Topic: Proposal: Joint Marcom and CCG crews on CCG ships

[George Wallace]

Seems to me I read somewhere a while back about posters treating each other with respect.  This thread is another example of enlisted people bullying a civilian with a question and an opinion or two.  His opinions, like mine, may not be as informed as people in the service but this is not a DND site.  This is a forum for people to discuss their ideas and opinions with others.  It should not be a place where a person has to be concerned about getting a verbal headbutt because he does not have the knowledge of the CDS!  I am one of those civvies that does a whole lot more reading on this site than I do posting and I think Cougar King has been very respectful.  Many of you need to learn to treat others with a lot more respect than you do. Do you always speak to people like that?  Do you teach your children to treat others like that.  I think you owe Cougar King an apology.


You might have a difficult time convincing a Captain of a Coast Guard Vessel that his authority will be superceded in times of danger by a Naval Officer that does not outrank him.   He is the captain of the ship and he would not likely take the position knowing that his authority to command might be undermined at the most critical of times.


...and these 2 paragraphs are my 2 cents worth.

Mr. Matthew Blackshirt: I can only wish I were as articulate as you.  Everything you said (and said well) is exactly what I was trying to say above.  Too many regulars on this forum come across as people with a chip on their shoulder and an attitude to ram it down someone else's throat. However, they are outnumbered by the rest of the regulars that treat others with respect.

Looks like your skin is rather 'thin'.  I find it funny that you have slammed a good number of experienced members for their responses to you, and yet by your above posts, you show that you are no better than them.  It would look like you don't want to accept the experience of others, unless they have matching ideas as yours.  That is a rather arrogant position to take.  As you said you are a civilian and not experienced in these matters, yet you get upset when people tell you the facts and they do not meet with your sensibilities.  Not usually a good sign of reasonable discussion.

To put it bluntly, I find your above posts offensive. 

[CDN Aviator]

....and i'm politely going to ask everyone to get back on track, lest i politely shut this thread down...There are threads on how terrible the mods are, i'm more than willing to discuss that issue there.

Thanks

[S.M.A.]

Getting back on track...

  Your naval reserve personnel would get zero training benefit if you got rid of their MCDVs and made them gun crews on civillian crewed and commanded vessels.

Ex-Dragoon,

Are you saying this because these gun crews would not have the support of a CIC and the supporting sensors that a Frigate/MCDV would have? (other than the civilian radar,sonars and GPS used on civilian ships)

Or is it because you believe that naval detachments mixing with a civilian crew would probably affect their cohesion and discipline since they would be staying with them for the whole length of the cruise?

BTW, I mentioned the US/British/Commonwealth naval/naval reserve detachments on board merchant ships in Allied convoys during World War II- isn't that a good enough precedent/past example that naval crews' training doesn't necessarily deteriorate just because they are mixed in with civilians?

A good World War II example would be the SS Stephen Hopkins, a US Liberty ship travelling alone in the Atlantic, whose naval "Armed Guard" gunners were able to defend the ship and even sink the German merchant cruiser/raiderStier which attacked them.

http://www.usmm.org/hopkins.html

I know this example might not apply in the modern world, but still, having naval detachments placed aboard the larger CCG fleet would allow us to kill three birds with one stone:
1.) Enforce Canada's sovereignty in the farther reaches of our waters (e.g the Arctic,) with the naval detachments aboard with the largest fleet already at our disposal- the CCG fleet.
2.) Some law enforcement missions (drug and illegal immigrant interdiction, which the US Coast Guard does)
3.) SAR and other normal Canadian Coast Guard duties such as fisheries patrol, ocean surveying and ice-breaking.

Of course, modifying the large CCG fleet with these weapons would not come without considerable cost since most of the current CG ships are not designed to have weapons installed, larger than the 50 cals of the CCGS Cowley, not to mention the ASW suite and other criticisms you pointed earlier, as well as a government (whether Liberal or Conservative or whoever) willing to foot the bill of permanently installing weapons on these ships.

However, this may be a change worth considering for future Canadian cutters and icebreakers. They could more modelled on the US Coast Guard cutters such as the Hamilton Class cutters which are designed for BOTH SAR and sovereignty/law enforcement missions mentioned above.  Even many of their smaller cutters are armed.

Since the Canadian Coast Guard is so resistant to "militarizing" as mentioned in the "Should the Canadian Coast Guard be Armed?" thread, why not just have Naval detachments aboard?

You may answer this by pointing out that with only 9,000 active duty sailors already spread throughout the bigger warships and the 4,000 reservists for the MCDVs, YAGs, Orcas and across the nation, we might not have enough sailors left to man those CCG ships, unless the navy grows bigger, or unless the MCDVs are retired and the reservists are transferred to those detachments on the CG ships.

In that case, one might then suggest that the RCMP instead increase the joint role it already enjoys with the CCG by having more permanent detachments aboard to be used in drug interdiction/illegal immigrant/law enforcement missions, along with permanently installed weapons such as 50 cals or possibly even training them to use 3-inch guns. This could also take care of the sovereignty enforcement function as well without involving the Navy then.  But then again, this other suggestion of increasing the RCMP's joint ventures with the CCG even to the point of having the be gun crews would be the subject of another thread. (*if the Mounties don't have enough personnel, then how about arming some Border Guards and training them in the same fashion as mentioned earlier for the Sovreignty function).

I am surely going to get a lot of flak for this, but I await your responses and criticisms. 

Cougar

PS

Here's a little pic of one of the US Navy armed guard gun tubs in the Stephen Hopkins's  gun duel with the Stier.

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sorry I am done answering questions as I might be seen as big and mean to other posters. Have your debate and discuss it to your hearts content....

[N. McKay]

The Coast Guard already goes some distance towards enforcing Canadian sovereignty in the north just by being there and doing its normal job of maintaining the waterways (icebreaking, aids to navigation, etc.).  If it were necessary to use force, to the extent of 3" guns, then that would be a very different situation from what we have now.  (To date, nobody has ever sailed through our northern waters under circumstances that would make us willing to actually shoot at them).

3" is also a little on the large side for a gun; only three destroyers in the Canadian navy have such a thing.  (Canadian frigates have smaller guns, closer to 2".)  But if you do mount a gun with the intention of putting yourself in the position of having to use it, you need a warship with a naval crew.  It's one thing to place a naval gun crew in a civilian ship to fire the gun, but quite another to ask the civilian crew to put up with the possibility of their ship being fired on by others with similar weapons.  You're correct that it worked during the war, but sailing into harm's way was the norm for merchant service crews at that time -- the normal course of their work brought them literally into the sights of the enemy.

There are differences between what makes a good icebreaker and what makes a good warship, and some of them would be hard to reconcile within one vessel.  Damage control is an example (see the thread in the Navy forum on commercial vs. naval ship specifications for more on this).  The shape of the hull is another: a hull that's good at icebreaking is not necessarily good for speed, so a ship that aims to be a warship and an icebreaker will have to include some compromises that will make it less than optimal for either role.

As for the training aspect, today almost an entire ship's crew can receive training in an MCDV -- boatswains, stokers, cooks, MARS officers, and others.  If the Naval Reserve lost the MCDVs and replaced them with billets in CCG ships many of those opportunities would go as well.  Put another way, the crew of a warship do a lot more than aim and fire the guns.

Your comment on RCMP members in CCG ships is closer to the mark.  As you say, it's being done now (though I believe the mounties concerned are managing with small arms, not ship-mounted guns).

[cplcaldwell]

Perhaps the role of the CCG is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act (wrt Law Enforcement)?

Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom. In this way suspicious ships can be identified and assets with sufficient defence capabilities can be 'zeroed in' on the possible offender.

Perhaps the last role of the CCG in this regard is to provide a 'lift' for Fisheries Protection Officers and RCMP Constables who, once in reasonable proximity to a suspected vessel can debark the LEO's in a suitable craft, remain at arm's length and let the 'pro's' do the job.

Could it be that naval boarding parties are now (possibly) to be included to this list of 'perhaps'?

Is there a role that could be envisaged where naval boarding parties are required instead of/in addition to  of FPO's or RCMP's?

Is having naval boarding parties embarked on CCG vessels a reasonable role that fits an existing need?

As mentioned before, the role of CCG as a combat force has been hammered to death, but could CCG make a viable transport option for naval boarding parties.

As discussed, it seems that ASW and ASuW capabilities are a 'non starter', but is there any utility of adding naval boarding parties to CCG vessels in some cases...

Trying to stay on track, here and narrowing the discussion to a rather specific "jointness", to wit, naval boarding parties 'lodging' on CCG vessels.

[CDN Aviator]

Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom.

MarComm already has a set of eyes and ears t pinpoint ships, identify them and report on them...........The CP-140 Aurora.

[MarkOttawa]

cdnaviator: How many for how much longer, if these plans go ahead?
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=22fbb1c1-2162-4a26-b721-f153a000e36e

...
The cuts would include six Aurora maritime patrol aircraft...

As it gets rid of the Auroras, the air force will purchase approximately 12 aerial drones to be located at Canadian Forces Base Comox in British Columbia and CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia for domestic surveillance and overseas operations. The first of those will be in operation starting in 2008. The purchase of longer-range drones would be considered in the future.

Work will be stopped on the ongoing $900-million modernization program for the Aurora.

Another air force plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on a structural life extension for the aging Auroras will also be cancelled. The remaining Auroras will be re-assigned to Arctic sovereignty patrols...

With the reduction in Aurora numbers I would say the case is even stronger for more civilian maritime surveillance planes.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/marine-pollution-surveillance-aircraft.html

Mark
Ottawa

[CDN Aviator]

I'm not at work today so i dont know if its made the rounds there yet.  I will hold off on commenting until i hear what the CO has to say about it

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Coast Guard already goes some distance towards enforcing Canadian sovereignty in the north just by being there and doing its normal job of maintaining the waterways (icebreaking, aids to navigation, etc.).  If it were necessary to use force, to the extent of 3" guns, then that would be a very different situation from what we have now.  (To date, nobody has ever sailed through our northern waters under circumstances that would make us willing to actually shoot at them).

3" is also a little on the large side for a gun; only three destroyers in the Canadian navy have such a thing.  (Canadian frigates have smaller guns, closer to 2".)  But if you do mount a gun with the intention of putting yourself in the position of having to use it, you need a warship with a naval crew.  It's one thing to place a naval gun crew in a civilian ship to fire the gun, but quite another to ask the civilian crew to put up with the possibility of their ship being fired on by others with similar weapons.  You're correct that it worked during the war, but sailing into harm's way was the norm for merchant service crews at that time -- the normal course of their work brought them literally into the sights of the enemy.

There are differences between what makes a good icebreaker and what makes a good warship, and some of them would be hard to reconcile within one vessel.  Damage control is an example (see the thread in the Navy forum on commercial vs. naval ship specifications for more on this).  The shape of the hull is another: a hull that's good at icebreaking is not necessarily good for speed, so a ship that aims to be a warship and an icebreaker will have to include some compromises that will make it less than optimal for either role.

As for the training aspect, today almost an entire ship's crew can receive training in an MCDV -- boatswains, stokers, cooks, MARS officers, and others.  If the Naval Reserve lost the MCDVs and replaced them with billets in CCG ships many of those opportunities would go as well.  Put another way, the crew of a warship do a lot more than aim and fire the guns.

Your comment on RCMP members in CCG ships is closer to the mark.  As you say, it's being done now (though I believe the mounties concerned are managing with small arms, not ship-mounted guns).

Agreed. For a combined ships company you will also have jurisdictional issues up the ying yang and intergovernment departmental  battles that would accomplish little for the mission success.

[Ex-Dragoon]

Perhaps the role of the CCG is the enforcement of the Fisheries Act (wrt Law Enforcement)?

Perhaps another role of the CCG in this regard is to act as 'eyes and ears' for MarCom. In this way suspicious ships can be identified and assets with sufficient defence capabilities can be 'zeroed in' on the possible offender.

Perhaps the last role of the CCG in this regard is to provide a 'lift' for Fisheries Protection Officers and RCMP Constables who, once in reasonable proximity to a suspected vessel can debark the LEO's in a suitable craft, remain at arm's length and let the 'pro's' do the job.

Could it be that naval boarding parties are now (possibly) to be included to this list of 'perhaps'?

Is there a role that could be envisaged where naval boarding parties are required instead of/in addition to  of FPO's or RCMP's?

Is having naval boarding parties embarked on CCG vessels a reasonable role that fits an existing need?

As mentioned before, the role of CCG as a combat force has been hammered to death, but could CCG make a viable transport option for naval boarding parties.

As discussed, it seems that ASW and ASuW capabilities are a 'non starter', but is there any utility of adding naval boarding parties to CCG vessels in some cases...

Trying to stay on track, here and narrowing the discussion to a rather specific "jointness", to wit, naval boarding parties 'lodging' on CCG vessels.

The problem here is if we embarked an NBP team on a CCG vessel the only real weapons you will have are what the teams are carrying. The CCG would be able to do little in providing covering fire especially when the team is in transit to and from the vessel that is to be boarded.