I'll believe it when I see it.
Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,953
- Points
- 1,210
ARes would do the same thing, many field EX we stayed in shacks in wainwright instead of the field to save a few bucks in the budget
- Reaction score
- 7,431
- Points
- 1,210
Being home doesn't have to be the criteria. Anything over 6hrs in the field could count. So a range day or whatever. X number of days per month could count. Or just a re-examination of billets that have a reasonable chance of spending X amount of time in the field on a regular basis could be identified as LDA positions.
If the army thinks that being on call is a hardship then that's for them to argue. I would argue that nope, that's not what LDA is for. We're all on call all the time. I'm not getting SDA even though tomorrow my CO could tell me I'm flying to Cardiff to get on HMCS Montreal and backfill a sick CSEO on OP REASURANCE.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,764
- Points
- 1,260
At this moment in time and negative play with SDA/LDA is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and will only work to exacerbate our current issues.
I hope we are smart enough to leave this alone.
I hope we are smart enough to leave this alone.
- Reaction score
- 7,997
- Points
- 1,140
Except the SDA/LDA thing is also causing problems.
People request postings to units that get the allowance, then malinger their way out of going to sea/the field with the unit.
In a large trade or large section it might not be a major problem, but when you're in small dets of 1-4, it's damn near a crisis. Now add in an occupation that's only 70-80% to start, and it becomes even worse.
The CAF created an incentive system that has negative consequences, so the CAF needs to find ways to fix the system.
- Reaction score
- 7,431
- Points
- 1,210
It's not such a big deal with the RCN. There are obvious "sea going billets" that get SDA. Either through potential to go to sea a lot or the risk associated with keeping a ship floating whether that be alongside or doing the business.
There are edge cases (as there always will be) but I would call that normal organizational friction/waste that will occur no matter what the policy looks like. They aren't problems.
There are edge cases (as there always will be) but I would call that normal organizational friction/waste that will occur no matter what the policy looks like. They aren't problems.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,764
- Points
- 1,260
Then manage the current structure so that you have to be fit alongside; and fit sea while posted to a sea going billet to get sea pay.
Taking away the current benefit for the masses because of the minority that are abusing it is not the right move.
If the incentive system is being abused, correct the abuse. Don't burn down the incentive system.
- Reaction score
- 6,187
- Points
- 1,190
You don't fix it by punishing the majority. The policy can change, 180 days is too long to wait to pull allowances for those folks. If you're going casual as a change, then it needs to reflect any time spent in the field or at sea, regardless of where you sleep. Working someone on a range till 0200 should be compensated (does RCN do day sails?), the "didn't sleep in the field/on ship" rule is stupid.
- Reaction score
- 7,431
- Points
- 1,210
Sea days are calculated based on 8hrs at sea including the day you leave and the day you return (even if those are partial days). But that only changes the amount of SDA you get.
SDA pay itself is based on your billet. Each billet is either sea going or not. If its a sea going billet you get SDA. So if you are unfit sea you can't usually get SDA because you can't be posted to one of those billets (there are some exceptions of course).
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,953
- Points
- 1,210
Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems
Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.
www.ctvnews.ca
Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,543
- Points
- 990
Tbh I thought they were bluffing. Good news for the Army folk here though, expect some new LAVs being announced haha.Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems
Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.
Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders
In all seriousness, my heart goes out to those that lost their jobs. Hopefully they can be rehired if more orders come in.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 26,373
- Points
- 1,260
The CAF isn’t a welfare agency.Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems
Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.
Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders
I’d argue that the CA has more LAV than they can reasonably justify. Perhaps GDLSC should float a tracked IFV and variants to support an Armoured Bde…
- Reaction score
- 6,187
- Points
- 1,190
So CLDA is the only one that requires an overnight somewhere, the remainder is the same as LDA for us. Can you have a non sea going billet on a ship (not stone frigate)? LDA is either full unit gets it or not.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Points
- 1,260
Wasn't there an earlier thread on here (or on another forum on here) arguing that the CAF has a large short fall of field ambulances? If so, can't this be put forward as a 'stop gap' to keep thing moving at GDLSC? Put in an order for 100+ of these? Maybe even bump it up to 150 and send another 50 off to Ukraine.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,953
- Points
- 1,210
a lot of the support variants we could use a lot more of, as for gun trucks, creating a decent operation stock and warstock would be a good idea as well, as ukraine has shown we would blow through vehicles quickly in a conflict. We could also potentially upgrade all LAV6 to the 2.0 turret to add ATGM capabilities.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,575
- Points
- 1,260
Even adding some stock to the larger reserve units would make sense.
But I think that what's happening should be a 'warning' to all attempts to 'on-shore' military production here in Canada. Unless we commit from here on out to a continuous build/replacement of all material AND looking to increase our global footprint in the export market, this situation will only continue.
I can't see the business case for us getting the CV90 or any variants AND at the same time continue to have the GDLSC facility functioning as well. They seem to 'cancel each other out', in terms of product offerings - I'm not saying capability - I'm taking about overlap of product offerings or potential product offerings.
Same with things like tracked/mobile artillery/supply vehicles. I just don't see the business case to set up a production facility here when the grand total of related vehicles we are considering purchasing sits at a range of 80-110 in total. Is your total annual run going to be 10-15 systems? Even at that tiny, insignificant amount it means that every 8-9yrs you cycle through and replace ALL systems.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 7,384
- Points
- 1,260
We certainly aren’t all on call to deploy for three weeks at a time all the time. That’s why we cycle through IRU. And guess which units do that? The one who receive LDA.
- Reaction score
- 33,230
- Points
- 1,090
If only there was an ally we could support by providing more armoured vehicles...
- Reaction score
- 10,112
- Points
- 1,160
Ambulances need to be right forward with the troops they are supporting, surely?
CV90s? Then you need a CV90 ambulance/carrier.
LAVs? A LAV ambulance.
Trucks? A truck ambulance...
If the troops are foot borne then I would think foot borne medics and helicopters are likely the best bet.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,159
- Points
- 960
O
Of course it's a welfare agency , the Ross Rifle , Oliver load carrying equipment, the Bobcat , the Buffalo, the CF 5 . .....
- Reaction score
- 10,112
- Points
- 1,160
Or down grade the LAVs to LAV II Carriers, with a full array of support vehicles and spend the LAV6 money on a tracked brigade with the 2.0 turret and ATGM/LM capabilities.
....
The original Loitering Munition, circa 1986, was the TOW missile with a 15 km Fiber Optic tether.
Rather than looking at the Javelin as a basic form factor for turreted missiles maybe there is life in the old TOW, as used on the Bradley Turret, yet.
Similar threads
