markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,571
- Points
- 1,140
I agree. I’d also like to see us stand up Domestic Response Companies at the start of fire season and hold them class be throughoutz
CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia
- Thread starter observor 69
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,288
- Points
- 1,140
And it will take 11-12 months to do so….
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,408
- Points
- 1,160
Realistically the delay in deployment is less important than the deployment itself. Frankly does anyone see Russian tanks (T-34's?) rolling across the Latvian border within the next 11-12 months? Our NATO deployments are really political first and military 2nd.
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 1,060
would be more impactful for those 15 tanks to be in Ukraine. Of course why not both?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,969
- Points
- 1,160
Which is probably an excellent example of the kind of thinking, at a NATO and international level, that emboldened Putin to make a land grab in Ukraine in the first place
I haven't been in for over a decade now, but just going off of some instagram pages I follow, pulling PLD drastically hastened the rate at which people are getting out.
By eliminating PLD they essentially gave those members a huge pay cut, at a time when the cost of living has never been higher.
Combined with the apparent 'woke' culture that some members have complained about, and slumping morale because of that, mandated sensitivity courses, etc - I think retention is the bigger issue these days (from how it reads anyway)
A battalion of 300 ppl??
Holy Moses...That Battalion is really just a very full mess.I haven't been in for over a decade now, but just going off of some instagram pages I follow, pulling PLD drastically hastened the rate at which people are getting out.
By eliminating PLD they essentially gave those members a huge pay cut, at a time when the cost of living has never been higher.
Combined with the apparent 'woke' culture that some members have complained about, and slumping morale because of that, mandated sensitivity courses, etc - I think retention is the bigger issue these days (from how it reads anyway)
A battalion of 300 ppl??
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,539
- Points
- 1,160
We used to rotate units into and out of 4 CIBG/CMBG and then settled into an individual posting routine. (Anyone else remember 4 Mech Cdo?).
For the artillery, individual postings worked well because of the "one regiment thing". You would expect to lose some people every summer but had some come back as well (although many frequently skipped off on career courses on coming back).
The good thing was you never had to go through a three or four year cycle of anything. You had an annual training plan that allowed you to quickly integrate posted-in people, new ones from the schools (like junior officers coming every September and senior captains and WOs/ MWOs and battery commanders coming from the IG course and instructor tours at the school). Basically you started with about 15-20% new, but fully individually trained, folks in September and finished with a highly trained unit by the next spring.
I'm personally of the view that 6 month and even 1 year rotations, with a 2 to 3 year managed readiness cycle, is the high road to ruining an army. I'm not sure that a 4 year rotational cycle is any better as it uproots a regiment (and its families) every 4 years and frequently transfers them to a new home station than the one they left from.
I won't go into the details of your thoughts as I think we're close on the generalities and the details are points for honest debate.
I agree that the only way to maintain a sustainable presence in Latvia at the brigade level is with a combination of leadership and logistics components that are posted there (accompanied) for a period of three to four years and a flyover component. Whether or not the brigade is multinational or full Canadian is immaterial to me. Multi-national reduces the Canadian manpower and equipment requirements but complicates the command and control and logistics enormously. Its a saw off which is the more important to you. Regardless of format, you need a fully formed brigade that can work adequately within the multi-national divisional structure (and that too has serious shortcomings for C&C, logistics and divisional level capabilities).
My own preference is for a brigade based on a 70/30 and 30/70 structure. In effect, for a 100% Canadian brigade group, the brigade HQ, Svc Bn and theatre logistics command are 70/30 with the 70 % being posted -in multi-year and the 30% being flyover augmentees. The armoured regiment, infantry battalions and artillery regiment and engineer squadron (yup - I'm going back to squadrons) would be 30/70 constituted of a robust posted-in headquarters and one subunit with the remaining 70% of the headquarters and remaining subunits being fly-over. The key here is that the flyover units would not do rotational predeployment training. They merely do a normal training year at home in Canada and once or twice a year are flown over to exercise at the combined arms/joint level and to show the flag.
Implicit in this is that the RCAF have a standing plan and commitment to flyover roughly 2,000 folks by way of their own or chartered flights. Exercising this plan should be considered their part of an operations and training NATO commitment.
That would essentially have roughly 7-800 people in units and another 7-800 in support functions posted OUTCAN for 3 to 4 year cycles and have roughly 1/2+ of our armour and artillery and 1/3 of our LAVs deployed OUTCAN which leaves a tight but adequate training fleet for Canada as well as a cushion on LAVs for other operational deployments. Wear and tear on equipment would be better spread out as there would be considerable maintenance time available for much of the deployed fleet.
If the brigade becomes mutli-national then the predeployed equipment and flyover component could either be adjusted downward or form a fourth manoeuvre battalion (possibly even a light one).
The options are endless but basically revolve around a part of the force being posted long term and the other part conducting normal unit training in Canada but, for some sub-units, conducting their annual combined arms exercises overseas rather than at home.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,805
- Points
- 1,110
Things have changed since the "Germany days." Postings are a major stressor and a big reason why people leave. In the 70s and 80s getting posted to Germany was a reward. Families were more portable. That is no longer the case.
not so sure about that. Depends upon the where and the how long. A six month posting is the pits whereas from the people I know a 2 year with dependents in any European or Caribbean country (except Haiti of course) would be a pleasure.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,539
- Points
- 1,160
Six-month deployments (and in the case of squadron leadership - a year-long deployment) is also a stressor. Add to that the heightened predeployment training cycle and daddy's gone away from home for the better part of a year or more every three or so years. I would think that this would be a killer.
This is why I'm a fan of flyover commitments. You need to do field exercises to practice your craft, but It doesn't matter to the family as to where you do a three-week exercise; on the ranges in Shilo or Latvia.
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,805
- Points
- 1,110
Moving a family is much different than a six-month deployment every three years. We are also reducing the amount of time away from home in the Build Year before deployment, leveraging the training that is done upon arrival.Six-month deployments (and in the case of squadron leadership - a year-long deployment) is also a stressor. Add to that the heightened predeployment training cycle and daddy's gone away from home for the better part of a year or more every three or so years. I would think that this would be a killer.
This is why I'm a fan of flyover commitments. You need to do field exercises to practice your craft, but It doesn't matter to the family as to where you do a three-week exercise; on the ranges in Shilo or Latvia.
Flyover can absolutely be a workable model depending on equipment numbers, and some capabilities have used that model for the eFP.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,969
- Points
- 1,160
Or we just hire people without families so, you know, the military works like it should
- Reaction score
- 9,115
- Points
- 1,360
Money talksOr we just hire people without families so, you know, the military works like it should
I got no problems with 2 year commitments, provided I'm appropriately compensated
- Reaction score
- 17,262
- Points
- 1,260
Moving a family 2x / 18 years shouldn’t be a major issue.
Very few folks would be disappointed with a 4 year stint in Europe. Yes some professional spouses may have an issue, but by and large Europe should be an educational adventure for most families. With a true Bde size footprint a lot of professional spouses should be able to handle
Assuming a 4 year stint it should work out to be 2 rotations maybe three / career.
Most troops probably only 1.
Assuming a ‘one station training’ method.
Soldier Bloggins arrives at their unit.
Within 1 year they are finished their courses and a deployable part of their unit.
So if they rotate Year 2 they come back Y5 and have 8 years back and don’t return till Y13 back Y17, and maybe rotate Y25…
That’s using 2 of 6 LAV Inf Bn’s and 1 of 3 Sabre Squadrons for the LDSH (without expanding the tank fleet I don’t have a better solution atm)
There are generally 3 Engineer, Arty, etc units as well, so it should be doable and not a major QOL issue.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,969
- Points
- 1,160
Money talks
I got no problems with 2 year commitments, provided I'm appropriately compensated
Atta boy!
We should harvest a few thousand 17 year olds on a 4 - 6 year hitch after which they get a juicy bonus and an education package (that isn’t mangled by VAC).
Large-scale accompanied rotational unit postings to Europe are incompatible with our current policies on screening families for OUTCAN. The medical, social work, and educational worlds are quick to DAG families red, even if the soldier themselves is fit to fight. Our policies were very different in the Cold War.
We really have two choices — 6 to 12 month unaccompanied, which seem to be a major dissatisfier, even with tax free status, or posting individual volunteers to Europe long term, which flies in the face of two sacred cows: the regimental system and managed readiness.
In my world, I’d go with option number two - fill Latvia with whoever wants to go there and can DAG green, regimental affiliation be damned, and let them stay as long as they want (up to the seven year cap).
We really have two choices — 6 to 12 month unaccompanied, which seem to be a major dissatisfier, even with tax free status, or posting individual volunteers to Europe long term, which flies in the face of two sacred cows: the regimental system and managed readiness.
In my world, I’d go with option number two - fill Latvia with whoever wants to go there and can DAG green, regimental affiliation be damned, and let them stay as long as they want (up to the seven year cap).
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,969
- Points
- 1,160
What's not to like? The kids get private schooling paid for while overseas, tax breaks, winter vacations in Cyprus or Tunisia, Madeira or Spain. Golfing holidays in Scotland, lots of positions available for English speakers with moderate office or teaching skills.
Does your local Reserve Service Battalion have a few dozen RCEME techs that know how to maintain Leopard tanks? Asking for a friend.
Similar threads
-
- Article
