• 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")

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
393
Points
1,030
Chris Pook said:
The Reserves as currently constituted can't do High Readiness Taskings.  However that doesn't mean that the Reserves couldn't sustain a High Readiness Tasking IF the VOLUNTEERS new what they were volunteering for upfront and had the time to organize their lives so as to meet their commitment - or be prosecuted for failure to show.

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

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

MARS

Sr. Member
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
280
Eye In The Sky said:
  If they cut the band to make it happen, well that's what needs to be done to enhance operational ability.  No tears shed on my part.  Cut the tail, not the tooth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my two cents
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
236
Points
710
PuckChaser said:
Those countries have job protection legislation. Its a non-starter if we don't modernize the PRes that way.

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

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

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

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
152
Points
710
Eaglelord17 said:
Four points.

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

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

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

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

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

Eaglelord17 said:
As someone who did a short stint in the Navy until recently...as a former jr Stoker)

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

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,169
Points
890
I wonder where the Airfantry NCOs are gonna come from? You can knit a platoon of troops in a few months at the lower level, but I'm curious what the plan is to bring in *good* NCOs to backbone this? This thing has to be envisioned as at *least* a rifle company...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
152
Points
710
Ditch said:
Ok - lots of good opinions out there...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
893
Points
910
As I recall both the SAS and RAF regiment maintain a territorial arm to help beef up numbers and give a place to help keep talent that does not want to deploy as much anymore.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,060
For interest....RAF Greenham Common, 1984.

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

Attachments

  • Greenham Common.jpg
    Greenham Common.jpg
    389.9 KB · Views: 224

Calvillo

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A bit off topic question.

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

LightFighter

Guest
Calvillo said:
A bit off topic question.

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

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

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

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
701
Points
940
LightFighter said:
AFAIK, some Pilots and AECs are qualified, but they work at the Brigade TACP level.

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

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
84
Points
330
Eye In The Sky said:
Hey sure!  What could the senior leadership of both the CAF and RCAF know right?  Especially compared to your extensive knowledge of the subj!

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

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

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
26
Points
530
Eaglelord17 said:
First point, this trade you are talking about for airfield defence is literally infantry <snip> If it is such a critical role you can easily post a infantry platoon or two to a Airforce base for quick reaction.
Where are all these RegF platoon elements of Infantry coming from? Lots of RCR posted at 8 Wing Trenton?  How about Winnipeg - how far is the drive from Shilo?  Do I need to worry now about transport, R&Q etc?
Second point, <snip> however in the case of a 'Airforce Defence Guard' we already have a trade that does basically 100% of the stuff and more, we call it Infantry.
Then we'll have a great source of trained troops for our force.  I already have two PPCLI Sgts ready to head up the senior leadership. 
Third point, in regards to quick readiness, you can easily task a infantry platoon or two for being quick reaction.
Everyone thinks that because we are the Canadian Armed Forces that we all share OPCON/TACOM of everyone, regardless of their beret colour.  To task a green element to work for a blue Comd and get paid by the blue budget is not as easy you might think.
Fourth point, if this was to become a Reservist trade you realize your quick reaction force concept would literally be shot to crap?
QRF is a tricky concept - this I recognize from my time in the "Mo".  Most probably we can rely on a small number to be ready to go, with follow-on forces as they arrive.

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

 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
701
Points
940
Ditch said:
FOC is a long way off folks - but we need to start somewhere.

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

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

promo253415049
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
393
Points
1,030
Ditch said:
FOC is a long way off folks - but we need to start somewhere.

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

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

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,271
Points
890
To be fair, the Army does not often play nice in the Joint world, so I can understand why the RCAF would rather build its own.  Hillier's original plan, to reduce the RCN, CA and RCAF to environmental advisors and place all forces under the RJTFs would have helped shatter some of those stovepipes; when the military leadership refused, we got the current setup which is suboptimal in so many ways.
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
230
Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,267
Points
1,060
captloadie said:
Okay, although the thread is dealing with Airfield Defence, here is what the actual reason and role of this proposed new Air Reserve trade. The Comd RCAF wants more aircraft serviceability. To get this, he needs to have more of his 500 series techs turning wrenches, as they have been trained to do, and less dealing with the secondary duties that take them away from their primary function. The new trade would be trained up to a basic standard, just before QL3, and a core force protection standard. They then would branch into one of three sub components, specializing in SAR, Air Maintenance, and Force Protection. For the first two components, they would learn to do all the non- technical/joe jobs of the parent trades. For the Force protection piece, they would learn more FP tasks commonly performed in and around a domestic airfield. They are not intended to take over from the infantry. They would likely not deploy, depending on the level of their training. Their roles are to augment or fill in here and there and not be formed teams working on their own. The trade would cap out at MCpl.

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

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

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
393
Points
1,030
An entire trade dedicated to GD work? Domestic only? Capped at MCpl? Yikes, that has recruiting issues all over it.
 

captloadie

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
22
Points
230
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.
 
Top