Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[George Wallace]

Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".

 

[Rifleman62]

And in Edmonton/Dawson Creek building the Alcan, the Alaska Highway plus the CANOL project during the Second World War.

 

[Zoomie]

30 missions takes 4 months? 8 missions a month? Is there too many pilots? Too much downtime? Under utilization of the airframes?

There's more to flying a mission than just jumping in and turning the key and we're off.

I can't speak for other airframes - big-dome works on a 4 day cycle while deployed - only one of those days involves flying activities.  Hence the 30 missions in 120 days...  Numbers of crews and aircraft won't be a topic of discussion on these means - sorry. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".

Canadians, in World War II, who went to Newfoundland were also in a "foreign" country and, for e.g. pension (and medal) purpose they were serving "overseas," too. The Americans were not unique in  that sort of thing.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".

You are comparing Argentia to Iraq, Syria and ISIS?  Seriously?  How many Army guys are wearing a shit-nickel for Cyprus; any risk of being BBQd alive while they served there?  You don't see us making stupid comments about stuff like that.  I don't see any comments about SSM-ALERT medals for 6 months of liver damage...oh wait.  It's aircrew medals.  We don't actually earn them, they are 'gimmes'.  If the theatre is so benign and risk-free, why not jump on a bus and take a tour of Anbar province?  Make sure you let them know you're retired CAF.

The 'worst case scenario' threat to Canadian aircrews in this theatre starts at about the 16:15 mark in this video.  Make sure you watch it all.

Anyone else have a fuckin' stupid comment about how 'safe' Iraq and Syria is they'd like to share from the safety of their chair and keyboard?  :

 

[George Wallace]

.........  How many Army guys are wearing a shit-nickel for Cyprus; any risk of being BBQd alive while they served there?  Y

Please tell that to the Airborne Regiment who fought to defend the airport in Cyprus in '74.  They loss three members of the Regiment doing so. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

...and you don't see people from the RCAF making stupid, disrespectful comments about the risks they faced.

See how that works?

A few people yackin' about bucks and bling, because its about the only thing we can shoot the crap over on here.  The rest is decided; fighters are out, LRP and AAR are stayin'.  It's shootin' the shit, nothing more.  Some of us don't know each other but have worked the same places or even together, but not in the face to face sense. 

It's just shootin' the shit.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You guys take life way too seriously lol. 

 

[Ostrozac]

On the medals front, the CF is pretty inconsistent and slow-moving, and has been for as long as I can remember. We waited 7 years until after the mission to get our medals for Op HALO in Haiti. The Somalia guys waited almost as long, and the Sierra Leone guys waited even longer. Canada recognizes 12 different campaign medals for service in connection with the civil war in the Former Yugoslavia, which seems a little excessive, given that is equal to the number of different campaign and service medals that were issued for World War II.

But we need to get a grip on the pay and allowances side. We've been fighting the war in Iraq for over a year, and a final decision hasn't been made? That's unacceptable. I remember similar drama two years ago over how long it took to make a pay decision for the DART Op in the Phillipines. A few months delay is acceptable, years isn't. That's money in people's pockets, and it's important to get it right.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Agreed, our system is slow for getting people money.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But we need to get a grip on the pay and allowances side. We've been fighting the war in Iraq for over a year, and a final decision hasn't been made? That's unacceptable. I remember similar drama two years ago over how long it took to make a pay decision for the DART Op in the Phillipines. A few months delay is acceptable, years isn't. That's money in people's pockets, and it's important to get it right.

The HA/RA levels were decided before the TB broke for their summer break;  I don't know anyone personally that hasn't been paid out their FSP/HA/RA.  The levels for OP Impact - Iraq were set in Oct 2014 (IIRC) and the OP Impact - Kuwait levels were announced early in the summer (IIRC).  FSP was paid out post-admin as per, and the HA/RA was in the bank shortly after it was announced.

What has been talked about some is the issue of the folks who never leave camp, and the folks who are going into the theatre, are in receipt of the same RA.  It has been suggested that it should be the same for the days aircrew don't fly, and the days they do fly, they get the OP IMPACT - Iraq levels.

I know the SOF guys are on the ground, but they are 'static' compared to the flyers who are over...not static.  CF-18 types are going not only into Iraq, but also Syria...'the homeland'.  How anyone thinks a clerk, MP, tech, ATIS Tech, or any of the other trades who are deployed but not going into theatre are at the same 'risk' as CF-18 pilots going into Iraq and Syria is...mind boggling to me.  :dunno:

 

[Good2Golf]

The tools are there to use, but sometimes seems they are not leveraged.  HA and RA often seem close and locked relative to each other.  One could consider HA similar for all based on where they are based, but RA would be the tool to adjust, based on specific employment within the AO.

G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

RA is the only part of the convo; HA was never even brought up. 

This isn't a HUGE point or topic of discussion, but my take it most people feel the risks the zoomie types are taking isn't necessarily being recognized.  I'm not convinced the real point is about actually $ myself.  It's part of a divide that exists between the Dets and Support Component worlds.  :2c: 

There is a (true) story about an aircew member who went into a SC sub-unit trying to get a task WRT a secondary duty done.  He explained to the Support Component person that he needed to try to get this done today as he/she 'would be flying' for a while and not able to get this other thing done.

The SC person replied "I wish I could go flying".

Aircrew member said "You want to go fly over Iraq??"

SC person reply:  "You guys are flying over Iraq?!?!?".

 

[Good2Golf]

EITS, that was my point, that there should be multiple RAs, aligned with the actual risk that such members were undertaking.  Higher RA for per deployed closer to, or actually over the combat area, vice lower RA for those who don't leave the MOB.

Regards
G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

check.  I think we're saying the same thing.  Word is 'it isn't going to happen'.

 

[Good2Golf]

check.  I think we're saying the same thing.  Word is 'it isn't going to happen'.

:nod:

Not that some folks aren't trying to at least have the issue looked in to...

Cheers
G2G

 

[dimsum]

RA is the only part of the convo; HA was never even brought up. 

This isn't a HUGE point or topic of discussion, but my take it most people feel the risks the zoomie types are taking isn't necessarily being recognized.  I'm not convinced the real point is about actually $ myself.  It's part of a divide that exists between the Dets and Support Component worlds.  :2c: 

There is a (true) story about an aircew member who went into a SC sub-unit trying to get a task WRT a secondary duty done.  He explained to the Support Component person that he needed to try to get this done today as he/she 'would be flying' for a while and not able to get this other thing done.

The SC person replied "I wish I could go flying".

Aircrew member said "You want to go fly over Iraq??"

SC person reply:  "You guys are flying over Iraq?!?!?".

Um, where exactly did the SC person think they were flying over?  Does s/he not read or watch the news?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

NO idea.  I guess the name Air Task Force - Iraq is misleading?

But ya, there is a fairly big divide (IMO) between most of the SC and mission types.  The crews can't talk about the mission so no one really knows whats going on.  Makes for an "us and them" environment I guess.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I found there was a huge disconnect between 70% of the people in Camp Canada and those who are directly involved in flight ops.  This could have been alleviated with monthly updates on what we are actually doing over Iraq.  I don't know, perhaps set up a little power point with some video footage from the missions.  They don't have to get too in depth but they could definitely start sharing some information.  The LRP Det CO would share information with the technicians on a weekly basis, obviously you wouldn't deliver classified information to the entire camp.  You could take the overlays off the footage and be generic with the descriptions.

Remind them that everything they are doing is having a direct effect on mission. 

All they see are guys and gals sitting around in their civvies one day and flight suits the next.  I think I wore my uniform about 40% of the time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I found there was a huge disconnect between 70% of the people in Camp Canada and those who are directly involved in flight ops.  This could have been alleviated with monthly updates on what we are actually doing over Iraq.  I don't know, perhaps set up a little power point with some video footage from the missions.  They don't have to get too in depth but they could definitely start sharing some information.  The LRP Det CO would share information with the technicians on a weekly basis, obviously you wouldn't deliver classified information to the entire camp.  You could take the overlays off the footage and be generic with the descriptions.

Remind them that everything they are doing is having a direct effect on mission. 

All they see are guys and gals sitting around in their civvies one day and flight suits the next.  I think I wore my uniform about 40% of the time.

It has been this way forever ... most people, except for a few commanders and senior staff officers have "their own little war" because no one tells them what the "big picture" might be. I remember well in the 1960s that in a brigade HQ the soldiers least "informed" were the Signals folks actually working in the HQ. They might have "seen" everything but they looked at it through their own little lenses of accuracy, address, routing, security and procedure, not in terms of what was actually happening. Twice a day a staff officer went out and briefed those soldiers, with an up to date situation map; they were all always keenly interested. I'm fairly sure it's the same with the gals and guys in the support base ~ they want to know, they want to understand, but someone has to tell them.