Is the Canadian Naval Reserve all but finished?

[Journeyman]

...."part-time" reservists, you would not be able to deploy more than about ten to fifteen of them on less than 6 months notice, and even then.

But they "will include a full-time command team....".  That ensures the HQ staff is good to go, and keeps some Officers and Chiefs off of the street corners.  :nod:

I wonder what their badges will look like?  op:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Probably a good question for this 45-pager,

Component Transfers (Reserve to Regular): Q&A

My question was more philosophical than practical.

What I want to understand is why we keep creating tasks/units that obviously require to be available and standing 365/6 days a year, then man them with "reservists' who obviously are making this a career, with the full knowledge that this is what we are doing or that it is how it will end up. Why not do the staffing required to just make those task/units part of the permanent establishment and hire real regulars to man them?

Otherwise, when a large portion of them are out serving full time, IMHO, you cease to have a reserve because it cannot be called out in an emergency.

 

[mariomike]

Why not do the staffing required to just make those task/units part of the permanent establishment and hire real regulars to man them?

Part-timers are cheaper? They can be sent back to Class A any time the service choses to do so.

Otherwise, when a large portion of them are out serving full time, IMHO, you cease to have a reserve because it cannot be called out in an emergency.

aka A lack of "Surge Capacity". 

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have asked the question before, and never got a proper response: At which point does a reservist who spends his life in actual service become a regular?

I think you know the answer to that question. 

The employability and deploy-ability of a full time reservist and a regular force member are "oceans apart".  Thought I would keep it nautical for you

As for this unit, sounds interesting.  I was planning on retiring in 2020 and going Army reserve (the RCN make me :stars but this might be "neat".

 

[Stoker]

This a capability that been talked about for many years and makes perfect sense. There are many reservists around with Port Security experience that plays well with what the intended purpose of this unit. As well much of this training can be conducted in house at certain units. These deployed Class C members are under the same rules as any regular force deployed member.

 

[bLUE fOX]

But they "will include a full-time command team....".  That ensures the HQ staff is good to go, and keeps some Officers and Chiefs off of the street corners.  :nod:

I wonder what their badges will look like?  op:

And let's be fair, between press gangs and other unsavoury activities, this is the best place for them really.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Hold on.... wasn't the Port Security details that were created following 9/11 and were then supplementing security at the gates and on the water for years afterwards, killed off in pursuit of paring down costs to satisfy shrinking budgets in the lead up to the last general election?  If they were too expensive to maintain then, then how the hell are they going to be less expensive now? 

I too, think this was a great role for the Reserves.  Would be fine with seeing it come to pass as it role that needs to be filled once again.

 

[mariomike]

Port Security sounds a bit like,

Airfield defence role for PRes?
9 pages.

 

[Journeyman]

Port Security sounds a bit like,

Airfield defence role for PRes?
9 pages.

Except this isn't Port Security;  this is a unit intended to protect Canadian Navy ships on deployment. 

I can't recall the last time we deployed an airfield.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

With the caveat, also, that the Naval Reserve has been in the port security game for a little over twenty years now.

It started before 9/11. The Harbour Defence Units evolved out of the Coastal Defence Organization and were always meant to be deployable forces. 9/11 just happen to make their first actual deployment a deployment to our own home harbour by sheer coincidence, until the proper materiel and personnel could be acquired and developed by the regular force to ensure ongoing port protection in halifax and Esquimalt.

Which is why I conclude that this is just an extra evolution of the existing task of the NR.

 

[mariomike]

this is a unit intended to protect Canadian Navy ships on deployment. 

From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.

 

[dapaterson]

I have asked the question before, and never got a proper response: At which point does a reservist who spends his life in actual service become a regular?

Well, the NDA refers to continuing, full-time service as being the difference between Reg F and Res F.  And somehow, a 3 year engagement for a Reg F member meets that definition, but a three-year period of full-time service for a Res F member does not.

We have de facto created a "Reg F lite", with different pay and different terms of service.  Perhaps that's what needs to be institutionalized: a Reg F with different TOS and different pay rates to replace the long term full-time Res F.

 

[Journeyman]

From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.

I stand corrected; a lesson on staying within arcs.

 

[mariomike]

I stand corrected; a lesson on staying within arcs.

I would say your arc is considerably wider than mine! 

 

[McG]

From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.

The thread described an idea to create a PRes force to defend airfields.  Thread participants conceived a different role for a rapid deployment PSD type group to protect aircraft and aircrew.

Debate orbited around the ideas that existing infantry are capable of filling the first role (which is what the RCAF was looking at), and Reg F infantry in high readiness should be called for short notice requirements.  This was countered with arguments that infantry are not well suited to the point (aircraft) and personnel security tasks, and that SOF like rapid responses would be required to keep pace with the short notice at which aircraft could be dispatched internationally and Reg F infantry just are not up to that quick a launch ... of course, PRes PSDs would also not be that quickly responsive either so ...

In any case, that thread was two different ideas talking past each other.

 

[tomahawk6]

Very similar to what the Coast Guard mission is and that of the USAF Security Force.I am probably lacking key information to make a judgement but it wouldnt be the first time. ;D
What enables the US to effectively use reservists are our laws guaranteeing a reservists civilian job.We have both individual mobilization designees and reserve units so if there is a need for fillers we can dip into the individual ready reserve.Modernizing the reserve system is key for facing the uncertainties of the future.

 

[Furniture]

Looks to me much like the security positions in KAF that were filled with guys on one year class "C" contracts. Hired for one particular Roto and then a new crew comes in for the next mission. Frees up the MSE/CSE types a bit more to do the maintenance that can't be done at sea. Makes sense if done right, and gives a good oportunity to deploy for the Nav Res.

 

[Lumber]

With the caveat, also, that the Naval Reserve has been in the port security game for a little over twenty years now.

It started before 9/11. The Harbour Defence Units evolved out of the Coastal Defence Organization and were always meant to be deployable forces. 9/11 just happen to make their first actual deployment a deployment to our own home harbour by sheer coincidence, until the proper materiel and personnel could be acquired and developed by the regular force to ensure ongoing port protection in halifax and Esquimalt.

Which is why I conclude that this is just an extra evolution of the existing task of the NR.

Maybe it's because we're still short on facts, but I just don't see how this is suppose to be affordable.

What we've been briefed so far is that the security team would fly out a couple weeks before the ship arrives in order to situate themselves. Well, I can tell you that sometimes our ships only spend 4-7 days on patrol before returning to port for 3-4 days (that was the experience of my friends on the recent FREDERICTON deployment; my experience was more like 10-12 days between Port Visits).

With such short times between ports, you would need 2 or 3 full teams going if you wanted to give each of them 1-2 weeks of lead time in each port ahead of the ship arriving.

Or is this team only meant to augment ships when they are in particularly dangerous ports? Or ports that don't have adequate security of their own?

In any case, even if out of a dozen port visits during a 12 month deployment, they only require this tea, for 1/3rd of them (so, 4), that's still a sh*t tonne of money to fly this team half way around the world back, and put them all in hotels with full means and incidentals for 2-3 weeks per port visit. Plus wouldn't they get any danger pay and foreign service premium that the ship is entitled to?

Are we going to sign MOUs with all of these Asian/European countries, or is this security team going to use nothing but loud hailers and billy-clubs?

 

[Monsoon]

Or is this team only meant to augment ships when they are in particularly dangerous ports? Or ports that don't have adequate security of their own?

This. But the concept of use is that the team could be, for instance, committed as part of a coalition contribution where it could provide littoral security for a multinational task group that's being supported out of a specific port that isn't deemed to have robust enough organic security arrangements over the course of many months.

 

[dimsum]

This. But the concept of use is that the team could be, for instance, committed as part of a coalition contribution where it could provide littoral security for a multinational task group that's being supported out of a specific port that isn't deemed to have robust enough organic security arrangements over the course of many months.

I could see pier-side FP for a multinational task force, but would other nations allow foreign FP personnel onboard their ships/submarines?