- Reaction score
- 25,772
- Points
- 1,090
In fact, yes, that's a part of DND that's growing.And I assume they upstaffed the 'background checking department' to help out with this new flood of PR applicants? Or not...
In fact, yes, that's a part of DND that's growing.And I assume they upstaffed the 'background checking department' to help out with this new flood of PR applicants? Or not...
Must be part of that “federal government bloat” people want to cutIn fact, yes, that's a part of DND that's growing.
Guaranteed, in any future workforce adjustment, the most productive workers get cut, first…Must be part of that “federal government bloat” people want to cut![]()
In fact, yes, that's a part of DND that's growing.
Picture or it doesn’t exist….Critical question. Capbadge for the department?
Can I suggest crossed Spontoons?
The implement carried by sergeants behind the rank and file to prod the bayonets forwards, dispatch shirkers and seldom used against the King's enemies.
It is a tough problem.Good a place as Any, security checks are killing us at recruiting.
Right at the airport screening gates.We could open recruiting up to some of those one million international students we got.
ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?Right at the airport screening gates.
You there! Yes you.
You’re a big strong looking brute, aren’t ya laddie? Get in this line right here. Hand over yer passport.
And just like that, recruiting bonus unlocked.
We can be selective …ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?
OH and some of those students - no thank you.
ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?
OH and some of those students - no thank you.
The major issue I see with cutting CAF pers is you're just getting less capability for for less money.Seriously, as I said, I've toyed with the reduction of the full-time army by 30% and moved another 30% into urban centres as 30/70 units for increasing/enabling the part-time force.
That still required keeping all the same bases albeit some functioned at lower capacities.
Keeping all the ranges is a given. The base infrastructure is for the most part also required albeit much of it needs repurposing to logistics functions and as temporary accommodation for visiting training forces or schools.
The savings come from pay envelopes and not infrastructure. Just as an example, I ran it through the CBO Interactive Force Structure tool and the cost savings of converting an active army SBCT to a ARNG SBCT saves approximately $2 billion per year. It also reduces the force size by 2,000. The number of active army to ARNG is a numbers wash so the reductions come from overhead personnel requirements needed to support active army troops.
![]()
The major issue I see with cutting CAF pers is you're just getting less capability for for less money.
The only reason pay is 50% of the CAF budget right now is because the government won't stop paying people because it looks bad in the papers, but they will "defer" equipment and maintenance spending. Cut the CA by 30%, and the government will cut spending to match the lower payroll. There will be no more money for new toys, because some other election promise will require funding.
DND/CAF needs to be better at managing that full-time capability that is used routinely in peacetime and balance it against that part-time capability which is available on stand-by. Each has a purpose. The two work together to increase overall defence outputs and capabilities.
![]()
I think I didn't explain my point well enough.The only way that you get less capability by cutting full-time strength is if you only count and structure full-time strength as the one and only measure of capability.
True enough, the way that DND/CAF is currently structured that is e xactly the way that it works. Full-time strength is all that matters.
IMHO that is the great mistake of how DND/CAF does business. We need to break that paradigm.
Decrease full-time strength and exchange the funding for part-time strength, equipment and training and you increase your capabilities several fold over. In the above SBCT example, converting a brigade from active army to ARNG still leaves you a fully equipped brigade. It is just on a lower level of readiness but has a significantly lower per annum cost. Saved money that can be put towards more equipment to equip another brigade in due course. It's basic math. And I think this math is exactly why the full-time force keeps the part-time force ineffective - in order to justify it's own numbers.
DND/CAF needs to be better at managing that full-time capability that is used routinely in peacetime and balance it against that part-time capability which is available on stand-by. Each has a purpose. The two work together to increase overall defence outputs and capabilities.
![]()
Sadly there is a lot of truth in what you say.My argument is simply this, no matter how many RegF positions you cut, you won't get more free money to spend on other things. The only reason the budget isn't lower than it currently is, is simply because not paying pers would look bad, so all other spending is what gets cut. If you make those RegF pers ResF, the budget will just be cut further, because ResF pers cost less to keep barely trained.
ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?
How about stop inbound freighters and fishing ships and conscript their crews?ummmm should we send armed RCN guys to bars to press people into service?
OH and some of those students - no thank you.
How about stop inbound freighters and fishing ships and conscript their crews?