• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

Not to throw more mud in the fray but (and I recognize most of these questions are going to be above everyone's paygrade, but, since I dont see any gold leafs around here...):

1) How much of a problem do we really have?  Put another way, how much of it is it based on immediate and pressing need to have more infantry troops to deploy?

2) How long until (ballpark guesses are expected) we are able to sustain required volumes of troops? Essentially, how long would this measure have to go on for, or would it be quasi-permanent?

3) How long to implement anything realistically?  From today until additional 31 troops on the ground wherever we want them?

4) What is the likelyhood of us having a new federal government in the interim who decides we are cutting back our presence (and thus optempo)?  (I realize this sort of belongs in another thread, but I mean, with recent polling data showing over half of Canadians feel we are not succeeding in Afghanistan, and with the Cons coming into budget season soon with budget amendments that are not popular with any of the other parties.... a non-confidence motion could easily happen next spring).      Perhaps better aligned with the thread; if optempo were reduced by a new government marginally or even considerably...  would we still need to readjust manning along the lines discussed here?

5) the capbadge and beret thing is nothing new, and does not exist solely in the military world.  I used to have customer service staff who worked under me who were revolting because we wanted them to upsell and do "sales".  They didn't sign up for it, and its not what was familiar, so they dragged their feet and made what should have been a very marginal training/learning curve become  near impossible.

 
I used to have customer service staff who worked under me who were revolting because we wanted them to upsell and do "sales".

Funny.  You must have worked for the same company I did.  We too had revolting service.  ;D
 
Hmmm.... LAV upgrade?
does he mean the LEOs that have started to arrive at KAF?
(no Opsec here - on CTV.ca)
 
>The only snag that leaps to mind is, I hope you're talking local BSL courses.

Yes.

For the comment about PAT platoons, I was unaware that people were placed in PAT platoons after completing BMQ, SQ, and their basic trade qualification.  I had assumed at that point they're ready for employment in a field unit (collective training and operations).  I don't see how we get out of chasing requirements except by starting to grow new leaders and trainers from larger intakes of recruits and outputs of trained private soldiers.
 
geo said:
Hmmm.... LAV upgrade?
does he mean the LEOs that have started to arrive at KAF?
(no Opsec here - on CTV.ca)

Yes, the LAVIII's will be upgraded.  That is all that will be said on this subject.
 
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

Soldiers to be limited to one combat tour in Afghanistan: minister
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 18 Oct 06
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/061018/n101885A.html

To avoid wearing out his troops, Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan, if possible.

Gordon O'Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that with a little luck and good planning, the army won't have to ask soldiers to return again and again to battle Taliban insurgents.

"There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said.

"I don't anticipate anybody being there five or six times."


Most soldiers on coming deployments will hopefully be going to Afghanistan for the first time, said Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff .

"We aim as much towards that as we can," he said.

Both O'Connor and Hillier were responding to questions and concerns from the all-party committee about how the army will deal with the extended, often dangerous mission and the rising casualty rate.

Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died and more than 168 have been wounded in the bloody struggle to wrestle Afghanistan from Taliban control.

Typically, Canadian battle groups - roughly 2,300 front-line soldiers and support elements - are deployed for six-month rotations.

In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling.

When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry.

It's not new concept. In the 1990s, armoured soldiers were retrained to fight as infantry in Bosnia.


The Conservative government is hoping its plan to recruit 13,000 new members of the regular forces will also help swell the ranks.

There will be some exceptions to the one-deployment rule, most notably for command assignments, Hillier said.

"You can't have a rapidly changing face if you're going to develop a relationship with the governor of Kandahar, the governor of Helmand," he said.

Several times during the session, O'Connor was called upon to defend the mission in Afghanistan from opposition attacks.

Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs accused him of keeping Canadians in the dark about the progress of the mission by denying the committee's request for regular briefings.

O'Connor said he wasn't about to endanger troops by discussing plans for operations in southern Afghanistan.

But committee members insisted they were not interested in asking questions coming missions, but rather what has already taken place.

O'Connor said he'd reconsider whether to sanction the briefings.


 
What about soldiers that wish to return. I'm sure there are more than a few that wish to do so.
 
Question for those wiser than me in these issues:  Any possible career implications, say, of one soldier up for promotion who was only allowed to go once, competing against someone pre-rules who's been more than once?

 
That just doesn't make sense....I'd rather have experienced guys on my tour that know alot about what has or is going on over there..then all new people. I don't think they can make it work.
 
This is going to be almost impossible to accomplish in a strict sense. There are not that many major units to draw the various rotations from (thanks to 20 years of downsizing), and I cannot see them increasing the recruitment, training, et al  at such a rate as to eliminate the need to send over seasoned troops.

In addition, you need those seasoned troops the guide the newbies. Makes the transition dramatically shorter.

This is kinda like saying I'm going to fight you, but will not use my strongest arm. duh... :eek:
 
I VP has soldiers that were on 1-06 slated for 1-08 - all of whom are volunteers.
 
Not to sound like an idiot, but what does 1 VP stand for?
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I VP has soldiers that were on 1-06 slated for 1-08 - all of whom are volunteers.

Is that the difference that's not being said. If you volunteer, you are not being required, therefore do not count in the one deployment issue?
 
Based on this quote, and assuming it's correct (transcripts not available yet on the committee's web page),

milnewstbay said:
"There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said.  "I don't anticipate anybody being there five or six times." [/b]

it appears the Def Min figures they'll be able to recruit enough bayonets between now and 2009 to be able to ship new faces every ROTO.  A touch optimistic, no?

 
Wow... uh... I don't see this happening either.  There's not enough people. especially when they're increasing the number of troops over there.  What do they plan to do, make everyone join infantry first, do a tour then force them to change trades? Hmmm... can't wait to see how this pans out.
 
RHFC_piper said:
Wow... uh... I don't see this happening either.  There's not enough people. especially when they're increasing the number of troops over there.  What do they plan to do, make everyone join infantry first, do a tour then force them to change trades? Hmmm... can't wait to see how this pans out.

In that article was there not comment as to the possibility of someone doing a Roto prior to be trained in their trade/specialty?
 
Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan

That's not nice....funny...but he said it with a straight face....gotta be true...no?
 
Back
Top