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

Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

ProPatria Mike said:
I think sailors have good reason to be shocked.

We all chose what we wanted to do when we signed on the dotted line, that is what a volunteer army is all about.  To change the rules out of sheer desperation is only a sign of weakness and violates the trust between government and soldier.

Infantry is not for the weak, the lighthearted or those who joined looking for a trade to fall back on when one decides they have served enough. Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened.

There is only one function, close, engage and neutalize the enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, particualrly in todays high tech combat theatre...

most importantly, it takes desire.

Not back door conscription

Mike

You left out some major points that follow "Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened." and is common to all the Combat Arms is the sense of pride and accomplishment that one gets after completing those 'Tasks' and the camaraderie that is felt amongst 'Brothers in Arms'.
 
Sub_Guy said:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.

Hate to say I told everyone so (on Saturday), but......  ;D
 
I certainly hope there isn't one person surprised but this announcement.  Sure we all signed the dotted line, and we could (in theory) be used as soldiers, but a balanced force needs the three services.  To think that sailors and airmen would be used as soldiers is foolish, I also think that it is not possible to limit soldiers to one tour in Afghanistan, but then again I am a sailor.........
 
Well, George, I could wax poetic all night.... but then everybody would want to be a infanteeerrrr!!!! snicker.
 
Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
CBC News

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-466891.html#msg466891
 
Well, Mike, they said they woudn't be sending any tanks either...

Do you ever get the feeling someone in Conservative party deliberately floats these things in the public then, depending on public response, the party responds?

And was it not General Hillier who created this controversy when, On Wednesday, he told the senate about rerolling? I find it difficult to believe that general Hillier came up with this idea by himself and more so that he mentioned it unless it was a program under active discussion with in DND. 

 
I have to say that some of the comments by Granatstein and Bercuson are right on the money for the re-rolling issue.  They both basically came out and said that the idea of putting sailors and airmen in combat roles especially is ludicrous.  Now I am interested to see how the government plans to get to 2009 out of this mission.  I am glad that common sense prevailed (for once) and this idea is now one for the history books (hopefully).
 
What about all the re-musters from the Cbt Arms who have gone Airforce or Navy?  If you look at the air maintenance trades they are full of re-musters, out of the 9 people in my section there are only 2 who are not re-musters from the cCbtarms.  Maybe they could send out a call for volunteers who are in this type of situation. 
Just a thought.


There is only one function, close, engage and neutralize enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, ßparticularly todays high tech combat theatre...

most importantly, it takes desire.

I'm not slamming you at all Mike, but from what I've heard (please correct me if I'm wrong) 1RCR is sending guys over to augument for the wounded, who have approx. 10 weeks Basic, 16 weeks Battle School and a few weeks in Wainwright to prepare them for the mission specific stuff.
 
Implications...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html
Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
Last Updated: Monday, October 23, 2006 | 3:55 PM ET
CBC News
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.

Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.

"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."

O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.

Last week, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces would be looking outside combat units to find troops.

He said the demands of the mission are prompting military commanders and defence officials to look for new ways of finding personnel.

Continue Article

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.

"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"

On the weekend, Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore, who is in charge of army forces in Western Canada, said the military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months.

Canada has more than 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and is in charge of NATO forces in the south.
 
More on the backpedalling.....

Canada sailors, airmen won't fight in Afghanistan
Reuters (UK), 23 Oct 06
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N23397561&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-2

Canada will not retrain sailors and air force personnel to fight as ground troops in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Monday, contradicting information put out by his own ministry.  Earlier in the day a National Defence spokeswoman said military commanders -- facing a shortage of troops -- were looking at retraining members of the navy and air force to give them infantry skills. She also said Afghan tours of operation could be extended to nine months from six.  "There is no intention of employing sailors, airmen or airwomen in infantry roles. As well, there is no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they are in active operations," O'Connor told Parliament ....


Sea, air personnel won't go into combat: O'Connor
CTV News Online, 23 Oct 06
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061023/oconnor_rerolling_061023/20061023?hub=TopStories

The Canadian military is looking at options to keep the Afghanistan mission going, but Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he doesn't intend to use air force or navy personnel in combat roles.  "As well, there is no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they are in active operations," he said Monday in Parliament's question period.  NDP Leader Jack Layton told the government that since the military appears to be stretched in Afghanistan, "won't the prime minister finally acknowledge and admit that it should be changing the direction of the mission rather than arranging hasty photo ops?" ....

More, once Hansard is online....
 
Everybody calm down now...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html#skip300x250
Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
Last Updated: Monday, October 23, 2006 | 3:55 PM ET
CBC News
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.

Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.

"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."

O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.

Last week, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces would be looking outside combat units to find troops.

He said the demands of the mission are prompting military commanders and defence officials to look for new ways of finding personnel.

Continue Article

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.

"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"

On the weekend, Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore, who is in charge of army forces in Western Canada, said the military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months.

Canada has more than 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and is in charge of NATO forces in the south.
 
OK

That article is getting "SPAMMED" throughout the site.  I think we have the idea now.  OF COURSE LIKE EVERYTHING IN THE CF.........IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE!  ::)
 
What did everyone learn at boot camp.... How to pick up a rifle and stand a post. Now that is far from the training required to be in the infantry and deployed to Afghanistan, however Naval and Air Force trades could fill roles normally occupied by Army trades........some examples are:

Army                          Navy     
LCIS Tech                  NET(C)
Sig Op                        NAVCOMM
Electrical Tech            Marine Electrician         
Materials Tech            Hull Tech
RM Tech                    Marine Engineer
Land Wpns Tech          Naval Weapons Tech

These would be positions that wouldn't go on patrol, however they could augment the personnel required to go on tours.
 
I don't think your solution is any better than sending in a Navy NET(C).  The LCIS Tech would be just as outside his element as the Navy NET(C).  The same goes for all the other Trades you have pointed out.  Just because one is Navy Blue and the other is Green, doesn't make any difference.  If you are suggesting we send RM Techs outside the wire, and have Marine Engineers replace them inside the wire, you are as fruity as the Minister.
 
... who have approx. 10 weeks Basic, 16 weeks Battle School and a few weeks in Wainwright to prepare them for the mission specific stuff....

Well, I cannot say for certain if this is happening or not.

What I can tell you is, it would not bother me in the least if it were.

First of all, they volunteered for The Regiment.

They made a conscious choice to go to the very point of the stick, to learn how to wage warfare, not support those that do.

Secondly, they earned the Eight-Pointed Star. This is not an easy accomplishment, deliberately so. When you finally present yourself in front of the commanding officer on that glorious day, you are fitter then you have ever been in your life and your combat skills have been well instilled. Ingrained to the point of never forget, I dare say. 

Yes, when they join a battalion, they are green... but such has been the case since Christ was a lance corproal... and a necessary part of the process. I can tell you one thing with great sincerity, my friend. What they learned during the process of earning the right to wear the Regimental hatbadge will ensure full integration within the Regimental family very quickly indeed.

Because they are riflemen. Willing, confident through training and, as a part of a Regimental team, more then ready to do their part.
 
George,

I'm not suggesting that Naval or Air Force trades be sent into Service and Support roles and consequently have those Army trades then start patrolling. However the Navy has sent Marine Engineers, Marine Electricians, NAVCOMM's to roto's in Bosnia, Golan Heights and many other similar deployments and there are Naval MOC's currently deployed in Afganistan. If there are shortcomings in those Service and Support positions, it would be easy for Naval and Air Force MOC's to fill some roles if required.
 
Navalsnipr said:
George,

I'm not suggesting that Naval or Air Force trades be sent into Service and Support roles and consequently have those Army trades then start patrolling. However the Navy has sent Marine Engineers, Marine Electricians, NAVCOMM's to roto's in Bosnia, Golan Heights and many other similar deployments and there are Naval MOC's currently deployed in Afganistan. If there are shortcomings in those Service and Support positions, it would be easy for Naval and Air Force MOC's to fill some roles if required.

I agree and that will probably continue to be the solution to shortages in CSS Trades.  Problem is when they start 'Robbing' from CS and CA Trades, they are creating more and longer lasting problems. 
 
Heres the problem as I see it. Those slots you would send the navy to are not the ones in question.

Out of the twenty three hundred soldiers on the grund, about eight hundred are actually waging the battle.

Nor will this war be won anywhere else but beyond the wire. We cannot win the battle for hearts and minds with any of the trades that have been listed because in order to win the battlke we must secure the land... by force.

Against a well entrenched, well armed and hateful enemy.

Be like sending sheep to the slaughter house.
 
George/Mike

Understand both your views. However if the Navy/Air Force can spare qualified personnel to augment the ROTO's in Afghanistan, then every additional person on the ground can only help IMHO.



 
Well, O'Connor has said they will not be used in a combat role so if it's behind the wire and helps out the support staff...

Unfortunately, that leaves us confronted with the fundemental dillema that drew us to this point in the first place.

Insufficient combat resources to effectively manage the situation and allies who are lacking the guts to fill in the vacancies.

BTW... I do not think rerolling armoured or artillerymen into infanteers is a solution, they have a job to do already!
 
Back
Top