CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[McG]

Are you insane? They can’t do that!

If a base has allowed civilian through-traffic or access to facilities for decades, members of the local community might actually argue exactly that claiming a right of way or easement.

 

[Kirkhill]

My list is 73 airfields and vital points.
It includes all the airfields Transport Canada publicly claims.
It excludes places like Abbotsford, Hamilton, Charlevoix, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and many, many more.

There are 29 military fields.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I mean, do they actually expect the Commissionaire to get up and actually talk to the vehicle arriving at the gate?

At the shipyard where I do security, the gate is always closed, the drivers and passengers have to get out and show ID, if they refuse, the company will bar that person from the premise, likley costing them their job. On the flip side we are also mandated to be polite and professional and Commissionaires have been also barred from working there for not being polite or to lax.

 

[KevinB]

My list is 73 airfields and vital points.
It includes all the airfields Transport Canada publicly claims.
It excludes places like Abbotsford, Hamilton, Charlevoix, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and many, many more.

There are 29 military fields.

The dual usage fields generally all have separate areas for Military aircraft storage.

Keeping in mind that al airfields CIV or MIL are restricted areas where the general public doesn’t have access to, it isn’t that hard to understand the need to have security.

Civilians have no right of access to airfields just from a stock security aspect.

Now the security requirements for Mil aircraft may seem to be different, but the end result is no unauthorized personnel should have access to any aircraft period.

Some aviation assets will have a higher degree of security requirements due to a number of different factors.

Canada has some very strict laws on personal firearms, but like most western countries doesn’t have strict regulations about UAS (yes some are limited to certain types of qualifications for flying, but the actual acquisition doesn’t seem to me (based on my fairly cursory look) that controlled.

Canada also seems to allow under C-46 of the Criminal Code to let Peace Officers use force up to and including deadly force to stop any person from committing crimes on or about an airfield. (Again my interpretation, as it allows for that force to be used against anyone who could be arrested without warrant).

There was some discussion on a previous thread (or maybe even this one earlier) that a Military force involved in the protection of airfields would need to either be a Peace Officer under the provisions of the province, or some sort of regulation created under the NDA, or Securities Act.

Security must be layered (both from an economic perspective, but also it helps make the case that if someone is inside the third or fourth ring of a particular security zone that they have shown to be up to no good.

Physical security barriers (fences, and gated access control are good examples of how to both visibly show a security zone exists, and also provide a deterrent to the wandering bystander.

Nearly every airfield has a perimeter fence.

Now unfortunately obstacles are really only good if covered (ideally by fires, but you probably aren’t going to get the authority to have an FPF from a M777 Battery on the exterior fence.
So one then need to observe the perimeter fences by either visual or mechanical means.
- electric fences can be a means to additionally encourage people from crossing, but also if done properly will also alarm when cut.
Modern EO/IO sensors aren’t that expensive and can also be positioned to provide observation onto physical barriers.

Presence patrols conducted at random times on both inside and outside the exterior perimeter fencing will also serve for ensure that the fence is visibly secured and a good’go away’ sign.

Secondary fences are also useful to keep people out, while the standard external fence may have a 6-10’ chain link body and maybe 3 strands of barbed wire on the top, internal security fencing can be multiple layers of chain link security fence with razor wire in between. This is a pretty good deterrent - and if combined with electronic motion detection devices one will be alerted to any potential intrusion— plus the smaller perimeters can be monitored with a higher degree of coverage.


Anyone seen attempting to breach the secondary security zone can be treated as a threat and greater with a combat capable QRF 2 vehicle section, and results in the activation of the on call remainder of the QRF Platoon, as well as other elements as relevant for the facility.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

If a base has allowed civilian through-traffic or access to facilities for decades, members of the local community might actually argue exactly that claiming a right of way or easement.

KIngston Transit has multiple routes that service the base. At the request of the base. To service pers living on the base.

The second the base is locked down on a more permenant basis, those routes are gone forever I reckon.

 

[KevinB]

KIngston Transit has multiple routes that service the base. At the request of the base. To service pers living on the base.

The second the base is locked down on a more permenant basis, those routes are gone forever I reckon.

There are bus routes on a few US bases -- it is really not that hard to accommodate even on closed bases.
Typical option is either a limited bus that checks ID's upon bus entry, or the bus has a stop at a gate and drops people off to another bus.
The exterior perimeter is simply the first stage of access control.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

There are bus routes on a few US bases -- it is really not that hard to accommodate even on closed bases.
Typical option is either a limited bus that checks ID's upon bus entry, or the bus has a stop at a gate and drops people off to another bus.
The exterior perimeter is simply the first stage of access control.

CFB Kingston is a labyrinth of military and civilian sites, which spans a large river, having multiple intersecting boundaries and security postures. I would not wish the BASF planning for it on my worst enemy.

 

[KevinB]

CFB Kingston is a labyrinth of military and civilian sites, which spans a large river, having multiple intersecting boundaries and security postures. I would not wish the BASF planning for it on my worst enemy.

It is fairly similar in the geographical layout to Annapolis, which seems to have similar BASF plans

 

[Jarnhamar]

So one then need to observe the perimeter fences by either visual or mechanical means.
- electric fences can be a means to additionally encourage people from crossing, but also if done properly will also alarm when cut.
Modern EO/IO sensors aren’t that expensive and can also be positioned to provide observation onto physical barriers.

Better electronic surveillance coupled with an ability to rapidly respond (QRF) won't stop people from crossing the line but ideally we could get them before they cause any harm.

We need to raise the bar when it comes to CAF members with a warrior mindset. Support trade SNCOs should be able to lead a security team and deal with an incursion of a couple protesters with a spray can.

Week long security shifts for a section of soldiers isn't a crazy ask to make.

Or pay for GardaWorld goons lead by Bosnian-Vet Commisionaires.

 

[lenaitch]

If a base has allowed civilian through-traffic or access to facilities for decades, members of the local community might actually argue exactly that claiming a right of way or easement.

They might try to argue that but I doubt it would go anywhere. I don't see any parallel to some kind of adverse possession and certainly don't see any kind of parallel to a legal easement. A number of years ago, Borden was being plagued with people using the base as a quick route to/from the Honda plants. They dropped the gates and stationed Commissionaires there and it ended fairly quickly (I don't know if they still do).

My list is 73 airfields and vital points.
It includes all the airfields Transport Canada publicly claims.
It excludes places like Abbotsford, Hamilton, Charlevoix, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and many, many more.

There are 29 military fields.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for; the military should secure public airports because they are "vital"?

Not every CAF location, or even a Wing, has an airfield. NDHQ certainly doesn't, neither does 22 Wing and I don't think Kingston or Gagetown do either.

 

[KevinB]

Better electronic surveillance coupled with an ability to rapidly respond (QRF) won't stop people from crossing the line but ideally we could get them before they cause any harm.

Hence the multiple "lines". Depth is always a good thing to have for defensive.

We need to raise the bar when it comes to CAF members with a warrior mindset. Support trade SNCOs should be able to lead a security team and deal with an incursion of a couple protesters with a spray can.

I will disagree with you there. While I would suggest that 427 could do that, most other Squadrons do not have the same exposure to tactical training. Secondly one doesn't necessarily know what the incursion will be - and training for the various situations would eat up time that they really do not have - then comes the use of force aspects - and then comms and other equipment that they would need.

Week long security shifts for a section of soldiers isn't a crazy ask to make.

No one generally likes being sent on D&S jobs, and not all bases have Infantry Battalions to grab a Platoon from on a rotating basis.

Or pay for GardaWorld goons lead by Bosnian-Vet Commisionaires.

Private Security could be an option for the outer perimeter zone, but you still need to be able to deal with a targeted attack - and that means that you need a dedicated Security Unit - think TAPV's - the USAF Security Force is a decent example of how to set that sort of thing up.
It's a Hybrid between an MP and an Infantryman.

 

[PrairieFella]

Private Security could be an option for the outer perimeter zone, but you still need to be able to deal with a targeted attack - and that means that you need a dedicated Security Unit - think TAPV's - the USAF Security Force is a decent example of how to set that sort of thing up.
It's a Hybrid between an MP and an Infantryman.

That fortunately is being addressed as we speak.

 

[McG]

They might try to argue that but I doubt it would go anywhere. I don't see any parallel to some kind of adverse possession and certainly don't see any kind of parallel to a legal easement. A number of years ago, Borden was being plagued with people using the base as a quick route to/from the Honda plants. They dropped the gates and stationed Commissionaires there and it ended fairly quickly (I don't know if they still do).

Seemingly Dundurn was unable to achieve that same success, and ask Gagetown how things went the year they thought they were not going to support the moose hunt.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what you are arguing for; the military should secure public airports because they are "vital"?

Not every CAF location, or even a Wing, has an airfield. NDHQ certainly doesn't, neither does 22 Wing and I don't think Kingston or Gagetown do either.

I wonder who is responsible for managing the aerial threat domestically.

The common feature of the sites mentioned, by and large, is that they all encompass very large areas.

Israel has broadened their target sets to include local IRGC and Basij headquarters and party facilities. The line between civil and military gets blurry.

Civilian airfields might not be primary targets, although from the standpoint of disrupting Canada shutting down Pearson and Dorval (Trudeau) would be a lot more effective than taking out Cold Lake and Bagotville, but they would certainly be back up fields for military aircraft.

My purpose is just to point to the scale of the problem. Providing the means for a Division to defend itself is not the same as defending the second largest country on the planet.