Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[DonaldMcL]

I have, however, heard more than a few comments on how the aircrews are getting the same risk allowance as the folks who sit in air conditioned offices and never leave the camps.  :

Come on, surely the guys hanging out watching movies all day in the theater have the same risk as the ones dropping bombs over hostile territory! </sarcasm>

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).

I agree, it will require a few tours to qualify for it.

 

[Infanteer]

A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).

That really is unfortunate - not sure where AFC was getting its metrics from.

 

[dimsum]

That really is unfortunate - not sure where AFC was getting its metrics from.

...or, they expect everyone to cycle through at least twice? 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Guy A does 1 ROTO, gets posted in a non-flying position during summer time.  He has flown 14 missions in his 56 days.

Guy B does 2 ROTOs and flies 29 missions over 112 days.

Guy C does 2 ROTOs and flies 30 missions over 112 days.

All 3 scenarios are very likely.  Only C gets the star.  Very few people will cycle for a second full tour (I can probably count 12) and not all of them will get to fly that much.

My take on it:  if you have flown over Iraq or Syria in direct support of combat (ie: supporting the ATO, includes CP-140 and Airbus).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is part of the problem the 'multiple sorties in 1 day = 1 sortie' for the fighter community?

 

[SupersonicMax]

No, with 8 hours sortie, we fly only 2-3 times a week...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

8 hrs in an ejection seat would suck. I can barely tolerate 2.5 in a sea King seat anymore, and I generally get to move around and do hoisting on most flights.

 

[dimsum]

8 hrs in an ejection seat would suck. I can barely tolerate 2.5 in a sea King seat anymore, and I generally get to move around and do hoisting on most flights.

The RAAF Hornets and Supers are based out of the UAE.  Imagine how long their transit must be to get to the same AO.  No thanks.

 

[Quirky]

A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).

Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber. One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free. Volunteers, moral and a general GIAF factor goes down when you aren't being compensated accordingly.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I am disappointed on how qualifying time is calculated.  I personally think it should be 15 missions, mainly because I think that this would capture the fighter fleet.  They really should reassess how the medals are awarded, the 30 days/30 missions just doesn't make sense from where I am sitting, as it takes much more than 30 days for aircrew to get 30 missions.  Plus, I doubt anyone (aircrew) is going to qualify for a rotation bar, which is another reason why I think they should reassess the policy.

I am also disappointed in the explaination I was given in Kuwait when the General was asked about a different risk level for aircrew, her reply that we get to keep our aircrew allowance was enough to make up for the extra risk.  I am of the opinion that if the camp is getting RA2, then one could easily assume that aircrew should be getting RA3 which would push us into the tax free zone, which is much more than our aircrew allowance.  I am cynical, but sometimes I feel it that when they make these decisions the RCAF and how we operate is an after thought.

On another note I did read this in an older CANFORGEN

WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD. WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT

So does this mean that since I have my GCS qualification, that the next time I go back can I qualify for the GSM?

 

[vonGarvin]

One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free.

Sadly, this seems to be more and more the case.  IMPO, if I were to choose between people who want to earn and those who want to serve, I'll choose those who want to serve, 100 times out of 100.

We have people on one side motivated by materialistic and personal gain fighting people who are motivated by eternal salvation.  Against them we cannot win.

 

[Good2Golf]

FF quals for GCS-EXP seems inconsistent with theatre precedents.  JTF-Afg Air Wing was 30 days in to qualify for GCS-SWA, no minimum number of sorties required. 

RA/HA being the same for "inside/outside the wire" will continue to be an issue, as it was in the past.  Leadership seemed content to make the distinction between support bases back in the AO (GSM for those at Mirage) and operational bases forward (GCS [or SWASM] for those in AFG itself), but (generally) no subset once you're in theatre at the same location...although IIRC, there were some special cases of 5/4 versus the wider 4/4 in AFG. I see some logic in what the TF Comd is saying, if one looks at AIRCRA being still provided while on RA/HA, but, one could also make the case for raising the RA for all pers who are demonstrably at greater risk due to the very nature of what they're doing...aircrew, D&S, etc...

Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber. One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free. Volunteers, moral and a general GIAF factor goes down when you aren't being compensated accordingly.

Carrots?  ???  While I admit it was a nice perk when I got home, it SAF wasn't my principal motivation for doing a tour in the sandbox.  There are combat arms folks getting out in droves because there isn't the level of operations that there used to be -- while some may bemoan the tour money that also dried up, I think the primary demotivator is the lack of doing what you signed up to do.  I get it that to each his or her own motivation, but if that is a wider prime motivator, that's a bit of an unfortunate comment on the current state of things.

:2c:

G2G

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is unfortunate that money is a motivator but it is the reality.  I personally think anyone who deploys should get tax free salary (just like the Americans).  Not for the Hardship and Risk, but for the sacrifices the individuals have to make.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It is unfortunate that money is a motivator but it is the reality.  I personally think anyone who deploys should get tax free salary (just like the Americans).  Not for the Hardship and Risk, but for the sacrifices the individuals have to make.

I find the whole hardship/risk allowance to be bogus.  I am content with being fed, clothed and given plenty of ammunition.  When it comes to pay we are already close to the best paid force in the world, now the government needs to give us more money to actually do our flipping jobs?  Whoever thinks they deserve a golden handshake for sitting in Kuwait why don't you step aside and let the REAL soldiers get on with the business at hand.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Then why do we have allowances such as Hardship and Risk?  Or Environmental Allowances?  Or PLD? After all, we are all volunteers.

Certain circumstances go beyond what would be considered normal in our society and people are compensated for it.  There is a two tiered system already (tax free vs taxed).  Make it universal: tax free for everybody.

I guarantee you work for a contractor that does similar jobs than people here and they make more than most people in make. 

Yup, compensating your people for what the risk and hardship they face, and the sacrifices they make is part of successful HR strategy. When a majority of people feel wronged, we may be up to something...

But I guess I am not a "real" soldier, therefore my opinion doesn't count.

 

[Ostrozac]

Well, I've never served in Kuwait, so I jump into this hornet's nest with reluctance, but I'll take a stab.

I did multiple tours in Yugoslavia, back in the day, with minimal financial rewards, but we did get extremely generous leave packages. I also did multiple tours in Afghanistan, with incredibly generous financial rewards, but the same leave packages. Honestly, in the second case, I liked the extra leave and HLTA more than the cash. But with the Air Force model of short deployments for aircrew, the members are getting the short end of the stick for both cash and leave.

But I can see RoyalDrew's point. My Grandpa deployed in 1939 for the duration (albeit with generous local leave in the UK while they were waiting for Overlord to kick off). Would I have been willing to sign on for a 3 or 4 year deployment to Afghanistan, so long as I got generous R&R and leave packages? Probably. KAF had a bigger population than Petawawa, and better shopping.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Then why do we have allowances such as Hardship and Risk?  Or Environmental Allowances?  Or PLD? After all, we are all volunteers.

Certain circumstances go beyond what would be considered normal in our society and people are compensated for it.  There is a two tiered system already (tax free vs taxed).  Make it universal: tax free for everybody.

I guarantee you work for a contractor that does similar jobs than people here and they make more than most people in make. 

Yup, compensating your people for what the risk and hardship they face, and the sacrifices they make is part of successful HR strategy. When a majority of people feel wronged, we may be up to something...

But I guess I am not a "real" soldier, therefore my opinion doesn't count.

Never said it doesn't count, I just think it's wrong.  We have a somewhat dangerous job, well some of us do sometimes, that includes you fighter Jocks when you're up there zipping around dropping bombs on Jerry Jihad, thanks for the services btw.  If anyone signed up for the military not knowing they could be potentially put in harms way I don't really know what sort of kool-aid their parents fed them? 

The military is a business and any successful business needs to be affordable.  Our brand of war is particularly unaffordable hence why we have such outdated equipment, no new boots since Ive been in the forces, no new ships, the list goes on and on.  Stop worrying about getting that extra $500 bucks on your pay cheque and maybe my feet won't fall apart next time I go for a March in my decrepit pair of Mark IIIs. 

Well, I've never served in Kuwait, so I jump into this hornet's nest with reluctance, but I'll take a stab.

I did multiple tours in Yugoslavia, back in the day, with minimal financial rewards, but we did get extremely generous leave packages. I also did multiple tours in Afghanistan, with incredibly generous financial rewards, but the same leave packages. Honestly, in the second case, I liked the extra leave and HLTA more than the cash. But with the Air Force model of short deployments for aircrew, the members are getting the short end of the stick for both cash and leave.

But I can see RoyalDrew's point. My Grandpa deployed in 1939 for the duration (albeit with generous local leave in the UK while they were waiting for Overlord to kick off). Would I have been willing to sign on for a 3 or 4 year deployment to Afghanistan, so long as I got generous R&R and leave packages? Probably. KAF had a bigger population than Petawawa, and better shopping.

Yep, two of my great uncle's served in the North Shore Regiment during the war and both landed on D-Day, one of my great uncle's best friends was killed minutes after hitting the beach after a stray bullet hit the Bangalore torpedo he was carrying blowing him to pieces (I've been to his grave site in Beny-sur-Mer but his name is alluding me).  Both my great uncles were wounded multiple times and they had (RIP) the scars to show it.  Both made it all the way to Germany and one even married an English woman he met while on training in England.  They didn't get paid much and were barely compensated, they always said when they talked about the war that they just did what had to be done.  That's real hardship.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If you knew....  My extra patterns in the Hornet today could probably pay for 1 pair of boots for all Army members...  Oh, and I did it because I had extra gas and I could, no other reason (other than the added landing training). The extra 500$ a month a person (which is not taken from the CAF purse for tax exemptions) will not have a quantifiable effect on what you get in the field.

I personally don't GAF about allowances and pay.  I would do this job for free (alright, maybe not anymore now that I have a family) But I see how it can seriously affect morale and simple solutions like tax free deployments would, I am sure, pay huge dividends in the long run.  In the end, it's less than 0.1% of the adult population.  It would have no impact on government revenue.

 

[vonGarvin]

I get what you're saying, Max.  Yes, the extra pay is nice (or so I hear: my ex squandered every penny of my three tours I went one while we together.  Booze ain't cheap, doncha know!) but if we want people to deploy for the right reasons, then I suggest that the materialistic reasons and incentives are not the right ones. Compensation is one thing, but an incentive is another.  I simply suggest that the incentive ought to be less materialistic and more..."noble".  That's all.