The Arctic

[Stoker]

It strikes me that this was the original rationale for the lightly armed AOPS in the first place. The government felt there was a need for machine guns to keep the civilian fleet in line. Our Turbot War, the Icelandic Cod Wars, the USCG dealing with armed poachers and drug runners all support that read.

But our lighthouse keepers, hydrographers and marine biologists were disinclined to make themselves targets. And the DFO officers were a minority constituency.

So the RCN was ordered to do a task they didn't want because, unlike the CCG they could be ordered.

Yes AOPV's are for constabulary duties to support other government departments in duties by mandate the CCG can't do. I'm not sure but I think under possibly the war measures act the CCG could be fully militarized but would they?

 

[Kirkhill]

Colin I agree that it is indeed easy to arm those ships and in my opinion they should be. Nevertheless the government has been very clear in their non intent of militarizing them and what that means. In my opinion way better to worry about the RCN than a turning a bunch of civilian sailors who whole history's been a non warfighting one into a para navy. If the men and women of the CCG want to be a armed forced then great, but they don't.

The notion that I keep turning back to is that of arming the Naval Reserve with containerised systems that could be bolted on to the decks of civilian vessels, be they government or commercial. Emphasis on the Air Defense / CUAS battle.

The other thing is:

Assume a convoy under escort.
Some of those ships are going to be loaded with seacans.

The reefer section supplies power for those reefers. How many Mk70 PDS systems could be on-boarded?

Load them up with CEC ESSMs (16 per container) and ASROCs that can be launched by the escort force.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes they could but their not and have been very clear about it. We have a hard enough time recruiting for the RCN and you think it will be that easy to recruit to replace CCG members.

I agree it's a challenge, hence do it in baby steps. People pay to fire machine guns when they go on holidays, training them to shoot, handle and clean them during regular crew cycles with a travelling training team, will keep some very interested and some not. As the years go by, it will become just part of the job.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last:



If I look at the stern of this one container ship and consider only those containers flush with the stern in the top row and the stepped back upper row I find

15x Reefer Containers on the top of the central block
2x Reefer Containers flanking the central block
11x Reefer Containers surmounting the central block with an additional 6x dry boxes flanking them.

Considering just the reefers for the moment, and replacing them with the Mk70 PDS from Lockheed Martin, with 4 strike length cells each,



the those 28 Mk70s could carry 112 cells. An Arleigh Burke only mounts 90 to 96 cells.

15x 4x ESSM Quad packs = 240 ESSM SAMs
11x 4x ASROC = 44x Mk 54 lightweight torpedoes
2x 4x Tomahawk MST = 8x Tomahawk

If you add the 6 dry box equivalents with an additional 24 cells then you might start adding NSMs.

Or perhaps you want to mount 3 or 4 Rheinmetall 35mm Millenium AD guns.



....

None of that would materially impact the cargo vessel's load carrying capacity and it would be a lot more effective that adding robotugs with four TEU-40 spots to the fleet.

 

[Stoker]

I agree it's a challenge, hence do it in baby steps. People pay to fire machine guns when they go on holidays, training them to shoot, handle and clean them during regular crew cycles with a travelling training team, will keep some very interested and some not. As the years go by, it will become just part of the job.

I'll go as far to say that any hint of that the unions and the rank and file will scream bloody murder. There's plenty who are nervous about going to DND and will be looking for any instance of that. Look you are postulating something that has a snowballs change of hell of happening.

 

[Furniture]

I'll go as far to say that any hint of that the unions and the rank and file will scream bloody murder. There's plenty who are nervous about going to DND and will be looking for any instance of that. Look you are postulating something that has a snowballs change of hell of happening.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another, but I wonder if the unions might not have the strong hand they may think they do.

The average Canadian doesn't have much patience for unions right now, so if the union tries any shenanigans, they may find that the government can trample them with zero actual political cost. The Canada Post unions are likely to discover this the hard way if they continue down their path.

 

[YZT580]

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another, but I wonder if the unions might not have the strong hand they may think they do.

The average Canadian doesn't have much patience for unions right now, so if the union tries any shenanigans, they may find that the government can trample them with zero actual political cost. The Canada Post unions are likely to discover this the hard way if they continue down their path.

Think back to the 1940's and the dockside problems with unions in the states. Who will you get to load them, who will you get to sail them, and how will you keep the brotherhood from telling your enemy what is onboard before the ship even drops its pilot?

 

[Furniture]

Think back to the 1940's and the dockside problems with unions in the states. Who will you get to load them, who will you get to sail them, and how will you keep the brotherhood from telling your enemy what is onboard before the ship even drops its pilot?

Well... this isn't WWII, so the threat is lower. Add to that the fact that the business of shipping will continue for some time even if the CCG decides to illegally strike, since the buoys are already out.

I'm not suggesting the GoC lock out the CCG, I'm simply pointing out that the average Canadian doesn't have warm and fuzzy feeling for the CCG, and likely won't support them if they decide to get up to silliness because they might have the "guard" the coasts. Consider how many Canadians would be shocked to discover our Coast Guard doesn't have an armed element for enforcement, because they are inundated with USCG related media more than with CCG media.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well... this isn't WWII, so the threat is lower. Add to that the fact that the business of shipping will continue for some time even if the CCG decides to illegally strike, since the buoys are already out.

I'm not suggesting the GoC lock out the CCG, I'm simply pointing out that the average Canadian doesn't have warm and fuzzy feeling for the CCG, and likely won't support them if they decide to get up to silliness because they might have the "guard" the coasts. Consider how many Canadians would be shocked to discover our Coast Guard doesn't have an armed element for enforcement, because they are inundated with USCG related media more than with CCG media.

They're fairly well known, but not too popular, on the West Coast these days...

Islanders want West Coast lighthouse de-staffing decision reversed

Canadian Coast Guard ceasing light keeper functions at West Coast Trail lighthouses due to 'safety concerns'

www.vancouverislandfreedaily.com

 

[YZT580]

Well... this isn't WWII, so the threat is lower. Add to that the fact that the business of shipping will continue for some time even if the CCG decides to illegally strike, since the buoys are already out.

I'm not suggesting the GoC lock out the CCG, I'm simply pointing out that the average Canadian doesn't have warm and fuzzy feeling for the CCG, and likely won't support them if they decide to get up to silliness because they might have the "guard" the coasts. Consider how many Canadians would be shocked to discover our Coast Guard doesn't have an armed element for enforcement, because they are inundated with USCG related media more than with CCG media.

Talking from a different viewpoint, sorry. I was considering taking common freighters in a wartime scenario and not thinking of the CCG in particular.

 

[GR66]

Why would you need to make the CCG an armed force rather than fit their ships for (but not with) the required weapons stations and sensors for security/constabulary work? Embark RCMP or CAF personnel (with the required weapons/sensors/unmanned vehicles) when the threat level/task requires.

I don't think anyone envisions the CCG taking on Russian/Chinese subs or warships but they could be used to monitor for example Chinese "research" vessels conducting ISR off our coasts/in the Arctic, monitoring subsurface infrastructure (and searching for/intercepting foreign UUVs/USVs), deploying containerized VDS, intercepting smugglers, etc.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Why would you need to make the CCG an armed force rather than fit their ships for (but not with) the required weapons stations and sensors for security/constabulary work? Embark RCMP or CAF personnel (with the required weapons/sensors/unmanned vehicles) when the threat level/task requires.

I don't think anyone envisions the CCG taking on Russian/Chinese subs or warships but they could be used to monitor for example Chinese "research" vessels conducting ISR off our coasts/in the Arctic, monitoring subsurface infrastructure (and searching for/intercepting foreign UUVs/USVs), deploying containerized VDS, intercepting smugglers, etc.

Hmmm... sounds like we might need a new policy of some kind to guide next steps....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Why would you need to make the CCG an armed force rather than fit their ships for (but not with) the required weapons stations and sensors for security/constabulary work? Embark RCMP or CAF personnel (with the required weapons/sensors/unmanned vehicles) when the threat level/task requires.

I don't think anyone envisions the CCG taking on Russian/Chinese subs or warships but they could be used to monitor for example Chinese "research" vessels conducting ISR off our coasts/in the Arctic, monitoring subsurface infrastructure (and searching for/intercepting foreign UUVs/USVs), deploying containerized VDS, intercepting smugglers, etc.

My opinion on arming them is to support those boarding parties, provided by other agencies. Less chance that someone will oppose a boarding party if they know it's backed up by a HMG. Boarding parties are very specialist niche which the CCG would not do well, as it would occupy 1% of their actual job and take up a significant time training and maintaining them.

The CCG back before the LNG boom was busy shutting down and removing navaids and working themselves out of a job. There was serious talk about privatizing the navaid system modelled after the UK system About us

The challenge was how to provide the SAR Zone coverage that Canada is obligated to do, if the above went through.

The various Environmental Assessments and TERMPOL review showed a massive upgrade in Navaids and heavy SAR response was needed to safely transport hydrocarbons. That is what helped save the CCG on this coast from the TB axe and the reason why we have a very expensive contract for two ocean going salvage vessels on this coast.

 

[Stoker]

My opinion on arming them is to support those boarding parties, provided by other agencies. Less chance that someone will oppose a boarding party if they know it's backed up by a HMG. Boarding parties are very specialist niche which the CCG would not do well, as it would occupy 1% of their actual job and take up a significant time training and maintaining them.

The CCG back before the LNG boom was busy shutting down and removing navaids and working themselves out of a job. There was serious talk about privatizing the navaid system modelled after the UK system About us

The challenge was how to provide the SAR Zone coverage that Canada is obligated to do, if the above went through.

The various Environmental Assessments and TERMPOL review showed a massive upgrade in Navaids and heavy SAR response was needed to safely transport hydrocarbons. That is what helped save the CCG on this coast from the TB axe and the reason why we have a very expensive contract for two ocean going salvage vessels on this coast.

I don’t see a need to arm the CCG with heavy machine guns. The CCG is a civilian, non-combatant service under DFO whose core mandate is SAR, icebreaking, environmental response and aids to navigation. When force is required at sea, counter-smuggling, serious fisheries enforcement, etc. Canada already has RCMP Shiprider teams, DFO fishery officers and, when warranted, RCN support. Those agencies bring the legal authorities and ROEs for boarding and arrest.
Putting HMGs on CCG ships wouldn’t just be a training burden (weapons quals, ROE refreshers, oversight) on crews already stretched with technical and SAR requirements it would also complicate international law. CCG vessels currently enjoy civilian/neutral status that allows them to operate freely for rescue or icebreaking, even in disputed or foreign waters. Arming them would muddy that status and could make them lawful targets in conflict.
As for the “CCG was working itself out of a job until LNG saved it” argument, that oversimplifies history. There was talk 20+ years ago of alternative service delivery for aids to navigation, but Canada can’t privatize core obligations like sovereignty, SAR and Arctic presence. The LNG/TERMPOL reviews certainly drove new navaids and towing requirements, but the larger drivers of fleet renewal were Arctic sovereignty, climate-driven traffic growth, and environmental protection, not just LNG. The West Coast emergency towing vessels exist for marine casualty prevention, not armed enforcement.
Canada already has the right enforcement architecture. Arming the CCG would add cost and risk without filling any real capability gap.