Oh please, this isn't the Marine corps. Perhaps you need to say that to some of your comrades in green as well where its even MORE relevant?
And the airforce has been doing ANNUAL gas hut and weapons training for YEARS, in the Tac Hel community.
BFT+Air Force deployment policy...I don't get it !!!!
- Thread starter airforcemissingthearmy
- Start date
Oh please, this isn't the Marine corps. Perhaps you need to say that to some of your comrades in green as well where its even MORE relevant?
And the airforce has been doing ANNUAL gas hut and weapons training for YEARS, in the Tac Hel community.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,276
- Points
- 1,260
I'll remember those comments when the fur is flying and you folks who think "army" training doesn't need to be done by air types.
Good luck!
Good luck!
So much here that needs addressing...
But, I'll keep it to one thing - fitness standards, as that appears to pop up in various threads from time to time.
Firstly, I think that any attempt by the a** f**ce to develop fitness standards to match its work environment is only going to drop below the EXPRES level (presuming that it legally could as that's the CF minimum standard). The "average" person just does not have a physically demanding day on the job, so matching standards to that is going to be humorous. I'd guess that this is another self-justification project from the A3 DI Shop, which loves to exercise my (thanks to them, highly-developed) cringe reflex. I have an image of a timed repetitive wrench-turn replacing the trench dig, etcetera.
That being sarcastically said, there is no need for most of these people to have a higher standard of fitness than the EXPRES Test anyway, from a job perspective.
Those that deploy must meet the same minimum fitness standard as anybody else going to that location however, regardless of the colour of their hat or dress uniform. For Kandahar, that's BFT.
400 Squadron's current desired fitness test for all members is the BFT. This was decreed by our CO as we began preparations for our Roto 6 TUAV Flight deployment. There were two reasons: Squadron-wide solidarity with those of us, a relatively small chunk of the Squadron, who will deploy, and recognition that, given the likelihood of increased deployment of individuals and the Squadron assuming the High Readiness role in less than two years, it only made sense to maintain as many people to that level as possible. To that end, we are carrying on with ruck marches each Friday morning year-round. Sometimes they are cancelled for various legitimate reasons - meeting mission requirements for example - but more often than not they are happening. We did not stop for oranges or drinkies on our BFT in December, and we got everybody through with plenty of time to spare. It was a challenge for some, as we have many people well into their fifties (simply a fact of life in a largely Reserve flying unit) most of whom had never had to do this before. I believe that we may have been stood down for the rest of that day, but it was hard to tell; the vast majority were still at work at the normal quitting time whether we were stood down or were not.
We do not hump massive rucksacks up and down mountains in egg-frying heat (even those of us doing the TUAV thing are not going to be doing anything remotely close). That is not part of our job requirement, and there is therefore no need to train to that level. We do have to put serviceable helicopters into the air (or AVs into the air when we deploy) to support those who do, however, and we are short of techs, aircrew, and support pers in every flying community. It is extremely difficult most of the time to maintain currencies and support taskings with the personnel shortages that we've been dealing with for years, and which are likely to get a whole lot worse before they improve.
We could spend as much time on PT as Combat Arms folk, but to what benefit to anybody? Those who think that we should have a choice: we can do that, certainly, but at the cost of fifty percent of the helicopter support that you are currently getting (which is nowhere near enough, but that's a subject for other threads and I've already ranted about the reasons for that previously). Every minute spent running around is a minute less spent fixing or flying. We cannot afford to spend time on things that do not contribute to our primary purpose.
And for those of you carrying on with this "lowest common denominator" stuff, let's all go to one common medical standard, too. As LCD is not good enough, we can adopt the highest medical standard CF-wide: Pilot. Enjoy your early pensions, those of you who fall below that (presuming that you got past the recruiters in the first place).
Every member of the CF should also maintain a valid Instrument Rating, too. If you want me to have to do everything that you have to do, that's only reasonable, nein?
But, I'll keep it to one thing - fitness standards, as that appears to pop up in various threads from time to time.
Firstly, I think that any attempt by the a** f**ce to develop fitness standards to match its work environment is only going to drop below the EXPRES level (presuming that it legally could as that's the CF minimum standard). The "average" person just does not have a physically demanding day on the job, so matching standards to that is going to be humorous. I'd guess that this is another self-justification project from the A3 DI Shop, which loves to exercise my (thanks to them, highly-developed) cringe reflex. I have an image of a timed repetitive wrench-turn replacing the trench dig, etcetera.
That being sarcastically said, there is no need for most of these people to have a higher standard of fitness than the EXPRES Test anyway, from a job perspective.
Those that deploy must meet the same minimum fitness standard as anybody else going to that location however, regardless of the colour of their hat or dress uniform. For Kandahar, that's BFT.
400 Squadron's current desired fitness test for all members is the BFT. This was decreed by our CO as we began preparations for our Roto 6 TUAV Flight deployment. There were two reasons: Squadron-wide solidarity with those of us, a relatively small chunk of the Squadron, who will deploy, and recognition that, given the likelihood of increased deployment of individuals and the Squadron assuming the High Readiness role in less than two years, it only made sense to maintain as many people to that level as possible. To that end, we are carrying on with ruck marches each Friday morning year-round. Sometimes they are cancelled for various legitimate reasons - meeting mission requirements for example - but more often than not they are happening. We did not stop for oranges or drinkies on our BFT in December, and we got everybody through with plenty of time to spare. It was a challenge for some, as we have many people well into their fifties (simply a fact of life in a largely Reserve flying unit) most of whom had never had to do this before. I believe that we may have been stood down for the rest of that day, but it was hard to tell; the vast majority were still at work at the normal quitting time whether we were stood down or were not.
We do not hump massive rucksacks up and down mountains in egg-frying heat (even those of us doing the TUAV thing are not going to be doing anything remotely close). That is not part of our job requirement, and there is therefore no need to train to that level. We do have to put serviceable helicopters into the air (or AVs into the air when we deploy) to support those who do, however, and we are short of techs, aircrew, and support pers in every flying community. It is extremely difficult most of the time to maintain currencies and support taskings with the personnel shortages that we've been dealing with for years, and which are likely to get a whole lot worse before they improve.
We could spend as much time on PT as Combat Arms folk, but to what benefit to anybody? Those who think that we should have a choice: we can do that, certainly, but at the cost of fifty percent of the helicopter support that you are currently getting (which is nowhere near enough, but that's a subject for other threads and I've already ranted about the reasons for that previously). Every minute spent running around is a minute less spent fixing or flying. We cannot afford to spend time on things that do not contribute to our primary purpose.
And for those of you carrying on with this "lowest common denominator" stuff, let's all go to one common medical standard, too. As LCD is not good enough, we can adopt the highest medical standard CF-wide: Pilot. Enjoy your early pensions, those of you who fall below that (presuming that you got past the recruiters in the first place).
Every member of the CF should also maintain a valid Instrument Rating, too. If you want me to have to do everything that you have to do, that's only reasonable, nein?
A
aesop081
Guest
OldSolduer said:
And i'll remember your comment when the "fur is flying" somewhere's else than on the ground. Its not necessarily your argument that gets me, its your arrogant attitude that "fur" only happens on the ground.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,276
- Points
- 1,260
It seems that CDN AVIATOR thinks that I'm arrogant.
Fact is when your air types deploy, you seem to think that us ground types are there to protect you. We're not. You ahve to learn to protect yourselves.
When our fur flys it is very up close and personal. Sometimes face to face, very close ranges. I also didn't say fur only flys on the ground.
Not arrogance, stating a FACT.
Fact is when your air types deploy, you seem to think that us ground types are there to protect you. We're not. You ahve to learn to protect yourselves.
When our fur flys it is very up close and personal. Sometimes face to face, very close ranges. I also didn't say fur only flys on the ground.
Not arrogance, stating a FACT.
I wouldn't make the accusation of arrogance.
My whole quarter-century-plus in Tac Hel has been a constant process of educating those whom we exist to support, and such lacks of understanding are common, understandable, natural, and, to me, inoffensive.
Some instances are frustrating as well as comical: 4 CMBG's rating system, for example, included absolutely no measurement of how 444 Squadron did its real job, only how we did the same stuff as everybody else. Their team got rather annoyed one year because the people in MOPP or TOPP (or whatever flavour-of-the-day term was used back then) High in trench after trench were pointing nothing but pistols in the general direction of the enemy. "Where are their rifles?" "They don't have any - they're all Officers and Sergeants - Pilots and Observers." "They're supposed to have rifles and C2s." "Aircrew are only issued pistols." And so it went...
They did not care one whit if our helicopters were serviceable or not, or we were performing missions or not, only such things as having the right number of trenches for a unit of our size and the right number of people in them.
I find that the vast number of my ground-bound brethren understand quite readily when things are explained to them. There are so many of them, though, and we have less and less contact with them as time goes by.
My whole quarter-century-plus in Tac Hel has been a constant process of educating those whom we exist to support, and such lacks of understanding are common, understandable, natural, and, to me, inoffensive.
Some instances are frustrating as well as comical: 4 CMBG's rating system, for example, included absolutely no measurement of how 444 Squadron did its real job, only how we did the same stuff as everybody else. Their team got rather annoyed one year because the people in MOPP or TOPP (or whatever flavour-of-the-day term was used back then) High in trench after trench were pointing nothing but pistols in the general direction of the enemy. "Where are their rifles?" "They don't have any - they're all Officers and Sergeants - Pilots and Observers." "They're supposed to have rifles and C2s." "Aircrew are only issued pistols." And so it went...
They did not care one whit if our helicopters were serviceable or not, or we were performing missions or not, only such things as having the right number of trenches for a unit of our size and the right number of people in them.
I find that the vast number of my ground-bound brethren understand quite readily when things are explained to them. There are so many of them, though, and we have less and less contact with them as time goes by.
We can either protect ourselves, or provide support to you guys, with the number of personnel that we have and the type of training that they can be given, but not both.
A certain level of self-protection capability is required, hence basic weapons quals etcetera, but there is a reason for having specialties and that includes Infantry.
We, in turn, do not expect you to service and maintain the helicopters in which you ride or the Hercs from which you jump or the C17s which deliver your food, water, or ammunition.
This is why we have a symbiotic relationship: you bring your strengths to the table, and we'll bring ours, covering each other's weaknesses while increasing our mutual strengths.
A certain level of self-protection capability is required, hence basic weapons quals etcetera, but there is a reason for having specialties and that includes Infantry.
We, in turn, do not expect you to service and maintain the helicopters in which you ride or the Hercs from which you jump or the C17s which deliver your food, water, or ammunition.
This is why we have a symbiotic relationship: you bring your strengths to the table, and we'll bring ours, covering each other's weaknesses while increasing our mutual strengths.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,276
- Points
- 1,260
Thank you Loach for bringing some sanity here.
I know that the air guys bring their skills, been on enough chopper rides to know that!!
It's an attitude that may be a holdover from the old days...that infantry/army will protect the air strips.
Truth is we haven't got the manpower.
I know that the air guys bring their skills, been on enough chopper rides to know that!!
It's an attitude that may be a holdover from the old days...that infantry/army will protect the air strips.
Truth is we haven't got the manpower.
A
aesop081
Guest
OldSolduer said:
I suppose that all the C7, pistol, gas hut, mine awareness, foreign weapons, ROE.........for pre-deployementy / Vanguard training is just a waste then.
Neither do we. Whats a solution here ?
Creating our own version of the RAF regiment or USAF security police ?
I always endeavour to remain sane and inspire it in others.
Nobody has enough manpower, nor ever will.
"Hoping for the best" is not a viable defensive tactic, but sometimes it is not possible to do much more until deaths and political embarassment bring improvement.
And then something else suffers in compensation anyway.
Nobody has enough manpower, nor ever will.
"Hoping for the best" is not a viable defensive tactic, but sometimes it is not possible to do much more until deaths and political embarassment bring improvement.
And then something else suffers in compensation anyway.
CDN Aviator said:
It helps, but it still does not bring us anywhere near the level of the outside-the-wire guys.
We could not do so and still do our own jobs, and that should be obvious.
CDN Aviator said:
Yes.
Money, PYs, political will etcetera...
See "deaths and political embarassment" in my last post.
A
aesop081
Guest
Loachman said:
Nor should it.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,276
- Points
- 1,260
I agree with AVIATOR. The air force should not seek to emulate the army. Train you for local defense, yes. For full combat? No. I would not want a well trained airplane mechanic (sorry about the terminology) to be my fire team partner for two reasons:
1. He/she won't have a clue what they are doing;
2. If said airplane mech gets killed, then we've just p!ssed away a very valuable resource, not to mention the greif and suffering their families will go through.
If you want the full meal deal for air field protection, find some reserve Combat Engineers, Infantry, Armoured, and Arty(with bird gunners), with some MPs, Logistics (ArmyVern you listening?) and basically form an Airfield Defence Battalion to deploy to whatever theater of ops you deploy to.
This may be difficult as a lot of us PRes are already deploying with the TFs to Afghanistan.
1. He/she won't have a clue what they are doing;
2. If said airplane mech gets killed, then we've just p!ssed away a very valuable resource, not to mention the greif and suffering their families will go through.
If you want the full meal deal for air field protection, find some reserve Combat Engineers, Infantry, Armoured, and Arty(with bird gunners), with some MPs, Logistics (ArmyVern you listening?) and basically form an Airfield Defence Battalion to deploy to whatever theater of ops you deploy to.
This may be difficult as a lot of us PRes are already deploying with the TFs to Afghanistan.
A
aesop081
Guest
Loachman said:
And for some of us, a foray on the ground means something went terribly wrong., but thats what we have ASERE for. ;D
OldSolduer said:
- This discussion was mooted by fifty years in CFE. The Brigade would 'Snowball' off the airfields ASAP (airfields being nuke targets) and begin their move to their operational areas. BDFs would defend the airfields. If any manoeuver unit had a task to defend Baden or Lahr in wartime, I would be truly surprised, as would about 50,000 other serving or retired soldiers.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
WRT to the security of airfields/air assets...maybe someone already has the right idea.
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/GroundDefenceOfficer/
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/AirfieldDefenceGuard/
http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/jobs/GroundDefenceOfficer/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The CF is looking at this same specialty as we speak. As well as making smaller C JIRU type units across the country to assist the main C JIRU.
