# Air Force-Underfunded and Overstressed- Article



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Feb 2005)

Well of course, its not easy when you have to use just the 3-star hotels for deployment. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1107810022725_103219222/?hub=Canada

 Mon. Feb. 7 2005 3:55 PM ET   
Air Force under stress, underfunded: Senate
Canadian Press

OTTAWA â â€ Canada's air force is stressed beyond its capability, its equipment and personnel depleted by years of neglect, the Liberal head of the Senate defence committee said Monday as opposition MPs in the Commons hammered the government on defence underfunding.

Senator Colin Kenny urged Ottawa to boost military spending by 30 per cent in its Feb. 23 budget, saying the air force is just one example of a sector-wide problem that could ultimately limit the country's foreign policy goals.

"We have a really stressed air force that is being asked to do more than it's capable of doing,'' Kenny told the Senate committee on national security and defence.

"If the government isn't prepared to fund the military so that it's properly equipped the government's (foreign policy) goals and options are going to be badly limited in the future.''

His comments came after the head of the air force, Lt.-Gen. Ken Pennie, told the committee that air force resources are "somewhat depleted'' after years of downsizing.

"We have half the number of people and half the number of aircraft as we had at the end of the Cold War,'' Pennie said.

"Over the same period, the number of air force personnel deployed on operations has roughly doubled with no sign that the operational tempo will decrease.''

Aging aircraft, personnel shortages and eroding infrastructure _ all in the face of money shortfalls _ put further strain on the ability of the force to fulfil its role, Pennie said.

"The air force faces a sustainability gap in its ability to generate operational capability.''

On Friday, the new chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, used his change-of-command ceremony to call on the government to give the military more money in the coming budget.

In the Commons, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the Liberals have "nearly starved the military to death'' in the last 12 years. Hillier's statement was a "cry for help'' after more than a decade of neglect, he said.

Defence Minister Bill Graham said the government is already addressing the issue in its ongoing defence and foreign policy review.

"We have promised to increase the size of the Canadian Forces; we have promised to obtain better equipment for them; we are on track to do that and we will deliver on that promise,'' said Graham.

"We are turning the corner.''

The questions arose after reports the government spent $4 million renting two Russian Antanov heavy-lift aircraft to transport Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team to the tsunami disaster zone in December.

It had to rent the planes because it doesn't have suitable aircraft for the job.<

Pennie told the committee Monday that his staff is assessing the need for heavy-lift aircraft to transport soldiers and equipment, which he noted isn't as simple as one-aircraft-fits-all.

The military requires aircraft for domestic, international and heavy transport, he noted. And the job done by the aging fleet of Hercules aircraft cannot necessarily be done by larger C-17s or the like, which require bigger airstrips for takeoff and landing.

The ultimate decision will be based largely on the outcome of the policy review, early drafts of which relegated the air force to a domestic security and surveillance and a support role that would require heavy-lift aircraft to transport resources to overseas hotspots and disaster zones.

Kenny said the requirements are clear.

"It's really up to the politicians to show some leadership and to provide the funds so that the military is properly resourced,'' he said.

"Until we see that leadership, we're going to see the military ... wasting a whole lot of time and effort trying to make do with something less than the best.''


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2005)

Wow...where to begin?   ???

Well...here goes...at the risk of getting pummeled by my light blue brethren, I will say that now the Air Force is feeling the effects of continuing to expend resources in the areas it has "chosen" to do so for the last 10 if not 15 years.   Yes, I say "chosen".   I know, I know...all the evnironments have "responded to Government direction by providing the capabilities that they have been 'directed' to provide" and the Air Force is no different, but lets be totally honest here...I (and I think more than a few others) have seen enough of the system and been involved in Tactical, Operational and Strategic capability planning, resource management and busniess planning to know that the Government direction is not nearly as "neat" and "crystal clear" as some would make it out to be in their defence of just "providing the capability we've been told to provide."

Seems as though the rest of the AF is having to suck up what the two b-tard children (tactical and maritime aviation) have been doing for the majority of their histories...operations in support of deployed forces.   Go figure.   It kind of sucks that TH and MH have to do it with mediocre kit at best, but they have humped pretty hard on the dregs of what Dad, Mom and the older siblings haven't drunk up.   I wouldn't quote numbers if I hadn't business planned Tac Hel for several years...1 Wing and the 146 WSM are provided 0.8% of AF resources to do what they do...fairly good bang for buck...double that to 1.6% and we could probably provide a pretty robust and meaningful capability...but still, what we do on 0.8% of the light blue budget isn't bad. 

It's all about resources expended for value of capability provided.   Maybe someone is willing to take a hard look at what the Air Force provides for the resources it consumes.   I'm not shedding any tears for the pauvre armée d'lair!   I'll just keep shining my Mk.3's and dreaming of immersion heaters with 5 or 6 sections of stack on them! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 <-really bad attempt at a CADPAT smilie!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

Mr. Duey - I think I'm going to like having you around here.   

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Sapper6 (7 Feb 2005)

DPT said:
			
		

> ... the Air Force is feeling the effects of continuing to expend resources in the areas it has "chosen" to do so for the last 10 if not 15 years.   Yes, I say "chosen".
> 
> ...Seems as though the rest of the AF is having to suck up what the two b-tard children (tactical and maritime aviation) have been doing for the majority of their histories...operations in support of deployed forces....
> 
> ...It's all about resources expended for value of capability provided....



As someone who was on the pointy end sitting in a trench in Kandahar during Op APOLLO, it burned my @ss to hear my brother AF Engrs tell me that after working pretty hard to design and build Camp Mirage in short order, the Air Force refused to move into the Camp when it was ready to be occupied!   :rage:   No, instead it was decided that the **** hotels in a city near the "undisclosed location" was right where the Air Force HQ, aircrew and ground crew would remain until the end of their tour.   Talk about eating up valuable resources!   Why the leadership was not admonished by the DCDS is beyond comprehension.

Further, if anyone out there tries to tell me that the camp was sub-standard, I beg to differ.   I passed through that camp while on our only 96 hr R&R and if you call climate-controlled, running hot and cold water and private rooms with mattresses "sub-standard" - then we are definitely not all on the same team.

Air Force - particularly the Fast Air and Tac Lift folks - your excess has now been called.

S6 out


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2005)

S6, ever hitch a lift in a 160th 'Hook?    Trust me...I'd kill (well at least give a left nut) to be geared-up like my buds in Campbell and Bragg to haul you guys around the AOR and live in Julien with the rest of the troops!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (7 Feb 2005)

No hotels here either, just cold metal ships along with the fishheads. You're not going to get pummeled by me Duey, I agree completely.


----------



## Sapper6 (7 Feb 2005)

DPT said:
			
		

> S6, ever hitch a lift in a 160th 'Hook?      Trust me...I'd kill (well at least give a left nut) to be geared-up like my buds in Campbell and Bragg to haul you guys around the AOR and live in Julien with the rest of the troops!



Duey,

No nothing from the 160th - although we did see the PaveLows sitting nicely lined up on the apron ready to take the SOF guys into the SH%&.

We did get lifts from CH47 Chinooks all the time.   During our first operation into Shah-e-kot Valley, we had an outfit from Savannah, Georgia take us in on the air assault and boy-oh-boy those guys were sh#$ hot!   They were putting us down on a postage stamp at 9000'ASL like it was a walk in the park!   I'll always remember the one co-pilot who saluted us before he lifted off - very classy.   Door gunners were pretty cool too!

I know given the resources, our Tac Hel boys would be just as daring and courageous as those American pilots.   Just give us the damn aircraft to do the job I say!

Sapper 6 out.


----------



## s23256 (7 Feb 2005)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many air force personel working hard and doing their best to support the troops on the ground.  But I'll feel a lot more sympathy for this "underfunded and overstressed" organization when they get a grip on their utterly ridiculous spending practices.  How many more personel and aircraft could the air force support if they stopped putting pilot trainees in individual hotel rooms with maid service while I stay in a room with three other candidates which I clean myself.  Aircrew make more to sit in an air conditioned cockpit for an hour than an infanteer does for 24 hours in the mud.  I could be wrong but I could swear I saw a picture in the Maple Leaf of ground crew wearing gore-tex jackets in CADPAT with reflective tape strips sewn on, kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it.  Especially irritating because I still can't get issued any type of gore-tex jacket at all.  

One final point, this summer our phase 3 was unable to do airmobile ops because the ground briefing, which had been scheduled for friday afternoon, was cancelled when it turned out the air force had called it a day.

All in all the air force could find a lot of money to do their jobs if they cut back on some of the perks.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2005)

S6, the guys were just being modest... ;D   

The 47 boys from Savannah are the 3rd of the 160th..._scroll to the bottom of this page_. 

They're the A-team of the Nightstalkers...you were getting a quality ride, my friend!   I and others had the opportunity to fly our Twins down at Hunter Airfield years ago on a SUE...the boys were real nice hosts...on the the Six-shooters even loaned me a Trimble Scout GPS because Bragg is a frippin wasteland to fly on nogs.

**edit* -- S6, I forgot about the 159th!  Did the 47's have refuelling booms?  If they didn't, then you're right, it was the 159th, not 3/160. * 

Hopefully we can get back in the game and support you guys...you can imagine that it's frustrating as heck not to be given the kit or any of the remaining 99.2% of AF resources to support you guys! 

p.s.   Spinaker, sorry to hear you guys got CNX'd, but the guys at 403 have been humping their arses helping the 427 guys train up for high readiness and a 'potential' deployment to support guys in 'not very much' time.   I know there were some fudge ups on Winged Warrior, but to be honest, the course wasn't even supposed to be run last summer...so much for the "operational pause"...anybody else seen that pause?   The guys in the 'Nam are running about 120% right about now...trust me, guys would rather fly than sit around in a frikkin' office.   Ah for the days when we could smoke a few machines in behind the Carelton Mess for TGIF...good time had by all. *sniff, sniff*

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (7 Feb 2005)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many air force personel working hard and doing their best to support the troops on the ground.   But I'll feel a lot more sympathy for this "underfunded and overstressed" organization when they get a grip on their utterly ridiculous spending practices.   How many more personel and aircraft could the air force support if they stopped putting pilot trainees in individual hotel rooms with maid service while I stay in a room with three other candidates which I clean myself.   Aircrew make more to sit in an air conditioned cockpit for an hour than an infanteer does for 24 hours in the mud.   I could be wrong but I could swear I saw a picture in the Maple Leaf of ground crew wearing gore-tex jackets in CADPAT with reflective tape strips sewn on, kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it.   Especially irritating because I still can't get issued any type of gore-tex jacket at all.
> 
> One final point, this summer our phase 3 was unable to do airmobile ops because the ground briefing, which had been scheduled for friday afternoon, was cancelled when it turned out the air force had called it a day.
> 
> All in all the air force could find a lot of money to do their jobs if they cut back on some of the perks.



Well let's see, I've got no problems doing my job which is supporting the navy, what I do have a problem with is someone spouting off about things they have no idea about. 

First, the quarters in Moose Jaw and Portage that you were referring to were built by Bombardier and they were built to the specs that the foreign countries demanded for their pilots. We just happen to be in the right place at the right time, you should have seen the shacks in MJ prior to NFTC being set up. Hardly the hotel you stated. Also, even on an Army base, as a commissioned officer you get a single room with maid service as stated in the QR&Os vol 2 ch 28 para 28.20: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol1/ch028_e.asp#28.20

One more point about the quarters in Moose Jaw, they were by far the most expensive Singles quarters that I've ever lived in. I paid and I got what I paid for.

Next, 1 hour in an air conditioned cockpit eh? Obviously you have never sat in a cockpit, and if you think that's all the work we do, well you're dead wrong. I'm not going to continue on with who's job is harder because some things are better left unsaid, hard feelings can be the product of such discussions. I will say that I don't tell you how easy or hard your job is so don't sit there and tell me how easy my job is.

Yes ground crew wear CADPAT Goretex rain jackets and the reflective thing is so they don't get run over by a 20,000 lb helicopter. It's a safety thing just like the giant orange hit-me vest that the marshalers wear, and FYI, the reflective stripes fold under the flaps so they're not seen. As for your CADPAT, the Air Force made their own procurement contracts and we just happened to get our kit sooner, don't blame us, blame the Army for taking so long to implement the CTS program.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2005)

Spinaker, just checked your stats...I'll tell you why you don't have goretex yet, my friend...once you have as much time in the field as I do...


----------



## Garry (8 Feb 2005)

Funny, I spent a few years in Tac Hel and when we deployed, it wasn't to hotel rooms...granted, I didn;t have my beloved 'back deck" to sleep on, but I did have a nifty little tent.

I laughed my butt off at the idea of being limited to only working 6 hours a day (flight safetly rules kept us to 6 hours nap of the earth flying per day)....until I went on my first Ex. I volunteered us for all the first light missions (most action) and I can guarantee you that after 6 hours flying I was wasted. Keep in mind that I wasn't a baby air force guy either, but an RCD Sgt who had averaged 9 months a year in the field up to that point. (btw, I averaged 6 months in the field per year during my Tac hel days).

Times change, and i got busted up and remustered to air traffic control- and for the last couple of years have been pulling double shifts as we're manned at 50% PMl ( we're supposed to have 11 controllers, we have 5)....kinda makes for a lot of time at work. Having said that, since i joined the Air Force full time I haven't been shot at...guess there's trade offs 

Maybe bottom line is we shouldn't "assume" that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence......

Cheers-Garry


----------



## s23256 (8 Feb 2005)

Gentlemen,

I must appologize for the tone of my post.  Clearly I do not have a great deal of experience in the CF nor do I profess to, unlike some I do give my complete background in my member stats.  As such I can only speak from what I have seen in my, addmitedly limited, experience.

That said I hope you can understand my point of view.  Much of my knowledge of what life consists of in the air force comes from what I am told by my friends who are pilots, air navs, AEREs, etc.  When they take the time to make a video demonstrating the many ammenities they enjoy while mocking the conditions I experience in the field, or bring up dissimilarities in pay or entitlement to equipment, it does nothing to elevate my opinion them.  Obviously these are the actions of a few individuals, but as is often the case, it only takes a few to ruin the reputation of many. 

On the topic of quarters I am not speaking of commissioned officer quarters but those of OCdts like myself.  Given that the facilities exist, at the behest af our allies, and that it is more economical to house these individuals in them, as opposed to a more traditional barracks,I have no objection to their being used.  I do not; however, see why full maid services need be extended to an individual merely as a function of trade as opposed to rank.  Besides your reference clearly states the standard expected for officer cadets.
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/qr_o/vol1/ch028_e.asp#28.20

I agree that my comment regarding the ammount of work done was out of line.  The statement "an air conditioned cockpit for an hour" is innaccurate and I appologize for it.  Clearly it is difficult to compare the relative effort expended due to the dissimilarity of the job.  This being said I would still appreciate an explanation of why flight pay is greater than field pay. http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/allowance/engraph/allow_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=30#Aircrew 

On the topic of CADPAT and Gore-tex I did state that I was unsure about the design of the garment, thank you for the clarification.  

Overall you are quite correct.  The general nature and wording of my post was innapropriate.  I do; however, believe that I raised some valid points about questionable expenditures which were not adequately answered.  The fact that quarters were poor in the past does not, in my view, justify a double standard of living for equal ranks in the present.  It is true that the cost is greater but I doubt it offsets the increased cost to the taxpayer.  Furthermore I remain unconvinced that flight pay should be greater than field pay.  DPT, no offense intended,  but I don't see how the amount of time you have spent in the field explains why a pilot with BOTC under his belt has more entitlement to gore-tex than me.

Once again, thank you for setting me straight where I was out of line and I hope that you will be able to help me answer the questions which remain.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Feb 2005)

Duey- you will get no argument from me (a humble Sea King Navigator) about how the Air Force has chosen to direct it's resources over the past decade.   12 Wing has continually pulled miracles out of it's rectum in support of the Navy over the past ten years on basically no money (Unfortunately, we may now be out of miracles for the next 4-6 years...).   It has been my personal assessment that the Air Force has basically paid lip service to anything that did not have two engines and go Mach 1, or was painted canary yellow...

A while ago, a rather astute officer at my Sqn did some research.   He discovered that MH and Tac hel comprised 50% of the Air Force in terms of aircraft and crews.   However, between the two fleets, we received a combined 10-12% of the Air Force's funding (depending on how you cut the numbers).   Can't speak for the Tac hel guys, but since 1990, we have deployed to:

1. The Gulf war 1 (1990-91)
2. The Haitian Vacation
3. The Adriatic (NATO blockade of FRY)
4. Somali (let's not forget that fiasco... a Sea King doing recce duties at night over a small Somali village, bracketed by tracers and not getting hit, somehow)
5. East Timor (1999)
6. Winnipeg Flood
7. Op Apollo (14 Dets in two years.   We only had 9 Dets on the Wing)
8. Near continous participation in STANAVFORLANT
9. Periodic Gulf Deployments from 1992-2001

On top of that, whenever we weren't deployed, we sailed on normal Navy Exercises, Sov Ops, Migrant Ops, Fishpats, Turbot wars... and THEN stood SAR Standby whenever the Lab and now Cormorant Fleets fell over.   Not bad value for about 6% of the Air Force's budget...

I'm nor complaining- just setting out the score card.   Oh yeah- generally, I don't stay in hotels.   Usually, it is the shacks or a on a ship for me.

Spinaker- It took real character to apologize when you knew that you were wrong.   Good work!   BTW, if you have a problem with the differential between Aircrew allowance and FSA, take it up with CLS.   Believe me, the money I get is bare compensation for flying a 40 year old helicopter, wearing an immersion suit or sweating to death in an un-air conditioned helo.   You guys in the Army need more money (and I have been there, too), not us less money.

Cheers!


----------



## Zoomie (8 Feb 2005)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> ...I agree that my comment regarding the ammount of work done was out of line.   The statement "an air conditioned cockpit for an hour" is innaccurate and I appologize for it...



BZ on your clarification - very well written and eloquently put.

The a/c in most aircraft are more for cooling vital electronics, not for our comfort.

If the baby pilots at RMC are rubbing in their very limited exposure to the airforce life, please remind them that they have a very long route to follow and that the road ahead will be perilous.  Take pride in your Phase 3 training, you have almost completed your MOC training, they haven't even started.  You will be deployed to Afghanistan and back again before they will even be half way through their flight training.

What is FOA now-a-days?  Isn't it around $17/day??  Flight pay is only $4/day more.  Aircrew are also limited to only claiming a maximum of 12 days/month (approx $250) - is there a limit on FOA claims?


----------



## Inch (8 Feb 2005)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> Overall you are quite correct.   The general nature and wording of my post was innapropriate.   I do; however, believe that I raised some valid points about questionable expenditures which were not adequately answered.   The fact that quarters were poor in the past does not, in my view, justify a double standard of living for equal ranks in the present.   It is true that the cost is greater but I doubt it offsets the increased cost to the taxpayer.   Furthermore I remain unconvinced that flight pay should be greater than field pay.   DPT, no offense intended,   but I don't see how the amount of time you have spent in the field explains why a pilot with BOTC under his belt has more entitlement to gore-tex than me.



Spinnaker, good post, I didn't mean to come down on you but nothing burns my arse more than some of the stereotypes you mentioned. 

For your friends, tell them they've got long, stressful and very humbling training ahead of them. They're not aircrew until they get their wings pinned on them. Meanwhile you'll be leading a platoon while they're staying up at night stressing out because they're almost out of time and need to pass their next flight or that's the end of life as they know it.

For the maid service, as I said, this is standard fare across the country, it's not just relegated to Air Force bases. I've had a maid cleaning my room on a weekly basis at every base I've been to, including the mega (after BOTC of course), IIRC. One more thing about the shacks in MJ, since they're the only shacks there, you'd be staying in them too if you ever went there. I'm not sure what you mean by double standard, most Air Force bases I've been to have very nice shacks. It seems the Air Force spends a little more on their singles quarters, but in most cases I'd hardly call it a waste of taxpayers money. The AF is just a little ahead of the curve with respect to quality of life that's all, not to mention that a new building is cheaper to maintain than an older building.

As for the entitlement to Goretex, I agree you should have it before the baby-pilots, but that's a function of the uniform they wear (ie blue) and as I said before, the AF just tendered and acquired their CADPAT before the Army. Everyone has it here in Shearwater, or will next week, including clerks, techs and aircrew.

I'm with Zoomie when it comes to FOA, I was under the impression that that doesn't max out like Aircrew does. At $16.41 a day, you'll match and exceed our aircrew in 16 days. It takes us 11 to max out on Casual Aircrew, standard Aircrew is $254 a month regardless of how much flying you do. Considering you don't always max out that Casual Aircrew since you only get it if you go flying, I'd have to say getting FOA just for showing up has it's advantages, even if it's less.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2005)

Spinaker, good show on your clarification -- stand up move!   Don't worry, as you get old and wizzened like some of us, you'll have inter-element bashing down to a fine art!   I think I ruffled some feathers in my earlier days, but hey...we have pretty thick skin by now. ;D     I was just giving you the gears about field time...your or my time in field has nothing to do with your entitlement...more your unit.    

Ironically, I hear you about not getting the gear when you're doing your thing.   It seems like pulling teeth to get anything out of the AF   for TH folks, that is.   I was the 10 TAG then 1 Wing ALSEO (avn life sp eqpt O) when we were deploying into Bosnia and Kosovo.   It seemed that the AF was far more interested in pushing out blue gore-tex for all the techs and other non-aircrew at domestic air bases before looking after deploying aircrew.   The AF told us, "nope, blue is just fine." (Yeah, thaaat's nice!)   Luckily, when I briefed my Comd (then Col now MGen Bouchard, 1 Can Air Div Comd) and showed how a tac hel pilot in Bosnia in blue gore-tex and fighting order looked almost exactly like a Serbian Interior Ministry "Police" officer (MUP), he got pissed off, made a quick phonecall somewhere, and we were able first to get a temp issue of some of the Army's UOR IECS gore-tex (thanks greatly to Doug Palmer's help in DLR CTS) and subsequently re-birth our original mid-90's request for aviator's specific gore-tex gear ("OG107-green" aviator's gore-tex, known as TACoWWs (tac avn cold wet wx system), brother to the blue "ECoWWs" Gore-tex your fellow AF students wear.)   Not that the AF made this process easy...it was like pulling teeth all the way.   The Air Force fought green gear tooth and nail...in fact a previous CAS was actually overheard saying, "The Air Force will have CADPAT over my dead body!" *sigh*   What can you do when senior leadership doesn't want to help...or worse yet, impede progress of giving the lads the kit they need.   Folks used to laugh at us Tac Hel guys for the two-piece, 'ugly green' flight suit.   They had obviously never had to dump in the field at -30*... ;D   Then we tell them we need gear for hot weather (sticky hot Balkan summers, Haiti (again), etc...) sorry..take a number!   The proud, light blue air force wouldn't do jack to get tac hel a lightweight, fire retardent flight suit suitable for tactical ops...without getting myself in crap, all I'll say is never underestimate: a) using an American accent, b) having a 7-digit DSN number (at the time), c) using only US terminology, d) having some good friends slide you an NSN for Spec Ops Aviator flight gear (thanks Nightstalker brothers!), and e) description of Canadian aviation assets in Kosovo with a slightly more...ummm...American-sounding unit descriptor (i.e. 1st of the 408th aviation battalion, "just north of Task Force Eagle, in Pristina...")   End result: tan, lightweight, nomex, 2-pc flight suits that only the 160th SOAR used at the time....thanks, Canadian Air Force! : Uh-oh....there goes my blood pressure alarm! 

Funny how only now that other AF elements (other than tactical and maritime aviators) are delpoying, expounding the benefits of tactical gear, is wearing of 2-pc suits, nomex, and DARE I SAY IT, even CADPAT...an acceptable thing in the Air Force. :   Oh yeah, don't get me started on why 2-pc nomex, CADPAT flying gear is on the very last of the list for aircrew...the fast air guys haven't got all their swish, 1-pc cool nomex zoot suits yet...*sigh*

Man...I gotta lay of these XLarge Timmy's in the morning...my head is pulsating!   Is 175 over 150 a bad BP? ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (8 Feb 2005)

Some pts:   I'm at a Tac Hel unit now, have been for the last 5 years.   Tac Hel is extremely busy and demanding, but I find it rewarding.   I like the small Sqn feel and feel like a part of the team, not a number as I did in Trenton.   I must add that I did 2 years in the infantry reserves and I think it actually rubbed off on me when I asked for Tac Hel.
The cadpat rain suit does have the shiny stuff, but when worn in the field it is folded under a cadpat piece of material and thus it is tactical.   Don't think that the AF has the best kit.   Try going to supply on my base and get the same or equivalent kit as my Army brothers.   Can't get the good gloves, boots, fleece, new jackets (Cadpat, not olive), tac carrying vest, just was allowed permission to get the new field cadpat hat (supply actually gave me the American pattern one when I first inquired about the new hat, hmm, am I American or Canadian?).   Can't get the socks, and many others.   The minute supply finds out that you are at the Tac Hel Sqn is when a different set of SOPs are pulled out.   I have to agree that the AF dragged its foot on acquiring Cadpat and proper kit for Tac Hel folks.   Here's my solution to the problem, as every good mbr should have when they complain about something:

1.   Stop bickering between the army and air forces about who will pay for what;
2.   We are all on the same, small team called the CF;
3. Use money resources wisely.   Running two different programs to accomplish the same thing is just silly and wastes taxpayer's money.   I do realize that some kit such as aircrew kit has to be specially made.   Also, some kit must be statically electric resistant (don't want the aviation fuel going boom), etc;
4.   When a person is posted to an army base, that person should be entitled to the same kit as everyone else and be provided the additional kit specific to his MOC or employment.   Not allowed a tac carrying vest at a Tac Hel unit until a deployment order or message is in my hands?   Come on, give me a break.   One thing that I did learn in the Army reserves was that you train with the equipment that you will use in war or on deployment.   Can anyone actually argue to me that giving me my tac carrying vest 2 days before I deploy is acceptable?   Meanwhile, I continue trg with the webbing.

As per giving the Tac Hel guys more resources, here's my take:

1.   We at Tac Hel do what we can with what we have.   The Griffon can be used in the CF.   It does have its limitations in terms of lift, power at high alts, etc., but if you tailor or limit the missions that it does, it does those missions superbly.   I wouldn't use it to lift arty or an entire company in one or two chalks, but small platoon or section inserts are admirably accomplished by the banana eaters (Tac Hel pilots will laugh at this one).    No, I'm not a pilot, but there is a friendly and healthy rivalry among us which only adds to the Sqn;
2.   Upgrade a number of the Griffons to the Super Huey specs.   I know that the US is having trouble starting the production line because of Afghanistan and Iraq, but once this is started up, piggybacking onto the line would save considerable costs.   It has been done in the past, e.g. Airbus AARs.   Each main deployable Sqn (408, 427, and 430) would receive a certain number of them (don't ask me how many as I won't say on this public forum).   The Total Force Sqns could receive some for trg purposes, but due to fiscal restraints I would send them to the three mentioned.   403 should, of course, get their fair share due to trg needs.   Keep some of the Griffons and use the Super Griffons (my name, like it?   Hee, hee) for other misisons;
3.   Buy some medium to heavy lift helos.   Not sure which one, but the Chinooks are still workhorses.   Does anybody know if Boeing still makes them?;
4. Equip some of the Super Griffons with ERSTA and arm some.   These two ideas have been floated around but money killed one and the other, I think, is only at the initial stages, if it will proceed at all (money and priorities set by the Army on what they want Tac Hel to do);
5. More mission kits are needed;
6. Where are the new Mercedes?   Need um to train on prior to any deployment?;
7. More personnel needed.   Aircrew are short.   Too few ACs, ATCs, and techs.   Don't count a tech that just came out of Borden as a warm body filling a position on a TO&E.   Count em after he is at least a Journeyman POM.

I honestly think that things will improve for Tac Hel with the new CDS.   If it is true that the Army is to become the "Primary Service", this will only serve to help Tac Hel (I say that as a fact, although I personally do not support the idea of having one primary service).   The other fleets have extreme importance.   Fighters, once the upgrade is completed, will be fully operational with our NATO allies.   They are still a good a/c and can be used in ground attack roles and air-to air combat.   The new Cyclone will be good for the MH folks, although it is ridiculous how long it took.   SAR is in good shape and should improve with a new SAR fixed wing a/c whenever it comes.   The Hercs, wow, I don't know what to say.   They're a hurting.   They need new a/c, plain and simple.   Also, give us some heavy tac lift capability.   The higher-ups need to remember that each service is important and has its roles.   Eliminating a role is easy to do.   It saves money.   However, it takes a lot more money to re-start it once you realize that you miss it.   Case in point, the Chinooks and 707 refuellers (new Airbus ones).   

There ain't no hell like Tac Hel....


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2005)

There must be enough pilots in this thread to form an independent squadron!!


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2005)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> (the site actually changed the hel*, with the star replaced by an "l" with heck.  Someone explain to me why hel* is a bad word?).  It is in the dictionary and is a common term used at a Tac Hel unit.  In fact, many pers have license plates (me included) with that motto.



Go into your profile and turn off the censor feature.


----------



## bossi (10 Feb 2005)

Wow - what an informative thread for a piece of cargo like me ... thanks, guys - this has been both educational and enjoyable (and I hope somebody who's name rhymes with Hillier reads your discussion about the Air Force blue on green garbage - that's a crock - now I have a much better insight into why some countries have "Army Aviation" and "Fleet Air Arms" ... so their tactical avn doesn't get screwed over by the zoomies, etc. ...)


----------



## Scoobs (10 Feb 2005)

Thanks Infanteer, it fixed the problem...


----------



## Sapper6 (12 Feb 2005)

Duey (was: DPT) said:
			
		

> **edit* -- S6, I forgot about the 159th!   Did the 47's have refuelling booms?   If they didn't, then you're right, it was the 159th, not 3/160. *
> 
> Ah for the days when we could smoke a few machines in behind the Carelton Mess for TGIF...good time had by all. *sniff, sniff*
> 
> ...



Duey,

       The Chinooks we were in were painted OD and did not have the refuelling booms, so I think they were from the 159th.  However, along with the PaveLows there was a Company of Chinooks in Kandahar that were painted black and had the refuelling booms - they must have been from the 160th.  As an aside:  US Avn crews slept alongside us in tents and ate the same MREs as their buddies in the 101st AB Div and we did in the 3 PPCLI BG.  They were very mission focused and had callsigns like "Killer Spade" and "Black Stallion"...very cool.  You gotta like the Americans - they haven't lost the warrior spirit!

S6


----------



## Scoobs (12 Feb 2005)

Sapper6,  folks in Tac Hel Sqns in Canada also tent it with the Army when on Ex or deployed.  Primary example was in Haiti and on the last winter ex I was on (about 1 month ago) with the RCR.  As for call signs, Tac Hel uses functional call signs that have a meaning and everyone knows that.  As for the use of names, that is for the Americans to use.  What good would using names instead of callsigns be for new pers coming in or interoperability with other units or Sqns?  Not much.


----------



## Sapper6 (19 Feb 2005)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Sapper6,   folks in Tac Hel Sqns in Canada also tent it with the Army when on Ex or deployed.   Primary example was in Haiti and on the last winter ex I was on (about 1 month ago) with the RCR.   As for call signs, Tac Hel uses functional call signs that have a meaning and everyone knows that.   As for the use of names, that is for the Americans to use.   What good would using names instead of callsigns be for new pers coming in or interoperability with other units or Sqns?   Not much.



Scoobs,

My beef has never been with the Cdn Tac Hel folks.  I've worked alongside the Tac Hel folks for the last 19 yrs and agree that our guys don't mind "roughing it" when they have to. [Aside: the popcorn machine in Wainwright with 408 THS was pushing it a bit IMHO]  Further, I would be the first to admit that I want the pilot and crew flying me to be well rested and not suffering from food poisoning.  So, I've got no problem when they set up their modular camp and bring out the beds with mattresses with cocoa matting on the floor.  What I had a problem with was the Herc pilots at Camp Mirage refusing to move into a purpose-built (ATCO style) camp during Op APOLLO, instead staying in a 4 Star Hotel.

Finally, I will admit that my comments about US Avn units and their call-signs during my experiences in Afghanistan could have been taken out of context.  I was only spurring Duey on as he sounds like he has an affinity to the American chopper pilots.  I agree that our callsigns work just fine and that is why we didn't change our Army callsigns to reflect what our American Brigade was using....much to their chagrin.

S6

p.s. BTW my current nickname on this forum is a play on the American callsign system...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2005)

Scoobs, the guys weren't using "Hotel" callsigns in the Boz, IIRC the guys (other than 408'ers) thought the call-sign they were "stuck" with was not the most...er...can one say "hu-ah"-ish?  "Gander" doesn't quite seem to rank up there with "Black Stallion" or "Killer Spade". 

S6, it would be nice if aviation were supported by both Army and AF in Canada as the US Army and Marine aviators are...*sigh*.  Some guys may argue that a call sign is just a phrase to identify, but our friends to the South often use them as a bit of a rallying/motivational factor.  LOL Imagine if you were forced to use a call sign like "Fluffy" or "Lym Pidik"... ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------

