Sailors to Wear CADPAT?

[Sub_Guy]

99% of the time, they can't carry that much army crap anyway.  I know some people have this vision of our Navy conducting amphibious operations, which brings this CADPAT argument, think about it.... they navy will not be wearing cadpat on ships.....read the posts..

Again the JSS are AOR replacements, there is no need for those sporting cadpat to start taking gravol...........or to stock up on sea sickness patches........



I know we live in a changing world, but I seriously doubt the Canadian military is going to be launching a full scale assault from the seas any time soon.. I am familiar with the SCTF, I am aware that Rick wants the BHS.......And those who wear green think the senior service is now a taxi for them.......  Would I like to see more ships? Yes I would, I would like to see equipment procured more quickly than it is now.  Here is something to think about the HMCS Halifax is almost 20 years old..............  Our navy is one of the most respected in the world (maybe not the world, but by the Americans)

 

[childs56]

CFAO 10-3. It was a while ago that I found it and. Kinda interesting that they had to write a order up for employment of other services during the Unification time in reguard to the Pre unification troops.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

.......And those who wear green think the senior service is now a taxi for them....... 

Well, I guess there is always plan C - If the bus doesn't run by your door and you can't get a taxi then I guess you have to spring for your own car. 

 

[navymich]

Check out this article from the U.S. from earlier this year.

I like this line especially:

The bottom line for me in making these decisions,said the CNO, is culture. Uniforms reflect our culture -- who we are -- what we stand for. I've said all along that no matter which way we go, I want Sailors to look like Sailors.

 

[GAP]

near maintenance-free permanent press 50/50 nylon and cotton blend. Worn with a blue cotton t-shirt,

Was there not a earlier thread regarding the danger of some materials in fire situations, therefore they banned the use of synthetic materials normally used by unauthorized suppliers?

 

[navymich]

Was there not a earlier thread regarding the danger of some materials in fire situations, therefore they banned the use of synthetic materials normally used by unauthorized suppliers?

I don't know GAP, I've lost track of the earlier threads...LOL.  I looked through them to confirm that link hadn't been posted yet, and I do recall something about fire retardancy.  Will look again.

 

[GAP]

I will see if I can find it too. The name of the thread had something to do with banning something something

here it is: Synthetic materials clothing now banned outside the wire in A'Stan
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42140.0.html

The quote that stuck in my head was this:

Synthetic Clothes Off Limits to Marines Outside Bases in Iraq
By Lance Cpl. Stephen Holt, USMC
Special to American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060412_4800.html

CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq, April 12, 2006 – Marines conducting operations outside forward operating bases and camps in Iraq can no longer wear synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon, Marine Corps commanders have ordered

The ban on popular clothing from companies like Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials, officials said.

When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon.

Whether on foot patrol or conducting a supply convoy while riding in an armored truck, everyone is at risk to such injuries while outside the wire

 

[GO!!!]

The announcement of the new uniforms, Carroll said, is the culmination of a three-year project that began with the charter of Task Force Uniform to deliver a proposal to reflect the requirements of a 21st century Navy. An analysis of a fleet-wide survey conducted during the summer of 2003 led to the creation of concepts for working and service uniforms for a wear test and another fleet-wide survey last summer.

“I just can’t say enough about how meticulous and thorough TFU Director Master Chief Rob Carroll and his team approached their work,” stressed Mullen. “The process they established and maintained was rock solid -- measured and analytical. They looked at hundreds of options, studied countless pattern and color designs, and fretted over every minor detail, from button style to stitching. I am enormously proud of their effort, and every Sailor can be, too.”

Interesting that they use a SNCO to run these programs, wheras we use Senior officers - perhaps this has something to do with the difference in timelines and end results - any thoughts? (not trying to start a fight here, but why the difference?)

The article also clearly states that the opinions of the end-users had a major effect on the final choice - maybe our acquisitions process could learn from this!

 

[Haggis]

Interesting that they use a SNCO to run these programs, wheras we use Senior officers - perhaps this has something to do with the difference in timelines and end results - any thoughts? (not trying to start a fight here, but why the difference?)

We are starting to do the same thing here.  Capt/Maj positions in higher HQs are being staffed by C/MWOs.  The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.

Since NDHQ is a mix of civvies and miltary, we should try this:

Clothe The Soldier:

1 x CWO Supply Tech project manager
10 x Cbt A WOs and Sgts (6 Reg F, 4 Res F one must be a jumper, one a mech soldier, one must be a crewman and one a loggie.  All should have recent field experience)
2 X RMS Clerks.
1 X civvy Irish grandmother to ramrod the whole thing and keep everyone honest and on budget.
1 X CFR'd Cbt A Major to sign it all and keep it legal.
 

 

[GO!!!]

We are starting to do the same thing here.  Capt/Maj positions in higher HQs are being staffed by C/MWOs.  The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.

Since NDHQ is a mix of civvies and miltary, we should try this:

Clothe The Soldier:

1 x CWO Supply Tech project manager
10 x Cbt A WOs and Sgts (6 Reg F, 4 Res F one must be a jumper, one a mech soldier, one must be a crewman and one a loggie.  All should have recent field experience)
2 X RMS Clerks.
1 X civvy Irish grandmother to ramrod the whole thing and keep everyone honest and on budget.
1 X CFR'd Cbt A Major to sign it all and keep it legal.
 

....and the final project is to be hard assessed by a committee of 23 Cbt arms Cpls. Failure results in all of the above being posted to the Centre of Excellence and having to wear a white lanyard of shame for a period of not less than five years.

 

[Haggis]

....and the final project is to be hard assessed by a committee of 23 Cbt arms Cpls. Failure results in all of the above being posted to the Centre of Excellence and having to wear a white lanyard of shame for a period of not less than five years.

Except for the grandmother.

Not even the "GO!!! show" scares an Irish granny.

 

[Gunner]

The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.

If you dig abit deeper it has more to do with a large shortage of Capts/Majs/LCols vice "common dog" and "street smarts" that are apparently, in your opinion, inherent in C/MWO's.   

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

CFAO 10-3. It was a while ago that I found it and. Kinda interesting that they had to write a order up for employment of other services during the Unification time in reguard to the Pre unification troops.

Cheers

 
     
 


CFAO 10-3 - LIABILITY TO SERVE - CONSENT



PURPOSE
1.    This order prescribes the procedures and the conditions under which
members of the Canadian Forces (CF) may consent to serve pursuant to
QR&O 10.015.

GENERAL
2.    Pursuant to  QR&O 10.015, no member of the CF who on or before 31
Jan 68 was a member of:

    a.  the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian Army shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew,
          except that, if at any time prior to that date he was employed in
          the operation of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian
          Army, respectively, or was under training to be so employed, his
          consent to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew is not
          required;

    b.  the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force shall,
          without his consent, be required to serve in an element of a land
          force the role of which in wartime is combat on the ground; and

    c.  the Canadian Army or Royal Canadian Air Force shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of a ship's company.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

 
       
 


CFAO 10-3 - LIABILITY TO SERVE - CONSENT



PURPOSE
1.     This order prescribes the procedures and the conditions under which
members of the Canadian Forces (CF) may consent to serve pursuant to
QR&O 10.015.

GENERAL
2.     Pursuant to  QR&O 10.015, no member of the CF who on or before 31
Jan 68 was a member of:

     a.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian Army shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew,
          except that, if at any time prior to that date he was employed in
          the operation of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian
          Army, respectively, or was under training to be so employed, his
          consent to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew is not
          required;

     b.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force shall,
          without his consent, be required to serve in an element of a land
          force the role of which in wartime is combat on the ground; and

     c.   the Canadian Army or Royal Canadian Air Force shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of a ship's company.

Well this was not an order to make Bosuns serve as infanteers. There was never any regulation that said people trained in hard sea trades had to be able to serve as Infantry. This was an order to protect those who were in purple trades prior to unification from serving in other elements. i.e. they couldn't make a RCN cook serve in an Army field unit.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thanks IHS I figured they would not be forming the 1st Royal Canadian Stoker Battalion anytime soon as was hinted at by others.

 

[GO!!!]

If you dig abit deeper it has more to do with a large shortage of Capts/Majs/LCols vice "common dog" and "street smarts" that are apparently, in your opinion, inherent in C/MWO's.   

Are you disputing that our SNCOs have common sense, or that the practice of heading projects with them is a step in the right direction, or both?

 

[Rhibwolf]

Gunner, I dont think that anyone is stating that our SNCOs (or any rank grouping for that matter) have or lack common sense.  Common Dog is present or absent in the same proportions across all ranks.  There is a large shortage of officers at the Sr-Jr and Jr-Sr officer ranks in most MOS.  So, given the choice to give these projects to a subbie, a Flag Officer, or a SNCO, it becomes easy to make that decision based on experience, wisdom, skillset etc of the incumbent.  In my last job there were six of us doing the exact same thing for various aspects of a project. 3 WO and 3 Capt/Lt(N).  We all peformed equally well.

btw, from an ex Bdr, are you mud or bird gunner?  You and I have about the same number of yrs in, and Im wondering if we served together in Lahr (86-92) or Shilo (85-86, 92-93)

Rhibwolf

 

[Gunner]

Are you disputing that our SNCOs have common sense, or that the practice of heading projects with them is a step in the right direction, or both?

I don't think there is a rank that automatically imbides its wearer with "common sense" and/or "street smarts".  I can give you an example of someone hit upside the head with a stupid stick at every rank level in the CF regardless of their environment.  Use of C/M/WOs as staff is simply a result of a lack of officers to fill all of the positions that are reqr to be manned.  Simple reality really.

To be brutally honest, I find the officer/WO/NCM debate rather droll and its perpetuation serves no use other than to allow small men to indulge their small minds.