Author Topic: Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate...  (Read 15258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Once_a_TQ

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/military-adds-more-generals-and-admirals-than-soldiers-or-sailors-1.3913060

"OTTAWA - The Canadian military has been getting heavier up top and not in the muffin sort of way.

New figures show the ranks of the Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the military over the last 15 years as dozens of generals and admirals have been added." ......

More in the article.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 13:59:14 by Once_a_TQ »

Offline Eagle Eye View

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
Nothing surprising here. I couldn't believe the amount of Snr Officers during my last tour on Op Impact.

Unreal.  ::)
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.

John F. Kennedy

Offline Cwes

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 34
The statements in that article are just a gross defence of poor resource management.

Offline Inspir

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,656
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 229
I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 910,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,942
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.

So we can stack up more people on BTL? ACISS is around 78% PML and the school just cancelled 3 DP1 courses this year because they won't run them if the students don't have BMQ-L. The issue aren't just at the recruiting centre.

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.

There is definitely a double standard here.  CWO have to be part of a Comd Team or be a "key specialist" to remain a CWO, but from LCol to GOFO's it seems this is not required.  And CWO makes less than Capt so this doesn't even make sense from a business planning perspective :-/

Jon

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 53,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,341
There is definitely a double standard here.  CWO have to be part of a Comd Team or be a "key specialist" to remain a CWO, but from LCol to GOFO's it seems this is not required.  And CWO makes less than Capt so this doesn't even make sense from a business planning perspective :-/

Jon

I'm personally happy they are cutting the number of CWO/CPO1, but I definitely agree there is a double standard.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 7,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 659
Quote
Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance stood by the additional brass in an interview on Wednesday and said he plans to grow the senior ranks even more in the coming years in response to new demands and challenges.

In unrelated news, a recent CANFORGEN was announced where we have 6 general officers as "Champions" of diversity and inclusion.

Offline dapaterson

    - a scruffy-looking nerf herder.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 424,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,973
Secondary duties; such secondary duties have existed for a long time.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 79,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,742
In unrelated news, a recent CANFORGEN was announced where we have 6 general officers as "Champions" of diversity and inclusion.

I want to be a Champion!  Sounds like an awesome job!  Everybody likes you when you have that title, right?

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
I'm already a Champignon!  Cuz they keep me in the dark and feed me BS.   ;D

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 89,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,927
Champions are sometimes called to fight in single combat to determine conflict outcomes.  They should be chosen and appointed by assessing opponents slain and capacity with bladed weapons.  The current slate of champions has me worried...
Optio

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 53,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,341
I think we should deploy an all officer battle group. Sections can be led by LCol. And who needs a LAV Capt when you can have a LAV Col!

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 152,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,361
Champions are sometimes called to fight in single combat to determine conflict outcomes.  They should be chosen and appointed by assessing opponents slain and capacity with bladed weapons.  The current slate of champions has me worried...

Maybe we are lining up the champions for a battle Royale down the line.  One can hope
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
I'm personally happy they are cutting the number of CWO/CPO1, but I definitely agree there is a double standard.

For certain there are some CWO that were not doing work that needed that rank, but the CA is cutting 60 CWO were as the RCN and RCAF are only cutting approx 25 each....the CA is going to find in the next decade that they cut too deep, sadly it will take failing at tasks to prove this.

Jon

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 215,712
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,920
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Well this spiralled quickly...,,,
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,521
Any one in the ranks could tell you the same thing in this article. Look at that "new" Canadian Support Brigade in gagetown, literally creating a new HQ and just moving existing units to it, creating HQ's just to justify our bloating officer ranks. I wish i could find numbers but I am coming up empty searching for a break down of officers vs enlisted both current and historical, but I'd put money down that we have more officers now then we did before the personnel cuts during the early to mid cold war.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 300
maybe that is why we are number 14 in the world!

tried to post the graphic of the top 15 military spenders but it didn't work
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 09:10:41 by suffolkowner »

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,708
Any one in the ranks could tell you the same thing in this article. Look at that "new" Canadian Support Brigade in gagetown, literally creating a new HQ and just moving existing units to it, creating HQ's just to justify our bloating officer ranks. I wish i could find numbers but I am coming up empty searching for a break down of officers vs enlisted both current and historical, but I'd put money down that we have more officers now then we did before the personnel cuts during the early to mid cold war.
The article looked at the trend from 2003 to present.  During that time, the Army has seen sub-units and sub-sub units reduced in size and number through the field force.  2003/2004 was about the time that Pioneers & mortars were cut.  Other organizations were hollowed out to create "new capabilities" like CMTC.  I know there was some growth in 2007-2008, but a lot of that was directed outside the field force and in the years since both Army and VCDS have regularly come back to mine PYs out of the field force to continue development of new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).

I don't know how the ratio of commissioned to non-commissioned compares between now and the Cold War.  I do believe that the number of appropriate entry level positions for junior officers has been shrinking at the same time as the number of GOFOs increases.  I know that at the tactical level, officers are commanding smaller organizations for shorter periods of time with less authority to make decisions.  Even if the number of junior officers has remained relatively consistent, we are diluting the developmental experiences that build good generals.  Even if the number of junior officers has remained relatively consistent, they now represent a smaller gene pool in proportion to the larger GOFO population that they must sustain.

So we not only get more generals, we get proportionally more generals who are not ready to be generals and we get proportionally more generals who never should be generals.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,657
So we not only get more generals, we get proportionally more generals who are not ready to be generals and we get proportionally more generals who never should be generals.

Without over-generalizing, this is a managerial trend that commonly occurs in large, complacent private sector companies immediately prior to the point in time when the business fails.   

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,521
Without over-generalizing, this is a managerial trend that commonly occurs in large, complacent private sector companies immediately prior to the point in time when the business fails.

but we can't fail the same way a business can, what I am seeing right now is jr NCO's picking up the slack for SNCO's and officers who actually don't know what they are doing, way more then should be happening. What I can see failing is we get into a shooting war and our top heaviness is going to bite us in the *** very very hard.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,657
I agree that the CF must not fail the way a business can, but they appear to be well on their way to doing a great job of it anyway.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,657
What I can see failing is we get into a shooting war and our top heaviness is going to bite us in the *** very very hard.

But it didn't bite in the last war, and therefore the logical conclusion is that it must have been part of the explanation for success.  :sarcasm:

Offline Sandyson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 3,205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
And  shootings wars for Canada have always been optional and far away.  The bureaucratic war in Ottawa is a clear and present danger.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,345
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).


The other 3 might be fairly significant in numbers, but the Space one is relatively small in numbers (based on what was taught on the BSOC course).

The AEW part...not really sure what the measureable benefit of this one was/is.  Anytime a ATF is required, that I've been involved in, I've never seen a direct link to the AEW concept back to the ATF.   :dunno:
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun