Airfield defence role for PRes? (From: "Re-Royalization")

[PuckChaser]

Sounds like a permanent red trade to me. "What's your trade?" "Gate guard."

 

[dapaterson]

Is this a case of the MPs not wanting to grow to fill the function, or the RCAF not wanting MPs because they don't own the trade & personnel?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....

 

[Good2Golf]

My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....

First traffic control and PW handling gone, then force pro, soon all that's left is handing out speeding tickets on the main Garrison drag...

 

[PuckChaser]

First traffic control and PW handling gone, then force pro, soon all that's left is handing out speeding tickets on the main Garrison drag...

Good thing they get spec pay!

 

[GK .Dundas]

My sense, in dealing with the senior MP leadership, is that they are not interested in Force Protection and security as roles, because they are too busy trying to be the second best federal police force in Canada....

Some years ago I was shocked to find how many military duties they had abandoned .And dumped on those that it had become clear were considered 2nd class citizens,the Reserve units.
I had thought that Afghanistan should have provided the shock that should changed their course .
Nope! Apparently they are convinced that the future requires them to be a third rate municipal police force. :facepalm:

 

[CBH99]

Just asking out of curiosity...

I know the MP trade does a lot of unique taskings that do require people.  (Embassy security, protection details, NIS, special units, etc.)

Is this a case of the MP trade wanting to allocate as many people as possible to their unique functions, while still providing policing services to bases - and therefore not wanting to do force protection due to a perceived lack of people?

Or is this a case of culture change, in which they really just want to be a Police force and try to abandon as many Military functions as possible?

 

[Zoomie]

Ever since the MP trade made the move towards Peace Officer status - their war time role has disappeared.  PW, force protection, airfield defense, etc - these are all exceptions.  They need to be trained on how to do this - vice already come trained out of Borden.  We've taken it as a challenge and have included the MPs when we activate WASF - get them to be the immediate response and get relieved in place by the follow-on WASF.  Everyone has manning issue these days - MPs are not immune.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I have guarded air bases under threat of ground attack from real, live infiltrators that wanted to blow things up. Me and my troops spent weeks on duty doing this task, off and on.

It was really, really boring and had absolutely nothing to do with being an infantryman, and even less to do with being a member of a large military formation.

In peace/ low intensity conflicts the right people for the job are probably Commissionaires, or equivalent. Real cops if you want to stretch it a bit.

In war time? Armed Commissionaires, or more heavily armed cops. Go ahead and layer on the electric dart teams if you like, of course.

Or...

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafregiment/forceprotection/

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/

 

[PuckChaser]

What occupation gets it PYs cut for this new occupation? Pilots? Maintainers? Clerks?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Sounds like a permanent red trade to me. "What's your trade?" "Gate guard."

Take a look at the RAF and RAAF 'gate guard' trades.  They seem to be just a little bit more high speed than a current WASF type is.  :2c:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just asking out of curiosity...

I know the MP trade does a lot of unique taskings that do require people.  (Embassy security, protection details, NIS, special units, etc.)

Is this a case of the MP trade wanting to allocate as many people as possible to their unique functions, while still providing policing services to bases - and therefore not wanting to do force protection due to a perceived lack of people?

Or is this a case of culture change, in which they really just want to be a Police force and try to abandon as many Military functions as possible?

Or maybe it doesn't pad their resume well enough for them to jump to civi police work.  MPs aren't interested in the M part, just the P part.  :nod:

As a potential end-user of airfield in austere locations, I would be looking forward to some RAF Regiment Gunners or RAAF ADG types securing the perimeter of the ramp while I am sitting fat, dumb and happy in the tube getting ready for a mission.  Or, some decently motivated cbt arms troops with some specialized leadership types embedded.

Having seen how the USAF and RAF do security (domestic and deployed), I think we take our security as a joke. 

 

[brihard]

MP involvement would vary in merits depending on the nature of the threat. Domestically we're most likely to see a Ft Hood style 'active shooter' situation. As much as us combat arms types might gripe about it, they will be the guys who will be on duty, with a radio, with guns and ammo, presumably with C8s accessible, and my understanding is some flavor of IARD/active shooter training. Some disenfranchised nutsack tries to snackbar CFB Trenton, it'll probably be a gaggle of MPs in active shooter response who will stop the threat. That's my view of the status quo. It does baffle me that we don't have proper armed perimeter security around our major bases, and it still seems a no brainer to have a suitable sized sub unit providing security at any given time with at least a section sized QRF playing x-box somewhere but ready to grab and go... TAPV anyone?

I am no expert on the MPs and won't stray from my arcs further than that. But domestically they need to remain a primary player in base security/defense; they DO have the training to properly deal with the post-threat transition to a criminal investigation once the threat is stopped. A combat arms unit, quite understandably, would not be expected to have such a skill set.

I'm curious regarding the RCAF Force Pro trade (also, "farce pro". I'm coining it now just so I can take credit later). I wonder how they envision utilizing a PRes organization that will probably be class A reliably provide a security force. I envision this turning into a lot of Cl B positions that will attract a lot of mediocre remusters from the army reserve career Cl B types...

 

[Old Sweat]

MP involvement would vary in merits depending on the nature of the threat. Domestically we're most likely to see a Ft Hood style 'active shooter' situation. As much as us combat arms types might gripe about it, they will be the guys who will be on duty, with a radio, with guns and ammo, presumably with C8s accessible, and my understanding is some flavor of IARD/active shooter training. Some disenfranchised nutsack tries to snackbar CFB Trenton, it'll probably be a gaggle of MPs in active shooter response who will stop the threat. That's my view of the status quo. It does baffle me that we don't have proper armed perimeter security around our major bases, and it still seems a no brainer to have a suitable sized sub unit providing security at any given time with at least a section sized QRF playing x-box somewhere but ready to grab and go... TAPV anyone?

I am no expert on the MPs and won't stray from my arcs further than that. But domestically they need to remain a primary player in base security/defense; they DO have the training to properly deal with the post-threat transition to a criminal investigation once the threat is stopped. A combat arms unit, quite understandably, would not be expected to have such a skill set.

I'm curious regarding the RCAF Force Pro trade (also, "farce pro". I'm coining it now just so I can take credit later). I wonder how they envision utilizing a PRes organization that will probably be class A reliably provide a security force. I envision this turning into a lot of Cl B positions that will attract a lot of mediocre remusters from the army reserve career Cl B types...

Second hand recollections from a long past era, but in the early sixties much of the RCAF security police role was involved with security of nuclear warheads on the bases at home and abroad that housed the devices. While I am not suggesting there is some plot to accept nukes again, I wonder if there is some residual thinking going on?

Things are be a bit different now, especially for expeditionary forces. Still, I wonder if this is a real solution?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am not sure, OS.

Usually, when ideas like this come up, we need only look to the USAF. If they have something, the RCAF usually wants it- regardless if it is a good fit for Canada or not.

 

[childs56]

I am thinking they are planning for the future of the Airforce deployments. Trying to fill a major gap to which the Airforce has, and that is BDF. You can not expect Aircraft Mechanics and Pilots to perform security functions when they are busy fixing, arming and flying planes. They cannot rely on the Army providing a platoon plus to supply a security detail. The Army does not have the manning for it. Nor does the Airforce have control over the who what where when or how if the Army is running the show.
It makes logical sense, the Navy stood to their own Force Protection group over the past few years. Now it will turn into a trade, and each element will get new manning lists and trade classification.

Some of our Allies have had successful Airfield security teams, so why cant we.

I honestly think in the near future our Jets will be deployed where we need integral teams.  I guess only time will tell.

 

[dapaterson]

By that logic, needing to directly control supporting assets, maritime air should belong to the RCN and tac hel to the army. This smells of empire building.

 

[McG]

The army has nine infantry battalions.  That is more infantry than there is CS and CSS to support it on operations.  The CAF has more than enough infantry to allocate to operational airfield defence if there is a requirement.  We don't have a big enough military to allocate PYs for RCAF infantry.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

By that logic, needing to directly control supporting assets, maritime air should belong to the RCN and tac hel to the army. This smells of empire building.

???

The AF has other, unique units designed for deployed ops;  8 ACCS, the Radar Sqns.  At homeplate, the WASF is made up of mbr's for Wing units.  Deployed ops, who is going to do it?  We have other small trades in the CAF (mine included, 200 pers give or take) that are specific to the AF.  Why not train folks specifically for the same thing the RAF Regiment and RAAF ADG units do? 

No offense to anyone who is WASF but it is only a secondary duty.  If we deploy somewhere away from Big Brother USAF and their cap's, I'd like to have someone protecting my carcass when I am getting ready to go who's takes it as more than a secondary duty.  Same goes for ASF org as well.  I've seen how seriously the USAF takes security and IMO we are behind the curve.

As an potential end-user of this capability, I say go for it.  Planes and the people who operate them cost lots of $ to replace.  A little insurance is never a bad thing.

 

[PuckChaser]

WASF is just like BASF, Army does it as a secondary duty too. RCAF infantry is just like RCN Marines, why do we need them when it can be accomplished via secondary duty or enhanced training for our big infantry manpower. There's nothing special about guarding the outer perimeter of an airfield to warrant an entire trade. Concur with the empire building comment. The chance we'll deploy somewhere in a high risk environment and need to secure our own airfield is next to none. Let the big countries handle it when they deploy 50 aircraft to our 6.