A
aesop081
Guest
Centurian1985 said:
;D fair enough but i guess you dont know where the DIAC is........Wont find too many CF-18 pilots in the DIAC either. "downstairs" would be transient ops...where the Hornet guys hang out.........
In Defence of the Air Force.
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
;D fair enough but i guess you dont know where the DIAC is........Wont find too many CF-18 pilots in the DIAC either. "downstairs" would be transient ops...where the Hornet guys hang out.........
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If you're in Comox I can draw a map from memory - I used to work down the hall from it on the way to where the Ops O was in my day. The T-birds were also down by Ops, the met guys had the office overlooking the airfield, and all the CP-140 flight crews had offices across the hall from us. (That little room with the camera over the door). Do they still do the 'photo of the month' contest for the aircrews?
A
aesop081
Guest
Centurian1985 said:
Well if thats the case you should know that my crew room is on the same floor as the DIAC, thus not needing to go "downstairs" to get to it. I dont think we have the photo of the month anymore, i know its still done in CYZX, but since none of my pictures would win.....i realy dont care ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I havent been there since 1997 so dont know how much the place has changed. From what you said I presumed the whole unit might have been moved upstairs to where the riggers and other tech guys had their work areas.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Kirkhill said:
Are you talking about something like the RAF Regiment? I have to confess I am having some difficulty understanding your argument, although another cup of coffee might help......
In my small Infantry mind, I see the Airforce as a delivery service (gets me and my friends there and back, brings on the bombs and rockets when things get hot), a support service (recce, surveillance, communications relays, AWACS, J-STARS, shapes the battlefield with deep strikes, etc.) and an umbrella (Combat air patrols). I am sure the Air Force members are amused at my inversion of their priorities, but there it is.
I understand the concept of a Joint Force which integrates air and ground and sea elements under one command to carry out missions in particular environments, but this doesn't seem to be what you are arguing for either.
- Reaction score
- 7,433
- Points
- 1,160
a_majoor:
Think in terms of Germany's Fallschirmjager in World War 2. They were not part of the Luftwaffe and were commanded by Goering. The Luftwaffe delivered cargo, bullets, bombs and its own soldiers. It was the equivalent of the making the Paras part of the RAF, not the RAF Regiment which specialize in local defence.
I am not suggesting putting ground forces in blue uniforms at all. I am suggesting that domestically where the need for ground forces is rare, widely scattered and can probably be handled by small numbers that it might make sense to put a Land Force unit (something like the old CAR or maybe a larger force), put it at the disposal of the Air Force and make the Air Force entirely responsible for first reaction to all crises in the Bush and the Arctic and, maybe, even the EEZ as well.
Give the Navy primacy on the High Seas, the Army in Expeditionary Force and maybe, just maybe, the Militia/Reserves in the settled parts of Canada.
That would make the Air Force and the Militia the dominant elements in CanadaCom, the Navy and the Army would be dominant in the Expeditionary Command.
On the other hand Loachman advises I am too far out of the box here, so I sit to be corrected. ;D
Cheers.
Think in terms of Germany's Fallschirmjager in World War 2. They were not part of the Luftwaffe and were commanded by Goering. The Luftwaffe delivered cargo, bullets, bombs and its own soldiers. It was the equivalent of the making the Paras part of the RAF, not the RAF Regiment which specialize in local defence.
I am not suggesting putting ground forces in blue uniforms at all. I am suggesting that domestically where the need for ground forces is rare, widely scattered and can probably be handled by small numbers that it might make sense to put a Land Force unit (something like the old CAR or maybe a larger force), put it at the disposal of the Air Force and make the Air Force entirely responsible for first reaction to all crises in the Bush and the Arctic and, maybe, even the EEZ as well.
Give the Navy primacy on the High Seas, the Army in Expeditionary Force and maybe, just maybe, the Militia/Reserves in the settled parts of Canada.
That would make the Air Force and the Militia the dominant elements in CanadaCom, the Navy and the Army would be dominant in the Expeditionary Command.
On the other hand Loachman advises I am too far out of the box here, so I sit to be corrected. ;D
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 7,433
- Points
- 1,160
Further to my last:
After reading Loachman on Infanteer's 1st Wing thread I have a much better appreciation of his position. Hard to argue against him.
Maybe though.....
After I finished a_majoor's question by suggesting the Luftwaffe/Fallschirmjager as a model, and also deciding that blue suited soldiers falling from the sky wasn't quite what I had in mind another model occured to me: Royal Navy/Royal Marines, or for that matter US Navy/US Marines
In both these instances, although arguments can be, were and have been made that the "soldiers" (apologies to BBJ and Greenlid) should be army types one of the advantages in leaving within the control of the Navy and the Air Force is that it encourages the parent organization to figure out how to support and deploy them and how to use them.
Although there is still internal tensions over budget and whether driving a troopship is a real command it is harder for the parent service to deny that the task of supporting and delivering a ground force is their responsibility. Accordingly they, however reluctantly, pony up funds and personnel to support the task and, more enthusiastically, fight the political fight alongside the Army to secure the funds from Treasury. They also have the added carrot of being in command of a larger force with Army personnel under command, such as in the Falklands where Admiral Woodward was in overall command, with Maj Gen Moore (RM) in command of Land Forces and Brigadier Thompson (RM) i/c 3 Commando Brigade with 2 and 3 Para attached. This encourages the Navy to support the purchase of transports to deliver army troops with tanks and guns and stuff, to support their forces.
If you want jointery then make it jointery for all with two way streets.
Or do it like the US Marines and integrate ground training into the training of aircrew so that they know what the job on the ground entails and then make it clear that advancement will require ongoing training on the ground in support of, and in command of, ground operations. A guy in fighter, as far as the Army is concerned is nothing more than an Air Defence Gunner moving at a high rate of knots or else a gunner with a really long distance cannon and a penchant for riding the bullet to the target. If gunners can learn to command ground forces why not pilots?
After reading Loachman on Infanteer's 1st Wing thread I have a much better appreciation of his position. Hard to argue against him.
Maybe though.....
After I finished a_majoor's question by suggesting the Luftwaffe/Fallschirmjager as a model, and also deciding that blue suited soldiers falling from the sky wasn't quite what I had in mind another model occured to me: Royal Navy/Royal Marines, or for that matter US Navy/US Marines
In both these instances, although arguments can be, were and have been made that the "soldiers" (apologies to BBJ and Greenlid) should be army types one of the advantages in leaving within the control of the Navy and the Air Force is that it encourages the parent organization to figure out how to support and deploy them and how to use them.
Although there is still internal tensions over budget and whether driving a troopship is a real command it is harder for the parent service to deny that the task of supporting and delivering a ground force is their responsibility. Accordingly they, however reluctantly, pony up funds and personnel to support the task and, more enthusiastically, fight the political fight alongside the Army to secure the funds from Treasury. They also have the added carrot of being in command of a larger force with Army personnel under command, such as in the Falklands where Admiral Woodward was in overall command, with Maj Gen Moore (RM) in command of Land Forces and Brigadier Thompson (RM) i/c 3 Commando Brigade with 2 and 3 Para attached. This encourages the Navy to support the purchase of transports to deliver army troops with tanks and guns and stuff, to support their forces.
If you want jointery then make it jointery for all with two way streets.
Or do it like the US Marines and integrate ground training into the training of aircrew so that they know what the job on the ground entails and then make it clear that advancement will require ongoing training on the ground in support of, and in command of, ground operations. A guy in fighter, as far as the Army is concerned is nothing more than an Air Defence Gunner moving at a high rate of knots or else a gunner with a really long distance cannon and a penchant for riding the bullet to the target. If gunners can learn to command ground forces why not pilots?
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Kirkhill said:
Thanks. Perhaps someday we'll have a CDS who sees it my way, too.
I've already cast my ballot for John King for the position.
I've just spent a long time bashing out another reply (twice, because I somehow erased it with only a couple of paragraphs to go) so I'm going to leave responding to yours for a bit if you don't mind. I'm not the fastest typer.
