Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[CBH99]

The one thing I take from the current unpleasantness is that dispersion is a fact of life. A low density battle field.

It may be possible to form up an armoured division on a narrow front. Let's say it survives the attack. Even if if does it will still only be exploiting a short distance on a narrow front. It has the potential to win a battle. I doubt if it is a war winner.

We have been worrying about the Cold War Soviet Army even as publicly available open source intelligence from people like the Swedes were informing us that Fronts were now Brigades, that tanks were rusted out and that ships, subs and planes hadn't been updated since the 1970s.

The only WW3 vestige left is the nuclear threat - also of 1970s technology.

Even the Chinese PLA - is going to be hard pressed to maintain internal order, defend their borders and launch an invasion of Taiwan.

The good news is that nobody has enough soldiers to go around.

I suppose that is good news. Really good news in the grande scheme of things.


Russia did pop back up on the radar after relatively falling off of it after the Cold War.

Somewhat normalized relations turned more tense again, and we imagined the Russians being able to plow through 3 whole countries before NATO could mobilize & stop them. Turns out they couldn’t make it halfway across 1 country that, while not a NATO member, took seriously their ability to defend themselves.

Now the Russian conventional threat is pretty much gone. (Which makes things safer but also more dangerous.)


So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage now … and not a decade from now?

 

[GR66]

So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage now … and not a decade from now?

What makes you think we won't continue to have a personnel shortage a decade from now?

Some of the recruiting/retention issues may be internal (bad media in recent years, painfully slow recruitment processes, management issues impacting retention, crappy equipment, etc.) but the main reason we're short of people in the military is that the majority of Canadians either don't feel the need for a large military or have the desire to be in the military. Are we expecting that to radically change in the next ten years?

And realistically with personnel costs being a big portion of the defence budget won't growing the military potentially have the perverse effect of cutting into the budget required to recapitalize our rusting out/missing equipment? Of course a larger defence budget could help with that, but does anyone here really see that happening?

Maybe it's time to accept that we are highly unlikely to grow the size of the CAF...not just due to lack of money, but also due to a lack of interested people. We need to take a serious look at where we can cut the fat and overhead in the CAF and move those PYs saved into those positions (both front line and support) that make the CAF militarily effective. We need to look at ways to make the Reserves (even if just a portion of them) more capable of relieving some of the staffing pressure on the Reg Force.

And maybe we need to take a serious look at how we choose to structure our forces in a way that makes the best use of the PYs we do have available. We're lucky as being effectively an island state that the bulk of our military commitments are optional. We don't face the realistic threat of a conventional land invasion so that gives us some pretty wide discretion as to the types of forces we can choose to have. For example, would a Fires Brigade require less personnel than a LAV Brigade? An AD Battalion less personnel than an Armoured Recce/Cavalry Regiment? A submarine less than a CSC? etc.

 

[FJAG]

On the other hand we might just be back in a conventional arms race.

Xi calls for China military growth at Communist Party Congress​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-communist-party-congress-xi-jinping-1.6618336

Army (PLA) into a “world-class military,” pledging to improve the PLA’s ability to safeguard national sovereignty and build strategic deterrence. He also urged the PLA to strengthen its training and improve its “ability to win.”

Xi’s speech was peppered with the Chinese term for “security” — which was mentioned about 50 times. He called national security the “foundation of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” and urged enhancing security in military, economy and “all aspects,” both at home and abroad.

China's Xi opens Party Congress with speech tackling Taiwan, Hong Kong and zero-Covid | CNN

Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Sunday vowed to steer China through grave challenges toward national rejuvenation, advancing a nationalistic vision that has put it on a collision path with the West.

www.cnn.com

“The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is an irreversible, historical course,” he said to the more than 2,000 delegates attending the opening, held in the Great Hall of the People that overlooks Tiananmen Square in the centre of Beijing.

He called for accelerating military and technology development to propel this rejuvenation and said the People’s Liberation Army, the world’s second-largest military after the United States, needs to “safeguard China’s dignity and core interests”.

“We will work faster to modernise military theory, personnel and weapons,” Xi said in the nearly two hour speech, which was punctuated by brief bursts of applause from the masked delegates. “We will enhance the military’s strategic capabilities.”

Xi vows to strengthen China’s military as Party Congress begins

Chinese leader defends ‘zero-COVID’, lauds end of ‘chaos’ in Hong Kong and refuses to rule out force to take Taiwan.

www.aljazeera.com

China is wearing its plans to build an even stronger military on its sleeve.

And there should be no doubt that regardless of who ends up controlling Russia when all this is over, there will be a concentrated plan to rebuild the Russian conventional military.

And, let's face it, the plan to rebuild the Canadian military is long, long overdue.

It might not be a real peace but in order to have a lasting period of no active war, deterrence matters:

The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression.[1]

---

[1] Ochmanek, David et al. “U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World” RAND Corp 2017 at p. 45 Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning

And as can be seen from Russia's incursion into the Ukraine, the ability to defend oneself needs to be clearly and obviously seen in order to prevent a miscalculation on the scale that Putin made.

 

[Furniture]

What makes you think we won't continue to have a personnel shortage a decade from now?

Some of the recruiting/retention issues may be internal (bad media in recent years, painfully slow recruitment processes, management issues impacting retention, crappy equipment, etc.) but the main reason we're short of people in the military is that the majority of Canadians either don't feel the need for a large military or have the desire to be in the military. Are we expecting that to radically change in the next ten years?

And realistically with personnel costs being a big portion of the defence budget won't growing the military potentially have the perverse effect of cutting into the budget required to recapitalize our rusting out/missing equipment? Of course a larger defence budget could help with that, but does anyone here really see that happening?

Maybe it's time to accept that we are highly unlikely to grow the size of the CAF...not just due to lack of money, but also due to a lack of interested people. We need to take a serious look at where we can cut the fat and overhead in the CAF and move those PYs saved into those positions (both front line and support) that make the CAF militarily effective. We need to look at ways to make the Reserves (even if just a portion of them) more capable of relieving some of the staffing pressure on the Reg Force.

And maybe we need to take a serious look at how we choose to structure our forces in a way that makes the best use of the PYs we do have available. We're lucky as being effectively an island state that the bulk of our military commitments are optional. We don't face the realistic threat of a conventional land invasion so that gives us some pretty wide discretion as to the types of forces we can choose to have. For example, would a Fires Brigade require less personnel than a LAV Brigade? An AD Battalion less personnel than an Armoured Recce/Cavalry Regiment? A submarine less than a CSC? etc.

The biggest problem with this sort of thinking is that it is why we are where we are right now. FRP in the 90s was about "doing more with less", after 20+ years of "doing more with less" we need to start looking at "doing less with more".

 

[GR66]

The biggest problem with this sort of thinking is that it is why we are where we are right now. FRP in the 90s was about "doing more with less", after 20+ years of "doing more with less" we need to start looking at "doing less with more".

Great. The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions. Same is happening in the USA. Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?

The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?

You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground. We don't have the numbers we need for our current force. Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?

If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!

Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict. In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.

 

[Furniture]

Great. The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions. Same is happening in the USA. Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?

We start with stabilizing things, part of that is going to be redistribution of PYs from areas that don't need to be CAF and fixing the issues keeping/driving people away. Some occupations have no trouble filling their positions, and others can't get anyone interested. Rather than looking just at CAF numbers, we need to look at occupations specifically.

Part of the reason my occupation can't recruit or retain people is that our education and CFAT standards are too high. We are already working on fixing those issues, so that's part of the problem being solved right now.

The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?

Part of the recruitment/retention issue is not having the right kit, in the right quantities. If the GoC got serious about providing good kit, in sufficient qualities, some of our current personnel problems might start to go away.

You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground. We don't have the numbers we need for our current force. Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?

I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.

If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!

Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict. In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.

There is no magical solution, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There is no magical solution, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.

It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.

Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .

This is one way to do it https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring

 

[Kirkhill]

On the other hand we might just be back in a conventional arms race.








China is wearing its plans to build an even stronger military on its sleeve.

And there should be no doubt that regardless of who ends up controlling Russia when all this is over, there will be a concentrated plan to rebuild the Russian conventional military.

And, let's face it, the plan to rebuild the Canadian military is long, long overdue.

It might not be a real peace but in order to have a lasting period of no active war, deterrence matters:



And as can be seen from Russia's incursion into the Ukraine, the ability to defend oneself needs to be clearly and obviously seen in order to prevent a miscalculation on the scale that Putin made.

All true FJAG - and yet nothing in that speech suggests a sense of strength. If anything it suggests a continuing sense of weakness and inferiority. It suggests a nation with a chip on its shoulder denied its rightful place in history. It also suggests a nation, or at least a leader, who has decided/discovered that there is still a ways to go to match the west in military technology and that military technology is the key.

A couple of days ago I referenced Canada's WW2 Auxilliary Corps as an option for engaging they Canadian civil community in support of militarily relevant objectives.

Here's another one.

The Royal Observer Corps (ROC) was a civil defence organisation intended for the visual detection, identification, tracking and reporting of aircraft over Great Britain. It operated in the United Kingdom between 29 October 1925 and 31 December 1995, when the Corps' civilian volunteers were stood down (ROC headquarters staff at RAF Bentley Priory stood down on 31 March 1996). Composed mainly of civilian spare-time volunteers, ROC personnel wore a Royal Air Force (RAF) style uniform and latterly came under the administrative control of RAF Strike Command and the operational control of the Home Office. Civilian volunteers were trained and administered by a small cadre of professional full-time officers under the command of the Commandant Royal Observer Corps; latterly a serving RAF Air Commodore.

Royal Observer Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Corps was stood down on 31 March 1996.

Playstation was introduced on 3 December 1994

PlayStation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given the popularity of both PlayStations and Multi-Player Games, as well as the broad international interest in following events in Ukraine, offering commentary and active engagement in all sorts of activities to support the Ukrainians on line with resources and intelligence perhaps the Observer Corps was stood down a bit too early.

I understand that one of the arguments against UAVs is the narrow field of vision - the expression I have heard is like looking through a straw. There is a solution to that. Many straws with many eyeballs.

 

[GR66]

We start with stabilizing things, part of that is going to be redistribution of PYs from areas that don't need to be CAF and fixing the issues keeping/driving people away. Some occupations have no trouble filling their positions, and others can't get anyone interested. Rather than looking just at CAF numbers, we need to look at occupations specifically.

Redistribution of existing PYs from unneeded positions (as uniformed positions) to positions that need to be uniformed. Agreed and I stated this specifically in a previous post in the Reconstitution thread.

Part of the reason my occupation can't recruit or retain people is that our education and CFAT standards are too high. We are already working on fixing those issues, so that's part of the problem being solved right now.

Part of the recruitment/retention issue is not having the right kit, in the right quantities. If the GoC got serious about providing good kit, in sufficient qualities, some of our current personnel problems might start to go away.

I agree that better kit will help with retention and possibly some boost in recruitment (but honestly how many potential recruits base their decision to join on their understanding of the condition of our current equipment?)

I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.

Show me where I suggested cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs? I suggested simply that the existing recruitment challenges are likely to continue in the absence of a significant cultural shift by the Canadian public toward an EXPANDED CAF. Without such a shift in opinion neither the budget or the pool of potential recruits available to the CAF is likely to significantly increase. I specifically suggested the same solutions that you are suggesting...reducing the bureaucratic overhead and automate where possible. Not less people doing the same things, but possibly the same number of people doing different things more efficiently.

There is no magical solution, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.

Again, I never suggested making the deliberate decision to reduce the size of the CAF. I simply pointed out the reality that we are having trouble maintaining the numbers we have now and I don't see anything that suggests to me that the situation is suddenly going to change.

Let me be clear, if I had my way the CAF would both grow and get lots of new kit to make it a relevant and effective deterrent and combat force. I believe that should be a no-brainer political goal for Canada's citizens and Government. However, unfortunately reality shows that the majority of Canadians (and as a result our politicians) don't share that opinion.

We've seen where decades of the CAF leadership pretending that it's not the case and maintaining the facade of a full-spectrum fighting force capable of expeditionary operations. They keep the basic structure but continue to allow it to hollow out to the point of ineffectiveness in order to keep up the charade. I'm suggesting that it's time for truth to be told to those in power (the GOC) that with the equipment and people we have available this is what we are capable of.

It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.

Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .

This is one way to do it https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring

Certainly better recruiting processes and more improved HR practices to keep up with changes to the modern workforce will help but I don't think they will have a meaningful impact on significantly expanding the pool of citizens that will be interested in joining the military in the first place. That will require a cultural change.

I don't think that change is impossible, but it will require buy-in and effort from our political leadership. They will have to give to Canadians a sense of our important role in the World and how fulfilling that role has very real everyday impacts on our personal welfare. Canada needs leaders that will provide Canadians with a vision that we can believe in and feel is worth a level of self sacrifice. THEN you will see more people willing to serve. That has been lacking since the PET era and probably has as much to do with the current woes of the CAF as any other factor.

$0.02

[/rant]

 

[YZT580]

I suppose that is good news. Really good news in the grande scheme of things.


, while not a NATO member, took seriously their ability to defend themselves.

So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage now … and not a decade from now?

And that line summarizes everything that is wrong with our outlook. We somehow think that we are impervious so we don't take things seriously. The DND is our Swiss guard

 

[Kirkhill]

It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.

Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .

This is one way to do it https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring

Scandinavian

Chinese

 

[daftandbarmy]

Redistribution of existing PYs from unneeded positions (as uniformed positions) to positions that need to be uniformed. Agreed and I stated this specifically in a previous post in the Reconstitution thread.



I agree that better kit will help with retention and possibly some boost in recruitment (but honestly how many potential recruits base their decision to join on their understanding of the condition of our current equipment?)

Show me where I suggested cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs? I suggested simply that the existing recruitment challenges are likely to continue in the absence of a significant cultural shift by the Canadian public toward an EXPANDED CAF. Without such a shift in opinion neither the budget or the pool of potential recruits available to the CAF is likely to significantly increase. I specifically suggested the same solutions that you are suggesting...reducing the bureaucratic overhead and automate where possible. Not less people doing the same things, but possibly the same number of people doing different things more efficiently.

Again, I never suggested making the deliberate decision to reduce the size of the CAF. I simply pointed out the reality that we are having trouble maintaining the numbers we have now and I don't see anything that suggests to me that the situation is suddenly going to change.

Let me be clear, if I had my way the CAF would both grow and get lots of new kit to make it a relevant and effective deterrent and combat force. I believe that should be a no-brainer political goal for Canada's citizens and Government. However, unfortunately reality shows that the majority of Canadians (and as a result our politicians) don't share that opinion.

We've seen where decades of the CAF leadership pretending that it's not the case and maintaining the facade of a full-spectrum fighting force capable of expeditionary operations. They keep the basic structure but continue to allow it to hollow out to the point of ineffectiveness in order to keep up the charade. I'm suggesting that it's time for truth to be told to those in power (the GOC) that with the equipment and people we have available this is what we are capable of.


Certainly better recruiting processes and more improved HR practices to keep up with changes to the modern workforce will help but I don't think they will have a meaningful impact on significantly expanding the pool of citizens that will be interested in joining the military in the first place. That will require a cultural change.

I don't think that change is impossible, but it will require buy-in and effort from our political leadership. They will have to give to Canadians a sense of our important role in the World and how fulfilling that role has very real everyday impacts on our personal welfare. Canada needs leaders that will provide Canadians with a vision that we can believe in and feel is worth a level of self sacrifice. THEN you will see more people willing to serve. That has been lacking since the PET era and probably has as much to do with the current woes of the CAF as any other factor.

$0.02

[/rant]

Every time the Reg F opens up options for CT, lots of well trained reservists migrate over there. The problem is that the CT door opens and closes with a mysterious irregularity that confounds the best of planning minds.

Why not triple the size of the A Res and have a continuous supply of troops moving in to the RegF, via CT, after they've finished their degrees at college and completed most of their trades training?

Then, after they do their Reg F service (in their early/mid-40s) they can CT back to their ARes units and serve until they hit CRA.

 

[FJAG]

That's kind of apples and oranging, @Kirkhill.

I don't disagree with the comment about a display of weakness by China. That's why I say there is an upcoming arms race as they move to cure their "weakness". I agree totally that they are signalling that they do not have the strength to achieve what they wish to. I wish China would stay that way but as it stands their rhetoric on the one hand talks about defence as a deterrent while their national objectives are international (such as Taiwan). It's not too hard to parse the language to conclude that they wish a military posture to let them do, internationally, whatever it is they want to do without interference.

I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.

I agree very much with this. In my way of thinking I have always differentiated between resources dedicated to defence outputs and those dedicated to administrative overhead.

As far as administrative overhead is concerned I tend to favour doing less with less. Dedicate fewer resources and greatly reduce the bureaucratic processes required for defence management (including streamlining procurement)

As far as defence outputs are concerned, we need to firstly generate more with what we have and then turn to positioning ourselves so that we can be depended on by the public to be able to generate more (or perhaps more accurately - generate what is needed) if we are given more.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Two words - National Service

They don't want to join, we'll make them join

 

[Brad Sallows]

Get behind "green" policies. "Green" policies create energy insecurity (eg. Europe) and food insecurity (eg. Sri Lanka); energy and food insecurities create conflict over resources; conflict over resources leads to wars. Also, food insecurity will eventually cause nations with large oceangoing fishing fleets to fish without restraint. Between the wars and the ecological disasters, Canadians' attention might be captured.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's kind of apples and oranging, @Kirkhill.

I don't disagree with the comment about a display of weakness by China. That's why I say there is an upcoming arms race as they move to cure their "weakness". I agree totally that they are signalling that they do not have the strength to achieve what they wish to. I wish China would stay that way but as it stands their rhetoric on the one hand talks about defence as a deterrent while their national objectives are international (such as Taiwan). It's not too hard to parse the language to conclude that they wish a military posture to let them do, internationally, whatever it is they want to do without interference.

I don't think it is apples and oranging.

I think we fail to adequately grasp that our resource base isn't what we think it is and what we would like it to be.

We would like our recruiting base to be sturdy farm lads who can heft a hundred pounds repeatedly all day. But that isn't the recruit base we actually have. In fact it wasn't the recruit base the Brits had in WW1. Much of their recruit base had respiratory ailments, were skinny, stunted and had rickets due to vitamin D deficiency. That is partly why the the Canadians, ANZACs, and even Highlanders were both prized and successful. They were sturdy farm lads.

But now those farm lads are as scarce as professional athletes. The vast majority of the population are couch potatoes with eyeballs glued to screens and thumbs poised to click or swipe.

There are ways to engage those couch dwelling eyeballs and thumbs.

Equally there are ways to engage civilians, as civilians, in the service of the national defence to take the load off the uniformed personnel.

If there is a scarcity of athletes then you have to do something else and figure out how to make the best use of the few athletes available.



We build out of concrete because we were running out of wood. We're going to have to change again soon because we're running out of sand.

Sand crisis looms as world population surges, U.N. warns

A U.N. report on Tuesday called for urgent action to avert a "sand crisis," including a ban on beach extraction as demand surges to 50 billion tonnes a year amid population growth and urbanisation.

www.reuters.com

Do we replace concrete with plastic and keep mining hydrocarbons?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think a study of Ukrainian's mobilization will be helpful in turning modern civilians into soldiers quickly will be helpful.

For equipment I will have a high turnover of equipment, particularly of trucks. Right now order new SMP trucks to replace the MSVS Sterling's in all frontline duties (Gun tractors, engineering vehicles, Infantry units) Each unit gets to keep one for logistical support. The best of them goes to Service Battalion to do Echelon B duties and to base support. I suspect they do well in that role. Do the same for all the other fleets. Build a facility in the prairies to store vehicles. A reserve of vehicles can be cycled through there. All trucks should be replaced after 10 years, this will reduce maintenance issues and make us a reliable customer for truck manufacturers. Change the laws so we can sell off military trucks as working units so to get some of that money back.

Start equipping Reserve units with proper military equipment, new artillery guns, new mortars, new AT weapons. Stand up AD units, UAV Troops, Heavy weapons and AT Platoons. Even if we don't have the personal now, the equipment and structure is there for people to work into. So when you get recruits, they are working with new equipment and see that we are serious. How to convince a Gunner/Infanteer that we are serious about artillery or mortars or effective AT tactics, when the weapons are older than their fathers? Cycle older weapons to those facilities in the Prairies as part of the War Reserve. All weapons should have a due date for replacement (10-15 years?)

Bring back the Summer Youth Employment Program, make that a mandate of Reserve units, start fairly small perhaps one course for several units so they can effectively train it. Expand the program as resource become available.

Fix the previously mentioned impacts of going from Reg force to Reserves, make it worth their while to stick around. Every base should be getting an apartment block or two to be used as PMQ's/single quarters, so people can have some housing. Start renewing all the existing PMQ's using a standard design that is modern, safe and a good use of space, such as duplexes instead of single houses.

Naval Reserves- Give the units on the coasts such as Esquimalt/Victoria, Halifax, Vancouver and similar Patrol vessels about the size of the Orcas. Their duties are harbour defense both surface and subsurface, give them the equipment to do that and the vessels are maintained by local civilian infrastructure. Having a defined task will give them focus and experience. Eventually those people can step up to running the MCDV's and similar.

Air Reserve - Not sure how well it works now. Perhaps a Squadron or two of trainers (or a fighter that has low maintenance costs as compared to the F35, but with some similar cockpit equipment) equipped with weapons to practice tactics. Pilots and maintainers get a bonus for transitioning to the reserve and their employers get a hefty tax break for releasing them for training. Perhaps stand up a Air Reserve Transport Squadron with a couple of Hercs that can do annual training or be called up when required. Aircraft with higher flight hours can be transferred there to keep them viable for longer and new aircraft can be brought on line for the reg Force units.

 

[SupersonicMax]

For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise. They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge. I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise. They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge. I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…

The distinct units seem to work for other countries, a way to increase the size of the force if required.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise. They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge. I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…

Other than that pesky NDA and the whole issue of Class A Reservists parading routinely with units of the Regular Force, which opens a whole can of worms as to what degree/when they are subject to the NDA.

I asked an AJAG about that once and tripped circuit breakers all the way back to NDHQ. Never got an answer, either…