PSU WEAPON OF COICE (your input please)

[chief_of_da_fence]

I would appreciate your input regarding A (PSU) Port Security Units weapon of choice.
To summarize and compare what we do , we are responsible for access control to an area , think of it as a road block for cars of course instead of cars we stop boats and ships.
every one agrees that the weapon we use right now is not the most appropriate weapon (the C7) THE VESSEL WE WORK IN IS CLOSE QUARTERS WE CANT MANOVER AROUND OUR OWN BOAT WITH A LONG RIFLE.

My recommendation.  C8 with grenade launcher. it affords us range and penetration. as well as the stopping power of the grenade , and the flexibility to use less than or non lethal.

I feel that the ability to use non or less than lethal would be appreciated since our concept of ops does not allow us to leave continental North America. and we primarily deal with your aunts and uncles here in Canada. 

and the grenades would give us options against swimmers / divers

My second choice is the Remington 870 with collapsible stalk. again for the same ammo flexibility as the grenade launcher , I also feel that the 1/4oz deer slug is one of the best rounds for stopping a boat. not to mention that the round might cause less collateral damage in a urban environment given its lower velocity.

Third and last choice not my choice the MP5  given the weapons compact size it is easy to maneuver around the boat  the 9mm round might be considered a safe ammo for use in an urban environment . i don't think this round would stop a boat or penetrate a hull to hit a driver.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If the Navy was going to get serious about Port Security well I can't agree with your points.
  Grenade Launcher- first off there is the safety concern. If you have an accidental discharge of a 40 mm GL onboard your RHIb or other vessel your going to take out both your crew and your ride. Halifax and Victoria have oodles of merchant and recreational craft everyday arriving and departing. You may risk collateral damage or worse civillian casualties. In the event you have to board a suspect vessel, a grenade launcher is a valuable prize in the event you take casualties.
  If the Navy was going to get you something else I would think a mounted C6 GPMG or .50 cal HMG would be more then adequate. If there is a diver threat chances are you will not be able to engage them anyways. There are explosive charges in the system to handle that.
  For a long gun something like the SR-25 would give you a platform that you would be familiar with and the hitting power that maybe necessary for stopping a boat.
  The 870s we use are great for maintaining security onboard a ship we are  searching but beyond the initimadation value, do you plan on boarding a craft with your limited crew? Have you done tests using the slug on moving boats to verify that it will stop a moving craft and cause the damage you need it to. MP5s are nice and accurate but really does PSU need them when you have C8s?

 

[ammocat]

I am curious about your choice of 40mm grenade to be used against swimmers and divers. The two versions of 40mm HE (HE/Frag & HEDP) grenades that are currently in service both use impact initiated fuzes. So firing these at divers, the grenade in theory would detonate on the waters surface, reducing the effectiveness if the diver was submerged. Also depending at the angle at which the grenade strikes the waters surface it may not detonate at all.

There are items specifically designed to deal with divers such as the Anti-Frogman DM211, which is in service.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thanks for the designation ammocat.

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

" The 870s we use are great for maintaining security on board a ship we are  searching but beyond the intimidation value, do you plan on boarding a craft with your limited crew? Have you done tests using the slug on moving boats to verify that it will stop a moving craft and cause the damage you need it to. "

it is my understanding that The force protection boats used by the PSS Port Security Sections have the C6s now

I still like the C8 because i wouldn't have to spend a lot of time re training people on the weapon given the transient nature of the persons typically manning the boats crew.

I cant say if Canada has done any weapons testing. I was at the special mission school at MCB Camp Lejeune and they had done testing and they informed me of the shot gun  as well as their testing with less than lethal.

the U.S. boats have a .50 up forward saw,s on the side and a 40 mm grenade launcher in the rear. there is a document stating that there will not be a 50 mounted on our boats in Canadian waters. I find that funny because the MCDVS and Orcas have 50.s mounted on them for podium.

My recommendation for the primary round would be a simple flash bang. . I have done personal testing with what is called a bear banger and feel that even the bear banger would be good as a warning shot. if the warning shot didn't work unload a flashbang into a small boat and see what happens to the crew


There are anti swimmer specific ordinances available to the Canadian NAVY you can even set depth so they wouldn't go off in you vessel. The U.S. uses concussion grenades nice and simple. A flaw in my idea for grenade launcher in anti swimmer use it unless your carefull the round can skip resulting in a stray round.

as for boarding vessels  we don't touch bylaw enforcement at all that is up to local authorities. Some one is always saying what if we do a boarding. i don't think i  can get to in-depth into our SOPS but the plan is to take the vessel in question to a secure location / jetty and bring a search team on board. I have specialside in Port security since 1991 and have never seen a boarding. I am not saying it hasn't happend jut that I haven't seen it.  and protocol's always change.

A problem is that the people making the recommendations are NAVycentric and only know of the weapons used by the NAVY . they don't know of the option available to us.

in regards to the .50 again some one in Ottawa said NO WAY. and we would have to train the people. but a 50 would stop the vessel before a 9mm would.

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

I am curious about your choice of 40mm grenade to be used against swimmers and divers. The two versions of 40mm HE (HE/Frag & HEDP) grenades that are currently in service both use impact initiated fuzes. So firing these at divers, the grenade in theory would detonate on the waters surface, reducing the effectiveness if the diver was submerged. Also depending at the angle at which the grenade strikes the waters surface it may not detonate at all.

There are items specifically designed to deal with divers such as the Anti-Frogman DM211, which is in service.

you were quicker to the draw than i was see my last post. I am disappointed with the direction we have taken regarding anti swimmer training. other that that i cant get into it.

 

[ammocat]

Just a note, I am assuming that the 40mm mounted on the US ships is the automatic grenade launcher, which uses the 40mm x 53 ammunition. The M203 uses the 40mm x 46 Low Velocity ammunition. The ammunition is not interchangeable.

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

I am curious about your choice of 40mm grenade to be used against swimmers and divers. The two versions of 40mm HE (HE/Frag & HEDP) grenades that are currently in service both use impact initiated fuzes. So firing these at divers, the grenade in theory would detonate on the waters surface, reducing the effectiveness if the diver was submerged. Also depending at the angle at which the grenade strikes the waters surface it may not detonate at all.

There are items specifically designed to deal with divers such as the Anti-Frogman DM211, which is in service.

PSU normally though. comes under the NAVAL RESERVES. we no longer receive demolition training and therefor no training on the dm211. it would be nice

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

Just a note, I am assuming that the 40mm mounted on the US ships is the automatic grenade launcher, which uses the 40mm x 53 ammunition. The M203 uses the 40mm x 46 Low Velocity ammunition. The ammunition is not interchangeable.

Never asume you make an ass out of ume. but you are correct.

 

[ammocat]

No training on the DM211, that is unfortunate. I would think it would be a valuable resource for the protection of ships, harbour structures, etc. Since the DM211 is really a complex underwater grenade, I would think it would be easy to conduct dry training with dummy variants. It may be much more difficult to conduct live training as you would need a suitable body of water, there would be concerns about marine life, and dealing with duds would be difficult and would require EOD qualified divers.

I have no training or information wrt port security and I am a little confused. Would personnel with MP-5's or 870's be required to stop a boat by shooting the engine or operator? I would think that stopping a boat would up to a mounted weapon such as the C-6 or .50cal. Aren't the MP-5's and 870's more for personal protection once the suspect vessel has been boarded?

 

[Monsoon]

I have no training or information wrt port security and I am a little confused. Would personnel with MP-5's or 870's be required to stop a boat by shooting the engine or operator? I would think that stopping a boat would up to a mounted weapon such as the C-6 or .50cal. Aren't the MP-5's and 870's more for personal protection once the suspect vessel has been boarded?

There's a lot that's wrong with PSU that has nothing to do with the weapon choice. The doctrine to date relies very heavily on "visible deterrent" and gets muddy when anyone is actually called upon to use the weapon.

Fr'instance: The RHIB coxswain is "in charge" of the boat, but he's also the driver, and communications are relayed through a third member. The ROE are delegated directly to the rifleman/bowsman (typically the most junior person in the boat). To compare this to an army context (and, really, PS is more like what the army traditionally does than what the navy traditionally does), it would be like making the tank crew commander the driver, putting the driver up in the turret with the radio, and letting the aimer and loader shoot at whatever they want. Not a recipe for tactical success, I would suggest.

IMHO: Make the RHIB coxswain just the RHIB's driver, give the rifleman a weapon that's directed on order by the RHIB "commander", who holds the ROE and is a MS+ of any trade specifically trained to do the job and who has comms back to the OPCEN (preferably using an encrypted trunk radio with a headset that allows it to be used when the boat is at speed).

And while we're at it, let's stop pretending the OPCEN is the bridge of a ship. Sit a junior watch officer down at a computer console with an electronic chart of the harbour communicating directly with the boats. Have a senior watch officer there to liaise with outside authorities and command who, realistically, will seldom be present when bad stuff starts to happen in a PS context. Give them a NAVCOM and an NCIOP to assist as required. Designing an OPCEN around the principle that the NAVCOMs and NCIOPs should be fully employed as they would be on a ship is a bad idea.

But of course that will never happen. And that's why PSU is not my favourite sport.

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

I have always felt that the PSU boat is more of a jet fighter. I would never want to be in charge. of a platform that has to come in close quarters with a nother fast moving platform and not be at the helm myself. I don't think I could handle the stress of my life not in my hands, and I have been driving the boats since 1991. as for the trunked coms OMG we have wanted that scine 2005 or so. preaching to the choir here. granted we have wanted new weapons since almost day one.

And I agree about the micro management of the boats by op cen, it rely got bad in the latter days of PSS. and trickled into PSU.

I wont even get into how the west coast screwed up and taught un authorized tactics for the past 5 years resulting in all the coxns for op podium having to be retrained. lol I get to say I told you so on that one.

 

[Monsoon]

Fair enough, to the extent that PS use of force is geared toward boat tactics rather than use of weapons. But that assumes that you're only going to be confronting wandering tourists, water-borne media and nuisance protesters (the 98% case, I admit) rather than armed people intent on doing damage. In that case, the boats shouldn't be particularly close and the overriding concern is ROE, arcs of fire and collateral damage (words I've seldom heard uttered in a PS context). If we're going to put weapons in a boat, we should do it properly.

A very experienced boatswain may be able to drive, communicate and direct weapons at the same time... but mostly we're talking about killicks with a couple of weeks of boat tactics training. It behooves us to put someone fairly senior in the boat who can do the other stuff (escalatory hails, directing warning shots, etc), and who can use their experience to ignore the OPCEN when events overtake its picture of what's happening on the water.

 

[NavyShooter]

The essence of this will boil down to what threat you are trying to protect against?

The tools can be chosen based on that.

Part of it is probably based on the level of threat assesed to be present.

Remember, part of the threat continum is a physical presence as a deterrent.

If that is not enough (which so far it is thank goodness!) then obviously the tools used in port security would have to be re-assessed.

What weapon system would be "ideal"?  Well, no weapon will be "perfect" for every job, so in the absence of a specific targetted threat, the best thing to do is use a generic service weapon.  That way there is commonality of training and a consistent presence.

There are pros and cons to every weapon you may choose. 

An 870 will not be able to reach past 50 meters effectively, and has very limited ammunition capacity, and is relatively slow to reload.

An MP-5 will not reach past 100 meters effectively, has good ammo capacity, however, it requires additional training that not everyone has.

A .50 M2 Machine gun has a HUGE effective range, but requires a stable mounting platform (ie not a small boat) and additional training to use it well.  It also has a REALLY large danger template.

A C-7 reaches out several hundred meters, has the ability to penetrate thin steel plate, has good ammo capacity, does not have an excessive danger template, and every member of the CF has been trained in it's use.

There's all kinds of arguments that can be made for and against each of these weapons, but until there is a specific threat requiring a specialized weapon other than a C-7, I don't think you'll see them replaced in this role.

NS

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

That's one of the reasons I thing the C8 is  a more appropriate weapon. its basically a small version of the C7 no training required. just a familiarization soot (or two) Both my trips to the sand box I used  C8 and C7a2 and required no additional training.



now if you send me to Africa I want a c6 up front  well I would still be happy with  a .50

Pleaase don't thing anything I say is an attempt to disagree it is only an attempt to get information or answer question's.

 

[NavyShooter]

What advantages does a C-8 provide versus a C-7 except for being slightly handier in close quarters?

The shorter barrel provides a lower initial muzzle velocity, thus slightly reducing it's effectiveness.

With the transient nature of PSU's, (as you've mentioned already) it's probably hard enough to get people who are current on their C-7 PWT's.

NS

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

The C7 is very difficult to move around with in the boat the barrel is constantly hanging up on fittings or obstacles in the boat..  it is hard  to say what the distance of a confrontation would be I haven't seen one. it is believed that it would be about 20 to 30 yards. Granted the west cost was trying to train people to "ride off "  what they coincided the equivalent of a pit manover. which would force you to come in direct contact with the VOI vessel of interest.  i disagree with the riding of tactic for access controle it might be good for bylaw enforcement but not for PSU. fleet school has crushed the attempts to teach riding off . thank god. I digress.

keep in mind I am also asking about the use of the grenade launcher for non or  less than lethal. I guess lethal could be an option.

 

[DBF]

The C7 is very difficult to move around with in the boat the barrel is constantly hanging up on fittings or obstacles in the boat.

The C8 is only 6.4 inches shorter than the C7.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

chief_of_da_fence,

We have a requirement here for posters that wish to engage in discussion. That is, to the best of their ability, to use the spell check, use proper grammar and to capitalize and punctuate, where necessary. It makes the post much easier to read and helps hold people's interest. Please endeavour to help us out in this regard, by reading, and correcting your replies prior to hitting 'Post'.

Thanks

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[chief_of_da_fence]

The C8 is only 6.4 inches shorter than the C7.

is that with the butt completely collapsed .

All so some of the spaces on our current vessel are Less than one foot in width in these cases every inch counts. think about it MP,S  and some drivers, get them in the sand box so they can get in and out of their vehicles. I think even flight crews might get them , don't quote me on that one.