The Defence Budget [superthread]

[OldSolduer]

How about bandsman?

Yes. I have the honour of being the RSM of a Reserve Band and Pipes and Drums. They can outperform any Reg Force Band out there.

The issue is one of availability. Since they are all Reservists, they can't drop everything to play at short notice.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I suspect a large part of these were MATA/PATA backfills?

Every time I have deployed, there have been clerks that deployed with me.  I have never seen bandsmen, TDOs nor PSOs deployed anywhere.  Let's start with these if one is looking for whole occupations to cut.

I know of a PSO Maj who deployed - Official Visits O.  ^-^ 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

One of the big factors, IMO, to consider and plan for when discussing closing bases and reserve units down is politics.  No MP, provincial MLA or mayor is going to clap if they find out that a base or unit is going to go away and with it, the associated $.

 

[blacktriangle]

Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy.

But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.

 

[upandatom]

Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy.

But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.

None should have to take a hit. Reducing your forces in any way shape or form in the way this world is now is the polar opposite of what we should be doing.

Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.

 

[blacktriangle]

None should have to take a hit. Reducing your forces in any way shape or form in the way this world is now is the polar opposite of what we should be doing.

Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.

Sure, let me know how that one goes.

 

[OldSolduer]

Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.

Different department. We can't nor should we point fingers and complain. Senate and Member of Parliament reform is beyond our control.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Was that TF 2011?  I swear the officers out numbered the troops 2:1

 

[PuckChaser]

Or every roto of Op ATTENTION....

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm being literal though. It was brutal.

 

[McG]

The ATTENTION rotos were imbalanced, but our ranks were consistent with allies in the organizations that Canada had representation.  The mission was not so much a symptom of Canadian rank inflation but a symptom of NATO/US rank inflation and our desire to staff both senior allied HQs and an ANA medical school.

Our rank inflation problem is in Ottawa, Kingston, Winnipeg and an assortment of other HQ centric locations.

 

[Ostrozac]

Number one we should be doing is peeling away pensions after 8 years for MPs, look at the wages there. They already have 95% of their day to day living cost covered through the government, why are they paid so much and able to submit claims for everything.

Not much real savings to be found, there. The whole of the parliamentary budget comes to approx $600 million a year, while the defence budget clocks in at $19 billion. Even if you squeezed parliament by another 10 or 20 percent, it wouldn't free up that much money in the big picture of the government budget.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that the biggest cost of parliament isn't salary, pensions and travel, it's infrastructure. Running heritage buildings to modern standards is expensive, and I think the renovation project of the Hill runs several billions. So if you're serious about saving money through parliamentary reform, then moving them to a modern building is probably the only way to do it.

But talking about the expense of a heritage building is boring -- so instead we are employing auditors to look at receipts for bacon and eggs, and conduct a food blogger review of Air Canada inflight menus.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The ATTENTION rotos were imbalanced, but our ranks were consistent with allies in the organizations that Canada had representation.  The mission was not so much a symptom of Canadian rank inflation but a symptom of NATO/US rank inflation and our desire to staff both senior allied HQs and an ANA medical school.

Our rank inflation problem is in Ottawa, Kingston, Winnipeg and an assortment of other HQ centric locations.

I seriously doubt the close down tour had the correct balance of officers vs troops.

 

[Monsoon]

Given Canada's geography, I'd let the army take a hit to better equip the AF and Navy.

But if we truly have commissioned 25% of the Reg Force, I'd say we've lost the initiative to do just about anything useful.

According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.

 

[Remius]

According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.

I could count on two hands how many NCMs I encountered at JAG.  Most of that organisation is officers (for obvious reasons) and civilians.  Working rank was at the Major level (again for obvious reasons).

 

[dapaterson]

According to DHRIM, trained officers make up 20% of the paid strength of the Reg F. That includes large overhead organizations that are composed almost exclusively of officers, so in the operational chains of command you can bet it's significantly less.

If we look only at trained officers, that should be as a proportion of trained strength, not total strength, for an apples to apples comparison.  So, if we drop OCdts and 2Lts from the calculation, we need to drop Pte(R) and Pte(B) as well.  That gives over 23% officers; moving to total strength including untrained the number is over 24%.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I would definitely agree that we have too many officers, which is a result of the mass amount of HQs we have and the subsequent "need' for officers to man those HQs. But aside from fiscal considerations and waste in salaries (there was a captain who was paid 2 years of Capt pay to work in the arty museum) there is the secondary effect of, IMHO, limiting the effectiveness of the officer corps as a whole.

The reason is, to me, that Jr officers spend far too little time in front line units learning their craft and becoming proficient, or god forbid- good, at it and far too much time bouncing around positions to check boxes and within HQs of dubious requirement learning "lessons" about "how the real army works". Jr Officers should be spending a minimum of 5 years at the tactical level to learn their trade and leadership, than bounce to a HQ for a small amount of time. This only works, however, when you aren't recruiting 20 officers for 5 positions with the intent of casting 5 of them off to HQs.

 

[OldSolduer]

While we're at it, can we develop software that actually works? It seems to me CFTPO, Monitor Mass, RPSR, etc can't communicate well with each other.

 

[Monsoon]

If we look only at trained officers, that should be as a proportion of trained strength, not total strength, for an apples to apples comparison.  So, if we drop OCdts and 2Lts from the calculation, we need to drop Pte(R) and Pte(B) as well.  That gives over 23% officers; moving to total strength including untrained the number is over 24%.

Patently false. Including the untrained strength for both sides yields a result that is still much closer to 20%. Set down the axe you're grinding and run your numbers again.

 

[dapaterson]

Patently false. Including the untrained strength for both sides yields a result that is still much closer to 20%. Set down the axe you're grinding and run your numbers again.

You mean take the statistical report from DHRIM dated yesterday, take the total number of officers (Gen through OCdt), and divide by the total number of Reg F personnel?

That's what I did.


EDIT:  Alternatively, I could take the PSRs from DPGR and compare the TEE for officers vs NCMs.  I do not have those figures at hand; maybe that can be a tomorrow thing to do.