CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[Jarnhamar]

The USAF's security force has some interesting requirements to join:

• No history of excessive alcohol use, drug use or drug- or alcohol-related incidents
• No record of sleep disorders
• No current history of ADD, ADHD or perceptual/learning disorders
• No fear of working around nuclear weapons
• No fear of heights or confined spaces
• No documented record of gang affiliations
• No history of mood or personality disorders
• No speech disorder or noticeable communication deficiency
• Possession of a valid state driver’s license to operate government motor vehicles
• Completion of a National Agency Check, Local Agency Checks and Credit Check
• Completion of 7.5 weeks of Basic Military Training
• Must be at least 17, but has not reached age 42 on the date of enlistment

 

[dapaterson]

Much of that falls under the enrollment standards of the CAF... And certain occs in the CAF have similar requirements.

 

[Ludoc]

...No history of excessive alcohol use...

Well, I guess that sinks the plan to have the Army take the security task.

 

[markppcli]

In my opinion, Latvia should be a posting like Lahr was. Just keep the guys there and rotate augmentees as required. Let their families come as well.

Small matter or needing to build houses, hospitals, schools, and generate host nation agreements for all of those people. Not much space on the base or in Kadaga / Adazi. In any event it’s highly unlikely to ever happen.


@FJAG i think that’s probably the solution. If it’s Bn at a time spending all its time securing the air fields or a permanent force the loss to the army is frankly the same, with more advantages to the CAF if it’s permanent.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Small matter or needing to build houses, hospitals, schools, and generate host nation agreements for all of those people. Not much space on the base or in Kadaga / Adazi. In any event it’s highly unlikely to ever happen.


@FJAG i think that’s probably the solution. If it’s Bn at a time spending all its time securing the air fields or a permanent force the loss to the army is frankly the same, with more advantages to the CAF if it’s permanent.

Could you build a Lahr like base in Poland/Eastern Germany that has all the amentias for repair, storage, training, families, etc and it supports a operational contingent in Latvia? Just looking at Latvia on GE, they got a sucky border to defend.

 

[markppcli]

Could you build a Lahr like base in Poland/Eastern Germany that has all the amentias for repair, storage, training, families, etc and it supports an operational contingent in Latvia? Just looking at Latvia on GE, they got a sucky border to defend.

I guess but what’s gained from having a base in eastern Germany to stage for Latvia out of? Now we have rotational stressors while also paying for people posted out can?


People seem to gloss over the fact that Latvia (or Poland / Germany) are sovereign states with their own laws and regulations who may no want to pay for the increases in utilities, schools, and services that a permanent presence may bring. If not nationally than certainly locally, or simply want to be full time garrisons.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In the 1980's most Germans I met were happy with the Canadian presence, I suspect the Poles and Latvia would enjoy having a NATO presence there, particularly ones that are paid well and willing to spend in the local economy. The German contribution to Brandon's economy was significant as well.
Latvia just does not strike me as good place to build a major base with all the amenities, but that is just based on what I hear here and see looking at a map.

 

[Zoomie]

. Probably securing our commitment to NORAD should rank ahead of Latvia in priority.

Defense of Canada is the #1 priority of the CAF. NORAD achieves this goal, daily.

Latvia and all other OUTCAN missions are secondary.

 

[Zoomie]

I'm not sure the issue is the radars. As far as I am aware, NORAD and NAVCAN/FAA see the same things inside of the NWS and Coastal Radar (no doubt the US NCR is different).

NAVCANADA and NORAD do not share the same feeds or see the same picture.

 

[dimsum]

Defense of Canada is the #1 priority of the CAF. NORAD achieves this goal, daily.

Latvia and all other OUTCAN missions are secondary.

Exactly. The SSE (and I don’t think ONSF has changed it) priorities were:

Defence of Canada
Defence of North America
International missions

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Could you build a Lahr like base in Poland/Eastern Germany that has all the amentias for repair, storage, training, families, etc and it supports a operational contingent in Latvia? Just looking at Latvia on GE, they got a sucky border to defend.

How about a base in Norway, Sweden or Finland?

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . most Germans I met were happy with the Canadian presence, . . .

They liked us better than the French (who occupied Lahr before we moved in), but that wasn't a high standard to achieve. And when we left, the Lahrer Zeitung (the editor was not particularly fond of us) published an editorial indicating a preference for us over the influx of ethnic Germans from Russia who began moving into vacant PMQs.

 

[lenaitch]

NAVCANADA and NORAD do not share the same feeds or see the same picture.

So what is NORAD looking at when monitoring internal Canadian airspace? The only NORAD-exclusive systems that I am aware of are NWS and CCR.

 

[Remius]

How about a base in Norway, Sweden or Finland?

Or something permanent in or close to our own arctic area.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They liked us better than the French (who occupied Lahr before we moved in), but that wasn't a high standard to achieve. And when we left, the Lahrer Zeitung (the editor was not particularly fond of us) published an editorial indicating a preference for us over the influx of ethnic Germans from Russia who began moving into vacant PMQs.

Back then most Journalists did not like the military, so not exactly surprising. Even Brandon politicians were upset with the Germans till the Base CO showed their economic impact on the community and then the politicians stopped complaining quickly.

 

[GR66]

We're in the midst of the worst manning crisis that the CAF has seen during my lifetime. While I expect that people are working on a strategy, I see nothing public facing that explains the strategy to the public or tries to mold public opinion - just the usual drivel which has the effect of alienating much of the public. I've lived in a military whose aging equipment was self-divesting, but never a military like the current one where the people were self-divesting.

This ^^^

Yes lack of equipment is a major issue for the CAF but it is slowly being resolved (at least for the RCN and RCAF...the CA is still badly lagging) but manning to my mind is the even bigger crisis. And it's not just a Canadian thing. All our major allies are facing the same issues (even the US which doesn't have the same equipment issues and has a much more martial culture to draw on). I'm not sure that any Government/CAF policy will radically change the situation.

I think we need to start looking at more radical approaches to how we organize and equip our military. For our full-time forces we likely need to look at smaller units with greater manned-unmanned teaming and automation while at the same time greatly expanding our part-time forces to create a large pool of at least partially trained personnel to draw on to fill out the military in case of conflict (including having a large stockpile of equipment for them to fall into).

That might mean that while our wartime forces might look like traditional Brigades/Divisions/Squadrons/Task Groups once filled out by the Reserve call-ups, the Reg Force might look more like specialized Battle Groups or Task Forces with high levels of automation/unmanned systems to deal with the reality of the limited manning available during peacetime.

The creation of a more "martial" culture and building up a much larger pool of citizens with military experience I think is key to any solution.

 

[dapaterson]

Readiness is equipment that is fit to fight, materiel in large quantities that's ready to use, and well trained personnel.

Ensuring all three of those are available and sustainable needs to be the foundation of all CAF decisions.

So if push comes to shove, you pay off a CPF to generate the necessary positions for fleet schools and BTL. You punt a battalion to the supplementary order of battle for more uniformed support personnel (where uniformed is necessary).

The CAF seems to believe in anri-readiness, stripping schools of positions, under- investing in support occupations, and spending money intended for long term sustainment acquisitions on preserving irrelevant capabilities today instead.

If the CAF claims to be in crisis and 431 still flies and Oriole still sails...

 

[Zoomie]

Or something permanent in or close to our own arctic area.

All the capital cities of the Scandinavian countries are at 59 N, Yellowknife is 62 N. We already have a presence there, plus a few more up to 82 N.

 

[Zoomie]

So what is NORAD looking at when monitoring internal Canadian airspace? The only NORAD-exclusive systems that I am aware of are NWS and CCR.

NAVCAN systems are not primary search RADARS, they are mostly SSR - which means they only see Mode 3/S transponders. Bad guys don’t squawk IFF.

 

[Furniture]

I think we need to start looking at more radical approaches to how we organize and equip our military. For our full-time forces we likely need to look at smaller units with greater manned-unmanned teaming and automation while at the same time greatly expanding our part-time forces to create a large pool of at least partially trained personnel to draw on to fill out the military in case of conflict (including having a large stockpile of equipment for them to fall into).

We area country of 40 million, with a RegF sub 70K... We are already at the understaffed full time force level.

We don't need further personnel cuts, we need a series of governments that are grown-up about national interests and security.

The thing people gloss over with automation and all of the cool new tech is that people are still necessary. Those people need depth because they tend to take leave, have families, get sick, and sometimes die. If you don't have enough people ready to go right now, you don't have any depth of capability, even if you can spin up part timers in the next 6-12 months. We got lucky in both world wars, technology meant we had a safe fortress to get our "citizen soldiers" up to speed over the course of a few years. The next war has technology that is already ready, that will allow our enemies to reach out and touch us from day one. We won't have from '39-'42 to get a few regiments almost up to speed.