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

Little bit of Naval Aweseome (HMCS OTTAWA ships moral badge)

FSTO said:
The Navy had been doing FLS and shipping people in and out of theatres of operations quite effectively before the advent of CANOSCOM and its bastard child CJOC.
Click to expand...

In spirit I actually agree with you, the problem is our deployed benefits are tied to being under CJOC. So unless that can be de linked for us I wouldn't support it.
 
Halifax Tar said:
In spirit I actually agree with you, the problem is our deployed benefits are tied to being under CJOC. So unless that can be de linked for us I wouldn't support it.
Click to expand...
Clarify deployed benefits? Like operational support or pers compensation and benefits?
 
Halifax Tar said:
No, I mean pay and leave entitlements.
Click to expand...
That....doesn't seem like it would be a "CJOC must" authority. It seems as though its been only a recent development with the Dotcoms of yore. That authority can be delegated to individual L1s to administer, especially if there isn't a requirement for CJOC Operational Support.

Could this be a "well this is just how we do things..." situation we have gotten used to in this organization?

I might be wrong though.
 
rmc_wannabe said:
That....doesn't seem like it would be a "CJOC must" authority. It seems as though its been only a recent development with the Dotcoms of yore. That authority can be delegated to individual L1s to administer, especially if there isn't a requirement for CJOC Operational Support.

Could this be a "well this is just how we do things..." situation we have gotten used to in this organization?

I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Delegate that authority to the navy and they'll send people on 5-6 month long "exercises" with no benefits... Ask me how I know. ;)
 
rmc_wannabe said:
That....doesn't seem like it would be a "CJOC must" authority. It seems as though its been only a recent development with the Dotcoms of yore. That authority can be delegated to individual L1s to administer, especially if there isn't a requirement for CJOC Operational Support.

Could this be a "well this is just how we do things..." situation we have gotten used to in this organization?

I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Now I am not an HRA. But it was explained to me that in order to be in receipt deployment pay and leave benefits one must be on a CJOC mission. I stand to be corrected though.

Furniture said:
Delegate that authority to the navy and they'll send people on 5-6 month long "exercises" with no benefits... Ask me how I know. ;)
Click to expand...

Ya we like to do that, or chop in and out of deployments... while on deployments...
 
Furniture said:
Delegate that authority to the navy and they'll send people on 5-6 month long "exercises" with no benefits... Ask me how I know. ;)
Click to expand...
CJOC sent me to Eastern Europe, for 6 months, on Exercise, on TD... ask me about the early Rotos of Operacise REASSURANCE LTF. They're just as bad other L1s in getting force employment on the cheap...

Halifax Tar said:
Now I am not an HRA. But it was explained to me that in order to be in receipt deployment pay and leave benefits one must be on a CJOC mission. I stand to be corrected though.
Click to expand...
According to our many CBIs and policies, to receive benefits you have to be CDTPOed on a named operation, in a SDA as set out by the MND via SJS. CJOC is usually the default administrator of benefits as they are the default force employer for expeditionary Ops (formerly CEFCOM in the dotcom era). Before that, I believe individual L1s were the force employers and were able to administer benefits so long as the first parameters were met.

Once again, this is all just conjecture, but if the Navy is able to be self sustaining for non-Joint CAF Ops... leave them alone to do the business. Nothing was more annoying working in a JTFSC than being told "yeah... we actually took care of this ourselves" by the different force elements. Made me feel like I was just there to get in the way.
 
rmc_wannabe said:
CJOC sent me to Eastern Europe, for 6 months, on Exercise, on TD... ask me about the early Rotos of Operacise REASSURANCE LTF. They're just as bad other L1s in getting force employment on the cheap...
Click to expand...
I went on exercise Poseidon's Pear(Poseidon Spear) in '17 for 5 months with just normal pay, it wasn't until we were back that someone up the food chain decided it was a deployment, so we got the benefits at tax time.
 
Back to a previous topic, another reason I'd like to see Tribal or River names resurrected for the CSC is the amount of interesting relics available to put aboard the new ships. I recently found out that the first HMCS Iroquois had a unique ships bell made for her during the Korean War, the story behind it is incredibly interesting.

On 02 Oct 1952, HMCS IROQUOIS was ordered to conduct operations along the east coast of Korea south east of Sonjin. In company with USS MARSH, IROQUOIS was attempting to keep a portion of the rail line blocked. On a previous patrol HMS CHARITY had successfully bombarded a train thus blocking "caravan" of supplies moving up and down the coast. While IROQUOIS was tasked to proceed in close to shore to keep this supply line blocked, she came under attack from shore gun batteries when they opened fire. During this engagement IROQUOIS was struck both forward and aft. Three people were killed in the engagement including one officer and one seaman who were killed instantly, and another crewman who died shortly after due to his injuries. Despite the damage inflicted in the attack, IROQUOIS managed to effectively return fire and silence the shore guns. In the exchange of fire, IROQUOIS' bell was struck and shattered. As sailors are quite superstitious, it was thought that it was bad luck for a ship in commission to not have a bell.

After being relieved by HMCS CRUSADER, IROQUOIS proceeded to Sasebo, Japan for a dry dock period to repair the battle damage. Japan, still being governed by the US Military following the Second World War, was under strict rationing orders. A Sasebo foundry was approached to cast a new ship's bell but was unable to obtain brass in post-war Japan. Resourcefully, IROQUOIS provided enough empty brass shell casings from her previous engagements to cast a new bell. Unbeknownst to the Canadians, Japanese bells bear no resemblance to IROQUOIS' former bell. Naturally, the new bell was cast in the form of a traditional Japanese bell, normally run by striking one of the two flat circles on either side by a piece of wood. Since 1952 was the year of the dragon in the Chinese zodiac calendar, a dragon was engraved on the bell along with the ship's name, and the name of the city in which it was cast. it is believed that IROQUOIS is the only Canadian warship ever to have a non-naval bell, and is most certainly the only one to have had a Japanese bell. (Source for the history of the Sasebo bell - The Naval Museum of Halifax)​
Click to expand...

IRO0090.jpgIRO0091.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top