New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Stoker]

Sounds like its a better fit for the CCG than the RCN in terms of what capabilities and missions its called to do. If its called to perform anti-narco missions in the Carrib or WC of the US, simply added a pair of 50's to it (like the Kingston's have) and include a RCN detachment to man them and provide a boarding party when needed.

I don't know if you get this but having a CG crew onboard running a CG AOPV for an Op Caribe with a RCN crew manning .50 Cals is not going to happen for all kinds of reasons. We also don't provide a boarding party during Carib's, the MOU with the US utilizes a embarked USCG boarding party for that. AOPS have done Op Caribs successfully.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don't know if you get this but having a CG crew onboard running a CG AOPV for an Op Caribe with a RCN crew manning .50 Cals is not going to happen for all kinds of reasons. We also don't provide a boarding party during Carib's, the MOU with the US utilizes a embarked USCG boarding party for that. AOPS have done Op Caribs successfully.

I'm not seeing the value add in using the AOPS for something like Op Caribe. Just because a Chrysler minivan can fit a sheet of plywood in the back of it doesn't mean I should treat it like a pickup truck.
The APOS should be used primarily in the Arctic and in the north atlantic or off the BC coast in the winter months when going out in a Kingston in January off the coast of Labrador would be a stupid idea.

 

[Underway]

Sounds like its a better fit for the CCG than the RCN in terms of what capabilities and missions its called to do. If its called to perform anti-narco missions in the Carrib or WC of the US, simply added a pair of 50's to it (like the Kingston's have) and include a RCN detachment to man them and provide a boarding party when needed.

Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG. This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.

They are very specialized. They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs. Are they a research vessel? Then they carry scientists and do research. Do they do buoy tending? Then that's what they do. SAR? Thats pretty much it. And the crew are specialized as well. The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job. That's it. Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent. They don't even consider going outside the speciality.

This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions. The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has. It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it. And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).

Is this wrong or bad? No. Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.

Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing. Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.

We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG. This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.

They are very specialized. They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs. Are they a research vessel? Then they carry scientists and do research. Do they do buoy tending? Then that's what they do. SAR? Thats pretty much it. And the crew are specialized as well. The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job. That's it. Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent. They don't even consider going outside the speciality.

This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions. The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has. It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it. And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).

Is this wrong or bad? No. Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.

Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing. Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.

We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.

It's pretty accurate statement, there is some crossover the science boats will carry minor lamp repair stuff to replace repair lamps and all ships will get to do some science work, the primary buoy tenders are specialised to their task and it keeps them damn busy. You could add .50cals to the big ships and train them how to use them, within the normal crew cycles. But changing the command culture to actually using them effectively would be a massive undertaking. Really a buoy tender is more like a mobile construction crew who is always working. The slackest time is when you leave base with a new set of buoys and your yet to pick up an old one. CCG came out of the "Department of Marine Services"

I was actually patrolling the Sir Wilfred Grennel last night which gave me some time to look at her. Interesting ship, quite the massive crane on her, accommodations and amenities seem less than the 1100's. One question that popped into my head: "How many seaman become deck officers in the RCN?" In the CCG we have a lot of deckhands who may have Mates and Masters tickets, they might be a deckhand on a few trips, then show up as the 3rd Mate on the next few and then maybe a Master on a small Fisheries patrol vessel next.

 

[MTShaw]

Here's my perspective after sailing with the CCG. This is not intended as a burn, but I feel like it has some harsh truths in there.

They are very specialized. They have a very limited equipment ability to be flexible from their defined jobs. Are they a research vessel? Then they carry scientists and do research. Do they do buoy tending? Then that's what they do. SAR? Thats pretty much it. And the crew are specialized as well. The crew qualifications generally start and end with their specific equipment and job. That's it. Inside their specialty they are amazing and quite competent. They don't even consider going outside the speciality.

This means there is limited command and control capability in their vessels with little to no capability to change tasks or missions. The culture is not a mission focused one like the military has. It has a far more 9-5 lunchpail feel to it. And the ships are staffed at a level where you can rarely throw people at a problem (unlike on warships you always can find extra people to just do a task).

Is this wrong or bad? No. Its perfect for the tasks required of the CCG.

Planning, commmand and control, equipment, comms, people and training to run missions where things change quickly or go sideways are a military thing not a CCG thing. Which is why the military runs SAR and CCG have a voice.

We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.

The CCG guards many things, like fisheries, environmental disasters and in general people’s livelihoods and well being. There are many ways to guard than with a gun.

 

[Stoker]

I'm not seeing the value add in using the AOPS for something like Op Caribe. Just because a Chrysler minivan can fit a sheet of plywood in the back of it doesn't mean I should treat it like a pickup truck.
The APOS should be used primarily in the Arctic and in the north atlantic or off the BC coast in the winter months when going out in a Kingston in January off the coast of Labrador would be a stupid idea.

So we don't generally limit our ships to a few areas we go places. The ships were designed as Arctic and OFFSHORE patrol vessels and designed to operate in tropical conditions because the RCN has deemed that we may have to operate there. These ships are exactly like a pickup truck and actually quite effective for anti drug patrols, with drones, helos, rhibs, specialized storage for a boarding party and briefing area, not to mention the accommodations for a boarding party. So yes they can do lots of different missions if needed. While the Kingston Class can also do these missions and economically these can do them a sight better as they are designed to embark boarding parties.

 

[torg003]

We really should change the name from CCG to Canadian Coastal Services.

Actually, they were originally the Marine Service of Canada (Marine, as in pertaining to the ocean). You could change the name to Marine Services Canada and the only thing that would need to be physically changed, would be the Gov't of Canada shoulder flash. They would continue on doing the same job.
Then we'd have to decide if we need an armed Coast Guard along with the RCN, or have coast guard duties rolled into the RCN's overall mission.

 

[Stoker]

Actually, they were originally the Marine Service of Canada (Marine, as in pertaining to the ocean). You could change the name to Marine Services Canada and the only thing that would need to be physically changed, would be the Gov't of Canada shoulder flash. They would continue on doing the same job.
Then we'd have to decide if we need an armed Coast Guard along with the RCN, or have coast guard duties rolled into the RCN's overall mission.

The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.

 

[Good2Golf]

The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.

I’m not sure the public even cares about a paramilitarized CCG, so long as its yellow helicopters and airplanes keep saving people…

 

[Spencer100]

The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.

I bet if you asked the average Joe about the CCG he would think it's like the US CG but way smaller and equipment that is just not as new.

 

[Maxman1]

I’m not sure the public even cares about a paramilitarized CCG, so long as its yellow helicopters and airplanes keep saving people…

Coast Guard members would definitely care. When CBSA was first armed, guys who had been in since it was customs and revenue were against it.

 

[Maxman1]

There are many ways to guard than with a gun.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The public would never accept a paramilitary CCG and the members of the CCG would never go for it.

Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs. Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.

 

[lenaitch]

The arming of CBSA agents was primarily for self-protection, and the potential use of that force is individualized. There are still concerns that there is no independent oversight body.

 

[Underway]

Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs. Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.

The Coast Guard DO NOT GUARD ANYTHING! Except perhaps life at sea (like a lifeguard). That's the entire point of my arguement. Adding "Guarding" is an expansion of their role.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Didn't take much good press to get our border agents armed over the last 10yrs. Those same border agents do basically the same job as the CCG - they 'guard our borders'.

Why not use that effort to expand the existing armed marine service (the RCN) and leave well enough alone with the CCG ?

Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.

 

[torg003]

Why not use that effort to expand the existing armed marine service (the RCN) and leave well enough alone with the CCG ?

Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.

Exactly! CCG goes back to being Marine Services Canada and does the same job they do now.

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps a name change for the CCG is really what's needed.

Canadian Marine Buoy and Navigation Maintenance Service.

 

[Spencer100]

Canadian Marine Buoy and Navigation Maintenance Service.

If that is all it is contract it out. Use the savings to the navy or the up the RCMP marine detachment.

Science work to fisheries and oceans.

I know that will get some people going. My point being the average Canadian thinks the CCG is like the US CG. Rescue Drivers and all like in the movies. You have to go out but you don't have to come back and all that.

 

[Good2Golf]

If that is all it is contract it out. Use the savings to the navy or the up the RCMP marine detachment.

Science work to fisheries and oceans.

I know that will get some people going. My point being the average Canadian thinks the CCG is like the US CG. Rescue Drivers and all like in the movies. You have to go out but you don't have to come back and all that.

No argument from me at all, S100!

Heck, Canada contracted out its entire Air Traffic Control and Navigation capability.

• Constabulary role > RCN
• Science role > DFO
• Maritime Navigation (Buoys and Ice breaking) > contracted
• Marine SAR > contracted