Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Eye In The Sky]

Same thing happened in Kandahar. Longer the mission goes, the more staff positions are created so people are able to work less and less hours in the day and still accomplish their tasks. I saw it in my former employment where we went from having 2 crews covering a very large AOR to 4 crews a few rotos later even though the Canadian AOR was reduced from the Maiwand/Zhari/Panjiway/KCity/SWK/SB monstrosity we worked in.

Which emphasizes the point this is something we (the CAF we) do, that shouldn't happen yet it does time and time again.  We end up looking like a provincial paving crew; everyone driving by sees not much really happening, 4 guys working with 10 more standing around leaning on shovels with the 1 token dude talking on a cell phone with a clipboard in his hand.

The HQ folk at AJAB didn't even know where the flight line was nor did they know what the jets did every mission. Biggest kicker was them complaining about maintenance runs being too loud at 2 am disturbing their sleep. :facepalm:

I'd bet most of them couldn't point out a RCAF airframe on the ramp or taking off, either.  I don't know what AJ was like, but the AS maintainers were fucked around some with joe jobs and BS, mostly because they worked where most people aren't allowed to go, so people don't actually see them working or get what they are actually there to do.  Example, a CofC ceremony for the JTF Comd, the LRP maint crew just coming off the night shift (12 hours, with aircraft launching and stuff going on) was tasked by JTFSC assclowns to go help set up chairs early in the morning right after their shift on the line.  WTF were all the JTFSC types doing while our maintainers were working? 

Sleeping.  :

Those techs were directly involved with the conduct of ops, keeping airframes ready for missions.  They should have been in bed, not setting up chairs and then having to sit at a ceremony because someone said 'max attendance'.  They actually had jobs that were extremely pertinent to ops, day to day, week to week.  They weren't just there as DFAC Techs.

How easy it would be to write 5 pages on why that coin is so accurate...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Which emphasizes the point this is something we (the CAF we) do, that shouldn't happen yet it does time and time again.  We end up looking like a provincial paving crew; everyone driving by sees not much really happening, 4 guys working with 10 more standing around leaning on shovels with the 1 token dude talking on a cell phone with a clipboard in his hand.

I'd bet most of them couldn't point out a RCAF airframe on the ramp or taking off, either.  I don't know what AJ was like, but the AS maintainers were ****ed around some with joe jobs.  Example, a CofC ceremony for the JTF Comd, the LRP maint crew just coming off the night shift (12 hours, with aircraft launching and stuff going on) was tasked by JTFSC assclowns to go help set up chairs early in the morning right after their shift on the line.  WTF were all the JTFSC types doing while our maintainers were working? 

Sleeping.  :

Those techs were directly involved with the conduct of ops, keeping airframes ready for missions.  They should have been in bed, not setting up chairs and then having to sit at a ceremony because someone said 'max attendance'.  They actually had jobs that were extremely pertinent to ops, day to day, week to week.  They weren't just there as DFAC Techs.

How easy it would be to write 5 pages on why that coin is so accurate...

No argument we have to watch "mission creep" and positions need to be justified.  Also that CoC scenario just sounds like weak and/or poor leadership on a few different levels.

BUT, there is always a but...

What those at the pointy end need to remember is it takes many more people to ensure the effectiveness of the Supply Chain that enables your combat ability.  Remember, that chain reaches back to many different establishments in North America and it crosses oceans and many other countries.  That goes with out even mentioning HR, Pay and Food Services.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Food services; non-issue, DFAC is in place.  Never saw a single CAF members working there.  Pay;  your allowance and PDP calculations are done by the mounting unit/DAG.  Supply, not sure if they are too small there, but the Det has its own dedicated Supply Techs and we never had an issue with Supply.  I know one person who was in charge of a specific CFOC task (CE Officer in charge of a build) who was very frustrated when he went in at 1545hrs on a Saturday for something he needed fairly quickly, and was told he would have to come back at 0800 Monday morning as they closed from 1600 Sat until 0800 Monday.  There's an example of the Garrison Kuwait stuff, and that was about a year ago or so.  I know what you're saying, but in this case, the tail is way to friggin big in theatre.

The fact is there is too much 'fat' allowed to happen when we do Ops.  There was a Camp parade at one point, with a hollow square formed with approx. the same frontage for the Officers, WOs and Sgts and Jnr Ranks formations.  The Officers, on the right flank, were about 7 ranks deep.  The WOs and Sgts on the left flank, we were 4 ranks with a few blank files.  The Jnr Ranks were about 4 ranks as well. 

A few of us (WOs and Sgts) were talking shortly after in the smoke pit after about how many Officers there were on parade, and the Camp Sgt-Maj told us they actually moved some of the Jnr Officers into the files of the Jnr Ranks "so it wouldn't look like there were so many".  :facepalm: 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Food services; non-issue, DFAC is in place.  Never saw a single CAF members working there.  Pay;  your allowance and PDP calculations are done by the mounting unit/DAG.  Supply, not sure if they are too small there, but the Det has its own dedicated Supply Techs and we never had an issue with Supply.  I know one person who was in charge of a specific CFOC task (CE Officer in charge of a build) who was very frustrated when he went in at 1545hrs on a Saturday for something he needed fairly quickly, and was told he would have to come back at 0800 Monday morning as they closed from 1600 Sat until 0800 Monday.  There's an example of the Garrison Kuwait stuff, and that was about a year ago or so.  I know what you're saying, but in this case, the tail is way to friggin big in theatre.

The fact is there is too much 'fat' allowed to happen when we do Ops.  There was a Camp parade at one point, with a hollow square formed with approx. the same frontage for the Officers, WOs and Sgts and Jnr Ranks formations.  The Officers, on the right flank, were about 7 ranks deep.  The WOs and Sgts on the left flank, we were 4 ranks with a few blank files.  The Jnr Ranks were about 4 ranks as well. 

A few of us (WOs and Sgts) were talking shortly after in the smoke pit after about how many Officers there were on parade, and the Camp Sgt-Maj told us they actually moved some of the Jnr Officers into the files of the Jnr Ranks "so it wouldn't look like there were so many".  :facepalm:

Ya I am not arguing that mission creep doesn't happen.  I would agree it does.  I have some funny anecdotal stories of coming into KAF from the PDC where we didn't have laundry or bath, we were living pioneer style.  More than 1 SM made a point of letting me know I looked like crap, which I did.

My concern is that those of us in Logistics (read Supply, Tfc and TN) often get grouped into the statements you make and I think that can be incorrect and frankly unfair, at times, is all.

I know our Supply crew on KAF work 7 days a week with a rotational Duty Staff on after 2000hrs.  That doesn't help you on Op Impact I know.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My concern is that those of us in Logistics (read Supply, Tfc and TN) often get grouped into the statements you make and I think that can be incorrect and frankly unfair, at times, is all.

Point taken and for the record, I personally had no grief with any of the ones you mentioned.  The Det supply folks worked the same hours as we did, as there was certain stuff they had to give to us right before each mission.  We didn't work Mon-Fri, 8-4 hours either.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Having said that, now the question for LRP and AAR types is will they get tax free for mission days, as they will cross that line?  At the very least, they should.  But, knowing the attitude some have towards the actual mission types over there and the real mission, I suspect the aircrew who are stuck at CC will get ****ed over while dobbers up north continue to get tax free.  BZ. 

The rectal plugs that make these decisions need a tune up.

1.  Stop lumping everyone together.  So the Op gets assigned a lower risk for whatever reason (I assume below 2.5 now) which takes it out of the tax free zone(with approval from the tool shed in Ottawa).  But in all honesty what risk are the folks facing in ASAB?  That place is like a f@cking resort.

2.  Assign it based on the job, the LRP det and AAR det are flying over hostile turf, hence they are exposed to higher risk while they are flying.  So pay those f@ckers accordingly!

LRP Supply Det kicked ass when I was there, I have nothing but nice things to say about them.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The answer I got about why everyone gets lumped into the same RA, etc is "it is easier to administer that way".  Well, that's the way to do things.  It is easier for me to do my job if we just don't launch and I can sit outside the HAS smokin' and jokin'.  Prepare to save some YFR!  ;D

IMO, there is a concerted effort to not mention the mission side of the...OP IMPACT mission (irony?) around ASAB.  Even during townhalls, all that stuff.  My (pretty informed) opinion is ''time to shut 'er down", at least the part our community is involved in.  :2c:

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?  Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The CAF should do away with all hardship pay and hazard pay.  The only thing people should get is tax free and that should be based on service in a foreigner country.  Not in Canada, pay no income tax, simple.

HLTA should also go away.  What a profoundly stupid policy.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

IMO the government should simply allow tax break on all outcan ops. For the amount of soldiers deployed, the overall tax the government receive is penny change and would save big time on man hours. It would also be a political gain by supporting the troops.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

IMO the government should simply allow tax break on all outcan ops. For the amount of soldiers deployed, the overall tax the government receive is penny change and would save big time on man hours. It would also be a political gain by supporting the troops.

Absolutely, they would look like heroes for what is essentially chump change. 

Hazard pay and hardship pay are ridiculous.  We are compensated incredibly well, you eat for free and sleep for free for 9 months, food and accommodations being trade dependent.  One of the best compensated armed forces in the world. Tax free should be sufficient.

We're a volunteer military, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!

 

[brihard]

I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.

What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.

Maj 100,632 annual salary (25,478 tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 50,316 (8,499 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 16,979 (2,829/month while deployed)

Cpl 56,568 annual salary (10,352 annual tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 28,284 (3,444 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 6,908 (1,151/month while deployed)

So- the system of tax relief for deployed operations basically rewards risk different based on rank. A major receives approx 250% the benefit of a corporal from the tax relief. If we're compensating risk, and presumably the risk does not recognize variances in rank, maybe we're doing it wrong? Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back?

Just a thought...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good points, Brihard.

... Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same net benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back? ...

Methinks that word I added in yellow might make it harder to do, but one would hope not impossible.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.

What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.

Maj 100,632 annual salary (25,478 tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 50,316 (8,499 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 16,979 (2,829/month while deployed)

Cpl 56,568 annual salary (10,352 annual tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 28,284 (3,444 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 6,908 (1,151/month while deployed)

So- the system of tax relief for deployed operations basically rewards risk different based on rank. A major receives approx 250% the benefit of a corporal from the tax relief. If we're compensating risk, and presumably the risk does not recognize variances in rank, maybe we're doing it wrong? Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back?

Just a thought...

Your first point is an interesting argument and one that I hadn't considered but believe it's probably a better way to go  . 

On the issue of risk and hardship, what you're really looking at is a trade specific allowance.  We already have numerous allowances (Jump Pay, Dive Pay, Aircrew Allowance, Sea Pay, Land Duty Allowance, SOF Allowances, Risk & Hardship, etc...)

My question is, when does it stop?  Does someone get a specific allowance because they're in the infantry?  Do Artillery members get an allowance because we are destroying their hearing? 

What we probably need is a very specific allowance, call it Operational Allowance or a Tiered Land Duty Allowance (Deployed/Non-Deployed) but the whole "my trade is more dangerous than your trade so I should get paid more" is a road to nowhere, pick a different trade if you're upset about the lot you've been given.  I don't think anyone joins the infantry for the benefits.

 

[brihard]

Good points, Brihard.Methinks that word I added in yellow might make it harder to do, but one would hope not impossible.

Oh, it's certainly going to take a bit more mathemagic to achieve my intent here- but I think I'm on, generally, the right track. It's simplified if it's ensured that risk and hardship are non-taxable (I don't know offhand if they are at the lower levels where tax relief doesn't apply).

 

[dimsum]

Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?  Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?

Check it out on the high side.

Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!

:rofl:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?

Changed...somewhat, but not in relation to RA.  Aircrews are flying out of locations in Kuwait (no secret) into the JOA, but only get the RA for IMPACT-KUWAIT.  Even though they spend XX days in Iraq/JOA, they don't get the associated IMPACT-IRAQ RA.

The risk to aircrew is very hard to associate to a geo location that they take off/land at.  Where they take off and land is nothing like the areas they are operating over.  That is the Badlands and the last place in the world you want to be on the ground and running on.

The actual threat level can be very location and/or mission specific.  I'd say, if anything, it would be higher now that before (can't explain more, so hoping you'll take my word for it).

Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?

I am not aware of the CAF or GoC officially confirming or denying if RCAF crews have been shot at, so I'll have to say 'no comment'.

But hey, here's some open source reporting that might be relevant to your question...

“There have been instances where the coalition has received surface-to-air fire. We have the ability to plot it with pinpoint precision — and then we strike back.”

ISIS has capability to shoot down civilian airliners   Shoulder-fired missile systems in ISIS control include the Russian-made SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin, SA-18 Grouse, and SA-24 Grinch

These are the weapons Islamic State fighters are using to terrify the Middle East  *note the picture of the Type 59-1 Field Gun, there is a S-60 57mm AA Gun in the picture as well. 

S-60s

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!

Hopefully there'll be update on that soon...there's a few balls in the air, just waiting to see which ones lands.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hazard pay and hardship pay are ridiculous. 

I don't know...using aircrew and clerks, or MPs deployed to OP IMPACT, are they all facing the same risk??

Before anyone answers, here's a quick reminder to what ISIS do to aircrew they capture. 

RIP Capt Moaz al-Kasasbeh

Tax free should be sufficient.

Well seeing as that just got axed, it is not likely a good baseline/benchmark for deployed ops benefits/compensation.

On the issue of risk and hardship, what you're really looking at is a trade specific allowance.  We already have numerous allowances (Jump Pay, Dive Pay, Aircrew Allowance, Sea Pay, Land Duty Allowance, SOF Allowances, Risk & Hardship, etc...)

My question is, when does it stop?  Does someone get a specific allowance because they're in the infantry?  Do Artillery members get an allowance because we are destroying their hearing? 

What we probably need is a very specific allowance, call it Operational Allowance or a Tiered Land Duty Allowance (Deployed/Non-Deployed) but the whole "my trade is more dangerous than your trade so I should get paid more" is a road to nowhere, pick a different trade if you're upset about the lot you've been given.  I don't think anyone joins the infantry for the benefits.

Operational Allowance, Risk Allowance...name it what you want but the key is to properly identify who gets it and when.  Again using IMPACT as an example, the SOR staff aren't at the same risk as aircrew, yet both receive the same RA.  Aircrew are *5 minutes away* from the fate of Moaz al-Kasasbeh over the JOA.  Anyone who has been to Camp Canada knows what the risk of that happening there is.

It's not about picking a different trade or whining, its about fairly administering benefits for conducting op's, or supporting op's.  Let's be honest, not everyone ends up putting their meat on the line.  That's why some folks going to deployments like IMPACT qualify for a GCS and some qualify for a GSM.

The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy.


The General Service Medal (GSM) is awarded to members of the CF and members of allied forces serving with the CF who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support, on a full-time basis, to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.
  :2c:

Awarding of different medals for the same Op isn't debated, not everyone is F Echelon, right?  Why would allowances not be approached the same?  Conducting operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level A, Supporting Operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level B.