Current Trends in CF Releases

[Old EO Tech]

How many LAVs and how far north?

Ex Arctic Ram, a 1CMBG northern Ex, it was not Alert or anything that far north,, but Operating a full mechanized brigade plus RCAF and RCN elements in the Yellowknife Area, is no small feat of logistics and tactics.

http://www.army.gc.ca/lfwa/ex_ar_backgrounder-eng.asp

Believe me 1 Svc Bn was stretched to the limit over a 1600km MSR.

Jon

 

[MJP]

While they are pushing the Northern Angle as our next big mission (which is needed) other than getting the troops up there it is cheaper than most exercises (no need for AFVs or the fuel and maintenance cost that goes with them) LOSV courses are cheaper than AFV driver and gunners courses and it looks good in the press to the general public that we are doing more to protect our sovereignty.

The north is not cheaper by any stretch of the imagination.  It costs way more to support a Northern Ex than just the savings from reduced "fuel and maint costs".  The fuel costs alone for aircraft are usually pretty excessive depending on the size of the supported element.  Saying it is cheaper than LAV/tank exercises is a misnomer at best

 

[Infanteer]

Ex ARCTIC RAM was the 1 PPCLI Battle Group, HQ 1 CMBG and a few other bits and pieces.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Rumor has it we narrowly escaped a 2 month ex in the arctic over xmas due to budget cuts. I'm sure that would have been popular with troops and their families.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

That is exactly it right there. Again as in the 90s we are down sizing and this is a cheap way to get rid of personal. The higher ups do not care because by the time the next big thing rolls around the soldiers that filled the the places of the ones that left will be up to speed (hopefully). They promote the lower ranks to replace the ones that got out and replace the lower ranks with new recruits everything continues as normal, except for the loss of experience it works perfectly. Then they will use words like, trimmed, smaller but more efficient, leaner but well trained, all those catch phrases that came out in the 90s will be back and up dated.

While they are pushing the Northern Angle as our next big mission (which is needed) other than getting the troops up there it is cheaper than most exercises (no need for AFVs or the fuel and maintenance cost that goes with them) LOSV courses are cheaper than AFV driver and gunners courses and it looks good in the press to the general public that we are doing more to protect our sovereignty.

And if you want Engineer support everything has to come from the south and would need a very large logistics train....... and our Heavy Equipment dislikes the extreme cold....

 

[daftandbarmy]

And if you want Engineer support everything has to come from the south and would need a very large logistics train....... and our Heavy Equipment dislikes the extreme cold....

Being a country with most of it's territory above the permafrost line, that does not give me a warm fuzzy!

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I know......

 

[SupersonicMax]

Shortchanging your people will make them leave.  Money talks.  Even in the military.  When you post people to Cold Lake, where buying a house is prohibitively expensive and PMQs are falling apart for 1000$+ a month, people don't really want to stick with the military.  Heck, they can't even take care of their families.  Now, add a very lucrative job just next door and you have a recipe for a mass exodus.  Which is exactly what is happening in Cold Lake right now. 

Take care of your people, don't shortchange them.  The higher ups need to put things into perspective....  I normally burn roughly 15 000$ of fuel every day.  Heck, the other day I had to DUMP 10 000$ worth of fuel because I had an emergency and had to come back.  A trivial decision like making 1 more landing pattern because I feel like it, it's Friday and it's fun (and get some training out of it) could save 1000$ right there.  And that's not including maintenance costs!!  Now multiply that by 75 operational pilots in the units... You probably see where I am going.  I would rather the higher ups make slight cuts to the Yearly Flying Rate budget (did I say SLIGHT?) but see them keep or improve the financial aspect of being in the CF.  The announcements in the last months just destroyed morale.  We have to pay more into our pensions, no more severance, IR cuts, move benefits cuts.....  All that to save pennies in the big picture.

 

[smale436]

          You hit the nail on the head perfectly with your comments about Cold Lake. I'm awestruck, even though I have  ccntemplated releasing myself, at the number of releases going on in the last six months. Especially at the gun squadron here. There are a lot of younger guys (and gals) who decline to renew their initial engagement and head straight into NDT or oilfield related work.

 

[jollyjacktar]

This PIL stuff is one that comes to mind.  Announce severance ends in April, election period to end at the end of the FY with no payment before then, etc etc etc.  Then, give ppl no set date when they will receive partial or full payment, etc.  Try to tell them "its not big deal".  Then find out the RCMP already have theirs in the bank.  Thats one example.

As I understand CBSA will have theirs shortly too if not already.  The members I was talking to were gobsmacked it might take upwards of 3 years to see us taken care of.  Mind you, if it was done in a reasonable amount of time, I'd really be (more) suspicious of being screwed somewhere.

 

[Drag]

I would rather the higher ups make slight cuts to the Yearly Flying Rate budget (did I say SLIGHT?) but see them keep or improve the financial aspect of being in the CF. 

You hit the nail on the head right there...  I had some peripheral involvement with the Strat Review back when I was in Ottawa last year and it seemed like the RCAF had YFR as a sacred cow where it was priority over just about anything else.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

The fact that no one has come into this thread with a totally opposing point of view is saying something in itself. The writing sure is on the wall.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The only counterpoint I would make is, I don't think that there is one "magic bullet" solution or policy to solve attrition.  People leave the CF for many reasons- hell we need attrition (to a point) to make the system work (can any of you imagine a CF where everyone served 30 years?).

It is a complex problem, that I don't have any magic solutions for.

 

[brihard]

Rumor has it we narrowly escaped a 2 month ex in the arctic over xmas due to budget cuts. I'm sure that would have been popular with troops and their families.

I call B.S. No way they'd ever be that abysmally stupid. Besides, there's already a month up north planned for the brigade in February, and that's been in the books for quite some time now.

 

[Shamrock]

The fact that no one has come into this thread with a totally opposing point of view is saying something in itself. The writing sure is on the wall.

I was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. The word I got from them was the intent is to maintain the CF ~68k.

 

[CombatDoc]

Rumor has it we narrowly escaped a 2 month ex in the arctic over xmas due to budget cuts. I'm sure that would have been popular with troops and their families.

There is no substantiation to this rumour, it is rumour only with no basis in reality.  We already have two Arctic exercises - Nanook in the balmy season (e.g. August) and Nunalivut in high arctic winter.  There is neither the planning effort, nor the $$, that have gone into sustaining a two month Arctic ex over Christmas.  Don't forget that the "those people" who plan these things also have families with whom they want to spend the holidays.  :gottree:

 

[brihard]

I was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. The word I got from them was the intent is to maintain the CF ~68k.

That number refers solely to the reg force, I assume?

 

[Grimey]

From my perspective and back ground (Mar Eng), the CF is fighting demographics and will lose.  My peer group joined up in the early-mid '80s and decided to stay in when FRP decimated the trade and recruiting froze.  My peer group now has 25-30 yrs service.  When opportunity knocks (and it's been knocking hard in Victoria over the last 18 months) the decision has to be to stay til 35 or go.  We have lost approx 20 CPO1/2s over the last 14 months or so and an increasing number of PO1s who don't like how the future looks.  Most of these guys are walking into jobs with similar wage scales and benefits as the CF offers.

As a few posters have alluded too, for all the talk of retention initiatives, i don't remember one tangible policy that has come out over the last 10 yrs or so that would have sweetened the deal for the numbers of senior rates above (myself included) to stick it out.  For the majority of policy announcements from both the centre and locally since the summer, i'd say the complete opposite is more accurate.

 

[Sporadic E]

I think there is a natural ebb and flow between the operational training and operational deployments of the CF. There is something to be said with one comment about "aging out". I have been in the reserve for nearly 20 years (which is an anomaly in the reserve world). I am starting to feel that this stuff is getting a bit old and that I have nothing else to contribute. Having said that, this may play in TPTB hands for any force reduction that may be in the works. I predict that there will be a mass exodus once the reserves receives the payment in lieu of severance.

I really don't know what I am going to do in this case. My personal dynamic has certainly changed since I first got in; I have a family, full time job, and the kids activities.  After a while the 90%/10% syndrome really wears on you and your family. I find that I am responding to more army email at my civilian job than the stuff I should be working on. However, there is that strange sense of loyalty that keeps biting me from the back of my head. Not to the CF, branch , or unit, but to all the troops I will leave behind.

It is a tough one to chew on, but we all have our reasons for getting out. Conversely, we all have our reasons for staying in.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

It is a tough one to chew on, but we all have our reasons for getting out. Conversely, we all have our reasons for staying in.

Perhaps the Army should be focusing its efforts on why people stay in instead of why they get out?