Unfortunately, FJAG, navies are not armies: It is not a pyramid of personnel with a large number of basic trained personnel at the bottom led by a few highly trained senior personnel. DP1 trained personnel makes less than 10% of ship's crew, while technicians that require lot of training compose the core of the crew. It takes seven to ten years to train a maritime engineer to act as the EOOW (Engineering officer of the watch - basically the person in charge of a steaming watch - who oversees engineers with a specific function who required 3 to 5 years to get there themselves) And that's in the Reg force. Part time, how much time do you think it takes to qualify a reservist?
That's just engineers, but it's the same for most trades, save perhaps (only perhaps) the boatswains. If I have the naval reserve officers available for four good three and a half month summers in a row, they can probably manage, just, to qualify as bridge watch keepers on the frigates, but I would have to have them available for the same amount of time to qualify them for a D level position after that, and even more for the next step (divisional officer position and then coursing leading to a LCDR position other than XO). Basically, it would take a reservist three times the number of years of a regular force officer to qualify for any similar position, and that is if and only if they are available three to four months a year for military training.
Fully understood which is why I said at least 50% at DP1. It's different but not much so in the Army. A little under one half of an artillery regiment of 552 is Cpl/Pte positions and well over half of those would be DP2 so maybe around 20% or less would be just DP 1 qualified. A frigate has an establishment of 216 of which 72 are classed as Cpl/Pte although I have no idea what the breakdown between Cpl and Pte is in that category. (Both, incidentally have an additional 60 and 72 straight Cpl positions respectively)
I do not doubt that there are many technical positions in the Navy but don't undervalue the complexity of the skills needed in the Army either. Running a LAV or tank turret or a counter mortar radar or the electronic systems on an M777 or its fire direction systems or an Air Support Coordination Cell takes a bit of talent as well. The Army tends to do a fairly decent job of reducing such tasks to drills which once practiced sufficiently become second nature - but not all. And let's not forget that it takes some real skills to lead men into hostile fire - and a battalion needs a lot of those guys. Sailors tend to go where the ship goes.
I expect that a reservist winning a slot as a commander of a vessel is probably beyond most of them (although I did know a one with ticket for an MCDV and he was a busy lawyer in civvy life). It's the same for a full-sized, fully equipped artillery regiment (while there are a lot of COs and bty/Coy/Sqn commanders of reserve battalions and regiments, I would think that the vast majority of those would not cut it in the transformed Army that I see either)
I wouldn't expect a full reserve crew for a ship anymore than I see a full reserve infantry battalion or artillery or armoured regiment either. I'm more of a 10/90 guy for the Army or maybe 20/80 guy for a ship.
I know that this is a hobby horse of mine, but I just can't see Canada's military ever being effective until we start cutting full-time manpower so that the very heavy annual personnel costs can be converted to capital procurement and O&M funds. To me there is very little difference in manning ships full-time with reservists the way that the Navy tried to do 15-20 years ago with MCDVs. The cost difference as between a full-time reservist and a full-time regular force member is negligible and just a phony baloney way of circumventing PY limitations. True recurring savings are achieved if both some ships and
fully trained reservists are left "in reserve" for major emergencies such as war and only as many ships and crews as needed are staffed full-time for such missions need to be undertaken on a full-time basis. Rotating ships through full use and reserve/maintenance cycles would also save on wear and tear on the hulls and systems not to mention operating costs.
If Naval reservists could be concentrated where the ships can be tied up: the two coasts, Quebec and maybe some form of craft (maybe MCDVs or even one frigate on the Great Lakes) routine weekend and summer training/maintenance could be undertaken on those "reserve" ships rather than in stone frigates. I know that the US Navy does not do this (although both the US Army has roughly one half of its people and equipment [including aviation) in the ARNG and USAR and the USAF has a substantial amount its people and equipment in USAF reserve and Air NG units)
The problem that our Navy (and Air Force and Army) is going to have to come to grips with sooner than later is that the exorbitant costs of full-time personnel (especially all those in Ottawa) will so undermine the capital acquisition and O&M costs that the capability gap will continue to drop to the point where the whole force becomes incapable of anything but the mildest of conflicts. That's good being wasted.
I truly like what I see in the CSC as a system (the MCDV on the other hand I see as the equivalent of the C3 howitzer - a nice training aid but not a combat vessel. I personally think we need some light combat vessels or at least weaponize the MCDV) What scares me is that when the public (i.e. politicians) looks at the CSC life cycle costs of $219 billion, folks are going to choke. (are already choking). Personally I see the 15 ships as a bare minimum that the country would need for a war. I wonder what the lif-cycle costs would be if seven of those ships were designated for the reserves to be manned at 1/6th the personnel costs over a period of 30 years (together with reduced maintenance costs due to lower sea time per hull. It might be a significantly lower and more palatable number for everyone and still ensure Irving et al keep getting all the requisite Fed funds to build hulls with a purpose.
Honestly OGBD, I think you can do a lot with reservists if one designs the terms of service and training system properly and use them as "break-the glass reserves" and not as people you can yank around whenever the mood strikes the headquarters or when they show up for training whenever they feel like it. With today's system there's no way in hell one can do this.
