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

[dapaterson]

I believe the $300M is the direct pay and O&M cost; imputed costs (base support, uniforms, ammunition, accruals of capital assets etc) make up the balance of the $1.2B.


Land Force Reserve Restructure was supposed to impose a rational C2 structure on the Army Reserve (among other things).  Imagine an Army Reserve that acknowledged and embraced geographically dispersed units, and, within the current 20K(ish) cap, provided 30 battalions of 500 trained soldiers each, organized into five brigades of 3200 each (giving six battalions each - two inf, one recce, one arty, one engr and one CSS, plus a Bde HQ and Sigs, plus a few other enablers), plus a training system of ~36500 - that's 80 trained pers to manage and train the BTL plus 650 on the BTL, for each Bde, plus 350 for Advanced training (year-long courses) and levels above Brigade.


But instead, we must preserve the status quo of LCols commanding 90 soldiers, all ranks, including 25 untrained...

 

[dimsum]

But instead, we must preserve the status quo of LCols commanding 90 soldiers, all ranks, including 25 untrained...

Well we can't abolish or combine Regiments now, can we... 

 

[FJAG]

...
But instead, we must preserve the status quo of LCols commanding 90 soldiers, all ranks, including 25 untrained...

I had to chuckle a bit when I read the commander of MILPERSGEN and the Defence Academy make this statement in his CMJ article back in 2016:

...
Permanent groupings should be formed of consistently understrength Reserve Units that can together form a single unit that can provide significant response capability. This would not involve closing or moving units, but simply admitting that a region can only produce a sub-unit or sub-sub-unit, not something larger. These smaller parts, in a fashion that maintains their rich histories, can be then combined to form a single unit under a commanding officer.

However, one could also ensure that senior Reserve positions are dedicated to those communities to maintain the historical continuity of senior CAF engagement within those areas. Building on this idea, experienced and capable senior Reservists who would currently be released due to a lack of Reserve positions at their rank level could be kept on strength in order to maintain the CAF connection to communities, as well as to establish and act as military liaison for public safety and security. This capability would need to be carefully managed to ensure that it does not become a sinecure.
...

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol16/no3/PDF/CMJ163Ep16.pdf page 25

I expect there were to be similar roles found for all the majors, CWOs and MWOs that would no longer be required. Not that I have anything against LCols or CWOs but I'd rather pay three privates or corporals that we need for every LCol that we don't need.

:cheers:

 

[Journeyman]

Just a pet peeve...

... if you added say 20,000 bodies to the reserves....

I really dislike soldiers being referred to as "bodies."


I have nothing substantive to contribute to the discussion, although I hope someone finds the magical solution. 

 

[Remius]

I expect there were to be similar roles found for all the majors, CWOs and MWOs that would no longer be required. Not that I have anything against LCols or CWOs but I'd rather pay three privates or corporals that we need for every LCol that we don't need.
:cheers:

I think in theory that might work but not really in practice.  Some units have already created tactical groupings under one CO and RSM but the elimination of three or four LCol's/CWOs hasn't seemed to translate into more troops for those units that are under strength.

Taking away a LCol and replacing him with a major does not solve the issue some units have.  You'll just have the same issues only with a major in charge.

Capability and equipment.  Fix that.

 

[dapaterson]

If they can't recruit more troops, then they don't need the LCol and CWO to begin with.

 

[Remius]

If they can't recruit more troops, then they don't need the LCol and CWO to begin with.

the point is that eliminating senior positions does not mean more troops.  People seem to think that LCol's and CWOs are the issue and that getting rid them will solve something when it won't unless you address the real issues.

Good training and equipment helps retain more pers.  Right now I can't even get mukluks for troops or C-6s let alone anything more complicated...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Taking away a LCol and replacing him with a major does not solve the issue some units have.  You'll just have the same issues only with a major in charge.

The major should be younger, and removal of the pressure to retain enough people to form a candidate pool for promotion to LCol should increase average capability and competence among Res F senior officers.  It's not a one-for-one swap: in each unit it's potentially a swap of the LCol and all the superfluous Maj for one Maj.  (The difference would be noted in overborne units, not the ones struggling to retain enough people to fill each of the half-dozen or so key appointments.)

 

[FJAG]

Just to emphasize a point here. My comment about converting the LCols pay to three privates or corporals was facetiously made in response to the quoted article where a Reg F Maj Gen suggested that if we consolidate units and thus have redundant LCols hanging around we can still find useful work for them rather than retiring them.

While we will save some money on such retirements (as well as the excess Majs, CWOs and MWOs) that's just a drop in the bucket.

Getting better training and equipment (just like more people) is a nice to have (and probably more important than more people) but doesn't cure the underlying problem with our reserve structure. At this point in time, you cannot generate any viable combat capable entities from within the reseres. That said, the Reg F also has tremendous capability gaps that prevent them from being a viable fighting force against a sophisticated enemy. If you think that our Reg F is a "near peer" to the Russians you are dreaming in technicolour. It took many months of pre-deployment training to just get our battle groups organized and ready for service against the Taliban and even there we had significant capability gaps that took years to work out.

If you've had a look at both Strong, Secure, Engaged and the verbage that makes up WayPoint 2018 you'll distill the fact that while we recognize Russia (and in part China) as our most significant potential enemies we are structuring ourselves as a medium weight combat force that will deploy in no more than battle group strength. The whole system is akin to not buying house insurance because you hope that your house will never catch fire and no one will ever slip and fall on your icy front step.

Reserves exist primarily for use in extreme situations that might never happen while Reg Forces exist to take care of the country's day-to-day defence needs. Reserves are cost effective forces for such extreme events but only if they are properly structured, trained and equipped. Quite frankly we are paying too much for for what appears to be a mildly effective day-to-day military which currently would be hard pressed to put one medium weight LAV brigade into the field. Concurrently our reserve structure is largely ineffective. We will undoubtedly never pay significantly more.

It's long past time to go back to the drawing board. The fine tuning of the system that we've been playing with for decades has not and will not lead us to to a more effective, more capable military. Over the last few decades we've had several reorganization studies that have all been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. As long as we stay in that mold we will never get anywhere.

:2c:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I had a post written up about this earlier but this thread has gone a bit off the rails. But since you're going down a similar road as I was going down...

I would have *zero* issues with having the PRes augment the Reg Force day-to-day (i.e. not just for tours) and then we can provide them all of this training and integrate them into the grind that one must endure to keep a LAV fleet maintained and LAV crews trained.

But this idea that the reserves, with zero resources, can take on a LAV fleet and do it all internally is just silly. The reserves simply don't have the resources to do this internally. The *people* may be as capable but the Units as a whole simply aren't. That's why they augment the Reg Force with troops, not with with Battle Groups. It's also not "augmenting" the Reg Force at all. If anything it will end up sucking more out of the Reg Force as the PRes just won't have the resources required to do it, and they'll need Reg Force assets.

FTSE is a perfect example where we should be giving troops Class B contracts to go join a Reg Force unit. All the infrastructure is in place to employ them, provide good training, have them take part in good training, and lord knows when I was trying to "train" my platoon with 7 troops in the summer time because they are all tasked to frig, I could have used some augmentation. If a mechanized Battalion was full of reserve augmentees in the summer it would be a lot better way to keep the PRes folks engaged in mechanized infantry stuff than sending the PRes units a bunch of LAVs they can't maintain, can't store, and can't operate, and saying "hey, figure this out yourself."

But instead during FTSE the PRes Units are expected to be like a Reg Force Unit for the summer.... and I've seen the plans on how they intended to keep the now idle troops occupied, like running back-to-back-to-back first aid courses.

The Reserves would need to be reorganized if we wanted them to be able to operate equipment like the LAV 6.0.

There are a whole host of reasons, political, cultural, etc. Why that won't happen.

 

[brihard]

I had a post written up about this earlier but this thread has gone a bit off the rails. But since you're going down a similar road as I was going down...

I would have *zero* issues with having the PRes augment the Reg Force day-to-day (i.e. not just for tours) and then we can provide them all of this training and integrate them into the grind that one must endure to keep a LAV fleet maintained and LAV crews trained.

But this idea that the reserves, with zero resources, can take on a LAV fleet and do it all internally is just silly. The reserves simply don't have the resources to do this internally. The *people* may be as capable but the Units as a whole simply aren't. That's why they augment the Reg Force with troops, not with with Battle Groups. It's also not "augmenting" the Reg Force at all. If anything it will end up sucking more out of the Reg Force as the PRes just won't have the resources required to do it, and they'll need Reg Force assets.

FTSE is a perfect example where we should be giving troops Class B contracts to go join a Reg Force unit. All the infrastructure is in place to employ them, provide good training, have them take part in good training, and lord knows when I was trying to "train" my platoon with 7 troops in the summer time because they are all tasked to frig, I could have used some augmentation. If a mechanized Battalion was full of reserve augmentees in the summer it would be a lot better way to keep the PRes folks engaged in mechanized infantry stuff than sending the PRes units a bunch of LAVs they can't maintain, can't store, and can't operate, and saying "hey, figure this out yourself."

But instead during FTSE the PRes Units are expected to be like a Reg Force Unit for the summer.... and I've seen the plans on how they intended to keep the now idle troops occupied, like running back-to-back-to-back first aid courses.

Do you know if any of the battalions have asked for FTSE personnel for stuff like this? By the end of this summer the various CBGs should be able to say with a fair degree of accuracy 'we had x number of troops sitting idle in May, June, July, and August'. It should be easy enough to determine how many could be pledged to battalions for next year.

You do that, and you beef up the CT cells at CFRG... Some problems will be solved.

 

[dapaterson]

Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

You are def right.  I think the idea of OJEs is a nice one but it really just turns in to filler time and what ends up happening is we end up dumping dozens of untrained people at operational units who really shouldn't be babysitting them.

Case in point, the annual dog & pony show that is the ROTP summer OJE program.  The Navy tries to run a pretty extensive OJE program but all that ends up happening is we spend many thousands of dollars flying Naval Cadets out to Esquimalt or Halifax for the summer who park themselves and do nothing other than eat rations.

Or we send a bunch of NCdts/OCdts on courses like BPara or Ships Dive Course that takes spaces from people that are going to actually use the course on an operational ship.  We then complain that we don't have enough parachute qualified soldiers or sailors qualified as divers/rescue swimmers, etc.

I think it would be better if we GASP.....
Trained our people in a timely manner.

A NCdt shouldn't receive four years of free education only to find out they get chronically seasick because they have never set foot on a ship before.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm all for simple and inexpensive field vehicles, particularly trucks, but what I mean by "simple" is the difference between our old 6-wheel AVGP and today's LAV.  My guesses are that in adjusted dollars, a LAV costs much more than an AVGP; that a LAV and all of its hardware is more complex to learn to use properly; and that a LAV requires a greater breadth and depth of maintenance skills and time to look after all of the aforementioned hardware.

Another guess is that the Res F, while continually improving, has not improved as fast as some of our equipment.  What the Res F in 1990 could do with contemporary equipment is - again mostly a guess - beyond what the Res F in 2020 can do with contemporary equipment.  Comparisons to what other nations achieve highlight to me that the explanation must lie in differences between them and us: so look to the money, the training and time commitment (again, the money), etc.

I'd restructure the Res F as it stands to see whether it improves itself before committing to more equipment and facilities.  To provide the latter up front is an unjustifiable leap of faith.  Some of the people arguing for change back in my day were also some of the people arguing that each proposed change was impractical, insulting, un-doable, etc.  If the only possible changes are their preferred changes, don't bother trying.

The generations that fought WWII and Korea and whose 1950s and 1960s Res F experience I did think deserved to be heard (larger units, experienced leadership) are pretty much gone from the associations and other points of influence.  Another guess: most of the senior Res-side people who weigh in going forward will just be people who grew up in the Res F as it is, with very few true veterans of multiple operational deployments.  It's past time to stop giving much weight to the opinions that tend to favour status quo.

 

[brihard]

Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

Right. I hadn't thought of that, and many of those who are OFP are babysitting thsoe who aren't- pre PLQ Cpls with two and a half years in making sure the new kids don't light themselves on fire.

Big picture, how's the army looking in terms of getting sufficient people leadership qualified these days? I'm hoping within a few more years the FTSE construct will create a larger cohort of PLQ candidates and then instructors? It jives with my recollection of many recruits joining late in high school, and having basically five summers to give the army before graduating university.

 

[MilEME09]

FTSE is designed for those under 5 years of service, meaning for tech trades you womt have a qualified tech until the 5th year if your lucky. DRCCC is for trained personal in the CSS world to get class B contracts upto 90 days (sometimes longer) for skills maintance. I agree that the ARes cant under current structure maintain LAVs, what I foresee working is having LAVs at the major bases Avalible for the Pres to sign out for exercises. Maybe invest in some kind of simulator for training in garrison.

Back to the topic on hand the news releases state 8 varients. I can only seem to count 7, whats the last one? TUA, mortor carrier?

Troop carrier
EW
MRV
MRT
CP
Amb
Engineer

 

[ballz]

Do you know if any of the battalions have asked for FTSE personnel for stuff like this?

No, that I don't know, nor do I suspect it would matter as the plan for FTSE was from much higher. I do know that when I was at 2 RCR we spent 2 years trying to get reserve augmentation, even gave it a name "Op REINFORCEMENT," and it transpired into us getting only about 15 reservists for Ex Rugged Bear (Level 3/5 pre-MR training) / Maple Resolve. Except their CFTPOs were only done up until the end of Rugged Bear so half of them had to go home because they had other commitments lined up (not blaming them, blaming the machine for that one).

We also went out of our way to get untrained 2Lts from the Infantry School brought in. We employed them in garrison and in the field. They were with us all the way up to Level 4 live in the fall which is as far as we went that year.

Many FTSE pers are not yet at the OFP - depending how late they are enrolled, some will not even get BMQ in a summer.  While I agree that providing FTSE pers to get OJT with Reg F units would be valuable experience, I don't think Reg F units would like to have dozens on untrained folks in their lines for the summer.

They wouldn't be. They'd be sent on their courses that they are supposed to go on and prioritized for. But at least then they'd have the administrative support to get them on the courses / get them looked after / receive them / employ them during the breaks between courses. One of the struggles I heard for PRes Units was actually trying to administer all this as they had so many people coming and going in and out of the unit. This is not normal for the Reserves in the summer time as they are usually stood down. Everyone goes on their courses and when they aren't on course they are at home because the unit isn't running. Now they were on full-time Class B contracts so they couldn't just be at home doing nothing in the 3 weeks between each course.

That said, there is plenty of stuff at a Battalion that a non-OFP person can be employed. It's not like all of the infantry tasks are rocket science. See above about us employing untrained 2Lts in our rifle companies who were on loan from the infantry school, and speaking to one of them at the Xmas Mess Dinner in December, having just finished his Ph IV, he was quite happy he was training with us the year prior and said it definitely helped him be successful on his courses.

And personally, the best thing I witnessed for our SNCOs and NCOs was after 2 years of having zero privates (the running joke was that they were unicorns) because of the recruitment cycle, all of a sudden there were huge influxes of brand new privates that needed leadership, needed direction, and needed help.

You are def right.  I think the idea of OJEs is a nice one but it really just turns in to filler time and what ends up happening is we end up dumping dozens of untrained people at operational units who really shouldn't be babysitting them.

3x dozen divided by 9 platoons... is 4 per platoon. I suspect I could have taken 8-10 with who I had on the ground at the time and we'd have been better off vice hindered.

Case in point, the annual dog & pony show that is the ROTP summer OJE program.  The Navy tries to run a pretty extensive OJE program but all that ends up happening is we spend many thousands of dollars flying Naval Cadets out to Esquimalt or Halifax for the summer who park themselves and do nothing other than eat rations.

I'm not sure the untrained officers is a fair comparison to a BMQ-qualified troop. There are also a lot more places to employ a BMQ-qualified troop in the Reg Force Army than there are places to employ a untrained Navy officers, so the sheer numbers issue would be less of a factor.


Granted, I'd like to see the number of people in the army, by rank, that took advantage of FTSE this year and last year. There is obviously a lot of assumptions being made on our parts about viability that would be impacted by those numbers.

 

[MilEME09]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/taylor-the-battle-to-save-the-canadian-forces-army-reserve

Interesting read, new book to add to my reading list

 

[FJAG]

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/taylor-the-battle-to-save-the-canadian-forces-army-reserve

Interesting read, new book to add to my reading list

I'll get it just as soon as I can. It releases tomorrow but doesn't look like it might be available through Amazon.ca at this time.

This got me to review the current Reserves 2000 website and I see that their advocacy still runs to the meaningless. Essentially they are advocating for funding for 15,000 more Army Reservists without any indication as to what one would do with them and no indication as to reforming the system so that the Army Reserve become credible and effective.

:not-again:

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'll get it just as soon as I can. It releases tomorrow but doesn't look like it might be available through Amazon.ca at this time.

This got me to review the current Reserves 2000 website and I see that their advocacy still runs to the meaningless. Essentially they are advocating for funding for 15,000 more Army Reservists without any indication as to what one would do with them and no indication as to reforming the system so that the Army Reserve become credible and effective.

:not-again:

I’ve talked to some of these people. They seem to be a bit cray, cray.

But that was just my first, second and third impressions