|
flakeloaf posted:The new search engine (which manages to somehow be worse than the old one) also filters anything that isn't a document by default, so if you're looking for a unit's home page you aren't finding it unless you click some boxes. I'm confident your average client will not figure this out. Yeah you're confidence is factual. I am learning this for the first time from your post. I am not a clever man.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
BIG NORTH posted:Yeah you're confidence is factual. I am learning this for the first time from your post. I am not a clever man. Your average user doesn't need more than one hand to count the number of times they've been able to find anything remotely useful using search and consequently now avoids it at all costs. If using search is your last resort for finding something, just assume you won't be able to find it. Another super awesome thing is when they put all-caps urls in messages that actually turn out to be case-sensitive. Why even bother?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
So how does this new (to me) Veteran's Charter work? Lump sums vs pensions and more programs but less cash? Two years of university paid out but not the whole thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Wait what? Can I get the government to give me more money?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Seriously, if I can get me some university learnins on the dirt cheap, well that'd be great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/information-for/caf/services-benefits
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad/op-unifier.page "Junior Sergeant Barrakketh, how would you go about breaking out of a kettle like at Ilovaisk and Debalsateve?" "Well that's a tough question. What did you do in the past?" "We wait for the President to give our mothers and wives gold stars."  Seriously though, it's a whole other ball game compared to OMLT in Afghanistan. The guys are keen and hang off your every word and there isn't the huge cultural chasm we had to deal with riding around with Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaras. Barrakketh fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
They're still all hosed if that war goes hot though. Russian flag over Kiev in like a week. I really hope we don't make any kind of permanent defense arrangement with a country with an ongoing border dispute with Russia, and a Russian-backed insurgency,
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
Directs me to quote:404 - Page Not Found Which I find hilarous in light of the convo like three posts up. Or is  ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I really hope we don't make any kind of permanent defense arrangement with a country with an ongoing border dispute with Russia, and a Russian-backed insurgency, Unless they join NATO how could a Canadian/Ukraine defense agreement benefit us in ANY POSSIBLE WAY? If that war does go hot what the gently caress could we possibly do? Without the Americans around that's non-permissive airspace so our usual limp-Dick response of token Hornets won't work unless you want the maple leaf roundel on CNN after a BUK blows the wing it's on off Our entire active fighting force basically equals a rounding error on Red Army spreadsheets(done on a pirated version of excel 97)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Seriously. I wouldn't want to be a Ukrainian conscript when the Motor Rifle Regiments start crossing the border. (A typical Motor Rifle Regiment contains more tanks than the entire CAF). Not to mention more Ukrainians have deserted than make up the entire combat arms (~50k at last count). There is no way any more involvement will work out well. I don't mind giving them winter mittens and mukluks, but I'm kind of amazed by the media narrative that Plucky Little Ukraine can hold it's own with Canadian help. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Yeah the Red steamroller is still very much a thing, gently caress anyone that says otherwise Get all Red Storm Rising fanwanky as you want, if Putin gets some flashbacks to his previous life as ol' steely Joe watch any promises of aid turn into strong language and sanctions on maple syrup imports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
.
stevobob fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
I'm going to go out and guess that "veteran" and "after" are terms that will have very fluid definitions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
.
stevobob fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
drat. Even if you lose your legs or something, medical only covers two years of school. As much as Harper talks about the military, he hasn't done much for us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:drat. Even if you lose your legs or something, medical only covers two years of school. You didn't realize this after he closed down 9 VA offices and then spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees fighting veteran support groups in court??!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
How about the guy that has to prove every year that his legs didn't grow back
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:How about the guy that has to prove every year that his legs didn't grow back The Amazing Spider-Man was a documentary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Who here still remembers when we had the civil bureaucrats at DND on record saying it's better P.R. for the PMO when we come back in coffins because wounded soldiers tend to bitch and moan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Ouch. Really? Kind of surprised nobody's kicked the Tories in the nuts a few times over Defence spending/support (other than the low hanging F-35 fruit) in this election campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Probably because the other guys want to spend even less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
It's a small gripe compared to the new charter, and gutting pensions and VAC, but losing the military hospitals was probably a sign of things to come. Not to mention military spending is presently lower than it ever was under the Liberals, but I guess numbers don't matter in Harperland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Sir John Eh posted:Probably because the other guys want to spend even less. And where do you have any proof of that? I mean, the Liberals have a long history of cutting funding for the Forces, but from everything the NDP have been saying they have no intentions of further cuts, and he'll, they've even hinted at reforming Canadian Defense Procurement
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Do any of the parties have positions of the major procurement boondoggles? F-35 CCV TAPV Sea King Replacement
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
The liberals want to scrap the F35s and instead spend all that money on the navy. They also have former General "Screw NDHQ" Leslie on their team. I'm all for axing the fat in Ottawa but I'm not sure how I feel about having a mediocre air force and mediocre navy instead of a mediocre air force and a terrible navy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Mediocre for any of the branches won't cut it if any of the parties wants the country to be relevant on the world stage, but a promise from a politician during an election is worth it's weight in bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
God, who cares about the Navy? Every Navy sperg I meet goes on about force projection and blah blah blah and goes off the deep-end into doctrine of what "might" happen, yet there hasn't been an actual naval engagement since 1950 so its all just D&D roleplaying at this point. "And then pew pew pew, my destroyer would engage with this, and then move there, and then..." Sorry, Im still bitter about having to memorize what a loving forecastle is (PRONOUNCED FO'C'S'LE!!) Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Sep 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Pretty sure any modern naval engagement would be decided by three things: Subs, carriers, planes. We don't have two of those, so we sould be throwing money at the third one so that's it's moderately effective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Pretty sure any modern naval engagement would be decided by three things: Subs, carriers, planes. We don't have two of those, so we sould be throwing money at the third one so that's it's moderately effective. Any modern naval engagement would be literally rolling a dice because no one has any idea how it would play out save for D&D level wargaming by spergs. For Air and Land doctrine at least there's been actual wars to test out batshit crazy ideas, but the Navy gets to go hogwild thinking up scenarios. sorry, Im just bitter about the sweet sweet ball caps and beards. Plus the uniforms have better hipster cred than CADPAT
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Just once I want a government to go off the deep end, just for a few years so we get carriers, landing craft, those baby carriers US Marines have - the whole shbang. Then I would never have to hear about the Navy again, and also the Army combat arms could stop jerking off about "another Normandy" once they have a few exercises in the North Atlantic on those things and realize poo poo sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Just once I want a government to go off the deep end, just for a few years so we get carriers, landing craft, those baby carriers US Marines have - the whole shbang. God do people actually jerk off about "another Normandy"? There is nothing worse than war nerds in the Army who talk about this poo poo like its a video game or jerk off about things. "Unngh unggh the Bm-21 is so cool guys, it can go pew pew pew and BWWHWHOOOOOM"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Simkin posted:Kind of surprised nobody's kicked the Tories in the nuts a few times over Defence spending/support (other than the low hanging F-35 fruit) in this election campaign. That's because no one really cares or notices outside of a few journalists and policy wonks. Its a quick way to score some cheap points (F-35), but ultimately Canada largely doesn't give a poo poo beyond vague platitudes or general notions that "we should spend more" while simultaneously making GBS threads all over any replacement program as being too expensive and unneeded, and the parties all realize this. I can't really blame them - after all we have been whittled down to a token force on the global scale and I can't count the number of times I've had to explain what is it I do to someone who either had no idea Canada had that capability or was generally dismissive of our whole armed forces. Think about it this way, was the average Canadian's life affected any way when we force reduced from 100K to 60K in the 90s? Or when we went down to one effective ship per coast (plus a deployer) when we lost the tankers and destroyers during the height of FELEX (Frigate Life Extension)? Or when we lost air defense? Reduced the number of airworthy CF-18s? The answer to all is a resounding no. Its only an issue academically until its not. And at that point its too late. Although I will admit that being in the most maligned sub-service of the most maligned branch (and probably the second most maligned overall project next to the aforementioned F-35 project) probably doesn't help with selling what I do to Canadians. The reason that all parties (and that won't change regardless of who is elected) can and do treat defense spending like discretionary funds to be turned on or off year over year is because the public lets them. Frankly at this point the apparatus and bureaucracy that props up our whole system behind the scenes (Think the various ADMs) has been atrophied as well simultaneously burdened with enough layers of checks, balances, approvals and committees that even if the hypothetical liberal/NDP/Green majority decided to give us the pie in the sky 2%-of-GDP budget NATO recommends we still would have to give most of it back at the end of the year. The system is designed to spend just enough money to keep the gears moving slowly while ensuring the Canadian industry gets it cut. That's why projects take decades. Fixing this is entirely out of the realm of the Department as a whole let alone the CAF - it would take serious acts of Parliament backed up by reform at the higher levels of PWGSC and the TBS along with enormous expenditures of political capital in order to even start spending the kind of money in a timely fashion required to get that "dream military" of helicopter carriers, combat blimps and whatever else you want. In other words, lots of people would have to be dying somewhere Canadians really care about or a serious-no-fooling attack on Canada. But hey, we just stood up a Cyber Command and a Space Command (to better command and coordinate our many assets in space of course), so there is that. Melian Dialogue posted:Any modern naval engagement would be literally rolling a dice because no one has any idea how it would play out save for D&D level wargaming by spergs. For Air and Land doctrine at least there's been actual wars to test out batshit crazy ideas, but the Navy gets to go hogwild thinking up scenarios. Not really. The Falklands still drives a lot of blue water naval doctrine and although its been a while the fundamentals of warfare in a jet and anti-ship missile age haven't changed. The missiles are a lot smarter, but so are the countermeasures. I'll give you that littoral support is very much an evolving field, especially in Canada where we will soon be at a point where we need to decide if our new ships will actually be effective at NGS or not. MohawkSatan posted:Pretty sure any modern naval engagement would be decided by three things: Subs, carriers, planes. We don't have two of those, so we sould be throwing money at the third one so that's it's moderately effective. I like the cut of your jib sailor
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Burn Department of Public Works to ashes, scorched earth policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Burn Department of Public Works to ashes, scorched earth policy. Always seems weird they have anything to do with procurement, I picture guys with hardhats turning pipe wrenches when I hear "public works".
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Just saw Hyena Road, dunno what to make of it. I guess it was alright? It had some really weird scenes and a weird pace to it, and the Int O guy was definitely some amalgamation of a super source handler/PSYOPS guy/whatever guy. Lots of weird dialogue and scenes, but, the "muh realism" wasn't too bad I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
LCdr. Jebus posted:I like the cut of your jib sailor This thread taught me why joining up would have been a horrendous idea, the least I can do is pay it back with occasional insights/comedy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
In other news, the Rangers apparently are getting their new rifles, finally. Get to retire the SMLE .303 in favor of a .308 Sako design...built by Colt Canada.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:56 |
|
|
LCdr. Jebus posted:In other words, lots of people would have to be dying somewhere Canadians really care about or a serious-no-fooling attack on Canada. Good longpost. Like you said, there's basically never any political cost to cutting defence spending in Canada. Once the Conservatives figured it out, it was game over. At this point I would prefer any other party, even the loving Green party. Sure, they would slash funding, but at least they'd hopefully be upfront about it in a way that would allow to DND to admit loss of capability and plan around a different concept (such as ditching the idea of having a blue water navy). LCdr. Jebus posted:I'll give you that littoral support is very much an evolving field, especially in Canada where we will soon be at a point where we need to decide if our new ships will actually be effective at NGS or not. That's surprising, we don't have NGS capability now and I wouldn't have thought it would be a priority for any new class. Too offensive, not very Canadian.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 16:33
|
|