# Top general slams ‘toxic narratives’ in media coverage of Canadian Forces



## hambley92 (3 Feb 2017)

From the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/top-general-slams-toxic-narratives-in-media-coverage-of-canadian-forces/article33891706/?1486128843861

The whole thing seems a bit ironic to me given that Gen Vance has been so vocal about these current topics with the media.



> Canada’s top general says the country’s armed forces have been demeaned by “very toxic narratives” in media coverage of sexual harassment in the military and poor treatment of soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance made the comments during a speech to the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, where he also said that Canada is poised to do “great things” with its American allies in the era of U.S. President Donald Trump once the new administration gets its footing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Feb 2017)

The last line is a nice summary.  I suspect the CAF will continue to get the lash and little encouragement though.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2017)

> He talked of common interests in procurement....



What does that mean?


----------



## Half Full (3 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What does that mean?


I am assuming he is talking about getting better deals from industry...eg. F35s...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2017)

Half Full said:
			
		

> I am assuming he is talking about getting better deals from industry...eg. F35s...



...or more effective procurement from whole-of-Government itself... :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2017)

> ...or more effective procurement from whole-of-Government itself... :nod:


 If you mean Canadian government military procurement system, I suspect you are joking.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If you mean Canadian government military procurement system, I suspect you are joking.



I turned in my winter boots a year or two ago on order.  I still don't have winter boots and I was just out standing on a range all day where it was - 30C

How is the media supposed to put a good spin on that?


----------



## dimsum (3 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I turned in my winter boots a year or two ago on order.  I still don't have winter boots and I was just out standing on a range all day where it was - 30C
> 
> How is the media supposed to put a good spin on that?



You didn't tie garbage bags to your feet and stuffed them with old newspapers?   >


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If you mean Canadian government military procurement system, I suspect you are joking.



In no way am I joking that I think the CDS wants procurement to be better, and the GoC (not just DND) is critical to that.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2017)

Not what I meant. It is the system that is a joke. I agree the CDS wants a functioning system. Is the CDS hinting at procurement deals with the US or is the context "He talked of common interests in procurement" part of the sentence the Reporter's screw up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Feb 2017)

I got the new boots from Kodiak, three weeks of wearing them and the side heel blew out on one.  Not even at the seam, the fabric just came apart.

I have a project the next Army SM can focus his 100% energy towards.  It would be refreshing to see leadership take an actual interest in the lifting of our soldiers.  

Footwear is sort of important in an Army.


----------



## dimsum (4 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Footwear is sort of important in an Army a military.



Us light blue folks don't generally walk as much as you do, but when the soles are like pucks in the winter and the heel cups carve our feet, that's no bueno.  We also can't (by the rules) get much lighter boots, thanks to the requirement for steel toes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Feb 2017)

I'm not saying our sea boots are perfect, but we don't seem to be having the same issues the other two arms are.  I wonder why that is?  I have no complaints about what I have for either hot or cold climate.  If I have anything to bitch about it's our jackets.  The Gortex just doesn't cut it in winter and that's the best we've got.  You guys have shitty boots, we have shitty winter jackets.  Go figure...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> We also can't (by the rules) get much lighter boots, thanks to the requirement for steel toes.



Well, the requirement is for safety toe, not necessarily steel...despite what is stated on page 27 of this article "..._the use of composite materials was considered, but these materials did not offer the CSA safety standard that was required – therefore leading to the use of steel plates and steel toes_...

It also states "_unlike Air Force requirements, Army boots were not designed with Flame Resistant (FR) or Shock Resistant qualities, part of the CSA Grade 1 certification requirements_";  so, assuming the RCAF boots were to be a CSA 1 grade level for sole puncture and toe impact.

I'm using the Safety Symbol Index from the Work Authority for the sole (ha!) reason that this is where my Wing Clothing sends me for my LPO boots for both my TCB and CWWBs.

CSA Green Triangle

The CSA Green triangle patch indicates sole puncture protection with Grade 1 Protective toe to withstand impacts up to 125 joules. Sole puncture protection is designed to withstand a force of not less than 1200 Newtons (270 pounds).

I haven't had the issued air force Temperate or Cold Wet Weather boots in some time now, but IIRC they have the Green triangle on them in the inside of the tonque.  However, both my LPO Temperate Combat Boots, Magnum Stealth Force 8.0s and my LPO Cold Wet Weather boots, Bates GX-8 Model #2284 [Goretex, Composite toe/plate, 200g thinsulate] are also CSA Grade 1 boots with the Green Triangle.

The requirement is safety toes, according to the article CSA Grade 1 but composite toes/plates are certified to Grade 1.  What *is* different...the price.  My Bates cost about $250/pair, whereas the issued Cripplers are about $90/pair I was told.

This whole "must be steel toe" thing sort of irks me.  IMO, the CAF/RCAF went with 'steel' to save money and then said it was because composite can't attain the same CSA grade as steel, which is just BS.  I can assure you, though, that both my Magnums and Bates boots are MUCH lighter than the issued Cripplers, which were over 5lbs a pair.

Now you have something to ask the "guest speaker" at the next town hall you're forced to go to  ;D !  _Why are AF people carrying steel weights around for hours a day on their feet_??



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Us light blue folks don't generally walk as much as you do, but when the soles are like pucks in the winter and the heel cups carve our feet, that's no bueno.



Make sure you are wearing the CWWBs in the colder temps if you are forced to wear issued boots;  page 28 of the same Flight Comment article:

The Cold Wet Weather Boot (CWWB) will cover the -25°C to +10°C range “in all operating locations.” The boot sole is designed much like a winter tire, with a softer compound that will more easily grip icy surfaces without becoming a FOD hazard.

The Temperate Combat Boot (TCB) will address the +10°C to +30°C range and will have a harder rubber compound sole, providing the appropriate amount of cushioning in warmer climates.

If you don't have boots that are black on the inside, and ones that are grey on the inside, you don't have both TCBs and CWWBs.  Most people I knew didn't know there was a winter and summer one, or just wore the TCB all year around.  Harder sole on that one and no Gortex liner, less Thinsulate too IIRC.

_Of note, the ECWB and CWWB have a Gore Tex liner within the boot wall, providing the Wet Weather resistance, whereas the TCB and DCB are made with breathable liners, thus providing the
appropriate wicking in moist/warm environments.
_


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Feb 2017)

LogOLife said:
			
		

> From the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/top-general-slams-toxic-narratives-in-media-coverage-of-canadian-forces/article33891706/?1486128843861
> 
> The whole thing seems a bit ironic to me given that Gen Vance has been so vocal about these current topics with the media.



I guess he's forgotten what a hull down position is supposed to look like. Stand by for more incoming


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2017)

Half Full said:
			
		

> I am assuming he is talking about getting better deals from industry...eg. F35s...



One best case would be access to discounted brand new US military contract Sig Sauer P320s to replace our Brownings or....
worst case a huge bunch of hand-me-down Beretta M9 pistols to replace our Brownings.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Feb 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> One best case would be access to discounted brand new US military contract Sig Sauer P320s to replace our Brownings or....
> worst case a huge bunch of hand-me-down Beretta M9 pistols to replace our Brownings.



I'm pretty sure the folks at DLR could shoot holes (see what I did there? ;D ) in an expedited procurement of P320s, or VP9s, or S&W M&Ps, etc.... :nod:

G2G


----------



## Haggis (6 Feb 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the folks at DLR could shoot holes (see what I did there? ;D ) in an expedited procurement of P320s, or VP9s, or S&W M&Ps, etc.... :nod:



Nicely played...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Feb 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> One best case would be access to discounted brand new US military contract Sig Sauer P320s to replace our Brownings or....
> worst case a huge bunch of hand-me-down Beretta M9 pistols to replace our Brownings.



Our pistol contract is small potatoes, a nice to have but the numbers are smaller than many US police departments. The only issue is our procurement system. We now have the G17, Sig 2022 or P320 as NATO pistols. Just order any of them.


----------

