cobbler said:
And if you need to clear mines in a port outside of Canada? With the probably requirment of amrs and/or tactical data links?
When you get amphibs, you'll want mine warfare capbility capable of going with them to ensure the fat ships are safe.
It is NOT a Coast Guard role.
Well, then I would argue if you want an expeditionary capability to do so, you build an expeditionary capable asset, again with a non-magnetic hull at the same time you add the LPD's/LHD's....
My whole point is this: We have a fixed number of vessels between the Navy and Coast Guard that we can afford to buy and operate. We therefore need to be very smart about how we do this and in my world "Well, this is how we've always done it before" is a cop-out.
In this case we need to do one of two things:
1) Accept the Canadian Coast Guard as an unarmed unionized force with its limitations and cut back its procurement and operational budgets and limit them to capabilities that will
never require an armed response. Buoy tendering, etc. I still think that domestic mine clearance is a role the CCG could do, but my gut tells me the union will come up with an excuse because it's too dangerous. Regardless, I find this option to be incredibly short-sighted as you can never maximize the capability of the vessels in the water if you have a bunch of "pacificist" assets (and by that I mean they're incapable of firing a shot) in any given theatre where you may require a security/interediction/military capability.
2) Re-role the Coast Guard back into the Canadian Armed Forces, and arm them all as specialist soldiers/seamen. Congratulations, you're now a soldier/seaman and a fisheries expert. You're now a soldier/seaman and a buoy tender. You're now a soldier/seaman and a search-and-rescue specialist.
Bottom Line: I think this argument keeps coming back to "Well what if the members of the Coast Guard don't like the change?" My answer is "Tough beans." The Canadian Coast Guard is a
public service position. As such the government has the right to operate said
public service in the best interest of
the public. If the CCG personnel don't like the changes being presented, then I hope they enjoy their retirement. We'll recruit new naval soldiers to eventually train-up and take your spot. And if there is a painful 2-3 year transition period with strikes, early retirement, etc....so be it, because the end structure 4 years from now will be ultimately more capable than what we're deploying now.
This applies to any part of government bureaucracy. Just because you once had a job in government in a certain role, does not guarantee you that role for you entire life. If things change, departments and personnel may become redundant and restructuring occurs.
Let's say we disband ACAO because we decide it's been a partisan-driven siphon for taxpayer cash? Should we not, just because the people there were given jobs at one type based on a specific description?
How about if we decide we should merge the RCMP, Border Services and CSIS to provide a single integrated national security apparatus? Should we not do that because it's not the way we've done things before?
How about closing down some of the expensive consulate structures that we run in places like New York where taxpayers spend millions per year so rich people can throw parties for one another that generate ZERO new business for Canadian workers?
I'm not even claiming all the above are great ideas (I just came up with them off the top of my head). I'm just saying you can't have sacred cows and still have a rational and productive debate.
To me this comes back to the same problem we see around the country with people who were/are fishermen or forestry workers or whatever else and somehow they've developed this entitlement philosophy that "Well I'm a [insert job title here] and that's all I'm willing to do, and the government should do whatever is necessary for pay for me to be a [insert job title here] again....and by the way, while I'm not [insert job here], I expect benefits."
Order of Operations:
1) What does the government need? "Armed multipurpose Vessels and Aircraft operating both in littoral and inland waterways capable of security, military, search & rescue, icebreaking and other varied tasks as needed."
2) How do we restructure our existing entities and assets to best serve in those roles? [everyone can put their own answer here....it just shouldn't be limited by how structures exist now, if they don't make sense. Start with an empty chalkboard, then draw it out.]
In the end, we should be willing to do restructure in whatever unorthodox or non-traditional means are necessary in order to best meet the objectives as they're drawn up. And from the opposite direction, in no way should traditional limitations on roles in any way limit the initial objective settting.
We do not have the time or luxury of unlimited cash to allow irrational structures/systems to continue to exist in an environment that demands change.
Matthew.
P.S. To Stoker re: no national capability to build non-magnetic hulls: If it's overly cumbersome and building our few ships would be a one-off and after that production there would be no export market for for follow-on vessels, I would propose we do a government-to-government swap where-in perhaps we buy $XXX million in specialised mine-hunting vessels, and they in turn by $XXX million in trains, planes, LAV-III's, satellites, etc. In short, ensure there's a 100% economic offset so that we still get the positive economic return as if we'd built them here.
