Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[SupersonicMax]

As much as I agree with you, it is just not the demographic we have anymore.  Not so much in the combat branches, but certainly in the support trades.  Most combat branches or operations branches do what they do because they enjoy it and wouldn't do anything else in the world.  I personally run on adrenaline I get from flying, no kidding.  Talk to my wife and ask her what happens if I don't fly for a couple of weeks.

Most of the support trades (from experience) do it because they have to (or it certainly feel that way when I interact with them).  Either because they are under obligatory service, they are close to retirement and want to "tough it out" till then or because they became slave to the military (they feel they wouldn't be able to transfer to a civy job).  The simple answer is to just let them get out if they are not happy.  The problem in technical trades is that we then lose a ton of experience that is irreplaceable in the near and medium term, leading to shortage of qualified personnel. So in that sense, the military is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place. 

We used the "get out if you are not happy" method last year when we posted techs from Bagotville to Cold Lake.  Turns out none of them were bluffing and instead of missing pers in Cold Lake only, we found ourselves having to fill positions at both Wings.  But I disgress.

 

[Good2Golf]

Max, probably an interesting distinction that you're making, and one that I tend to agree with (ops/sp, newer/older generations).  Operators tend to enjoy operating on the whole, and I have seen many motivated supporters, but they as a group seem to "enjoy things more" when there is incremental compensation for supporting deployed ops.  That may have been the limitations of my own perspective though, although like you, I was enjoying what I was doing due to the nature of that activity.  If I had been inside a wire for a year, perhaps I might have gotten grumpy and looked to things like compensation to balance making the tour "worth it."

:2c:

G2G

 

[PuckChaser]

As much as I agree with you, it is just not the demographic we have anymore.  Not so much in the combat branches, but certainly in the support trades.  Most combat branches or operations branches do what they do because they enjoy it and wouldn't do anything else in the world.

I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.

 

[Quirky]

Whoever thinks they deserve a golden handshake for sitting in Kuwait why don't you step aside and let the REAL soldiers get on with the business at hand.

I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.

All the tour incentives are ridiculous and anyone who thinks they deserve more than someone else for whatever task/role/job they filled needs to take a reality check.  One thing I am for is skill based incentives, so something like dive pay or parachute pay is G2G.  Also G2G in my books is spec pay as someone in a highly skilled trade like an aircraft mechanic should be paid more than an infantry corporal for his services, ditto pilots and SOF as well.  All the other incentives like LDA, Sea Pay, Field Pay, Hazard Pay, Hardship Allowance, etc... These all make little sense to me and should go the way of the DoDo. 

Nobody forced any of us to join the service or into a particular trade.  I joined the infantry because I wanted to shoot guns and push myself, the fact I am paid to do this is a bonus in and of itself!  I don't think being infantry makes me in any way superior to a support trade, all of whom are equally important to making the big machine turn. 

I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.

You misunderstand me, I respect all trades but expect people to do their jobs when called upon and don't think they should receive extra compensation just for doing their jobs.  We are all volunteers who knew the conditions when we signed up.  If we need "carrots" dangled infront of us to get us out the door than we have truly reached a sad state of affairs. 

As for people threatening to leave if they are posted, don't get what they want, etc... I say go ahead, the military will adapt, it always does.  The loss of a few people who probably lack motivation anyways will be offset by the good men and women who will no doubt pick up the slack.

"A few honest men are better than numbers" - Oliver Cromwell

 

[PuckChaser]

Even just having foreign service pay, and when in an operational theatre you're tax free up to the current 8k max is very fair. Don't get me wrong, I love all the HA/RA money, but I'd still be on the first chalk if it wasn't there. The swedes don't even get tax free or extra allowances and they still volunteer.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.

:rofl:

Milpoints inbound  

 

[jollyjacktar]

"A few honest men are better than numbers" - Oliver Cromwell

Quantity has a quality all it's own - Joseph Stalin

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Quantity has a quality all it's own - Joseph Stalin

Now if we were to suddenly activate the Militia, Naval Reserve, Air Reserve, etc... and mobilize for a gigantic war I would agree with you; however, we are not doing that.  We have a small regular force that is supposed to represent that quality which when we need to surge is there for that purpose.

We have neither the necessary mass or resources dedicated to our organization to have that quantity so what we put out better be quality.  Whether we are doing that or not is questionable.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier in his assessment that we could probably shrink the Regular Force to 58,000 all ranks with no substantial loss to our combat capability. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Seeing as our combat capability is rather small at any rate, I suppose that is true.  I do doubt, however, that will a small force that you're going to be able to "surge" anything.  I equate surges with numbers, big numbers. 

Yes, the Permanent Force was used as the training cadre to bring the civilians who flooded in the forces during the war's early days.  I seriously doubt also that we would be able to make that happen again.  Too many things not in our favour.  Training/recruiting systems could not handle the job, equipment today is too expensive and sophisticated to make in mass numbers just for starters.  As Gwynn Dyre stated in his book, War, (IIR) "the next world war will be a come as you are war"

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Seeing as our combat capability is rather small at any rate, I suppose that is true.  I do doubt, however, that will a small force that you're going to be able to "surge" anything.  I equate surges with numbers, big numbers. 

Yes, the Permanent Force was used as the training cadre to bring the civilians who flooded in the forces during the war's early days.  I seriously doubt also that we would be able to make that happen again.  Too many things not in our favour.  Training/recruiting systems could not handle the job, equipment today is too expensive and sophisticated to make in mass numbers just for starters.  As Gwynn Dyre stated in his book, War, (IIR) "the next world war will be a come as you are war"

I agree, we probably need a rethink of our whole mobilization strategy but it's not going to happen in our lifetime unless SHTF.  Dyer also talks about how our equipment has become so sophisticated and lethal but is otherwise untested against a peer enemy.  This places us in a situation much like WWI where we will probably end up blowing the crap out of each other and blow through our war stock in two weeks, at which point it will be back to Trench Warfare.  I tend to agree with him.

Glad you referenced his book, I have a copy on my shelf and generally enjoy his stuff. 

I'll part with this:

"New weapons require new tactics. Never put new wine into old bottles." - Heinz Guderian

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber.

Oh ya, ASAB was paradise.  I know CPV had it's moments (from what we heard) but we weren't exactly sipping drinks from the poolside bar.

You do know that both were assessed 3 for Hardship, and 2 for Risk right?  Not sure where you are getting the 3/3 if that other 3 is Risk.  If you want to split hairs, let's discuss anyone who didn't actually go into/over theatre getting the same RISK allowance as those who did.  Not sure where the logic in that is.  Or, isn't.

 

[George Wallace]

Could say that the "rot" has run so deep now, that it is a wonder we all didn't die years ago of "Black Lung".  :warstory:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.

Lets compare it to Afghanistan then.  Should, and did, the folks who never left KAF get the same RA level as those who lived and breathed outside the wire? 

It's kind of hard to imagine to some people, maybe, who've never done air ops before; they think we have it made and in some ways, we do over the army fighting end.  BUT in the current theatre, man if you go down away from home plate, the folks that are looking to get your hands on you like to burn aircrew alive.  In a cage.  And film it.

If that idea, concept, whatever in itself doesn't show there huge difference in RISK between the folks going on the missions, and the ones who support it, but never go into theatre, well then I guess there is nothing that can show that difference or people just don't want to see it.

But, you sure as hell feel it at zero dark stupid when you are over the badlands, not behind the multiple layers of protection at homeplate.

Personally, I think there are 4 actual risk levels in the current theatre; supporters who never see Iraq and ISIS except on their laptops, tanker and CP-140 crews (with a higher risk to the 140 folks, but not enough to justify a higher RA), CF-18 pilots who do things the other zoomies don't, and lastly the CSOR folks and friends who live and operate in the badlands. 

:2c:

 

[PuckChaser]

If we went strictly by location, the CLP security teams based in KAF would get less RA than the RRB crew who hangs out at Ma'Sum Ghar and will leave only for HLTA and RIP.

Why do we need to subdivide based on trade/employment? Pilots have a risky job, they get a special payscale and aircrew allowance (which is approved in concert with theatre allowances). CSOR operators are getting their HA/RA, plus SOA Cat 2 because of not only their training, but their consistent exposure to risk and hardship. The maint/support guys are getting spec pay based on training, and HA/RA. Seems like things are already divided up quite nicely, but not in a neat little umbrella that we can call "Risk Levels". Should we further make it complicated by giving Pilots/Aircrews an extra Risk Level, but only for the time they're actually in the air in the ops box? After all, they're only temporarily increasing their risk, after the mission is over they're back in the same camp as the maint guys (who might be putting in 20 hour days to keep airframes going, so maybe we give them an extra hardship level?). That'd be a nightmare for the clerks to sort everything out.

The current system has flaws, but you're never going to get rid of the people who think they deserve more money than X, because they're really only doing it for the cash. We could give OP IMPACT complete 5/5 (I think that's the max?) and you'd still have people bitching that the support staff are making too much money.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why do we need to subdivide based on trade/employment? Pilots have a risky job, they get a special payscale and aircrew allowance

I get aircrew allowance doing 4th crewman in the circuit on PPFs.  There is no 'theatre level AIRCRA', its covered in RA.  So, explain in logical terms why a clerk sitting in an a/c office in Kuwait gets the same risk as the crews going over the badlands; is the clerk exposed to the same risk?  Think about it.

Should we further make it complicated by giving Pilots/Aircrews an extra Risk Level, but only for the time they're actually in the air in the ops box? After all, they're only temporarily increasing their risk, after the mission is over they're back in the same camp as the maint guys

Yup, that's pretty much the solution right there.  Whats so hard about it, it has been done before and is exactly how they figure out which gong we get.  So...

(who might be putting in 20 hour days to keep airframes going, so maybe we give them an extra hardship level?).

If tech's are doing 20 hour days, the solution doesn't lie in HA or RA lvls, that's a huge problem not tied to that. 

Seriously, think about this.  Someone who sits in an A/C office, never sees the theatre or even comes close to it, getting the same RISK allowance as the people who are operating in the theatre.  Makes sense, does it?  Really?  Take a piece of paper.  Write out the risks the clerk faces, then write out the risks the crews face if they have a very bad day.

As you said, the CSOR folks are getting higher risk because they FACE higher risk.  Same principle as the support folks who never leave the camp compared to the crews flying over the badlands.

System flaws aside, I've yet to see a good argument for why a clerk or MSE Op or Log O would be exposed to the same amount of RISK as a CF-18 pilot who flies into Iraq and Syria and bombs the bad guys, but I don't suspect I will.

 

[Quirky]

Oh ya, ASAB was paradise.  I know CPV had it's moments (from what we heard) but we weren't exactly sipping drinks from the poolside bar.

You do know that both were assessed 3 for Hardship, and 2 for Risk right?  Not sure where you are getting the 3/3 if that other 3 is Risk.  If you want to split hairs, let's discuss anyone who didn't actually go into/over theatre getting the same RISK allowance as those who did.  Not sure where the logic in that is.  Or, isn't.

Yes I know its currently 3/2 but I hope that 2 goes up. I would have loved to be in ASAB and I took every opportunity I could get to go there for any reason. I don't think ASAB deserves a 3 for hardship considering the mass differences there were in base amenities, then again I don't know how they calculate it. AJAB started to get a bit better at the latter end of ROTO 0, but it was still pretty much bare bones in comparison.

 

[Infanteer]

Seriously, think about this.  Someone who sits in an A/C office, never sees the theatre or even comes close to it, getting the same RISK allowance as the people who are operating in the theatre.  Makes sense, does it?  Really?  Take a piece of paper.  Write out the risks the clerk faces, then write out the risks the crews face if they have a very bad day.

As you said, the CSOR folks are getting higher risk because they FACE higher risk.  Same principle as the support folks who never leave the camp compared to the crews flying over the badlands.

System flaws aside, I've yet to see a good argument for why a clerk or MSE Op or Log O would be exposed to the same amount of RISK as a CF-18 pilot who flies into Iraq and Syria and bombs the bad guys, but I don't suspect I will.

How do you differentiate between levels of risk?  Say (using a Kandahar construct), between a CP-140 crew member who's facing some risk of his plane falling out of the sky or the odd chance of a SAM in his AO vs. an infantry soldier who is getting into 3 TICs a day and walks IED infested trails when he leaves his patrol base?

 

[Harrigan]

Carrots?  ???  While I admit it was a nice perk when I got home, it SAF wasn't my principal motivation for doing a tour in the sandbox.  There are combat arms folks getting out in droves because there isn't the level of operations that there used to be -- while some may bemoan the tour money that also dried up, I think the primary demotivator is the lack of doing what you signed up to do.  I get it that to each his or her own motivation, but if that is a wider prime motivator, that's a bit of an unfortunate comment on the current state of things.

:2c:

G2G

Agree.  It shouldn't be this way, but we reap what we sow. 

"56 day rotations" were not initiated by accident, and certainly not driven from the pointy end.  It was a way to get people in and out of theatre before they passed the magic point (60 days?) where it triggered a host of allowances.  It was not the best use of aircrew resources, but that was secondary to the monetary calculation.

The troops can figure this out.  If they are treated like a commodity, they'll act like a commodity and volunteer only when compensated accordingly. 

It is unfortunate that we have gotten to that stage in the CF, but that is where we are.  It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

Harrigan

 

[medicineman]

Agree.  It shouldn't be this way, but we reap what we sow. 

"56 day rotations" were not initiated by accident, and certainly not driven from the pointy end.  It was a way to get people in and out of theatre before they passed the magic point (60 days?) where it triggered a host of allowances.  It was not the best use of aircrew resources, but that was secondary to the monetary calculation.

The troops can figure this out.  If they are treated like a commodity, they'll act like a commodity and volunteer only when compensated accordingly. 

It is unfortunate that we have gotten to that stage in the CF, but that is where we are.  It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

Harrigan

I seem to recall that the 56 day rotations weren't due to allowances - those kick in 2 weeks after being in theatre generally - but to avoid VCDS waivers so they could be rotated more frequently.  Specialist MO's had the same deal going in and out of KAF with the Role 3 MNMU - this way they could send them back more frequently.

MM