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

[childs56]

There is more to WASF or BASF then just getting some people together once or twice a year to carry a rifle and go bang bang. If in the near future the Airforce wants to deploy in a far off land. We might not see the US Airforce deploy their planes.  It might be part of a UN force and we might want to have dedicated trained people to work around the Aircraft and their security.

It seems to be a simple task that the one of those under supported Infantry Units can full fill. Yet when the Navy seeked out the Army for their BDF they were told figure it out yourself.

If you look at the British Airforce security, or the US set up. They identified a major issue with using Army Forces. That was command and control, When the Army needs them back they take them. Not to mention having to train Army people from doing Army things around Aircraft that may make them go boom, or damage them beyond repair.
The issue of training rotating units in and out of the role becomes a bigger issue. Just because of the shear amount of people they would have to retrain when the tasking changes to another unit. You always have that issue when the Army wants their troops back for what ever reason they will. If they are in a hostile zone they will no doubt turn the Airfield Security task to a secondary role. Which the Airforce wants as a primary role.

You can argue it all you want and say it is empire building, at the end of the day all Elements should have their own security forces. If it was such a failure or such an issue why did most of our Allies go this way?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There's nothing special about guarding the outer perimeter of an airfield to warrant an entire trade.

The chances we'll have some CBRN attack in Canada, based on history is...how low?  Yet, we've created a trade specifically for that.

The USAF, RAF and RAAF all seem to think there is indeed something special about securing airfields.

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.

Speaking for myself not the RCAF, I think having folks like that would be the ones we SHOULD deploy to augment the 'big countries' at airfields, rather than letting them pull all the weight and pay all the bills.  But I guess, why not use the same mentality for RCAF deployed ops that we do for our NATO commitments, right?  Someone else can pick up the cheque.  ^-^

As an ex-army guy, I always laugh a little when army folks seem to know more about what the AF needs and how it should conduct ops.  Yet, if an AF type has an opinion about army stuff, they get told to STFU because what would they know about the Army?  RCAF funded and managed security forces would come out of the RCAF coffers wouldn't it?  What difference?  Why can't maintainers and aircrew do it?  Would you want the guy who serviced your West Jet flight to be operating on 2 hours sleep when he made sure the system were good to go?  how about the folks flying?  I know...people think "fuck, how tiring can flying be?".  I used to think that too.  Now I do it, and you get bagged.  You train crews to fly aircraft, and maintainers to maintain them.  That is enough to keep them busy, and we are like everyone else, we have shortages.

Maybe the 'trade' will be stood up like some to the SOF Supporter ones are;  you go to a selection, you get selected, you get moved to Unit X for 3-4 years.

There places aircraft go sometimes that aren't safe, for either the aircraft or crew.  The ride to where you are sleeping isn't always in a big yellow taxi, with your head stuck out the window like a tourist.  It would be nice to have some folks who are alert and awake and watching out for your ass when you just landed from a long flight and are mentally bagged.  Planes aren't easily replaced.

Fuck, if this thread was about the Army being tasked to provide round the clock security of airfields/aircraft/crews people would be bitching the exact opposite; why can't the RCAF support its own GD airfields, I didn't join the army to sit around looking at zoomies  :blah:...

 

[McG]

It is empire building, and confusing the CAF for another nation does not change that truth.

If in the near future the Airforce wants to deploy in a far off land.

It does not matter where the Air Force wants to go.  That is not how we do business.

The government decides where the military will be deployed.  Then CJOC gets the mission - neither Army nor Air Force can decide they are going to take their toys to pursue their own agendas in theater.  If a base defence force is needed, then the Army gets tasked to provide the organization to do it.

We have done this before.

 

[PuckChaser]

You can argue it all you want and say it is empire building, at the end of the day all Elements should have their own security forces. If it was such a failure or such an issue why did most of our Allies go this way?

Because those air forces are capable of pushing enough aircraft into an area to require their own airfield. In what future scenario do you see us ever deploying to a theatre of sufficiently high risk of ground attack that we wouldn't be attached to a 5-eyes air task force, where those much larger and properly budgeted military's provide the Force Pro? You have infantry chomping at the bit to deploy, who are very good at conducting defensive operations. Why do you need to have your own group to man a fence-line and check IDs at a gate?

frig, if this thread was about the Army being tasked to provide round the clock security of airfields/aircraft/crews people would be bitching the exact opposite; why can't the RCAF support its own GD airfields, I didn't join the army to sit around looking at zoomies  :blah:...

The Army wants your aircraft, and will give you the security you need to support their operations if required. They'll also provide that security if tasked, because they have the manpower to do it.

I'll ask again: How many AESOP PYs are you willing to cut to create this capability? Pilots? ACS Techs? You think the Army is going to give up PYs for a task they are more than capable of providing with Infantry?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It is empire building, and confusing the CAF for another nation does not change that truth.
It does not matter where the Air Force wants to go.  That is not how we do business.

So...we can't change how we do business?

The government decides where the military will be deployed.  Then CJOC gets the mission - neither Army nor Air Force can decide they are going to take their toys to pursue their own agendas in theater.  If a base defence force is needed, then the Army gets tasked to provide the organization to do it.

We have done this before.

You seriously think that is 'having an agenda'?  :facepalm:

How quickly would the army respond to a 'fast ball tasking' the AF gets?  There have been people I know who've been out the door from the phone call in well less than a day, with an aircraft.  Mine 'personal best' was just over 16-18 hours or so from the 'pack' to 'wheels up' time.  Like LRP or SAR units, we could have a flight of these folks on Ready status 24/7 and they'd be out the door with us, if needed.  Having this capability built right into the air force, under air force command, just makes sense.  They would (should) be embedded at the ATF level, under ATF command. 

Empire building...would be the army insisting they are the only ones who are capable of securing something.  :2c:

 

[PuckChaser]

Considering 8ACCS couldn't support IMPACT and CFJSR had to deploy to provide the CIS support, I don't think your readiness argument works out all that well.

You're also not going to project a 6-pack of fighters into a high risk, non-secure airfield until its secured, so 18 hour wheels up doesn't matter because you don't have a place to land until the security is there.

 

[McG]

You seriously think that is 'having an agenda'?  :facepalm:

CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.

As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.

As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.

QFTFT

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Because those air forces are capable of pushing enough aircraft into an area to require their own airfield. In what future scenario do you see us ever deploying to a theatre of sufficiently high risk of ground attack that we wouldn't be attached to a 5-eyes air task force, where those much larger and properly budgeted military's provide the Force Pro? You have infantry chomping at the bit to deploy, who are very good at conducting defensive operations. Why do you need to have your own group to man a fence-line and check IDs at a gate?

You can't understand this, because you know nothing about some of the ops the air force does and where they do them.  And the few real examples I'm thinking of I can't talk about on here.

The Army wants your aircraft, and will give you the security you need to support their operations if required. They'll also provide that security if tasked, because they have the manpower to do it.

I'll ask again: How many AESOP PYs are you willing to cut to create this capability? Pilots? ACS Techs? You think the Army is going to give up PYs for a task they are more than capable of providing with Infantry?

I'll let the RCAF Commander decide things like that.  My job is different and so is my SME area.  I'll also let the GOFOs argue over PYs and all that.  But remember IF this goes ahead, it will be with an Army CDS and VCDS at NDHQ.  Maybe these Army Generals see the value in it as well.

I see a value in this, and its because I am thinking of real world things other than "OP IMPACT" and big USAF run facilities - because I've see this from the inside out, not the outside in.  Not much more I can say, but if this happens I think it will be a good thing.  The AF should have this capability, much the same as CANSOF should have CBRN Operators.  There is a need for them, or for that 'insurance'.  It never does any good to get insurance on your car 'after' an accident.  You've got to pay for it every day so you have it when you need it. 

Empire building.  Jesus.

 

[PuckChaser]

In what sort of scenario are we pushing aircraft and aircrews that far forward, and without any sort of coalition support, and in such great numbers that the Army would be unable to provide this task? You link to CBRN Op is dubious at best, it appears to be a real small trade, providing coverage on a task that no one else was really capable of. A little bit of proof for that: http://www.queensu.ca/kcis/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.kciswww/files/files/2014/Faulkner_P4web_KIS2014.pdf No one else can provide what those guys can, Infantry can and would provide your airfield defense.

The "I have secrets" card doesn't work either, we all know about TTPs and OPSEC that can't go on a public forum.

IF this goes ahead, how many AESOPs are you willing to lose to make it happen?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

EITS,

The problem with your line of thinking is, despite the magical thinking by a bunch of people trying to relive the 1950s- we are actually one Canadian Forces and not separate services.

Each environmental Chief is a force generator, within their area of competency. CJOC is the force employer.

To say that the RCAF needs its own deployable infantry force is bollocks. There already exists a deployable infantry force.

All of these boutique capabilities have cost. In a perfect, unconstrained resource environment the Army would have an air corps; the Navy would a fleet air arm and the RCAF would have an infantry force. That is not the world we inhabit.

So- what are you now prepared to trade in to make this happen? PYs are a zero sum game.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

CTD suggested the Army could just pull its troops away from airfield defence to peruse Army agendas in a theater of operations.  When a post has a quote in it, you should consider that the source of that quote gives context to the comments that follow.

Unfortunately, you didn't leave much of his post in your quote.  http://army.ca/forums/threads/119416/post-1441283.html#msg1441283

Certainly not the part you are referring to above, and I didn't read CTD's suggestion.  When you quote a post, you should consider including the portion you are responding to, so that follow on readers can understand the context of your post. 

As for empires ... How about we keep the force generators focused on their core competencies.  The Army does fighting on the ground, and he Air Force does operations in the sky.  The force employer (CJOC) then uses bits taken from each of these to achieve international missions.

Note what I said above; if this is actually moving forward, it is while the CDS and VCDS are both army.  I'll have to trust that they know the facts and realities driving this and see them as valid.

 

[PuckChaser]

Note what I said above; if this is actually moving forward, it is while the CDS and VCDS are both army.  I'll have to trust that they know the facts and realities driving this and see them as valid.

If it's even made it to them yet.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Considering 8ACCS couldn't support IMPACT and CFJSR had to deploy to provide the CIS support, I don't think your readiness argument works out all that well.

JTF-I.  Why wouldn't that be a JSR task?  8 ACCS has a different function.

In what sort of scenario are we pushing aircraft and aircrews that far forward, and without any sort of coalition support, and in such great numbers that the Army would be unable to provide this task? You link to CBRN Op is dubious at best, it appears to be a real small trade, providing coverage on a task that no one else was really capable of. A little bit of proof for that: http://www.queensu.ca/kcis/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.kciswww/files/files/2014/Faulkner_P4web_KIS2014.pdf No one else can provide what those guys can, Infantry can and would provide your airfield defense.

The "I have secrets" card doesn't work either, we all know about TTPs and OPSEC that can't go on a public forum.

IF this goes ahead, how many AESOPs are you willing to lose to make it happen?

You don't get it, and you won't.  But I'll try.

Planes go to places and sometimes the reason why they are there is makes other people mad.  These places aren't just Kuwait.  You don't know about them, fuck most of the people on the Wing the plane is leaving from don't know about them.  And they won't, or shouldn't.

Some of those places are secured like the big coalition airfields are.  Sometimes not, maybe even MOSTLY not.  Sometimes the threat might not be to the plane.  It might be to the crew.  Or both. 

You are thinking big, planned in advance events or ops;  because that is the only thing you can think of.  What else is there, right?  Lots, and likely none you'll ever know about, and none I'll talk about here.  If you think I am just being a drama queen, not much I can do about that.  I'm giving you my opinion from reality as I know it.  Not guessing at shit, from my experience doing the job I do. 

PYs?  Not my job man.  Regardless of all that, I know what my min crew and max crew is and I can operate both, overland or maritime.  I am a crew level creature, someone else gets paid to deal with Sqn level stuff.  Am I willing to give up PYs?  Yes, I am.  operators...not likely.  Aircrews are the F Ech in the air force.  You don't give up tooth, you give up tail.  And there's LOTS of that to give up in the CAF and that would be someone else's job to decide.  My job is to upgrade B cats, operate sensors, provide the TAC with advice and stuff like that.

 

[PuckChaser]

So who's doing the security now? Clearly we have this massive capability gap.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS,

The problem with your line of thinking is, despite the magical thinking by a bunch of people trying to relive the 1950s- we are actually one Canadian Forces and not separate services.

Each environmental Chief is a force generator, within their area of competency. CJOC is the force employer.

To say that the RCAF needs its own deployable infantry force is bollocks. There already exists a deployable infantry force.

All of these boutique capabilities have cost. In a perfect, unconstrained resource environment the Army would have an air corps; the Navy would a fleet air arm and the RCAF would have an infantry force. That is not the world we inhabit.

So- what are you now prepared to trade in to make this happen? PYs are a zero sum game.

I am thinking of a smallish size unit, that would not necessarily be centrally located but dispersed in teams, a small flight perhaps.  Not some big org like the RAF Regiment or RAAF ADG, but with people that have the same training and job.

Years ago, crews went to airshows with the 'force protection' people tasked to them, some in civies.  To protect the crew and, secondly, aircraft.  That was inside Canada.  The force protection people weren't MPs, Infanters or reservists.  I know, BS right?  I would likely say the same thing; except I was there and witnessed it first hand.  Relevance?  That was inside Canada.  What are the possible threats to aircraft and crews today and from who?  Where?  I would say, outside of North America and even then...its iffy...who knows?  A flight of these guys securing aircraft...insurance. 

I could explain more of my thoughts but that would have to be a high side email at the least.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So who's doing the security now? Clearly we have this massive capability gap.

Don't be fuckin' stupid man.  Seriously.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

EITS,

I am not saying the deployable FP function shouldn't exist.

I am saying that for it to exist within the RCAF as a boutique capability is a waste of resources.

As for domestic armed FP- a complex issue that has many overlapping, Criminal Code, NDA and ROE issues (I had to look into this a few years back). I hope Comd RCAF got good legal advice....

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Air Force MOSID PRes "Force Protection" trade is coming - it's been debated and discussed at much higher levels than these august forums.

I'll accept that as fact.  So...a unique trade...PRES...small numbers.  Sounds like the Port Inspection Diver NAVRES deal?  Empire building on the RCNs part, or the RCN saw a real need and created the small specialized group to fill it without affecting Reg Force billets and PYs??

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/navy-life/careers-reserve.page

Port Security Units

Port Security is one aspect of Maritime Coastal Operations conducted to ensure the maritime security of the nation. Port Security Units work in conjunction with Port Inspection Diving Teams (PIDT) to ensure the sovereignty and safety of Canada’s numerous ports and harbours. The PIDTs can accomplish a number of tasks, including: underwater searches and surveys of the ocean bed, underwater inspections of jetties and ships' hulls, locating, surveying and salvage of military aircraft, mine recognition and countermeasures, underwater demolition, underwater photography, repairs to ships' hulls, exercising ships in defence against underwater attack, and body searches.

Well, how fuckin stupid of the Navy.  Why didn't they just get the Army to do it, tasked by CJOC??  What a bunch of retards!  How would the RCN know what the RCN needs to do to meet some type of requirement the RCN has?  ;D

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?

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....

So, obviously the opinion here is the MPs don't want to do a RCAF Force Protection gig.  No one disagreed with SKTs assessment of the MP branch's willingness to take this on.

Some of you are thinking big deployed ops like IMPACT and the like.  Yup, they could augment the SF in place at those locations and be seen as Canada's commitment to the USAF/Coalition forces doing that stuff.

From my community and experience, I see a WHOLE other use for them above and beyond the big CJOC stuff; the smaller CJOC stuff I know of that most people don't and won't.  Take my word for it, don't take my word for it, I don't give a fuck either way. 

I could see this working, and Christ almighty, its Force Protection for multi-million dollar assets and crews that cost a lot of time and take a lot of money to replace.  Am I special because I am an AESOP? I'd like to think I am to my Skipper and crew.  Same as they all are to me.  What I am for sure is EXPENSIVE to train.  It costs money to fly ME and aircraft around.  You can take an recruit, put him thru BMQ and then BIQ and put him in a section inside of what, a year?  Take a AESOP Recruit, to get him/her trained to be a shiny new B Category AESOP on a 140 Sqn...BMQ.  QL3.  QL5.  AMT.  Air Ops Land Survival.  Sea Survival.  Then 6 months on MOAT.  $$$$$$$$$$$$

So, if we are 'special' its because we are shiny and expensive.  And we are the 'cheap' ones on the crew.  The same can be said for all fleets.  The airframes and crew(s) are expensive.  How much money got sunk into Globemasters?  Cyclones?  Chinooks?  How much $$ did the RCAF spend on aircrew training alone last FY?

Adding some ARAF Force Protection, that's just a little insurance IMO.  If I drove a beater, I'd have minimum insurance on it.  A new BMW..I'll have that insured better, because it will cost me more to replace it.  It's going to be a small PRES MOSID. 

The RCN did it for a niche they needed filled; PIDs.  Neither the world nor the CAF came to a crashing fucking halt.

That's all I got on this one. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS,

I am not saying the deployable FP function shouldn't exist.

I am saying that for it to exist within the RCAF as a boutique capability is a waste of resources.

As for domestic armed FP- a complex issue that has many overlapping, Criminal Code, NDA and ROE issues (I had to look into this a few years back). I hope Comd RCAF got good legal advice....

Would it not be kinda safe to assume, guess that whoever is running this file in the RCAF world approached the C Army/Comd PRES, etc about their ability, interest, willingness to take this on?

I wish I would have mentioned what I did in the post just before this, about the RCN and NAVRES with the PID and PID Teams.  I see it as the same 'idea', a specific, fairly small unit but one felt required specifically for that environment.  There are very few folks in Canada that have PID Dolphins IIRC.  Heck the RCAF might have copied the PIDT as their COA for the ARAF FP stuff.  They are small, specialized and spawned into existence for a identified security concern within the CAF but specific to the RCN.  I have ideas in my head about when this FP would be sweet to have along for the trip, where, when...not made up shit, just from experience but NOPE...its empire building!  BS!  Its doing a little extra to protect assets; ones that leak POL and ones that leak red blood.

Why am I so against this "use Reg Force infantry only" idea?

And I think airfield defence is a task for which a regional battalion could train so that it could have a platoon ready to go on short notice (say 10 days) and the rest of a company ready in another 20 days. And I suspect the equipment table for such a task is manageable for a reserve unit.

10 days 'short notice'? 

I've been wheels up in -18 hours from the first call from Ops, deployed, transited back home and been sitting in my living room by the time the 'short notice 10 day dudes' were getting on their Herc or WestJet flight.  And yes, a CJOC gig.

10 days short notice is UNSAT.  This is exactly what would happen 'if the army was tasked to it' solely. 

I can explain this til I am blue in the face, and the people who I call PAX will still tell me the what-for's and how-to's of any and all things air ops.