The Big Black Hole Coming Soon

[reccecrewman]

The thread on Recruiting recieved many reads & responses.  Canada is having problems with our attrition rate throughout the CF, particularly in the combat arms.  Then there's the problem of recruiting fresh troops and then retaining them.  However, we have another serious hole about to be created.  It's already begun and over the next 5 years it's going to be a giant black hole in the higher NCM ranks.  Due to the infamous early to mid nineties freeze, no new blood (in quantity anyway) was allowed into the Military.  Now, we're about to lose the leadership generation that got in at the end of the seventies and beginning of the eighties, leaving a massive hole in leadership and experience throughout the military.  This will be interesting to watch unfold since we already have problems with attition at the bottom of the totem pole & now another big problem looming at the top of it.  Just wondering how the issue is going to be dealt with.  Now, with the CF trying to attract the broad scope of people, gender and race into the Army to represent our diverse nation, there's been many campaigns & incentives made available to get people off civvy street and into uniform.  The bonuses are a nice attraction to someone fresh out of post secondary and looking for experience, but that gets you wondering.  They'll pay out bonuses to a completely unskilled (militarily speaking) civilian who is say, a dental assistant or some other support trade the military requires, but not to the combat arms guys (who these people are essentially here for - we are after all an Army, and an Army is generally thought of as the Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Cbt. Engineers)  I'm not knocking paying bonuses to these people - they are services the military needs and therefore, we need a way to attract them to the CF, but we also have a serious problem with our combat arms guys leaving the CF or OT'ing to another support trade.  So why not offer a signing bonus to them to sign their 2nd BE or IE?  I would disagree with a signing bonus for cbt. arms on a 1st BE since they have to experience in their trade, but after they've given 3 years of service, they probably have a few PCF's under their belt and a tour (you can't buy experience like that).  Then there's all the money thats been spent on training that soldier for the past 3 years, clothing, food & all other expenses that one soldier has incurred the Army over 3 years and there's something worth re-investing in that person.  If we can't retain our fighting troops, the need for support troops is diminished as well.  And with the big black leadership hole looming, we need to find a way to keep our junior NCM's in the ranks.  Just a thought anyway.

 

[Armymedic]

You idea has merit and no doubt has be brainstormed as an idea around crystal palace in Ottawa. But the US Army give reenlistment bonuses to thier troops, and still they have a high attrition rate after contracts expire.

Also if you start giving reenlistment bonuses to a certian group of soldiers, it would not be long until every member of the CF would be clamouring for them.

 

[Mojo Magnum]

May I ask, what the cause of attrition is?

I understand that a percentage Will not make it due to incompetence but what of the others. 

Is it that they just lose interest?  Or are there many a situation an NCM could find themselves in that would warrant dismissal?

As someone about to go into BMQ, I am looking for a heads up on what to watch out for. 

Not the least of which will be maintaining a positive outlook.

 

[George Wallace]

The biggest cause of the attrition will be retirement, either by CRA or voluntary release.  A lot of Cf personnel joined in the eighties and are reaching retirement age.  A lot of people join the Forces and leave after three to ten years of service to find better civie jobs.

 

[reccecrewman]

To add on to that, a considerable portion of the combat arms attrition rate is OT's.  Many a soldier does 3-6 years in a combat trade then OT to another trade to get out of combat arms.  Tour is another big factor here as well.  Many troops come back from an overseas tour and put an OT in as soon as they get home.  With other young guys its also bitterness and boredom.  They spend how many months sitting in a PAT platoon waiting training, some of them staying in that system for over a year if they got injured on a previous course or there just aren't any running.  They lose interest just waiting around. 

 

[Chimo]

IMHO, I believe that all Soldiers should have to join as one of the Combat Arms trades. This would give the Army a deeper pool to draw from and give experience to all support trades. After the BE, the Soldier would then be given an opportunity for remuster.

I am sure many would enjoy the camaraderie and challenges of the Combat Arms and stay in them. If not, no loss as the skills sets learned would be carried over to their new trade.

I am dead against bonuses on enrollment for specific talents or knowledge. What it tells me is that the CF values some members of the team more then others. I would support a re enlistment bonus concept. After all it is cheaper to keep a trained Soldier in then train a replacement.

Management studies have shown that when asked many employees list respect, feeling part of the team and being able to influence a problem, as more important reasons for staying with a particular firm, all well ahead of money.

I do agree we will hit the black hole sooner rather then later and as the Chinese curse says...May you live in interesting times. 

 

[honestyrules]

Chimo,

I am dead against bonuses on enrollment for specific talents or knowledge. What it tells me is that the CF values some members of the team more then others. I would support a re enlistment bonus concept. After all it is cheaper to keep a trained Soldier in then train a replacement.

To me the signing bonuses are given to save the   CF money on training. If one bypasses QL3 (let's say 6 months course), there a good saving there by giving away 10 000$.

It is to prevent another "big black hole" (financial that one).

IMHO, I believe that all Soldiers should have to join as one of the Combat Arms trades. This would give the Army a deeper pool to draw from and give experience to all support trades. After the BE, the Soldier would then be given an opportunity for remaster.

I know you're right on this...

 

[TCBF]

At one point in 1969 or so, we sold our soul to the devil, and linked the renumeration in the CF to that of the public service.  That was the day the military ceased to be a profession.  If we payre-up  bonuses to the uniformed branch of the DND, what about the civies?

Tom

 

[honestyrules]

TCBF,

Good point. But are we training the civvies in their trades? I mean OK they'll get SHARP training and some courses here and there (Word, excel...), but they don't learn their trades being DND employees. I know for a fact that it's getting hard for the civvies to get a long-term contract. Instead they are offered small, consecutive contracts. So DND doesn't want to be involved in too many expenses for them.

I don't know about them members who are getting out and taking over a civilian position on base (same trade). I wonder if them are getting some sort on incentive to do so?

 

[George Wallace]

Chimo has put forward some good ideas.   I, too, feel that all recruits to the CF should spend time in the Cbt Arms.   Too many of our Purple trades are coming in off the street and being given the training they need, in many cases very highly regarded skills on civie street, and they don't really understand what the military is all about.   After they have achieve a high standard in their trade, they kiss the CF good-bye and seek employment elsewhere.   It could be an officer getting a Medical degree, an Aero Engine Tech, an LCIS Tech, or any other high training cost trade.   We have people who don't have what it takes to be soldiers/sailors/airmen milking he system.  

Three years in the Cbt Arms, before any such Trades training, would beef up the Cbt Arms.   It would solve some of the problems with 'burn out' after too many tours currently found in the Cbt Arms, because there aren't enough to go around.   It would instill a bit more of the 'military ethos' into our Purple Trades.   It would make a more rounded CF.   The USMC doesn't have people join Purple Trades, they join first as Marines.   We have a saying; "you are a soldier first!", but it really doesn't hold much water in today's CF.

I have seen several trades that have done some 'hiring straight off the street' and the harm that this does is immeasurable.   People in jobs that may risk Cbt Arms soldiers lives, who have no idea of what Cbt Arms soldiers do for a living, nor their cababilities.   This is wrong.   I won't even get into Leadership and RMC, as we already have enough threads on that.

Canada has got to stop 'giving'.   Our Socialist ways are going to mean our downfall.   We train all kinds of people, in our best interests, both in the CF and on Civie Street, only to have them take the "free" education and run off to something better to line their pockets with some place else.   Look at all the Doctors and Nurses we train at Civie Universities, and how many of them, along with so many other professionals, all head south for the Yankee dollar.   I have heard of all those Aero Frame Techs, who went to Texas to train for the Griffons, being offered jobs down there before they had even finished the crse.   Great way to create Blackholes in the CF.

Yes we do have problems.   We have to change the way we think as a Country, not just in the CF.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Chimo has put forward some good ideas.   I, too, feel that all recruits to the CF should spend time in the Cbt Arms.   Too many of our Purple trades are coming in off the street and being given the training they need, in many cases very highly regarded skills on civie street, and they don't really understand what the military is all about.   After they have achieve a high standard in their trade, they kiss the CF good-bye and seek employment elsewhere.   It could be an officer getting a Medical degree, an Aero Engine Tech, an LCIS Tech, or any other high training cost trade.   We have people who don't have what it takes to be soldiers/sailors/airmen milking he system.  

Three years in the Cbt Arms, before any such Trades training, would beef up the Cbt Arms.   It would solve some of the problems with 'burn out' after too many tours currently found in the Cbt Arms, because there aren't enough to go around.   It would instill a bit more of the 'military ethos' into our Purple Trades.   It would make a more rounded CF.   The USMC doesn't have people join Purple Trades, they join first as Marines.   We have a saying; "you are a soldier first!", but it really doesn't hold much water in today's CF ...

I agree but, when I was serving and when this was raised the proponents were shouted down.  Such a proposal was (still is?) seen as a back-door attempt to keep women out of the service.

I, personally, proposed that some of the most attractive technical trades should be open only to remusters.  "Why," I asked some C&E and EME colleagues, "do we need to have any privates, at all, in your technical trades - why can we not recruit potential electronics technicians and transfer them after three years in the combat arms?"  They, universally, hated the idea, but, in my opinion, their reasons (which included excluding too many females) were weak.

I would also like to return to something else I have discussed before.  We used to have regimental clerks, storemen, drivers and so on.  They were, in many cases, interchangeable with the professional clerks, storemen and drivers.  I guess I am supposed to understand why we made the changes back in the '60s; I confess I did not understand then and, despite 30 odd years of increasingly responsible jobs in headquarters I still did not understand it when I retired.  I understand that we need a professional tactical transport operation which means that senior NCOs have to exist which means that they have to know the trucking business, top-to-bottom - hence we need privates to become corporals and sergeants and so on.  But why do all the privates have to be log branch, why can't half (say, just as a wild arsed guess) of the junior drivers in a transport company be regimental drivers who have already done two or three years in an infantry battalion or artillery regiment?  Ditto supply techs, in my view.  I am perfectly happy to have someone else tell me, again, why I'm wrong - so long as you are perfectly happy to accept that I might remain unconvinced.

Going a step further, to one of my 'pets' - now that the Signals people no longer send/receive Morse code why do we have so many Signals set minders?  In my day (pre-TCCCS I hasten to point out) most of us, including some Signal officers, were of the view that Morse code, teletype systems and the multi-channel radio-relay sets were all that set Signals operators apart from infantry signalers - that and the fact that many experienced infantry signalers were markedly better at tactical VHF radio 'operation' than their Signals confreres.  I like the system the Navy used to have (still has?) whereby 'technicians' started, as junior sailors, as 'operators' or equipment minders.  Why can't we have something similar in the army?  Why cannot some 'radio operators' (who are now called something else, I know) be infantry and armoured soldiesr and why cannot all 'radio technicians' (also called something else) be drawn from the ranks of the operators?  Once again, why do we even need private (signalman) technicians, why cannot one of the entry requirements for these attractive technical trades be the rank of corporal?

</rant>

 

[reccecrewman]

I agree both George & Chimo put forth good points, however, in my original post I said I don't see a problem with signing bonuses for various purple trades coming off the streets.  Stop and think how much those individuals paid out of their own pockets for their education or training. Now, how many doctors & nurses are we going to attract if we make them tote around a rifle for 3 years???? Probably not too many.  But Chimo got me thinking about something else.  I like his idea alot about not allowing civvies off the street into purple trades who have no trades experience.  Like an 18 y/o kid fresh out of high school who wants to be a V-Tech.  Fine, make him a combat arms soldier for 3 years before he can re-muster.  This would be great as well to give our rear ech troops 3 years experience in combat arms.  Then yes, they really could claim to be "soldiers first"

 

[honestyrules]

reccecrewman,

It's all great, the only thing is that OT (re-muster) clause after 3 years in Cbt arms would have to be put on paper (part of the contract). As you   know, it is hard for combat arms soldiers to get an OT. Plus it is not encouraged by your higher ops (if they're hurting for people, they might not let you go at all). I mean, if it is 100% sure that after that 3 years, you would be transfered and put on the course you picked up in the first place,  more people would go for it.

 

[Bert]

The blackhole mentioned earlier seems to be a result of the changes affecting recruiting and provisioning the CF.
Since the late 1990s until 2004, the CF recruited heavily in semi-skilled and unskilled streams and provided
entry plans for skilled streams.   In my own WTIS unit, many experienced members will retire or release in the
next the years.   The blackhole is real.

Reading comments from recent posts on semi-skilled recruits, I've observed and experienced situations that
support and deny these comments.   More objective statistical evidence is required to prove
semi-skilled members (initially or years into their career) milk the system, are found inadequate for the job,
kiss the CF goodbye at other civy-side jobs, and do immeasurable harm to the CF.  

Creating a system where all CF members are required to perform an initial three years is not a bad idea.  
However, to make it work and be effective requires more objective information than found in these posts.
How would the CF kit, train, allocate and maintain standards for all in-comers?   What follow-on training will
be provided so all members well after their initial three years maintain a high standard of combat readiness?
What implications are there to the training of non-combat arms MOCs, training time, and operational
support?

As an example, LCIS/ATIS techs enter trades training after BMQ.   Forgetting PAT platoon and waiting
for courses, the ATIS/LCIS tech spends 1.5 years to get QL3.   Further OJT and section rotation may
take another 2-3 years before being put into a permament section.   Advanced courses, like radar
maintenance that takes 2-3 years of further courses, adds to the time before getting settled.   Other
courses in PBXs, IT, comms, crypto, SRS, sat comm, play into the training and experience curve of
the technician.   It takes a bit of time to see, experience, and become trained.   Not recruiting
semi-skilled recuits or heavily untilizing civilain contractors (as a supplement) everywhere, realistically how
would the CF deal with the MOCs like this and maintain operations?   I believe a reaction to members getting
though the training system (various MOCs) would create another blackhole.

The whole CF is not like the USMC or the IDF.   However, I agree more emphasis on combat readiness
(training and practice) is needed.   Taking every CF recuit and placing them on a three year inital combat
arm engagment is a valid idea, but not sustainable or practical in the context of the present CF.   There
are alternatives discussed in other threads.

Edward Campbell
<
Going a step further, to one of my 'pets' â “ now that the Signals people no longer send/receive Morse
code why do we have so many Signals set minders?   In my day (pre-TCCCS I hasten to point out) most
of us, including some Signal officers, were of the view that Morse code, teletype systems and the
multi-channel radio-relay sets were all that set Signals operators apart from infantry signalers â “ that
and the fact that many experienced infantry signalers were markedly better at tactical VHF radio
'operation' than their Signals confreres
....
>

I have no experience with infantry signallers and their performance compared to actual SigOps and cannot
comment.   There is no reason why an operator cannot take the courses to become a technician.   The new
MOSERT/MOSAID system provides for training these streams.

The technicians as you call them have a broad trade.   They're trained on radar, vid/aud, RF comms, IT, PBXs, sats,
crypto, specific equipment in various environments and situations.   For an operator to be trained as a
tech and receive advanced courses takes alot of time.   Your comment may come from a time when there
were specific trades like Radar Tech, Radio Tech, Tel-Tech.   Now its all integrated into one trade.   Being
on taskings and deployments, the tech is asked to perform work on all of these systems.   The infantry
soldier or armoured soldier wouldn't be hauling out spectrum anayzers, testing data nets, setting
up repeater stations, maintaining a deployed radar, verifying comverage areas, structure wiring a camp,
spending time performing first to third level repairs on any type of equipment.  

The SigOps in my experience have manned airfield comms, deployed in-situ comms, command centres,
and fill a definite role in maintaining comms and the information passed.   The infanteer assigned to
radio operations would remain specifically with his unit but as you say may be a competent operator
within his sphere too.

 

[Infanteer]

Having worked around the comms systems in a static company CP, I can see the need for trained Signals guys - there is alot of equipment in there and relying on infantry types to figure it out would require too much time that is better spent on other ventures.

 

[George Wallace]

It's all great, the only thing is that OT (re-muster) clause after 3 years in Cbt arms would have to be put on paper (part of the contract). As you   know, it is hard for combat arms soldiers to get an OT. Plus it is not encouraged by your higher ops (if they're hurting for people, they might not let you go at all). I mean, if it is 100% sure that after that 3 years, you would be transfered and put on the course you picked up in the first place,   more people would go for it.

I would imagine that there would be no problem.   Why, you may ask (or already did)?   Because the Cbt Arms would be full to overfilled.   They would not be in the hurt locker they are today, with only minimum to low manning slates.  

The three years in the Cbt arms would be time for young soldiers to gain maturity and further appreciate a higher education.   As with my thoughts on officer candidates and RMC candidates being selected from our Jnr Leaders and Senior Leaders Crses, we would in fact be cutting down on costs.   How, you ask again?   Why, simply by the fact that now you have trained soldiers, who have shown that they want more, are mature enough to go for that brass ring and proven their worth already to the CF.   There would be no need to teach them Drill, Basic Section Tactics, Discipline, how to make Hospital Corners, etc.   They will already be trained in those matters.   If they wanted to become officers or LCIS Techs or whatever, they will have already have done service and know how it is in the field.  

How many Officers or Technicians do you know, who have never served in the Cbt Arms, when they get deployed with a Cbt Arms Unit in the Field, on Exercise or Deployment, know what the heck they are doing on Sentry, or security picket?   That is a problem of the existing system.   It is too easy to remedy.

Bert.....fine speech, but it really doesn't hold much water.

 

[Sig_Des]

IMOH, i do agree that all trades should be exposed to more combat training, but to have everyone off the street serve 3 years in the combat arms would be difficult, in part due to certain standards that would need to be changed.

Ex: someone doesn't meet the eyesight requirement for the cmbt arms, but does for a support trade. would that be something you look at? would that potential recruit's 3 year cmbt arms term be waived, or are they SOL?

also, the 3 year Cmbt Arms term would need to be layered with incoming recruits, otherwise you just shift the black hole from the combat arms to support trades.

just my 0.02$

 

[George Wallace]

Are you saying that V3 isn't a high enough standard for the CF?  Do we now accept many with V4?


There are plenty of Cbt Arms guys now who would love to OT, but vacancies are filled by people off the streets.  What kinds of waits do guys with an OT have?  Quite often quite long.  I doubt that CSS would suffer any form of a Black Hole.  I would say that FRP caused more damage than this ever could.

 

[FITSUMO]

All the points that have been stated have great value, let me put in another point of view, I myself am coming in off the civvie street with 11 years of tech and R&D work behind me plus a college education.  Now to get the best bang for the buck would you put me in the cbt arms instead of a techie type position, where I have a skill set that needs to be kept current that are a benifit to the CF.  I did 3 years of 031 when I was a young pup and because of that I have developed the work ethic I have today, so I agree with the concept of cbt arms time.  In my case I would serve 3 years(cbt arms) and then do 2-3 years of training, to use a skill set I already have( that is a 5-6 year time frame where I am not learning tech skills, and that is a life time in tech terms). 

"There are plenty of Cbt Arms guys now who would love to OT, but vacancies are filled by people off the streets" 
In some cases a civvie off the street would be better suited for a trade, because of time doing that trade.  I believe that a person coming in off cbt arms time should be given a "higher rating" than someone without expirence.

I think to mold techie types they should be posted to a cbt arms unit for an extended term and this term should be treated like a school, with a marking system( this might be the case but I have mates that are techie types and have not yet been tasked to a cbt arms unit, they have been in ottawa.).

"How many Officers or Technicians do you know, who have never served in the Cbt Arms, when they get deployed with a Cbt Arms Unit in the Field, on Exercise or Deployment, know what the heck they are doing on Sentry, or security picket? "  On this line of thinking how many gunners now how to build a bridge, how many sappers know how to operate a 155mm.  Use the right tool for the job, and I would like my bridges built by sappers and the 155mm operated by gunners, board level testing  done by techs.

I hope I am not coming off negative towards the cbt arms, as I have the highest level of respect for all of them.

Now if the rules changed today, before I get sworn in, and they stated I had to serve in cbt arms, I would only have one word to say.........chimo!

 

[George Wallace]

All the points that have been stated have great value, let me put in another point of view, I myself am coming in off the civvie street with 11 years of tech and R&D work behind me plus a college education.   Now to get the best bang for the buck would you put me in the cbt arms instead of a techie type position, where I have a skill set that needs to be kept current that are a benifit to the CF.

Out comes the pin.   Before I get to your next line, everyone coming in is an individual.   In the majority of cases, these guys would have no idea of what it is like in the Field nor how to stay alive in a Cbt environment should they be put there, and now a days they are likely to be put into such situations.

  I did 3 years of 031 when I was a young pup and because of that I have developed the work ethic I have today, so I agree with the concept of cbt arms time.   In my case I would serve 3 years(cbt arms) and then do 2-3 years of training, to use a skill set I already have( that is a 5-6 year time frame where I am not learning tech skills, and that is a life time in tech terms).  

This may have made you one of those exceptions, who could go directly into a trade, had you not qualified it later to make it sound like you were a Reservist, with little experience in the Cbt Arms of the Regular Force.

"How many Officers or Technicians do you know, who have never served in the Cbt Arms, when they get deployed with a Cbt Arms Unit in the Field, on Exercise or Deployment, know what the heck they are doing on Sentry, or security picket? "   On this line of thinking how many gunners now how to build a bridge, how many sappers know how to operate a 155mm.   Use the right tool for the job, and I would like my bridges built by sappers and the 155mm operated by gunners, board level testing   done by techs.

Kangaroo?

If you were truly in a Reg Force Cbt Arms Unit, you would realize that Techies have to do Sentry, Security Picket, and Close Protection of their vehicles and equipment in the Field.   Cbt Arms soldiers are not there to protect them 24 and 7.   I totally miss your logic of Gunners building bridges and Engineers manning Arty pieces.   We are Soldiers first, and then Techies.    I hope your bubble hasn't been burst too badly, but I believe that we must have the training to defend ourselfs firstourselvessaid earlier, every recruit is treated on an individual basis, and if an Infanteer has left the Regular Force to get a technical education and then return to the CF, then s/he would be an exception to the rule.