Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Castus]

EDIT: Rolled into a bigger post.

 

[Castus]

I’m curious if the CAF has any data tracking those in the field forces for each service with restrictive family situations? Additionally while there may not be anything wrong with single parents, service couples with school age kids etc. they all do reduce the maximum number of deployable personnel.

That may not matter if all we strive for is a BG, a six pack of fighters, a pair of LRP, and a frigate on a rotating basis, but it certainly would if we tried to deploy all our forces in the case of a large scale war.

If the data exists, it's probably deep in the archives of the Army G1 cell...

On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.

It would have been nice to have other opportunities in the infantry (or other arms) than rifle company and recce platoon. That began to materialise once I was gone, but it's also why I went to a combat support corps. However, a drone operator needs to be in close proximity to fighting sub-units to be effective. We aren't talking about theatre level ISR here, but rather tactical & micro UAS in support of troops in contact, whether than be an infantry platoon on the attack, engineers recce-ing enemy obstacles, artillery target acquisition or extending the range of an armoured recce cavalry screen. All of these people need to be capable of operation in the field for prolonged periods, defending themselves and being a positive force multiplier for the assault forces, rather than a burden that requires troops re-allocated to force protection. That is common across all combat support corps, besides combat arms tradesmen who are not in assault roles.

What I would like to see is more positions for combat support corps in manoeuvre units. That's another story entirely.

Oof Canada buckle up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775864832320844135

As we have been over many, many times, Canada doesn't care.

 

[YZT580]

I was stupid enough to buy a '97 Civic @ 10 000$ back then, yes

don't feel bad, my brother bought a Gremlin

 

[Good2Golf]

don't feel bad, my brother bought a Gremlin

…at least it wasn’t a Pacer…

 

[SeaKingTacco]

…at least it wasn’t a Pacer…

I had a Monza…

 

[Good2Golf]

I had a Monza…

Luxury!

 

[Furniture]

Luxury!

I feel like it's time to break out Grampa Simpson...

 

[MilEME09]

Given our manpower issues, we likely have a lot of budget not used for wages etc due to all those missing bodies. To me the short term solution would be to increase the authorized training days for the PRes, including weekends you get about 42 days. Double that to 84, yes not every soldier will make it but it would allow more training time. This creates a short term gain for the CAF and more proficient soldier's.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Given our manpower issues, we likely have a lot of budget not used for wages etc due to all those missing bodies. To me the short term solution would be to increase the authorized training days for the PRes, including weekends you get about 42 days. Double that to 84, yes not every soldier will make it but it would allow more training time. This creates a short term gain for the CAF and more proficient soldier's.

The money « saved » from unpaid salaries is already reallocated to other uses.

 

[Remius]

What exactly would be an example of non-deployable support work ? Because I think, like others, you are getting units confused with individuals.

One example I could see is some HRA/FSA types.

We have a shortage. You could ease that by making all or most of the clerk positions in CFRCs and Dets into CR PSE positions. That would be a lot of clerks freed up. Less cost to post in various dets and so on.

 

[Halifax Tar]

One example I could see is some HRA/FSA types.

We have a shortage. You could ease that by making all or most of the clerk positions in CFRCs and Dets into CR PSE positions. That would be a lot of clerks freed up. Less cost to post in various dets and so on.

Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.

I am also not supportive, at all, of letting the PS into our recruiting centers, in any capacity. If they are already there, they should be removed.

 

[Remius]

Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.

You are missing my point. Yes the individuals are but we put undo pressure on the CAF by manning positions that don’t need CAF requirements. Not advocating getting rid of anyone but those positions would be better served elsewhere.

I am also not supportive, at all, of letting the PS into our recruiting centers, in any capacity. If they are already there, they should be removed.

Why? Those positions are pretty much administrative and mostly background. Front end recruiters and MCCs should definitely be uniformed pers. Clerks processing recruiting paperwork and files? That can easily be done by civilians.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Again, yes the CFRCs aren't deployable. That doesn't mean the individual HRA/FSAs posted to them aren't.

Those individuals are deployable, yes, but the CAF doesn't Force Generate from a CFRC, or a School, or from a BIS or Clothing Stores.

The RCN and its Fleets are their own beast in this regard, but the CA and RCAF often don't use this methodology. The Lead Mounting Organization draws internally first, sends it back up to the L1, eventually it has to be farmed out to other L1s to see if it can be filled, and dependingnon priority, its filled from someone operational or the position is No Filled.

I would love to be able to scour the CAF and build a composite TO&E to support my operation. As it stands, there are many L1s and subordinate formations that would get their face in a knot and tell me to stay the hell out of their kitchens. The loudest of which are CMP, CFIOG, and other non-deployabe formations that would rather see Bloggins ride as desk in Ottawa than free them us to fill an operational role.

 

[ueo]

I don’t think it necessarily needs to be done in the actual BN, but at least at the same base.

We've done this dance befor. 3 RCR ran its own basic inf crses early 70's, RCR BS in Pet mid 80's morphed into meaford in a bit of a power struggle, etc.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Those individuals are deployable, yes, but the CAF doesn't Force Generate from a CFRC*, or a School, or from a BIS or Clothing Stores.

Yes they do. I have deployed with people from all of those organizations. I deployed on my first Afghan deployment from CFB Halifax Clothing Stores.

*For CFRCs I don't know if I have deployed with someone from one of those, but I don't see why they couldn't.

The RCN and its Fleets are their own beast in this regard, but the CA and RCAF often don't use this methodology. The Lead Mounting Organization draws internally first, sends it back up to the L1, eventually it has to be farmed out to other L1s to see if it can be filled, and dependingnon priority, its filled from someone operational or the position is No Filled.

And this part of the problem, we have to be careful and allow the different commands some autonomy on how they do this, as they have different needs. Blanket solutions don't work.

I would love to be able to scour the CAF and build a composite TO&E to support my operation. As it stands, there are many L1s and subordinate formations that would get their face in a knot and tell me to stay the hell out of their kitchens. The loudest of which are CMP, CFIOG, and other non-deployabe formations that would rather see Bloggins ride as desk in Ottawa than free them us to fill an operational role.

Im the first person look at Ottawa with bombastic side eye, but we have to careful here too. There are desk jobs being done there that need to be done, and probably contribute more to operational success than many people actually on operations. You lamented about staff work in another thread, yes we are bad at staff work. Making it worse wont help.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You are missing my point. Yes the individuals are but we put undo pressure on the CAF by manning positions that don’t need CAF requirements. Not advocating getting rid of anyone but those positions would be better served elsewhere.

Why? Those positions are pretty much administrative and mostly background. Front end recruiters and MCCs should definitely be uniformed pers. Clerks processing recruiting paperwork and files? That can easily be done by civilians.

The answer this is not not further civilianization. The answer is recruiting and retention.

 

[Remius]

The answer this is not not further civilianization. The answer is recruiting and retention.

Then why put soldiers and sailors in what are essentially civilian functions?

 

[QV]

I don't think you appreciate the depth and stupidity of the travel cuts, and how arbitrary it is.

We don't often agree, but this is exactly correct.

 

[Brad Sallows]

lol, we don't have multiple crews per hull, we have multiple hulls per crew.

Considering how long it takes to build ships, that almost sounds like an idea for having a navy that can expand rapidly in emergencies - provided the ships are run often enough.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Then why put soldiers and sailors in what are essentially civilian functions?

Mixed, maybe, but surely not all. The US seems to profit by putting good NCOs in recruiting.