• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

Zoomie said:
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.
Click to expand...
A real presence? How many assets are we really talking about?
 
Remius said:
A real presence? How many assets are we really talking about?
Click to expand...
How many assets do we need there vs. how many do we need the ability to get into the arctic when needed?

Lets also not forget that despite the Scandinavian capitals being at high latitudes, their climate differs significantly from our arctic. Climate matters, beyond when a spoiled wealthy teenager is throwing a tantrum in NY...
 
Furniture said:
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.
Click to expand...
But WHY are we (and pretty much all of our allies) already understaffed and having difficulty filling our current positions?

We can talk about having three deployable Divisions, Corvettes to replace the MCDV's, a 12 submarine fleet and an RCAF Regiment to secure our airfields but where will we find the personnel to man them?

Yes, I'm sure there are definitely improvements that can be made to our recruiting, training and retention that will somewhat improve the personnel situation, but I think the reality is that just like every other Western nation we're going to have difficulty maintaining our current military structures, never mind expanding them significantly. Buying the ships/subs/planes/tanks, etc. is actually the easy part.

Do we just wish away the situation and pretend we can keep going the way we are and have a military that looks good on Wikipedia but is crippled by a severe lack in personnel? Or do we face reality and try to work the best with what we have available?

To be clear, I'm not proposing downsizing the CAF. I'm simply suggesting that we need to look at more radical solutions to the problems we have since the status quo isn't working. That may include things like greater automation, smaller peace-time Full-time units with a larger Reserve pool to draw on, different career models for different types of trades, base and unit consolidation, etc.
 
GR66 said:
I'm simply suggesting that we need to look at more radical solutions to the problems we have since the status quo isn't working. That may include things like greater automation, smaller peace-time Full-time units with a larger Reserve pool to draw on, different career models for different types of trades, base and unit consolidation, etc.
Click to expand...

That would mean drastic changes to how the CAF is run, which would ultimately mean prioritizing National Defense. It's already been established that Canada isn't a serious country without a serious CAF.

Back to the topic....

GR66 said:
We can talk about having three deployable Divisions, Corvettes to replace the MCDV's, a 12 submarine fleet and an RCAF Regiment to secure our airfields but where will we find the personnel to man them?
Click to expand...

We'll find the personnel, they'll just be people already employed by the Wing. They'll tack on another secondary duty to existing base personnel. As is tradition. You'll have techs, cooks and clerks patrol the fence lines and check ID's for restricted areas.
 
Quirky said:
That would mean drastic changes to how the CAF is run, which would ultimately mean prioritizing National Defense. It's already been established that Canada isn't a serious country without a serious CAF.

Back to the topic....



We'll find the personnel, they'll just be people already employed by the Wing. They'll tack on another secondary duty to existing base personnel. As is tradition. You'll have techs, cooks and clerks patrol the fence lines and check ID's for restricted areas.
Click to expand...

You're probably right.
 
Quirky said:
You'll have techs, cooks and clerks patrol the fence lines and check ID's for restricted areas.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t good enough for nukes, and it won’t be good enough for 5th generation fighters. A proper security force isn’t optional — and everyone’s known this for a while. We were never going to be able to secure the world’s 3rd largest F-35 fleet with a padlock.
 
Well if 70,000 are applying, we need to fix the recruitment systems and perhaps lower our standards a bit. If we can up that intake of 2500 a year to 7500, you would start to see more people in the CAF. Of course there is the minor issues of housing, feeding and clothing them. Not to mention training.
 
GR66 said:
But WHY are we (and pretty much all of our allies) already understaffed and having difficulty filling our current positions?

We can talk about having three deployable Divisions, Corvettes to replace the MCDV's, a 12 submarine fleet and an RCAF Regiment to secure our airfields but where will we find the personnel to man them?

Yes, I'm sure there are definitely improvements that can be made to our recruiting, training and retention that will somewhat improve the personnel situation, but I think the reality is that just like every other Western nation we're going to have difficulty maintaining our current military structures, never mind expanding them significantly. Buying the ships/subs/planes/tanks, etc. is actually the easy part.

Do we just wish away the situation and pretend we can keep going the way we are and have a military that looks good on Wikipedia but is crippled by a severe lack in personnel? Or do we face reality and try to work the best with what we have available?

To be clear, I'm not proposing downsizing the CAF. I'm simply suggesting that we need to look at more radical solutions to the problems we have since the status quo isn't working. That may include things like greater automation, smaller peace-time Full-time units with a larger Reserve pool to draw on, different career models for different types of trades, base and unit consolidation, etc.
Click to expand...
Hand-waving issues of regulatory approval for more pers and of recruiting and throughput for training to OFP, I wonder how many retention problems would be fixed through an increase in force size?
 
GR66 said:
But WHY are we (and pretty much all of our allies) already understaffed and having difficulty filling our current positions?

We can talk about having three deployable Divisions, Corvettes to replace the MCDV's, a 12 submarine fleet and an RCAF Regiment to secure our airfields but where will we find the personnel to man them?

Yes, I'm sure there are definitely improvements that can be made to our recruiting, training and retention that will somewhat improve the personnel situation, but I think the reality is that just like every other Western nation we're going to have difficulty maintaining our current military structures, never mind expanding them significantly. Buying the ships/subs/planes/tanks, etc. is actually the easy part.

Do we just wish away the situation and pretend we can keep going the way we are and have a military that looks good on Wikipedia but is crippled by a severe lack in personnel? Or do we face reality and try to work the best with what we have available?

To be clear, I'm not proposing downsizing the CAF. I'm simply suggesting that we need to look at more radical solutions to the problems we have since the status quo isn't working. That may include things like greater automation, smaller peace-time Full-time units with a larger Reserve pool to draw on, different career models for different types of trades, base and unit consolidation, etc.
Click to expand...
If we can’t enrol or retain more, can’t we repurpose some of the CAF resources to security? Looking at what is currently being procured, seems like the Navy and the Air Force are both priorities for the CAF. Why not reorient some of the Army to Security? Why not keep 1 Infantry Regiment, 1 Armoured Regiment and 1 Artillery Regiment (each with a Battalion/Squadron/Battery in Edmonton/Gagetown/Valcartier)? Re-role the rest of the Army personnel to Security Forces. It would emotionally hurt people but rationally, why not?
 
SupersonicMax said:
Why not keep 1 Infantry Regiment, 1 Armoured Regiment and 1 Artillery Regiment (each with a Battalion/Squadron/Battery in Edmonton/Gagetown/Valcartier)? Re-role the rest of the Army personnel to Security Forces. It would emotionally hurt people but rationally, why not?
Click to expand...
Depth.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Well if 70,000 are applying, we need to fix the recruitment systems and perhaps lower our standards a bit. If we can up that intake of 2500 a year to 7500, you would start to see more people in the CAF. Of course there is the minor issues of housing, feeding and clothing them. Not to mention training.
Click to expand...
How many of those 70k are medically fit? How many meet the CAF standards for the occupations they want? How many meet the security clearance requirements?

And how many are kicking the tires but not really interested?
 
McG said:
So, instead of a needs based assessment, your proposal is that we arbitrarily sink more money into wherever we are spending most now and just shut-down the Army?
Click to expand...
If you look at the DPU, protecting Canada and North America are number 1 and 2 priorities. How is the Army contributing to those priorities on a day-to-day basis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dimsum
New skill badges recognize unique naval operations qualifications
2 3
Replies
44
Views
49K
Eye In The Sky
Eye In The Sky
Infanteer
Lessons Learned from Syria
Replies
4
Views
12K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Back
Top