- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Crewman and Artilliaryman are in high demand on current ops also, why would engineers be safe from these changes.delavan said:
Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
Because we're awesome.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Other than that.Kat Stevens said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
IEDs are one of the biggest threats to CF pers in A-Stan nowadays... lots of crap UXOs from previous conflicts in that country also, and they're hurting for people too. Plus, their second role is to train as infantry. That's why I think the FEs could be out of the "rebadging" deal...
Just my 2...
Just my 2...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Spring_bok said:
To support the 9 Inf Bns, we only have 4 units - all of which are severley undermanned. I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty here due to potential OPSEC stuff, but let's just say if you think the Inf Bns are undermanned, you should swing by the CER lines. We just cannot stand to lose any more fresh troops coming in, we already lose enough due to other reasons....
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
From my understanding and relating to Edward Campbells reply #34, the
MOSART project addresses a number of these issues CF wide.
www.internationalmta.org/2004/Powerpoints/Ppt%20093%20-%20Thompson.ppt
...as a backgrounder.
I tend to think it solves many problems in terms of providing a deployable pool of
semi-qualified members. However, the plan may create problems by lengthening the
time it takes to become useful/qualified in a critically staffed specialty MOS after the
initial engagement.
MOSART project addresses a number of these issues CF wide.
www.internationalmta.org/2004/Powerpoints/Ppt%20093%20-%20Thompson.ppt
...as a backgrounder.
I tend to think it solves many problems in terms of providing a deployable pool of
semi-qualified members. However, the plan may create problems by lengthening the
time it takes to become useful/qualified in a critically staffed specialty MOS after the
initial engagement.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Well, where to start?
First - CSS to remuster to infantry or "all CSS soldiers infantry first"... Ain't gonna happen. We are far shorter of personnel in the technical trades than we are in the combat arms. We cannot - and I must stress this - maintain the equipment we have now, let alone support the addition of new units or missions. We're at the point where some trades are being tasked by individuals in an effort to fill holes. If we decide to pull people out of CSS trades to go infantry, the Army will collapse; we're not far from it now.
CSS training is controlled by the big purple machine. They set the standards and control intake - not the Army. If the Army required its CSS personnel to undertake three years in the Infantry first, it would result in a huge imbalance in production within the schools. An airforce or navy MSE Op would proceed on training right from basic, while his/her Army counterpart spends his time at a battalion. This would have a knock-on effect in the production of these trades for the Army, reducing the numbers of personnel available. Guys break, get fed up, decide not to leave the infantry, or fail infantry training - all before getting to their "final" trade. In an Army without manning issues, a combat arms tour might be a good thing but right now this is something we can ill-afford.
Finally, I fail to see - when all units are significantly undermanned - how this idea represents any type of "solution". We're merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. We'll have a crunch manning tank squadrons in the next few months, there are increased demands for recce, and we've read repeatedly how valuable the guns are on operations (not to mention the additional tasks we've assigned to the artillery), yet we'll denude these trades in an effort to bolster one element of the Combat Arms. It smacks of desperation and expediency.
There are other ways to address this problem - starting with retaining those soldiers we have.
All IMHO, of course...
TR
First - CSS to remuster to infantry or "all CSS soldiers infantry first"... Ain't gonna happen. We are far shorter of personnel in the technical trades than we are in the combat arms. We cannot - and I must stress this - maintain the equipment we have now, let alone support the addition of new units or missions. We're at the point where some trades are being tasked by individuals in an effort to fill holes. If we decide to pull people out of CSS trades to go infantry, the Army will collapse; we're not far from it now.
CSS training is controlled by the big purple machine. They set the standards and control intake - not the Army. If the Army required its CSS personnel to undertake three years in the Infantry first, it would result in a huge imbalance in production within the schools. An airforce or navy MSE Op would proceed on training right from basic, while his/her Army counterpart spends his time at a battalion. This would have a knock-on effect in the production of these trades for the Army, reducing the numbers of personnel available. Guys break, get fed up, decide not to leave the infantry, or fail infantry training - all before getting to their "final" trade. In an Army without manning issues, a combat arms tour might be a good thing but right now this is something we can ill-afford.
Finally, I fail to see - when all units are significantly undermanned - how this idea represents any type of "solution". We're merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. We'll have a crunch manning tank squadrons in the next few months, there are increased demands for recce, and we've read repeatedly how valuable the guns are on operations (not to mention the additional tasks we've assigned to the artillery), yet we'll denude these trades in an effort to bolster one element of the Combat Arms. It smacks of desperation and expediency.
There are other ways to address this problem - starting with retaining those soldiers we have.
All IMHO, of course...
TR
- Reaction score
- 24,258
- Points
- 1,090
Sounds like more spraying from the hip by the CDS... the folks I know in the trg system will be pulling out what's left of their hair - there is no spare capacity in the trg system right now, and the shortfalls in the trained strength aren't in the Infantry. There are many threads touching on this, but the Army will run dry in other occupations before a shortage of Infantry slows up rotos.
That's my one big concern with this CDS - he seems very prone to announcing ideas before determining whether they're viable or even a good idea (ie instituting a Canadian purple heart vice the wound stripe - not even the CF's decision; all honours and awards vest from her Majesty - the CF can make recommendations, that's all). This creates expectations or opposition that results in a lot of needless work and/or angst.
Think first, then engage mouth.
That's my one big concern with this CDS - he seems very prone to announcing ideas before determining whether they're viable or even a good idea (ie instituting a Canadian purple heart vice the wound stripe - not even the CF's decision; all honours and awards vest from her Majesty - the CF can make recommendations, that's all). This creates expectations or opposition that results in a lot of needless work and/or angst.
Think first, then engage mouth.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Maybe the CDS takes this opportunity (timing) and the situation as a occasion to beef up the military. It's all about timing, IMHO.
Maybe we need th **** to hit the fan to get the stuff...and numbers... as it is the case in every military in the world...
IMHO,
DELAVAN
edited for spelling.
Maybe we need th **** to hit the fan to get the stuff...and numbers... as it is the case in every military in the world...
IMHO,
DELAVAN
edited for spelling.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this.He didn't say CSS trades.He said armoured and artillery.A few summers ago when I was out supporting a phase 4 a general showed up (I'm ignorant on the name) and said his vision was to be able to take a vandoo and a strat and put them together in a working unit.Maybe we will see a combination of combat arms.Why the engineers are not involved with it may be due to the extreme amount of time it takes to produce a combat engineer.maybe this is the "big changes" the army was suppose to go through.Those rumblings of moving away from the regimental system.Where a lav CC is a lav CC.Recce det commander is a recce det commander.Not a Strat,not a royal etc.
And as I said earlier basically I'm jumping the gun by even saying this.
Interesting times indeed.
And as I said earlier basically I'm jumping the gun by even saying this.
Interesting times indeed.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
099* said:
OH! CRAP! Do I see that ole "Plug 'n Play" hidden away in that fine print?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
George Wallace said:
Thats my thought also.Guess we will all see tomorrow.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
The engineers have already suffered significant skill fade over the last 20 years, every QL3 is shorter than the one before, with more training left out. We have already basically become infanteers with an interesting hobby, as half our role these days is dismounted, and in the teeth of the enemy.
x-grunt
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 230
The idea that you can be accepted into one trade and then be arbitrarily trained in another seems a bit dishonest, and a bit desperate. I see issues of unit morale and individual disatisfaction here. I wonder what the media impact would be if they got their teeth into it.
The plug and play idea seems more workable, but I suspect, from my outsiders viewpoint, that this would result in fragmented and potentially less effective units, yes? It seems unpopular with George and 099*so I assume it's generally unwanted.
I note there are 15,500 Army reservists. Largish numbers of those are R031. Seems like a good manpower pool of soldiers who already have some skills. Call up would be political dynamite, but perhaps incentives for full time commitment for 18 or more months full time service, or try to task full time sub units from each brigade or whatever. Get creative with the reserves. I have no idea what all the issues would be, but darn it they signed up to serve - take 'em up on it. What is being done here, if anything, other than individual augmentation for specific TF's? That would seem a reasonable route for the short term (say 5 years or so) until recruiting and training catches up to the expansion needed.
The argument could be made that any Res that really wants to serve can CT to the regs, but from what I read on the forums that's a bit of a mess and extensive Class C augmentation seems simpler to implement. This would seem a better solution then rerolling the unwilling.
The plug and play idea seems more workable, but I suspect, from my outsiders viewpoint, that this would result in fragmented and potentially less effective units, yes? It seems unpopular with George and 099*so I assume it's generally unwanted.
I note there are 15,500 Army reservists. Largish numbers of those are R031. Seems like a good manpower pool of soldiers who already have some skills. Call up would be political dynamite, but perhaps incentives for full time commitment for 18 or more months full time service, or try to task full time sub units from each brigade or whatever. Get creative with the reserves. I have no idea what all the issues would be, but darn it they signed up to serve - take 'em up on it. What is being done here, if anything, other than individual augmentation for specific TF's? That would seem a reasonable route for the short term (say 5 years or so) until recruiting and training catches up to the expansion needed.
The argument could be made that any Res that really wants to serve can CT to the regs, but from what I read on the forums that's a bit of a mess and extensive Class C augmentation seems simpler to implement. This would seem a better solution then rerolling the unwilling.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
099,
It's not even close an Armoured recce Det commander is nowhere near the same as an Infantry Recce Det commander, It's two very separate skills, just like an Armoured recce crewman is not an Infantry Recce soldier. I am an Infantry Recce soldier I cannot use a Coyote to it's fullest potential like an Armoured recce crewman can, and in that same breath the Armoured recce crewman cannot do the close target or dismounted recce like I can. Now take that skill and amplify it immensely and you'll get an idea of just how false that statement was.
But your point on the plug and play style of Task Forces is not lost, it's already being done as we speak with TF 03-06 2 Companies of RCR, 1 Company of PPCLI, 1 Company of R22R and then you add on RCD, 23 field Sqn (might be 22 I am fuzzy on that) and then the CSS trades and you see just how Plug and Play is being used.
It's not even close an Armoured recce Det commander is nowhere near the same as an Infantry Recce Det commander, It's two very separate skills, just like an Armoured recce crewman is not an Infantry Recce soldier. I am an Infantry Recce soldier I cannot use a Coyote to it's fullest potential like an Armoured recce crewman can, and in that same breath the Armoured recce crewman cannot do the close target or dismounted recce like I can. Now take that skill and amplify it immensely and you'll get an idea of just how false that statement was.
But your point on the plug and play style of Task Forces is not lost, it's already being done as we speak with TF 03-06 2 Companies of RCR, 1 Company of PPCLI, 1 Company of R22R and then you add on RCD, 23 field Sqn (might be 22 I am fuzzy on that) and then the CSS trades and you see just how Plug and Play is being used.
- Reaction score
- 2,664
- Points
- 940
:rofl: You don't certify opinion polls for the NDP do you?x-grunt said:
George has gone over to the dark side (sorry George
)...and, well, 099* is bitter about EVERYTHING...and most of us here have him on the <ignore> list- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
X-Grunt
Couldn't agree with you more, I think if they start taking guys from one trade(s) to keep the another one topped up its going to lead to a lot of problems not too far down the road. I'm of the same mind, utilize the reserves more, at least you're not starting from scratch.
Infidel- Its actually 2 tps of guns with talk of a third one, with 4 OP Parties, a BC's Party and once the UAV stuff comes around those guys too, so yea it is high demand when the TO&E is actually larger than the actual bty strength.
Couldn't agree with you more, I think if they start taking guys from one trade(s) to keep the another one topped up its going to lead to a lot of problems not too far down the road. I'm of the same mind, utilize the reserves more, at least you're not starting from scratch.
Infidel- Its actually 2 tps of guns with talk of a third one, with 4 OP Parties, a BC's Party and once the UAV stuff comes around those guys too, so yea it is high demand when the TO&E is actually larger than the actual bty strength.
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,483
- Points
- 1,260
rampage800 said:
How many Reg force Batteries do we have? I ask because quite frankly I just don't know. I was under the impression that the airforce was running the UAV stuff? Or is that just interim until the arty guys are up to snuff/speed? The arty guys that were over with us had mention that the only stressed part of their organization was the FOO/FAC parties and they were pretty stable between the Reg force units to man the guns. The only thing they weren't able to do and has been pointed out several times here on the board was to man both the 81s and the 155s at the same time.
Similar threads
