Reconstitution

[SupersonicMax]

You shouldn't have AVN techs standing around guarding a hangar.

The MP should be re-rolled entirely to a "force protection" unit where they are responsible for armed security of all defence installations. Roll this unit into DGDS. I envision they would provide all security guard functions 24/7, security systems monitoring, patrolling/dogs etc... including the specialty security functions like TASO and close protection and embassy security. Get rid of the commissionaires (you'd prob save 50 or $60M), hand over police functions to civilian police (who'd only come out for a call anyway), unit disciplinary matters handled by unit.

This would allow robust and real security domestically, a proper D&S force for deployed camp security, convoy security, airfield security, the whole gambit, PW handling. And everyone else can focus on their real job and not rotate through guarding a camp or wounded prisoners in a hospital for example. You'd need to take the word "police" completely out of the name... and that will be hard for some.

No. You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security. They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it. It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.

 

[KevinB]

No. You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security.

You are correct you need more...

They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it. It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.

Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.

 

[Kirkhill]

Except that we won’t get the technology if we stick to the current model.

Disconcerting.

So we do need a Vital Point Security Force? Something with, perhaps a mounted patrol capability and a GBAD-CRAM capability?

 

[dapaterson]

No.

 

[QV]

You are correct you need more...

Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.

As long as MPs are involved in "policing" they will never be able to do anything else, resource wise. Protecting an army base, port or an airfield will have differences of course but the fundamentals are the same. There would be specialty requirements in different elements, such as foreign port liaison or aircraft security officer... etc.

I'm saying delete "policing" altogether as a function of the MP and re-roll them entirely as a force protection force.

They already have almost all the basic requirements to hit the ground running. You would, of course, want to adapt the initial and progressive training to develop the Group into a robust specialized security force. Think of all the secondary duty crap and tasks DND/CAF could dump onto this Group who would be(come) the pros, while having their AVN techs do AVN stuff and their infantry do infantry stuff... etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

You are correct you need more...

Probably one reason MP's should be broken back to their Elements - aspects the RCAF need don't necessarily correlate to Army or RCN needs from MP's.

I have the impression Yankee "Snowdrops" are nothing like "Redcaps". Especially now.

Your MPs apparently have become Riot Police for dealing with civilians. They seem to be a specialized less than lethal form of infantry. I thought our MPs were primarily to police soldiers, sailors and aviators.

The MPs are not a guard force.

@SupersonicMax is right about the specialized need. Peculiarly that need was identified at least as far back as "Challenge and Commitment" - 1987.

And it is still being ducked.

My surprise was that somebody has actually called us on it.

 

[Kirkhill]

No.

Who then?

 

[QV]

TBH, I thought the suggestion to disband the MPs as police would be much more popular on this site...

 

[Quirky]

Getting techs to guard those shiny new F-35s isn't a solution when there aren't enough techs to fix them. You'll need to create a whole new RCAF security force trade to do those tasks. The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.

 

[Remius]

RCAF Regiment.

 

[QV]

The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.

Yes, if you were to do it wrong like the way the CAF has been doing for ever... then it would definitely suck.

 

[Kirkhill]

Plan B

USAF F35A Bases

• Edwards Air Force Base, California.
• Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
• Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
• Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
• Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
• Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
• Truax Truax Field Air National Guard Base, Wisconsin.
• Burlington Air National Guard Base, Vermont.

I've highlighted the two alternatives to Cold Lake and Bagotville. Then you don't need a Canadian security force. Add a couple of Canadian Wings to the USAF.

Edited to add the Wisconsin base - pretty close to Winnipeg.

 

[Ostrozac]

One of the phenomenas of the pandemic are people WFH that opted to move out of the urban centers. Real estate is normally cheaper and they live their lifestyles the way they want.

But are they moving in large enough numbers to matter? The 2021 Census was a snapshot after over a year of pandemic, and it talks about the same trends — rural depopulation and growth in cities — that we’ve been seeing for decades. If people were actually cashing out their houses in the GTA and moving where it’s cheap, we’d be seeing different demographics on the ground in rural Newfoundland.

 

[Furniture]

Plan B

USAF F35A Bases

• Edwards Air Force Base, California.
• Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
• Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
• Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
• Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
• Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
• Truax Truax Field Air National Guard Base, Wisconsin.
• Burlington Air National Guard Base, Vermont.

I've highlighted the two alternatives to Cold Lake and Bagotville. Then you don't need a Canadian security force. Add a couple of Canadian Wings to the USAF.

Edited to add the Wisconsin base - pretty close to Winnipeg.

Americans don't want RCAF jets based in their country any more than Canadians want USAF F-35s and security teams on our bases.

The Americans being hosted in Bagotville, and Cold Lake is more likely than Canadians being hosted down south.

 

[TacticalTea]

Plan B

USAF F35A Bases

• Edwards Air Force Base, California.
• Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
• Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
• Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
• Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
• Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.
• Truax Truax Field Air National Guard Base, Wisconsin.
• Burlington Air National Guard Base, Vermont.

I've highlighted the two alternatives to Cold Lake and Bagotville. Then you don't need a Canadian security force. Add a couple of Canadian Wings to the USAF.

Edited to add the Wisconsin base - pretty close to Winnipeg.

Move the entire fighter force because we can't be arsed to form a credible security force?

Yes, if you were to do it wrong like the way the CAF has been doing for ever... then it would definitely suck.

You haven't really expanded on how you'd enforce law & order in the field, or how civilian LE agencies would take up the workload on base, when they're already barely taking on the few SA cases that we shove their way.

And most essentially, how are they going to deal with services offences?

I see no reason to eliminate the function of the MPs. If we really think a stronger security force is necessary, then perhaps simply attaching the MPs to a greater, all-encompassing, standing Force Protection group might be the better option. You could probably fold NST in there as well (does it HAVE to be element-specific? Or can we cut down on structure and say FP is FP?).

 

[Ostrozac]

Getting techs to guard those shiny new F-35s isn't a solution when there aren't enough techs to fix them. You'll need to create a whole new RCAF security force trade to do those tasks. The thought of guarding the QRA in Cold Lake or wherever as a career rather than a tasking gives me nightmarish flashbacks.

How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?

 

[kev994]

No. You don’t need the level of training and expertise MPs have to conduct airfield security. They may be part of the airfield security construct but they should not be responsible for it. It is a RCAF problem that needs an RCAF solution.

Sooo…. Air ops officers?

 

[KevinB]

I have the impression Yankee "Snowdrops" are nothing like "Redcaps". Especially now.

Your MPs apparently have become Riot Police for dealing with civilians. They seem to be a specialized less than lethal form of infantry. I thought our MPs were primarily to police soldiers, sailors and aviators.

US Mil MP roles have changed from Pre-GWOT and are changing again post GWOT.
MP’s did a lot of convoy escort work in Iraq and Afghan.

The USAF has Security Forces - that are used for security and escort roles.

We generally have contract security officers who do domestic base security/access control.

The MPs are not a guard force.

Depends what you mean by that.
Realistically all the Army needs from MP’s is traffic management, route work - and EPW control.
Not very significant in Peacetime - but absolutely critical in war.

Shortsighted senior leaders have ignored those requirements and tried to make them a Constabulary, but that leaves a lot missing from the needed role in conflicts.

@SupersonicMax is right about the specialized need. Peculiarly that need was identified at least as far back as "Challenge and Commitment" - 1987.

And it is still being ducked.

My surprise was that somebody has actually called us on it.

 

[QV]

Move the entire fighter force because we can't be arsed to form a credible security force?


You haven't really expanded on how you'd enforce law & order in the field, or how civilian LE agencies would take up the workload on base, when they're already barely taking on the few SA cases that we shove their way.

And most essentially, how are they going to deal with services offences?

I see no reason to eliminate the function of the MPs. If we really think a stronger security force is necessary, then perhaps simply attaching the MPs to a greater, all-encompassing, standing Force Protection group might be the better option. You could probably fold NST in there as well (does it HAVE to be element-specific? Or can we cut down on structure and say FP is FP?).

Maintenance of discipline is a function of the chain of command.

The policing workload wouldn't be huge and could be absorbed by civilian police at a small cost, particularly since they aren't dealing with the CAFisms.

Service offences - see first point.

My solution is almost PY neutral and recovers a shit load of dollars spent on contracted security that can offset the costs of outsourced local police response to actual crimes and actual calls for service (which are few comparatively). It further takes all the security functions off the plates of those that are trained to do other jobs. (Bonus: DND/CAF can no longer be blamed for botched SA case files! Everyone wins.)

I'd say FP is FP... base, airfield, port security is the baseline. Support to Ops would include convoy/camp security details, PW handling... NCIU... Other specialist fields would include embassy security, CP, TASO, surveillance, perhaps NST if its rolled up. QRF, ERT, CAT type capabilities. Maybe dogs as a supporting function. Lots of interesting training and things to do, it would be a really cool and decent career. But only if it's done right, with lots of technology in support. And CAF/DND would actually get what they pay for.

 

[QV]

How did we guard the nuclear weapons back in the day? Was it an MP role, or did the US provide the force protection along with the USAF Ordnance detachments?

MP role.