I mean there's nothing wrong with demanding to be considered trained to the same standard as the RegF but only wanting to commit to 1/4 the training time (and not use the RegF schools) and very little common equipment, right? Totally makes a credible reserve force...
Are they Res F AESOPs, or Res F Air NCMs who happen to be AESOP qualified?
Res F AESOPs. Says so, right in their MOSID. Same for Pilots, ACSOs, FEs and SAR Techs.
Like anything, there is good and bad.
It used to be that most of the Air PRes were basically ex-RegF pers who either transferred to the ResF during their careers or at the end of it to get in a few more years. Is that still the case?
Would it be more scalable if the air reserve was in more locations? example with the new MRTT's coming to be based at Edmonton international airport, is it an opportunity to expand operations and have Air Res in a major urban center?
Is that not an enormous problem? To whom does this country belong to, and who is it for? If our naturally born citizens, to use your term, do not want to serve the country, what are we doing wrong? This is the question of the age. It is incumbent on the Canadian state to serve Canadians, and if those Canadians do not want to defend the realm, something has seriously gone awry in its affairs.
take a good look at your education systems and the curriculum they promulgate. Next step is to read all the comments re: kids getting and keeping jobs and our requirements for foreign labour when unemployment is consistently over 5%. Finally, read the papers and the internet and see the attitudes that are front and centre coupled with the trolling on almost all sites that comes from out of country. We need to realize that we are engaged in a war albeit no one is dyeing yet and get serious about responding to it.
Anyplace there is an RCAF unit, there will be an an Air Reserve Flight. That is not the issue.
Yup. Where it can work, make it work. Much more of an integrated side-by-side RegF/PRes collaboration than an externally appearing *us-them thing that the Army seems to take a perverse pride in perpetuating.
So a competitor complained in accordance with our procurement process? A complaint which has been common in said system for decades? Sky isn't exactly falling my guy.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not being critical here; more like envious. I've been an advocate of hybridization of army ARes units with RegF personnel and equipment for quite some time. I've got the same belief that the army should redesign its DP1 courses so that they are achievable by reservists while still identical to the RegF ones. It should be easier for the army as most trades are less complex than many RCAF ones.
Which is hopefully being addressed finally. I dont have much confidence it will as neither conservatives or liberals have reduced times meaningfully in the past 30 years but for the first time in decades it seems like its being addressed seriously, which is a good start.
I think change will come in 'fits and starts', meaning one day there'll be 2 steps forward and a few days later, one step back and then possibly another step back and then nothing.....and then 3 quick steps forward and then another step forward and a step back again. At the end of a year, if we are 3, 4, 5 steps head then the previous year, I'll call it a win.
What a hack job article. The Parent American company that will likely get the contract is L3 Harris. L3 Wescam in Burlington Canada will be making the tubes in Canada (world leader in optic technology). So we get better tubes from a Canadian subsidiary in Canada or get a European company that wants the contract.
