New Coast Guard Ships

[Happydiver]

STONEY's info is right on the nose.  The way things work in the CCG is when you add something to one side, you take away from the other so that your budget always balances out.  To the public you look like you're moving ahead and modernizing but in reality you're taking services away elsewhere.  In some cases like the contracting out of servicing navigational aids and extending the service cycle out to 4 instead of 3 years this can be warranted due to better technology and better use of allocation of monies.  But in most cases, if the public doesn't scream for services, they'll lose what they've got.  That's how I got a job as a Rescue Diver with the CG while the rest of the Pacific fleet was left to rot.

The problems with the CG start from the 'yes' men from the commissioner on down.  A couple years back, we had a commissioner who said the CG was in a deplorable state and needed extra cash and couldn't stay on budget.  PM Martin lopped his head off and put someone in who wouldn't raise waves.  Everyone took notice and learned how to duck and cover.

This leads me to the idiocy of these joint crewed patrol vessels.  Taking CG personnel and pairing them up with RCMP makes no sense.  CG is civilian and unionized.  The two groups have no common backgrounds and the CG has a very poor record of wanting to harmonize with other government agencies.  They're too worried about what happens if something breaks or heaven forbid if someone gets hurt.  I've aided police forces and customs and in general they're all geared up for 'bear' and I'm standing up as coxswain in a bright red jacket as we come alongside a vessel to be boarded.  The CG personnel will be demanding adequate training and compensation which will probably never appear.  I worked as a CG rescue diver for four years and we're still in the process of settling an adequate compensation allowance.  Currently for my expertise and for risking my life, I receive an extra $1.40/day.  As for ongoing training, if we're lucky and are given the time to go, the CG puts on a 5 day drinkfest called Training Week once a year where the same courses like 'Chainsaw Safety' are given again and again.

The vessels themselves are needed.  The state of our security over the waters out in the Pacific is deplorable.  The CG does infrequent patrols and it's not our job anyways because we can't do anything other than call for help.  The Navy isn't around much.  The RCMP has a few vessels but they've got a lot of area to cover.  Fisheries officers just check for fishing licences.  The Vancouver area is just now trying to put together waterborne ERT teams and an effective waterborne Customs team.  The best security assest we've got out here is the marine radar used for traffic services.

 

[newfin]

Okay - here's a good piece of news.  Those ships that were so quietly announced in Budget 2007 are for new vessels to be purchased with new money.  There was a fear that this announcement was a re-announcement of old money spread out over 10 years instead of five.  I e-mailed DFO and here is the reply I recieved today:

-----Original Message-----
From: Daley, Cindy
Sent: March 27, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Sue, Brenda; Peck, Steve
Subject: RE: clarification please on vessels for Coast Guard

Budget 2007 annouced new funding in the amount of $324M over the next 10
years to acquire 4 additional Mid-Shore Patrol Vessels (MSPV)(these are
in addition to the 8 approved in Budget 2005),1 additional Offshore
Fishery Science Vessel (OFSV) to replace the CCGS Teleost and 1 new
Offshore Oceanographic Research Vessel to replace the CCGS Hudson.
Budget 2007 is additional to the Fleet Renewal which commenced in 2005.
Hope this addresses your concern.
Cindy 




...and that is from Cindy Daley in the DFO (not sure of here position, the e-mail did not say).  The e-mail address that it was sent from is:  Sue, Brenda [sueb@DFO-MPO.GC.CA]


Good info - it means that the CCG is getting some more money for a total of 14 new ships.

 

[MarkOttawa]

newfin: This was the 2005 announcement:
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 "mid-shore patrol vessels" for the St. Lawrence will clearly be different vessels from those to operate on the seas.  Only four of the latter were in the 2005 budget.

So one assumes the new money is for four sea-going MSPVs, to make a total of eight.  It seems to me dishonest to claim a total of total of twelve when four are very different (and not "large") fresh-water boats.

Spin, spin, spin.  Even four more sea-going vessels will be good but, put another way, four more MSPVs over ten years is not a great deal.  And meanwhile the other large vessels rust away.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/fleet-flotte/vessels-navires/main_e.asp

Any thoughts on this?

Coastal defence a toothless 'hoax,' Senate report says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070328.warctic0328/BNStory/National/home

Instead of the navy's being tied to Arctic patrol duties, the Coast Guard should be elevated to a national security agency that reports to Parliament and can enforce security both in the Arctic and along the rest of Canada's “woefully undermanned” 243,000-kilometre coastline, the committee says...

Instead of the navy's being tied to Arctic patrol duties, the Coast Guard should be elevated to a national security agency that reports to Parliament and can enforce security both in the Arctic and along the rest of Canada's “woefully undermanned” 243,000-kilometre coastline, the committee says...

Frigates are too big and costly for littoral patrols, while coastal patrol vessels have poor sea-keeping capabilities and are too slow and crews become seasick when the vessels are stationed off the Grand Banks for more than a few hours.

“Essentially, these are training vessels. They are not up to protecting Canada's coasts,” the 124-page report says.

The committee calls on the government to buy three year-round icebreakers [yes], to be managed by an armed Canadian Coast Guard with policing powers [no].

The report also recommends:

• The beefed-up Coast Guard be allocated eight new high-endurance, ice-tolerant cutters [for the West Coast?] for the East and West Coasts that can operate in high seas and maintain pursuit speeds...

One wonders if the eight MSPVs will meet the committee's wishes.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[newfin]

Mark - if you refer to the link I provided above on Feb 10th you will see that the oceangoing MSPV's and the Great Lakes going C&P vessels are one in the same design.  The Power Point presentation clearly states this.  The email I have included states that the new funding is for four additional mid-shore patrol vessels.  That makes a total of 12 MSPV's.  From all of the published documentation from the government on this subject everything indicates that they are all to be of the exact same design. Also included in that Power point are photos of examples of acceptable, existing designs.  These ships are clearly designed to operate in the ocean environment.  ...And I made an addition error in my most recent post.  If we add up all of these announcements the total funding as it has been announced (and God knows that these plans are likely to change) covers a total of 16 hulls (12 MSPV's and 4 other ships).  If the CCG is really going to go on a building spree like that over the next 10 years and the JSS and FELEX programs for the Navy will be getting underway in the next few years then we all have to wonder if the Canadian ship building industry will be able to cope with so much business.  And I have not even included any of the SCSC future project or the Arctic patrol vessels or any replacement ice breakers for the Coast Guard.  I know that the new owners (not sure if they have taken control yet in light of the recent fatality) of Port Weller Dry Docks publicly mentioned in our local paper that they were hoping to get a piece of the Mid-Shore Patrol Vessel Project for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Looks like the domestic ship building industry is about to go on another one of their boom cycles courtesy of the Government of Canada.

 

[Happydiver]

In regards to Mark from Ottawa's quote about arming the Coast Guard, it ain't going to happen anytime soon due mostly to budgetary constraints in regards to the prohibitive cost of training.  We had a visit about a year ago from the Commissioner of the CG, John Adams and he went through why the CG won't be getting guns.  First you need a relatively (for the CG) massive initial outlay for the weapons and initial training.  Next you have to spend huge amounts of money on recurrent training so that you don't end up with a bunch of cases of friendly fire.  Unlike the military, the CG will never have the money to adequately fund the training budget required to safely be issued weapons.  Hence, these new patrol vessels will be joint manned by CG and RCMP.

On top of that, the general culture of the CG is one of being pacifist.  Most of the current ship board personnel don't want weapons and prefer to be thought of as the good guys, not the cops.  Out here on the West coast, I would say half of them are pot heads and most are hard drinkers.  They are not the type of people that should be given weapons.  Then on top of that you've got the union issues that would chronically pop up due to the fact that you've got people armed and specially trained and not adequately compensated for their special status.

The CG will be totally happy with it's role as buoy tenders, ice breakers, pollution response and SAR.  The current leadership has no desire to try to think out of the particular box they've built for themselves.

In my opinion, if you want to guard our coasts the best agencies available are the Navy and the RCMP.  With the RCMP, you've got the problem of too few personnel with sea going experience.  With the Navy, you might have certain legal issues that might be better suited to Customs or the police.  In the meanwhile, it would be pretty easy to sneak into Canadian waters.  I think it was only recently that the radar holes to the north of Vancouver Island were closed up but I'm not sure of that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Happy diver is spot on regarding the attitudes about being armed and the Comminsior is also against it. However events will likely force the change on to them slowly but surely. The training programs exist and could be implemented if required. DFO has armed C&P Officers and also their Non-enforcement types carry shotguns for bear defense. In this regard, DFO is actually further ahead in mindset and ability then CCG. It wasn't so long ago that DFO had armed vessels.

 

[Kirkhill]

Could the DFO be reconstituted and enhanced as an armed enforcement branch of the Coast Guard operating their own vessels, carrying Mounties or just being given all the same powers as Mounties?

I note that most, if not all, Coast Guard vessels up until this latest group of announcements were limited to a speed of about 15 knots, although the same hull forms in other fleets move faster. Was this to ensure that the vessels couldn't catch anything and thus would be useless for enforcement duties?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I doubt it as the CCG and DFO are moving away from each other as much as possible. I also don’t think it’s a “plot” to prevent the CCG by designing slower ships. The traditional hull forms are cheaper to build run and maintain, plus they carry more and last longer. Getting more than 15 kts means Lots more HP, longer skinny hulls with poor slow speed maneuvering and lightly built. There not great for having a landing barges and navigation buoys banging against them, or going aground. (CCG ships have to get in close to pull/replace buoys so they do go aground on occasion)
Also high speed vessels are generally hard on their crews and can be down right nasty in a beam sea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Case in point

http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/123.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen Colin. Thanks. 

I was thinking primarily of the Crowley (single data point extrapolation  : ) and the fact that Kvaerner built similar vessels for other Coast Guards that operate at higher speeds.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Newfin:  Thanks for the correction; seems to me that the MSPVs would be rather big for the St. Lawence/Lakes but...

Nice point about shipyards.  Any government will make sure they are built in Canada for political reasons, and one wonders what extra costs and time that might entail.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Neill McKay]

On top of that, the general culture of the CG is one of being pacifist.  Most of the current ship board personnel don't want weapons and prefer to be thought of as the good guys, not the cops.

My feeling is that you think this is somehow bad, but the truth is that the Coast Guard is essentially a marine safety agency, not a security agency.  I would no more expect coast guard members to be interested in carrying weapons than I would expect it of firefighters -- and in fact most of the same arguments could apply.  People who want to enforce the law join the RCMP or other such agencies; people who want to keep the waterways safe join the coast guard.  They're not necessarily the same kinds of people.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

My feeling is that you think this is somehow bad, but the truth is that the Coast Guard is essentially a marine safety agency, not a security agency.  I would no more expect coast guard members to be interested in carrying weapons than I would expect it of firefighters -- and in fact most of the same arguments could apply.  People who want to enforce the law join the RCMP or other such agencies; people who want to keep the waterways safe join the coast guard.  They're not necessarily the same kinds of people.

I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets. 


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets. 
Matthew.  

How is the CCG redundant? What other government agency provides pollution control, buoy tenders, navigational aids? I know the Navy does not.  We just must accept the fact that arming the CCG might not be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians and instead increase funding to the RCMP and the navy.

 

[NCS_Eng]

I would argue that whether individuals in the Coast Guard like it or not, Canada cannot afford the luxury of having redundant services (with very expensive personnel and infrastructure) using redundant patrol assets. 


Matthew.   

I'm going to agree with Ex-Dragoon here and say that in no way are the CCG and the Navy redundant. As Ex-Dragoon has already outlined the responsibilities that the CG holds and the Navy does not, I would like to diverge a bit and add that in my opinion as a naval officer I would support arming/granting constabulary powers to the CG in some degree. I know when I sailed with the CG some time ago they were very keen on the opportunity to get into more of a security related role. I'm not talking about welding quad-pack Harpoons to the decks here... But giving the coast guard the tools to do maritime surveillance and interdiction would help a lot in Canada's coastal defences.

Having a large, armed frigate patrolling your interior waterways and coastlines performing SOV- and FISHPATs have always been, in my mind anyway, a waste of resources.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don’t think that making the CCG a armed service as their primary task is useful. However I also think that it is wasteful not to start arming some of the larger vessels that operate in remote areas and are the only representatives of the Crown in the area. These vessels are helicopter capable and can have a RCMP/military boarding party attached to them fairly quickly. They should be properly equip to support these operations and the level of training to operate a couple of 50cals or even the 25mm is well within their abilities.
Boarding parties however are a different story.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

How is the CCG redundant? What other government agency provides pollution control, buoy tenders, navigational aids? I know the Navy does not.  We just must accept the fact that arming the CCG might not be in the best interests of Canada and Canadians and instead increase funding to the RCMP and the navy.

The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.

The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.

Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.

Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.

The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.

Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.

Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.


Matthew.  

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

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ex-Dragoon: Quite.  Or giving the CCG the vessels, with necessary armarment, to carry RCMP or CF personnel, to the area in question.  And that is essentially an intelligence question.  I have never heard of a CCG vessel, by chance, coming across a bad guy and being unable to cope.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Neill McKay]

The CCG is not redundant now.  It is the only agency providing the services you mention that I am aware of.

The problem is that nationally we have a new role that we urgently need to address now:  Security.

Specifically, we need to create an ability to identify and then interdict potential terrorist threats as well as criminal activity such as smuggling anywhere within our territorial waters as we face a new threat that up until recently did not exist....and that role requires being armed.

Should we need to equip a different force/agency/department to operate in the exact same airspace and waterways as the CCG to fulfill only that armed interdiction role, then we have created a very expensive and inefficient redundancy, indeed.

It's interesting to note that the CCG itself is the consolidation of essentially all of the federal government's civilian fleets.  There was a separate, armed, fisheries partol fleet until it was folded into the CCG in the 1990s.