'It's time to consolidate NDHQ' & 'DND to take-over Nortel Campus' (Merged threads)

[x westie]

The MND speaking at the Royal Canadian Mititary Istitute was told by audience members that ND HQ is "top heavy with officers" a resource decision that is hindering the country's ability to put troops on the ground abroad, the MND responded that" he has been impressed with Defence Department personnel he has met so far", in other words ,nothing is going to change, this minister has "no balls", "The Gong Show" continues, bring on the clowns!!

 

[Infanteer]

Refernces?

 

[x westie]

Globe and Mail-  Thursday, Sept 23-2004

 

[McG]

... in other words ,nothing is going to change, this minister has "no balls", "The Gong Show" continues, bring on the clowns!!

So, which NDHQ jobs would you cut?

 

[c4th]

I would not cut a single one.  I would however entertain the idea of moving NDHQ in it's entirety to a training area in the middle of nowhere (say similar to Pet, Gage, or Wainwright) and put the parking lot 8 to 10 km away from the front door.  Standing Orders would indicate that all pers are required to report to work in Marching Order.

This may eliminate the need to cut NDHQ jobs at the public's expense, as they would effectively eliminate themselves.  I also wager that 'clothe the soldier' and the next generation of field equipment would not take the better part of a career to hit our backs.

 

[Michael OLeary]

And how does forcing someone to quit, since you seem to assume your measures will do this, also make their responsibilities, and the requirement for those responsibilities to be done, disappear as well? I suspect the result would only be fewer people trying to do more and longer times for projects to reach completion. Despite the bashing of the staff that seems to be a favourite sport of some, no-one has yet identified which departments in NDHQ have no useful function and can disappear or work at a slower pace with fewer or lower-ranking and less experienced staff.

National Defence Headquarters Organizational Chart   --   http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/00native/tools/NDHQ_Org_Chart_e.doc

National Defence Headquarters: Does it Work? By /par Colonel Douglas L. Wingert  --  http://198.231.69.12/papers/nssc4/wingert.doc

 

[x westie]

I wouldn't be surprised that there are more officers in the CF now than in WW2 ,when Canada had   3 Infantry Divisions, 2 Armoured Divs,plus Artillery Regiments ,engineers etc, over seas in Europe, its only common sense there is no need for a pile of officers in all three services of a combined strength of 50,000 plus some 13,000 reservervis ts, if the MND can;t do the math,then he is about as " smart as a fence post" .

 

[McG]

if the MND can;t do the math,then he is about as " smart as a fence post" .

Show us you're no worse.   What jobs should be cut?

 

[Garbageman]

A little off topic, but any new word on moving NDHQ out to the burbs?  I know consideration was being given to this plan to free up the prime real estate and to take advantage of a newly vacated high tech facility (Nortel in Kanata maybe?)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So how could the Canadian military operate with roughly the same amount of officers in WW2 with a much larger military vs today with a substantially smaller military?

 

[Gunnerlove]

Members of the canadian military were more concerned with beating the Nazis and less concerned with empire building.

I wonder how many civilians work at NDHQ?
I wonder how many officers work at NDHQ?
I wonder how many NCMs work at NDHQ?
I wonder how much money we spend on NDHQ?

I would also like to see the number of officers in the CF compared to the number of NCMs then again it might make me sick like when I heard we had 33 generals.

If the CF was a public company the shareholders would be going insane trying to hang the BOG.

 

[QORvanweert]

I think that it is better to have a top heavy system so when the time comes we can fill out the lower ranks then a bottom heavy system with overworked officers and a non-existent general base. A few poor privates will incur higher casualities, but incompetent leadership will lose the war.

 

[Gunnerlove]

What you just posted is part of the cold war doctrine. Alas the cold war is over and we are short soldiers that are needed now. I think a balanced system would make more sense as everyone could take one or two steps up the ladder and not be lost. Thinking that you can fill vast units with undertrained privates and still achieve victory because you had some officers who have been flying a desk for years leading them into battle is a product of the residual class system we are forced to work within.

Our strength should come from the troops.

 

[Goober]

Top heavy? Easy fix. Fill out the bottom.

 

[GINge!]

of a newly vacated high tech facility (Nortel in Kanata maybe?)

combining all of NDHQ into one location would be a great idea. Cheaper in the long run in terms of the rent paid at LSL. I think the building they were looking at was JDS Uniphase in Barrhaven/Nepean

 

[Garbageman]

combining all of NDHQ into one location would be a great idea. Cheaper in the long run in terms of the rent paid at LSL. I think the building they were looking at was JDS Uniphase in Barrhaven/Nepean

That's the one I was thinking of, thanks! 

Duh, my cousin used to work at JDS!

 

[GINge!]

So how could the Canadian military operate with roughly the same amount of officers in WW2 with a much larger military vs today with a substantially smaller military?

You ever been on a rifle range? Then you know the planning effort and staff required to run a range for only 1 shooter is practically the same as for 20. Similarly, the purchase of 66 MGS takes as much staff work as 20,000 Shermans.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Actually if you've been to a range you will notice that the staff would greatly be reduced for 1 shooter vs 20.   1 guy in the butts, not 20 (that guy could even be the butts NCO).   1 support staff to adjust the shooters sites and give out tips instead of 1 for 3 to 4 shooters.   So I just cut down the staff about 22 pers.   Yes I am aware that you still need an ammo NCO regardless of numbers as well as a saftey driver etc.  My point is you can still cut a lot of the management.

 

[291er]

I find it amusing that a lot of these opinions come from civvies, ppl in the recruiting process, or ppl who have never served here at NDHQ. 

 

[devil39]

I will preface my comments with the fact that I have never served in NDHQ.   I certainly will at some point I am sure.

That being said, when I was a soldier operating solely in the lower tactical level, with lots of Infantry battalion time, I quite regularly had occasion to feel certain amounts of ill will toward my fellow officers serving in NDHQ.   Likely unfounded as I was soon to discover.

I now quite regularly deal with the Land Staff as a Staff Officer in an Area Headquarters (for the last 2 months), and I have been continually impressed with the work ethic, responsibility, sheer volume of output, and the long hours put in by those I deal with on a regular basis.   It is not unusual for me to call up the Land Staff at 1730 - 1800 hrs Eastern Standard Time, and talk to an overworked staff officer who is putting in the long hours required to keep the required information and direction flowing downward to their subordinate headquarters.

There might be places to trim in NDHQ, but the people I deal with on the Land Staff need augmentation, not cuts, to keep up with the volume and complexity of the issues they deal with.

I would, as others have, ask where those cuts should occur?   No one that I deal with on a daily basis is superfluous to accomplishing the mission.