Search results

Not sure where you get your info but China is not Russia.

USMC still flies F/A-18C/D. The HEP2 upgrades we’re doing are also implemented on USMC’s Hornets. The USMC does not fly Super Hornets.

TBH, tanking on a CC150, A330 or KC-46 isn’t much different. The only tanker that is significantly different is the KC-135 with a Boom-Drogue Adaptor. A short hose and a very rigid basket. Nicknamed the “Iron Maiden.”

This bit is concerning:

I have never seen a situation when this was an issue. I value competency in trades vs fitness, as long as people meet the minimum standards. Failing at my mission has far more repercussions in my leadership, or unit/national military.

Why? If they achieve the standard, why is it concerning?

You are right. 100% (excluding those on MELs) of my unit passed their FORCE test and met the required standard yet there is no mandated PT. Is my unit failing? What is "fit enough" for you?

Without a serious impact to daily ops, we can’t mandate PT everyday. It would likely mean half of the lines we fly a day would be lost, and we need those lines to force generate. Fitness is a personal responsibility. If you have time during work hours, great. I will never prevent someone from...

Ah yes, the only NATO country in Europe is France.

Except we will not win a war on our own. If boots on the ground are required, better use what’s closer to the front: European NATO countries.

This is a big part of the dissatisfaction. We’re in the 2020s and people still scan electronically signed documents only to have them signed electronically by the next person in the chain. We have to sign three different things to have MATA/PATA approved. We use a clunky old program to manage...

Because our policy says so. We have 71,500 positions. No one in the CAF has the authority to grow beyond that without policy coverage.

Where will the positions come from? As I said, it will be a 0-sum game, and someone will lose.

I didn’t say the Army needs to fix the CAF security issues. When someone said we need to consider bold solutions, I suggested a bold solution. When someone said it’s not the Army’s problem, I used an example to demonstrate that we’re too small to be stovepiped, by using Air Mobility as a...

In a "real" war, homeland defence will be reinforced. In all cases, defending Canada will always remain #1 priority. If you look at the DPU, there isn’t much concrete in terms of acquiring things that would help us in a near peer conflict, besides what we’re buying for homeland defence...

I bet you if we do this, a couple of Battalions will be emtpy.

RCAF keeps people right?

It will entirely depend on what assets will be based there, and what the security requirements for those assets are. Shift for WASF are currently 12 hrs on, 12 hrs off, 4 days on and 4 days off.

I am not advocating to structure ourselves for as many units as possible. I am advocating that we reduce the number of partially filled units and consolidate our forces in fully functionning units.

That would require more people and more positions than we can dream of. Within the current constraints we have, having multiple small units and formations doesn’t work. It just consumes resources that are needed elsewhere.