Leading "Effective Change"

[UnwiseCritic]

Given the recent article (however sub-par) about disbanding the forces and the topic "Internal change impossible" I would just like to know some of the changes that people out there think are applicable for a better CAF in the future. I understand that there are budget constraints. But feel free to add anything whether it be budget allocation, personnel cuts, administrative, doctrinal, etc

I'll kick it off: Personally I would like to see recruiting become more streamlined and have a fitness test done prior to joining.

(Infantry) I would also like to see more young officers that are capable of leading from day 1. As right now I only accept the leadership of about 30% as competent (again this comes down to recruitment). I could see this being increased by more commissioning from the ranks. If this is done through CEOTP or without more/future education. I wouldn't know. But people should also be peer assessed, then brought to higher.

And lastly I think a clear and defined goal or end state from the Canadian government is required. Anything less is irresponsible and the First Canadian Defence Strategy has become outdated.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I agree the CFDS is outdated for the roles we are being tasked to fill internationally. Perhaps a split between domestic and expeditionary commands (novel concept I know) would be a better option, however not to the same scale as prior to CJOC. If I were king, I'd draw a BG (plus a strictly BG sized HQ&Sigs) + TSE (with a NCCIS det) + AEW  size force from all organizations and locate them centrally in Trenton. This unit would be HRU and on HR 48. This would limit the amount of time and headache associated with having pers and brigades rotate through the high readiness cycle during peacetime. It would also allow for a faster response time to get where we are required faster, without having to wait for a CFTPO brick to be built.

To build on your (Infantry) officer point, I  am unsure what requirement there is to have our combat arms officers require degrees. This is not the case in other Allied countries (the UK comes to mind) and they seem to have some one of the most professional officer corps in the world. I would like to see RMC permit the qualification of Combat Arms officers to 2Lt (perhaps even providing in house training instead of CAP) thus allowing more money and resources to be dedicated to technical training for those officer fields that require it (i.e. Engineering, science, Physics, etc.)

I would also like to see us adopt a similar type of procurement system our NATO allies use to get equipment. We may have a strong history of quality personnel, however our record on defense procurement is dismal. I would like to see how some of the lightweight to middle weight NATO partners like Italy, Spain, Germany go about buying new kit and try to optimize their practices for Canadian defense spending. Hell even talking to places like Sweden to find out how they provided a strong deterrent to the Soviet threat on a shoe string budget would be interesting.

 

[AEnns]

I may not have much experience compared to some members on here, but the thing that is stupidly simple but is almost completely missing is Mental Health care for members, specifically targeting PTSD.  We all know it's a real thing, and it's glaringly obvious that our members aren't getting the support they need.  It needs to be provided.

That's all I really have to add.

AE

 

[Ostrozac]

If I were king, I'd draw a BG (plus a strictly BG sized HQ&Sigs) + TSE (with a NCCIS det) + AEW  size force from all organizations and locate them centrally in Trenton. This unit would be HRU and on HR 48. This would limit the amount of time and headache associated with having pers and brigades rotate through the high readiness cycle during peacetime.

A standing high readiness force, with integral signals and logistics? That you would trickle post individuals in and out of? That is collocated with air transport and ready to go anywhere on a moment's notice?

<<Cough>> I think that you just described the Airborne Regiment in Edmonton in 1968.

But seriously, if you designate a permanent high readiness battle group and then call the rest of the army the follow on force (Roto 1+), one of the results is that training money will be stripped from the rest of the army, and the high readiness unit will also get to pick and choose its members. Can an army our size afford to man both Cansof and a fully staffed "vanguard" battalion? Gen Hillier seemed to think so, that was the idea behind the SCTF/amphibious/marine battalion, but that particular project never went anywhere and was quickly abandoned.

I guess my point is that this general idea of a standing quick reaction unit has already been tried twice in our history, and has been abandoned twice. So I'd think really hard about trying it a third time.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

It may have been abandoned twice due to a wrong approach, however Cansof is pretty much our high readiness. And the rest of the army is fast becoming a show and tell project for the government. And rightly so as in any enterprise investing in the things that give you the biggest bang for your buck is pretty smart. I still don't believe conventional troops can defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. And that is what we'll be seeing most of in the coming years (IMO). Which could be why the rest of the military is going back to trench warfare and is gearing towards fighting a near and peer enemy. As that may be the only reason for deploying them.

As for manning a high readiness "vanguard" unit of an undecided size. I think it would be very much possible, while being able to man cansof. But the MCR (Marine Commando Regiment) would have to do it's own recruiting and advertisement. There is a platform that we could already follow  called the Royal Marine Commandos. . But I think it is more a budget thing and unless we get to that 2% it won't be possible. As much as it would benefit the navy to have it's own arm that could reach out in land a little bit. But for it to be effective it would have to be based in Victoria so that they could constantly work with the navy and become highly interoperable. And probably take over the boarding party tasks, absorb clearance divers, etc. But infrastructure alone for that would be too expensive.

To build on your (Infantry) officer point, I  am unsure what requirement there is to have our combat arms officers require degrees. This is not the case in other Allied countries (the UK comes to mind) and they seem to have some one of the most professional officer corps in the world. I would like to see RMC permit the qualification of Combat Arms officers to 2Lt (perhaps even providing in house training instead of CAP) thus allowing more money and resources to be dedicated to technical training for those officer fields that require it (i.e. Engineering, science, Physics, etc.)

Building on this point (again copying the Brits) we could do what their regiments do. They sponsor who they want to be officers. They have the would be recruits come in and spend sometime with a battalion and show them around. I'm not sure who makes the decision who to sponsor but the regiment does have some sort of say in it. And I'm sure they put them through their paces  ;D There are still hoops to jump through at the recruitment centres.

Because in our recruitment system the interview will be done by some Navy Captain or whatever who has never done a day in the infantry. He really doesn't know what to look for, and I don't actually know what they look for. (And versely an Infantry Officer doesn't know what to look for in a MARS Officer ) But clearly it's not the right stuff, most of the time but the odds do sometimes work in our favour. And the person doing the interview will not have the regiments best interests in mind. But warrants and above of the regiment will certainly have the best interests of the regiment in mind and they will know exactly what to look for.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

So here's some more change, not sure if it's effective or not... NCO's are not allowed to drive themselves anymore. Not sure to what extent that is or all the details yet, or in which locations this will be enforced. But a reason why would be nice. I hope it's not because they're too important.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It may have been abandoned twice due to a wrong approach, however Cansof is pretty much our high readiness. And the rest of the army is fast becoming a show and tell project for the government. And rightly so as in any enterprise investing in the things that give you the biggest bang for your buck is pretty smart. I still don't believe conventional troops can defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. And that is what we'll be seeing most of in the coming years (IMO). Which could be why the rest of the military is going back to trench warfare and is gearing towards fighting a near and peer enemy. As that may be the only reason for deploying them.

As for manning a high readiness "vanguard" unit of an undecided size. I think it would be very much possible, while being able to man cansof. But the MCR (Marine Commando Regiment) would have to do it's own recruiting and advertisement. There is a platform that we could already follow  called the Royal Marine Commandos. . But I think it is more a budget thing and unless we get to that 2% it won't be possible. As much as it would benefit the navy to have it's own arm that could reach out in land a little bit. But for it to be effective it would have to be based in Victoria so that they could constantly work with the navy and become highly interoperable. And probably take over the boarding party tasks, absorb clearance divers, etc. But infrastructure alone for that would be too expensive.

Building on this point (again copying the Brits) we could do what their regiments do. They sponsor who they want to be officers. They have the would be recruits come in and spend sometime with a battalion and show them around. I'm not sure who makes the decision who to sponsor but the regiment does have some sort of say in it. And I'm sure they put them through their paces  ;D There are still hoops to jump through at the recruitment centres.

Because in our recruitment system the interview will be done by some Navy Captain or whatever who has never done a day in the infantry. He really doesn't know what to look for, and I don't actually know what they look for. (And versely an Infantry Officer doesn't know what to look for in a MARS Officer ) But clearly it's not the right stuff, most of the time but the odds do sometimes work in our favour. And the person doing the interview will not have the regiments best interests in mind. But warrants and above of the regiment will certainly have the best interests of the regiment in mind and they will know exactly what to look for.

I dunno.... having been through both the British and Canadian Officer selection and training systems (I know, I'm slow, so doing it twice helped  ;D) the results seem fairly similar. We're a small organization compared with the UK and, as a result, I think we've done pretty well with what we have.

I do think, however, that the introductory 'look and see' program is an excellent way to weed out those who would otherwise fail during recruit training. There is a good example of how this works with the Paras right here: http://forces.tv/42715381

The Royal Marines do the same thing, and I believe other units have  similar programs.

And as for the 'high readiness' stuff, every unit should be able to rotate through a 'high readiness' phase without being 'spe-shul'. I believe we already do this in the CF for NEO ops etc.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It may have been abandoned twice due to a wrong approach, however Cansof is pretty much our high readiness. And the rest of the army is fast becoming a show and tell project for the government. And rightly so as in any enterprise investing in the things that give you the biggest bang for your buck is pretty smart. I still don't believe conventional troops can defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. And that is what we'll be seeing most of in the coming years (IMO). Which could be why the rest of the military is going back to trench warfare and is gearing towards fighting a near and peer enemy. As that may be the only reason for deploying them.

As for manning a high readiness "vanguard" unit of an undecided size. I think it would be very much possible, while being able to man cansof. But the MCR (Marine Commando Regiment) would have to do it's own recruiting and advertisement. There is a platform that we could already follow  called the Royal Marine Commandos. . But I think it is more a budget thing and unless we get to that 2% it won't be possible. As much as it would benefit the navy to have it's own arm that could reach out in land a little bit. But for it to be effective it would have to be based in Victoria so that they could constantly work with the navy and become highly interoperable. And probably take over the boarding party tasks, absorb clearance divers, etc. But infrastructure alone for that would be too expensive.

Building on this point (again copying the Brits) we could do what their regiments do. They sponsor who they want to be officers. They have the would be recruits come in and spend sometime with a battalion and show them around. I'm not sure who makes the decision who to sponsor but the regiment does have some sort of say in it. And I'm sure they put them through their paces  ;D There are still hoops to jump through at the recruitment centres.

Because in our recruitment system the interview will be done by some Navy Captain Lieutenant  or whatever who has never done a day in the infantry. He really doesn't know what to look for, and I don't actually know what they look for. (And versely an Infantry Officer doesn't know what to look for in a MARS Officer ) But clearly it's not the right stuff, most of the time but the odds do sometimes work in our favour. And the person doing the interview will not have the regiments best interests in mind. But warrants and above of the regiment will certainly have the best interests of the regiment in mind and they will know exactly what to look for.

Corrected FTFY.  Don't think there are too many four ringers at recruiting centers.

Even though they are dedicated to the boarding party, you do realize the folks on it are sailors first?  We don't really have any ships with extra bunks dedicated to boarding party members that can't also be useful crew members outside of the time you do MIO. 

To be effective for advanced ground forces deployment (ie more then a dozen) we would really need a purpose built ship with space for troops and something like helos to get them onsite, plus being able to properly carry out shore bombardment.  We don't have any of that, and that would take years to build and crew up, plus no one likes the price tag.  Not that it might not be handy, but seeing as we can't get funding to support existing ships properly, or sailors to crew them all, or new helos, that would probably be outside of the realm of the possible.