Topic: New Coast Guard Ships

[Colin P]

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 P]

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 P]

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

[N. 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 P]

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

[N. 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.

[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.   

[LoboCanada]

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 P]

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.

[N. 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.

[N. 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.

[N. 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!