|
As I understand it, we use those subs and fighter planes to enforce our borders. Use it or lose it, basically. If we don't make sure people are respecting our territory, they absolutely will not.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Lt. Jebus posted:I will say that there is a reason why getting the Vic back in service right now is the Navy's #1 priority (2nd is Felex). And #3 is becoming the RCN again 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Canuck-Errant posted:And #3 is becoming the RCN again Well, I did get back my executive curl...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:That's actually not true by a long shot, but it's not what I was suggesting Canada might do, either. Alright, there's one country without SOME sort of military/Paramilitary presence; Lichtenstein. Every other country has some sort of protection, whether it's from militarized police or protection from other countries.(Not to mention those places with no military whatsoever mainly happen to be tiny islands in the Pacific ocean). Your direct quote was quote:So why do we even have submarines and fighter jets and such? We will literally never use them for combat with the Cold War being over, and with the US as our close neighbour we obviously don't have anything to be worried about when it comes to invasions (unless Sarah Palin gets elected and invades us, but jets won't do us any good then either). Shouldn't we be scrapping all that expensive bullshit that will never get any use before it deteriorates beyond hope of repair? Wouldn't just everything-but-submarines and transport helicopters/planes be basically all we'd need in a navy/airforce? Or are doing patrols with submarines now that the Ruskies are neutered really that important for us? It certainly sounds like you're suggesting that the Canadian forces be relegated to a transport role only. Canada is the second largest nation on Earth, we need to have some way of saying "Hey, this is ours, Kindly gently caress off." And over the past few years Russian recon planes have been doing regular flights very close to Canadian airspace, and our fighters have been sent up to intercept them. If we didn't have that ability, other nations could regularly violate our sovereign airspace without any repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
It's also a question of maintaining capabilities and participating in the communities that operate that equipment. For example, getting a new submarine class will be exceedingly difficult and expensive without an established expert submarine community. If we scrapped the Victoria class but decided ten years later that we need boats again, we'd basically have to start from scratch developing the infrastructure, training people (it takes a long time to produce a quality submariner, especially at the higher levels) and procuring the equipment, and we'd be reliant on other countries to do so. Without submarines we'd also be out of the community of submarine-operating countries and would miss out on decisions that may be made that can affect our maritime sovereignty. As mentioned before, that's pretty untenable for a country with the longest coastline in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
HammerOfHope posted:It's also a question of maintaining capabilities and participating in the communities that operate that equipment. I was actually just about to type out pretty much this exact post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Personally, I think it's an incredibly stupid decision to buy into the F-35 program. I know it's because Canadian industry has a pretty big investment in the program itself, but it's both too much and not enough for our needs. We would have been much, much better off just buying Superhornets, as they're a platform our guys are familiar with (Yes, even though it's more advanced then the A/B models we're flying now, even with the Mid-life extensions we've given them). Truth is that the airframes are wearing out. The F-35 is single-engined(which sucks for the artic/overwater missions our guys fly), we'll almost always be flying with external tanks for long-range intercept (Which kills the radar cross-section), and it's just too goddamn expensive. God I wish we had gotten those Tomcats during the Iranian revolution. That would have owned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
HammerOfHope posted:Without submarines we'd also be out of the community of submarine-operating countries and would miss out on decisions that may be made that can affect our maritime sovereignty. As mentioned before, that's pretty untenable for a country with the longest coastline in the world. I didn't think about this, but after reading your post I realized there are international law consequences too. There is a principle in international law that the countries that are most affected are the ones that get to make the rules. Ergo, if you want to make international law regarding nukes, you have to have nukes. If you want to make decisions on outer space, you have to have a space program. Of course, international law isn't "law" in the domestic sense, but it still has the benefits of political pressure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
.
stevobob fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Mantle posted:I didn't think about this, but after reading your post I realized there are international law consequences too. There is a principle in international law that the countries that are most affected are the ones that get to make the rules. Exactly. This needs to be impressed on people who claim we should scrap our submarine or fighter jet or arctic patrol projects, etc. Personally I wish some of these projects had taken different approaches, but it would be a bad idea to scrap them outright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
LSVWs were purchased broken. God, what incredible shitboxes those things are. MilCOTS are fire hazards? Cool. They're comfortable, and the heaters work. MLVW? It's an ML. It's the horse of trucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
I'm not in the forces but I do wish to pass on my best wishes to you all this holiday season. I will continue to make sure no one steals your gear while it is in my warehouse!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 09:52
|
|
|
Are the disqualifying health conditions for serving listed anywhere? I know, "ask a recruiter", but A) I'm a lazy rear end in a top hat and B) I wanna peruse it myself instead of rattling off a laundry-list of ailments/flaws to some dude on the phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
Certain eye-sight conditions will disqualify you for combat arms. I was combat arms, but then they found out I had different sight in one eye, so I had to go logistics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Certain eye-sight conditions will disqualify you for combat arms. I was combat arms, but then they found out I had different sight in one eye, so I had to go logistics. Logistics IS a combat arm  Unknown Logistician posted:Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and who sink resentfully into obscurity in peace. They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories. They emerge during war because war is very much a fact. They disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory. The people who merchant in theories, and who employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace, are generals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 05:31
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Certain eye-sight conditions will disqualify you for combat arms. I was combat arms, but then they found out I had different sight in one eye, so I had to go logistics. I was a vision category 4 and they put me on sniper course. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Logistics IS a combat arm Ha. Maybe in your Army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
No logistics branch are REMFs that are useless in the field oh hey can you pull my gun tractor out of the ditch cool thanks also we need someone to haul 3 days worth of sustained-fire 105 you're the only one with a hazardous goods course i bet you could do that too you're still loving useless in the field what could you possibly use with gucci kit like a tac vest You're a Bombardier and not a Corporal? I thought all you REMF types were Corporals? Oh you were a gunner? Well that's ok here's 4 months worth of field assessments to file I'm getting a beer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Ha. Maybe in your Army. Nah, not for us either, it was more of a hopeful than a realistic one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Being in the Navy I can say that having submarines is simply a must. There is just no question as to how important having sub-surface platforms really is. Of course the really sad part is that you either need to be an ethusiast or insider to really get it, otherwise you just see it as a waste of money. Oh and totally with you on the F-35 comments. Could we have not gone with Super Hornet really? Eurofighter? Gripen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
Ruse posted:Being in the Navy I can say that having submarines is simply a must. There is just no question as to how important having sub-surface platforms really is. Of course the really sad part is that you either need to be an ethusiast or insider to really get it, otherwise you just see it as a waste of money. The Gripen is a Swedish sex machine and I love it. Typhoon would have been pretty killer-awesome too but of course we have much closer links to american manufacturers and we invested up the arse in the program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 01:48
|
|
|
Slippery posted:Logistics IS a combat arm Jesus christ that quote could have been summed up in "Logistics is important because you need supplies to fight a war, thinking of supplies is as important as tactics. Logisitics is part of strategy." Bam just shortened that whole thing down. I know we give logs guys a hard time because hey, they are where everyone goes when they fail out of the combat arms, that being said they are a valuable piece. The whole "You can always expect to be fighting on the front lines as Log" Is loving ridiculous and if a log person is fighting they aren't doing their job. I wouldn't expect Combat arms guys to handle a supply line like a logistician and I wouldn't expect a logisitician to do anything the combat arms do. The amount of times I have heard that quote is ridiculous. It might seem like I am nagging but people trying to be somehow related to going to the frontlines or whatever the hell is retarded. That being said I am pretty excited to start this course in Jan, I have some good scenarios planned. Woo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 07:27
|
|
|
How does one fail out of combat arms? I would love to know because I really don't like my job!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 19:36
|
|
|
My Spirit Otter posted:How does one fail out of combat arms? I would love to know because I really don't like my job! I should mention failing as a part of training. At least in the officer corps anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
nevermind
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Unfortunatly, many courses get told they *must* graduate a certain number, and sometimes that number is all of them. It's a sad state of affairs, but the only way to get rid of a dude in that case is to make him put in a release. This has the unfortunate result of having to try and mentally or physically break dudes who aren't fit for the trade, even though if you could just talk to them properly they could probably be turned into a perfectly acceptable member of the support trades. I'll jump on the band wagon of detailing the poo poo wrong with our army and say that we could really benefit from a) a standard that favor quality a bit more over quantity and 2) an easy way for members to remuster to a different trade if they're between courses of their original training. Before you say it, yes, I understand there are reasons these things are this way. Sometimes we just plain old need numbers and we often need those numbers to be in the specific slots the recruiting center put them in. I think these problems could be alleviated somewhat if you didn't consider dudes in your plans until they've actually graduated in their respective trades training. Not counting your chickens until they're hatched, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Hey, thanks to all the Navy guys that chimed in. I have to admit I don't know a goddamn thing about the oceans or things that travel under or upon them, so it's good to know that you fellas at least feel they're worthwhile to have around. The fighter plane stuff I'm still not sold on. I don't know why we have to be on the cutting edge. Is $9 billion in more jets really worth it? I can see having some for protecting of airspace by warding away any trespassers or intercepting civilians aircraft gone awry, but I have to wonder whether we really need top-of-the-line hardware for any of that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Morristron posted:an easy way for members to remuster to a different trade if they're between courses of their original training. I wish it was easier. I would still be in the CF if I didn't mess up my back and have family problems. I know so many people who were flat out told "No, you cant switch trades" even after their 3 or 4th time on DP1. Some people just arnt made for a combat trade, or they learn that it is not what they want anymore. They also make it so hard for people to change trades. I had a basic training instructor that waiting 4 years in infantry with a messed up knee to switch to photo tec. Some people I know are either going to get out and reenlist if they dont get a new trade on their next contract. I guess because Afghanistan is winding down we don't need as many people. edit: They are also 5-F (Dishonorable discharge) people out of Meaford because they have too many people going infantry. Fraser CDN fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
WHAT? They're giving people 5Fs because they're over-recruited? That seriously fucks you for any future government job. My unit tried to 4F me (Other then Honorable) and I basically flipped my poo poo on them. Being a Pogue, I know how to make their lives a living hell with appeals. My release took over a year because people apparently can't read a goddamn email address. Also yes, they waited SIX MONTHS after they got an email bounceback (And sent personal information (PROTECTED A) through a loving hotmail account) before calling and basically saying "If we don't hear from you in a week you're discharged."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Ah yes, clerks. I don't know how many horror stories I've heard of people just being shafted over and over on paper and by people who are just plainly unsympathetic because it isn't them. I've even overheard two clerks at a Tim Hortons talking about how they were just losing paperwork because the guy they were dealing with was a dick. I'm sure he was a dick, does that mean you have to lose his god drat claim paperwork? Cunts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Ruse posted:Ah yes, clerks. I don't know how many horror stories I've heard of people just being shafted over and over on paper and by people who are just plainly unsympathetic because it isn't them. I've even overheard two clerks at a Tim Hortons talking about how they were just losing paperwork because the guy they were dealing with was a dick. I'm sure he was a dick, does that mean you have to lose his god drat claim paperwork? This is why I'm always nice to admin people...you just never know who might decide to get some revenge on you for being a dick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
Supply techs are the worse. They just don't give a gently caress if you are a no hook private and want kit. I tried for like a month and a half to get a Gerber and Day pack and eventually gave up and bought my own poo poo. I bought new dog tags, flags, nameplates and epaulets myself because good luck getting any kit ever in Gagetown. I still have the horrible olive drab raincoat and I didn't get gloves until midway through my last course in November. Even then it was like pulling teeth getting freaking gloves. Maybe in wainwright I'll be able to get the rest of my winter gear cause the scarf they issued me in basic is itchy 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 01:38
|
|
|
Samu posted:Supply techs are the worse. They just don't give a gently caress if you are a no hook private and want kit. I tried for like a month and a half to get a Gerber and Day pack and eventually gave up and bought my own poo poo. I bought new dog tags, flags, nameplates and epaulets myself because good luck getting any kit ever in Gagetown. I still have the horrible olive drab raincoat and I didn't get gloves until midway through my last course in November. Even then it was like pulling teeth getting freaking gloves. Maybe in wainwright I'll be able to get the rest of my winter gear cause the scarf they issued me in basic is itchy Well, as an out of training reg force member(combat arms), its not just you that has issues with kit. It's not the supply techs, its the cf. There are a lot of shortages. Gagetown is a particularly horrible base to get kit mainly because of all of the courses that go through there. Any base that isnt primarily a training base is definitely easier to get kit from. Also once you're out of training you get priority over people who are in training because you are, you know, a "real" soldier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
Speaking as one of those so called "real" soldiers, dudes on course need that poo poo more than I do. I spend most of my days indoors, reasonably comfortable, and make enough money that I can buy Gucci poo poo if I need it. I'm all for making it rough on the guys in training for the benefit of the army at large, but gently caress man, that poo poo's cold and they need the kit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 03:38
|
|
|
Morristron posted:Speaking as one of those so called "real" soldiers, dudes on course need that poo poo more than I do. I spend most of my days indoors, reasonably comfortable, and make enough money that I can buy Gucci poo poo if I need it. Really, I get treated like I'm in training and go to the field atleast once every two months for a week or so at a time and I can barely get the kit I need, so have fun in your wicked combat arms trade. I'm assuming its not the artillery. edit: the "real" soldier part was in there because its a common perception that people in training are scum, so yea My Spirit Otter fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Dec 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
1 PPCLI. And yes, the field sucks and in an ideal world we would all get all the kit we wanted, but if it were between me and a dude going through battle school, he's going to be doing something lovely, probably outdoors, every day, and have little to no access to other sources of kit. I, on the other hand, go to the field with advanced notice, plenty of cash, and access to an whole city's worth of surplus stores and outdoor stores before I go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
Morristron posted:1 PPCLI. Not in 1RCHA, in 1 Horse, you get a weeks notice, tops, unless its the C.O.'s ex and the closest mil sup store is 2 hours away in Winnipeg. So if its between some dude who can wait 2 weeks until he's in his unit to get something and me who has to wait 4 weeks to get something because the dude in training needs it first, gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
The only time I ever remember not having to beg for kit was 2003-2005, when so much new poo poo was thrown at me they couldn't keep track of it all. Literally. I went from Combats and 86' pattern webbing to Cadpat everything within like a week, and signed for, well, not a lot of it. Then 2008 rolled around and they were like "Welp we spent ten years of budget we need that underwear back from your enlistment date".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 05:49
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:need that underwear back from your enlistment date". When I got out they took all my shirts, socks, and underwear. It didn't make sense, they cant really reuse that, can they? edit: They also took my combat boots( with almost no tread) and DEU's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
They asked for my underwear back. I can remember the exact conversation with the supply tech. "That's skin-contact stuff. I've been wearing them for six years, six years of stank and ballsweat. You really want my holey gitch back?" "Yes." "Fine. What a coincidence, these 3 sets of fleece aren't on my kit-list. Never made me sign for them. Guess they're not coming back then." Then a supply tech from my unit called bullshit on the underwear, I got to keep that, and returned my fleece because it was nearly brand new and other troops could use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 06:10
|
|