CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[Jarnhamar]

Take the people that’s left and assign them to installations defence and security (Air Defence, Asset Security, etc).

Using Trenton as an example, how big do you think the security force unit should be? At the micro level, how big would the shifts be?

 

[dapaterson]

That would require more people and more positions than we can dream of. Within the current constraints we have, having multiple small units and formations doesn’t work. It just consumes resources that are needed elsewhere.

I am not disagreeing about restructure being an institutional imperative; I'm disagreeing that we should structure for as many units as possible.

 

[lenaitch]

As a fairly simple first step, we could lower the gates at the bases.

"Peace officer" is a legal status that conveys certain powers and authorities under the law. A police officer is also a peace officer. But a pilot in command of an aircraft is a peace officer too. So's a correctional officer. So are mayors and justices of the peace. There are others too.

Being designated a 'peace officer' means that you have a legal status under the law that automatically conveys upon you certain powers and authorities without having to have a new law passed to do so. That can include use of force in the execution of lawful duties such as arrest, or the prevention of the commission of criminal offences.

That's not the only possible legal mechanism to have those powers. But it's the most legally convenient one, and where existing peace officer authorities under the Criminal Code can be leveraged, it simplifies things. However, those criminal code authorities would not allow someone employed in airfield security to shoot someone to prevent an act of theft, espionage, or sabotage. I would content that with some of the new capabilities and technologies Canada will be getting, that's a gap that will need to be filled. I could be wrong but I suspect it's something the US will demand.

As to 'why not police' for airfield security, well, it's a huge waste of 90% of what we bring to the table, and it's also hella expensive. Base pay for a 3 year RCMP member these days is something like $115k. That's before shift premium, before any sort of seniority pay that starts kicking in at four or five years... It's like building a security force staffed entirely by senior captains or up, pay wise. It also means taking people with not enough training for the real kinetic security tasks, and a lot of unnecessary training in other things they'll never do. It also means that just as people have a couple years in the role and are getting good in it, they'll be getting the hell out transferring to where they can do real police work, or do other similar work in more comfortable settings and locations. If CAF wants a professionalized security force, it needs to build something that actually is that.

Police can do security, but it's not our forte, and it's not a good use of our already badly strained resources.

Another complication could be intelligence sharing. If the authorities or even local law caught wind that there was to be an attempt, protest, fence climbing, etc. at a secured base, sharing that information with non-p/o personnel might be a problem.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am not disagreeing about restructure being an institutional imperative; I'm disagreeing that we should structure for as many units as possible.

I am not advocating to structure ourselves for as many units as possible. I am advocating that we reduce the number of partially filled units and consolidate our forces in fully functionning units.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The "fuck you" move by RCAF providing their own ground security for new generation aircraft instead of the army would be to divest Tac Hel and leave it to the army.

Which could actually be brilliant and make practically everybody happy.

I like where this is headed

What I think is funny reading all these comments is everyone hasn't really addressed the elephant in the room....

What we really need and what everyone is asking for is more Infantry

 

[SupersonicMax]

Using Trenton as an example, how big do you think the security force unit should be? At the micro level, how big would the shifts be?

It will entirely depend on what assets will be based there, and what the security requirements for those assets are. Shift for WASF are currently 12 hrs on, 12 hrs off, 4 days on and 4 days off.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I am not advocating to structure ourselves for as many units as possible. I am advocating that we reduce the number of partially filled units and consolidate our forces in fully functionning units.

I actually agree with this. Army units themselves aren't even kept at warfighting strength and rely heavily on augmentation.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I like where this is headed

What I think is funny reading all these comments is everyone hasn't really addressed the elephant in the room....

What we really need and what everyone is asking for is more Infantry

RCAF keeps people right?

 

[brihard]

Using Trenton as an example, how big do you think the security force unit should be? At the micro level, how big would the shifts be?

Not my place to guess numbers, but I can say as rough math that you can take an individual shift strength, and multiply by roughly 7 to get a bare bones minimum self-sufficient force size inclusive of core administrative and operational support, and with some ability to sustain soft vacancies such as leave, individual and collective training, and illness. It increases if you're adding capabilities like vehicle and weapons techs and such.

Another complication could be intelligence sharing. If the authorities or even local law caught wind that there was to be an attempt, protest, fence climbing, etc. at a secured base, sharing that information with non-p/o personnel might be a problem.

Not really. They'd be federal, so just bind all of them under the Security of Information Act. Plenty of non-peace officers get access to highly sensitive intelligence. In fact nearly everyone getting access to Canada's most sensitive intelligence products are not peace officers. Intelligence could be sanitized and operationalized to the extent necessary. However, mostly that wouldn't be the security force; it would be CSIS and RCMP for any actual national security threat, working 'left of bang'.

Presumably security would be in zones of increasing security. The hard security force for, e.g., F-35s shouldn't ever need to worry about non-threat issues like normal lawful protesters, because they shouldn't get past the base perimeter security and local police. That outer perimeter should serve as a 'tripwire' for the much tighter and heavier inner high security.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I actually agree with this. Army units themselves aren't even kept at warfighting strength and rely heavily on augmentation.

I bet you if we do this, a couple of Battalions will be emtpy.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I bet you if we do this, a couple of Battalions will be emtpy.

You could clip 3 battalions worth of Infantry and the 6 remaining would still need to rely on augmentation for operations.

The Army's readiness cycle is make believe btw

Not my place to guess numbers, but I can say as rough math that you can take an individual shift strength, and multiply by roughly 7 to get a bare bones minimum self-sufficient force size inclusive of core administrative and operational support, and with some ability to sustain soft vacancies such as leave, individual and collective training, and illness. It increases if you're adding capabilities like vehicle and weapons techs and such.



Not really. They'd be federal, so just bind all of them under the Security of Information Act. Plenty of non-peace officers get access to highly sensitive intelligence. In fact nearly everyone getting access to Canada's most sensitive intelligence products are not peace officers. Intelligence could be sanitized and operationalized to the extent necessary. However, mostly that wouldn't be the security force; it would be CSIS and RCMP for any actual national security threat, working 'left of bang'.

Presumably security would be in zones of increasing security. The hard security force for, e.g., F-35s shouldn't ever need to worry about non-threat issues like normal lawful protesters, because they shouldn't get past the base perimeter security and local police. That outer perimeter should serve as a 'tripwire' for the much tighter and heavier inner high security.

It all depends on what the security requirements are.

Operation Titan in Guyana to protect the ESA space launch facility is an example:

50 permanent at all times, augmented up to 400 pers or 2-3 companies during Launches.

Opération Titan — Wikipédia

fr.m.wikipedia.org

Obviously it wouldn't be that large but it could be similar.


Fleet Protection Group, Royal Marines is another example. It's 550 all ranks and their primary mission is guarding the UK nuclear weapons.

43 Commando Fleet Protection Group - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[quadrapiper]

Well the Brits have the Ministry of Defence Police Force which as its name implies belongs to the UK MoD, but is composed of civilian officers. Their mandate is to provide armed security/counter terrorism services to designated high-risk areas, as well as uniformed policing and limited investigative services to Ministry of Defence property, personnel, and installations throughout the United Kingdom.

The one catch is that they do not deploy overseas.

Stand up something like that, dump the entire base policing role on it on top of the security force, and rebuild the MPs as a deployment-focused entity?

 

[QV]

What we really need and what everyone is asking for is more Infantry

Nobody will admit we need more infantry. But I think what everyone really wants is to disband the MP . This is the best possible reason for that. The MP are under utilized now and already have the relevant training and the numbers/structure to get started. They already do other closely related tasks and are deployable. They could literally start tomorrow, add in surveillance technology and key PS positions for continuity and they'd be very effective.

Over the long term, I would re-structure the entire outfit to be a ground force protection unit that operates domestically and in theatre. I'd change the initial and continuing training program to suit this role. I'd take the security responsibility/requirement away from all other CAF elements wholesale.

A complete re-branding of the MP is in fact the easy button and is the only option that makes sense. Poaching PYs from the CA, RCN, or RCAF, and or a contracted or civil only solution are simply not viable (deployable, armed, CoC control, cost).

 

[GR66]

Nobody will admit we need more infantry. But I think what everyone really wants is to disband the MP . This is the best possible reason for that. The MP are under utilized now and already have the relevant training and the numbers/structure to get started. They already do other closely related tasks and are deployable. They could literally start tomorrow, add in surveillance technology and key PS positions for continuity and they'd be very effective.

Over the long term, I would re-structure the entire outfit to be a ground force protection unit that operates domestically and in theatre. I'd change the initial and continuing training program to suit this role. I'd take the security responsibility/requirement away from all other CAF elements wholesale.

A complete re-branding of the MP is in fact the easy button and is the only option that makes sense. Poaching PYs from the CA, RCN, or RCAF, and or a contracted or civil only solution are simply not viable (deployable, armed, CoC control, cost).

Assuming that there is no immediate plan to shift the MP's from their current policing role to a strictly security role and that whatever new security force is stood up will required dedicated PY's (whether new, from existing combat arms units or from HQ downsizing) then would it not make sense then to simply stand up a new MP Regiment that is dedicated to the Security role rather than the Policing role?

Other trades already deal with different "streams" for their members (Mech vs Light Infantry, AD vs Tube Artillery, Fighter vs Transport vs Rotary Wing pilots, etc.) so the MP's should be able to have both Policing and Security streams. Policing stream MP's could be embedded with the Security Force Companies to provide the LE elements that may be required (power of arrest, etc.) all within the same tactical CoC. As MP's they would be deployable unlike a civilian force and the Combat Arms units wouldn't have the added task of needing to rotate troops into security duties. Some geographically close Reserve units could be re-rolled as MP Security Force companies to provide surge troops at times of heightened security risk.

 

[QV]

Assuming that there is no immediate plan to shift the MP's from their current policing role to a strictly security role and that whatever new security force is stood up will required dedicated PY's (whether new, from existing combat arms units or from HQ downsizing) then would it not make sense then to simply stand up a new MP Regiment that is dedicated to the Security role rather than the Policing role?

Other trades already deal with different "streams" for their members (Mech vs Light Infantry, AD vs Tube Artillery, Fighter vs Transport vs Rotary Wing pilots, etc.) so the MP's should be able to have both Policing and Security streams. Policing stream MP's could be embedded with the Security Force Companies to provide the LE elements that may be required (power of arrest, etc.) all within the same tactical CoC. As MP's they would be deployable unlike a civilian force and the Combat Arms units wouldn't have the added task of needing to rotate troops into security duties. Some geographically close Reserve units could be re-rolled as MP Security Force companies to provide surge troops at times of heightened security risk.

I think that what I suggest could be done with existing PYs and a significant reduction in Cmre contracting costs. Which would be as net neutral from an operating cost perspective as possible. I do not believe garrison policing to the extent is currently conducted is actually required, hence my position to delete that function entirely from the MP role and the very nature of more secure installations would reduce the policing requirement to a degree. My reason for this is simply there is not a enough call volume right now for "real" police matters to justify an entire police service and all that goes with it - many of the "calls for service" are better managed at the unit level because they are administrative or unit disciplinary in nature anyway. Actual criminal code offences are more appropriately handled in the civilian criminal justice system with more serious sex assaults already going that way. Perhaps my COA would require MOUs with local civil police for emergency police response, or even a RCMP member or two dedicated to the bases as liaison (which is federal property so that might make more sense). This could be managed appropriately.

Policing, done properly, is a full commitment and takes years and years to be professional in all aspects. I do not think having two streams where members could (will) move from one to the other would do either stream any good. That is kind of what we already have now. People come out of garrison policing positions and spend years doing un-related jobs (MSGU, field, ect) then come back to policing having lost years of requisite experience necessary to be effective.

Right now, the MP are under utilized and the CAF desperately requires to significantly up it's security game. Only the MP are positioned to assume this entirely right now. Ultimately, if the CAF wants to do this the right way, it should not be a piecemeal effort by adding more hats or stretching existing PYs with additional responsibilities. It's decision time and cost/time/capability are factors that can't be dismissed. What is more important from a national security standpoint? I don't think maintaining an in-house police service at the expense of the security obligations that allow us to be a NATO member of substance is the answer. Particularly when there are others that can do the necessary policing (actual police matters, not admin files) far better.

 

[Fabius]

No matter what option is chosen the clock is ticking.
Looking at timelines and how the CAF and DND execute change, a SWAG;
Year 0 - Decision is made on CAF security forces
Year 1 - Stand up after various administrative tasks
Year 2 - IOC
Year 4-5- FOC

It’s Jan 2025. A decision made now would likely have IOC of the choice being made in 2027.
That should have IOC just barely in time for first F35s and should be FOC by the time Aegis is in play as well.

However we are running out of runway for bold decisions so I would not expect much in the way of change. Likely just bare minimum modifications to existing things to avoid unnecessary changes before we know what force structure we will need for Force 2050,

 

[QV]

My prediction:

-nothing
-nothing
-nothing
- First F35s arrive in two weeks + oh shit! + Hey CFMP Gp, "securitas" is on your cap badge, handle it" = shit show.

 

[Halifax Tar]

My prediction:

-nothing
-nothing
-nothing
- First F35s arrive in two weeks + oh shit! + Hey CFMP Gp, "securitas" is on your cap badge, handle it" = shit show.

You're probably closer to correct than we want to admit.

 

[dapaterson]

You're probably closer to correct than we want to admit.

I suspect that the Americans will not accept that sort of half assed behavior

 

[Halifax Tar]

I suspect that the Americans will not accept that sort of half assed behavior

One can hope that may force our hand.