daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,237
- Points
- 1,160
The Commissionaires do CRCs (and finger printing) too. https://commissionairesviy.ca/
Last edited:
The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
That would make the most sense - shows commitment. But I get the impression with the CAF recruiting process, background checks are not a huge time thief. In Ontario, you have to apply through the service where your reside. If the military tried to strike some deal with police services, many municipals use the income as part of their budgeting process to their councils and will want to retain (or enhance?) that.
If the military requires fingerprint verification (VSS-level), that extends the process from a standard CPIC check.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
It shouldn't take 3 weeks, and depending on the volume, it could be done within the day. I would suspect that the delays are linked to volume and/or low numbers of personnel actually doing the work off the side of their desk.
I would caution you, it's not as easy as printing off a CPIC and you're "good to go". Having done them myself, I would make them a priority as I didn't want to hold up anyone's job or application. That being said, being thorough was the overall objective. As someone else mentioned, it's not worth having career criminals, sex offenders, and the ilk join the CAF and have access to weapons and systems.
And that's just the Reliability level, let alone S and TS.
Winds
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 277
- Points
- 800
I fail to see the importance of CPIC processing WRT reduced hiring of new CAF members during the pandemic. The main issue seems to be reduced capacity to train new members, resulting in less new offers of employment going out.
I think the following article better highlights some of the current issues WRT personnel generation during the pandemic. Note the example it gives of a recruit who enrolled in January 2020, with an original BMQ start date in April 2020, that then had their BMQ pushed until January 2021... that is a whole year of someone's VIE spent waiting to start basic.
I think the following article better highlights some of the current issues WRT personnel generation during the pandemic. Note the example it gives of a recruit who enrolled in January 2020, with an original BMQ start date in April 2020, that then had their BMQ pushed until January 2021... that is a whole year of someone's VIE spent waiting to start basic.
Canadian Forces adapts to address backlog created by COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 changed most people's plans this year and for many joining the Canadian Armed Forces it's meant long delays.
calgary.ctvnews.ca
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
Stepping away from the recruitment issues, this Op Ed in the Thin Pinstriped Line discusses the hard choices to be made by the British Army in relation to tight budgets, increasing costs and competition with the RAF and RN for funding. I think it closely mirrors many of the issues facing the CF.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,237
- Points
- 1,160
Of course, the last time they signalled a big cut in Defence spending the Argies heard it more like a starter's pistol, something that most people forget when it comes to Thatcher and the Falklands War:
The 1981 Defence White Paper (titled "The UK Defence Programme: The Way Forward" Cmnd 8288) was a major review of the United Kingdom's defence policy brought about by the Conservative government under the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The main author was the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott. The aim of the review was to reduce expenditure during the early 1980s recession and to focus on supporting NATO rather than out of area operations. It was ultimately judged however to have been extremely detrimental to the Defence of the Realm, being among other things widely considered to have been one of the contributing factors that led to the outbreak of the Falklands War.
1981 Defence White Paper - Wikipedia
I think once we choose a fighter replacement and have them in our hangers, and the CSC fleet is more or less built - the Air Force and Navy WILL BE the premier elements of war fighting coming up.
In any peer conflict situation, both the navy and Air Force will be able to deliver effects faster & on a larger scale.
The Army is obviously extremely important. But unless we end up buried in another COIN type operation, I think our contributions to any action against China (only peer competitor we are likely to fight) will be in the form of ships and jets.
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 530
How come the idea of getting rid of Fighter jets and replacing them with a fleet of drones, automation, and investing in missiles is never considered, well I haven't seen any media or gov talking about it. (Might exist but I have never seen it)
Its no secret automation is the future yet the dnd/gov doesn't consider this alternative route.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
I could well be wrong, but does an autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft for air superiority even exist or under development? The obviously exist for surveillance, air-to-ground, COIN, etc. Given to long planning and procurement timelines, how do we plan for and work towards something that doesn't yet exist?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,237
- Points
- 1,160
'They' want you to 'think' they don't exist
Actually, it's been in development for years. I first heard about the 'loyal wingman' concept way back in 1987.
here's the Boeing example. There's a bunch of interesting info on it if your Google-fu is strong:
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 530
I think it does exist (Boeing) . Air superiority.. Well if you have 10 drones to 1 fighter isn't that superiority?
If the government is gone blow billions of dollars and have yesterdays technology delivered tomorrow why not do what the future is going to be.
Air navigation would be something easily to automate relatively speaking.
If you have 10 drones in the air, against 1 enemy fighter....isn't that superiority?
No. No it isn't.
You could put 10 Cessnas against an F-16...does that give you air superiority??
Automation is the future, indeed. But when it comes to UCAVs, we aren't quite there yet.
Replacing manned fighters with UCAVs, or at least supplementing them with UCAVs, will happen in the future. No doubt. Supplementing them with UCAVs now is doable, as the 1st generation of UCAV is being implemented as a 'loyal wingman' concept.
However, these are 1st generation UCAVs, and as such - there is a lot of growth to be had in terms of speed, maneuverability, payload, network speeds, etc etc.
Longer range A2A missiles is also something that is very much on the horizon. The new Aim-260 missile is the first purpose built long range A2A missile the Americans have produced in decades - we've all been relying on enhanced versions of the Aim-120D, Aim-9X, Meteor, etc etc.
So between some loyal wingman UCAVs with long range missiles coming into service, it will change the A2A game, absolutely. But we aren't at a place where we can replace manned fighters with unmanned, yet.
As for any missiles with longer range than what falls into the A2A category, you don't even want to go there. Any ground based missiles with extended ranges start to fall under various international treaties, and that's a hassle no Canadian government will touch with a 10ft pole. (This is the same country that refused to support BMD...)
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 530
Not if Cessna are equipped with state of the art long range missiles and radars.
At the pace of tech advancement it might not matter what goes into the air but what and how many are being used to shoot at the enemy.
We use to build battle ships and now? Tech has really changed the game.
If Canada refuses to engage in some plans because of treaties it will be left behind. Upside is we have the southern neighbors that have no qualms.
I understand that its not the time right now but by the time there is a replacement fighter that Canada purchases that time might be then.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 18,806
- Points
- 1,280
Snarky answer: Because there is a big fighter mafia in the RCAF (and almost all other AFs and Naval Aviation organizations) who probably look down upon RPAs as "beneath them".
There was/is an uproar when the USAF proposed giving RPA crews combat medals. They did it anyway, but the comments were salty.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,725
- Points
- 1,160
'They' want you to 'think' they don't exist
Actually, it's been in development for years. I first heard about the 'loyal wingman' concept way back in 1987.
here's the Boeing example. There's a bunch of interesting info on it if your Google-fu is strong:
Yes, I am (very) basically familiar with the project, but even Boeing describes it as a "team with existing military aircraft", which is different than "getting rid of" and "replacing with".
Air superiority means to me that there is a chunk of sky that you want to deny from others. if you can do it with a Cessna, bully. Remotely-piloted might be one thing but autonomous shoot/don't shoot is, I think, a long way off.
It reminds me of a thread on another forum that I following that contends that autonomous vehicles are so closely poised to spring on the market, some say by 2024 (because Musk and others say so) that municipalities should scrap all of their transit plans because we'll all be zipping around on ride-hailed AVs and railways are doomed because everything will move on AV trucks.
Things are moving fast, but making multi-billion/multi-year decisions based on concepts is a challenge. The F-35 began in what, 2006, and a lot of the tech is still being sorted out.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,237
- Points
- 1,160
Coincidentally, we did some work for a client estimating what it would take to implement ACATS (Advance Connectivity and Automation in the Transportation System).
One or two issues: it would cost billions to re-engineer our infrastructure (there's a reason Elon wants to dig a tunnel under LA - it's cheaper and faster), and oh, it's still illegal
20 years from now? Might be a thing....
Similar threads
