A Leaky Sieve: Retention in the ADF

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I was, of course, referring to the time not long ago when the Admiral decided to park half the MCDV along the wall so he could man the main fleet and was quickly overridden by politicians in Ottawa who don't know any better.

Parking ships alongside used to be a time tested way of dealing with manpower shortages. We are celebrating the centenary of the Naval reserve this very year: It was created by Admiral Walter Hose by parking half the fleet alongside, which he couldn't man, and using the saved funds to create volunteer reserve companies and half companies in various cities to keep the Navy in the public's mind.

Many vessels were similarly parked in the early 50's, late 60's and mid 70's. In fact, the four vessels parked in the mid-70's - so the IRO's could be manned - were never put back in service and died of natural causes after the HAL's were commissioned.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I remember that pretty well, but we've actually parked a few MCDVs now as well as a frigate, just don't publicize it. Some of that is due to the material state, but it's also lack of people.

They are also going to zero man refits because of lack of people, which is interesting when the DWPs aren't getting full funding and the extra people for QC is going to have a big bill, and we already have issues the QC side of thing and lack of familiarity with the systems. Probably a good time to retire into a job though for a lot of martechs, especially any NACE or weld inspector qualified ones.

 

[GR66]

We've actually parked a few ships now but still could park more if we wanted to actually manage the ship crews properly. No idea where future AOPs or JSS crews are coming from.

Not to mention replacing 12 x Halifax-Class with 15 x CSC's, replacements for the Kingston-Class which will quite possibly have larger crews and plans to replace the 4 x Victoria-Class boats with up to 12 x new SSK's.

Someone needs to stop dreaming and come up with a realistic plan for the CAF to either correct the recruiting/training/retention issues or we have to seriously re-examine our force structures and priorities to match the resources we actually have.

 

[Grimey]

I was, of course, referring to the time not long ago when the Admiral decided to park half the MCDV along the wall so he could man the main fleet and was quickly overridden by politicians in Ottawa who don't know any better.

Parking ships alongside used to be a time tested way of dealing with manpower shortages. We are celebrating the centenary of the Naval reserve this very year: It was created by Admiral Walter Hose by parking half the fleet alongside, which he couldn't man, and using the saved funds to create volunteer reserve companies and half companies in various cities to keep the Navy in the public's mind.

Many vessels were similarly parked in the early 50's, late 60's and mid 70's. In fact, the four vessels parked in the mid-70's - so the IRO's could be manned - were never put back in service and died of natural causes after the HAL's were commissioned.

That would have been the three unmodified Restigouche class and St. Laurent? For some reason I never put 2+2 together with their decommissioning aligning with the entry of the four IROs.

I did my initial baby stoker training on St. Croix. What an antique that was.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Not to mention replacing 12 x Halifax-Class with 15 x CSC's, replacements for the Kingston-Class which will quite possibly have larger crews and plans to replace the 4 x Victoria-Class boats with up to 12 x new SSK's.

Someone needs to stop dreaming and come up with a realistic plan for the CAF to either correct the recruiting/training/retention issues or we have to seriously re-examine our force structures and priorities to match the resources we actually have.

Aside from actual billets the trade split, qualifications etc are all important as well. AORs used to have a lot of HTs, which don't currently exist, as well as a lot of bosns, and we're already short on stokers, electricians and IPMS techs. Short on cooks, storsies, and got rid of the only green trade (stewards) to replace them with red/yellow trades.

I think NWOs are recovering, but still don't have enough of them either for the new ships, and more seem to be getting off the suck train to go more on the dry path (lots of DNR type jobs or outcans for a break) or remuster altogether.

And subs are their own special beast; not many want to do it, high failure rate to get qualified (medical disquals, hard training, high tempo) and it can be a bit thankless with the state of our subs anyway. They haven't been able to generate enough crews for what we have now, so no idea how tripling it is even reasonable.

The wishlist from the BGHs are so divorced from reality they aren't even remotely credible, so pretty embarrassing to read them in the news. I may as well dream of playing in the NHL, despite any lack of skill, coordination and being old AF.

 

[dapaterson]

The wishlist from the BGHs are so divorced from reality they aren't even remotely credible, so pretty embarrassing to read them in the news. I may as well dream of playing in the NHL, despite any lack of skill, coordination and being old AF.

Overqualified, really...

 

[GR66]

Aside from actual billets the trade split, qualifications etc are all important as well. AORs used to have a lot of HTs, which don't currently exist, as well as a lot of bosns, and we're already short on stokers, electricians and IPMS techs. Short on cooks, storsies, and got rid of the only green trade (stewards) to replace them with red/yellow trades.

I think NWOs are recovering, but still don't have enough of them either for the new ships, and more seem to be getting off the suck train to go more on the dry path (lots of DNR type jobs or outcans for a break) or remuster altogether.

And subs are their own special beast; not many want to do it, high failure rate to get qualified (medical disquals, hard training, high tempo) and it can be a bit thankless with the state of our subs anyway. They haven't been able to generate enough crews for what we have now, so no idea how tripling it is even reasonable.

The wishlist from the BGHs are so divorced from reality they aren't even remotely credible, so pretty embarrassing to read them in the news. I may as well dream of playing in the NHL, despite any lack of skill, coordination and being old AF.

At this point I think that the Victoria-Class replacement program needs to be put to bed. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of subs as a capability and in my dream world we'd have a dozen SSN's. But it's a fact that that it simply is never going to happen and the opportunity cost of a replacement fleet of SSK's isn't worth it based on the range/endurance/speed they are capable of compared to the maritime domain we need to control and the distance of our likely expeditionary theatres.

What would a realistic fleet composition look like? I'm not smart enough to say but I'm pretty sure it's not:

• 15 x CSC's
• 12 x Kingston-Class replacements
• 6 x AOPS
• 12 x SSK's
• 2 x JSS

To my mind a more realistic fleet based on our available resources would look something like:

• 12 x CSC's
• 12 x USV "Arsenal" ships to supplement the CSC's in wartime
• 6 x Kingston-Class replacements (something like a slightly up-armed River-Class Batch 2?)
• 6 x AOPS
• 12 x XLUUV's (deployable from the AOPS)
• 2 x JSS
• 2 x Leased Oilers for non-combat zone support

Even this I think would take a major HR effort to increase our recruiting, improve our training and stabilize our retention.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They are also going to zero man refits because of lack of people, which is interesting when the DWPs aren't getting full funding and the extra people for QC is going to have a big bill, and we already have issues the QC side of thing and lack of familiarity with the systems. Probably a good time to retire into a job though for a lot of martechs, especially any NACE or weld inspector qualified ones.

All you need in refit is a tiger team of JR storsies and techs to go through all the landed material, and all we need the techs for is to identify material and fill out 942 tags. Could all be lead by a CPO2 and a couple PO1s. Park the ship, give the keys to Irving an tell them to call us when its ready.

Obvious over simplification but I think you understand.

 

[Navy_Pete]

All you need in refit is a tiger team of JR storsies and techs to go through all the landed material, and all we need the techs for is to identify material and fill out 942 tags. Could all be lead by a CPO2 and a couple PO1s. Park the ship, give the keys to Irving an tell them to call us when its ready.

Obvious over simplification but I think you understand.

That approach needs a lot more work on the preservation/deactivation side built into the work packages, which we don't currently do (and won't be free). And then any time there is work arisings a lot of it is figuring out what actual systems are in the way so not having techs familiar with the ship systems on site slows things down a lot, especially as there are a lot of system specifics that may or may not be in the drawings as well as difference between ships that are in the drawings (but confusing to find sometimes).

They also do a lot of QC/QA work as well as supplement FMF staff, so someone else needs to do that work, which again is a pool of people and expertise that doesn't exist and isn't free.

The other thing is for the MSE techs its a dedicated period ashore, and they will learn a lot by seeing equipment pulled apart, out of the water or otherwise disassembled, and that kind of experience feeds into being able to do repairs/work arounds in service, so a lot of side benefits.

And trying to reactivate a ship when no one has any idea what was done during DWP is a huge challenge, and things get missed.

THey can do it, but the DWPs will cost more, take longer, and then have a longer reactivation, while also burning people out further. But at the moment we're not getting extra funding, time, and assuming won't impact personnel.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That approach needs a lot more work on the preservation/deactivation side built into the work packages, which we don't currently do (and won't be free). And then any time there is work arisings a lot of it is figuring out what actual systems are in the way so not having techs familiar with the ship systems on site slows things down a lot, especially as there are a lot of system specifics that may or may not be in the drawings as well as difference between ships that are in the drawings (but confusing to find sometimes).

They also do a lot of QC/QA work as well as supplement FMF staff, so someone else needs to do that work, which again is a pool of people and expertise that doesn't exist and isn't free.

The other thing is for the MSE techs its a dedicated period ashore, and they will learn a lot by seeing equipment pulled apart, out of the water or otherwise disassembled, and that kind of experience feeds into being able to do repairs/work arounds in service, so a lot of side benefits.

And trying to reactivate a ship when no one has any idea what was done during DWP is a huge challenge, and things get missed.

THey can do it, but the DWPs will cost more, take longer, and then have a longer reactivation, while also burning people out further. But at the moment we're not getting extra funding, time, and assuming won't impact personnel.

Agreed. Refits are CSE, MSE and LOG heavy. But the rest of the departments should be reduced to zero and redistributed to the fleet.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Agreed. Refits are CSE, MSE and LOG heavy. But the rest of the departments should be reduced to zero and redistributed to the fleet.

Honestly that's the ideal; with an XO as acting CO for the admin side of things and a few other supporting personnel, which is usally good for folks on categories that need useful employment or a break from sailing.

 

[stoker dave]

give the keys to Irving an tell them to call us when its ready.

In theory, I like that approach.

In practice, it is tricky. The tricky part is getting Irving (or any other contractor) to take responsibility and show the same level level of commitment, dedication and focus on the outcome as the ship's company.

My experience is dated, but certainly the onboard crew could be relied upon to do what was necessary (within the limitations) to fix things and keep things operational.

A contractor works on very specific instructions and specifications. For example, an Irving welder comes on board and is told to weld part A to part B and given a drawing showing the exact locations of those parts. However, the drawing may not EXACTLY match the actual condition. So the welder says he can't do his job, walks off the ship and says that a new work order is needed. This starts a whole chain of events, change orders, delays, etc. and eventually the thing that needed welding gets welded.

If done by the ship's company, they would have said 'huh.... not quite as planned but ok...." and finished the job.

There are a lot of different issues wrapped up in just this little scenario (work control, configuration management, cost control, specification writing, etc.) that play into these jobs.