- Reaction score
- 7,024
- Points
- 1,310
The RCCS has entered the chat....
Navy working to increase enrollment and examine sailor workload
- Thread starter OceanBonfire
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2,372
- Points
- 1,190
I'm surprised by the statement, because don't think I've ever met a naval officer, other than pre-NWOPQ subbies, who didn't understand the difference between FE and FG.I mean I try to explain the nuances of training, force generation and force employment to Naval Officers all the time but they unfortunately suffer from institutional incest in that they have very little experience outside of either Halifax or Esquimalt.
They don't listen to what I tell them and look at me as if I'm speaking Greek. What can be really done for those that do not want to help themselves
- Reaction score
- 9,765
- Points
- 1,360
Oh they can read the book definition, they have to memorize it after all. It's that fine line between rote memorization and application that it starts to fall apart.
Training ≠ Force Generation
Force Generation is tied directly to an assigned mission.
The Navy will say it's Force Generating even when it is not assigned a mission. It will sail its Ships when it doesn't have an assigned mission, break them, continue to sail them when they are broken and skip the planned maintenance.
Then when it does have an actual assigned mission, it won't have the necessary forces available to Force Generate and meet its commitments.
It has continued to do this and maintained an incredibly ambitious CT program while cutting the bottom out from under itself by massacring its IT, particularly for its Tech Trades.
- Reaction score
- 1,705
- Points
- 1,140
Not sure I agree. We should always train (Force Generate) towards our stated mandate, regardless of whether an operational mission has been assigned or not. The RCAF Capstone doctrine states “[f]orce generation involves an extensive range of activities including recruiting, training, educating, and retaining the right personnel. These activities are essential to the readiness of a competent force with the ability to execute all air power missions.”
- Reaction score
- 2,372
- Points
- 1,190
I agree. Though it's coming from the RCAF doctrine (not sure if there is an RCAF equivalent), the only things I wouldn't consider "FG" would be individual training. Just about any other "training" I would consider FG. If you send a ship to Joint Warrior in Great Britain as the command ship for one of the Task Groups, even though that particular ship is scheduled to go into a deep refit right after this sail, I'd still call it Force Generation. You are giving experience and training in things that members of that crew may have little to no experience in (operating as a flag ship, operating in a task group, maintain NATO comms circuits, navigating in a high traffic density area, etc.). They may not use these new found skills on that ship, but most of them are going to get farmed out to other ships as soon as she goes into refit, and they'll bring those new found skills and experiences to their new units, whether they be deployers or the school. You've Force Generated because you've provided the Navy and CJOC with people who are now more capable and employable.
- Reaction score
- 4,133
- Points
- 1,120
As a former W Eng Tech, who was a Senior Instructor at CFNES shortly after the conversion from NET to W Eng, I observed a lot of reduction in training - primarily in training time. A CIWS course that was once several months became several weeks. A CANTASS course that was over a month for just the dry end became just over 2 weeks for both the wet and dry end. Certain training was eliminated and was to be 'learned in the fleet'.
Then the School re-organization in 2016 put the nail in the coffin - the section I had run as Senior instructor in 2012 went from having 12 instructor positions with Standards support...to having 5 instructor positions, with the Senior Instructor being "Standards", since the whole east coast Standards Cell was shut down.
With 12 instructors, I was able to run 3 courses with 2 instructors each, supply 2 instructors to a project in Montreal for 2 months, have one out on MATA/PATA, one on PLQ, another on leave, and still have a spare or two in case someone called in sick. Oh, and I could manage things so that I could let one do the full Nijmegen workup and deployment.
Now, with 5 instructors including the Senior instructor, you're lucky to staff a single course from what I hear - and that on a rotational basis. With 4 instructors in house (plus the SI) you have 2 in class, one who's on leave, one who's probably out on MEL's.
(Note, due to electronics/power/etc, you need to have 2 present for safety...which wasn't factored in by the 'genius' brain trust that cut it to 5.)
Running a single class of 8 techs at a time....I mean, it's been 3 years since this was anything like my problem, but I'm not surprised at the burnout, and the dwindling numbers of techs around.
From my perspective - there has not been a single actual Electronics Technician trained since September 2011 when the W Eng conversion was done. Since that time, they've produced Maintainers, not Technicians.
Some of those Maintainers have developed into good Technicians, due to good mentoring and supervision in the fleet, but that's the exception, not the rule.
The only 'hope' I hold for the RCN at this point is that after this surge of deployments is done, maybe they will call an "OPS TEMPO PAUSE" and take a year to reconstitute, maintain, and catch up.
Then the School re-organization in 2016 put the nail in the coffin - the section I had run as Senior instructor in 2012 went from having 12 instructor positions with Standards support...to having 5 instructor positions, with the Senior Instructor being "Standards", since the whole east coast Standards Cell was shut down.
With 12 instructors, I was able to run 3 courses with 2 instructors each, supply 2 instructors to a project in Montreal for 2 months, have one out on MATA/PATA, one on PLQ, another on leave, and still have a spare or two in case someone called in sick. Oh, and I could manage things so that I could let one do the full Nijmegen workup and deployment.
Now, with 5 instructors including the Senior instructor, you're lucky to staff a single course from what I hear - and that on a rotational basis. With 4 instructors in house (plus the SI) you have 2 in class, one who's on leave, one who's probably out on MEL's.
(Note, due to electronics/power/etc, you need to have 2 present for safety...which wasn't factored in by the 'genius' brain trust that cut it to 5.)
Running a single class of 8 techs at a time....I mean, it's been 3 years since this was anything like my problem, but I'm not surprised at the burnout, and the dwindling numbers of techs around.
From my perspective - there has not been a single actual Electronics Technician trained since September 2011 when the W Eng conversion was done. Since that time, they've produced Maintainers, not Technicians.
Some of those Maintainers have developed into good Technicians, due to good mentoring and supervision in the fleet, but that's the exception, not the rule.
The only 'hope' I hold for the RCN at this point is that after this surge of deployments is done, maybe they will call an "OPS TEMPO PAUSE" and take a year to reconstitute, maintain, and catch up.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,873
- Points
- 1,160
Too bad that RCN Officers who want to be Admirals, and Admirals who want to be CDS, will probably look at the recently resurgent Russia as a great career builder, which also means that this 'surge' may not be done for years.
Oh, and of course we need to measure up to our NATO commitments... almost forgot that.
- Reaction score
- 6,521
- Points
- 1,140
The new CO just needs everyone to dig deep, and give 100% for the next two years. Just like the last three new COs...Too bad that RCN Officers who want to be Admirals, and Admirals who want to be CDS, will probably look at the recently resurgent Russia as a great career builder, which also means that this 'surge' may not be done for years.
Oh, and of course we need to measure up to our NATO commitments... almost forgot that.
- Reaction score
- 4,133
- Points
- 1,120
Oh, and then there's the crew who wasn't subjected to a 'crew swap' after their deployment, who had a patch made up calling themselves 'the forgotten'....feeling very hard done by to have remained on the same ship for over 18 months. I spent almost 5 years on CHA from '96-01 and over 4 years on MON from 04-08...both ships I did multiple deployments/taskings on.
The funniest part of the whole school re-organization was when the 'leadership' stated that if we were short on instructors, we would 'CFTPO them from the fleet.'...that was the plan...they legitimately thought they'd have priority over ships.
The funniest part of the whole school re-organization was when the 'leadership' stated that if we were short on instructors, we would 'CFTPO them from the fleet.'...that was the plan...they legitimately thought they'd have priority over ships.
- Reaction score
- 6,521
- Points
- 1,140
As a funny side note to this RCN tale, I was asked on Tuesday if I'd still consider relinquishing rank to go sail on the West Coast... (I brought it up a couple of years ago as an option)
Apparently support trades that aren't RCN managed are getting desperate for people to deal with sailing as well. I told the boss I'd go, but I wouldn't be willing to go back to Sgt.
Apparently support trades that aren't RCN managed are getting desperate for people to deal with sailing as well. I told the boss I'd go, but I wouldn't be willing to go back to Sgt.
- Reaction score
- 21,838
- Points
- 1,360
You’re clearly asking for more than the CMP-RCN combined-arms team can give, Furniture.
- Reaction score
- 27,176
- Points
- 1,090
MCpl it is then!
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,873
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 6,521
- Points
- 1,140
Until Tuesday I was air force, now MS would be appropriate.There, FTFY
- Reaction score
- 27,176
- Points
- 1,090
You realize that by changing to a naval DEU you're guaranteed to never get posted to either coast ever again.Until Tuesday I was air force, now MS would be appropriate.
- Reaction score
- 18,404
- Points
- 1,280
Wait - did the Met Tech trade stop being RCAF DEU? Did you OT? Am I even referring to the right trade?Until Tuesday I was air force, now MS would be appropriate.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,156
- Points
- 1,260
Ya I was confused too.... But I didn't wanna pry lol
- Reaction score
- 6,521
- Points
- 1,140
Theoretically we have been "purple" since 2012, we just didn't allow people to switch DEU, and didn't seem to recruit many people in CA or RCN DEU.
Right now we are at 83% RCAF when we should be 41%, and we are at 6% RCN when we should be at 34%.
@Good2Golf
Similar threads
