CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[Jarnhamar]

This trade has like 50ish open positions….across the entire country. They are also not extra positions, they replace existing tech trades at units which request them.

Opening more positions seems to be a cheaper and easier option than;

a. making a whole new trade;
b. getting rid of/repurposing military police; or
c. collapsing 80% of our combat arms capability.

It's a GD type trade with airfield and security right in the job description.

Is it referring to dedicated security roles, or simply being part of the WASF rotation?

I'm not sure. I think they treat it as an as needed task.

 

[PrairieFella]

The Army has successfully divested air defence, let its indirect fire capabilities wither to almost nothing, let the armoured corps deteriorate, fail to invest in sustainment equipment or personnel, permitted national holdings of ammunition and spare parts to shrink to unsafe levels, and gutted its individual training system to the point where it cannot deliver without massive augmentation from the field force.

But it's the RCAF that failed...

And what does this have to do with the RCAF not having the appropriate security measures online yet? You can put down the glib act for a moment yenno lol

 

[SupersonicMax]

You'd regret that cynical view if a real war pops off. Planes can't take or hold ground and you air force lot don't tend to like the mud that much. We contribute to one and two by being ready to keep the fight away from the homeland and we will do most of the dying in that case.

In a "real" war, homeland defence will be reinforced. In all cases, defending Canada will always remain #1 priority. If you look at the DPU, there isn’t much concrete in terms of acquiring things that would help us in a near peer conflict, besides what we’re buying for homeland defence. Everything else is about "exploring" options, whatever that means (and there is no funding planned for that).

BTW, there isn’t much for land forces to do in an eventual war against China. Most will be done with ships and planes. Unless land forces can swim.

 

[Quirky]

It's a GD type trade with airfield and security right in the job description.

Correct. However I don’t know how WASF as a secondary duty to AOS will fly with the US.
US:“Who’s securing those F-35s?”
RCAF: “Oh that AOS tech working tool crib does a perimeter check twice in their 8 hour shift. He has a flashlight and cellphone to call the MP shack to report anything suspicious.”

 

[PuckChaser]

BTW, there isn’t much for land forces to do in an eventual war against China. Most will be done with ships and planes. Unless land forces can swim.

Jesus Christ, did you just stumble into the fact that joint operations doctrine, and that services acquiring capabilities to mutually support other services is important? Especially in a country with such a small military force that expects to be able to force project around the world?

It's been hilarious watching you try to square the circle by making a triangle from "The Army needs to fix the RCAF security problem by gutting their capabilities" to "The RCAF isn't responsible to force project the Army" to "Land forces are useless because they don't have integral ocean-going ships".

 

[PrairieFella]

Jesus Christ, did you just stumble into the fact that joint operations doctrine, and that services acquiring capabilities to mutually support other services is important? Especially in a country with such a small military force that expects to be able to force project around the world?

It's been hilarious watching you try to square the circle by making a triangle from "The Army needs to fix the RCAF security problem by gutting their capabilities" to "The RCAF isn't responsible to force project the Army" to "Land forces are useless because they don't have integral ocean-going ships".

Pilots gonna pilot lmao. What do we know, we're lowly ground pounders.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Correct. However I don’t know how WASF as a secondary duty to AOS will fly with the US.
US:“Who’s securing those F-35s?”
RCAF: “Oh that AOS tech working tool crib does a perimeter check twice in their 8 hour shift. He has a flashlight and cellphone to call the MP shack to report anything suspicious.”

I was thinking of that too.

MPs have field platoons. If the Airforce dumped a lot of horse power into recruiting they could stand up similar field security platoons within the trade and provide 24/7 security. A week worth of extra security training after 9 weeks basic training and they would be set.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Jesus Christ, did you just stumble into the fact that joint operations doctrine, and that services acquiring capabilities to mutually support other services is important? Especially in a country with such a small military force that expects to be able to force project around the world?

It's been hilarious watching you try to square the circle by making a triangle from "The Army needs to fix the RCAF security problem by gutting their capabilities" to "The RCAF isn't responsible to force project the Army" to "Land forces are useless because they don't have integral ocean-going ships".

I didn’t say the Army needs to fix the CAF security issues. When someone said we need to consider bold solutions, I suggested a bold solution.

When someone said it’s not the Army’s problem, I used an example to demonstrate that we’re too small to be stovepiped, by using Air Mobility as a demonstration that the Air Force is responsible for some Army’s issues. There is no reason for the Army NOT to be responsible for some of the Air Force’s issues.

I never said the Army is useless. When told that Land Forces are the ones taking grounds and dying, I said in a conflict with China, its utility will be limited as the war will be fought using ships and planes.

I am a firm proponent of joint. I am just not a proponent of JArmy, where everyone exists to support the Army.

 

[PrairieFella]

I was thinking of that too.

MPs have field platoons. If the Airforce dumped a lot of horse power into recruiting they could stand up similar field security platoons within the trade and provide 24/7 security. A week worth of extra security training after 9 weeks basic training and they would be set.

This is the solution honestly.

 

[SupersonicMax]

This is the solution honestly.

Where will the positions come from? As I said, it will be a 0-sum game, and someone will lose.

 

[brihard]

Where will the positions come from? As I said, it will be a 0-sum game, and someone will lose.

Why does zero sum remain a valid assumption? It looks very clear that to appease the U.S. CAF MUST grow. Numbers IVO 15-16k have been bandied about. While this will take time, it seems reasonable in this specific case to plan this new capability on a total force growth basis.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Why does zero sum remain a valid assumption? It looks very clear that to appease the U.S. CAF MUST grow. Numbers IVO 15-16k have been bandied about. While this will take time, it seems reasonable in this specific case to plan this new capability on a total force growth basis.

Because our policy says so. We have 71,500 positions. No one in the CAF has the authority to grow beyond that without policy coverage.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Where will the positions come from? As I said, it will be a 0-sum game, and someone will lose.

Why do the positions have to come from somewhere and can't just be created? The government can and does do whatever it wants. They can create another 500 positions.

 

[brihard]

Because our policy says so. We have 71,500 positions. No one in the CAF has the authority to grow beyond that without policy coverage.

Yes, that is the today answer, but is strategic foresight completely lacking in this assessment? Is it a smart risk to plan around what presently seems inevitable given the current reality Canada faces?

 

[dapaterson]

Why do the positions have to come from somewhere and can't just be created? The government can and does do whatever it wants. They can create another 500 positions.

Because the GoC has stated as policy how many members of the CAF there will be. If they do not say "CAF, please grow" then it is the responsibility of the CAF to live within its means.

Note that is not "RCN, CA, RCAF et al live within your means". That means the CAF can and should move positions from lower to higher priorities.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Because the GoC has stated as policy how many members of the CAF there will be. If they do not say "CAF, please grow" then it is the responsibility of the CAF to live within its means.

That's a super easy fix then. Government can just update the policy

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That's a super easy fix then. Government can just update the policy

They can, and could change the vast majority of problems facing the CAF today; from procurement, to housing, to pay and allowances, to SLT and any number of things that piss us all off.

The issue: political will and desire to expend political capital on the CAF's betterment.

I don't count many governments in Canadian history, of any political stripe, that are willing to spend those votes on lil ol' CAF.

Policy is a great strawman that no one argues with.

 

[Underway]

There is a difference between adulting and junior people, many with families, unable to afford basic needs due to CAF service requirements. Go ahead and tell that new Pte/Cpl posted to Comox or Halifax that their affordability and housing issues are due to adulting.

Housing affordability is due to the housing market, not the CAF.

The CAF is trying ot help however. You know about Canadian Forces Housing Differential right? They take look at the average cost of a 2 bedroom apt. And if its more than 25% of your income they top you up the remainder to make it 25% of your income. For Jr members it's quite a chunck of change in some locations.

That being said there should be more housing on base because of housing availability challenges and to assist with the movement of pers to and from bases (thus reducing stress). Housing availability is a problem in a lot of places.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mind you if you add spiffy uniforms with white laces and ascots, who wouldn't want to be one.....

 

[brihard]

Housing affordability is due to the housing market, not the CAF.

The CAF is trying ot help however. You know about Canadian Forces Housing Differential right? They take look at the average cost of a 2 bedroom apt. And if its more than 25% of your income they top you up the remainder to make it 25% of your income. For Jr members it's quite a chunck of change in some locations.

That being said there should be more housing on base because of housing availability challenges and to assist with the movement of pers to and from bases (thus reducing stress). Housing availability is a problem in a lot of places.

Growth in CAF has potential to distort local housing markets if, say, a few hundred more troops/families are added to a base. There should definitely be more aggressive growth in military housing in part so that housing is available at all, and in part so that local housing markets aren’t badly distorted and an artificial bubble created.