CAF Security Forces [Split from RCN Anti Drone Weapon]

[markppcli]

It is a task that is part of capabilities.


We can keep our place secure within NATO with RCAF, RCN and a smaller CA.



Which combat capabilities are critical and why? Where are those stated? Also, reducing in size doesn’t mean losing capabilities, it means we can’t employ them for as long periods or in as big numbers.

Are ability to engage in conventional warfare is critical. We have a position within the NATO alliance that requires that. That means being able to conduct mechanized and armoured warfare, and it means operating above the unit level. If we drop to a Bn of each, like your suggestion, we’d loose that capability entirely.

Ultimately, it is a zero-sum game so we have to prioritize. And operations to defend Canada and North America will always prime over deployments overseas.

Again, I stress we defend North America through our participation in NATO.

 

[markppcli]

What is the current combat capability of the Army now? Losing a couple hundred Army personnel for Airfield security won't make a lick of difference in our contribution to NATO in Europe.

What’s the combat capability of the fighter force right now?

The suggestion was that we’d cut the army by around 80 percent.

We shall see.... It's one thing to find people to do these tasks, but good luck stuffing more people into places like Comox, where accommodations are already limited. I don't imagine airfield security will be more than a base-pay trade (if it becomes one), these people will have no where to live.

The US army fills AF Security with TACP / PJ drop outs. The RAF Reg is filled with people who want to go the jtac route.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Are ability to engage in conventional warfare is critical. We have a position within the NATO alliance that requires that. That means being able to conduct mechanized and armoured warfare, and it means operating above the unit level. If we drop to a Bn of each, like your suggestion, we’d loose that capability entirely.

To say nothing of treaty obligations, that includes ships, Bdes, Role 3s etc

 

[Quirky]

What’s the combat capability of the fighter force right now?

The suggestion was that we’d cut the army by around 80 percent.

I ask again, what's the current role of the CA and what's it's combat capability? Can they do the things they're mandated to by the government? You can fix aircraft relatively quickly for deployment if needed, it's been done before. Can you manufacture people, equipment and training for the Army to do a similar deployment to Europe or for North American defense?

The US army fills AF Security with TACP / PJ drop outs. The RAF Reg is filled with people who want to go the jtac route.

So what will the CAF do to ensure airfield security is maintained for 5th gen fighters and the P-8, if traditional WASF assets is not an option? Where will the people and necessary training and resources come from for 24/7 security needed for Comox, Cold Lake, Bagotville, Greenwood? The aircraft are coming.

 

[markppcli]

I ask again, what's the current role of the CA and what's it's combat capability? Can they do the things they're mandated to by the government? You can fix aircraft relatively quickly for deployment if needed, it's been done before. Can you manufacture people, equipment and training for the Army to do a similar deployment to Europe or for North American defens

3 CMBGs.

So what will the CAF do to ensure airfield security is maintained for 5th gen fighters and the P-8, if traditional WASF assets is not an option? Where will the people and necessary training and resources come from for 24/7 security needed for Comox, Cold Lake, Bagotville, Greenwood? The aircraft are coming.

Oh yeah no I don’t disagree we need airfield security. However the idea that we would drop 80 percent of the army to do it is absurd.

 

[brihard]

Regarding the forecasting of airfield security requirements: we have different fleets coming that sound like they’ll need enhanced security; F-35, P-8, MQ-9. Different bases will be in play: Comox, Greenwood, Cold Lake, Bagotville, maybe one or two more… and a need to deploy a modest element when aircraft forward deploy. The former are all standing tasks, the latter more ad hoc.

These won’t all hit at once. When do we think we’ll need to have this security capability up at individual bases? It’ll certainly be a phase in. What kind of timeline is realistic for actually having this up and running at initial and eventually full scale?

 

[Quirky]

When do we think we’ll need to have this security capability up at individual bases?

20 years ago. Commissionaires and WASF was never a solution.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Where will the people and necessary training and resources come from for 24/7 security needed for Comox, Cold Lake, Bagotville, Greenwood? The aircraft are coming.

I got some comfortable field kit for you I can part with

 

[Quirky]

I got some comfortable field kit for you I can part with

My best sleeps were always in a mod tent on a cot, so that part doesn't bother me. Not sure how I'd feel making that my home....

 

[brihard]

20 years ago. Commissionaires and WASF was never a solution.

Right, but I mean in terms of if we don’t have the security, we don’t take delivery of the airframes.

 

[rnkelly]

When do we think we’ll need to have this security capability up at individual bases? It’ll certainly be a phase in. What kind of timeline is realistic for actually having this up and running at initial and eventually full scale?

Good question, the press releases say that the first aircraft (F35, P8, MQ-9B) are being delivered 2026-2028. You would think some semblance of a capability would need to be in place before. The way it’s being discussed in this thread by experienced people and the lack of evidence of a tangible plan is concerning.

Are we going to delay taking deliveries in Canada due to not being ready? Operate them from the US to buy ourselves time then drag our feet? These major capital projects always tout the economic benefits but if we’re not ready for them it seems like we’ll be forfeiting many of those benefits. Perhaps not the biggest issue in bringing them into service but from a taxpayer standpoint it’s bush league, penny wise but pound foolish. We really need to get serious and stop messing around.

 

[brihard]

Good question, the press releases say that the first aircraft (F35, P8, MQ-9B) are being delivered 2026-2028. You would think some semblance of a capability would need to be in place before. The way it’s being discussed in this thread by experienced people and the lack of evidence of a tangible plan is concerning.

Are we going to delay taking deliveries in Canada due to not being ready? Operate them from the US to buy ourselves time then drag our feet? These major capital projects always tout the economic benefits but if we’re not ready for them it seems like we’ll be forfeiting many of those benefits. Perhaps not the biggest issue in bringing them into service but from a taxpayer standpoint it’s bush league, penny wise but pound foolish. We really need to get serious and stop messing around.

The experienced people in this thread who are actually in a position to know the plan are likely not discussing it. It’s telling sometimes who is mostly absent from a thread.

 

[Quirky]

F35, P8, MQ-9B

Any operators of these use non-military security forces?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Any operators of these use non-military security forces?

The security guard regulations in Canada don’t really allow for armed (civilian) security guards except in very specific circumstances. There would have to be new or amended legislation through Parliament to allow DND to have a military, armed security force. But, that would only work domestically and not for expeditionary deployments.

 

[brihard]

The security guard regulations in Canada don’t really allow for armed (civilian) security guards except in very specific circumstances. There would have to be new or amended legislation through Parliament to allow DND to have a military, armed security force. But, that would only work domestically and not for expeditionary deployments.

Two examples jump out at me. One is nuclear security officers - they’re peace officers under some very niche nuclear security law. That’s a relevant and useful model. The other is the Parliamentary Protective Service, who are not peace officers but are equipped with side sidearms and carbines and trained for active threat response. They get their legal authorities from the Parliament of Canada Act, but that’s a super weird case and not really useful to the discussion.

A relatively modest amendment to the NDA could probably establish a civilian security force with federal peace officer designation and all the consequent powers and authorities. Regulations could be issued permitting the use of force including deadly force to protect certain ministerially-designated essential materiel or information from loss, destruction, or compromise.

 

[dapaterson]

While such a civilian construct would like be sufficient within Canada, the CAF also deployed equipment around the world, so any security construct also requires deployable personnel, which defaults to CAF. Whether that task spills over to Canada as well (or not) needs consideration as well...

 

[McG]

If we need police to be able to do the job in Canada, why create a whole new force when MP and RCMP already exist?

 

[dapaterson]

If we need police to be able to do the job in Canada, why create a whole new force when MP and RCMP already exist?

The security requirement is a subset of the larger policing skill set. Paying the premium required for that full meal deal when the actual requirements are less, and when those organizations are under stress due to personnel shortfalls, may not be the optimal approach.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The security force requirement for CAF critical equipment is not a law enforcement role. There is no need for peace officer status for what we want to do.

 

[brihard]

The security requirement is a subset of the larger policing skill set. Paying the premium required for that full meal deal when the actual requirements are less, and when those organizations are under stress due to personnel shortfalls, may not be the optimal approach.

Nailed it. Trying to use existing police resources would be horribly expensive, inefficient, and likely to fail. You want to take 500 Mounties off of border integrity and national security? Cops also cost a hell of a lot more that individuals appropriately trained and empowered with the necessary limited skill set. This is where POS IS a useful comparator, because they directly replaced a duty that was previously RCMP.