I'll believe it when I see it.
There are uptapped positions in the notional 71,500 PY establishment. They would be funded.Creating the positions is easy. Funding them is not.
As for recruiting, give them decent equipment (not a CF tradition, unfortunately) and the same hotel accommodations as your aircrew . . .
Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....A bit testy aren't we?
Because YOUR solution isn't acceptable to this forum?
Nobody said the current system is good, or even working.Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....
I was a BK of an M109 battery in 3 RCHA. My maintenance section ran from between 12-14 pers. My maintenance section commander was a RCEME sergeant.was a gunplumer with RCHA. Had 6 M-109s, hundreds of rifles and 20 or so machine guns. I was a Cpl, should I have been a Sgt?
AgreedDespite being more than just a tad hyperbolic, Gunplumber is NOT 100% wrong. The CF has a C2 superstructure (HQs and very senior officers) suitable, maybe, for a force three or four times as large.
Any time that you amalgamate existing organizations you generally create a new higher command level commanded someone with one rank up. Unification/Integration did that.The IDF has 150,000+ men and women on full time service and nearly 500,000 in the reserves. The CDS is a lieutenant general ... tell me why they're wrong, please. The Indians have a four star CDS and a 4 star Chief of the General Staff but they have over 1 million men and women on active service in the army and nearly another million in the reserve army so I can't complain that they are overhanded. But Canada ... a four star CDS for less than 70,000 full time and less than 30,000 reserve members?
The problem is that with unification/integration there has been a proliferation of rules, regulations and processes that complicate administration far beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Every GOFO will tell you he needs the staff he has to do that task assigned. And more often than not they are right. The question is whether the job they are doing is necessary or is worth the squeeze in the first place. CPCC is just one glaring example of that. Another is JAG. Over the last few decades, while the CAF was shrinking, the Office of the JAG was ballooning. Suddenly everyone needed a lawyer. But, did they really? And does JAG need to be an MGen?Changes need to be made to cut the admin burden, and streamline HQ staffs, so those positions can be put back into the operational portions of the CAF. Some of those changes can be made by the CAF itself, but some require changes from the GoC.
I think you are wrong when you say "No one seems to think we should change how things are done." Lots of us do. Most of us on this site are well past having a career. Like you I suspect that there is a bit of a Stockholm syndrome at play amongst those who still serve. Bureaucracies - and the CAF is one - have a penchant for preserving and protecting the status quo. Insiders feel they have a handle on it and change is threatening unless it is first evaluated to death. Change inevitably results in more processes and more staff to run them; rarely is anything trimmed downward.Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....
You got rid of most of them, certainly all the generals and admirals.Read my lips SENIOR OFFICERS
And again, this may work in the Army but not in the other services.Apparently FJAG writes and thinks much better than me (quel Suprise). He is totally right about what needs to be done and I think it has to be drastic or it wont happen, hence my comment about making the CDS a Colonel.
My regiment decided that my MCpl in the Battery was needed elsewhere so I had to maintain a whole battery of Guns by myself, I know what it's like to be overworked and started my journey down hate lane. Got out of the Regs because of that.
I discovered recently that my equivalent in the USMC would be a Maj/LCol not a CPO 2/MWO.We have folks do jobs that would be 1-2 ranks higher (if not more) in other militaries.
We are one of the few, if not only, militaries with no officers in the Meterological trade.I discovered recently that my equivalent in the USMC would be a Maj/LCol not a CPO 2/MWO.
My USN counterparts were even more shocked to discover that a NCM is the senior Met person in the RCN.
The first highlighted bit should be a keystone. The chain of command should always and everywhere be crystal clear, especially when sh!t and fan are in close contact: commanders always, without fail, must be equal to or superior to the most senior staff officer serving their commander.I was a BK of an M109 battery in 3 RCHA. My maintenance section ran from between 12-14 pers. My maintenance section commander was a RCEME sergeant.
Agreed
Any time that you amalgamate existing organizations you generally create a new higher command level commanded someone with one rank up. Unification/Integration did that.
I can live with the concept that divisions - real divisions - are commanded by a major-general. It's been that way since time immemorial regardless of whether brigades were run by colonels or brigadiers. Therefore if you have divisions commanded by a major general than the next level up - in our case the army - should be a lieutenant-general. Canada does have enough soldiers (RegF and ResF combined) to merit two divisions ergo the army should be commanded by a LGen. Unfortunately unification automatically generates a four star as CDS
That said, I agree with the IDF concept and think we should emulate it. Their brigades, like ours are commanded by colonels. Their divisions, like our weak ones, are commanded by brigadier generals. With that established, and unless we decide to form a corps - which we won't, means we could easily get by with a MGen as army commander. The RCN and RCAF are each less than 1/3 the size of the army and could get by with a MGen or less as commanders. One wouldn't even need a LGen as CDS if one drifted into the area of a US Joint Chief of Staff and combatant command model. A group of MGens running the CAF and one running CJOC would be more commensurate with the CAF's size.
I'm also a believer that staff should never outrank the subordinate commanders within their commands - I prefer a brigade major to a LCol COS. That becomes even more important when one goes to the central CAF staff structure. Not only is it highly over ranked but each GOFO comes with his own little gaggle of staff.
All of that said, the over ranking of GOFOs isn't the cause of the problem here. I agree with @Furniture when he says.
The problem is that with unification/integration there has been a proliferation of rules, regulations and processes that complicate administration far beyond what is necessary and reasonable. Every GOFO will tell you he needs the staff he has to do that task assigned. And more often than not they are right. The question is whether the job they are doing is necessary or is worth the squeeze in the first place. CPCC is just one glaring example of that. Another is JAG. Over the last few decades, while the CAF was shrinking, the Office of the JAG was ballooning. Suddenly everyone needed a lawyer. But, did they really? And does JAG need to be an MGen?
I think you are wrong when you say "No one seems to think we should change how things are done." Lots of us do. Most of us on this site are well past having a career. Like you I suspect that there is a bit of a Stockholm syndrome at play amongst those who still serve. Bureaucracies - and the CAF is one - have a penchant for preserving and protecting the status quo. Insiders feel they have a handle on it and change is threatening unless it is first evaluated to death. Change inevitably results in more processes and more staff to run them; rarely is anything trimmed downward.
You can't fine tune a system like the CAF once it gets into the state that its in. It will take a massive revolution to correct course. Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen unless you get both a MND and a CDS at the same time who are jointly prepared to clean house in a big way. Considering that the entire civil service is bloated I doubt that our staffing situation even merits a notice at the GoC level.
![]()
No US Command reports to the CJCS. The COCOMs and services all report directly to the SECDEF. NORAD is the only US COCOM or service with a military Boss...the CDS. With his NORTHCOM hat on, he reports directly to the SECDEFComd NORAD works for them (and the CJCS).
Uh…brain fart. Yes.No US Command reports to the CJCS. The COCOMs and services all report directly to the SECDEF. NORAD is the only US COCOM or service with a military Boss...the CDS. With his NORTHCOM hat on, he reports directly to the SECDEF
I am retired - and yes I want to see things change as well. I did when I was in - but I was not always successful.Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....
That’s absolutely not what’s being said. We’re point out making the CDS a Col is absurd, and that members pay wouldn’t really be affected. Where you see careerism I see retention, which is a massive man power problem.Yes I am testy, because no one seems to think we should change how things are done. You are all worried about your careers and promotions and not about having a capable fighting force. As Kevin said above, look at the number of GOFOs we have. it's ludicrous. Until we have at least one full strength and fully equipped brigade we can't call ourselves an Army. and that wont happen....
It's actually pretty common on ships; the heads of departments (HODs) are two ringers, with two ringers working for them. All the Ops room officers are Lt(N)s and they work for the Cbt Officer who is also a Lt(N). We got rid of LCdr HODs a long time ago and nothing fell apart.It was your argument, and a bad one that falls apart rather quickly when faced with reality.
You can but it doesn’t work terribly well when your taking a guy and doubling his work load for no pay. Can you give me a historic example of a deliberate structure that has Captains working for Captains ?
Tactically, it is not uncommon for Capt leading Majs, LCol or Cols.It was your argument, and a bad one that falls apart rather quickly when faced with reality.
You can but it doesn’t work terribly well when your taking a guy and doubling his work load for no pay. Can you give me a historic example of a deliberate structure that has Captains working for Captains ?
Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, Naval Warfare Officers, Aerospace Engineers, Legal Officers, and Doctors (and that’s just off the top of my head) retention levels would seem to disagree."Where you see careerism I see retention, which is a massive man power problem."
We dont have a retention problem with officers
Tactically, it is not uncommon for Capt leading Majs, LCol or Cols.