# Exercise Western Defender/Total Ram-CFB Suffield....



## cbt arms sub tech (17 May 2009)

I'm interested on thoughts about the recent exercise Western Defender & Total Ram held at CFB Suffield this past spring....Any thoughts on how the exercise was run & participation.

Seems like they did a great job with photographs & news stories?


----------



## Big Foot (17 May 2009)

Speaking as someone who had the... distinct pleasure?... of working at 1CMBG HQ for this exercise, what I can say is that the exercise went reasonably well despite a rocky start and a few major errors at the beginning. However, once TF Pronghorn took their place on the level 7 range, things were running rather smoothly.


----------



## Big Foot (17 May 2009)

Yep. To be fair though, that was what, day 7 or so for TFP?


----------



## stealthylizard (17 May 2009)

I guess it went fairly well.  It was my first battlion/brigade exercise.  I learned quite a bit at the IED stand.  My chief complaint, was being in transport, I didn't get to fire off one round, blank or live, but at least my rifle is clean.  Looking forward to Wainwright after the long weekend.


----------



## JAWS228 (17 May 2009)

To the OP, yes there was media all over the place, civilian VIPs, press, even a bunch of journalism students from NAIT were there.  

Also for Op Hat Trick in Medecine Hat, we had a little "meet and greet" type thing where the locals could walk through and see all the big hulking LAVs and hold the cool shiny army guns and whatnot.

Definitely a rocky start from comms POV, it took days before everyone was in contact with each other. 
However, we tested and proved the systems that will be in use for Op Podium, so that was definitely a success.  Also my first brigade exercise, learned a ton (IE everything that can screw up will + more), overall good experience despite the location being the post-apocalyptic like wasteland that is Suffield.

I look forward to shooting at all the TF 3-09 guys in Wainwright in the coming month as I will be COEFOR for EX MG this year.  ;D  heheh


----------



## Zartan (18 May 2009)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> I guess it went fairly well.  It was my first battlion/brigade exercise.  I learned quite a bit at the IED stand.  My chief complaint, was being in transport, I didn't get to fire off one round, blank or live, but at least my rifle is clean.  Looking forward to Wainwright after the long weekend.



Except for during rehearsals (where I more often than not was enemy force), only fired 5 bursts total from my C6 and C9.

Medicine Hat was a rather well done go, from what I could tell. The public took our presence well and it it certainly beat Suffield. Those fires were just ridiculous.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (18 May 2009)

I was also at C/S 0 for 1 CMBG with BIGFOOT, they key takeaway absolute is reporting up and down.  It is mandatory 99 needs lower SA, the lower C/S need flanking SA, it drives the OPP and Battle Procedure.
It also drives resources, the comd and his staff cannot support you properly with all of his resources if he doesnt know where and what you are up to. It also drives responses.  I'll let everyone in on a secret. A Helo will not be launched without a mist (General Rule) it is launched with the advice of the Senior Medical Auth (Bde Surg) he cannot make a proper assesment without that info,  the Patient ID, M/T are not so crucial,   injuries and symptoms are key, a doctor cant help if he dont know whats wrong.  I guess the key to this post is flow of information, higher hq cannot be pulling the info always, it should flow to them, this goes from section level up.       My thoughts ........... oh and for all those that put out the grass fires, good work


----------



## Arsenal (19 May 2009)

It was no Rimpac...


----------



## Jager (2 Jun 2009)

would of been better if we left 742's IP plan at home.... Made my life a living hell for several weeks... then we got the IT side working.


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

Well, from my end, here's how it went for me.

-My pers C7 didn't even leave it's case. I was attached to TN, therefore had to "borrow" theirs. Would have much preferred not having to carry one, as it only added hassle. If they had at least given us blanks, then fine. No rounds should equal no weapons. 
-Not everyone had IT, my platoon sure didn't, and we REALLY could have used MIMS, or at the minimum outlook.
-We had two separate chains of command, therefore when we made a spreadsheet for one, the other would wonder why we wasted our time on it. I wasted even more time trying to explain one to chain A, when major parts of it was specifically for chain B. That annoyed me.
-Units not telling us what we needed to order when we asked. When a request goes out to a unit for a list of POL they need on ex, for friggs sake it needs to be answered, especially when some of the more "specific" items come from France. Really, it's simple, tell us what you need, and we'll give it to you. We don't care how much you need either, just give us a heads up in advance.


I think that's all I can go into here. Just a list of beefs from my end. Ooooh, and the helo's were pretty sweet. The Brit tanks were nice, the first 3 days, then just got annoying after that. Mind you, the Apaches flying by a column of tanks, nice!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jun 2009)

Every comment in this thread explains exactly why we need to do Bde Exercisies....


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Every comment in this thread explains exactly why we need to do Bde Exercisies....



I have to agree with you on this. As a side note, I had ordered $22 000 worth of H-5606 for this exercise, strictly based on the fact that 1VP had asked for 500l of the stuff for Rough Rider II. Lesson learned on that ex, transfered well to this ex, however not all items went this well.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jun 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you on this. As a side note, I had ordered $22 000 worth of H-5606 for this exercise, strictly based on the fact that 1VP had asked for 500l of the stuff for Rough Rider II. Lesson learned on that ex, transfered well to this ex, however not all items went this well.



You had to order Aviation Hydraulic Fulid?


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

H-5606 is a somewhat common hydraulic fluid, more so than we were under the impression of initially. It's also from France, and takes us about 4-6 weeks to get in via Sentinel. There were some other unit specific fluids that we didn't know about that are time consuming to procure that we found out about while on the ex. Unfortunately some of these we can't just go to Canadian Tire to get. Also, we had some procurement issues on our end, which made us look less than stellar at times, but alas, we can only do so much with the information provided.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2009)

For a combat unit? WTF are we doing using a hydraulic fluid that comes from France and takes 4-6 weeks to get? What kind of awe inspiring equipment requires that stuff and why haven't we found something here that's compatable. $22,000.00 for 500 litres ($44/ltr) for hydaulic fluid is absurd. It's not wine from Burgundy or foie gras for fuck sake. Sheesh, it's no wonder the system is broken. :


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

I believe it's the turret on the LAV III, and the ramp on the Bison. However, I'm not a driver of those, so I can't be 100%. The fluid itself is a very high temperature hydraulic fluid. Also, part of the problem is that we are bound by standing offers, therefore MUST go through Sentinel, and they acquire it from France. The "grade" of this fluid has very specific properties for military use, thus, not just any will do, and that is where the added time comes from. To add insult to injury on this topic, I had a sea can FULL of the stuff last September, but it all had to go to HAZMAT disposal, as it was recently expired, and the mechanics would have refused to put it in the LAVs. Fun world I live in eh?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jun 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I believe it's the turret on the LAV III, and the ramp on the Bison. However, I'm not a driver of those, so I can't be 100%. The fluid itself is a very high temperature hydraulic fluid. Also, part of the problem is that we are bound by standing offers, therefore MUST go through Sentinel, and they acquire it from France. The "grade" of this fluid has very specific properties for military use, thus, not just any will do, and that is where the added time comes from. To add insult to injury on this topic, I had a sea can FULL of the stuff last September, but it all had to go to HAZMAT disposal, as it was recently expired, and the mechanics would have refused to put it in the LAVs. Fun world I live in eh?



Chappy not a jab at you but something seems fishy to me about that oil. An aviation Hydraulic oil in a land vehicle?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2009)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I believe it's the turret on the LAV III, and the ramp on the Bison. However, I'm not a driver of those, so I can't be 100%. The fluid itself is a very high temperature hydraulic fluid. Also, part of the problem is that we are bound by standing offers, therefore MUST go through Sentinel, and they acquire it from France. The "grade" of this fluid has very specific properties for military use, thus, not just any will do, and that is where the added time comes from. To add insult to injury on this topic, I had a sea can FULL of the stuff last September, but it all had to go to HAZMAT disposal, as it was recently expired, and the mechanics would have refused to put it in the LAVs. Fun world I live in eh?



Again, not a jab at you, but.................

A vehicle designed and built by GDLS using that stuff exlusivley? I bet our US counterparts don't use it. I call BS. I bet if someone cared to look it up or ask, that the expiry date only applies to aircraft applications. If an expiry date is even valid. I've never heard of one on hydraulic fluid before. Sounds like someone has formed a niche market and found a sucker to replace perfectly good product on a regular basis.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2009)

A quick look around the web shows that Mil H 5606 hydraulic fluid is an extremely common fluid. It is made by all kinds of companies in the business. Shell, Texaco, Mobil, Petrofina, etc. Bought on the shelf in a specialty boating store, it'll cost you a whopping $5.50 a quart.

If we're paying $44.00/liter and getting it special order from France, someone needs to be hauled up in front of the boss and fired.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Chappy not a jab at you but something seems fishy to me about that oil. An aviation Hydraulic oil in a land vehicle?



I'll say.

MIL-H-5606 (Distributed by MVP Micro, Inc., manufactured by RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT) 
MIL-H5606F (Distributed by MVP Micro, Inc., manufactured by RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT) 
MIL-H-5606-G (Distributed by MVP Micro, Inc., manufactured by BOMBARDIER AEROSPACE) 

Unless Bomb ardier has moved to France, these are both North American manufacturers.


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

I believe the cost was $18 and change per gallon, however, as I stated, we are stuck with standing offers, and that is through Sentinel based out of Montreal. From what I've heard, they are supplied by a company out of Paris. Trust me, if I could get the other stuff, and faster, I would do it in a heart beat. I just put in orders for POL and try to issue what I can, I have no control over what the powers that be in Ottawa say we get.

Edited to add:
Also, we had a standing offer made up that required Sentinel to proved product within 72 hours. It took about a week and a half to get the CLP that was required, by then, it was almost end ex. These are the problems we face, and that is why there might have been a CLP shortage out there. It's not that we didn't want to give the product, it's just that we couldn't get it to give.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2009)

I wonder if this may be why we are now in possession of a "Security Container" that does not meet the Security Regulations......   :


----------



## danchapps (2 Jun 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder if this may be why we are now in possession of a "Security Container" that does not meet the Security Regulations......   :



At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a company make a "security container" made out clear lexan, with no locking capability to speak of, held closed by velcro.


----------

