Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[The Bread Guy]

From the summary of the Spring 2016 Auditor General's report on the Army Reserves ...

... We concluded that although Army Reserve units received clear guidance for domestic missions, the Canadian Army did not require Army Reserve groups to formally confirm that they were prepared to deploy on domestic missions. Army Reserve units and groups did not always have access to key equipment. At the same time, Army Reserve units lacked clear guidance on preparing for international missions, had lower levels of training as cohesive teams, and had not fully integrated this training with that of the Regular Army.

We concluded that the Army Reserve did not have the number of soldiers it needed and lacked information on whether soldiers were prepared to deploy when required. The number of Army Reserve soldiers has been steadily declining because the Army Reserve has been unable to recruit and retain the soldiers it needs. Furthermore, funding was not designed to fully support unit training and other activities.

We concluded that Army Reserve soldiers received lower levels of physical fitness training and were not trained in the same number of skills as Regular Army soldiers. We found that some Army Reserve soldiers had not acquired the remainder of these skills before they were deployed ...

DND's response to the recommendations here.

 

[MilEME09]

Two recommendations that stuck out at me I hope to god DND and the government actually implement because it would go a long way to solving some of the problems in the reserves.

5.96 National Defence should work with departments and agencies that have responsibility under the Canada Labour Code and the Reserve Forces Training Leave Regulations to consider including coverage of absences to attend all types of occupational skills training into the Code and the Regulations. (5.94–5.95)

5.98 National Defence should consider amendments to its proposed Compensation for Employers of Reservists Program to include absences for all occupational skills training of Army Reserve soldiers.

 

[mariomike]

Two recommendations that stuck out at me I hope to god DND and the government actually implement because it would go a long way to solving some of the problems in the reserves.

We had something like that where I used to work,

Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program.
The maximum period of absence is two weeks in a calendar year.
Employees are paid their regular pay provided they submit any compensation received for military service to the city treasurer, unless this compensation is paid for days they are not scheduled to work.
Compensation received for travelling expenses and meal allowance does not have to be returned to the city.
All benefits continue during the leave.
An employee's service is not affected by the leave. An employee's vacation entitlement, and pension credit do not change.

 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We concluded that Army Reserve soldiers received lower levels of physical fitness training and were not trained in the same number of skills as Regular Army soldiers.

Cl A reservists have, what, 32 paid days a year?  Take away from that all the PC and 'required' trg, how many days are left?  And how many Cl A folks hit the 100% mark on attending evening and weekends?  My experience is not that many.

Even if there were 0 wasted days out of the 32...anyone who thinks Soldier 'A" who trains 32 days a year will be to the same standard as Soldier 'B' who does it full time has had their bacon in the frying pan too long.

That 'conclusion' is about as insightful as if they 'concluded' all people need to breathe air on a regular basis.  :

 

[MilEME09]

I think it depends what type of training you are talking about, just standard yearly stuff, or do they mean trades training? judging by the rest of the material i'd say trades training, and soldier skills. Meaning if I on paper compare what each soldier is qualified on, the two will not be equal, ever, which is very true for every trade.

 

[RCPalmer]

Cl A reservists have, what, 32 paid days a year?  Take away from that all the PC and 'required' trg, how many days are left?  And how many Cl A folks hit the 100% mark on attending evening and weekends?  My experience is not that many.

Even if there were 0 wasted days out of the 32...anyone who thinks Soldier 'A" who trains 32 days a year will be to the same standard as Soldier 'B' who does it full time has had their bacon in the frying pan too long.

That 'conclusion' is about as insightful as if they 'concluded' all people need to breathe air on a regular basis.  :

It is definitely an outsider's view, and not reflective of a nuanced understanding of the reserve force employment model, managed readiness, etc. However, sometimes you need an outsider to point out the blatantly obvious:

1. That the Army reserve is an essential, integral component of Army which is necessary for both domestic and international operations, and will continue to be so unless the RegF Army was grown substantially at great expense; and
2.  Assuming point 1, that the institution (i.e. the Army) must take the necessary steps (training, manning and equipment) to ensure that the Army Reserve is set up for success to meet its mandate.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think it depends what type of training you are talking about, just standard yearly stuff, or do they mean trades training? judging by the rest of the material i'd say trades training, and soldier skills. Meaning if I on paper compare what each soldier is qualified on, the two will not be equal, ever, which is very true for every trade.

It doesn't matter what type of training (formal, informal, OJT, "experience", whatever), Res (Cl A) will not have the same amount of trg (encompassing everything including formal trades/classification trg, which also may not be the same QS and TP).

To make it clear, I'm not bashing the reserves or reservists.  Like many others, I was a reservist too.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It is definitely an outsider's view, and not reflective of a nuanced understanding of the reserve force employment model, managed readiness, etc. However, sometimes you need an outsider to point out the blatantly obvious:

1. That the Army reserve is an essential, integral component of Army which is necessary for both domestic and international operations, and will continue to be so unless the RegF Army was grown substantially at great expense; and
2.  Assuming point 1, that the institution (i.e. the Army) must take the necessary steps (training, manning and equipment) to ensure that the Army Reserve is set up for success to meet its mandate.

That can only happen if the Federal government funds the Army, actually the entire CAF with the dollars needed for both the Reg and Res force. 

And I'm not seeing THAT happen.

 

[RCPalmer]

I think it depends what type of training you are talking about, just standard yearly stuff, or do they mean trades training? judging by the rest of the material i'd say trades training, and soldier skills. Meaning if I on paper compare what each soldier is qualified on, the two will not be equal, ever, which is very true for every trade.

Yep, they talk about several dimensions of training deficiencies:

1.  That there are training deltas between RegF and PRes IT courses.  I would consider this unavoidable in the current employment model, but if future TOS and job protection legislation (another recommendation in the report) make the completion of RegF courses possible for members with full-time jobs, then maybe that is the solution. 

The more serious deficiency noted was that IT training deltas (pistol and M203 being two examples they noted) were not addressed in high readiness trg before deploying on international ops.  In a 1 year plus R2HR period, that is inexcusable, and indicative of broader Army training management failures rather than a reserve force specific failure. 

2.  PRes have lower levels of personnel readiness and IBTS completion than RegF units.  This is again understandable in the current employment model, but perhaps institutional changes will be made to facilitate reserve force success in this area.  Training bounties for IBTS completion and a reserve entitlement to routine medical assessment would be great places to start. 

3. PRes conduct collective training at a lower level than the RegF, and that this training is not integrated into the Army Managed Readiness Plan.  Clearly,  the smaller number of training days available to a part time member/unit was a key factor missed or misunderstood in the report.  However, I see no reason the PRes collective training could not be more closely integrated with the Army Managed Readiness Plan, and with the RegF in general. 

The broader thrust of the report goes to the long term ability of the Army Reserve to sustain itself and grow in current conditions. In particular, it noted the requirement for reserve recruiting and training capacities to be significantly increased.  This would require a CAF wide effort, and was clearly what was envisioned in last fall's CDS initiating directive.  Unfortunately, we have not seen much change on the Armory floor as of yet. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Mean while, in the Huffy Post:

A scathing auditor general's report Tuesday shows Canada's army reserve is in dire straits, with only a fraction of its troops properly trained, equipped and fit for international operations and domestic emergencies.

Michael Ferguson's latest audit conducted a detailed examination of the problems faced by the military's part-time branch and found that even though there are 21,000 positions on the books, only 13,944 reservists are considered active and ready for service.

The federal government's stated goal is to have a reserve force of 27,000.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/03/canada-s-army-reserve-lacking-soldiers-equipment-training-audit-finds_n_9828412.html?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001

 

[George Wallace]

I think it depends what type of training you are talking about, just standard yearly stuff, or do they mean trades training? judging by the rest of the material i'd say trades training, and soldier skills. Meaning if I on paper compare what each soldier is qualified on, the two will not be equal, ever, which is very true for every trade.

Actually not entirely true.  There are a few PRes Trades that get the identical training as Reg Force, in fact they even attend mixed Reg/PRes crses.  In some instances there are Regs attending PRes crses.  However, in the vast majority of cases/Trades you are correct. 

Although "trained" Reg Force pers are employed 24/7; they are not necessarily performing that qualification 24/7.  Pt; sweeping hangar floors, support to outside organizations, attending non-Trade related courses, ceremonial parades and numerous other instances can be cited where Reg Force members are not performing Trade related work.  The PRes are affected even more than that by the amount of time that they are away from Trade related work while attending school or their civilian employment.  In the end, both are not performing Trade related work 24/7.  [

 

[George Wallace]

That can only happen if the Federal government funds the Army, actually the entire CAF with the dollars needed for both the Reg and Res force. 

And I'm not seeing THAT happen.

That is the crux of the problem. 

 

[RCPalmer]

That can only happen if the Federal government funds the Army, actually the entire CAF with the dollars needed for both the Reg and Res force. 

And I'm not seeing THAT happen.

And/or clean out the the institutional fat.  The CAF spends a lot of money on things that do not result in operational capabilities, and the reserve force is an area where modest investments can lead to significant results. Keep in mind that the full cost of the reserve force (all elements) is only 1.1 Billion dollars with 740 million spent on the Army Reserve. Additionally, this report notes that significant portions of those costs such as some base infrastructure costs and PRes full time contracts supporting RegF activities were incorrectly attributed.  At a certain point, we have to set priorities and make efficient use of the funding envelope available to us. 

 

[MilEME09]

Moving class B positions to a different budget would probably free up a lot of funds, which could be allocated else where.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[mariomike]

Cl A reservists have, what, 32 paid days a year? 

I also read this from 2007,

I know from my command the bare minimum is 12 days of the year, or 24 nights between the begining of Sept through the end of May.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I also read this from 2007,

And deduct about 20% from that total for 'fluff' and non-valued added stuff that eats up training time.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Moving class B positions to a different budget would probably free up a lot of funds, which could be allocated else where.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Free up funds in one area, but only to take them from another.

If the entire CAF budget is 18 apples, it doesn't matter who I hand out to, who I take one from to give some one another apple, in total I still only have 18 apples.

To solve our problems, at least some of them, we simply need more apples each year.  But, we've had some more taken away or 'deferred' or what magic term they gave it this time.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Free up funds in one area, but only to take them from another.

If the entire CAF budget is 18 apples, it doesn't matter who I hand out to, who I take one from to give some one another apple, in total I still only have 18 apples.

To solve our problems, at least some of them, we simply need more apples each year.  But, we've had some more taken away or 'deferred' or what magic term they gave it this time.

We could start by coming up with an operational role for the reserves other than  1 for 1 augmentation of the regular force.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And then, I suppose, you'd want to have a viable trg plan to meet those roles AND then have the kit available.... rly:

;D

 

[blacktriangle]

Even the RegF has training/manning issues. It can take a lot of time and investment to get members in some trades to function at a competent level. And then there's the challenge of keeping them at that level. Expecting no training delta for the PRes is unreasonable.