CF Funding Discussion - A Merged Thread

[Good2Golf]

George,

I am sharing an informed opinion, hoping for some INTELLIGENT dabate.  Your reply not only doesn't quite measure up, but falls far short of the sort of intelligent debate that usually takes place here.  If you would care to explain where you think I am wrong, I will be very happy to listen and perhaps even change my mind.  But if this is the best you can do, you sound more like a troll than like an experienced retired service member interesting in bettering the future of the Canadian Military. 

Harry, frankly, your manner of drawing out intelligent debate fails to hit the mark.  It comes across as combative (especially in the F22 v F35 thread) and here you seem to be espousing the replacement of people (since apparently we won't get them anyway) with technology, which as George has pointed out, is only one aspect of the overall capability.  Automated systems don't do things like change tracks, or replace engines, radios, control surfaces, etc... very well.  

Let's say we can reduce people, however, with more heavily automated systems; how much would that cost?  Would we have the money?  How would we replace not only the rank and file, but also specialized forces that have no technological solution.  

I'm reminded of a tenet whereby "Humans are more important than hardware."  Seems that not everybody holds that view, apparently.

My 2 ¢

G2G

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nor does technology shore up comparments lost in ships to damage, or tie those ships up, do RASs...need I go on?

I wonder if Harry has even been to sea before?

 

[aesop081]

I made the mistake of reading the viewer comments on the CBC story.........

I need a drink

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Tsk Tsk Tsk....I don't even bother anymore. Some of the idiotic comments that the Canadian public continues to make just makes me want to throw up.

 

[Harry Potter]

Guys,

Do you think we will have in 20 years the people to man the equipment we are planning on buying?  MY argument is that we will not, and therefore should buy equipment accordingly.  

Funny how everyone buys into the mantra that people are more important than hardware, but no one seems to be thinking about how we will manage to attract and retain 70,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves in an age when even industry with the best wages and work conditions will not be able to do it.  

By the way, the crew numbers I threw out there about the ships' company were used as an example and I made it clear in the post.  Guys, get off your confrontational horses.   :

If we continue to plan to do business in the next 20 years as it has been done in the past 50, we are really missing the boat.  It wasn't a problem before; it is one now.

I am not arguing in favor of reduces strengths, i am saying that reduces strength is a reality that we need to plan for now.    

Why don't you guys tell me how you plan to attract and retain 100,000 soldiers, airmen and sailors in the next 20 years?    

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

By the way, the crew numbers I threw out there about the ships' company were used as an example and I made it clear in the post.  Guys, get off your confrontational horses.

That you did but you also said the SCSCs would have the same capability and complement...thats an major error seeing how we are trying to bring back NGS, bring UAVs and UUVs into the picture....we want them to have at minimum the same capability they have at present with some of the capbilities that are coming on line now. Big difference from a naval point of view.

 

[George Wallace]

but no one seems to be thinking about how we will manage to attract and retain 70,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves in an age when even industry with the best wages and work conditions will not be able to do it.     

So?  Enlighten me.  I am at a loss to know where all these people are going.  Are they all going on Welfare or what?

With all the layoffs in industry that "I have heard on the news lately", I would imagine there will be quite a few people looking for a change of employers and some security.  Where are all these 'assemblyline workers with minimum education going to go?  I know the CF isn't going to offer them $30 - $40 an hour, but there are a lot more benefits and better chance of collecting a Pension in the CF than working on an assemblyline.

Guys, get off your confrontational horses.

Pointing out the errors of your post is not confrontational, unless you object to criticism.

 

[Harry Potter]

Pointing out the errors of your post is not confrontational

Your first two posts were nothing except confrontational.  And I will not bother telling you what there were pointing at.  If you had engaged me with your third post right away, then maybe you could claim some contribution to constructive criticism. 

If you would care to explain where you think I am wrong, I will be very happy to listen and perhaps even change my mind.

Does this sound like I am objecting to criticism?

[I am at a loss to know where all these people are going.

Keep in mind we are talking about a plan that is to deliver capability and effects in 20 years.  By that time, all the assembly line workers that are being laid off will be off the workforce.  That's assuming they would be willing to trade a cushy comfy $30-$40 an hour job, protected by Buzz Hardgrove and the CAW, and trade it for the comfort of a FOB somewhere, or a ship.   

I think there simply will be less people to hire from.  Single-child family, is a trend now, if not a norm.  Contrasting to the baby-boom of the 50s and 60s, and its obvious that demand will exceed the offer. 

This is a good paper, if somewhat lengthy.  http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp?rnext=1813 
The abstract says :"

There are already significant skills shortages in many industries, and this trend will continue and intensify over the next decade. There are many potential solutions to this crisis. Each requires an innovative, strategic approach to workforce planning, recruitment, development, and retention".

 

Why is the Canada First Strategy not even hinting that it intends to address that? 

Stats can says :"

However, ...the overall participation rate would decline sharply during the next 25 years.

This overall participation rate is the proportion of the total population aged 15 and over actively in the labour force. It is an indicator of the extent of an economy's working-age population that is economically active, and provides an indication of the relative size of the supply of labour available for the production of goods and services.

This decline in the overall participation rate is mainly due to the aging of the population, a result of low fertility over the last three decades and the steady rise in life expectancy. The aging of the population will be exacerbated starting in 2011, when the first baby boomers will reach the age of 65.

The expected slowdown in labour force growth might have numerous consequences for the Canadian economy and society.

We have a hard time meeting our current authorised troop strength as it is.  Is it not reasonable to think that rising the authorised troop strength is not necessarily going to bring more people to the fold?  If we know what we can reasonably expect to have as a steady troop strength in 20 years, and we know what effects we want to have, then let's fill in the blank in between and equip those troops with the sort of technology that will enable them to have the desired effect.  Forget how we have been doing things for the past 40 years; we had the people then, we don't now.  How do we need to be doing it in the next 20 years?  Are tours not getting long enough?  Are soldiers not rotating more often than they should?  To pick just one of many examples, what good to the CF will a Regiment of tanks be, if we only have the crewmen to deploy a Squadron worth?    The same appplies to all of the major capital projects. 

For all the talk about people being our most important asset, all the talk about growth in the CF is dominated by numbers of platforms, with no mention to demographics. 

Incidentally, I am not an engineer, and even less a bean counter.  I am sorry your past encounters with these people still affect you to this day, but will be grateful if you don't falsely characterise me.   






[Edit:  inserted a missing"[" in the code for one of the quotes. ]

 

[blacktriangle]

Your first two posts were nothing except confrontational.  And I will not bother telling you what there were pointing at.  If you had engaged me with your third post right away, then maybe you could claim some contribution to constructive criticism. 

Does this sound like I am objecting to criticism?
". 

Why is the Canada First Strategy not even hinting that it intends to address that? 

Stats can says :"
We have a hard time meeting our current authorised troop strength as it is.  Is it not reasonable to think that rising the authorised troop strength is not necessarily going to bring more people to the fold?  If we know what we can reasonably expect to have as a steady troop strength in 20 years, and we know what effects we want to have, then let's fill in the blank in between and equip those troops with the sort of technology that will enable them to have the desired effect.  Forget how we have been doing things for the past 40 years; we had the people then, we don't now.  How do we need to be doing it in the next 20 years?  Are tours not getting long enough?  Are soldiers not rotating more often than they should?  To pick just one of many examples, what good to the CF will a Regiment of tanks be, if we only have the crewmen to deploy a Squadron worth?    The same appplies to all of the major capital projects. 

For all the talk about people being our most important asset, all the talk about growth in the CF is dominated by numbers of platforms, with no mention to demographics. 

Incidentally, I am not an engineer, and even less a bean counter.  I am sorry your past encounters with these people still affect you to this day, but will be grateful if you don't falsely characterise me.   

100 tanks probably couldn't sustain a regiment anyways...but in that case, what are you advocating? People are being recruited more then they were a few years ago, how does it make sense to buy less kit? There are already huge shortages of vehicles like g wagons, LAVs etc and I don't think we can afford to downsize our navy anymore. We have managed this long, there is no point in buying less capability...that won't really help recruiting "sorry we only have 4 tanks to crew right now, and two are in the shop".

If the CF handled its human resources better, there would be less releases etc...and that is the main issue. I think things are starting to improve in some areas/units, and maybe the CF is realizing that it's old ways of managing pers may not work for the people of today.

 

[GAP]

If I understand Harry Potter's point, it is that the Canada's long-term military strategy did not address the manpower issue.

As a government, the Conservatives are going to put long-term strategies fairly vaguely, if only to avoid opposition claims on specific items. They will do it anyway, but why give them aim points.....

 

[Harry Potter]

Good2Golf,

Harry, frankly, your manner of drawing out intelligent debate fails to hit the mark.

Did you prefer the first two posts from George?

you seem to be espousing the replacement of people (since apparently we won't get them anyway) with technology

Nope.  Not at all.  I don't WANT to replace them.  I think we have NO CHOICE but to make them more efficient.  George describes the life of a tank crew as it has been doing business for the past 60 years.  I think there has been no reason to change the way they have been doing it because recruiting has never been a problem.  (That's just one example, i am not picking on the Armour Corps.)  Now recruiting is a problem (at least I think it is, if I am wrong will someone show me where please?), so we need to look again at how we are doing business and change it.  Yep, soldiers ARE more important than hardware.  So let's make damn sure we don't waste them on tasks that a machine can do for them.  

how much would that cost?  Would we have the money?

George calls me a bean counter, now you say I will spend too much.    I am told by real bean counters, that there is more money available in the next five+ years that we can possibly spend.  Do you know what the limitation is?  People.  There is not enough PM staff to manage enough projects to spend all the money available.  Granted we are talking about a different kind of people, but does that not indicate a trend?  Of course it will cost more, and of course it will require some departure from established norms, and that will raise questions.  That is why I would have liked to see it included in the Defense Strategy.  

Hey, I am not debating if we need 100 tanks, or 15 ships, or 65 fighters, or xx tactical airlifts, or xx Fixed Wing SAR, or whatever.  If this is what gets you all riled up, let me reassure you all.  These numbers are perfectly fine with me, provided we can man them.    What my posts are all about is:  let's address the fielding in operations of all this new kit, with the people we can realistically expect to have on strength.   Equipment that cannot be manned is no good to anyone.    

 

[George Wallace]

We have a hard time meeting our current authorised troop strength as it is.  Is it not reasonable to think that rising the authorised troop strength is not necessarily going to bring more people to the fold?  If we know what we can reasonably expect to have as a steady troop strength in 20 years, and we know what effects we want to have, then let's fill in the blank in between and equip those troops with the sort of technology that will enable them to have the desired effect.  Forget how we have been doing things for the past 40 years; we had the people then, we don't now.  How do we need to be doing it in the next 20 years?  Are tours not getting long enough?  Are soldiers not rotating more often than they should?  To pick just one of many examples, what good to the CF will a Regiment of tanks be, if we only have the crewmen to deploy a Squadron worth?    The same appplies to all of the major capital projects. 

There are a few reasons we aren't reaching our numbers.

One was the lack of forsight by military and civilian leaders in the '80's and '90's who welcomed the "Peace Dividend" (which Governments have been practicing since the 1950's) with programs like FRP and the disbandment of a whole Bde.  The closure of CFE Lahr and Baden was a very costly mistake, but that is another matter altogether.  What matters is the drastic cut in manpower in many Trades, of the personnel who would have provided the 'continuity' that those Trades needed.

A second point is that the NCMs and OCdts of the 1970's and 1980's are now reaching CRA, and with those freezes in Recruiting in the 1990's, there is no leadership, experience, or continuity for the next generations of CF members.  There is a serious leadership gap in the Junior Leadership Levels - the people who are required to train Recruits and entry level Trades courses.

A third point is the "Peace Dividend" of constantly replacing old equipment with half numbers.  Thousands of Sherman tanks from the 40's and 50's were replaced in the 50's by less than 500 Centurion Tanks, which were in turn replaced in the late 70's by 128 Leopard 1 tanks, which were to be replaced by 66 MGS.  The same statistics can be seen in the replacement of all our equipment.  Once we had two Aircraft Carriers.  Now we have none.  Once we had a complete Air Division with four full Fighter Wings in Europe.  It is a joke to say we have even a quarter of that now here in Canada.  Our Logistic Fleets have shrunk to a fraction of the size they once were.  

Forth on the list is the "Plug 'n Play" idea of bringing complete strangers together and throwing them in a pot to send on a Deployment.  Why?  We had competent, closely knit, Cbt Teams in the Bdes prior to this silly idea.  Why reinvent the wheel?  

Fifth thing is, without the 4th Bde the remaining three have to cover all their tasks.  

If you want a sixth point, then due to all of the above, and the practice of demolishing buildings on Bases to lower the "Sq Footage" that is used to calculate what a Base is to pay local municipalities in lieu of taxes, there are not enough Instructors, facilities, nor equipment to recruit and train new Recruits.  There a thousands crying to join, but the System can not handle them.  As the system can not handle the influx of people wanting to join, Units are unable to 'regenerate' and keep ahead of attrition.

Oh!  By the way.  Many soldiers are doing multiple Tours.  Yes.  There are also a large number who aren't, for a multitude of reasons, but many of which are trying very hard to deploy.  

I really don't agree with your assessment of the CF manpower situation.  Nor do I agree with your assessment on the equipment situation.  The CF needs both; not one over the other.

This is not Battlestar Galactica.  We will not be replacing our soldiers anytime soon with Cyclon Centurions.

It is late and I may not be awake enough to counter your theories more tonight.

 

[dangerboy]

Harry Potter, if I understand your stance correctly it is that we need to reduce the manpower needed to man our equipment and complete our tasks. (If I have gotten your stance wrong ignore me)  I can't speak for the Armoured corp as I am not Armoured, but the Infantry has tried it and it has bitten us in the ass. We eliminated pioneers and mortars to reduce our manning  (an oversimplification I know) and now we wish we could have them back.  The fact is to do our job it is manpower intensive, you need full Sections of 10 men every time you try with less everything gets a lot harder especially with casualties and HLTA.

Edited to fix real bad spelling.

 

[Harry Potter]

popnfresh,

how does it make sense to buy less kit?

Where do I advocate buying less kit???  Nowhere do I suggest we should buy less.  What I suggest is that we need to buy kit that we can deploy operationally with the people we can realistically expect to have.  If it means replacing man with machine to accomplish some tasks traditionally done by man, then lets do it.  But you can't expect it to happen if you don't recognise the problem, and the Canada First Defence Strategy doesn't do that as published.    

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Harry,

You are absolutely correct- there is no hope.  We are all doomed.  We can't possibly grow our military of 65,000 to a military of 70,000 in the next 10-20 years.  Imagine- a country with 33,000,000 people, where almost one in 471 of it's citizens wears a uniform.  Bloody militarism run rampant, I say.

Now that we have gotten agreeing with you out of the way, I would like to note from my "career attention deficit disorder" tour of all three services over that past 23 years (23 years exactly today, BTW), has shown me that we often do things the way that we always have, because that is the way it has always been done.  Equally, we often do things a certain way because, well, it works.

I have served in units that required a swift kick in the a$$ to reallocate manpower or do things differently to save money, time, effort or PYs.  Equally, I have been places where cuts and reorganizations have been conducted with ruthless efficiency that worked wonderfully...until war, a major disaster or some other "inconvenience" came along.

The trick to using scarce human resources effectively (and I think we can agree that highly trained soldiers, sailors and airmen are a relatively scarce commodity in Canada), is knowing when changing traditional ways of doing things or leveraging technology is a good thing.  It may be apparent to you when this is the case- it is certainly not clear to me.  I have learned caution when mucking with large, complex systems.

You have been locking horns with George over tank crew sizes and Ex-Dragoon over ship's companies.  I can read between the lines that you have never served in an Armoured Regiment or on a ship.  That does not make you incapable of commenting or observing on crewing issues...it's just that...you come of as SUCH a pompous A$$ by stating your observations as if they were tablets from the Mount and then expressing surprise when you don't get the heated agreement you so clearly crave.

FWIW, I think the size of a tank crew is about right at four.  My limited experience on exercise with tanks has shown me that between all of the garrison maintenance and all of the things that a crew is expected to do to operate 24/7 on the battlefield, that is about as small as you can go.  I used to command Javelin Missile Detachments of three.  After 72 hrs of moving, fighting, maintaining vehicles and digging, they were zombies.  We began experimenting with 4 man dets, with much better results.

I have been on a warship during a major fire.  We used every single one of the 225 crew to save the ship.  All of the "automatic" systems failed.  We fought the fire the old fashioned way.  By hand.  Yeah, most times, 225 people seems like too many people for a warship.  Most times it is.  When you are in a fight for your life, however, there are usually never enough people onboard.   Had we had a crew of 70 that night, we would have manned life rafts and lost the ship.

So to sum up- I am not opposed to new ways of doing business.  I dislike drive-by posters who "know" it all.

Cheers!

 

[George Wallace]

If I understand Harry Potter's point, it is that the Canada's long-term military strategy did not address the manpower issue.

As a government, the Conservatives are going to put long-term strategies fairly vaguely, if only to avoid opposition claims on specific items. They will do it anyway, but why give them aim points.....

The White Paper on Defence in 1985 would be the last official 'long term strategy'.

 

[RHFC_piper]

This is not Battlestar Galactica.  We will not be replacing our soldiers anytime soon with Cyclon Centurions.

Perhaps you haven't read the 'full' report...  I believe you missed this;

The report calls for clearly defined missions and capabilities for the military.

The plan has seven core missions:

Daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through Canada's commitment to NORAD.
Supporting a major international event in Canada, like the 2010 Olympics.
Responding to any potential terrorist strikes.
Support for civilian authorities for natural disasters.
Conducting a major international mission for a extended period .
Deploying to world crisis spots for shorter periods.
Replace 1 & 3 Bn, R22R with Cyclon Centurions.

I know... I missed it too... 


But, besides that; good debate.  ;D

 

[Harry Potter]

George,

This is not Battlestar Galactica.  We will not be replacing our soldiers anytime soon with Cyclon Centurions.

Nowhere do I suggest something as drastic as that.  However, remember when people similarly ridiculed the use of the aeroplane as a valid means of delivering firepower?  How about in the 1930s when the army establishments around the world refused to see the tank as anything more than an infantry support weapon?    

I really don't agree with your assessment of the CF manpower situation.  Nor do I agree with your assessment on the equipment situation.  The CF needs both; not one over the other.

Agreed we need both.  Disagree we will have access to both.  I have heard all the arguments about FRP, peace dividend, etc...  Sure it has had an impact.  But recruiting is better than ever before and we still can't fill our current ceilings.  Take a moment to read the reference material I attached.  I still think that despite our best efforts, we will never be able to recruit and retain to the new levels.  

Have yourself a good night.

 

[Harry Potter]

SeaKingTacco,

Feeling better now?  Got it out of your system?  By the way, did you even bother reading my actual posts, or did you simply framed your opinion based on the replies of George and al.  Imagine that!  The nerve of me!  A bunch of old boys slapping themselves in the back about how good the new Canada First Defence Strategy is.  And in comes this pompous *** Harry, who dares point out to a perceived weakness and seeks feedback to his observation.  How dare he?!!  With only 14 posts to his credit to boot!

you don't get the heated agreement you so clearly crave.

Its not agreement I crave.  Its intelligent debate.  No need commenting if you merely agree with the previous guy.  Instead all I get are replies from guys hung up on the size of tank crews or ship's companies, telling me that last time they served, the crew size was just what they needed, for reasons that date back to the last World War.  I used tanks and ships as examples, not as specific targets, most readers understand that now.  Pick any other capital project, it applies equally.  Hey, glad you saved the ship.  But if next time you need to assemble a ship's company that size you need to leave half the fleet tied alongside for lack of crew, do you think things will have gone for the best or for the worse?  If there was an automated fire fighting system that would allow you to extinguish the fire despite a crew half the size, would you leave it off the SOR because when you were last on a ship there were 225 sailors on board and that's that!?  I apologize for the pompous tone...  but guys like you really bring the best out of me.

Obviously you think the Air Force has filled all of its positions and will be able to do this for the next 20 years. 

Oh, by the way, your post contributed nothing to the discussion.  We were way past that.   

 

[Good2Golf]

...well, I for one am not about to slash my wrists yet at a perceived hopeless situation.  I choose to believe we'll be able to fully man the future directed manning levels within a reasonable time (8-10 years).