New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Navy_Pete]

I'm going to ask a question that may be self evident to you RCN folks and possibly to the other branches of the CAF, but here goes.

On OP Caribe I have seen that its standard practice to have a USCG boarding party (maybe not the correct term) imbedded with our RCN ship and it seems like its the USCG that does the 'actual take down' of the drug runner. That its the USCG that is boarding the drug running ship. that is armed for this scenario and that apprehends and arrests the individuals found on board the drug running ship.

So my question is this - why can't a CCG ship have a USCG boarding party imbedded with them and have the CCG ship participate in OP Caribe? What does the RCN ship bring to the table that a CCG ship not bring?

I think there is a fundamental difference you need to consider with the USCG; they are part of the US military, are fully armed and forward deploy warships places like the gulf to protect the USN and do similar ops to what we do with the RCN.

I could be totally wrong, but I don't believe the CCG doesn't do anything like that, and AFAIK doesn't operate outside Canadian waters, or have the same kind of infra/comms to support a USCG type mission.

They could, but would be a massive change to their scope and raison d'etre.

RCN has the mandate to operate outside Canada, and infra set up to operate and communicate with USCG (via US joint task force commands), so it just makes sense.

CCG may be able to do something similar with the RCMP within Canadian TTW with some investment and training, but it's probably easier generally for the RCMP to have their own small boats for inland waters, and then piggy back off all everything already in place for domestic ops for anything on the coasts.

 

[Stoker]

I'm going to ask a question that may be self evident to you RCN folks and possibly to the other branches of the CAF, but here goes.

On OP Caribe I have seen that its standard practice to have a USCG boarding party (maybe not the correct term) imbedded with our RCN ship and it seems like its the USCG that does the 'actual take down' of the drug runner. That its the USCG that is boarding the drug running ship. that is armed for this scenario and that apprehends and arrests the individuals found on board the drug running ship.

So my question is this - why can't a CCG ship have a USCG boarding party imbedded with them and have the CCG ship participate in OP Caribe? What does the RCN ship bring to the table that a CCG ship not bring?

We signed a MOU with the US to provide support, we don't have the legal authority to arrest. We support them with the ship and sensors, and drive the RHIB. We provide personnel on mother ships to search for drugs if we need to and have in the past. Our ships have also hosted detainees until they are turned over to USCG assets.
The CCG doesn't have the mandate to support in such a manner currently. Canada brings the expertise, boats, sensors and weapons if need be.

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BN-counternarcotics-1.pdf

 

[Stoker]

I have no idea what Carney will do, but I will say it sounds lik the wants to put some teeth on the CCH, and that's probably a way up our defence spending. But this is a campaign, let's see what actually happens.

I feel sorry for the crews that may have to sail an AOPs into harms way in the near future.

I'm sure they don't. Sailors love the ships, currently its the best go we have.

 

[Underway]

I think there is a fundamental difference you need to consider with the USCG; they are part of the US military, are fully armed and forward deploy warships places like the gulf to protect the USN and do similar ops to what we do with the RCN.

I could be totally wrong, but I don't believe the CCG doesn't do anything like that, and AFAIK doesn't operate outside Canadian waters, or have the same kind of infra/comms to support a USCG type mission.

They could, but would be a massive change to their scope and raison d'etre.

RCN has the mandate to operate outside Canada, and infra set up to operate and communicate with USCG (via US joint task force commands), so it just makes sense.

CCG may be able to do something similar with the RCMP within Canadian TTW with some investment and training, but it's probably easier generally for the RCMP to have their own small boats for inland waters, and then piggy back off all everything already in place for domestic ops for anything on the coasts.

CCG does do overseas fisheries work. But AFAIK its people not vessels.

Again I'm going to post this again because the lift for the CCG is a lot further than people might think to make them count for NATO.

---

NATO requirements are as follows for coast guards:


A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure

AOPS meets all these requirements. Trained, directed, under direct military authority, equipped and can operate outside national territory. Even an unarmed mine warfare vessel crewed by military crew meet this requirement. But CCG have a long way to go to meet this bar.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We signed a MOU with the US to provide support, we don't have the legal authority to arrest. We support them with the ship and sensors, and drive the RHIB. We provide personnel on mother ships to search for drugs if we need to and have in the past. Our ships have also hosted detainees until they are turned over to USCG assets.
The CCG doesn't have the mandate to support in such a manner currently. Canada brings the expertise, boats, sensors and weapons if need be.

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BN-counternarcotics-1.pdf

I'm going to pull on this thread a bit more as I'm trying to see it clearly.

If the RCMP was to board an armed party onto a CCG ship, in addition to the USCG armed boarding party, it sounds like, at a high level, other than changing the mandate (Yes, I understand that is a large change) there really isn't much of a difference between a RCN (Kingston/AOPS) and a CCG ship. Possibly that CCG sensors might need an update, but what else?

A CCG crew could drive the RHIB, or even an armed RCMP detachment. A RCMP armed detachment could supervise detainees until being turned over to the USCG. A RCMP armed detachment could search the mother ships for drugs.

Basically the Kingston/AOPS provides a 'vehicle' for which the USCG needs in order to reach the drug runner. It then provides a smaller vehicle (the RHIB), sometimes a driver or not, so that the USCG can board the drug runner. It then provides the ability to hold/store the detainees and/or drugs. All that I'm trying to get at is, in the end what we are providing is a 'vehicle' and an experienced 'driver/crew' of the vehicle. There is no reason why the type of the vehicle can't be changed from time to time or completely going forward.

 

[Stoker]

I'm going to pull on this thread a bit more as I'm trying to see it clearly.

If the RCMP was to board an armed party onto a CCG ship, in addition to the USCG armed boarding party, it sounds like, at a high level, other than changing the mandate (Yes, I understand that is a large change) there really isn't much of a difference between a RCN (Kingston/AOPS) and a CCG ship. Possibly that CCG sensors might need an update, but what else?

A CCG crew could drive the RHIB, or even an armed RCMP detachment. A RCMP armed detachment could supervise detainees until being turned over to the USCG. A RCMP armed detachment could search the mother ships for drugs.

Basically the Kingston/AOPS provides a 'vehicle' for which the USCG needs in order to reach the drug runner. It then provides a smaller vehicle (the RHIB), sometimes a driver or not, so that the USCG can board the drug runner. It then provides the ability to hold/store the detainees and/or drugs. All that I'm trying to get at is, in the end what we are providing is a 'vehicle' and an experienced 'driver/crew' of the vehicle. There is no reason why the type of the vehicle can't be changed from time to time or completely going forward.

I guess its a matter of risk, would a CCG ship with unionized employees want to drive the Rhib a carry out this type of work. If they take a RPG from the mother ship or go fast would CCG employees attempt damage control, would they be able to carry out Naval Combat first Aid. There's lots of variables here. CCG ships in theory carry out this work, but as mentioned before they need to have the mandate and whatever upgrades they need to have such as being armed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm sure they don't. Sailors love the ships, currently its the best go we have.

No doubt and I know they love Asterix too.

 

[quadrapiper]

If there's a need for a federal constabulary fleet that isn't RCN, why look at messing with the CCG, who're already a bunch of distinct fleets/missions with a common paintjob, and not just build out the RCMP's maritime capacity?

 

[dapaterson]

No doubt and I know they love Asterix too.

So... Ships not designed by the RCN that don't treat crew like cattle provide a better experience?

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm going to pull on this thread a bit more as I'm trying to see it clearly.

If the RCMP was to board an armed party onto a CCG ship, in addition to the USCG armed boarding party, it sounds like, at a high level, other than changing the mandate (Yes, I understand that is a large change) there really isn't much of a difference between a RCN (Kingston/AOPS) and a CCG ship. Possibly that CCG sensors might need an update, but what else?

A CCG crew could drive the RHIB, or even an armed RCMP detachment. A RCMP armed detachment could supervise detainees until being turned over to the USCG. A RCMP armed detachment could search the mother ships for drugs.

Basically the Kingston/AOPS provides a 'vehicle' for which the USCG needs in order to reach the drug runner. It then provides a smaller vehicle (the RHIB), sometimes a driver or not, so that the USCG can board the drug runner. It then provides the ability to hold/store the detainees and/or drugs. All that I'm trying to get at is, in the end what we are providing is a 'vehicle' and an experienced 'driver/crew' of the vehicle. There is no reason why the type of the vehicle can't be changed from time to time or completely going forward.

Not really, if things hit the fan even an MCDV has small arms and can provide support, as well as encrypted comms and other assets that support operational awareness and coordination. AOPs will in theory also be helo capable to some extent at some point in the future (following repairs of defects and shortfalls), but suspect a lot of the miltary gear was removed from the design as part of the CCG redesign.

I think with the staus quo what you are driving at would more be like SWAT rolling up to a house in a taxi in the CCG option, where an MCDV would be a commercial truck with fire support and some radios etc mounted to the dash.

If you want to do that within Canada, I'd agree with @quadpiper and just expand the RCMP (like they did with helos for border patrol). For outside Canada, stick with CAF and foreign partners.

The CCG is good at what it does, so no real reason to make it do something it doesn't.

 

[Stoker]

I'm going to pull on this thread a bit more as I'm trying to see it clearly.

If the RCMP was to board an armed party onto a CCG ship, in addition to the USCG armed boarding party, it sounds like, at a high level, other than changing the mandate (Yes, I understand that is a large change) there really isn't much of a difference between a RCN (Kingston/AOPS) and a CCG ship. Possibly that CCG sensors might need an update, but what else?

A CCG crew could drive the RHIB, or even an armed RCMP detachment. A RCMP armed detachment could supervise detainees until being turned over to the USCG. A RCMP armed detachment could search the mother ships for drugs.

Basically the Kingston/AOPS provides a 'vehicle' for which the USCG needs in order to reach the drug runner. It then provides a smaller vehicle (the RHIB), sometimes a driver or not, so that the USCG can board the drug runner. It then provides the ability to hold/store the detainees and/or drugs. All that I'm trying to get at is, in the end what we are providing is a 'vehicle' and an experienced 'driver/crew' of the vehicle. There is no reason why the type of the vehicle can't be changed from time to time or completely going forward.

This was posted on a another thread by cloud cover, what does it exactly mean or have it been discussed with the CCG unions who knows. I wager there will be push back.

 

[Stoker]

No doubt and I know they love Asterix too.

Yep I sailed in AOPS on a regular basis but just for up to 2 week periods. Even though I'm in embarked forces mess its way better than the 6 person accommodation pod on the Kingston Class.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So... Ships not designed by the RCN that don't treat crew like cattle provide a better experience?

Wild idea eh ?

 

[Booter]

Literally take your ideas for the RCMP and throw them in the garbage. We re not starting new deployed maritime units. We re at 50% staffing across operational units. Stop it.

The navy needs to navy. CBSA needs to CBSA. Get with it.

 

[dapaterson]

Wild idea eh ?

RCN leadership:

 

[lenaitch]

I feel sorry for the crews that may have to sail an AOPs into harms way in the near future.

I'd feel even more sorry for the crew of a CCG ship if the government suddenly decreed that they are now something they didn't sign up for. It's all in good fun until somebody shoots back.

I'm going to pull on this thread a bit more as I'm trying to see it clearly.

If the RCMP was to board an armed party onto a CCG ship, in addition to the USCG armed boarding party, it sounds like, at a high level, other than changing the mandate (Yes, I understand that is a large change) there really isn't much of a difference between a RCN (Kingston/AOPS) and a CCG ship. Possibly that CCG sensors might need an update, but what else?

A CCG crew could drive the RHIB, or even an armed RCMP detachment. A RCMP armed detachment could supervise detainees until being turned over to the USCG. A RCMP armed detachment could search the mother ships for drugs.

Basically the Kingston/AOPS provides a 'vehicle' for which the USCG needs in order to reach the drug runner. It then provides a smaller vehicle (the RHIB), sometimes a driver or not, so that the USCG can board the drug runner. It then provides the ability to hold/store the detainees and/or drugs. All that I'm trying to get at is, in the end what we are providing is a 'vehicle' and an experienced 'driver/crew' of the vehicle. There is no reason why the type of the vehicle can't be changed from time to time or completely going forward.

My first question would be what law are they enforcing and under what authority are they boarding a vessel? In Canadian waters, no doubt there are several. On the high seas?? Best as I can tell, the USCG does it because they say they can.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The US law that let them operate authorizes them to board (1) any US flagged vessel anywhere in the world (2) any vessel NOT flying any flag or operating under the flag of any nation anywhere in the world (3) any vessel flying/operating under the flag of any nation, with the authorization of that nation anywhere in the world, but without authorization if the vessel is in US waters or is believed to be engaged in piracy on the high seas or is trying to run an officially declared blockade (for instance: running oil to NK) (4) any vessel in the US EEZ where it is suspected that the vessel is engaged in a resources collection activity without authorization.

Believe it or not, RCN vessels can legally do the same in cases number (1) for Canadian flagged vessels but, then only on the high seas - in Canadian waters or EEZ, it would be RCMP and Fisheries officers responsibility - and number (2), (3) - for vessels in Canadian waters for the first exception - but not (4), which as I mentioned is for the RCMP and Fisheries officers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Coast Guard conducts patrols dedicated to enforcing laws.

Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships - 103 m 6660 tonnes

Listed Category - No vessels listed

2 of the 8 AOPS being built are already destined for the Coast Guard
Carney seems to make no distinction between the 6 RCN ships and the 2 Coast Guard ships.
He refers to the 8 as a package.

Offshore Patrol Vessels

Cape Roger - 62.5 m 1255 tonnes
Cygnus - 62.4 m 1234 tonnes
Leonard J Cowley - 72.0 m 2188 tonnes
Tanu - 54.7 m 754 tonnes

Midshore Patrol Vessels 42.8 m 253 tonnes

A Leblanc
Caporal Kaeble VC
Captain Goddard MSM
Constable Carriere
Corporal Maclaren MMV
Corporal Teather CV
G Peddle SC
M Charles MB
Private Robertson VC

 

[lenaitch]

The US law that let them operate authorizes them to board (1) any US flagged vessel anywhere in the world (2) any vessel NOT flying any flag or operating under the flag of any nation anywhere in the world (3) any vessel flying/operating under the flag of any nation, with the authorization of that nation anywhere in the world, but without authorization if the vessel is in US waters or is believed to be engaged in piracy on the high seas or is trying to run an officially declared blockade (for instance: running oil to NK) (4) any vessel in the US EEZ where it is suspected that the vessel is engaged in a resources collection activity without authorization.

Believe it or not, RCN vessels can legally do the same in cases number (1) for Canadian flagged vessels but, then only on the high seas - in Canadian waters or EEZ, it would be RCMP and Fisheries officers responsibility - and number (2), (3) - for vessels in Canadian waters for the first exception - but not (4), which as I mentioned is for the RCMP and Fisheries officers.

#2 comes under my definition of 'because they can'.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

#2 comes under my definition of 'because they can'.

Perhaps.

The ocean - the international waters part of it - is known as the big commons. Jurisdiction thereon in "enforced" by every nation on the basis of ships flying the flag of the nation whose "protection" they chose to sail. Therefore, ships that fly no flag or do not acknowledge that they are operating under the flag of any nation are basically saying that they rely singly and uniquely on their own devices for protection from the actions of any other ship. In the face of a specific nation's warship, that is little help or protection.