CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[SupersonicMax]

Sure. Just like half the public who apply to the CAF. I see no difference.


Yah patrols. If there is a security breach on the base you call MPs. No difference in operations except now the RCAF Security does the initial detainment and hands them over to the MPs. Or shoots them*

*Case by case basis

Sure. The MPs response is always that they’ll prioritize a policing call over a base security call. Not quite acceptable from a force protection point of view. The current system is jacked and unless MPs re-prioritize force protection over issuing tickets, the current Force Protection concept needs to change.

The RCAF conducts operations (in the actual sense) from their Wings on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Or would it just be more cost effective and simpler to house the aircraft at close to the border US bases?

Honestly, does anyone really think our training system can pump out enough trained personal to staff this, or have enough housing at our locations for the influx?

We probably will have no coming up with the doctrine, but coming up with physical?
I dont see it....

 

[brihard]

Sure. The MPs response is always that they’ll prioritize a policing call over a base security call. Not quite acceptable from a force protection point of view. The current system is jacked and unless MPs re-prioritize force protection over issuing tickets, the current Force Protection concept needs to change.

The RCAF conducts operations (in the actual sense) from their Wings on a day-to-day basis.

I’ll also respectfully suggest that a real threat to the sorts of assets we’re talking about is likely to be a more planned and deliberate threat. One that may well exceed the ability of one or two MPs acting on no notice to deal with.

Security and policing are distinct. The security task for the sensitive assets being procured isn’t something that should be subject to dual hatting, at least not at the inner perimeter to the actual high security areas. Those should be dedicated elements trained and equipped for The Really Bad Day- enough so that, domestically, nobody will be stupid enough to try it, and when deployed, anyone trying it would be really stupid.

 

[FJAG]

I'll throw out a few thoughts on this:

1. Sensitive systems security is a full-rime, continuing 24/7 job - its RegF and not ResF. Period;

2. If the need to provide security for the new aircraft and new ships is required then the PYs to provide that function should have been included in the respective projects as either new PYs or a reallocation of PYs;

3. Re the role of the military police, this is a quote from the CF Provost Marshall's latest report:

Mission​

The CF MP Gp provides professional policing, security, and detention services to the CAF and DND globally, across the full spectrum of military operations.

accordingly, security is already an MP function. The fact that it is rarely done because of other tasks is not a reason for not leaving it as an MP mission;

4. The military police branch is relatively small with the following authorized strength: RegF offrs - 189; NCMs - 1,215; ResF offrs - 45; NCMs - 646. (Note that at the time of the last report, the force was understrength by 213 RegF and 277 ResF);

5. A new security force will be even smaller in numbers - several hundreds perhaps - and, as such, probably incapable of providing for its own career flow, training and leadership development. A new RCAF Regiment and a Naval Infantry unit would be neither practical nor career sustainable as entities;

6. I agree with @brihard that security and policing are distinct functions but that doesn't mean one can't have the two functions in place in one organization/occupation branch running either in parallel (ie a separate security career stream and policing career stream) or in series (ie an individual performing one function first and then graduating to the other during a single career);

7. While one could assign other units, such as infantry battalions, to provide rotational security this is patently unsustainable considering that the job will need to be done for decades to come. Either new PYs are needed or will need to be permanently reallocated; and

8. While a civilian security force could be hired to provide security in Canada, it would be challenging, albeit not impossible, to have elements of a civilian force deploy with ships or aircraft to operational zones.

IMHO. It would be entirely logical to put the security tasks for these new roles into the MP branch by:

a) adding the requisite RegF PYs to the branch;

b) reorganizing the MP branch so that the security function and policing functions are both logically incorporated and run within the branch; and

c) organize and train the ResF MPs so that they can adequately provide a surge capability for security tasks (including temporary Class B augmentation) and are able to perform field MP duties as a mobilization role.

 

[Cloud Cover]

What model did the RCAF/CAF secure the nuke storage facilities in North Bay for the Bomarcs? Surely they did not ad hoc the base police to that role?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What model did the RCAF/CAF secure the nuke storage facilities in North Bay for the Bomarcs? Surely they did not ad hoc the base police to that role?

The CAF used MPs for nuclear security.

During the early 1960s, the Directorate of Air Force Security and its AFPs were assigned a huge additional responsibility for the physical security of the nuclear warheads being assigned to RCAF units in Canada and Europe (BOMARC surface-to-air missiles and GENIE air-to-air rockets for NORAD, and nuclear gravity bombs for our CF-104 strike aircraft with NATO). During this time, a robust Sentry Dog program was introduced at the RCAF bases in Germany to help protect these highly sensitive nuclear weapon systems. By 1966, a total of 812 AFPs and RCAF Security Officer were employed in direct support of nuclear security duties.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the four-fold mission of the RCAF Security Services branch--comprising the Directorate of Air Force Security, the security staffs at each command headquarters, the regional special investigation units, and the Air Force Police sections at each station--was:

• the protection of classified information,
• the protection of RCAF material against sabotage,
• the protection of RCAF civilian and service personnel against subversion, and
• the prevention, detection and investigation of crime.

MP History

Although provost and military police capabilities existed in Canada well before Confederation in 1867, it was not until 1917 that the first Canada-wide military police organization was formed....

www.cmpa-apmc.org

800+ MPs involved in Nuclear Security.

 

[Underway]

Security functions for MPs are almost exclusively PRes at this point. PRes MPs don't get policing powers of arrest etc... but they do focus on the security of routes and facilitues prisoner of war, etc... not writing tickets or answering PMQ calls.

PRes MP OFP Qual is an entirely different code than the Reg F one.

 

[McG]

PRes MP OFP Qual is an entirely different code than the Reg F one.

Is that not true of nearly every occupation?

 

[Jarnhamar]

IMHO. It would be entirely logical to put the security tasks for these new roles into the MP branch by:

a) adding the requisite RegF PYs to the branch;

I think they would still have manning issues. I've been told one of the last MP courses were supposed to have 90 candidates and only 40ish showed up.

They could add more PYs but the interest just isn't there.

My question is if they wanted to be civi cops, why did they sign up for the MPs?

Easier to join the MP with a 2 year police foundation course when you're 20 than it is to join the civilian police with a 2 year police foundation course when your 20 probably.

Some might have joined with every intention of sticking around but decided getting paid $30k more plus over time plus geographical security was a better gig.

 

[KevinB]

The CAF used MPs for nuclear security.

View attachment 89333
View attachment 89334

MP History

Although provost and military police capabilities existed in Canada well before Confederation in 1867, it was not until 1917 that the first Canada-wide military police organization was formed....

www.cmpa-apmc.org

800+ MPs involved in Nuclear Security.

As well as US personnel too

 

[brihard]

I'll throw out a few thoughts on this:

1. Sensitive systems security is a full-rime, continuing 24/7 job - its RegF and not ResF. Period;

2. If the need to provide security for the new aircraft and new ships is required then the PYs to provide that function should have been included in the respective projects as either new PYs or a reallocation of PYs;

3. Re the role of the military police, this is a quote from the CF Provost Marshall's latest report:

accordingly, security is already an MP function. The fact that it is rarely done because of other tasks is not a reason for not leaving it as an MP mission;

4. The military police branch is relatively small with the following authorized strength: RegF offrs - 189; NCMs - 1,215; ResF offrs - 45; NCMs - 646. (Note that at the time of the last report, the force was understrength by 213 RegF and 277 ResF);

5. A new security force will be even smaller in numbers - several hundreds perhaps - and, as such, probably incapable of providing for its own career flow, training and leadership development. A new RCAF Regiment and a Naval Infantry unit would be neither practical nor career sustainable as entities;

6. I agree with @brihard that security and policing are distinct functions but that doesn't mean one can't have the two functions in place in one organization/occupation branch running either in parallel (ie a separate security career stream and policing career stream) or in series (ie an individual performing one function first and then graduating to the other during a single career);

7. While one could assign other units, such as infantry battalions, to provide rotational security this is patently unsustainable considering that the job will need to be done for decades to come. Either new PYs are needed or will need to be permanently reallocated; and

8. While a civilian security force could be hired to provide security in Canada, it would be challenging, albeit not impossible, to have elements of a civilian force deploy with ships or aircraft to operational zones.

IMHO. It would be entirely logical to put the security tasks for these new roles into the MP branch by:

a) adding the requisite RegF PYs to the branch;

b) reorganizing the MP branch so that the security function and policing functions are both logically incorporated and run within the branch; and

c) organize and train the ResF MPs so that they can adequately provide a surge capability for security tasks (including temporary Class B augmentation) and are able to perform field MP duties as a mobilization role.

It would pretty massive growth in the branch. Not a doubling, but probably not far off.

Could the independent of the MP branch properly coexist with the needs of chains of command in RCAF/RCN to have complete operational command and control of their Force protection elements?

And, does ‘security’ as envisioned by the Provost Marshal meaningfully and fully capture the broad task set that’s coming with this?

Food for thought.