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

Reconstitution

I see we both just got back from the thread about the guy waiting two weeks for a lost leave pass...
Yeah, I got home from working with a guy eight days into a 30-day release, but only on day two of having his return from IR memo approved...

I realized my next comments were likely more useful here than in a separate thread about leave passes.
 
Sounds like we need some kind of program to encourage maritime careers and training. For a country surrounded by water on 3 sides we sure do not put emphasis on naval careers be it military or civilian. Perhaps a education reimbursement program, as well as an aggressive marketing campaign could start getting bodies in the door in the civilian sector atleast.

There may be water on three sides but there is an awful lot of country that wouldn't recognize Odysseus's Oar.
 
One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is firmly focused on the Reg Force manning issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves. I'd expect status quo for minimum 5 years.
 
One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is firmly focused on the Reg Force manning issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves. I'd expect status quo for minimum 5 years.
Likely because the RegF staffing is the biggest problem right now... You prioritize what needs fixing now, vs. what can wait a bit longer.

Regardless of esteemed forum member's opinions, the RegF is still the primary arm of the GoC, so it is the primary focus. Once the crisis is abated in the RegF, serious efforts at fixing the ResF are needed.

I may be one of the overpaid, useless, waste of rations RegF members, but I also recognize that Canada needs a strong, ResF with a useful raison d'être. ;)
 
One thing I'm fairly certain of is that with this "Reconstitution" taking place the eyes of the CAF leadership is poorly focused on the Reg Force manning conflicting issues and will spare absolutely ZERO time trying to address the problems of the Reserves CAF writ large. I'd expect status quo gradual decline for minimum 5 years until a new government is formed, potentially
Fixed some minor things here....
 
I brought up the equipment issue at the RCN Orientation day yesterday. Angus's answer was trying to cut down the amount of signatures required to get a project through. Now before everyone piles on, Navy procurement takes years no matter what. But the Army and Air Force can be re-equipped rather rapidly if we would just accept the fact that we don't have the numbers for boutique pieces of gear. But I would bet my pension that we have a myriad of Canadian companies who are already supplying parts to LockMart and Boeing. We should just get in line and get the gear. Despite what the Procurement Minister says, we have never gotten value for money spent on defence equipment.
? Almost none of the signatures are on the CRCN side. Most approval gates are outside of DND's swimlanes. Because of the dollar value of most procurements things like IRBs kick in that require 100% Canadian offsets.

The only real thing CRCN can do is stop beating the ever living shit out of the current fleet with an insane fleet sched without effective maintenance periods and consider tying some up so we can crew them at levels where we stop burning people out and have a hope of doing proper maintenance. Also, maybe stop it with the stupid pins and badges.
 
So here's the question. I am of the opinion, at least compared to some of our allies, that the RCN overmans its hulls. By definition this is a peacetime practice.

In war time, if all hulls went to sea, would those ships be crewed with skinnier complements? Or would they be fleshed out with Reservists? Reservists meaning recently released Regs with time afloat. Similar to the RCAF Reservists. And, conceivably, the Ordnance Corps Reservists?
We are sailing our ships with the bare minimum of people to be basically effective, because that's how many people we have to sail them. That doesn't give enough people to do things like basic maintenance, and completion rates is in the low double figures, which leads to lots of things breaking. Because more things are broken, it takes more people to operate properly, but we don't actually augment the crews unless things are really screwed. All of which is entirely predictable and known, but we do it anyway.

In wartime you sail with a lot more people so that the multi-billion dollar ship can take damage and keep fighting.

Our crewing philosophy is the same as the RN, RAN, RNZN and some other allies, which is roughly half the crew you would find on a USN ship. The USN reduced crewing model didn't actually work, and why they had to significantly increase the crews.

You can get away with less crew if you treat the ships as sacrificial and assume they won't survive any actual damage I guess, but given how long it takes to build them that seems like a bad plan. Plus ships not surviving means crews are significantly less likely to survive unless there are other ships in the area.

It also assumes that remote control will always work and never breaks, in a very complex system with highly interconnected subsystems. That falls apart pretty quickly in the real world, which is why it really makes a difference to have skilled technicians with a really good understanding of the control system and experience with it sailing. We're short them as well.

A lot of the numbers are required to do things like shore support, training, work on getting new ships etc, so it's not like everyone in the RCN could go on a ship tomorrow and somehow magically put them to sea. Shear numbers isn't necessary; it's the right number of people with the necessary skillset/quals at the correct mix of ranks. We have a whack of brand new people, a lot of senior people past their sailing schedule, but missing that core MS-PO. And folks are getting promoted so fast now that there is a huge experience gap compared to even a decade ago. Which of course, isn't being taken into consideration at all.

It's not due to a lack of blood, sweat and tears, as there are a lot of people burning themselves out trying to keep the wheels on, but things have been running past the breaking point for a long time.
 
? Almost none of the signatures are on the CRCN side. Most approval gates are outside of DND's swimlanes. Because of the dollar value of most procurements things like IRBs kick in that require 100% Canadian offsets.
I understand that, and I'm pretty sure Angus does as well. I'm thinking he meant working with the outside agencies to reduce the signature requirements.
That 100% offset has to be the dumbest thing ever or am I the idjit and every nation does it.?
 
I understand that, and I'm pretty sure Angus does as well. I'm thinking he meant working with the outside agencies to reduce the signature requirements.
That 100% offset has to be the dumbest thing ever or am I the idjit and every nation does it.?
The 100% offset is dumb, but yes, most nations do some form of it. There are a lot of multiplying factors, so it isn't a 1 for 1, but just building ships in Canada meets a huge portion of it just in payroll and supply chain alone.

The outside agencies (ie TBS, ISED etc) don't actually care what DND thinks though, let alone what CRCN does. Honestly also not his place to work with outside agencies on procurement issues; that's all within the VCDS shop really. We do keep a few sacrificial uniform people in the PSPC NSS office though just so folks in other departments are regularly reminded that there are actual sailors on the ships.

The core policies though aren't new, and most existed prior to the LPC, as did most approval gates.
 
But every APS there are a few "smart" people who can solve all the problems.

Like one Director of Naval requirements who announced on arrival that they'd be cutting steel to replace the frigates while he was in the chair.

By the time he retired as CRCN, they hadn't started.
 
The one-employer 30+ year career is apparently the view of a bygone (our) generation.

Never gave it much thought at the time. But, this thread got me thinking about it.

Looking back, 50 years later and straight out of high school, when we have our pensioner association luncheons ( the chief, or a deputy, and chaplain are always there to keep us up to date ), and other get-togethers, I think we go for the most selfish reason of all - to remind each other of when we were young. :)

I believe people switching from employer to employer lose that connection. Maybe that's important. Maybe it's not. That's for them to decide.
 
Never gave it much thought at the time. But, this thread got me thinking about it.

Looking back, 50 years later and straight out of high school, when we have our pensioner association luncheons ( the chief, or a deputy, and chaplain are always there to keep us up to date ), and other get-togethers, I think we go for the most selfish reason of all - to remind each other of when we were young. :)

I believe people switching from employer to employer lose that connection. Maybe that's important. Maybe it's not. That's for them to decide.
It would interesting to see a breakdown of 'employment numbers' by economic sector. It seems fairly well known anecdotally, that people in the service sector move around a fair but, even at the management level. I suspect emergency service are somewhat more stable. Folks might move between one PS, FS or EMS and another but I suspect it is largely a once-in-a-career event and mostly to move from a department that initially hired them to the one they really wanted in the first place.

On the other hand, a former colleague has a son who has been in the civil engineering sector for only a couple years now and is on his second employer and always seems to be eyeing up the field. He recently got a promotion because his boss was walked out the door, but his parents reminded him that could be him in a couple of years. The private sector values loyalty less, certain sectors, much less.
 
The 100% offset is dumb, but yes, most nations do some form of it. There are a lot of multiplying factors, so it isn't a 1 for 1, but just building ships in Canada meets a huge portion of it just in payroll and supply chain alone.

The outside agencies (ie TBS, ISED etc) don't actually care what DND thinks though, let alone what CRCN does. Honestly also not his place to work with outside agencies on procurement issues; that's all within the VCDS shop really. We do keep a few sacrificial uniform people in the PSPC NSS office though just so folks in other departments are regularly reminded that there are actual sailors on the ships.

The core policies though aren't new, and most existed prior to the LPC, as did most approval gates.
I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil) and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.
 
I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil) and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.
Good luck defining ‘value.’

Value to the Four Corners is a lot different than what DND would consider value.

Guess who’ll win the coin toss every time?
 
@Kirkhill @FJAG @TacticalTea re: Reserve Navies

I'd like to point out that the USN Reserve, which is close to 60,000 in strength, is almost entirely (99%) composed of former Active Duty members who were fully trained technicians and professional mariners.

If the US Military, who possess the Gold Standard when it comes to Reserves and what we would wish to aspire towards, don't have a Maritime "Militia", why do we seem to think it's a good idea?

The skills required to be an effective professional Mariner at sea, much less achieve any sort of acceptable collective readiness isn't something that can be learned in a few weeks during the summer.

A Frigate and an MCDV are apples and oranges.
 
Good luck defining ‘value.’

Value to the Four Corners is a lot different than what DND would consider value.

Guess who’ll win the coin toss every time?


Oh, I don't know G2G. I'm sure somebody could come up with a reasonable definition of an appropriate norm.
 
@Kirkhill @FJAG @TacticalTea re: Reserve Navies

I'd like to point out that the USN Reserve, which is close to 60,000 in strength, is almost entirely (99%) composed of former Active Duty members who were fully trained technicians and professional mariners.

If the US Military, who possess the Gold Standard when it comes to Reserves and what we would wish to aspire towards, don't have a Maritime "Militia", why do we seem to think it's a good idea?

The skills required to be an effective professional Mariner at sea, much less achieve any sort of acceptable collective readiness isn't something that can be learned in a few weeks during the summer.

A Frigate and an MCDV are apples and oranges.

For the record - I was not proposing a Maritime Militia. I am coming to see the blue suiters - Navy, Air Force and their Grandad, the Ordnance - in a different light to the Army. Equally I am becoming more convinced that The Militia and The Reserve are two separate bodies and should be organized as such. The Militia may be a reserve force but it cannot be The Reserves.
 
I’d like to think that a young whippersnapper could cut their teeth on a deep dive into national procurement (mil and non-mil) and see if we really get any value for the money spent. Like everything else just because we’ve always done it this way doesn’t mean we’re doing it the best or right way.
The problem is 'value for money' doesn't actually have a standard meaning, and no country reports their budgets the same. The Auditor General tried a few times and basically gave up. Maybe if you had full budget info from multiple countries, plus full contract details, plus a detailed understanding of the context of the industry in each country you could do something, but there are reams of studies which are effectively educated guesses.

  • If it was entirely up to DND, it would be the best capability, with a working sustainment plan, that we could get money for, regardless of cost.
  • If it was up to Dept of FIN, it would be the bare minimum to get the job done, with production done where ever was cheapest (and screw your concerns about wartime production or security; give money to car makers).
  • ISED (as a department) doesn't really care what we get, as long as KICs are supported (Key Industrial Capabilities).
  • ITBS wants to fix our budget years out before we even define capabilities, add on large 'oversight' requirements that add on delays, then say we don't know what we're doing when things are delayed
  • PSPC wants 'fair, transparent and open' procurements, but doesn't care about the actual timelines, delays or impact on costs
  • INAC is supposed to care, but can't be arsed to participate in any stakeholder meetings
Fortunately in all that mess there are a lot of really dedicated PS in the various departments that actually get why it's critical, genuinely want to deliver ships that do the job we need them to, and try to keep things moving through the system, but at a GoC level any procurement over $40M is basically a ball of competing priorities, and gets further amplified over $100M with additional policy requirements. There are some pretty senior people from some of the other core departments working on it full time that get it, but they do get torn between their departmental priorities and the projects

But it's also a pretty uphill fight from the start when the companies can bypass all the project staff, DGs, ADMs etc and complain directly to the MPs, who instead of telling them to smarten up, turn around and dump on the collective staff.

Honestly unless you get PM that takes the reins, smashes the departments together under a single head, and stands up to the various presidents and CEOs to tell them to stop backdooring things or causing PR churn if they want Government business, don't see anything changing at the strategic level.

Do we pay more than other countries? Maybe? It's hard to say. But if you are buying widgets, they will cost what they cost regardless of where the ship is built, so that should be relatively fixed. There is a known learning curve for starting basically a new industry, so the slow pace at first is a feature, not a bug. But if you are going to pay thousands of people a day to do work, pretty hard to argue with the basic economics of 40ish percent of their wage going right back into government coffers via taxes, and the rest being spent in Canada.

There are always areas to do things better, but if anyone thinks the GoC wouldn't just collectively f&ck up any 'efficiencies' with building something overseas via insane contract requirements, ship performance specs and design changes, while giving a pitifully understaffed project not enough resources to do some kind of international build, I don't really know what to say.

Really nothing stopping us from changing the basic contract framework in Canada to commercial standard terms as a starting point if we want to find 'efficiencies' but build in Canada, but that's a Cabinet level decision that they will likely never back down from, as there as a lot of sacred cow programs built into that.
 
For the record - I was not proposing a Maritime Militia. I am coming to see the blue suiters - Navy, Air Force and their Grandad, the Ordnance - in a different light to the Army. Equally I am becoming more convinced that The Militia and The Reserve are two separate bodies and should be organized as such. The Militia may be a reserve force but it cannot be The Reserves.
Agreed. I'll add that it's one thing to train a rifleman (It's not that hard and doesn't take very long) but it's an entirely different beast to train skilled professional mariners and competent apprentices in both the Naval and Air Domains.

The consequences of failure in the respective domains are different and more serious at Sea and in the Air. The potential cost of a mistake at sea, is measured in potentially significant loss of life and material/financial costs measured in the $100s millions to $billions of dollars:

See USS Fitzgerald Collision:


Which at its core, was a result of lack of adequate training and poor seamanship.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top