I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,713
- Points
- 1,140
There are uptapped positions in the notional 71,500 PY establishment. They would be funded.
Gunplumber
Member
- Reaction score
- 71
- Points
- 530
Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....
- Reaction score
- 6,524
- Points
- 1,140
Nobody said the current system is good, or even working.
What people have pointed out is that your proposals are not realistic.
Changes need to be made to cut the admin burden, and streamline HQ staffs, so those positions can be put back into the operational portions of the CAF. Some of those changes can be made by the CAF itself, but some require changes from the GoC.
There are no simple solutions, and every change has unintended consequences that need to be accounted for. See CFHD as a "good idea" that has had unintended negative concequences...
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,664
- Points
- 1,160
I was a BK of an M109 battery in 3 RCHA. My maintenance section ran from between 12-14 pers. My maintenance section commander was a RCEME sergeant.
Agreed
Any time that you amalgamate existing organizations you generally create a new higher command level commanded someone with one rank up. Unification/Integration did that.
I can live with the concept that divisions - real divisions - are commanded by a major-general. It's been that way since time immemorial regardless of whether brigades were run by colonels or brigadiers. Therefore if you have divisions commanded by a major general than the next level up - in our case the army - should be a lieutenant-general. Canada does have enough soldiers (RegF and ResF combined) to merit two divisions ergo the army should be commanded by a LGen. Unfortunately unification automatically generates a four star as CDS
That said, I agree with the IDF concept and think we should emulate it. Their brigades, like ours are commanded by colonels. Their divisions, like our weak ones, are commanded by brigadier generals. With that established, and unless we decide to form a corps - which we won't, means we could easily get by with a MGen as army commander. The RCN and RCAF are each less than 1/3 the size of the army and could get by with a MGen or less as commanders. One wouldn't even need a LGen as CDS if one drifted into the area of a US Joint Chief of Staff and combatant command model. A group of MGens running the CAF and one running CJOC would be more commensurate with the CAF's size.
I'm also a believer that staff should never outrank the subordinate commanders within their commands - I prefer a brigade major to a LCol COS. That becomes even more important when one goes to the central CAF staff structure. Not only is it highly over ranked but each GOFO comes with his own little gaggle of staff.
All of that said, the over ranking of GOFOs isn't the cause of the problem here. I agree with @Furniture when he says.
The problem is that with unification/integration there has been a proliferation of rules, regulations and processes that complicate administration far beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Every GOFO will tell you he needs the staff he has to do that task assigned. And more often than not they are right. The question is whether the job they are doing is necessary or is worth the squeeze in the first place. CPCC is just one glaring example of that. Another is JAG. Over the last few decades, while the CAF was shrinking, the Office of the JAG was ballooning. Suddenly everyone needed a lawyer. But, did they really? And does JAG need to be an MGen?
I think you are wrong when you say "No one seems to think we should change how things are done." Lots of us do. Most of us on this site are well past having a career. Like you I suspect that there is a bit of a Stockholm syndrome at play amongst those who still serve. Bureaucracies - and the CAF is one - have a penchant for preserving and protecting the status quo. Insiders feel they have a handle on it and change is threatening unless it is first evaluated to death. Change inevitably results in more processes and more staff to run them; rarely is anything trimmed downward.
You can't fine tune a system like the CAF once it gets into the state that its in. It will take a massive revolution to correct course. Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen unless you get both a MND and a CDS at the same time who are jointly prepared to clean house in a big way. Considering that the entire civil service is bloated I doubt that our staffing situation even merits a notice at the GoC level.
Gunplumber
Member
- Reaction score
- 71
- Points
- 530
Apparently FJAG writes and thinks much better than me (quel Suprise). He is totally right about what needs to be done and I think it has to be drastic or it wont happen, hence my comment about making the CDS a Colonel.
My regiment decided that my MCpl in the Battery was needed elsewhere so I had to maintain a whole battery of Guns by myself, I know what it's like to be overworked and started my journey down hate lane. Got out of the Regs because of that.
My regiment decided that my MCpl in the Battery was needed elsewhere so I had to maintain a whole battery of Guns by myself, I know what it's like to be overworked and started my journey down hate lane. Got out of the Regs because of that.
- Reaction score
- 21,840
- Points
- 1,360
You got rid of most of them, certainly all the generals and admirals.
- Reaction score
- 18,405
- Points
- 1,280
And again, this may work in the Army but not in the other services.
As @PPCLI Guy mentioned upthread, there is no way a US 4* (Comd NORAD) is going to take orders from a Cdn 1* or anything less than 4*. But as CDS, Comd NORAD works for them (and the CJCS).
So, your whole idea of down ranking is a non starter even if the CAF wanted it done, bc the US won’t abide by it.
And for disclosure, I agree that we’re bloated. But from working with tons of international partners, we are not nearly as bloated as many of our allies. We have folks do jobs that would be 1-2 ranks higher (if not more) in other militaries.
- Reaction score
- 6,524
- Points
- 1,140
I discovered recently that my equivalent in the USMC would be a Maj/LCol not a CPO 2/MWO.
My USN counterparts were even more shocked to discover that a NCM is the senior Met person in the RCN.
- Reaction score
- 18,405
- Points
- 1,280
We are one of the few, if not only, militaries with no officers in the Meterological trade.
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
The first highlighted bit should be a keystone. The chain of command should always and everywhere be crystal clear, especially when sh!t and fan are in close contact: commanders always, without fail, must be equal to or superior to the most senior staff officer serving their commander.I was a BK of an M109 battery in 3 RCHA. My maintenance section ran from between 12-14 pers. My maintenance section commander was a RCEME sergeant.
Agreed
Any time that you amalgamate existing organizations you generally create a new higher command level commanded someone with one rank up. Unification/Integration did that.
I can live with the concept that divisions - real divisions - are commanded by a major-general. It's been that way since time immemorial regardless of whether brigades were run by colonels or brigadiers. Therefore if you have divisions commanded by a major general than the next level up - in our case the army - should be a lieutenant-general. Canada does have enough soldiers (RegF and ResF combined) to merit two divisions ergo the army should be commanded by a LGen. Unfortunately unification automatically generates a four star as CDS
That said, I agree with the IDF concept and think we should emulate it. Their brigades, like ours are commanded by colonels. Their divisions, like our weak ones, are commanded by brigadier generals. With that established, and unless we decide to form a corps - which we won't, means we could easily get by with a MGen as army commander. The RCN and RCAF are each less than 1/3 the size of the army and could get by with a MGen or less as commanders. One wouldn't even need a LGen as CDS if one drifted into the area of a US Joint Chief of Staff and combatant command model. A group of MGens running the CAF and one running CJOC would be more commensurate with the CAF's size.
I'm also a believer that staff should never outrank the subordinate commanders within their commands - I prefer a brigade major to a LCol COS. That becomes even more important when one goes to the central CAF staff structure. Not only is it highly over ranked but each GOFO comes with his own little gaggle of staff.
All of that said, the over ranking of GOFOs isn't the cause of the problem here. I agree with @Furniture when he says.
The problem is that with unification/integration there has been a proliferation of rules, regulations and processes that complicate administration far beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Every GOFO will tell you he needs the staff he has to do that task assigned. And more often than not they are right. The question is whether the job they are doing is necessary or is worth the squeeze in the first place. CPCC is just one glaring example of that. Another is JAG. Over the last few decades, while the CAF was shrinking, the Office of the JAG was ballooning. Suddenly everyone needed a lawyer. But, did they really? And does JAG need to be an MGen?
I think you are wrong when you say "No one seems to think we should change how things are done." Lots of us do. Most of us on this site are well past having a career. Like you I suspect that there is a bit of a Stockholm syndrome at play amongst those who still serve. Bureaucracies - and the CAF is one - have a penchant for preserving and protecting the status quo. Insiders feel they have a handle on it and change is threatening unless it is first evaluated to death. Change inevitably results in more processes and more staff to run them; rarely is anything trimmed downward.
You can't fine tune a system like the CAF once it gets into the state that its in. It will take a massive revolution to correct course. Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen unless you get both a MND and a CDS at the same time who are jointly prepared to clean house in a big way. Considering that the entire civil service is bloated I doubt that our staffing situation even merits a notice at the GoC level.
I don't really care what ranks do what jobs (I grew up in a system where some very senior WOs "out-appointed" many officers) as long as the system is clear in so far as who commands vs who controls on behalf of a commander.
I fear that the second highlighted bit is all too sadly true.
- Reaction score
- 4,258
- Points
- 1,260
No US Command reports to the CJCS. The COCOMs and services all report directly to the SECDEF. NORAD is the only US COCOM or service with a military Boss...the CDS. With his NORTHCOM hat on, he reports directly to the SECDEF
- Reaction score
- 18,405
- Points
- 1,280
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,346
- Points
- 1,260
I am retired - and yes I want to see things change as well. I did when I was in - but I was not always successful.
I agree with the idea of focusing on operations with a well equipped fighting force for all elements and less focus on making sure no one has their feelings hurt. And for that matter less focus on dress uniforms and buttons and bows.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,086
- Points
- 1,260
That’s absolutely not what’s being said. We’re point out making the CDS a Col is absurd, and that members pay wouldn’t really be affected. Where you see careerism I see retention, which is a massive man power problem.
- Reaction score
- 6,242
- Points
- 1,040
It's actually pretty common on ships; the heads of departments (HODs) are two ringers, with two ringers working for them. All the Ops room officers are Lt(N)s and they work for the Cbt Officer who is also a Lt(N). We got rid of LCdr HODs a long time ago and nothing fell apart.
Generally the HODs are more senior and have done the various post OFP quals and positions to get there, and the two ringers working for them are working on the quals, or doing the feeder positions. Usuaully the HODs are close to promotion (sometimes get promoted in the last 6 months), so there is definitely a senior/jr Lt(N) setup, with normal expectations for mentoring and developing folks under you, and based entirely on the position.
Less common now due to how fast promotions are due to shortages but in a lot of trades you can have a QL5 S1 overseeing QL3 S1s. Having 'senior shop killicks' used to be the norm, where a 3-5 year QL5 tech would take on some more active roles under the MS and PO.
Navy does lots of weird things, but having a hierchy based on position or expertise works fine, and gives people a chance to get the experience with some training wheels on, with a more experienced peer they can lean on. Do agree it would be a huge disatisfier having your normal boss being a lower rank then you when in the same trade, but does happen in lots of different evolutions when it makes sense, and is because the person running it has the SME or relevant quals that others don't.
In a particularly weird set of workups, saw a flood party made up of mostly Command staff officers and Command Chiefs building wooden shoring under the direction of a Killick hull tech. It was something like our 4th set in less then six months so the sea trainers decided to leave the crew alone for some of it and let the large section of extra staff get their hands dirty. Took a bit longer because they were rusty, but it worked.
Maybe makes more sense when you are all literally in the same boat, and there is a lot of things that can happen with wildly different expertise required, but if something had to get done, why wouldn't I let the person that knew how to do it run the team?
My rank won't help me out if I screw up running a line or something because I was too proud of my rank to listen to the bosn that did that everyday.
Gunplumber
Member
- Reaction score
- 71
- Points
- 530
"Where you see careerism I see retention, which is a massive man power problem."
We dont have a retention problem with officers, we have problems keeping troops. You guys are going to have to give up on your careers and empire building and put it on hold until it's cleaned up. Troops are leaving because they are tired of getting screwed around by offices trying to advance their careers. My friend just left DND because she was tired of a new CO who had delusions of grandeur. How many guys are leaving because there is no money for training? A LOT. But there's always money for pips and crowns and red patches and cap bands. VAIN. Stop creating empires and start buying off the shelf. Buy the equipment and troops will join up to play with new toys. STOP F**CKING THE TROOPS.
We dont have a retention problem with officers, we have problems keeping troops. You guys are going to have to give up on your careers and empire building and put it on hold until it's cleaned up. Troops are leaving because they are tired of getting screwed around by offices trying to advance their careers. My friend just left DND because she was tired of a new CO who had delusions of grandeur. How many guys are leaving because there is no money for training? A LOT. But there's always money for pips and crowns and red patches and cap bands. VAIN. Stop creating empires and start buying off the shelf. Buy the equipment and troops will join up to play with new toys. STOP F**CKING THE TROOPS.
- Reaction score
- 1,713
- Points
- 1,140
Tactically, it is not uncommon for Capt leading Majs, LCol or Cols.
- Reaction score
- 21,840
- Points
- 1,360
@Gunplumber, what are your thoughts about addressing the problem across the government. Shouldn’t the DMs, ADMs and DGs (civilian versions of generals) be eliminated as well? Then the directors, managers, team leaders and senior clerks could get on with things without the interference of a bloated bureaucratic executive, the government overall would run more efficiently, not just the Canadian Army CAF. Right?
- Reaction score
- 18,405
- Points
- 1,280
Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Naval Warfare Officers, Aerospace Engineers, Legal Officers, and Doctors (and that’s just off the top of my head) retention levels would seem to disagree.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,883
- Points
- 1,160
Any examples you can share?
Similar threads
- Article
