Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Naval Special Warfare > Navy SEALs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 3 August 2008, 20:49
J.Meoff J.Meoff is offline
I'm the tour guide, going down?
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where am I today?
Posts: 486
much ado about nothing.....

1) there are never enough qualified candidates showing up for BUD/S.. certainly no slot are being "taken" by USCG persons. NSWC is prepared for a couple hundred more students a year.. not enough qualified show up

2) they'll go through the pipeline of training and deploy for NSW, who is undermanned anyway. Good for the team manning.. even if for just one deployment. DO NOTE the 5-7yrs in the USCG message

3) If any young Americans want to eat some suck & get in the fight, good on them!
__________________
Paranoid, hah. Your only paranoid when people aren't trying to kill you.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 3 August 2008, 20:54
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
. FBI HRT doesn’t want this mission.

Did anyone ask the FBI about this? Never-the-less, there are others who would like to have this mission as well, and already have teams trained for this very task. Some other governmnet branches that have far more reason to be involved in this than the CG and need to spin up teams for this kind of thing as well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
Not to mention that everyone is stretched thin down range.

Wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
So far we have taken a small piece of what the Teams do (ship board interdiction). We don’t need the entire land based stuff.

Which is exactly the reason CG guys have not need to go to BUD/S or the teams. VBSS is a pretty small part of the big picture. It's a fucking waste of time, both for NSW and te USCG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
We do direct action and hostage rescue among other things.
Are you aware what direct action is? It is not VBSS, and I seriously doubt you are doing DA missions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
Our SOPs are very similar to the Teams.

In what regard?

Let's just say, probably not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
The guys on my team are all motivated type “A” personalities with a strong desire and commitment to do this job. And yes generally the CG does not have a warrior type personality but there are those in here that do.

Then they should have joined the Navy and gone through the process like every other team guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
I think that the CG is trying to reach this by sending O’s and E’s through BUDS and SQT to become subject experts and come back and set up the CG’ capability properly.

The CG has a remarkably poor understanding of what NSW does, what is learned in BUD/S and SQT, and how any of this would apply to the CG mission.

It doesn't.









Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
Whether they choose to stay or come back will be a hard one, there is be a definite career path for them either way.
This baffles me.

If you chose to join the CG, then there was a good reason for doing so.

Guys that joined the Navy and went to BUD/S chose this path for good reason.

The missions are vastly different, as is the mindset for each chosen proffession.

Perhaps in the CG, there is a plethora of carrer paths one can chose to take at any period of his carrer, much like a fleet Navy sailor going from Airdale, to Subs, to whatever.

If someone chooses NSW as their carrer path, that pretty much sums up the rest of his Navy life. It takes a good 5 years in the teams before you are somewhat proffecient in the workings of platoon life, then you get more leadership and responsiblity piled on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
We can’t afford to keep re-upping contracts with civilian companies.

There is a solution for this. Develop a training cadre that works with NSW on devepoling an internal program fro this specific mission. The layout really isn't all that difficult to set up, nor is a major finacial burden.

What the CG needs to do is establish the exact mission parameters based on the legal boundries of the DHS. After this has been established, develop a training program in phases.

Chart out an anual training calender and unit rotation or operational and train up platoons.

Be certain to alow for growth and training advancements.

The NSW SME would be assigned to the USCG on a temporary basis for the set up and implimentation untill the CG has this on it's feet. Perhaps a permenent possition to be established for NSW personnel wouldn't be a bad thing.





Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
The CG is setting up the infrastructure to have special operations units. And it will happen.

For VBSS? Not really SOF, but whatever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
Eventually we will have our own pipeline training. I think this could be a good thing if done right. I understand all the valid points put out there about taking slots away from BUDs and quality of the people being sent to BUDs by us. Lemme assure you that the people, who will get chosen, will be at the same “level” as those who are in the Navy now waiting to go to BUDs.

I have no doubt there are quality CG personnel that would make it through BUD/S. That is not the issue, the issue is why?



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
I hear you when they say” if he wants to an operator he should have joined the…. and done so”.

Yup.



.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo View Post
The CG needs support in this and I ask people to have an open mind. Every special operation unit started from some where and we are asking for help from the subject experts.


My advice is posted above.

NSW is a world away from the USCG mission. Sending CG guys into BUD/S, SQT, and into the teams is a colosal waste of manpower and resources. The skills learned here do not apply to your mission, at all.

There is a fundementaly poor understanding of what BUD/S is and does by the CG.

I'm hoping this idea fails.

On the other hand, I do hope the CG does establish a training program under the guidance of NSW and is able to establish it's own set of criteria and reputation.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.

Last edited by Matchanu; 3 August 2008 at 21:13.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 3 August 2008, 23:28
Outofcontrol's Avatar
Outofcontrol Outofcontrol is offline
hippies beware
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,184
CG SOF

Match--

No disrespect brother, but it sounds to me that you are as equally uninformed as to what the CG mission is, as much as you have accused the CG to be ignorant of the full gambit of the SEAL mission.

With that being said, it has been mentioned a couple of times that the purpose of this LIMITED program is not to make "Coastie SEALS", but instead to teach the CG the intracacies of developing a Special Operations Cabability. Not just operationally, but logistically, administratively, infrastructurally, etc. Again as BigZippo pointed out...EVERY SOF unit has been where we are now, and I applaud the CG for FINALLY not trying to reinvent the wheel and going to those that have been doing the job for a long time to learn how to do it right! This is how BOTH services decided the best way to assist would be. Also, know thatit isnt an open invitation to all Coasties...it is only open to a VERY select few in VERY particular places.

Back to my statement to Matchanu. And again, I respect your point of view, but...since 9/11 the missions of the USCG as a whole have been reprioritized, hence the developement of an intel rating along with the USCG joining the intel community; the development of the new "LE/S" rating, which will allow a path for advancement and retention of personnel that have had major investments in training by allowing them to remain "in rate." Myself, for example, I was a Gunners Mate by rate...but honestly, I didnt know SHIT about being a good Gunners Mate! Right after A-School, I went DIRECTLY out of rate, but in order to advance, I had to be able to tell a junior petty officer every thing there was to know about a Dredger Hoist......to this day, I have NEVER EVEN SEEN A Dredger Hoist! Finally, the development of the Deployable Operations Group (DOG) in order to create a Command in which to handle the extended operations of several units within the Service. Much like the NSWC or NECC.

Quote:
Did anyone ask the FBI about this? Never-the-less, there are others who would like to have this mission as well, and already have teams trained for this very task. Some other governmnet branches that have far more reason to be involved in this than the CG and need to spin up teams for this kind of thing as well.
YES. And as Zippo said, they have neither the desire nor the assets to be able to counter a threat in the maritime environment.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigZippo
We can’t afford to keep re-upping contracts with civilian companies.


There is a solution for this. Develop a training cadre that works with NSW on devepoling an internal program fro this specific mission. The layout really isn't all that difficult to set up, nor is a major finacial burden.

What the CG needs to do is establish the exact mission parameters based on the legal boundries of the DHS. After this has been established, develop a training program in phases.

Chart out an anual training calender and unit rotation or operational and train up platoons.

Be certain to alow for growth and training advancements.

The NSW SME would be assigned to the USCG on a temporary basis for the set up and implimentation untill the CG has this on it's feet. Perhaps a permenent possition to be established for NSW personnel wouldn't be a bad thing.
That is EXACTLY what the CG did with the contracting of the company to come in and assist with the initial development. The statement concerning the SOP's being similar was also blown off...who do you think was working for this company that came in? Retired CMC's from the Teams, and Retired and former SNCOs/WOs/Os from various SF units.

Finally, due to the CG's unique ability to operate as BOTH a military AND a LE Agency at the same time (18 USC 1 and 18 USC 2), that allows the CG to access and conduct mission profiles that our DoD and Fellow Fed LE bretheren cannot individually. Also keep in mind that this is a capability that was born with the intent to take to fight to our enemy...so who is ANYBODY to say that our operations are going to be restricted to 12 NM off of our coastlines?

I love the interaction and am eternally greatful that this is being intelligently debated with the likes of the incredible individuals of this board. I look forward to the continued discussion!

OOC, out
__________________
MOLON LABE

"Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish."
--Mark Twain

"All that we see is perspective, not fact...All that we hear is opinion, not truth."
--Marcus Aurelius

"The time you spent typing and formatting this post would have been better spent hitting yourself in the face with a hammer."
--Jimbo

Wise old man--"That woman was SEXY!"
Young lad--"She's out of my league."
Wise old man--"Look...let women figure out why they wont sleep with you...dont do it for them."

Last edited by Outofcontrol; 3 August 2008 at 23:33. Reason: Syntax and spelling errors
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 3 August 2008, 23:57
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
Match--

No disrespect brother, but it sounds to me that you are as equally uninformed as to what the CG mission is, as much as you have accused the CG to be ignorant of the full gambit of the SEAL mission.
Fair enough, so I'll ask you this.

Is the CG going to conduct demo raids?

Obstacal loading?

Prisoner snatches?

UW?

CAS?

Ship attacks?

FID?

Or any of the other missions within the NSW envolope?


If not, then what possible applicable knowledge does the CG hope to gain from this venture?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
and I applaud the CG for FINALLY not trying to reinvent the wheel and going to those that have been doing the job for a long time to learn how to do it right! .
Problem is, this isn't the most efficent way of handling this.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
YES. And as Zippo said, they have neither the desire nor the assets to be able to counter a threat in the maritime environment.

SO for the sake of argument, what training have you (the CG) had in radiological detection and containment? Have you even seen a nuclear device? Have you had training in the identification and protective measures in bio agents, or chem agents?

The FBI may not want this, but there are other agencies that need to be in on this program, specialists if you will. I'll let you use you imagination as to who I am refering to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
That is EXACTLY what the CG did with the contracting of the company to come in and assist with the initial development. The statement concerning the SOP's being similar was also blown off...who do you think was working for this company that came in? Retired CMC's from the Teams, and Retired and former SNCOs/WOs/Os from various SF units.
SOP's as it refers to what exactly was my response, hardly "blowing you off". SOP's as it pretains to VBSS? sure, maybe, but there is so much more involved in our mission and to what those SOP are.

The CG mission is not even in the same rhelm as the NSW mission, so what you are being taught by former SOF types is going to limited to your mission parameters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
Finally, due to the CG's unique ability to operate as BOTH a military AND a LE Agency at the same time (18 USC 1 and 18 USC 2), that allows the CG to access and conduct mission profiles that our DoD and Fellow Fed LE bretheren cannot individually. Also keep in mind that this is a capability that was born with the intent to take to fight to our enemy...so who is ANYBODY to say that our operations are going to be restricted to 12 NM off of our coastlines?
The very titles you refer to is going to be your restriction to the type of missions you will be able to conduct.

These are the same restrictions that keep NSW from performing some of the missions you perform.

So who is ANYBODY? I'd say the federal government and the laws and restirctions that will keep the CG's actions to a narrow margin.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 4 August 2008, 00:04
Frog's Avatar
Frog Frog is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,427
Guys, I was waist deep in this adventure - I will have the find the time to explain what is going on. The BUD/S stuff is a big surprise, but I can see how it evolved to this. With Johnny Walker and Jerry Parnin as instructors, it was bound to envoke emotion. I was presentr on onw of their FTX's a couple years ago - an underway. What they lacked was good tactical helo wing pilots who can fly at night. Sound familar from the early 80's? Remember the early days of MAU SOC? It's starting again.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 4 August 2008, 00:42
J.Meoff J.Meoff is offline
I'm the tour guide, going down?
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where am I today?
Posts: 486
Match.. geez dude throttle back. You got out before 9/11 and can't speak to what the Teams are doing & not doing now.. which ebbs & flows with reqs... much less the USCG & their bizarity of DHS/Mil/LE charter due to afore mentioned titles.

The USCG wants water capable guys able to use violence in behalf of state interest.. and hopes to gain bodies with SOF institutional knowledge & maybe some leadership development in the long run. The Teams needs bodies, ATB a good deal for allcon.
__________________
Paranoid, hah. Your only paranoid when people aren't trying to kill you.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 4 August 2008, 00:59
bmf's Avatar
bmf bmf is offline
On the Extract Bird
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,398
So if a CG HVBSS team boards a vessel and finds a "weapon" then what?
"Oh we'll send them to EOD school too"
And if they need to control tactical air
"Oh we should send them to CCT as well"
And they will need medics
"18D here we come"

Two words come to mind.
MISSION CREEP.

Where is the line drawn changing it from a US Navy to USCG mission? The 50 mile mark? US Territorial waters?

BTW- As a Active Duty Navy EOD tech I can already perfrom my military duties on US soil through various exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Laws are created to protect the populace and never set in stone.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 4 August 2008, 01:19
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Meoff View Post
Match.. geez dude throttle back. You got out before 9/11 and can't speak to what the Teams are doing & not doing now.. which ebbs & flows with reqs... much less the USCG & their bizarity of DHS/Mil/LE charter due to afore mentioned titles.

The USCG wants water capable guys able to use violence in behalf of state interest.. and hopes to gain bodies with SOF institutional knowledge & maybe some leadership development in the long run. The Teams needs bodies, ATB a good deal for allcon.
So you think CG is going to perform the same NSW mission?

You feel that the CG is going to benifit from the instruction of BUD/S, SQT, Platoon workup and that it's going to apply to their mission?


Please.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 4 August 2008, 01:32
Matchanu's Avatar
Matchanu Matchanu is offline
Creepy ass cracka
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Isle of misfit toys
Posts: 12,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmf View Post
So if a CG HVBSS team boards a vessel and finds a "weapon" then what?
"Oh we'll send them to EOD school too"
And if they need to control tactical air
"Oh we should send them to CCT as well"
And they will need medics
"18D here we come"

Two words come to mind.
MISSION CREEP.

Where is the line drawn changing it from a US Navy to USCG mission? The 50 mile mark? US Territorial waters?

BTW- As a Active Duty Navy EOD tech I can already perfrom my military duties on US soil through various exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Laws are created to protect the populace and never set in stone.

Good point.


Possie Comitatus is odd, Certain operations can still be performed on US soil by AD military units.

In any case, there are a lot of missing elements to this. I think the CG would do better without the BUD/S aspect, and focus on the technical details that are still missing.


I still remember 5 years ago when there was a possible radiological hit on a container ship off the coast of New York. It turned out to be a false alarm, but did bring up a lot of questions.

Unless I am missing somthing in the translation were the CG is going to be running around in bad guy land performing NSW missions, I'm failing to see the purpose of this.

There are programs within the government system that would greatly improve the capabilites of this unit, all within the same regulations of an LEO contingent.


Of course, all of this discussion and bitching is for not as it appears the wheels are already in motion. It's really unfortunate that the CG didn't even bother with the other possiblites.
__________________
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 4 August 2008, 02:08
JDAM
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchanu View Post
I think the CG would do better without the BUD/S aspect, and focus on the technical details that are still missing.

My sentiments exactly Match. However, they may just be using BUD/S as a selection process to weed out the individuals lacking the intestinal fortitude for the job...on the other hand, once past First Phase (or even Hell Week for that matter), I fail to see the point.

IMHO, send them through everything up until the graduation of Hell Week and after that, ship out the guys still left standing to their mission specific training courses for instruction...save the Teams the hassle. This could get them started.

If they want to develop a mission specific SOF unit for the CG, sending recruits through the entire SEAL pipeline is going to get them nowhere fast. Unless you are talking about E-6 and above only, how are these guys going to build a CG Team? They could easily bring in experienced and proven men from outside sources to build the unit, focusing more on the details like you said. Then...once developed...initiate their own selection process/training program and start pushing through applicants.

Last edited by JDAM; 4 August 2008 at 02:16.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 4 August 2008, 06:46
The Fat Guy's Avatar
The Fat Guy The Fat Guy is offline
The Sagacious One
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pushing string down the hall
Posts: 12,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol View Post
My fellow professionals,

Sorry it took me so long to find the thread. I just read through all 4 pages. Wow. My creds are in my profile, but to give some background to my perspective, I am on original member of both the USCG's dedicated AT/FP program known as the MSST program (assigned to 91102 as a Physical Security Team Member) and then the USCG's "Special Missions Capability" the Maritime Security Response Team, or MSRT.

Allow me to share an UNCLAS thesis written by Lcdr. Russ Bowen, OpsO to the USCG office of Counter-Terrorism and Special Missions as a teaser. Then after everybody has had a chance to absorb, Id like to give some more perspective.

Take special note to which school he is writing this thesis for.

http://www.cga94.com/docs/Bowen_JSOU_Final.pdf

OOC, out
Brother Out of Control,

No doubt folks like yourself and Russ Bowen have the heart fight and win. With only 40k to select from, you simply cannot come up with the numbers to justify the command architecture and expense CDR Bowen calls for. The Army and Navy have a problem recruiting successful candidates from ten times that number with a large number of life takers, not life savers. Also take a serious look at, let's say the PSU's. Do you really think those guys could stack up against an A-team, SEAL Platoon or or Ranger Squad? Good Guys, yes, but do they have the physical and emotional toughness to intermingle with the rest of the SOF community? I do not think so. The good CDR has some good examples of the USCG in action, but I just don't think you can produce the numbers to provide ALL of the mission capabilities he describes or the numbers to warrant the Hqs he calls for.

Some other things to consider; Who will command staff these HQs? You do not have the skill set (more importantly the mindset) within the USCG Officer corps to staff and lead these units. How will they get trained? They will draw on an already overtaxed system that is close to violating one of the SOF truths that SOF cannot be mass produced. I also see a "cross fertilization" of Army and Navy operators to raise the level of readiness, much like we did many years ago when we assigned SF operators to USACAPOC. I live my life by the old SAS saying "Who Dares, Wins" but I don't see this getting any traction in the proper direction.

Hate the Game, not the Player


My .02
__________________
No one will take better care of us, than us: Suicide Hotline: 1-800-273-8255

Last edited by The Fat Guy; 4 August 2008 at 06:57.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 4 August 2008, 08:57
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol
Allow me to share an UNCLAS thesis written by Lcdr. Russ Bowen, OpsO to the USCG office of Counter-Terrorism and Special Missions....Take special note to which school he is writing this thesis for.....
Wow. I did take note of which school he was writing for/to -- and I am amazed that no one proofed his writing style and content prior to letting him push the print button. As just one example, I give you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LCdr Bowen
If DoD thought its primary role was homeland security instead of taking the fight to the enemy, everyone knows they would assign this mission to Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, and supporting SOF.
Cool rhetoric, but this type of commentary gives the presumption that our country's/armed forces' leadership thinks there is only one layer of serious defense of the homeland, and that is SOF. Uhh, no. This same mentality, though, is what gives some people the idea that only an SOF team is suited to provide PSD support -- yeah, that is also wrong.

The reality is that most CONUS defense is -- will be -- accomplished by mundane and non-sexy work performed by basic security guards and border checkpoint personnel, by analysts pouring over reams of boring data, and by the various LEO orgs that are already in place and performing their own jobs. And of course, there are already orgs to respond in a QRF-type role to unfolding crisis situations -- even though the author's fictional scenario isn't likely to play out that way -- at all.

From the CG guys I have worked with, from writings of the type that you posted, and from even venues such as this thread -- it is apparent that there are a few within the CG that are interested in getting their own HRT. But HRT is different than a SEAL team. You guys don't want a SEAL team, you just want a group of dudes dressed in flight suits and wearing 50lbs of crap while hauling ass down a gangway. But you want SOCOM to fund it, since CG leadership is probably stating that they can't politically kill this thing openly today, but they are not going to sign onboard in a big way. So you are looking at a sort of hybrid DOJ/DOD thing -- with the CG guys being the proverbial FEMA blackops dudes from the B action movies, guys that can supposedly play on CONUS soil, but fly tomorrow to the Ukraine to deal death and destruction to shady drug smuggling, capitalist hating terrorists.

I don't think having another HRT is a bad thing -- fuck, that org certainly hasn't demonstrated they have the patent on crisis intervention in CONUS. But there is a ton of stuff the CG can be doing to protect this country that they are not doing and I sure hope that they are putting as much attention to those issues as they are trying to get their guys sniper and CAT positions with the Secret Service details.

I think you guys can build your team and get it running pretty much to your desires, but it seems like an awful lot of wasted time and money that you will throw into this hoping that you'll have trickle-down experience and credibility from sending guys to work a couple of floats with a SEAL platoon. Especially with the probability that the CG will at least suffer the same attrition statistics that the Navy does.

What amazes me is that you guys haven't thought out the option of getting the experienced leadership you want, on the cheap, and practically instantaneous. You should simply offer AD (and reservist?) SEALs fantastic signing bonuses, and prorate those bonuses to get you some upper-level leadership to ensure you have not only guys that CAN do the job you seek, but that also know WHY the job should get done a certain way. Sure, you'll piss off the Navy if you do this, but do you guys really care?

As to the whole FID, DA, etc. conglomerate of missions outside the spectrum of coastal defense -- whatever, but I'd like to see how you guys deal/dealt with the whole "can't carry a gun" thing. In the article you post, the author laments two dudes driving across Colima and worried that they were the only guys unarmed. In my dealings with you Fed LEO types, it is always a cool mission until you find out you won't be carrying -- and then it's "oh hey, my org won't allow me to come across the border without a weapon -- liability and the bounty on our precious heads" thing....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 4 August 2008, 09:37
iraqgunz's Avatar
iraqgunz iraqgunz is offline
Overseas Gunplumber
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warm and sunny Arizona
Posts: 5,799
Given all that has been said here. Here are a few questions.

1. If this program commences as planned at what point would the Coast Guard even benefit (if at all) from such a plan?

2. Would it not be more cost effective/ efficient to simply train the selected personnel on the skills, tactics and techniques needed to perform HRT, VBSS, more aggressive port security missions, etc..etc..?

3. How and who will identify the right type of officers needed to lead such personnel and missions? Let's be honest alot of CG officers are more like vegetarians than "meat eaters."

4. Who is going to guarantee the funding for this program?
__________________
"The Armies of our ancestors were lucky, in that they were not trailed by a second army of pencil pushers".

I have been to some armorer courses.

Owner- Semper Paratus Arms, LLC
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 4 August 2008, 10:39
GreenWarrior
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
Given all that has been said here. Here are a few questions.

1. If this program commences as planned at what point would the Coast Guard even benefit (if at all) from such a plan?
I don't think that they will. As we have been discussing, it appears as if the CG believes this will help them better prepare for their intended missions and missions of the future, but as Match stated in his last post, it doesn't make sense for them to run around learning the types of skills we use because many of them are not condusive to the CG operational environment anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
2. Would it not be more cost effective/ efficient to simply train the selected personnel on the skills, tactics and techniques needed to perform HRT, VBSS, more aggressive port security missions, etc..etc..?
I think that would make the most sense and I think most people would agree but the decision-makers think differently. I think that unfortunately some of this has come to be because of the SEAL reputation. I remember what I thought about the Teams and the guys in the Teams before I joined the Navy and when I was at BUD/S. I think the CG brass thinks that by making some of their guys SEALs for a few years, it is an instant solution to their dilemmas of the future. But it just doesn't work that way. We are good at what we do because we love to do it. And "it" is not what the CG does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
3. How and who will identify the right type of officers needed to lead such personnel and missions? Let's be honest alot of CG officers are more like vegetarians than "meat eaters."
I don't know. From my understanding, the CG will supervise their own selection process (of course meeting the BUD/S requirements is a req) and then will submit their own "candidate nominations" (for lack of a better term) which will then be approved by the NSWC for who gets the nod and who doesn't. Makes the "SEAL Challenge Contract" for Navy enlistee's even more important now than ever before (due to slots being filled). As for the Officers it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Its hard for non-Academy grad Navy Officers to get slots in BUD/S... how are they going to give even one of those limited slots to a CG Officer? And worse yet make him the OIC of a platoon a few years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iraqgunz View Post
4. Who is going to guarantee the funding for this program?
Good question? No clue.

It's interesting... back in the good ol days after STT (which is now SQT) you had to go in front of a review board before getting pinned. From what I understand now, after you "graduate" SQT, you get your bird - no review board or anything of that nature. I wonder how many Coasties would make it past that ol school review board if it were still in place...provided any even made it that far.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 4 August 2008, 12:06
Virgil Tibbs's Avatar
Virgil Tibbs Virgil Tibbs is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmf View Post
So if a CG HVBSS team boards a vessel and finds a "weapon" then what?
"Oh we'll send them to EOD school too"
And if they need to control tactical air
"Oh we should send them to CCT as well"
And they will need medics
"18D here we come"

Two words come to mind.
MISSION CREEP.

Where is the line drawn changing it from a US Navy to USCG mission? The 50 mile mark? US Territorial waters?

BTW- As a Active Duty Navy EOD tech I can already perfrom my military duties on US soil through various exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Laws are created to protect the populace and never set in stone.
Exactyl what they will and should do. Their mission is different than that of SOF, but they do need the knowlege. So if you are EOD expect to see some coasties soon. The Navy cant be everywhere at once. As much as we like to poke fun at the Coasties, they do a job we volunteered to not do, but it needs to be done. Sure there are flaws with this program, but show me the Team Guy that wants to be detached to a Coast Guard unit.

As stated before, the Coasties do go on land in South America in the drug mission. Often with poor host national troops who have been known to throw down their weapons and retreat at the first sign of trouble.

If they do find a nuke or such on a ship they have boarded perhaps they don't have the capability to deal with it, YET.

I understand a lot of arguments against, but I am sure there was lots of arguments about some now Navy Land Unit in the 60's from the Army and Marine Corps types. I am sure they will need to stumble a bit, but in todays changing world climate having well trained men patrolling off of our coast is probably a wise idea. If a well trained, small suicide unit wants to infiltrate via sea it is good to have more protection out there as they probably wont sail into Norfolk or San Diego, more likely New York or San Francisco with little or no military presence. We say what 2 bank robbers did to the LAPD with AK's, imagine a unit of Al Queada's damage.

Once again the system may be flawed but the idea of these type units is long overdue.

Virgil Out
__________________
"I reek of awesomeness"

me 26FEB20133538PST
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 4 August 2008, 12:17
GreenWarrior
Visitor
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil Tibbs View Post
I understand a lot of arguments against, but I am sure there was lots of arguments about some now Navy Land Unit in the 60's from the Army and Marine Corps types.

Once again the system may be flawed but the idea of these type units is long overdue.
I see what you're saying and I agree that they should have something, BUT my problem is I do not think they should be using BUD/S and the Teams as their stepping stone? When the Navy created the SEAL Teams back in the 60's, they didn't start sending guys to slots in SF for a number of years and then back to the Navy. We created our own unit with our own people. Everything geared specifically for OUR mission and missions of the future.

That is the argument I have with it. No argument that the CG should/should not have some sort of unit with certain types of SF skills - they should. But the skills should be indicative of the CG missions and we should not be their stepping stone trial and error course to get there. Just my . 02 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 4 August 2008, 12:22
Outofcontrol's Avatar
Outofcontrol Outofcontrol is offline
hippies beware
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmf View Post
So if a CG HVBSS team boards a vessel and finds a "weapon" then what?
"Oh we'll send them to EOD school too"
And if they need to control tactical air
"Oh we should send them to CCT as well"
And they will need medics
"18D here we come"

Two words come to mind.
MISSION CREEP.

Where is the line drawn changing it from a US Navy to USCG mission? The 50 mile mark? US Territorial waters?

BTW- As a Active Duty Navy EOD tech I can already perfrom my military duties on US soil through various exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Laws are created to protect the populace and never set in stone.
To answer your question, from personal experience...If a team finds a weapon, we would ID it, mark it, secure the asset and call in follow on forces to nuetralize/make safe. Sound familiar? Medics--we have our own medics, but sending them to the 18D short course has been talked about, which even the Teams do that.

Quote:
SOTB--What amazes me is that you guys haven't thought out the option of getting the experienced leadership you want, on the cheap, and practically instantaneous. You should simply offer AD (and reservist?) SEALs fantastic signing bonuses, and prorate those bonuses to get you some upper-level leadership to ensure you have not only guys that CAN do the job you seek, but that also know WHY the job should get done a certain way. Sure, you'll piss off the Navy if you do this, but do you guys really care?
They are considering a similar option...offering GS positions within the command structure first to the contractors working on the contract already.

Quote:
TFG--Brother Out of Control,

No doubt folks like yourself and Russ Bowen have the heart fight and win. With only 40k to select from, you simply cannot come up with the numbers to justify the command architecture and expense CDR Bowen calls for. The Army and Navy have a problem recruiting successful candidates from ten times that number with a large number of life takers, not life savers. Also take a serious look at, let's say the PSU's. Do you really think those guys could stack up against an A-team, SEAL Platoon or or Ranger Squad? Good Guys, yes, but do they have the physical and emotional toughness to intermingle with the rest of the SOF community? I do not think so. The good CDR has some good examples of the USCG in action, but I just don't think you can produce the numbers to provide ALL of the mission capabilities he describes or the numbers to warrant the Hqs he calls for.

Some other things to consider; Who will command staff these HQs? You do not have the skill set (more importantly the mindset) within the USCG Officer corps to staff and lead these units. How will they get trained? They will draw on an already overtaxed system that is close to violating one of the SOF truths that SOF cannot be mass produced. I also see a "cross fertilization" of Army and Navy operators to raise the level of readiness, much like we did many years ago when we assigned SF operators to USACAPOC. I live my life by the old SAS saying "Who Dares, Wins" but I don't see this getting any traction in the proper direction.

Hate the Game, not the Player
Brother TFG, --Of course no hate my brother! You bring some excellent points to consider. My rebuttal the the first part of your post on the numbers, is that I dont think the CG is looking to replicate the scale of the NSW mission, only looking to standardize and be capable of interoperating among other forces. And right now, there isnt a chance in hell I would put our guys up against experienced and respected forces such as an A team or SEAL platoon...but, if you saw where the unit is right now...everyone on this board would think to themselves, "Holy shit! These are COASTIES?!" We acknowledge that we are newbies to the game...but we are developing the skill sets EXTREMELY quickly.

You second point of the lack of skill/mindset among the Officer corps is absolutely SPOT ON...any of the personnel and some of the officers in the MSRT will be the first to tell you that. The biggest obstacle we are running into is our own people. Keep in mind that 30 years ago, tree huggin hippies were FLOCKING to the CG with the expectation that they wouldnt have to go to Viet Nam. Now those hippies are E-8/9's and O-7's through 9's. And the biggest thing they say is that kicking in doors and shooting terrorists in the face, "is not the Coast Guard way." It is a drastic paradigm shift, no doubt.

Frog mentioned that he was present for a "dog and pony show" a couple of years back. Well, the biggest critique we received from the panel was our leaderships' response to the plan going to shit. example: during the exercise we had a rotor stike with guys still on the rope...everybody (CG) with brass on their shoulder freaked right the fuck out and scrapped the entire exercise, initiated an investigation (as per CG Aviation policy) pulled the pilots quals (also as per policy), etc., etc. The panel critiqued--(paraphrased) "We can see why you would abort that one bird, but why the whole mission? You still had another chock in formation, with two hook and climb teams at the waterline!" So, as you can see from this one incident, a lot was revealed. But now that those defincies have been identified, that can be addressed.

Quote:
Matchanu Quote:
Originally Posted by Outofcontrol
Match--

No disrespect brother, but it sounds to me that you are as equally uninformed as to what the CG mission is, as much as you have accused the CG to be ignorant of the full gambit of the SEAL mission.

Fair enough, so I'll ask you this.

Is the CG going to conduct demo raids?

Obstacal loading?

Prisoner snatches?

UW?

CAS?

Ship attacks?

FID?

Or any of the other missions within the NSW envolope?
With the exception of obstacle loading...the answer is not only yes, but already has experience with these mission profiles. LCDR Bowen talks about the CG's experience with 5 of the 7 SOF-specific mission profiles. For instance, I'll give you an UNCLAS example of knocking two of these out at once. Mid-80's...South America...Counter-Narc Ops...take a guess to which operation Im refering. Coasties were sent to (edit) lets just say SEVERAL schools, met up with some LN mil types and said, you want to learn how to blow up cocaine fields? WATCH THIS!" Thats FID and UW in one Op! I know you said that LCDR Bowens thesis reads like a Sci-Fi novel but read it objectively. Bypass the whole "going to BUD/S SQT" thing and ask yourself if it is really too far fetched for the CG to develope this capability.
__________________
MOLON LABE

"Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish."
--Mark Twain

"All that we see is perspective, not fact...All that we hear is opinion, not truth."
--Marcus Aurelius

"The time you spent typing and formatting this post would have been better spent hitting yourself in the face with a hammer."
--Jimbo

Wise old man--"That woman was SEXY!"
Young lad--"She's out of my league."
Wise old man--"Look...let women figure out why they wont sleep with you...dont do it for them."
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 4 August 2008, 12:34
Outofcontrol's Avatar
Outofcontrol Outofcontrol is offline
hippies beware
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchanu View Post

I still remember 5 years ago when there was a possible radiological hit on a container ship off the coast of New York. It turned out to be a false alarm, but did bring up a lot of questions.
You are refering to the "Palermo Senator" and I was on that boarding. Which also the "personal experience" I refered to in my response to BMF.

As far as detection capabilities, RAD Pagers and O2 Sensors is required carry for ALL CG boarding teams. The MSRT takes that a huge step further, that I cant get into much detail about, other than to say that they work closely with "the specialists" that you alluded to.

OOC, out
__________________
MOLON LABE

"Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish."
--Mark Twain

"All that we see is perspective, not fact...All that we hear is opinion, not truth."
--Marcus Aurelius

"The time you spent typing and formatting this post would have been better spent hitting yourself in the face with a hammer."
--Jimbo

Wise old man--"That woman was SEXY!"
Young lad--"She's out of my league."
Wise old man--"Look...let women figure out why they wont sleep with you...dont do it for them."
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 4 August 2008, 19:37
J.Meoff J.Meoff is offline
I'm the tour guide, going down?
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where am I today?
Posts: 486
USN used Marine raider cadre to produce NCDU / UDT Teams. USN used the plethora of US Army schools (Ranger, Recondo, 18series, etc.) to get UDT guys up to speed to become SEALs..

ARSOF, NAVSOF, and AFSOF (?) have current joint billets...

US and Allied SOF have exchange billets to further rapport/interopability/institutional knowledge/etc. That DOD should help a DHS/DOD units doesn't bother me in the least. I think it will further joint relationships down the road.
__________________
Paranoid, hah. Your only paranoid when people aren't trying to kill you.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 4 August 2008, 20:30
low country's Avatar
low country low country is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Carolina Del Norte
Posts: 520
I thought I would throw in my .02 as well. Within the Dept of Homeland Security you also have numerous SRT teams that were from the former US Customs Service. These teams are now under ICE and composed of former Immigration Agents and Customs Agents. Within these ranks you have former BORTAC guys, prior service, former Police and SOF guys. A vast array of experiences and backgrounds who have been tasked with a CQB, maritime and air interdiction for years. Not to mention recent additions of PSD and HVT transports and movements.

These teams have the availability to deploy from go fasts, RIBS and Blackhawks. Some of these teams are fast rope capable and are training on water borne and helo casting. Depending on the environment they work other areas are developed. One of these teams has conducted a VBSS on a hijacked Haitian freighter and was on stand by to conduct another one. One hijacked plane (small turbo prop) taken down as well.

If the USCG wants to expand their role good for them, but if Homeland Security is supporting this as they feel no other entities are mission ready, they already have ICE SRT and BORTAC.

Regarding the FBI, an MOU has already been signed stating that they will work with the USCG in the maritime environment. (I will verify if still valid). HRT currently has a structural team, tubular teams and maritime teams. For those in the FED arena, FBI will not give up anything they feel will enhance their stature. Not a slam on them, just the way I see it. I am sure that the FBI HRT would argue that they want the maritime mission. Seaborne terrorism is a hot topic. ie Port security, cargo ships etc...

Since the merger of USDHS, the USCG has grown and IMO profitted the most. God for them. IMO it just seems that there are already LEO teams in place that have the training and logistical support to conduct some of the primarily LEO missions. Perhaps they (ICE,BORTAC and the USCG) need to crosstrain and work out MOU's to support one another instead of out sourcing training and other issues. One could be lead and then another act as a follow on force etc... Just my .02.

Stay safe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:21.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
SOCNET