|
This fiscal will be worse then last, but were are not quite at 90s levels yet.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
TD rates are here. After 31 days it drops to a 75% rate. If those guys are getting every meal claimed that's 5 and a half grand over 10 weeks (or ten grand for the two of them so story checks out) The only way commercial lodging should have been authorized is if the barracks were full for the majority of the course, which rarely happens for longer courses as those pers have priority over guys in for a week or less. But if it did happen they are staying over 30 days and thus are entitled to whats called a "extended stay" which is done via a standing offer with Premiere Executive Suites, however all commercial lodging is receipt based (and for an extended stay the member probably never deals with any money) so its not like you can "pocket" any extra money with that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Ultimate Shrek Fan posted:Either that or you're air force. Up until this latest round of cutbacks whenever my mom went on a course she had hotels for everything. That's why I said ~should~. The regulations are forces wide, however ultimately it has more to do with the unit than the element. A unit with a large TD budget and less commitments will likely play loose with the rules then a unit that that has to move a lot of people around the country all the time. I know plenty of Air forces officers working in the NCR that won't see the inside of any hotel on TD unless every single room in the wardroom/officers mess is full.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Long story short; between the Victoria-class rust buckets... Hey we got way less rust the you'd think and its all surface corrosion anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
The CBC must be quite embarrassed by their interview because they've jumped all over the story with a vengeance. Pretty ballsy of this guy to go on national TV, probably has some mental issues. Given the fact that he got pretty close with his uniform (at least showed more restraint than other fake soldiers) I figure Ex-Cadet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
compressioncut posted:The guy doing the story is former CF, about the only reporter in the world the cranks at army.ca have time for. Dog with a bone, and good for him. I suppose its far fetched but frankly I could have walked by this guy and if not for his douchey beard and glasses combo I probably wouldn't have noticed anything is amiss (I've seen some pretty terrible berets by actual members as well) Granted I'm not an Army type so I wouldn't know that the patch on his shoulder is wrong, or he's missing a sash, etc. But it wasn't like he had a VC on and a SEALS pin or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
But at least you can roll into every party from once you graduate and immediately work into conversation (whether it fits or not) that you are a fighter pilot. (Seriously tho congrats CC)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
compressioncut posted:Congrats back at you for the shore posting (and promotion). Staying subs or do you have to move on for now? Promoted but not posted. The curse of the sub CSEO, I need a qualified replacement. I'm hoping within 6 months, but we will see. My future shore jobs will all be sub related at least until Cdr tho. We don't let people go that easy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:I love how in the CAF, its really beat into you to "stay in your lane", but when something like a statistical survey comes out every idiot who's never even taken a Stats 101 course thinks they have the common sense enough to criticize statistical surveying and sampling methods. This is a older post but I want to point out that the report made no attempt to provide a statistic survey of the CF as a whole. Voluntary Sampling has an inherent self selection bias, and this is at least partially acknowledged in the report, when it talks about how some people were volun-told to attend the focus groups and reasoned that was a good thing and "it added a layer of objectivity to the process, ensuring that a number of those who participated did not have a vested interest in the subject matter of the Review". Doesn't change the validity of the report, as it never attempted to use any of that data to say X number of CF members are rapists or Y number have been assaulted, and simply uses their experiences as the framework to base the 10 recommendations on. Its not a perfect report and shouldn't be automatically accepted as gospel, but it I think it highlights some fundamental issues with our organization and I trust Gen Whitecross to be able to translate those recommendations into a working model going forward. We'll have to see how the next CDS handles it as well - probably with a lot more care.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Never actually heard of that one, I guess I'm a bad Canadian. Its the latter. quote:Indexing is inflation protection which is applicable to all Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) annuities and Defence Service Pension Continuation Act (DSPCA) pensions. It is administered under Supplementary Retirement Benefits (SRB) Part III of the CFSA, and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (SRBA).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ub posted: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. Increased emphasis on littoral ops means its an easy way to increase our "joint" capabilities (a priority for the Navy) without a massive cost (as opposed to say, VLS Tomahawks strike capability). That said I haven't been following the CSC project too closely and I would not be at all surprised if it doesn't make it into the final requirements proposal. If it comes down to hull numbers vs capability within a given budget hull numbers win every time. flakeloaf posted:Five minutes is more than enough time to tell a DEO from a ringknocker, so many of them are that insufferable. I think it's because the DEOs had time to become fully functioning adults before joining, where the ringknockers were tempered in the flames of Mt. Bullshit. It may surprise you to learn that RMC doesn't really create type-A assholes, it just attracts them. If it was shutdown tomorrow you'd all be bitching about DEO or ROTP Civy U officers because that's where that brand of overachiever personality would largely end up, and even then I would only put those at maybe 10-15% of all the cadets there, in my experience anyway. There are advantages and disadvantages to every officer entry plan. You guys put way too much emphasis on RMC as an rear end in a top hat factory... its just a university where everyone wears uniforms and the gender ratios are reversed from a civilian school. All your real training is done over the summers at the same training centers everyone else attends. I suppose if you only deal with 2Lt/Lts then maybe I don't blame you, since at that stage in your life you are the "most" RMC. Certainly by the time you hit Captain or Major the differences are all but erased between the various entry programs as A) you have far more experience doing your job B) you've had years of working with, learning from and forging friendships with other officers that effect your leadership style and C) The us vs them, RMC vs DEO/CivyU BS is a junior officer thing (because at that point your 4 years in school is all the experience you have). Once you get a few years under your belt no one gives a poo poo where you went to school, and if you are an rear end in a top hat, its because you came to the forces as an rear end in a top hat, not because you wore a uniform at your college. RMC is not always a great place to be, but it is a great place to be from. RMC has a pretty strong alumnus network that can provides advantages, as well as giving you a large network of friends and contacts within the CAF, not just stove-piped to your element / trade. Anyway, if any of you have a different opinion of RMC than I based on your time there I'd like to hear it. I attended 99-03 for reference. Simkin posted:If RMC/ROTP dropped into the ocean and we went to something more like other countries have - enlist first, then get streamlined into leadership school that every officer has to go through - it might improve things a bit. After seeing how much time/money/energy gets wasted on attacting/recruiting a very small percentage of total yearly intake, it's no surprise that so many think their poo poo doesn't stink. I can't find any recent figures but when I attended roughly 40-45% of the yearly officer intake went through RMC, and the college ramped up its intake in current years. Not the majority but hardly a very small percentage either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I thought maybe you'd appreciate some insight from someone who went.  After all if you just want to run your mouth and circlejerk about things you know nothing about we've got army.ca for that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
It was directed more at Drakerider than you (and tongue in cheek at that - except the dig at army.ca, that place is pretty terrible)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
In keeping with OP Honour have a pleasant and professional evening, colleague.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Conventional wisdom says that he won't be MND, because as a very recent ex-general he'll be seen as too close to the CAF to be objective.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Barrakketh posted:I don't think we have to worry about a dude whose last report can be summed up with "Burn it all down" being too close to the establishment. Besides, we had ex Brigadier Gordon O'Connor as MND and everyone taught what a fine idea that was. Exactly my point. Close doesn't mean friendly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The best part about the falling budget was all the people who said "we're small and under-equipped but we're the best trained Army in the world." I've always thought that nebulously falling back on "better trained" when faced with equipment, operational or capability shortfalls is just the 21st century equivalent of the Militia myth.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 22:23
|
|
" Had to reconcile recruits who never threw grenades or shot LAWs or Carl Gs.
|
Don't kid yourself, if the Navy had lost its rank titles in unification and only recently got them back it would absolutely be Ordinary/Able/Leading/Master Sailor instead of Seaman.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Sailor sounds way better than Seaman by all accounts. Better alternative is just to disband the Navy imo Naw. Seaman is way better than Sailor. If only that I wouldn't want to deprive the other branches of the wealth of single entendre opportunities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Looks like a good pick. Hope he does well. Got to be a weird feeling to suddenly be (effectively) promoted about 6 ranks overnight.
Commander Jebus fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Canada doesn't do Interim replacements. We say we do, but in reality whatever we buy as an interim ends up as being the replacement. The O-Boats (RCN service 67-99) were supposed to be a stopgap until we could buy six Barbel class subs from the USN for instance. The nice thing about calling it an interim replacement is it cuts down on some (but not all) of the red tape. Probably a 6-9 year project vice 16+. See also: Interim AOR.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
BigLeafyTree posted:Does anyone have any experience being a Marine Systems Engineering Officer? I'm planning to do it through the ROTP path and wondering what the job is actually like and whether I'm an idiot for considering it. I'm a CSEO, which is pretty much the same as an MSEO with the exception of field of study. Its 4 years of university, followed by another year of specialized schooling (which for you includes about 3 months in England at HMS Sultan), follow by a year of on-the-job learning on a warship (called Phase VI). In this phase you are primarily a student and your job is to learn all the systems on the ship (at a high level) within your specialty, as well as gain some useful qualifications like Officer of the Day. After that is 0-2 years of a shore based support job while you wait for your number to come up to get back onboard a warship to do your next year of training as an Assistant Head of Department (A/HOD). In the A/HOD phase you will take on more of a management role within your department as you learn the ins and outs of being the head of the Marine Systems department at sea. While it still requires a lot of technical knowledge, your biggest hurdles will come from the personnel side. A/HOD training lasts about a year, then you get 0-3 years ashore (in jobs too varied and numerous to list) while you wait for your number to come up to get your Head of Department tour, which is generally 18-24 months. This is your last drive at sea and the culmination of the ~3-5 years of training. You will run the MSE Department onboard a warship, which depending on which one you get could be around ~60-70 people. The job is largely administrative in nature with a few operational additions (notably damage control). Then, unless you gently caress up majorly, you'll be given a firm handshake and promoted to LCdr and sent ashore for the rest of your career while doing various support roles mostly related to Project Management or Engineering Support. But as you can see that is pretty far into the future. All of this applies to the surface career track. If you go submarines like I did then your timelines and job roles will diverge quite significantly after your Phase VI. Any more questions please don't hesitate to ask.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Oddly enough, today RUMINT indicatied that the military pay raise was all but confirmed and would be a buck twenty-five going back to 2013. The names attached to the source are credible but it was relayed through someone who isn't, so I guess all this is to say that no-one knows nothing. That level of promotion common for us as well. I think they made 7 MSE and 10 or 11 CSE officers last year (Lt(N) -> LCdr). The reason the promotion is (almost) automatic is that HOD tours for naval Lt's are merit based; by the time you get selected for a HOD tour you are already near the top of the list. A year or two of HOD PER points will put you over the top. As a result there are currently only two post HOD Lt(N) Engineers in the whole navy. Both represent a different cautionary tale.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
SuperSix posted:Any sub guys here that can speak about their time on board? Hello. I am a currently serving Submarine Officer with 7+ years in boats. Happy to answer any questions you may have as long as its releasable. Either here or in PMs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
I've never really felt comfortable with or taken advantage of most of that "thanks for your service" / discount type stuff, but being posted to the US and getting a Common Access Card and getting to take advantage of the whole 'Active Duty boards airplanes first' is a perk I will sorely miss coming back to Canada. Not that I will get to do it again, between no flights and all international military students here losing the CAC card shortly. Also that 15% off at MEC was alright, given that everything there is in units of 50 dollars. Anyone know if they still doing that after the purchase?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2020 23:41
|
|