Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Eye In The Sky]

The decision was the right one, for the right reasons and at the right time.  :2c:

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

The amount of burn out was getting high. If nothing was done there would be no more aircrew to fly them.

 

[dimsum]

The amount of burn out was getting high. If nothing was done there would be no more aircrew to fly them.

Exactly.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Exactly.

I'm convinced that a good portion of that burn out rate is based our inability to produce high numbers of qualified aircrew and our mismanagement of personnel.

I am glad they scaled this back, it's what we need.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I wonder if they will scale back any of the 350 support staff there to support the planes.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had assumed that the aircraft had reached a flight hour limit that required a higher level of maintenance. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I just want to throw this in;  everyone needs to consider that the LRP fleet was doing its normal stuff concurrent to IMPACT.  It takes a considerable amount of resources to support a deployed Det in a sustained op, and IMPACT had a 2 aircraft Det in play since Oct 2014.  It's not just the aircrew that takes the hit;  maintainers, mission support, Det HQ all place their own demands on personnel and IMPACT wasn't the only OUTCAN tasking happening.  There's the requirement to keep people at the LRP Training and Force Development Sqns (404 and 415) to keep those wheels turning.  The Transport fleet also plays a major support role, bringing people and parts in/out of theatre.  All those people need to be supported at their home units and the JTF.  Lots of effort right across the board.

As I said, the information was provided to the decision makers, and the decision was made to scale back the Det.  IMO (I consider my opinion relatively informed on this subj), the right decision was made at the right time.  OPSEC would prevent me from going further on the subj than that, but the LRP fleet can be proud of the work done on a 2 aircraft Det from Oct 2014 til now and into the future with the 1 tail left in theatre to continue doing the work being done.  Its been a busy, demanding 2.5+ years.  Not only when the folks are deployed, but maintaining the other tasks done by our fleet day to week to month when not deployed to IMPACT when they are/were between ROTOs. 

It was likely the same for fighter folks before they left, and the AAR and TacHel fleets are still there doing their business too.  Sticks on the ice, hope everyone gets back to homeplate after every launch.

 

[Quirky]

I'm convinced that a good portion of that burn out rate is based our inability to produce high numbers of qualified aircrew and our mismanagement of personnel.

I am glad they scaled this back, it's what we need.

On another note, doesn't this seem kind of ridiculous that we can't sustain TWO CP140's deployed for an extended amount of time before our aircrew, maintainers and airframes are burnt out. Our political leadership needs a swift kick to the teeth.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well, we did sustain a 2 tail Det for 2.5+ years.  Comparing to keeping say, an Inf Coy deployed for 2.5 years...we have less crews than the Army has Inf Coys, and they have the big Res Inf pool to draw on if needed.  Aircrew...not so much. 

Like any fleet, airframes were rotated in/out as needed for maint.  The big effect, IMO, was the combined sustained op and *all the other stuff* the fleet does.  Only so much juice in a battery, then you need to charge it or replace it. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

On another note, doesn't this seem kind of ridiculous that we can't sustain TWO CP140's deployed for an extended amount of time before our aircrew, maintainers and airframes are burnt out. Our political leadership needs a swift kick to the teeth.

Yes, we have issues. 

Knee jerk reactions have only worsened our situation.

With no solid plan in place to fix it, I think it's going to be at least 4-5 years before we are where we want to be in terms of manning. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yes, we have issues. 

Knee jerk reactions have only worsened our situation.

With no solid plan in place to fix it, I think it's going to be at least 4-5 years before we are where we want to be in terms of manning.

Well, you know the plan now!    http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-artemis.page

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest tea-leaf reading via The Canadian Press...

The commander of the Canadian Forces mission in Iraq and Syria says he expects the government to extend the operation past its scheduled expiry date at the end of the month.

Brig.-Gen. Dan MacIsaac told The Canadian Press that he’s looking forward to seeing a renewed commitment of more than 800 military personnel in the international anti-terror coalition as part of Wednesday’s long-awaited defence policy review.

Details of that and other future foreign military deployments are expected to be unveiled when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan and Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, release the government’s new blueprint for national defence.

The table for that defence review will be set in a major foreign policy speech Tuesday by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland. That speech will affirm “multilateralism and rules-based international systems, human rights, gender equality, the fight against climate change, and economic benefits being shared by all,” the government said in a statement.

Freeland’s speech will be the Liberal government’s attempt to define its military, development, diplomatic and trade priorities, and how Canada plans to navigate a world order thrown into disarray by disruptive events such as the election of Donald Trump and the rise of anti-trade forces, sources say ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

And this today on the post-Review circuit ...

Operation IMPACT, Canada’s contribution to the fight against the so-called Islamic State, will be renewed by the end of this month, the defence minister has confirmed.

In an interview with The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos, Harjit Sajjan said the Canadian effort will continue into its fourth consecutive year in Iraq and Syria, but added that the shape of the mission may change.

“We’ll be there shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies, but we need to also, every year, to review the mission to be sure that we have the right assets in place … the resources need to be able to change.”

It’s unclear what specific changes might be imminent. At the moment, Canada has hundreds of troops serving as trainers for Iraqi forces, medical officers, intelligence officers, pilots, support crews and co-ordinators in coalition headquarters ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

MOAR tea leaves ...

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has ruled out sending Canadian troops into Syria as the clock ticks down on Canada's current mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Military planners have been drawing up options for the next phase of the fight against ISIL, after the Trudeau government extended the current mission for another three months in March.

The hope was that the battle for the city of Mosul would be over by the new deadline on June 30, at which point the international community would have a better idea of how the next chapter was shaping up.

ISIL continues to hold out in parts of Mosul, but Sajjan said Friday that the government is looking at how the mission should change to better support the fight against the extremist group.

Yet Sajjan closed the door on sending troops into Syria, offering a clear "No" when asked if that option was on the table.

"Right now, as Canada, we're focused on Iraq and we'll continue that focus to make sure we reinforce some of the gains that we have made and make adjustments where it's necessary," he said ...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member*.  I've heard Gen Lawson referred to (incorrectly) as Canada's top soldier in the past.  SO wondering if by troops its meant the way we mean it in the military (soldiers) or the way the media uses the word.

If the latter...I hope someone reminds our MPs that Canadian aircrews have been doing the Syria thing for some time now.  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member* ...

Hence, the tea leaf reading needed ...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member*.  I've heard Gen Lawson referred to (incorrectly) as Canada's top soldier in the past.  SO wondering if by troops its meant the way we mean it in the military (soldiers) or the way the media uses the word.

If the latter...I hope someone reminds our MPs that Canadian aircrews have been doing the Syria thing for some time now.  ;D

We have aircrew flying in Syria?  Why didn't you tell us sooner.... 8)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Meanwhile ...

There are fears Canadian military aircraft operating over Syria could be caught in the middle of a new and potentially explosive dispute between the U.S. and Russia.

Moscow is warning that it will target allied aircraft operating west of the Euphrates River in Syria in retaliation for the U.S. shooting down a Syrian government warplane on Sunday.

American officials say the Syrian jet dropped bombs near U.S.-backed forces fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – a claim the Syrian government and Russia both dispute.

The Canadian military has been flying surveillance aircraft and a refuelling plane over Syria for the past several months as part of its contribution to the U.S.-led anti-ISIL coalition.

National Defence says it is monitoring the situation, but otherwise won’t comment on where the planes have been flying in Syria and whether they are in any danger ...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Note the lack of source for the alleged "fears".  So who exactly is fearing?

 

[medicineman]

Note the lack of source for the alleged "fears".  So who exactly is fearing?

The media on an otherwise slow new day?

MM