• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Are Canadian Forces equipped for Afghan mission?

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
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

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
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 :salute:

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

edited for spelling
 

Teddy Ruxpin

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,233
Points
1,140
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
49
Points
280
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
230
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
2
Points
430
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

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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 :)
 
Top