don't share you confidence in the existence of a conops for this situation, or for many others. And I have no problem being told there is a better plan than 100 CUAS Batteries. We have armed officers in the Coast Guard. Maybe we can arm NavCan to keep the geese and drones at bay.

Because Canada is a liberal democracy. It isn’t a police state.

A standing army is more indicative of a police state than an organized citizenry. That was established in 1689 and reiterated in 1776.

Having a professional security detachment to guard facilities is a lot different than creating the appearance of an occupied country.

Agreed. Whether they were called rangers, or constables, or whatever there has always been a recognized need for "border" forces. And those necessarily act in both civil and military capacities. I would like to know that those federal compounds, those cantonments, critical to the life and defence of my country were adequately defended from all threats.

And I put that at a higher priority than funding an expeditionary force.

One should base plans against the most likely actions and work one’s way down the priority list as long as their are funds. What you shouldn’t do is jump onto one idea and rush blindly at it.

Plans and Funds are two separate things. Even if you don't have funds you can still make plans. Funds will follow perceived risk.
If people believe the threat, the danger, is real then they will divert resources to deal with it. But the first thing they are going to ask is "How do you fix this?"

Having plans for the improbable is no bad thing.

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.

The more the planning the fewer the unknown uknowns, the fewer the surprises.

 

[Jarnhamar]

2 or 3 years ago 50% of the CAF members releasing in Petawawa were medical releases.

If you take a look at reddits CAF page every 3rd or 4th post is about someone injured, needing VAC, or medically releasing.

Multiple platoons in the CAF have more members on MELs than without MELs.


I'm not sure if I'd call it an epidemic but there's definitely something going on in the CAF with medical releases and injuries. That needs to be addressed if we're serious about growing our numbers, including new security units and trades.

 

[Kirkhill]

2 or 3 years ago 50% of the CAF members releasing in Petawawa were medical releases.

If you take a look at reddits CAF page every 3rd or 4th post is about someone injured, needing VAC, or medically releasing.

Multiple platoons in the CAF have more members on MELs than without MELs.


I'm not sure if I'd call it an epidemic but there's definitely something going on in the CAF with medical releases and injuries. That needs to be addressed if we're serious about growing our numbers, including new security units and trades.

Inadequate physical preparation of youngsters with little sports history?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Inadequate physical preparation of youngsters with little sports history?

Or had look, didn't like it, seeking an 'honourable way out'...

 

[KevinB]

Good enough. I'll stop worrying my pretty little head about it. We have professionals to manage that. And if they fail then Uncle Sam will sort it out.



I don't worry about the situation Canada IS in. My concern is for the many situations Canada MIGHT BE in.

Your nation has a 400 year history of crisis management.

Your crisis management system begins with a stout house and a gun over the door.
It progressed to a rudimentary minuteman system where the locals gathered their guns in times of crisis.
The communities then started to engage some of their number on an on-going basis as rangers to patrol the outskirts.
Those elements all came together as the State Militias.
The collective State Militias became the National Guard.
That is your first "Army".

In 1775 an army formed from the State Militias was raised for the duration. It stood down in 1783.
The permanent force was reduced to a border force of about 3000 divided into four regional regiments and an artillery regiment.
The key elements of the crisis management system was a system of arsenals, a means of training all the militias to a uniform standard and a professional academy for the ordnance: guns and engineers.
Like the earlier rangers it was raised to manage the borders.
That was its primary function up until 1917 when Black Jack Pershing was pulled off the Mexican border and sent to France.

WWI was a bit of a stutter step in that after the war the army pretty much reverted to status quo ante.
But in 1941 the army got another shot and never looked back.
If it was still honouring its roots as a border force then the borders now covered the globe.

The Regular Army is your second "Army".

Like the rest of the Army the Marines were raised in 1775. They were raised for seagoing service with the Navy.
Like the rest of the Army they were stood down in 1783.

The Marines were re-raised in 1798 for foreign service with the newly formed Navy anticipating action against revolutionary France.
Ultimately the Marines and the Navy became permanent arms of the President's Department of State and instruments of foreign policy.

The Marines are your third "Army".

....

All these elements, from the citizen with the gun, through the Guard, to the Army, to the Marines are all available to your nation for crisis management.

My sense of Canada is that Canada is trying to manage crises on the cheap, without expending the cash, and without taking the personal responsiblity.

It is relying on a poor man's version of the Marine Corps, an essentially expeditionary force that can be applied by the executive in a discretionary manner to manage all crises, foreign and domestic.

And that is asking too much of what it is.



I don't share you confidence in the existence of a conops for this situation, or for many others. And I have no problem being told there is a better plan than 100 CUAS Batteries. We have armed officers in the Coast Guard. Maybe we can arm NavCan to keep the geese and drones at bay.



A standing army is more indicative of a police state than an organized citizenry. That was established in 1689 and reiterated in 1776.


Agreed. Whether they were called rangers, or constables, or whatever there has always been a recognized need for "border" forces. And those necessarily act in both civil and military capacities. I would like to know that those federal compounds, those cantonments, critical to the life and defence of my country were adequately defended from all threats.

And I put that at a higher priority than funding an expeditionary force.



Plans and Funds are two separate things. Even if you don't have funds you can still make plans. Funds will follow perceived risk.
If people believe the threat, the danger, is real then they will divert resources to deal with it. But the first thing they are going to ask is "How do you fix this?"

Having plans for the improbable is no bad thing.

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.

The more the planning the fewer the unknown uknowns, the fewer the surprises.

You have CSIS, the RCMP and other entities that can deal with preemptive threats.
An ounce of prevention is going to be worth more than a ton of cure in this respect.

You should have layered security for facilitate that require it.

I do not foresee the need for 100 Companies of QRF forces equipped to repel ground assaults and aerial threats around Canada at this particular time.

Outside certain National Security areas down here there is only one civilian area that has any sort of AD/CUAS capability enabled - and that is in DC. I don't think it would be an unreasonable thing for Canada to setup something around Parliament and and as needed Ottawa International - and the Airport Parkway/Bronson/Sparks road route as required for VVIP transit (we bubble Reagan inside the NCR zone, while it would be impractical to attempt to permanently bubble the area from Parliament to Ottawa Int for you guys.

But you also don't even take the security of your PM seriously with the numbers and assets allocated so...

 

[daftandbarmy]

You have CSIS, the RCMP and other entities that can deal with preemptive threats.
An ounce of prevention is going to be worth more than a ton of cure in this respect.

You should have layered security for facilitate that require it.

I do not foresee the need for 100 Companies of QRF forces equipped to repel ground assaults and aerial threats around Canada at this particular time.

Outside certain National Security areas down here there is only one civilian area that has any sort of AD/CUAS capability enabled - and that is in DC. I don't think it would be an unreasonable thing for Canada to setup something around Parliament and and as needed Ottawa International - and the Airport Parkway/Bronson/Sparks road route as required for VVIP transit (we bubble Reagan inside the NCR zone, while it would be impractical to attempt to permanently bubble the area from Parliament to Ottawa Int for you guys.

But you also don't even take the security of your PM seriously with the numbers and assets allocated so...

The biggest threat to Canadian aircraft is still wild game and bird strikes ...

How Often Do Planes Experience Bird Strikes? – Bird Strike Association of Canada – Comité canadien sur le péril aviaire

canadianbirdstrike.ca

 

[Blackadder1916]

You should have [appropriate] security for [targets] that require it.
. . .
But you also don't even take the security of your PM seriously with the numbers and assets allocated so...

Why would you raise that last point when you addressed it several lines previously in your post?

 

[PrairieFella]

I dont think I would agree with the premise either. PM protection seems perfectly adequate. Heck how many PMs have been shot compared to American presidents? Maybe they're the inadequately protected.

 

[QV]

Inadequate physical preparation of youngsters with little sports history?

Hiring older and less resilient recruits.

 

[dapaterson]

Canadian PMs don't have Our American Cousin.

 

[Furniture]

Or had look, didn't like it, seeking an 'honourable way out'...

Combined with the promise of lots of VAC supports, and an indexed, unreduced pension...

 

[lenaitch]

Good enough. I'll stop worrying my pretty little head about it. We have professionals to manage that. And if they fail then Uncle Sam will sort it out.











Plans and Funds are two separate things. Even if you don't have funds you can still make plans. Funds will follow perceived risk.
If people believe the threat, the danger, is real then they will divert resources to deal with it. But the first thing they are going to ask is "How do you fix this?"

Having plans for the improbable is no bad thing.

Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns.

The more the planning the fewer the unknown uknowns, the fewer the surprises.

Having plans is great but they need to be grounded in reality and exercised. You could have a plan to activate 1000 reservists or 'civilian guards' to do something for an indefinite period of time, which is fine under their employers say 'the hell you are'. The federal Emergencies Act enables some extra-ordinary powers, but will still live under a Constitution. If there was a credible Red Dawn type threat to Canadian domestic infrastructure, I might be more concerned.

This is what happens when "good idea" fairies (who are often woefully short sighted) "freelance" this sort of stuff without thinking it through.

Our daughter is an NPF employee on a CAF base and this seems to be a perennial problem with their annual Base Security exercises. The Command team seems to expect civilians, civilian employees and contractors to be engaged and play along. Announcing 'active shooter' over the PA system is a little disconcerting to a bunch of daycare parents.

The push-pull gets a little silly. The Base Commander can issue a stand-down for bad weather or something but her management chain has said the BC can't direct NPF employees until, it seems, it is convenient for management to say the BC is in charge. It's weird and frustrating for her.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Having plans is great but they need to be grounded in reality and exercised. You could have a plan to activate 1000 reservists or 'civilian guards' to do something for an indefinite period of time, which is fine under their employers say 'the hell you are'. The federal Emergencies Act enables some extra-ordinary powers, but will still live under a Constitution. If there was a credible Red Dawn type threat to Canadian domestic infrastructure, I might be more concerned.


Our daughter is an NPF employee on a CAF base and this seems to be a perennial problem with their annual Base Security exercises. The Command team seems to expect civilians, civilian employees and contractors to be engaged and play along. Announcing 'active shooter' over the PA system is a little disconcerting to a bunch of daycare parents.

The push-pull gets a little silly. The Base Commander can issue a stand-down for bad weather or something but her management chain has said the BC can't direct NPF employees until, it seems, it is convenient for management to say the BC is in charge. It's weird and frustrating for her.

Alot can be accomplished with a simple one hour 'walk through talk through' without all the dramatic exercise play, but most people don't get trained in how to do that...

 

[SupersonicMax]

With 18s? Shit last time you guys were available to fly for us would be….. a year and a bit ago? I just assume the no fills are a reflection of availability when

Sorry to revive this but you can’t say we don’t support the Army for CAS anymore! We went to you, all the way to Latvia!

 

[Furniture]

Sorry to revive this but you can’t say we don’t support the Army for CAS anymore! We went to you, all the way to Latvia!

At the same time... Showing up years later, with a couple of jets, is the most RCAF thing possible.

It's akin to the RCN showing up at the end of WWII with a few frigates and declaring that they were always there for the merchant marine.

 

[Quirky]

 

[markppcli]

Sorry to revive this but you can’t say we don’t support the Army for CAS anymore! We went to you, all the way to Latvia!

I mean that’s awesome. It I bet if you look in any of those JTACs log books F18 is behind about four other air craft. I’ve got more F16, A10, and B52s that F18 controls. Hell if you go off this year I’ve got more Raphael and Eurofighter controls. I did manage to get one a few months ago, however we have JTACs who have never controlled a CF18.

At the same time... Showing up years later, with a couple of jets, is the most RCAF thing possible.

It's akin to the RCN showing up at the end of WWII with a few frigates and declaring that they were always there for the merchant marine.

CF 18s have done BAP rotations before.

 

[daftandbarmy]

At the same time... Showing up years later, with a couple of jets, is the most RCAF thing possible.

It's akin to the RCN showing up at the end of WWII with a few frigates and declaring that they were always there for the merchant marine.

Which the RCN didn't do, just to be clear, right?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The RCAF take its first steps, RCN are you paying attention ?

TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS
CANFORGEN 081/26 C AIR FORCE 008/26
SIC WAA
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ:MOSID 00422 SECURITY FORCES RECRUITING CAMPAIGN INITIAL CADRE /
SOLLICITATION DE CANDIDATURES 2026 - CAMPAGNE DE RECRUTEMENT
DESFORCES DE SECURITE ID SGPM 00422 CADRE INITIAL
2026 CALL OUT FOR APPLICATION - MOSID 00422 SECURITY FORCES
RECRUITING CAMPAIGN INITIAL CADRE
REFERENCES:
A. 20250430-U-2131-1-1 CAD AERORDNS-RCAF SECURITY FORCES INITIAL
REQUIREMENTS
B. CBI 204.03 (1)(E) - RATE OF PAY - COMPULSORY OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFER
C. CBI 204.03 (2) - RATE OF PAY - COMPULSORY OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFER
D. ENTRY STANDARD SECURITY FORCES (DPGR) 23 FEB 26
E. RCAF SECURITY FORCES OCC ANALYSIS PLAN 23 FEB 26

1. THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) IS SEEKING CAF MEMBERS TO
BECOME PART OF THE INITIAL SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION CADRE. SELECTED
MEMBERS WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MODERNIZATION OF THE RCAF WITH
ADVANCED AND 5TH GENERATION TECHNOLOGY WHICH DEMANDS A HIGHER LEVEL
OF SECURITY AND PROTECTION.

2. THIS IS A SPECIAL COMPULSORY OCCUPATION TRANSFER (COT-T) CALL OUT
AIMED AT REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS FROM ANY NCM OCCUPATION (CANSOF MOSIDS
EXCLUDED) AT THE RANK OF MS/MCPL TO CPO2/MWO WHO ARE INTERESTED IN
JOINING THE INITIAL LEADERSHIP CADRE OF THE RCAF SECURITY FORCES
OCCUPATION. INTERESTED MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
SPECIFIC CALL OUT SHOULD REFER TO PARA 8 BELOW.

3. SUCCESSFUL PRE-SELECTED COT-T APPLICANTS WILL RECEIVE A
PROVISIONAL COT-T OFFER IN SUMMER 2026 AND WILL REMAIN IN THEIR
CURRENT MOSID AND EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THEY SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE
SECURITY FORCES OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) TRAINING. TRAINING
WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH THE USAF AND WILL BE OFFERED TO CANDIDATES AT
A RATE OF 10 CAF MEMBERS PER MONTH COMMENCING IN OCTOBER 2026. UPON
SUCCESSFUL OFP TRAINING COMPLETION MEMBERS WILL BE FORMALLY
TRANSFERRED TO THE SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
COT-T POLICY, INCLUDING PAY AND RANK PROTECTION IAW REF B AND C.
NOTE: ANY MEMBERS SELECTED FROM THE MP OCCUPATION WILL BE COT PRIOR
TO TRAINING DUE TO IMPACT WITH CREDENTIALS.

4. INTERESTED APPLICANTS MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AND BE
AWARE AND PREPARED FOR THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF SERVICE:
A. COMPONENT: REG F
B. RANK: MS/MCPL TO CPO2/MWO
C. MINIMUM LEVEL II (SECRET) OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD A SECRET
SECURITY CLEARANCE OR HIGHER.
D. MEET INTERIM SECURITY FORCES ENTRY STANDARDS (REF D) CURRENTLY
PUBLISHED AT RCAF SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION
(HTTPS://018gc.sharepoint
.COM/SITES/000-001-535/SITEPAGES/RCAF-SECURITY-FORCES-OCCUPATION.ASPX)
E. MUST HOLD A VALID DND 404 DRIVERS LICENCE, PROVINCIAL OR
TERRITORIAL DRIVERS LICENCE, OR HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS PREVENTING THEM
FROM OBTAINING ONE UPON SELECTION.
F. MINIMUM MEDICAL CATEGORY OF 3233255.
G. TRAINING TO OFP IS IN ENGLISH ONLY BASIC DEFENDER COURSE (BDC) IS
HELD IN SAN ANTONIO, TX WITH A DURATION OF 3 MONTHS. CANDIDATES
MUST HAVE A MINIMUM ENGLISH PROFICIENCY OF CBB TO BE SELECTED.
H. MUST HAVE A VALID FORCE EVALUATION. THE BDC WILL BE PHYSICALLY
DEMANDING AND CANDIDATES ARE EXPECTED TO MEET THE USAF PHYSICAL
FITNESS STANDARD.
I. MUST NOT BE UNDER AN OPEN MONITORING PERIOD FOR A REMEDIAL MEASURE
AT TIME OF SELECTION.
J. MEMBERS MUST BE CAPABLE OF OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY AND BE FLEXIBLE
TO CHANGING WORK DEMANDS. SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION ENTAILS SHIFT
WORK.
K. THE SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION BELONGS TO THE AIR ELEMENT IAW REF
E. SELECTED MEMBERS FROM OTHER ENVIRONMENTS WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO
THE RCAF UPON COT-T.
L. INITIAL EMPLOYMENT LOCATIONS ARE 4 WING COLD LAKE, AB AND 3 WING
BAGOTVILLE, QC. POSTINGS WILL OCCUR APS 2027.

5. COMPLETED APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 14 AUGUST
2026 THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND (COC) TO POSITIONAL MAILBOXATRCAFSE
CURITYFORCESSELECTION-SELECTIONFORCESSECURITEDELARC(AT)FORCES.GC.CA.
SUBMISSION MUST INCLUDE APPLICATION FORM, CHAIN OF COMMAND
ENDORSEMENT, GUARDIAN VERSION OF CURRENT MPRR, AND CONDUCT
VERIFICATION FORM. DOCUMENTS CAN BE FOUND AT RCAF SECURITY FORCES
OCCUPATION (HTTPS://018gc.sharepoint.com/SITES/000-001-535/SITEPAGES/
RCAF-SECURITY-FORCES-OCCUPATION.ASPX)

6. FILES WILL BE EVALUATED USING A COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND OFFERS
WILL BE BASED ON AVAILABLE POSITIONS.

7. MORE INFORMATION ON THE SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION CAN BE FOUND
HERE RCAF SECURITY FORCES OCCUPATION
(HTTPS://018gc.sharepoint.com/SIT
ES/000-001-535/SITEPAGES/RCAF-SECURITY-FORCES-OCCUPATION.ASPX)

8. MEMBER WHO WISH TO BE PART OF SECURITY FORCES BUT WHO DO NOT MEET
THE CRITERIA FOR THIS COT-T CAN APPLY THROUGH OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AS
FOLLOWS:
A. CANFORGEN - CALL OUT FOR SECURITY FORCES APPLICANTS OFFICER
B. CANFORGEN - CALL-OUT FOR SECURITY FORCES APPLICANTS PRES CLASS B
OPPORTUNITY
C. IN SERVICE SELECTION PROGRAMS AND COMPONENT TRANSFER: DGMC IN
SERVICE SELECTION
(HTTPS://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/EN/RECRUITMENT-CAREERS/IN-SE
RVICE-SELECTION/INDEX.PAGE)
D. VOT (U), COT (U), OR THROUGH THE NAVAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAM COT
END OF ENGLISH TEXT/DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS