• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
126
Points
680
captloadie said:
. . . For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.

Trade badge?
 

Attachments

  • RCAF not quite a full occupation badge.png
    RCAF not quite a full occupation badge.png
    170.4 KB · Views: 215

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
40
Points
530
Eaglelord17 said:
Thanks for the personal attack. If you are going to refute what I say do so, otherwise your ad hominem attack shows how little you can actually defend against my points. I have made my arguments, and you have instead tried to insult me. Needless to say, your refusal to actually respond in a positive manner really reflects poorly on yourself. I am done trying to have a debate with you, clearly you are not worth my time.

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

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

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

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
40
Points
530
PuckChaser said:
Its called the IRU, combat arms troops ready to go on X hours NTM. Where X is the number of hours you need them in, if the current NTM status for the IRU is not acceptable to CJOC. Seems like someone's already started and finished the "capability gap", they just don't have the beret colour people want. Good thing CJOC doesn't see empires, it tasks capabilities.

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

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

It's not RCAF Infantry; its Force Protection. 

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

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

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

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

Why do this?  Again, already addressed

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

We have armed RCAF personnel out there right now - not MPs, not Infantry.  We want to make those RCAF personnel not just qualified but specialized to conduct these duties.  We don't have the luxury of waiting days for a tasking of unfamiliar Green Berets to show up.

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

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

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

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

:dunno:     

captloadie said:
They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training.

Hopefully, that can change as time goes on. 
 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
38
Points
280
captloadie said:
It is a reserve trade that hopes to attract a different demographic than the make-up of the current Air Reserves. Unlike the Navy and the Army, the majority of Air Reserves are retired annuitants. It works great to plug a guy into a similar desk he occupied as Reg F, but we don't have many positions for the guys/gals who want summer work, a couple of nights/days a month, etc. We're hoping to attract people into a trade that doesn't have a huge training bill and we get some return on investment.

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

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
62
Points
480
captloadie said:
Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.

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

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
9
Points
430
Spectrum said:
so this helps guard deployed aircraft how exactly? Perhaps I missed the entire point of this thread.
So perhaps there are roles for armed FP of RCAF assets within Canada?  EITS, myself and few others are skating around OPSEC and other domestic RCAF capabilites that we won't/can't discuss here?

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

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
161
Points
780
There are a whole host of issues (as I'm sure you're aware), with arming CAF members on domestic operations. Seems like we need less MPs driving around handing out speeding tickets, and more providing the force protection posture you require. If you're going to go the PRes route, what better source of pers than PRes MP units? Lots of corporate knowledge in there, some are probably better trained than RegF MPs.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
40
Points
530
SeaKingTacco said:
My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
125
Points
680
PuckChaser said:
There are a whole host of issues (as I'm sure you're aware), with arming CAF members on domestic operations.

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

GK .Dundas

Full Member
Reaction score
2
Points
180
SupersonicMax said:
I think you are at least a decade late.  Like Ditch said, a Force Protection trade is being created for very good reasons.  And it won't deploy.
There are very good reasons However I can all but guarantee that it will be deployed .
Sadly given our numbers and needs.....
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
54
Points
330
Eye In The Sky said:
I noted your opinion against your experience and exposure to the subj matter.  In short, IMO you have none.  Unless they teach stokers such things.  I'd not wade into a stoker thread passing off my opinion as an informed opinion.  :2c:
I 'refuted' your opinion already in the previous pages, as have others with knowledge of the subj, including the opinion of 2 other Air Forces.  If you want to, skip back and re-read.
However, yah I was probably a little overboard in the delivery;  I apologize for that.  It's frustrating to see the same points being raised, ignored and the same party line about RCAF Infantry being repeated.

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

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

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
113
Points
680
daftandbarmy said:
Just like 80% of the rest of the reserve force, right?
And if we're bandying about numbers (for dubious reasons), what percentage of the RegF?

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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Spectrum said:
GD reservists that don't deploy...so this helps guard deployed aircraft how exactly? Perhaps I missed the entire point of this thread.

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

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
850
Points
910
Journeyman said:
And if we're bandying about numbers (for dubious reasons), what percentage of the RegF?

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

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

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
339
Points
980
dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.

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

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

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

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

:2c:

G2G
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
85
Points
530
Good2Golf said:
dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.

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

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

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

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

:2c:

G2G

:goodpost:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
850
Points
910
Good2Golf said:
dapaterson, there you go again, injecting some reality in the Army/Infantry Branch's "pick-and-choose" way of doing things.  For all those who say that VP protection is uniquely (or nearly) an INF thing, ask yourself what the likelihood of getting those dedicated (especially RegF) infantry types committed to doing the D&S task? Ah yes, look at all the infantry dedicated to defending/guarding critical facilities.  Certainly didn't go to other groups...oh wait.

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

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

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

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

:2c:

G2G

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

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
119
Points
680
daftandbarmy said:
But it COULD be an opportunity to sneak in a resurrected Airborne Regiment, as part of the RCAF, whose primary role would be Force Protection, airfield defence - and capture - and footprint security (and some other stuff like leading invasions and things...)

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