New Coast Guard Ships

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Which all could be accomplished by giving the Navy the resources(manpower, ships, training, doctrine, funds etc) to do that job.

First, I disagree because I don't think the Navy can be everywhere, and second because if you do that, you're still creating a set of duplicate assets in every waterway/airway just because the existing force has objections about being armed.

The best analogy I can give you from my perspective is police vs armed forces in Britain....

If you have unarmed police all over Britain and you suddenly realize you have a growing terrorism threat in the urban areas where they are already deployed and increased crime to boot, what do you do?

Do you pay the military to create numerous urban units with new garrisons in every urban centre who are the only guys who carry guns and come running from whereever their distant posts are if there's a crisis (by which time it is likely too late to intervene effectively)?

Or do you tell your police that although they have hesitations about carrying firearms that they're strategically where the remote but deadly threat exists and they're going to need to be armed in their role as a civil servant to provide protection to the citizenry?


Matthew. 

P.S.  Job descriptions change all the time due to necessity.  I don't think anyone is entitled to "not to have to change" just because things were one way when they started their careers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Cdn Blackshirt seeing how you brought up the aspect of security that is what I based my reply on. I agree the Navy cannot be everywhere at once, nor can every other organization. I will also maintain training a government organization for something they have no wish, no experience and no desire to do is not worth the hassle. Let them continue as they are and let the RCMP and the Navy do the security. We have the experience and desire to do so.

You start changing the job description too much as your advocate and you end up with mass walkouts not to mention strike actions. So who then does ice breaking, navaids, pollution control?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Cdn Blackshirt seeing how you brought up the aspect of security that is what I based my reply on. I agree the Navy cannot be everywhere at once, nor can every other organization. I will also maintain training a government organization for something they have no wish, no experience and no desire to do is not worth the hassle. Let them continue as they are and let the RCMP and the Navy do the security. We have the experience and desire to do so.

You start changing the job description too much as your advocate and you end up with mass walkouts not to mention strike actions. So who then does ice breaking, navaids, pollution control?

Based on your description of the CCG culture, I would propose the following solution:
IF the CCG decide they are unwilling to carry out armed security roles, and if we as a nation decide we need to re-task our maritime assets with a security role, then perhaps the solution is to re-flag both the vessels discussed in this thread as well as the larger ice breakers to the Navy (as well as take over the CCG budget for operations).

The Navy will be responsible of overall command of the vessel at all times.

The supplementary crew (and communications systems and bridge configuration) would be determined by the size of the vessel and its new role. 

For most vessels, I would include a Coast Guard detachment, an R.C.M.P. detachment and a Department of Fisheries detachment.  The Coast Guard crew would be specialists in their areas of expertise (navaids, ice breaking, pollution control), the Department of Fisheries would be specialists in their areas of expertise (counting fish stocks or whatever it is that they do).  A smaller group of R.C.M.P. officers also reporting to the Navy Captain would provide the law enforcement capability.  On smaller vessels they would be trained for boarding while on larger vessels you would carry a proper Navy boarding team.


Matthew. 

 

[Dale Denton]

Based on your description of the CCG culture, I would propose the following solution:
IF the CCG decide they are unwilling to carry out armed security roles, and if we as a nation decide we need to re-task our maritime assets with a security role, then perhaps the solution is to re-flag both the vessels discussed in this thread as well as the larger ice breakers to the Navy (as well as take over the CCG budget for operations).

The Navy will be responsible of overall command of the vessel at all times.

The supplementary crew (and communications systems and bridge configuration) would be determined by the size of the vessel and its new role. 

For most vessels, I would include a Coast Guard detachment, an R.C.M.P. detachment and a Department of Fisheries detachment.  The Coast Guard crew would be specialists in their areas of expertise (navaids, ice breaking, pollution control), the Department of Fisheries would be specialists in their areas of expertise (counting fish stocks or whatever it is that they do).  A smaller group of R.C.M.P. officers also reporting to the Navy Captain would provide the law enforcement capability.  On smaller vessels they would be trained for boarding while on larger vessels you would carry a proper Navy boarding team.


Matthew.   

I completely agree with that solution. Being that I dont have any military, CCG or any other expertise on the subject, I still agree with this solution. Howcome this hasn't been implemented? What is wrong with this solution and howcome it hasn't come about (assuming it has been thought of by someone of importance in those fields).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't forget the present crop of senior mangers "grew up" under the Liberal leadership, so they are not interested in being armed mainly from a idealogical perspective. With a new majority government issuing new marching orders, you would see a turnover of senior staff and the willingness to adapt would also change. Much of the old CCG is getting ready to retire and a many of the newer staff will be more flexiable. Best to start with the smaller steps and start the change slowly so people can adapt better and intergrate the new tasks.

 

[Neill McKay]

The best analogy I can give you from my perspective is police vs armed forces in Britain....

If you have unarmed police all over Britain and you suddenly realize you have a growing terrorism threat in the urban areas where they are already deployed and increased crime to boot, what do you do?

Let me take that and make a slightly closer analogy: same story, but instead of the police it's the fire department.  There are, after all, fire halls all over the place, and firefighters have vehicles with sirens and lights and the ability to move around quickly, they wear uniforms with stripes on their shoulders, and so on...

But security isn't on the radar for firefighters.  Their job is to put out fires, rescue people, and pull the occasional cat out of a tree.  That's what they're trained for, that's what they wanted to do when they applied to work in the fire dept., that's what their equipment is designed for, and their organization (in the fire hall and as a whole department) is set up to do.  Asking them to start doing security work just because they're around the area doesn't makse sense.

I would dare say that coast guard members have a lot more in common with firefighters than they do with cops.

 

[Kirkhill]

Problem with the fire fighter analogy is that they are a reactive force that operates from fixed bases in close proximity to their targets.  They don't deploy for weeks at a time, patrolling the streets looking for fires while waiting for someone to ring them up.

By operating as a separate service then you are requiring the government to supply two separate platforms (and crews) to patrol the same zone - or more if the platforms are divided amongst organizations with clearly defined areas of responsibility - back to needing a Coast Guard tender, an RCMP and DFO launch and a Navy vessel to cover all the threats in all patrol zones.

Doable but pricey.

 

[Neill McKay]

Problem with the fire fighter analogy is that they are a reactive force that operates from fixed bases in close proximity to their targets.  They don't deploy for weeks at a time, patrolling the streets looking for fires while waiting for someone to ring them up.

I'm not sure that that's relevant to the analogy though.  But it's not a big deal.

By operating as a separate service then you are requiring the government to supply two separate platforms (and crews) to patrol the same zone

The platforms are about as similar (back to my analogy again) as a fire truck and a police car.  The fire truck is slower and carries a certain type of specialized equipment -- just like a CG ship.  A warship is faster with a very different set of kit, like a police car.  A ship that's good at breaking ice and handling buoys is a very different thing from a ship that's good at chasing terrorists, smugglers, and such.

 

[Blackadder1916]

One of the difficulties (IMO) in reaching a consensus on the organization and structure of a Canadian Coast Guard is the proximity of perhaps the best known (to Canadians anyway) coast guard, the United States Coast Guard (USCG).  Perhaps a lot of the proposals for organizing and equipping the CCG are coloured by a comparison between the two agencies.  Let's face it, the navies of a lot of other countries' (and maybe Canada should be included) are more comparable to the US Coast Guard in term of role, size and equipment rather than the USN. The USCG enables the US Navy to concentrate on its main mission —power projection — while the Coast Guard manages maritime security, port security, and coastal patrols. 

As well in some countries, functions such as the maintenance of seaways and seamarks, and search and rescue are not only done by a civilian agency of government but are also contracted to private civilian organizations. 

The sense I get from reading this thread is that many are urging a restructure of the CCG so that a greater emphasis is placed on the security and coastal patrol roles because they have ships that could be used to augment the Canadian Navy.  The question that should then be asked is, if there was an increase in the security role using these vessels, what would be the degradation of their other missions.

Do we need the functions currently performed by the CCG to continue? Yes.  Can they be done by other organizations?  Yes.  Can they be done better by other organizations?  Perhaps not.  By lumping diverse, unrelated functions under a command that traditionally was not responsible for those tasks, you are more likely to end up with a lot of things done in a mediocre manner.

 

[Neill McKay]

One of the difficulties (IMO) in reaching a consensus on the organization and structure of a Canadian Coast Guard is the proximity of perhaps the best known (to Canadians anyway) coast guard, the United States Coast Guard (USCG).  Perhaps a lot of the proposals for organizing and equipping the CCG are coloured by a comparison between the two agencies.

Absolutely.

One person has described the USCG as the eighth-largest navy in the world, and (assuming the 8 is correct) that's not a bad comparison.  The USCG is, among other things, the domestic navy while the USN is the overseas navy.  The USCG also does other things not done by the CCG (licensing of mariners, ship safety functions, and others).  In Canada those are done by Transport Canada.

Let's face it, the navies of a lot of other countries' (and maybe Canada should be included) are more comparable to the US Coast Guard in term of role, size and equipment rather than the USN.

I don't think that's quite right.  A better statement might be that the Canadian navy combines the overseas functions of the USN with the domestic military functions of the USCG.  But it has none of the other "coast guard" roles that the USCG has.

By lumping diverse, unrelated functions under a command that traditionally was not responsible for those tasks, you are more likely to end up with a lot of things done in a mediocre manner.

That makes sense, and (ironically, perhaps) I've heard a similar comment made about the merging of the CCG and fisheries patrol fleets!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There has been much talk of using contractors to carry out many of the CCG's traditional tasks such as buoy tending and at the same time the number of fixed and floating aids has been slashed as well as the number of ships. Many of the lightstations have been reduced or automated, a trend that will continue. The CCG may end up having to look for new roles for it's large ships to stay viable.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I don't think that's quite right.  A better statement might be that the Canadian navy combines the overseas functions of the USN with the domestic military functions of the USCG.  But it has none of the other "coast guard" roles that the USCG has.

Aware of that, but my comment of "maybe including Canada" was meant to suggest that perhaps the Canadian Navy should beef up it's domestic military/security abilities first before looking to "project power".  Does this mean that the CCG (vessels and missions) should be absorbed by the CF?  No, because unless adequate funding for all the functions that the government assigns to all its agencies is there you could have the hypothetical situation of a "Canadian Navy icebreaker" suddenly not putting to sea because the admirals in Halifax say they couldn't afford fuel.

 

[Neill McKay]

unless adequate funding for all the functions that the government assigns to all its agencies is there you could have the hypothetical situation of a "Canadian Navy icebreaker" suddenly not putting to sea because the admirals in Halifax say they couldn't afford fuel.

Quite right (and sounds a bit familiar).

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Let me take that and make a slightly closer analogy: same story, but instead of the police it's the fire department.  There are, after all, fire halls all over the place, and firefighters have vehicles with sirens and lights and the ability to move around quickly, they wear uniforms with stripes on their shoulders, and so on...

But security isn't on the radar for firefighters.  Their job is to put out fires, rescue people, and pull the occasional cat out of a tree.  That's what they're trained for, that's what they wanted to do when they applied to work in the fire dept., that's what their equipment is designed for, and their organization (in the fire hall and as a whole department) is set up to do.  Asking them to start doing security work just because they're around the area doesn't makse sense.

I would dare say that coast guard members have a lot more in common with firefighters than they do with cops.

Okay, I'll try to use your firefighter analogy.

40 years ago, they fought fires and that was it.....they were specialists in that field only.  But at some point someone figured out that if they could provide First-Responder Emergency Medical Services that we'd save lives.....and so we forced them to change, to add a new skillset. 

Now are they the capable of handling a multi-vehicle pile-up by themselves?  No.  When a higher-level emergency occurs, the specialist agency intervenes directly (Ambulance and Healthcare Networks).  But their ability to provide basic levels of emergency medical makes them exponentially much more useful.

To apply the CCG isolation model you propose to Firefighters would have Firefighters driving by car accidents and other obvious emergencies because "It ain't a fire.....and so we don't touch it."


Matthew.   

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

With car accidents there always tends to be a risk of fire with fuel spills etc....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

With car accidents there always tends to be a risk of fire with fuel spills etc....

.....and so you would have the firefighters stand with firehoses extended (pun totally intended  ;D) ready to address a potential fire issue, but ignore medical treatment until the specialist ambulance arrives (which when applied back to the Navy could be 12+ hours).



Matthew. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have had my friend (he had night shift, I had day) sitting on a overturned fishing boat listening to 6 people (including children) pounding on the hull for help, with no way to help them, he finally got some diving gear and with the arrival of the SAR techs was able to extract the people. Unfortunately by this time they had succumbed to the diesel fumes and none survived.

So sitting around awaiting someone else has happened to us far to frequently.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thats not what I said matthew and you know it....

Anyways....I am not going to comment further on this issue as I have made the same argument for well over 3 years, my recap is I am doubtful you will ever see the CCG change to an arm force and I am not sure why they would need to asume that duty as we do it already. It would be like the Navy assuming the CCG roles, nice to think we could but impractical. Keep the expertise with the CCG.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ex-Dragoon: Exactly.  About 99% of what the CCG does is not related to security or law enforcement.  How many navy or police would like to do that work almost all the time?  Readers should look at the CCG website:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/main_e.htm

CCG vessels (as often stated on topics here) are used as platforms for police when needed.  If faster, more capable vessels are needed for this role, then build them--but let police taken on board to do the enforcement work necessary.  If "security" in the serious, military sense, is involved, that is the Navy's job.

As for sovereignty, in the Arctic or anywhere, all that is needed is the presence of government vessels.  Military ships are irrelevant unless we want to start shooting at people such as Americans, Brits, Russians or French.  Armed fishery officers on CCG vessels are quite capable of shooting at other threats.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/fish_man/office/Fishery_Officer_e.htm#THE%20CONDITIONS%20OF%20EMPLOYMENT

In this case Senator Kenney's committee (which has been doing excellent work) has simply got it wrong.  Moreover, has anyone established that there is an identifiable and serious sea-borne security (non-naval) threat from the seas?

And note that for the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes vessels are to be built specifically to include RCMP personnel.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549930.html#msg549930
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-ccg-mid-shore-patrol-vessels.htm

Frankly, I'm still confused at to what the MSPV will be.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The government has re-announced (this technique makes keeping track of things confusing) the new CCG vessels promised in the recent budget.
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/themes/papemhe.html

Ottawa spends $324M for 6 coast guard vessels
CBC News, April 12
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/04/12/coast-guard.html

The federal government followed through on a major budget promise on Thursday [April 12], announcing it will spend $324 million to purchase six new vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.

The vessels, which will be phased into the existing coast guard fleet between 2009 and 2014 [the budget said they would be acquired over ten years - MC], will include four midshore patrol vessels, one offshore science vessel and one hovercraft [the budget promised "six new large vessels"--I don't see how a hovercraft qualifies - MC].

Three of the vessels are bound for British Columbia, two are destined for Nova Scotia and one will go to Quebec.

All six will be built in Canada, which should boost the country's shipbuilding industry [emphasis added], said Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn...

The government will also redeploy two of its icebreakers from the Maritimes to Newfoundland and Labrador over the next two years.

Including this latest $324-million announcement, the federal government has now spent $750 million on the coast guard since February 2006, purchasing a total of 16 new vessels [emphasis added]. Eleven are being bought to replace aging vessels, while five are entirely new...

The penultimate sentence above is rather disingenuous since 10 of the 16 vessels were a Liberal commitment--see below.

I think I now understand where the sixteen vessels (12 MSPVs) are coming from:

The Liberal government announced in 2005 that it would acquire 8 MSPVs (4 for the St. Lawrence/Lakes to be operated in conjunction with the RCMP, plus 2 research vessels: total 10
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/p-releas/2005/nr009_e.htm

The Government of Canada announced in the Budget that the Canadian Coast Guard will receive $276 million over the next five years to begin the modernization of its fleet. Nationally, this will involve the acquisition of two fisheries-research vessels and four mid-shore fisheries patrol boats. Although plans could change based on shifting regional requirements, the current plan is to locate a science trawler and patrol vessel in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; a patrol vessel in Quebec City, and the three new vessels on the West Coast.

In addition to the $276 million for the six new vessels, the Coast Guard is also receiving funding for the acquisition and operation of four new mid-shore patrol vessels that will be used for security on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The vessels will be jointly operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This funding is part of the $222 million (on an accrual accounting basis over five years) allocated to federal security agencies to increase security on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River system and will provide the means for the federal security partners to work together more effectively on these waterways...

The Conservative government has added 4 MSPVs, 1 research vessel, and 1 hovercraft: total 6.

Overall total: 16.

Plus jobs and the expectation of votes.  Surely it would be faster and cheaper to buy the vessels abroad.

Newfin has already clarified much of this
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549767.html#msg549767
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27961/post-549930.html#msg549930

but I just wanted to work it out for myself.

Mark
Ottawa