Updated Army Service Dress project

[Eye In The Sky]

no one bothers them because of their length of service,

34 years combined Reg and res this summer

broken bodies

Pensioned under the old VAC charter that went away in 2006

, questionable alcohol consumption habits

it might have played a role in my 3 STs in the past…

, hearing loss,

Dropped another level at this years aircrew medical, claim for tinnitus processing with VAC now…

potentially at least one divorce

Confirmed training marriage complete in ‘99…

, and the fact that they actually know what is going on?

Nice that some one acknowledges this!


The fact so much of that was accurate for me personally?

 

[Good2Golf]

Just thoght I'd throw this idea out there.
This change over to a new DEU will cost a lot of money so maybe this should be used kind of like the old CF greens and have every person in land based occupations and roles have to wear it. Naval personnel and sea based trades continue to wear the RCN uniform. Dump the air force uniform, we don't actually have an Air Force (except in name), just admit that we have an Army Air Corps and dress them in the khakis as well. Call them the Royal Canadian Flying Corps (which is more accurate) and have the shoulder flash in sky blue with white lettering (maybe include the flying eagle). The only exception would be the naval aviators, who would wear a RCN uniform with a pair of navy aviation wings, and call them the RCN Air Service (the original name for navy aviators).
Obviously I know this will never happen, but would save a lot of money in putting most of the CAF (i.e. Army, Air Corps and all non-naval support services) in the same uniform.

So changing more people to a new uniform than just the Brigade Group Army sound to you like a good way to spend money?

…and your proposed Royal Canadian Flying Battalion Corps would fly everything other than the Cyclones? So NORAD-fighters, Strategic and Tactical Airlift and Search & Rescue also part of the Army’s Royal Canadian Flying Corps?

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's a shame that the Warrant Scroll is now, unfortunately, only presented upon promotion to CWO.

One would think it might reinforce the position a bit more.

I believe, not 100% sure, that it was not presented to WOIIs in the bad old days. I recall a friend, a Foreman of Signals receiving his only after his promotion to WOI and that seemed to be as expected.

-----

Edited to add: but I read the post by EITS and I may well ben mistaken.

 

[WLSC]

EITS, thanks for the link to a good read.

That said, I think the leadership of the day missed the mark on the Warrant…



Looks like the RCN/Naval preoccupation with status won the day over formalizing/granting WO/MWO/PO1/CPO2s with a representation of the trust the institution placed in them and the responsibilities upon which the military would depend on them to carry out. I can almost hear the harrumphy/pompous tone in Cmdre Falls’ voice in my mind, as I read that recounting of that dit.

Instead it was seen/argued/implemented as a status symbol only for the elite grouping of CWOs/CPO1s…which is disappointing and to a fair degree reinforces some critiques that the CWO/CPO1 branch/rank/cabal(?) have made against them to this day.

That’s what I heard but never saw it written.

 

[dimsum]

Dump the air force uniform, we don't actually have an Air Force (except in name), just admit that we have an Army Air Corps and dress them in the khakis as well. Call them the Royal Canadian Flying Corps (which is more accurate) and have the shoulder flash in sky blue with white lettering (maybe include the flying eagle).

Please elaborate on why the RCAF isn't an AF except in name only. I didn't think an Air Force had to have a certain amount of aircraft or roles to be considered a "real" Air Force.

I've posted before that I personally would understand having some fleets return to their former elements (Tac Avn to the CA, MH to the RCN) but there are a bunch of others that don't neatly fit in to either. Also, who takes care of the Space aspect?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS, thanks for the link to a good read.

That said, I think the leadership of the day missed the mark on the Warrant…



Looks like the RCN/Naval preoccupation with status won the day over formalizing/granting WO/MWO/PO1/CPO2s with a representation of the trust the institution placed in them and the responsibilities upon which the military would depend on them to carry out. I can almost hear the harrumphy/pompous tone in Cmdre Falls’ voice in my mind, as I read that recounting of that dit.

Instead it was seen/argued/implemented as a status symbol only for the elite grouping of CWOs/CPO1s…which is disappointing and to a fair degree reinforces some critiques that the CWO/CPO1 branch/rank/cabal(?) have made against them to this day.

My thought on reading that the first time was “so a Scroll to a WO would devalue it; but a 2Lt doesn’t devalue a Commission. Right.”

 

[Halifax Tar]

My thought on reading that the first time was “so a Scroll to a WO would devalue it; but a 2Lt doesn’t devalue a Commission. Right.”

That was my first thought too.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Just thoght I'd throw this idea out there.
This change over to a new DEU will cost a lot of money so maybe this should be used kind of like the old CF greens and have every person in land based occupations and roles have to wear it. Naval personnel and sea based trades continue to wear the RCN uniform. Dump the air force uniform, we don't actually have an Air Force (except in name), just admit that we have an Army Air Corps and dress them in the khakis as well. Call them the Royal Canadian Flying Corps (which is more accurate) and have the shoulder flash in sky blue with white lettering (maybe include the flying eagle). The only exception would be the naval aviators, who would wear a RCN uniform with a pair of navy aviation wings, and call them the RCN Air Service (the original name for navy aviators).
Obviously I know this will never happen, but would save a lot of money in putting most of the CAF (i.e. Army, Air Corps and all non-naval support services) in the same uniform.

It’s baffles me that you see the severely under-equipped CArmy as a “valid” military, but the RCAF as not when the fact is, the most operational service day to day is realistically the RCAF.

 

[torg003]

What I meant by not a full fledged air force was that we don't have all capacities that the larger counties (population-wise) have, such as strategic bombers, ground attack, etc. The RCAF just buys one multi-role combat aircraft to do as much as they can. I consider helos like the Griffon and Chinook to be used for army aviation, but maybe that's just me. I do consider the "Army" (Land Forces Command) to be underfunded and not fully functional as the Army should be. Basically, the Canadian Gov't needs to spend a lot more on defence so that we can actually defend Canada, but it falls short. They just spend enough to cover some international obligations they consider important ( NORAD, NATO). I would like to see the military de-unified and more money be spent of the 3 services, but that's not realistically going to happen. I'd like to see the Army do Army aviation, and the Navy do naval aviation and the Air Force capabilities expanded, but as long as there's a unified CAF, it's not going to happen.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What I meant by not a full fledged air force was that we don't have all capacities that the larger counties (population-wise) have, such as strategic bombers, ground attack, etc. The RCAF just buys one multi-role combat aircraft to do as much as they can. I consider helos like the Griffon and Chinook to be used for army aviation, but maybe that's just me. I do consider the "Army" (Land Forces Command) to be underfunded and not fully functional as the Army should be. Basically, the Canadian Gov't needs to spend a lot more on defence so that we can actually defend Canada, but it falls short. They just spend enough to cover some international obligations they consider important ( NORAD, NATO). I would like to see the military de-unified and more money be spent of the 3 services, but that's not realistically going to happen. I'd like to see the Army do Army aviation, and the Navy do naval aviation and the Air Force capabilities expanded, but as long as there's a unified CAF, it's not going to happen.

Our biggest commitment day to day outside SAR is NORAD.

I’d be careful about de-funding any of the environments, as SOF and the RCAF (SAR, NORAD and Space) would likely receive the most votes of support where it counts.

Multi-role isn’t a bad thing; not having other dedicated capabilities like AD, AW&C or subs is a bigger issue IMO.

 

[dimsum]

The RCAF just buys one multi-role combat aircraft to do as much as they can.

It's not just us. The intent of the Joint Strike Fighter (which became the F-35) was to do everything, while the F-22 provided the air superiority. Before that, the F-4 Phantom II was designed to be the "everything" for the USAF, USN, and USMC.

No, we don't have strategic bombers, but strategic bombers aren't really useful for defending a nation. Ground-attack-specific aircraft like the A-10 are a dying breed not because they're not useful, but because it isn't survivable without air superiority provided by multi-role combat aircraft. So if you have a limited budget like Canada, what would you rather spend funds on - something that does many things, or a bunch of single-role aircraft?

The video below is a pretty good explanation of what smaller nations (for Canada, population, not size) have to juggle for defence:

 

[Halifax Tar]

Our biggest commitment day to day outside SAR is NORAD.

I’d be careful about de-funding any of the environments, as SOF and the RCAF (SAR, NORAD and Space) would likely receive the most votes of support where it counts.

Multi-role isn’t a bad thing; not having other dedicated capabilities like AD, AW&C or subs is a bigger issue IMO.

It's actually the full time Army we could do without. The RCN, RCAF and SOF we need. The CA, no so much.

 

[torg003]

@ EITS - I wasn't talking about defunding, I think that the CAF needs more money, not less, but we know that's not that likely. I guess I let my prejudices get the better of me when I wrote that. My father being in the RCAF before unification and then seeing what happened after has affected my perception of the CAF.
@dimsum - I stand corrected.
@HTar- I don't disagree with that. I realize that the Army is the main component of the CAF and that because of that, the RCAF and RCN don't get as much funding as they need (IMO). If we had a functioning reserve/militia system like some countries in Europe, where people join the reserves to get trained and will get called up at times to serve in some sort of national or international posting, then we wouldn't need much of a full-time Army (or possibly none at all). But we all know that any Canadian gov't in the future is unlikely to make that drastic of a change to the system.

 

[OldSolduer]

It's actually the full time Army we could do without. The RCN, RCAF and SOF we need. The CA, no so much.

Beggin yer pardon again. A regular army is needed. It just has to be properly led and equipped.
Army pers are a feeder to SOF. And many times regular army units can be used for lower level missions that need numbers to make it work.
Cordon and searches can’t be done by eight SOF types.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Beggin yer pardon again. A regular army is needed. It just has to be properly led and equipped.
Army pers are a feeder to SOF. And many times regular army units can be used for lower level missions that need numbers to make it work.
Cordon and searches can’t be done by eight SOF types.

Also, if we had any discernable foreign policy, the CA is the primary FG for expeditionary operations our allies are looking for.

A 6 pack of fighters (that puts strain on our NORAD commitments) or a frigate here or there (which also puts strain on our already depleted ships companies) is not usually what NATO or the UN ask of us.

Boots on the ground from the Reg F CA prevents the Res F from being mobilized at every whim, and helps keep the RCN/RCAF protecting our skies and sea approaches.

I can drive a nail in with the handle of a Robertson screw driver, but I really do need a hammer at times.

 

[dimsum]

Bringing it back to uniforms - if people are looking for something distinctly Canadian, the Ceinture Flechee (Metis sash) is pretty much unique to Canada.

I don't think you have to be Metis to wear one (I could be wrong) and it's already in the uniform of at least one CA unit. Plus, it's another connection to history.

 

[WLSC]

It's actually the full time Army we could do without. The RCN, RCAF and SOF we need. The CA, no so much.

Without a full time CA, really hard to sustain SOF.

 

[WLSC]

Bringing it back to uniforms - if people are looking for something distinctly Canadian, the Ceinture Flechee (Metis sash) is pretty much unique to Canada.

I don't think you have to be Metis to wear one (I could be wrong) and it's already in the uniform of at least one CA unit. Plus, it's another connection to history.

Haha! We love our fléchée. They are worn in mess kit and full dress even today. We are waiting to receive a version to be worn in 1 for parade and mess kit.

 

[dimsum]

Haha! We love our fléchée. They are worn in mess kit and full dress even today. We are waiting to receive a version to be worn in 1 for parade and mess kit.

Well, I guess that answers the question whether you have to be Metis or not to wear it...

 

[torg003]

Who's the guy on the left in the picture? Is he Canadian or from another military? He seems to be wearing the same collar insignia as the others, so is he wearing the new CA uniform or is he from another Commonwealth country?