Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

[vonGarvin]

Question #2, No, it is a privelage to serve in the Infantry, noone is guaranteed a spot, you earn it.

+1!!!!!

 

[geo]

Crantor,
Toops belonging to the even numbered TFs will prolly fill immediate shortfalls in the odd numbered TFs.
Territorial defence / composite reserve battalions will continuously face the problems caused by the Fleet management program.  No AFVs, hell.... no vehicles!

 

[tasop_999]

So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty. 

Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.

 

[armyvern]

So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty. 

Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.

I just watched the CDS on the news...he mentioned those support (purple trades) serving in blue and Black uniforms on Naval & Air bases.

Not hard Sea trades and not hard Air trades. Purple trades.

Convoy duties (ie DPs etc) already fall well within the scope of duties/tasks for Sup Techs, TN etc serving in support of Land Forces.

 

[Collin.t]

There is more to this mission than a bunch of kids driving around in LAV's drooling over the vast fields of pot (I bet the Vandoos are itching to go!)

I don't know what you are trying to imply in that remark but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. I know it's a joke, but I'm sure that if some of them Vingt-deux are reading this topic would find the joke being of poor taste.

However I must agree that they must be itching to go there.

just my 0.02$

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the CP take on the testimony.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2429740

I found this interesting;

The army's staffing problems stem from budget cuts in the 1990s, when moving expenses were slashed, leaving many soldiers perpetually assigned to combat units and constantly rotated overseas.

Apparently the problem isn't that the CF was downsized in the '90s at all.  There were lots of soldiers. They were just stuck on the wrong base because the Army didn't have the funds to hire moving vans.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the discussion on re-roling I thought I would contribute this.  It is from a UK MOD press release on Helicopter operations in Afghanistan.  It seems that the CF is not the only force to use "sailors" far from the sea.  Not to mention Marines, both US and Royal.

Squadron Leader Paul Shepherd, officer-commanding 1310 Flight JHF(A), said one of the unit's main strengths was that it had personnel from all three Services: "At any given time, the unit is faced with a variety of challenging tasks across Helmand," the Chinook pilot said. "Out here we have Army Air Corps and Royal Marine pilots flying RAF Chinooks, and Royal Navy pilots in the Apache attack helicopters. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit more detail (if what is written is, indeed, what was said) - although transcripts aren't available yet at the Foreign Affairs Committee web page:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e21_&COM=10475

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Newest Forces recruits may be forced to fight
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, 25 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2e2f9a26-ade2-48fa-84a5-98fd3fa09966&k=15013

New Canadian Forces recruits learned Wednesday that for the next two years they will have to be prepared to fight in the trenches of Afghanistan before they are allowed to move into more high-tech trades in the Air Force or Navy.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, made that announcement Wednesday in an appearance at the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, immediately sparking criticism such a move would have a "chilling effect" that would dissuade young people — said to be "flocking" to the military — from signing up at all.

Hillier, along with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, gave additional details of the Canadian Forces attempts to overcome the personnel challenges it faces to find enough troops to sustain its military commitment in Afghanistan to February 2009, or beyond.

The new measures include making it mandatory that for two years new recruits be eligible to spend time fighting in the infantry on the front lines of Afghanistan, as well as giving soldiers who test positive for drug use, second or even third chances to clean up their act so they can be shipped overseas.

Hillier and O'Connor had to deflect speculation this would involve having Navy and Air Force personnel retrained as front-line Army infantry fighters.

O'Connor said Navy and Air Force specialists could make up as many as half the 2,500 contingent of Canadian troops currently stationed in Afghanistan.

But potentially well-educated new recruits, who had designs on careers in the Air Force or Navy working with the latest technology, learned they will have to do time in the infantry to keep the same army personnel from doing repeated tours of duty in Afghanistan.

"Are there people in the recruiting system right now that we could, for a two year period, put into to some of those combat trades, train them completely as infantry men and women and then use them for a period of time before they go on to where they want to go?" Hillier told the committee. "We're looking at how we share the burden, completely across the Canadian Forces so that no one man or woman has to carry an inordinate amount of it on their shoulders."

Hillier said military planners are trying to staff the first half of 2008 — the Forces sends troops on six-month rotations — and that the 252 new cadets currently in training could find themselves in Afghanistan "so we're not asking somebody whose just come out this summer to go back in then."

Hillier said young people are "flocking" to recruiting centers doubling the rate of new recruits so far this year from the previous year.

Liberal committee member Dan McTeague told Hillier his new plan could have a "chilling effect" on recruiting.

The military announced modest annual pay raises Wednesday,

And the measure drew criticism because it amounted to a 2.6 per cent increase for non-commissioned officers, while colonels and other senior officers saw 3.5-to-4.4-per cent increases.

O'Connor added the Forces were going to give troops who tested positive for drugs a second, or even a third chance to clean up their act so they could be sent to Afghanistan.

If a soldier tests positive twice for drugs, they will be sent for counseling, he said.

O'Connor said the rate of drug usage in the military is no higher than in the civilian population.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A bit more detail (if what is written is, indeed, what was said) - although transcripts aren't available yet at the Foreign Affairs Committee web page:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e21_&COM=10475

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Newest Forces recruits may be forced to fight
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, 25 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2e2f9a26-ade2-48fa-84a5-98fd3fa09966&k=15013

New Canadian Forces recruits learned Wednesday that for the next two years they will have to be prepared to fight in the trenches of Afghanistan before they are allowed to move into more high-tech trades in the Air Force or Navy.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, made that announcement Wednesday in an appearance at the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, immediately sparking criticism such a move would have a "chilling effect" that would dissuade young people — said to be "flocking" to the military — from signing up at all.

Hillier, along with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, gave additional details of the Canadian Forces attempts to overcome the personnel challenges it faces to find enough troops to sustain its military commitment in Afghanistan to February 2009, or beyond.

The new measures include making it mandatory that for two years new recruits be eligible to spend time fighting in the infantry on the front lines of Afghanistan, as well as giving soldiers who test positive for drug use, second or even third chances to clean up their act so they can be shipped overseas ...

I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the attractive military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:

First: to raise the standards in those attractive trades by ensuring that members have good, solid, operational military experience and the ethos which, I believe extensive service in combat units and ships provides; and

Second: provide a steady stream of bright young people to fill the junior ranks of the combat arms and hard sea trades – secure, as I am, in the knowledge that some (probably many) young soldiers destined for the attractive occupations will change their minds and stay at sea or in combat units once they realize that’s where the real soldiering is, complete with its immense personal and professional satisfaction.

I was and remain convinced that the selected attractive trades must:

• Be the exclusive domain of the remuster system – as, for example, the Canadian Intelligence Corps and Canadian Provost Corps (Military Police) (for officers, only) were when I first served.  That means those few (not all) selected trades will, most likely, have very few privates – most members will have four years of good service under their belts by the time they have finished their combat/sea commitment and their new classification/trade training; and

• Be from across the board – not just the technical trades which have stiff recruiting standards so that we are not dealing with a small, select group of people.

Obviously, I still think this idea has some merit or, despite being turned away more than once, I would not raise it again.

I advocated that one other rank trade or specialty from each of the administration, aerospace/technical, communications-electronics, logistics and navy weapons/electronics groups and one or two army officer occupations – and I specifically suggested Signals/EW and MP – be selected for this process.

I have gone further and recommended that some trades be taken away from their present branches and returned to the combat arms and services – specifically: admin clerk.  Until the ‘70s all army clerks came from regiments and corps – although the Army Service Corps provided uniform, army wide clerk standards and advanced training.  Thus, when you walked into the BOR in 2RCR all the clerks were infantrymen/clerks – the same as all the mortarmen were infantrymen/mortarmen and for the same reasons: the admin function is integral to the battalion and almost every soldier in the battalion should be trained and able to fight as an infantryman.  When you walked into the OR at, say, Western Command HQ in Edmonton, AB, all the clerks, from the WO1 (CWO) chief clerk on down wore the flashes of their parent regiment or corps.  They were all trained, skilled clerks (and some had been nothing else for several years) but you knew that most of them understood, even if they no longer practiced, the basic skills related to their cap badges.

Until about 30 years ago all clerks, and most drivers and storemen (supply techs) started their careers in one of the arms (or services).  Remusters, for storemen and drivers, to the Ordnance and Service corps were common and, if I recall correctly ammo techs could only come from the combat arms.

----------

Anyway, all that to say that I think there is some merit in the idea.  I would like to see more detail.  Some military forces, including, I believe the Royal Marines, have a similar system and a few (French Foreign Legion?) even go as far as to require that specialists return to a combat role, for training and assessment, before being selected/trained for leadership (sgt and above?) positions.

With regards to drug testing: when I served alcohol was the big problem.  Too many well trained, experienced people (officers and NCOs) were ruining themselves and damaging their units due to alcohol abuse.  We test drove a couple of programmes while I served in units* - they involved intervention by the CO, treatment and counselling by the medics and retention with ongoing supervision, assessment and support by the unit.  Our view was that alcohol abuse, like most disciplinary infractions, reflected on both the individual and the military’s training and discipline system – when a soldier turns away from the party-line (to either alcohol or misconduct) ‘we’ must accept part of the blame, ‘we’ failed him/her by not providing sufficient training, leadership, motivation, example, etc.  Thus I support ‘second chances’ (but maybe not third ones) provided there is some treatment, support and assessment.  I grew up in a relatively hard drinking era and the army reflected, perhaps over-reflected it – I suspect the all pervasive nature of drug use/abuse in Canadian society means that the CF must expect and accept some and deal with it, too.

----------

* We dealt, fairly or not, with alcohol abuse amongst staff officers and senior NCOs in HQs differently.  I do know, personally, of one senior officer who was sent for counselling/treatment, monitored by his boss and, eventually, encouraged to take early retirement.  I know of occasions of warning staff officers about the effect that too many lunches in the mess was having on the team – sometimes, oddly enough, the individual’s own work was always done to a very high standard but subordinates suffered by the staff officer’s absence and (commendable) reluctance to make decisions in the afternoon.  The offenders were, probably, treated more gently that would have been the case for a too hard drinking sergeant in a field unit but the rules are often applied differently (not less, just differently) in HQs.

 

[ArmyRick]

Edward, well said, young man, very well said. 

 

[Eland]

I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the attractive military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:

<snip>

Until about 30 years ago all clerks, and most drivers and storemen (supply techs) started their careers in one of the arms (or services).  Remusters, for storemen and drivers, to the Ordnance and Service corps were common and, if I recall correctly ammo techs could only come from the combat arms.

I'm not sure that what you're saying was universally true. An uncle of mine spent 23 years in the army. He joined in '61, did his basic training, and afterwards went directly into RCOC to become a storesman. He remained in Logistics, permanently attached to 1RCR, acquired many promotions, became the Adm O for the Highbury Street supply depot at CFB London and then retired shortly after achieving the rank of MWO. If he did do a brief stint in one of the combat arms before going into what would now recognized as a supply tech's job, he never told me about it.

 

[George Wallace]

So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty. 

;D
Perhaps it is time to stop listening to the radio while you drive.

Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.

Why did you join the ARMED Forces; "ARMED" being the keyword?

If that driver were an Infantryman, then the Infantry would have been short a 'man' from the start in doing their tasks.  It doesn't matter who the driver of that vehicle is, the Engineers and Infantry will have to go out and recover both driver and vehicle, accompanied by Maintainers and Medics.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure that what you're saying was universally true. An uncle of mine spent 23 years in the army. He joined in '61, did his basic training, and afterwards went directly into RCOC to become a storesman. He remained in Logistics, permanently attached to 1RCR, acquired many promotions, became the Adm O for the Highbury Street supply depot at CFB London and then retired shortly after achieving the rank of MWO. If he did do a brief stint in one of the combat arms before going into what would now recognized as a supply tech's job, he never told me about it.

You are correct; that's why I said most.  Perhaps I should have said 'some' or 'many.'

Many storemen and drivers did, indeed, enlist, as storemen and drivers, in the the RCOC and RCASC - they served in Ordnance units and Service Corps units - including in brigade admin area units.

Many others enlisted in the RCAC, RCA, RCE, RCCS and infantry regiments and served, as storemen and drivers, in F Ech units; many of those then re-mustered into the RCOC and RCASC, usually, I think with minimal retraining being required.

 

[George Wallace]

I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the attractive military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:

First: to raise the standards in those attractive trades by ensuring that members have good, solid, operational military experience and the ethos which, I believe extensive service in combat units and ships provides; and

Second: provide a steady stream of bright young people to fill the junior ranks of the combat arms and hard sea trades – secure, as I am, in the knowledge that some (probably many) young soldiers destined for the attractive occupations will change their minds and stay at sea or in combat units once they realize that’s where the real soldiering is, complete with its immense personal and professional satisfaction.

I was and remain convinced that the selected attractive trades must:

• Be the exclusive domain of the remuster system – as, for example, the Canadian Intelligence Corps and Canadian Provost Corps (Military Police) (for officers, only) were when I first served.  That means those few (not all) selected trades will, most likely, have very few privates – most members will have four years of good service under their belts by the time they have finished their combat/sea commitment and their new classification/trade training; and

• Be from across the board – not just the technical trades which have stiff recruiting standards so that we are not dealing with a small, select group of people.

Obviously, I still think this idea has some merit or, despite being turned away more than once, I would not raise it again.

I advocated that one other rank trade or specialty from each of the administration, aerospace/technical, communications-electronics, logistics and navy weapons/electronics groups and one or two army officer occupations – and I specifically suggested Signals/EW and MP – be selected for this process.

These seem to be very sound points.  It would solve some of the problems we currently have with 'Purple' Trades in training their personnel in Cbt functions and Fieldcraft to a common standard.  If Cbt Arms is the prerequisite for these Purple Trades, then they could remove related Cbt Trg from their Crse TPs and concentrate more on the Technical aspects of their training.  In the end there is possible monetary savings and/or more qualitative technical training.  We would also have Technicians in our Cbt Arms Units, who would already be familiar with life in the 'Field' and a good indoctrination of Field Unit SOPs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

These seem to be very sound points.  It would solve some of the problems we currently have with 'Purple' Trades in training their personnel in Cbt functions and Fieldcraft to a common standard.  If Cbt Arms is the prerequisite for these Purple Trades, then they could remove related Cbt Trg from their Crse TPs and concentrate more on the Technical aspects of their training.  In the end there is possible monetary savings and/or more qualitative technical training.  We would also have Technicians in our Cbt Arms Units, who would already be familiar with life in the 'Field' and a good indoctrination of Field Unit SOPs.

I will tell you, George, that good idea or not, it would not be as simple as I make it sound, nor as easy.  Several senior people gave me a careful hearing back when and then told me why it would be problematical and difficult.  That being admitted, I still think it, or something like it, can work.  I had (still have) rather specific models in mind.  Better minds than mine, I hope, will, I also hope, devise something workable.

 

[GAP]

I constantly read references of comparisons between the CF and USMC.

The one advantage the USMC had was that no one hesitated to grab their rifle and man the wire, be they cook, driver, whatever. Now while I think the CF personnel are probably capable of doing that, it is not ingrained that you are first and foremost the "armed" in Armed Force.

We had many situations where the REMF's pulled together and accounted themselves very well (also some that were pure comedy), but at no time did I ever hear any one group/person argue that that wasn't their "thing".

 

[George Wallace]

I could see it being very problematic if instituted 'instantly'.  If it, as a policy, were implemented over a period of five to ten years, and then became common practice, it should become more workable.  Of course, there may arise occasions where we will have to recruit "straight off the street" to make up for shortages from time to time, or if there were certain 'Specialties' that could not be found within the current 'system'.

Technology, may be the biggest consideration in this idea's implementation.  Technology is advancing so quickly today, and getting faster daily.  The CF would have to look at sending its members off to Technical Schools, much the same as we send members off to RMC, to gain the higher education required to keep our ever increasing technical skills and abilities up to date.  Just as our Junior Leaders should be given the opportunities of gaining a higher education at RMC (a whole different Topic) our Cbt Arms soldiers seeking another Trade, desiring to better their education with technical skills and Trades, should be given the opportunity.  

As opposed to taking recruits off the street and training them in highly technical Trades, only to see them leave the CF after their initial contract, creating shortages in their Trades and loss of millions of dollars spent on their educations, we would have members who had worked hard and contributed to the CF earning the 'right' to progress in their own 'betterment', rewarded with further training and education.   It would seem less of a case of 'Spending Billions of Dollars on Technical Skills, that walk out the door on completion of Training' and more of a reward for Service Rendered.  

We are running an Army, not a Technical School so that people can get a better job at Nortel or JDSI.

 

[GAP]

I could see it being very problematic if instituted 'instantly'.  If it, as a policy, were implemented over a period of five to ten years, and then became common practice, it should become more workable.

+1

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

Technology, may be the biggest consideration in this idea's implementation.  Technology is advancing so quickly today, and getting faster daily.  The CF would have to look at sending its members off to Technical Schools, much the same as we send members off to RMC, to gain the higher education required to keep our ever increasing technical skills and abilities up to date.  Just as our Junior Leaders should be given the opportunities of gaining a higher education at RMC (a whole different Topic) our Cbt Arms soldiers seeking another Trade, desiring to better their education with technical skills and Trades, should be given the opportunity.  

...

The New Zealand Army was (still is?) doing that for their technical trades.  Would be electronics technicians were trained (circa 1990), first off, as equipment/system 'operators' and then sent to their polytechnical institutes (our community colleges) for a few (several?) semesters of theoretical education, supplemented by 'hands on' equipment training in their respective corps schools.

 

[George Wallace]

I see the CF as having a "Brain Drain" when it comes to training people straight off the street in our more technical Trades, only to see them leave the CF within a few years.   Constantly training new technicians with little or return (Service) seems not to be very frugal.  In the meantime we have many in the Cbt Arms, who have made a commitment, being held back from OT's into Technical Trades. 

I suppose this is the result of being Cbt Arms (Army as a whole) and having an attitude towards 'Duty' and 'Service' that many Non-Cbt Arms Air Force and Navy 'Purple Trades' don't seem to have.