Yes I would sacrifice some Army PY for a better equipped Navy, but only if the PRes was made viable like the ARNG down here.
I was about to agree with you and then I stopped to do some ballpark math.
The army has appx 22,500 RegF members. With establishments at roughly 4,500 per CMBG and let's conservatively say 3,000 in 6 CCSB, that puts appx 16 - 17,000 RegF in operational units for appx 70-75% of the army in operational units.
The Navy has or plans for 15 Rivers (@210), 6 AOPS (@45), 12 MCDV (@45), 2 JSS (@200) and 4xsubs (50) or 4,680 billets out of a total of 8,400 PYs. That's a ratio of 56% of the navy in operational units assuming every ship has a complement and all PYs filled.
I'm not sure to what extent the navy's need for on-shore support PYs differs from the army's base support structure. Nor am I sure of the amount of civilian support added in to each organization. Notwithstanding this, before I'd commit any of the army PYs to the navy, I'd want a better in-depth explanation of the disparity.
As to the concept of reducing the army's PYs if there was a ARNG-like capability in the ARes, I can say that I've run a few models. You've seen my basic two div hybrid model. I've tried running the same using a RegF strength reduced by one CMBG (roughly -4,500 PYs). It's tough to do without abandoning the two div model and/or some of the key operational roles. This is principally because I'm adhering to the 30/70 concept which I think will be necessary for at least a decade or two to maintain even modest readiness capabilities and to build the competence of the ARes to the point where it can operate even 10/90 brigades, much less 0/100 ones.
I’m a firm believer in One Station Training (Recruit/Basic, Initial Trade Training),
Me too.
but it requires a throughput volume that the CAF tends not to have.
It works if you combine the RegF and ARes DP1 training and move much of it to where the big cities where the bulk of the ARes resides. Concurrently you need to firmly apply a training cycle to the RegF which includes Sep to Apr as collective RegF trg and May to Aug as combined individual RegF and ARes trg with reduced, but not zero, manning during July and Aug for leave and APS.
I think that your manning chart is a) very generous; and b) not necessary on a full-time, year-round basis. You are 100% correct that a very large training burden needs to be met not just to fix the shortfall, but also on a steady-state basis. You're right that the CAF cannot dedicate the numbers that you put forward as a permanent establishment. Other solutions are needed, and the better "time-sharing" within units is required. That's why, for example, I allocate appx 10 RegF pers to each ARes coy in a 30/70 bn. Yes, they lead and administer the ARes coy during their monthly trg weekends, but they are also a pool of 20-30 pers who are the individual training teams for DP1 and 2 courses being run by the unit on a year round basis on behalf of the whole CAF. In my models there are a total of appx 160 10/90 companies of various trades. That equals 1,600 RegF personnel across the country with shared duties of administering their 10/90 companies and providing individual training year round to both RegF and ARes personnel. (many of these can already be found within our administrative div, CBG and RSS structures. If those are augmented by other RegF and ARes part-timers during the summer training surges, and the overarching school structures one should be able to meet both a steady state demand as well as a fluctuating surges.
