# Are Canadian Forces equipped for Afghan mission?



## D-n-A (29 Sep 2005)

> Thu Sep 29 2005
> 
> By Dianne DeMille and Stephen Priestley
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Sep 2005)

That articles is so riddled with inaccuracies and half truths that it was not worth the time to read. Where did it come from? CASR?


----------



## KevinB (29 Sep 2005)

Terrible article.

 One just has to look at our pilots and what they have identified as the need - specifically the Chinook.

Just as I would be disgusted with someone armschairing my needs as a 031 - I am equally disgusted with doing the same to pilots


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Sep 2005)

I'm left shaking my head.

The idea that we could somehow "contract" tactical aviation flying combat missions to a civilian contractor boggles the mind.  I'm sure Kelowna Flightcraft would love to see some of its helicopters return home full of 14.5mm holes - without getting into insurance and liability issues.  Moreover, how using clapped out leased Russian aircraft flown by foreign pilots (typically with a somewhat dodgy reputation) would contribute to our mission in Afghanistan is beyond me.  Give me a reliable ally any time.

The article's sadly typical of the claptrap generated by the "experts" out there.


----------



## AoD71 (30 Sep 2005)

What do you guys think needs to be done about the issue?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Sep 2005)

AoD71 said:
			
		

> What do you guys think needs to be done about the issue?



Search the forums as there are main alternativies and ideas many have posted here.


----------



## childs56 (30 Sep 2005)

Guys civie contracting could work. Look at all the private contractors already over seas. How they would work flying our pilots into combat is another question. I know of a few civie pilots in BC that are army reserve members and given the chance they might fly one of these helos as a civie. so dont think that option is that far off. 

The comment on Kelowna Flightcraft not wanting to see bullet holes in the helos (really no one wants to see holes in their Helo's). That is what the contract would be for and that is why the company would purchase their choppers to lease to us.(this is a generic statement). I will say this if a company leases their choppers and pilots to fly missions over seas the last thing they will be worried about is insurance on the aircraft or people. If the equipment gets destroyed they get a new one under the terms of the lease, if the people get hurt or die they and or their familys would be compensated for it. That is a business. 

I flew in Hips over seas, I was impressed with the way the chopper flew and what it could do. As for comments on the foregin pilots and their dodgy reputation, well i seen some of the best flying come from them. Anyone who thinks zooming along the ground at 150Kts or  100ft off the deck and then the pilot thinking this is fun.  If that isnt dodgy then i dont know what is. (did i mention dodging trees and power wires). I know a few pilots whom like flying like thatand their not foregin, That is the thrill of it, doing the job. So ya the  foreign pilots are insane, but to me that is normal for them. they fly the envelope because that is their job and their passion. 

The HIP is an excellant helo, how can we complain, we havent anything of a comparibilty in the same role. 

Wait for the new wave of changes i think a few people are going to be miffed. and others out right repulsed. but like it or hate it we are a changing and units are deploying, even the ones that have not for a while. Good luck. 

PS i would perfer a dodgy forgien pilot and their clapped out helo over walking any day.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Sep 2005)

I violently disagree, CTD.

Civvy aircraft and pilots couldn't work under any circumstance, aside from the most benign "peacekeeping" operation. 

How many civilian companies are willing to fly their aircraft on combat missions, which is what we're talking about here?  How many are willing to mount door guns?  How many are willing to modify their aircraft to mount the appropriate avionics and IFF systems, not to mention the communications?  What about armoured floors, etc..? Are civilian pilots trained for air assault operations?  Can they fly nap of the earth, fully blacked out, wearing NODs?

Ever see photos of what the Americans did with their Chinooks during Op APOLLO?  No civilian would endanger his aircraft or take risks the way the US Army does - risks that must be taken in the current operational environment.  What were the authors of this article thinking?  Have they read the news from Afghanistan?

Finally, as a soldier, I would trust our allies LONG before a mercenary flying a helicopter of dubious servicability and history.  Frankly, I've seen Russian and Ukrainian pilots (not flying helicopters, mind you) in action...I'd rather walk.


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Finally, as a soldier, I would trust our allies LONG before a mercenary flying a helicopter of dubious servicability and history.   Frankly, I've seen Russian and Ukrainian pilots (not flying helicopters, mind you) in action...I'd rather walk.


Hear, Hear.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2005)

An example of the Eastern Bloc's finest - Kabul, Jan 05 - something to bear in mind when discussing using similar "assets" to fly tactical helicopter missions.

The Russian IL-76 touched down almost 500m before the start of the runway, wiping out an old Afghan house.  The landing gear was completely ripped off, as can be seen in the photos.  The IL never touched down in Kabul, but instead proceeded to Dushanbe, where it "landed".  Weather at the time was perfectly clear.  Pilot error... and the guys at KAIA suspected alcohol was a factor.

Helicopters?   :rofl:


----------



## childs56 (1 Oct 2005)

A question then. How about civies fixing those machines over seas that you may be getting to fly in. 

I doubt that most of our Helos right now have proper IFF and all those guru electronic equipment you talk about. Can we install it on aircraft, YES. would a civie company do this, well actually yes, most of them already have better comms equipment then the CF does any ways. 
 I would figure that not every company would put in for a contract to add weapons to their aircraft and alow them to be shot up. So this would be a limiting factor for most. I am sure that their are more then a few companies that could and would provide the type of flying that is required over seas. Ever seen what some of those helicopter pilots in the bush can and will do every day they fly.   Helilogging up the side of a mountain is about as close as nap of the earth as one would go, and that is with a few thousand pounds underneath you. Forestry firefighting helos fly pretty good nap of the earth also. 

The bottom line is if you deploy you will hitch a ride with who ever gives it to you,   To say that a civie copany could not provide helo support is a very narrow way to look at the way things look. You can train them for the particuler flying you want.   This would all be in the contract. To loose helos and get shot up well that would be part of the job. To call them mercs is up to you. We dont need the company to provide door gunners and such, i think we can fullfill that very well. We do need the quility of pilot that many civie companies have that we are lacking. 

The thing is we will see in the future what happens. We may go civie or we may go military heavy/medium lift. then again we may still relly on our allies to ferry us around and be low on the priorite list for their chocks.   Who knows. 

I come back to the first question about civies fixing those machines you may fly in? These civies are deployed over seas with the aircraft.

I am not trying to be an ass but we must look at the possibities of this in the future. I really dont like it all that much myself but it might be a reality one day soon.
cheers guys


----------



## Gunner (1 Oct 2005)

You gotta love the eastern bloc countries....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> A question then. How about civies fixing those machines over seas that you may be getting to fly in.
> 
> I doubt that most of our Helos right now have proper IFF and all those guru electronic equipment you talk about. Can we install it on aircraft, YES. would a civie company do this, well actually yes, most of them already have better comms equipment then the CF does any ways.
> I would figure that not every company would put in for a contract to add weapons to their aircraft and alow them to be shot up. So this would be a limiting factor for most. I am sure that their are more then a few companies that could and would provide the type of flying that is required over seas. Ever seen what some of those helicopter pilots in the bush can and will do every day they fly.   Helilogging up the side of a mountain is about as close as nap of the earth as one would go, and that is with a few thousand pounds underneath you. Forestry firefighting helos fly pretty good nap of the earth also.
> ...



You have no idea what you're talking about do you?   To my knowledge, civilians do not ever repair CF aircraft, especially overseas.   I'm not 100% sure about the US Army's situation (especially vis a vis KBR), but don't believe they've turned this over to contractors in theatre either. We certainly DO have IFF and all the associated systems - and used them constantly in Bosnia.   Civvies have better comms equipment?   Like encrypted TCCCS and SINGARS compatible radios, I suppose... :

Edited to add this caveat:  I'm not Air Force and won't pretend to be an expert on aircraft avionics.  Therefore, I'll defer instantly on technical matters to any of the pilots who routinely post here.

Back in the days of yore, I worked in forestry and have some experience with civvy helicopters...(I'm from BC).   There is NO comparison to combat flying and any suggestion to the contrary displays a rather stunning ignorance of the operational environment in Afghanistan.   It is hardly "hitching a ride" - proper tactical flying - particularly heliborne operations - takes years of practice and outstanding equipment designed for that purpose.   The Americans (and some others, including Canadians) are expert at it...   Again, I know who I would "ride" with and who I wouldn't...


----------



## Big Red (1 Oct 2005)

I haven't been to Afghanistan so I'm not going to speculate on what the CF needs for helo support on the new mission.  If they do indeed need heavier helicopters than the Griffin then what are the options? The government can purchase better helos or hire a PMC to provide airlift.  Neither of these is going to happen. Maybe we will just fly when nobody else has anything important to do and can lend an aircraft to their poor neighbours to the North.

To say that there are no private companies with pilots that have much more combat experience than anything the CF has to offer is absurd.  Companies exist that have experienced pilots, heavy lift capability, and firepower that the CF does not have.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2005)

Big Red true - but I can not see the Canadian public accepting us being forced to hire BlackWater to perform our combat aviation.  


CTD - your way offbase when stating that civie companies have pilots of better quality than the CF.  VERY VERY few countries have pilots specialized on low level night avation operations.  As Teddy already alluded your out of you lane on comparing what civilian pilots and military pilots do.

  Perhaps you could offer some background on yourself to provide illumination as to your experience etc. that is giving you the knowledge to makes these recomondations?  From where I am sitting it looks like your the owner of a civilian aviation company with some unused birds...


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2005)

CTD

All I can say is, with those ideas that you are spouting, some ignorant bureaucrat is going to take them as gospel, and cost saving, and then implement them, resulting in needless death to our troops.  You are way off base here.  I may tend to agree that some Ex-CF Helio pilots may be filling roles in Civie Companies, but don't get into equipment.  Don't even compare Civilian flight with Military.

Your comment on equipment losses and their replacement was totally asinine.  "They will be replaced as per the contract".  By whom?  Do you mean that the Civie Company will replace their downed aircraft out of pocket; or out of our pocket (Cdn Tax Dollars)?  I can't see a Civie Company upgrading any of its' aircraft to military standards, and adding on armour, for any short term contract and then not be able to employ these aircraft after the contract is done.  Too expensive and not good business sense.

I have never had any faith in the quality of any Warsaw Pact equipment, including aircraft.  Quality is something I would want in any vehicle that I was being transported in, be it manufacture, maintenance, or operator/driver/pilot.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2005)

Big Red said:
			
		

> To say that there are no private companies with pilots that have much more combat experience than anything the CF has to offer is absurd.   Companies exist that have experienced pilots, heavy lift capability, and firepower that the CF does not have.



Big Red:  I was arguing against a Canadian or War Pac contractor.  I realize that there are PMCs with very experienced pilots (I've worked with GRS, DynCorp and a couple of others many times and will leave my personal opinion/attitude out of this discussion) but (1) there's NO way the Government or public would accept the optics of the CF hiring a PMC and (2) what I said about equipment shortfalls still applies, regardless of the quality of the PMC.  There aren't many PMCs flying Chinooks and GW reflects the attitude of many serving members when referring to Russian equipment - particularly from a third source.


----------



## teddy49 (1 Oct 2005)

"You have no idea what you're talking about do you?  To my knowledge, civilians do not ever repair CF aircraft, especially overseas.  I'm not 100% sure about the US Army's situation (especially vis a vis KBR), but don't believe they've turned this over to contractors in theatre either."

Virutally all US rotary wing maintenance and repair for OIF is done by private contractors in theatre.  I can't remember the name of the company but I talked to some of the guys who worked for it in the DFAC in Camp Cooke, Taji.  It's not KBR though.  A guy I worked with at KBR was also an aviation mechanic and applied to them from in theatre.  I don't know if he got the job though.

"How many civilian companies are willing to fly their aircraft on combat missions, which is what we're talking about here?  How many are willing to mount door guns?  How many are willing to modify their aircraft to mount the appropriate avionics and IFF systems, not to mention the communications?  What about armoured floors, etc..? Are civilian pilots trained for air assault operations?  Can they fly nap of the earth, fully blacked out, wearing NODs?"

"Your comment on equipment losses and their replacement was totally asinine.  "They will be replaced as per the contract".  By whom?  Do you mean that the Civie Company will replace their downed aircraft out of pocket; or out of our pocket (Cdn Tax Dollars)?  I can't see a Civie Company upgrading any of its' aircraft to military standards, and adding on armour, for any short term contract and then not be able to employ these aircraft after the contract is done.  Too expensive and not good business sense."

I'm not saying yeah or nay to the idea.  I'm sure that the Canadian public would be dead set against it.  As well as DND.  But it is technically possible.  I'll try and explain how, using KBR as an example.  And before you fire up the flame throwers, I know helicopters are more expensive than trucks, but trucks are what my experience is with, so that's the example I'm using.

KBR own virtually nothing.  They are a giant employment agency with a contract to provide services to the US Army.  But the US Army provides the equipment.  What happens when KBR needs fuel tankers, they first try and lease them from a third party.  If they can get those trucks to come with drivers who get paid a pittance compared to what an expat would make, so much the better.  If not then they have a personnel processing center in Houston that can enroll 800 people a week.  They can get drivers.  So they get the trucks, and shell out for the lease but then they forward the bill to Major Smudley, Rock Island Arsenal who pays them out under the terms of the LOGCAP III contract.   Then they up armour the trucks with Kevlar blankets that the US army has already paid for and have their new drivers, clad in body armour and helmets paid for by the US Army, drive them to Iraq.

If they can't lease the trucks, then they wander down to the mercedes truck dealer, I think it was the one in Dubai, and ordered 300 Actros 3848 T-bunk tractors for delivery as soon as possible to their yard in Kuwait.  Again send the bill to Major Smudley at Rock Island Arsenal.  They only did that once.  After that they started dealing with Daimler Chrysler directly.  So then the US Army was the proud new owner of 300 Mercedes trucks.  Which after they finished uparmouring them, the army ended up driving because nobody from KBR would drive them.  Possibly the worst designed armour kit in history, they were death traps literally, but that's another thread.  But do you see a pattern developing here.  So getting back to leased trucks the leasing company knew what the trucks were being used for and charged lease rates in accordance, so they paid the truck off in about 3 months.  If it got blown up after that, it was paid for and the the army bought themselves a shiny new pile of slag.  If it got blown up before that point, the army still paid for the slag pile, so at worst the broke even on the truck.  This also saved time in aquiring the assets.  Don't get me wrong, the army was never suprised by the bills they got.  There is an administrative process for this, but versus the army's procurement procedures it's extremely streamlined.

I'm not saying it's not expensive and without it's downsides, like ending up with a bunch of trucks and trailers that you don't really have any use for after the whole thing is wrapped up, but it is technically possible.  The company who provides the helicopters doesn't actually need to have any helicopters, they just have to know someone who does.  And having a rolodex full of pilots doesn't hurt either.  I know that the CDS would probably rather walk from Kabul to Kandahar naked with "Cadomite" tatooed in Diri and Pushtu on his butt, than institute a scheme such as this one, but it is technically possible.  I'm tired of people saying it wouldn't work.  As they say in racing, speed costs money, how fast do you want to spend.  

As far as getting civilian guys to do it, I got into the truck for every mission for 7 months after hearing a briefing that went something like this.

"We've got IEDs at 20 alpha, 22 alpha, 26, 32, 38, junction vernon and sword.  Small arms fire, at 22, 28, Sword by Abu Ghraib.  Suspected VBIED was spotted on Tampa between Vernon and Taji.  Sword is closed now to enemy action, but we're hoping it's open by the time that we get there, If not we divert to BIAP."

Before I left KBR, that was pretty much what every briefing for my last month sounded like.  Just because the guys weren't in uniform doesn't mean that they didn't beleive in the mission.  They still get in their trucks and do it and it's cost about 85 KBR drivers their lives.

And as far as the assertion that the CF would posses any more competence than people in the civilian world in a comparable trade, like flying, is ignorant.  There are some very competent people in the CF, but there are more competent people in the Civilian world.  They have to be, otherwise they get fired.  Besides how many Chinook and Kiowa drivers did we lose when we got rid of those air craft.  I'm betting that you could get a bunch of them into Afganistan for 15 large a month.  And you can recruit from other nations.  What about retired Danish chinook drivers, or retired Brits?  Americans, God Forbid?  How long does it take to teach an ex German Super Stallion pilot to fly a Chinook.  Or a Sea King pilot.  Surely flying in a contractor Tac Heli squadron in Afganistan can't be any more dangerous than flying a CF Sea King in the last 15 years.

Sorry for the small novel, but it's my $0.04


----------



## childs56 (2 Oct 2005)

Teddy you said it better then me. 

One last thing their are still alot of Vietnam Pilots flying the hills in coastal aviation, i am sure elses where.  How many helo combat pilots do we have in the CF???????


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2005)

:brickwall:

I've read the last two posts and some of what was said was relatively true, and a lot more was pure crap.


----------



## childs56 (2 Oct 2005)

George what is crap?
 Instead of stating a personal opinion in a very nonconstructive manner why not comment more on it. 
One thing i find on here is that if it is out of the norm for how things have been done or it is outside of some of the members own experience and or thought process then they will jump in and say they don't agree. 

The fact that our missions over seas and here at home are changing and ever evolving. We need to look at new ways to get things rolling again so to speak. The narrow mindedness of some members on this forum is disturbing. As this is the regular day to day attitude of a lot of the CF at this moment. Scary to think that we cannot head forward into the near future with open minds about new ways to do things, even if it is only going to be for the the short term. Wow ignorance is bliss in most of these matter. 

Off to work now busy schedule this week.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> George what is crap?


With the exception of a few good points (one being on Retired military pilots), most of what you and Teddy49 have been stating is crap.   Civilian organizations, especially Canadian companies, are not going to fill these roles.   They are not going to add any expensive mods to their equipment, out of their own pockets, without expecting some fiscal rewards for it.   Teddy49 is a former Reserve Inf Cpl now working for a Civilian Company (NOT Cdn) in a country where there is no significant CF presence.   His experiences, although credible for his job, have little relevance to the job that the CF would be expected to perform.   He has Lessons to teach on Local conditions and survival in that Region, but still nothing much to do with CF Operations.   You too, are a Cpl and your exposure to the inner sanctums of NDHQ and other HQs is limited.   Neither of you have the insight that some of the people responding to you are privy to.   If you can't accept their telling you that you are wrong, there isn't much need to carry this much further.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Oct 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> Wow ignorance is bliss in most of these matter.



Yes, it certainly is, CTD.  You've been posting a point of view that is demonstrably wrong in an operational setting.  You've contradicted people who have conducted operations in that theatre and not offered any valid responses to some of the serious points raised by other posters regarding capabilities, procurement, liability, competance and, just as important, confidence.  Instead, all we hear is how "ignorant" we are.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence to indicate how hiring PMCs or other civilian agencies - particularly Eastern European ones - to do our tactical flying in Afghanistan would be better in any way, shape or form to utilizing Allied airlift until our own procurement problems are resolved.  

As for PMCs, GW said it better than I.  Teddy49 (no relation!) is comparing apples and oranges when he compares KBR convoy operations (or even close protection for that matter) to the civilian conduct of heliborne assault operations with our guys in back.  The two are NOT the same.  KBR might do a fine job trucking supplies into the Green Zone, but that is vastly different than the actual planning conduct of offensive operations.  AFAIK, even the Americans do not have PMCs that conduct combat operations in any context.  I'll stop as I'm risking turning this into a "PMC justification session".  I have my own opinions formed by working with the cream of the crop of the PMC world and I'd better leave it at that.

Teddy49 did raise a good point, though.  This isn't going to happen - period - and the entire discussion is an academic one.  If you're wondering why it isn't going to happen, have a look back through the previous posts; you'll find the answer in there somewhere.

I'm rounds expended on this subject too...


----------



## armyvern (2 Oct 2005)

Well CTD,

I see you are a 500 series "hard AF" techie. Perhaps you are unhappy with 56 day rotos in CM? I will agree with you that civilian contractors currently maintain our Airbus fleet (and I have been present as they slammed the nose into the wall of 10Hgr at enormous financial cost) but we are talking tactical aircraft and operations here. It's a far cry from working snags back home in Canada. 
If you have done your 56 day roto in CM, you are already aware of the fact that we contract out work on our Hercs as well, in-theatre? NO. If it can't be done by the military pers in CM, or is due for it's periodic, we take good old triple pig and the rest of them out for a little jaunt to Portugal to have this done. And while they are there, we even leave some Military 'babysitters' looking after them.
I do not want some civilian walking around the camp when I am in-theatre, my main reason for this is that we are all soldier's first. If the s$%t hits the fan, you will pick up a gun as well. They won't and I don't need to waste my time or resources covering their butts for them. I'm sure some of the vets more experienced with the Supply contractor's in the Balkans can attest to this.
As for the Russians, perhaps it was before your time, but have you ever been on an Antanov as it overshot the runway and grinded it's way across the grass almost onto RCAF Road in Trenton? The Canadian zoomies I know who were on that particular little flight vow never again. And those of us who watched vowed never to let there be a first time we fly with them.
Just my .02.


----------



## Monsoon (2 Oct 2005)

I confess that my knowledge of Air Ops is limited, but it doesn't sound like CTD is suggesting anything more profound than the "private security"/mercenary concept as applied to an Air setting.  There is no question that it's possible (a company can be found to do anything to spec for enough money) but whether or not it would be the most economical or effective way of doing things is another point entirely.  I would suggest that it wouldn't: a company would just hire ex-combat pilots at twice their previous salary and be obliged to take out enormous insurance policies to manage the risk to their equipment; costs that would then be passed onto the government at a slight mark-up.  In terms of providing "surge capacity" for times of crisis (the way private security firms are used) it may prove necessary at some point, but it certainly wouldn't be ideal.

In other news - and in a completely unrelated, non-combat setting - civilian air companies are being used to great effect in coastal intelligence gathering for the military, at least out East.  Suspected Vessels of Interest are identified on radar or by satellite and civvie planes equipped with cameras sent out to make positive IDs.  The equipment and training required are so basic(unlike combat flying), that that _is_ something civilian companies can do at an economy.

And in a side note, I don't think the "we outrank you and we say your idea is stupid so accept it quietly" argument that's been posited in response to CTD's (and others') post is altogether productive.  You might find the ideas tiresome because you know that the underlying assumptions are falacious, but forums like this exist (I would like to think) to dispell ignorance and challenge such assumptions.  Angry condemnations and insults serve literally no purpose.


----------



## teddy49 (2 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With the exception of a few good points (one being on Retired military pilots), most of what you and Teddy49 have been stating is crap.   Civilian organizations, especially Canadian companies, are not going to fill these roles.   They are not going to add any expensive mods to their equipment, out of their own pockets, without expecting some fiscal rewards for it.   Teddy49 is a former Reserve Inf Cpl now working for a Civilian Company (NOT Cdn) in a country where there is no significant CF presence.   His experiences, although credible for his job, have little relevance to the job that the CF would be expected to perform.   He has Lessons to teach on Local conditions and survival in that Region, but still nothing much to do with CF Operations.   You too, are a Cpl and your exposure to the inner sanctums of NDHQ and other HQs is limited.   Neither of you have the insight that some of the people responding to you are privy to.   If you can't accept their telling you that you are wrong, there isn't much need to carry this much further.



Actually I'm a current reserve infantry corporal.   ED&Ts are wonderful things.   And while I've never been to NDHQ, I don't think that I'm that ignorant of how things work there.  As far as the diiferences between Iraq and Afganistan, other than understanding that both are insurgencies, your right I don't know much about Afganistan.  But I don't know that anything I've said rates as crap.  It's all true to the best of my knowledge.  That said, I'm in agreement with every one here, who says it won't happen.   But my point is that it is technically possible.   And if, by some miracle,it did get put out for bids, I think most people here would be suprised by the response.   And insurance is wouldn't be an issue.   At KBR we were fully insured.   The insurance company mandated the type of Body armour and other protective gear that we wore.  But let me repeat myself.  I'm not advocating this as a solution.  I'm not saying it would be possible given the current political and financial climate in Ottowa, both at NDHQ and Parliment Hill.  But if those obsticals were to remove themselves, again I understand that hell would freeze over first, then it would be possible technically.

That said, I would much rather see the CF get new Chinooks, and the necessary upgrades to the existing Tac Hel fleet, then for us to have to outsource combat power.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I confess that my knowledge of Air Ops is limited, but it doesn't sound like CTD is suggesting anything more profound than the "private security"/mercenary concept as applied to an Air setting.   There is no question that it's possible (a company can be found to do anything to spec for enough money) but whether or not it would be the most economical or effective way of doing things is another point entirely.   I would suggest that it wouldn't: a company would just hire ex-combat pilots at twice their previous salary and be obliged to take out enormous insurance policies to manage the risk to their equipment; costs that would then be passed onto the government at a slight mark-up.   In terms of providing "surge capacity" for times of crisis (the way private security firms are used) it may prove necessary at some point, but it certainly wouldn't be ideal.


A couple of things: First, there is no problems with a Civie Company doing just what Teddy49 is doing, and that is the flying in and protection of Civilians.  The problem lies in their reliability and abilities to conduct Cbt Missions with CF members.  And another thing I find a problem with is the idea that they will be able to get Insurance.  Insurance Companies will all but be happy to sell them Insurance, but don't forget they have a "War Clause" in their policies that will void any claim filed that has anything to do with any form of War or Insurgency.  


			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> In other news - and in a completely unrelated, non-combat setting - civilian air companies are being used to great effect in coastal intelligence gathering for the military, at least out East.   Suspected Vessels of Interest are identified on radar or by satellite and civvie planes equipped with cameras sent out to make positive IDs.   The equipment and training required are so basic(unlike combat flying), that that _is_ something civilian companies can do at an economy.


Employed by who?  The CF, the RCMP, Customs, Fisheries, Coast Guard, who?  Quite different, than a Cbt Patrol though.


			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> And in a side note, I don't think the "we outrank you and we say your idea is stupid so accept it quietly" argument that's been posited in response to CTD's (and others') post is altogether productive.   You might find the ideas tiresome because you know that the underlying assumptions are falacious, but forums like this exist (I would like to think) to dispell ignorance and challenge such assumptions.   Angry condemnations and insults serve literally no purpose.


I suppose none of us of any rank have supplied enough to counter any of their brilliant arguments, but their condemnations and insults don't help persuade us that they are correct either.  We are in a heated argument over apples and oranges.  There are places that have been contracted out to the Civilian Sector, but they do not work well in a Cbt Zone.  Teddy49 is not working as a member of a military organization in his job, but as a "Security Specialist' in support of and protecting Civilians in an area that is very unstable.  Quite dangerous, yet different from what we are arguing about.


----------



## teddy49 (2 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose none of us of any rank have supplied enough to counter any of their brilliant arguments, but their condemnations and insults don't help persuade us that they are correct either.   We are in a heated argument over apples and oranges.



I went back over my posts and I don't see any condemnations or insults, except for the crack about the CDS with the cadomite tatoo.   If you are the CDS then I apologize, I'm sure that you look very good naked, and all your tatoos are very tasteful 

And oranges kick apple's *** every time dammit ;D

edited for spelling


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Oct 2005)

> I don't think the "we outrank you and we say your idea is stupid so accept it quietly" argument that's been posited in response to CTD's (and others') post is altogether productive.  You might find the ideas tiresome because you know that the underlying assumptions are falacious, but forums like this exist (I would like to think) to dispell ignorance and challenge such assumptions.  Angry condemnations and insults serve literally no purpose.



hamiltongs:  It's hardly about "rank", it's about an intelligent discussion, which there's been very little of.  As I said earlier, we have made a decent attempt to demonstrate what's wrong with the entire concept based on significant experience on the actual operation in question.  Go through the rest of the thread before engaging.  There's not much of a counter-argument forthcoming, other than to be called ignorant and accused of being unwilling to try new concepts.  CTD in particular has yet to engage in a coherent discussion as to why his point of view is valid.   As I stated, I've said my piece on this subject.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2005)

Actually reading teddy's comments about how KBR and others work is an EXCELLENT example of WHY it shoudl not be done in Canada - the US does it due to their logistical tail is stretched beyond capacity for the troops they are willing to employ (troop ceiling levels - remember Vietnam - well its alive and well again in Iraq).

 However WRT tactical avation in Canada we have pilots -- we just dont have equitpment - so why would we buy Kelowna Chopper a bunch of A/C to perfrom a role that we coudl buy choppers for and crew ourselves?
 CTD's argument is assinine, in fact it flies in the face of ANY logic.  The contracts he seems to infer are a good idea - who make the CF responsible to replacement, equiping etc of these aircraft...  SO it is clearly better off for us to buy our own.  PERIOD.
 Secondly I'm an 35 years old I was born in 1970 Basically when Vietnam ended -- how many of CTD's Vietnam pilots do you thing are capable of flying combat missions today?  How many have ever looked thru a NVG system - let alone a current setup ?  They are in their late 50's at BEST.

 Quite clearly it is in the CF's best interests to operate our own gear.
1) We control the quality of pilot, the maintenance etc.
2) I am a soldier on the ground know one of our Pilots will set it down to do a MedEvac or resup under fire.  (or I'll shoot him down  ;D)

Their is ZERO advantage to hiring this out and theuir are MANY negatives - so many that the idea is STUPID, not dumb or illl advised - just plain STUPID.


----------



## TCBF (2 Oct 2005)

You don't save money by contracting out.  eventualy, the civ companies use political pull to get a sweetheart deal whereby the military covers their medical and pension costs - which is where the military planned on saving the money in the first place.

So now instead of just being on the hook on military-medicalled uniformed people and their injuries, we are also responsible for obese crack-addled sociopaths stubbing their toe on a policewoman's head ten years before they were contracted to scrub pots in Kabul.  Because "It hurts now."

Oh joy, oh bliss.

Tom


----------



## childs56 (2 Oct 2005)

It is obvious that their is no way to convey the message that it is "POSSIBLE"  to out source our helo and other operational needs for the near future. This may not need be a civie flying a machine, maybe a civie contractor whom runs the bid to other foreign goverment. It may mean that we pay out a country for direct helo support from their military. The possibilties are endless. but i have mentioned a few. 

The point here is that alot of people are saying it is impossible. Is it really? I dont think the idea is. Would or will it happen? that is another question. It is obvious that parlement is considering some of these ideas as is the CF, other wise articles would not been published and the CDS in some of his statements would not have answered these questions. 

Can we operate out side of the norm for a while. Well i have learnt that the CF is trying to train soldiers with civies now, in the use of various weapon systems and other type training. Such as use of the 25mm gun on the LAV and also other various tasks. also trying to teach shooting bye civie. A few years ago this would have been thought as ludicrous, today it is becomming a reality. 

As for i am a hard A/F techie whom enjoys our short stint deployments. I only became A/F two years ago. I was a Army reservist for a few years and been to Bosnia once. All with the Army. Not alot of expierance. 

Am i saying we should go out tomorrow and hire a civie company to fly. No The original post was this may happen and could happen what are your thoguhts on this matter. So I conveyed what i know and also what i think as has every one else here. At no point in time did i insult anyone directly. I only responded back with what statements were made with out any thing to support at all. 

I think I can say i am done with this froum on this matter. So 

Cheers all


----------



## Gunner (2 Oct 2005)

Having lived through the "doom and gloom" scenarios when CANCAP was introduced into Bosnia, I fully realize that civilians can and do have a place in a theatre of operations.  However, it is mainly done best in behind the scenes logistical support.  I think anyone who was on Roto 7 in Bosnia would admit that it wasn't a pretty transition from military to civilian.

Anything is possible given enough resources, but it is probably not practical considering the constrants that it would operate under.  Contracting out airlift to Eastern European countries is nothing new as the United Nations has been doing it for years in Africa (Sierra Leone).  Having said that, its purpose is primarily to run a shuttle service and any attempts at using it to conduct military operations were tenuous at best.  

My 2 cents having had to use contracted out airlift for six months.


----------



## Monsoon (2 Oct 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Having lived through the "doom and gloom" scenarios when CANCAP was introduced into Bosnia, I fully realize that civilians can and do have a place in a theatre of operations.  However, it is mainly done best in behind the scenes logistical support.


And it doesn't seem that anyone's saying it's "impossible" to contract out combat flying, just that it's impossible to do in any way that makes sense for the military.  The only conceivable situation I can imagine where it would make sense would be if we suddenly found ourselves in the midst of a massive air war and needed something to bridge the gap between the beginning of operations and the production of a pile of fully trained military pilots.  If a company already existed that could meet the need for combat pilots and craft in the meantime, then it could fit in as a very expensive, third-rate patch that might hold things together.  But I think we can agree that that's a pretty far-out scenario.

But with regards to logistics support, I agree that, on the face of it, there seems to be room for expansion. A sort of contract where the logistics company is responsible for the planes right up until their wheels leave the runway on a combat mission and resumes responsibility as soon as it touches down again isn't inconceivable.  The Kingston class ships have a through-life ISSC engineering support contract with a civilian firm for the (non-combat) marine systems.  The contractor doesn't guarantee anything, but a standing contract for support exists with a pre-determined fee structure to repair things when they break down.  A lot faster and (I'm told) cheaper than relying on the Fleet Maintenance Facility for support for small ships of that nature.


----------



## Monsoon (3 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Employed by who?  The CF, the RCMP, Customs, Fisheries, Coast Guard, who?  Quite different, than a Cbt Patrol though.


Absolutely different, but still something that was unthinkable ten years ago that's working out very well.  I'm not certain how the contract is managed, but I gather it's run by DND - Athena (the intel center) tasks the civvie companies directly and then hands out the information gathered to whoever needs it.  It's also been good for Fishery Patrols to find outwho's on the water and where the fleets are before the ships actually sail.


----------



## Acorn (3 Oct 2005)

OK. It's "possible" to contract aviation out, but is the risk worth it?

Consider these two points:

1. Combat insertion of troops is a perishable skill, and requires considerable coordination. Do you want to contract this to a civvy company that will have to learn this on the job and create the sort of unit cohesion that aviation squadrons (or companies in US parliance) take years to develop?

2. Do you want your aviation assets to operate without unlimited liability? How would you react if the dust-off helo crew refused to fly because the pre-flight int brief indicated a hazard level beyond what the company had defined as their break point? Or the crew considers to be too dangerous? They'd be fully within their rights.

It's "possible" to contract out the infantry function as well. Maybe there're some Swiss pikemen looking for work. Or Varangian Guardsmen. How far down that road do we go?

Acorn


----------



## Franko (3 Oct 2005)

Just to echo Kevin B.....

I do work in a HQ setting....been doing it for a while   :

We will not contract out to civies in theater....period. Doesn't matter how hard up we are for lift. We'll go to some other contingent member first. Worse comes to worse we'll mount up and drive....then walk.

Regards

BTW...I'm in theater right now and have spoken to a few higher ups about this topic, not happening...nor will it ever. Don't care what they do outside a theater of operation.


----------



## Daidalous (4 Oct 2005)

Ok I know I am jumping in a bit late but  I have some insight  on some of the questions being asked.

Do civy companies maintain  military aircraft?  Kinda yes.   In the country where CM is located the US Airforce had  (Lock Matrin or Boeing  Can not remember) set up a maintains centre for military aircraft. In 2003.

And why do we need Chinooks in Afghanistan?

1  How many of us have been at a LZ  with your section of 8  waiting to be picked up by a Griffin only to be told that the helo can pick up 3 or 4 at a time due to weight restrictions,  and that the rest will have to wait 30 min.  (In Afghanistan I think not).  Can you imagine dropping troops  of .  "OK fire team   Aloha  and  bravo  will hold off the enemy till the rest of your section arrives and we will do his for 6 hours till the company is on the ground "   eek

2.   The air is to thin,   Griffins can not operate  at 100%   which means  limited   operations in the eastern  mountain area.  i do not know if the chinook is the best helo  for this but it is tired and tested there.

My 2 cents   enjoy your turkey this week


----------

