CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[GR66]

Theoretically you are correct but a diligent civil servant can create no end of road blocks. His boss says we need to reduce expenses so he sends out an inter-office instructing base personnel that where possible shorten short term deployments to say 28 days or maybe 7 weeks to keep it under a level where an extra benefit must be paid. His boss is satisfied, you get nothing and some poor major who has no say in the matter has to explain to his boss why people are quitting. Just one of many issues that your civil servant with sfa to say can screw up the works and it is all in the name of efficiency and hard to argue against logically.

The CAF would be determining the length of the Latvia postings and the civil servants would just be processing whatever is dictated on the posting message and implementing whatever policies/benefits are related. I seriously doubt some clerk in the Pers Admin O is going to say to Cpl Bloggins that we're going to have to decrease the length of your deployment by x weeks because my boss says we need to reduce expenses.

The actual issue is TB senior management not wanting to allow budget for long term, accompanied postings overseas and the expenses related to that. The CAF leadership has to tell the minister that if she wants the Army to both fulfill the mission they have been given by the government and at the same time avoid making the retention issue even worse than it is now, then they need to approve the required budget lines to cover the required posting costs.

 

[dapaterson]

Clearly we have spoken with different "senior public servants" on issues of military compensation and benefits. My engagements have all been remarkably productive; the problems arise when CAF leadership fail to plan properly and engage at the last (or beyond the last) minute.

Nor have I seen jealousy over benefits; most OUTCAN benefits are benchmarked against those received by DFAIT (and in fact there's an interdepartmental working group with CAF representation that works in those areas).

Decisions on whether postings are accompanied or not are 100% CAF. TBS is not involved. Budgets in those areas are managed within NDHQ, under military director generals, so yes/no decisions are made by military personnel.

 

[Kirkhill]

In my world, I’d go with option number two - fill Latvia with whoever wants to go there and can DAG green, regimental affiliation be damned, and let them stay as long as they want (up to the seven year cap).

Sam Hughes would be proud of you. CEF(Latvia).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we send units with their families overseas, you might be able to ease the demand on PMQ's back here.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That is some next level thinking.

 

[childs56]

That would be an absolute fucking shit show. But it would also probably mean no one actually gets any benefits for a deployment, and all the administrative head aches will be handled by the CAF so I’m sure the government will adopt it.


Let’s just logic this out for you. On average it’s takes about two weeks to do a RIP on deployment. It involves signing iver every piece of kit, transferring weapons, ect ect. I know it’s standard for the oil field, but the oil field and a deployment in the army are not the same.

30/30 isn't standard in the Oilfield. Use to be 21 and fu. now it is 15/6 or 14/7 that's In Canada But thanks for assuming that one.
Lots of industries run 30/30 schedules when working overseas or offshore. Oilfield, crane, mechanics, specialty aviation and the list goes on. They assume responsibility for alot of equipment and their crews lives when they take over

Everything you have stated is very easily rectified If one put the effort to sort it out and thought outside of the box.. Instead lots of reasons why not.

Personally i think the military should station a full brigade over there. Deal with the consequences of relocating families over there.

But there are options. 6 month deployments suck, year long deployments suck especially if your regularly doing the clickty bang bang readiness training the majority of the time your there.

Full benifits for time in country. Easily figured out. If they can't figure that out it's time for a new job.

Equipment sign over can be done more efficiently. Like they say theirs always a harder way especially if it's the military way.

RFID scanners with a vehicle inspection, weapons sign over and go. If the outgoing crews didn't fix or report issues deal with it at the time.
I assume there isn't a healing fence over there for broken equipment.
Another option is park your equipment on the fence go home. 30 days later. That has a bit more cost and requires double the equipment. Again workable just costs more bucks.

 

[childs56]

If we send units with their families overseas, you might be able to ease the demand on PMQ's back here.

They can live in tents over there until they find housing. Then we can cause inflation on their housing market.

 

[FJAG]

The big objections primarily focus on money. Your average civil servant in finance is extremely jealous of what they consider extra-ordinary perks that go with an off-shore extended posting. Thus you have overseas times of less than 90 days or less than 6months to prevent having to pay for spousal travel or a trip home to see the kids. The notion of having to pay some tank driver's housing, school costs, and whatever would cause them to produce all kinds of studies and surveys explaining why this is the worst concept and the short term unaccompanied is best. It is the best but only for budget. Nothing, but nothing produces better morale than a family at the door EVERY night when you get home from work. I know first hand. I have spent the better part of a decade offshore or on the road and lived it both ways

I'm too far removed from current policies to comment on them intelligently. HTLA was a concept that just boggled my mind. Giving people lengthy leaves in the middle of combat operations that dramatically increased the number of troops left out of battle on top of an already lean establishment just makes no sense to me. Sure, I know people need rest from stressful situations from time to time but we're talking a few days here and there in theatre rather than weeks away for senior leaders. Fraser and several of his key staff going away just before MEDUSA struck me as exceedingly strange.

I really do not understand many of the regulations which superficially, to me at least, look more like gaming the system then really compensating people for unique and temporary situations.

Posting someone to a unit in Latvia should be no different than anywhere in Canada. Let folks live on the economy or in some form of PMQ at realistic rental prices. Regulations and policies were fairly simple but the number of spouses or family members that I encountered that didn't like their posting to Germany were far and few between (and generally gravitated around people who refused to integrate into the local community). The vast majority loved postings to Europe and the travel opportunities open to them.

Essentially costs of European postings were slightly higher because of the extra shipment costs of FFE (and in an IKEA world, TransAtlantic shipping of furniture is stupid anyway.) Otherwise it should be generally cost-neutral to any other posting.

All that said, I've felt for some time that we need to rethink unit locations, posting cycles, career courses etc to create an environment that is less turbulent then it used to be. For example Army units located in urban communities with guaranteed tour lengths that allow people to choose to live in their home communities where their extended families are, where they can get on the property ladder and their spouses develop a full career. The typical argument is cost of urban living, but consider how many thousands of our people RegF and Class Bs that have chosen to dig themselves into Ottawa.

 

[markppcli]

30/30 isn't standard in the Oilfield. Use to be 21 and fu. now it is 15/6 or 14/7 that's In Canada But thanks for assuming that one.

I apologize, had no idea you’d be so offended

Lots of industries run 30/30 schedules when working overseas or offshore. Oilfield, crane, mechanics, specialty aviation and the list goes on. They assume responsibility for alot of equipment and their crews lives when they take over

Yup that’s kinda what I meant

Everything you have stated is very easily rectified If one put the effort to sort it out and thought outside of the box.. Instead lots of reasons why not.

It also would mean you’re limited to functionally two weeks of training time. We don’t do 100 percent change overs at once, for obvious reasons. So let’s say it’s a three day change over, then we probably have to assume 1-2 days of arrival admin sorted out. Obviously we’ll need a day to zero personal weapons, probably another day for crew and vehicle weapons. Because it’s the military and that’s just how it works. That’s in the back end again. So we’re left with maybe a two week exercise in Yemen’s of training this team to work together again before we repeat the process. Not idea for a force that’s supposed to be ready to fight.

Some times it’s not just nay saying, it’s explaining why we don’t do things this way.

Personally i think the military should station a full brigade over there. Deal with the consequences of relocating families over there.

Hey we actually agree on that. There’s a first.

But there are options. 6 month deployments suck, year long deployments suck especially if you’re regularly doing the clickty bang bang readiness training the majority of the time you’re there.

Six months isn’t that bad honestly. People are t annoyed about deployments, in the army that is, they’re annoyed about posting cycles and repetitive high readiness training.
Clicking bang bang is not a term I really understand. I’m assuming you mean training in general?

Full benifits for time in country. Easily figured out. If they can't figure that out it's time for a new job.

Well no, it requires a lot of administration to adjust our benefits that are all built on 30 or less and 30 or more. Even foreign service points work like that.

Equipment sign over can be done more efficiently. Like they say theirs always a harder way especially if it's the military way.

RFID scanners with a vehicle inspection, weapons sign over and go. If the outgoing crews didn't fix or report issues deal with it at the time.
I assume there isn't a healing fence over there for broken equipment.
Another option is park your equipment on the fence go home. 30 days later. That has a bit more cost and requires double the equipment. Again workable just costs more bucks.

I’ll touch on this now. It’s not the scanning that takes a long time, it’s pulling out the equipment. Even if you showed me a digital, rfid scanned sheet of all the EIS for the lav im signing for, I will want to physically see it. I don’t care that it’s been scanned for, show me the damned head set and I need to ensure they work. Yeah it’s inefficient but I need to make sure that machine is actually ready for war. Sometimes that’s just the way it has to be.


I’m just going out in a limb here but have you ever been part of a deployment relief in place ?

 

[FJAG]

Equipment sign over can be done more efficiently. Like they say theirs always a harder way especially if it's the military way.

In 2 RCHA we used to let the ResF units use our equipment on exercises. They would arrive on a Friday evening by bus. The whole battery would be laid out on the parade square with the EIS set in front of each truck and gun with a prefilled temporary issue card. The incoming det commander would check the equipment, sign the temporary issue card and be in the field an hour later. On Sunday evenings they would clean the gear. the RegF det would check the EIS and tear up the temporary Issue cards.

Flyover ops can work the same way. Old picture of me arriving with G Bty 3 RCHA in Germany with the 120 gunners needed to add to the 15 folks that constituted Z Bty 1 RCHA for a REFORGER exercise. That's the CO of 1 RCHA welcoming us and telling us how much he liked having a fourth M109 battery. We loaded trains later that day. Take note that we did not need six months of predeployment training. It was just another exercise in our annual training plan. No drama other than the fact that I had US$100,000 stuffed in my pockets in case I had to pay for hotel rooms and food for the battery in Iceland if the plane had gone NS during our refueling stop.



The world is often only complex if you make it so.

 

[Infanteer]

Take note that we did not need six months of predeployment training.

Take note that nobody does six months of predeployment training now, nor did we in Afghanistan when we were actually fighting (the prep exercises were roughly 2 months).

Also take note that your anecdote is for a short duration exercise. We've deployed elements on international exercises all over in much the same manner.

 

[childs56]

I apologize, had no idea you’d be so offended

Not offended just clarifying, you assume I have only oilfield experience. you also assume I refer to the oilfield all the time. It is often a reference simply put it is very closely aligns with Military way of doing things. Some of the larger companies such as Schlumberger and Haliburton base their operations off how the Military operates.

Yup that’s kinda what I meant


It also would mean you’re limited to functionally two weeks of training time. We don’t do 100 percent change overs at once, for obvious reasons. So let’s say it’s a three day change over, then we probably have to assume 1-2 days of arrival admin sorted out. Obviously we’ll need a day to zero personal weapons, probably another day for crew and vehicle weapons. Because it’s the military and that’s just how it works. That’s in the back end again. So we’re left with maybe a two week exercise in Yemen’s of training this team to work together again before we repeat the process. Not idea for a force that’s supposed to be ready to fight.

The modify your change over. How many times do you zero your rifle while in country in the six month/ year deployment?

Some times it’s not just nay saying, it’s explaining why we don’t do things this way.

I know why, It can change. Things never change unless they are questioned. The military hates being questioned especially about change.

Hey we actually agree on that. There’s a first.

Except I think it would be hard to fully do this in the long term.

Six months isn’t that bad honestly. People are t annoyed about deployments, in the army that is, they’re annoyed about posting cycles and repetitive high readiness training.

If your doing 6 month deployments your going to be busy doing repetitive high reediness training as often or more.

Clicking bang bang is not a term I really understand. I’m assuming you mean training in general?

Yup.

Well no, it requires a lot of administration to adjust our benefits that are all built on 30 or less and 30 or more. Even foreign service points work like that.

Not really, it just means people have to adjust in HQ to make it work. Now saying that, it would be working up a mud slicked hill in a HLVW overloaded with ammo and no tire chains in black out drive.

I’ll touch on this now. It’s not the scanning that takes a long time, it’s pulling out the equipment. Even if you showed me a digital, rfid scanned sheet of all the EIS for the lav im signing for, I will want to physically see it. I don’t care that it’s been scanned for, show me the damned head set and I need to ensure they work. Yeah it’s inefficient but I need to make sure that machine is actually ready for war. Sometimes that’s just the way it has to be.

Off going crew lays equipment out you check inspect and go. If equipment is broken get it fixed replaced. Hopefully off going crew is responsbile and had work order already done up and not dumping their broken junk on you.
Relief in place so to speak except your not at war.

I’m just going out in a limb here but have you ever been part of a deployment relief in place ?

Nope, one tour to Bosnia and it was a shit show how we took over our equipment. Caused more headaches then it was worth in my opinion. Shit was N/S and not reported. Vehicle were the worse a couple of th AVGPs had bad engines and they were placed on the healing fence, Fixed within a week of us getting there. Outgoing crew said Fuck it not my problem next week.

 

[Furniture]

Everything you have stated is very easily rectified If one put the effort to sort it out and thought outside of the box.. Instead lots of reasons why not.

Personally i think the military should station a full brigade over there. Deal with the consequences of relocating families over there.

But there are options. 6 month deployments suck, year long deployments suck especially if your regularly doing the clickty bang bang readiness training the majority of the time your there.

Full benifits for time in country. Easily figured out. If they can't figure that out it's time for a new job.

Equipment sign over can be done more efficiently. Like they say theirs always a harder way especially if it's the military way.

You're hand-waving away a lot of stuff that is beyond the CAF's control.

The GoC doesn't care enough to put any thought or effort into changing things, so solutions that require the GoC or Canadians as a whole to change are unrealistic. Might as well ask for pixie dust to use for flying our kit into and out of theatre.

 

[Infanteer]

You're hand-waving away a lot of stuff

You've summed up a good chunk of this thread....

 

[markppcli]

Not offended just clarifying, you assume I have only oilfield experience. you also assume I refer to the oilfield all the time. It is often a reference simply put it is very closely aligns with Military way of doing things. Some of the larger companies such as Schlumberger and Haliburton base their operations off how the Military operates.

The modify your change over. How many times do you zero your rifle while in country in the six month/ year deployment?

I know why, It can change. Things never change unless they are questioned. The military hates being questioned especially about change.

Except I think it would be hard to fully do this in the long term.

If your doing 6 month deployments your going to be busy doing repetitive high reediness training as often or more.

Yup.

Not really, it just means people have to adjust in HQ to make it work. Now saying that, it would be working up a mud slicked hill in a HLVW overloaded with ammo and no tire chains in black out drive.

Off going crew lays equipment out you check inspect and go. If equipment is broken get it fixed replaced. Hopefully off going crew is responsbile and had work order already done up and not dumping their broken junk on you.
Relief in place so to speak except your not at war.

Nope, one tour to Bosnia and it was a shit show how we took over our equipment. Caused more headaches then it was worth in my opinion. Shit was N/S and not reported. Vehicle were the worse a couple of th AVGPs had bad engines and they were placed on the healing fence, Fixed within a week of us getting there. Outgoing crew said Fuck it not my problem next week.

So fine, we can hand wave away all the challenges. What would be the actual benefit ?

 

[childs56]

You're hand-waving away a lot of stuff that is beyond the CAF's control.

The GoC doesn't care enough to put any thought or effort into changing things, so solutions that require the GoC or Canadians as a whole to change are unrealistic. Might as well ask for pixie dust to use for flying our kit into and out of theatre.

It isn't hand waving, its looking at issues and concerns and fixing them. Which the military and government always has a hard time doing. It's easier to continue the way it always has been then ot is to change for the better.
We have been flying kit for years into and out of various theaters.
Contracts, allies have been the norm.

 

[childs56]

So fine, we can hand wave away all the challenges. What would be the actual benefit ?

No hand waving, but things can be done within reach to solve the concerns. The end goal is staff the commitment with a sustainable solution for the short term (or long term) until a long term can be solved. (If it can be in our current state).
After the intial adjustment the 30/30 would be decent for home life balance unless we are going to a permanent posting to the area.
Far as I can tell the forward enhanced groups in Europe are one big continuous exercise. People get burnt out being in a high state of readiness all the time.
The plus side is troops are doing stuff they are not doing here.
The military appears to be moving their major exercises overseas and away from local training areas. How is that being done?

Question to you why wouldn't it be a benifit. How can we make the situation work?

 

[markppcli]

No hand waving, but things can be done within reach to solve the concerns. The end goal is staff the commitment with a sustainable solution for the short term (or long term) until a long term can be solved. (If it can be in our current state).
After the intial adjustment the 30/30 would be decent for home life balance unless we are going to a permanent posting to the area.
Far as I can tell the forward enhanced groups in Europe are one big continuous exercise. People get burnt out being in a high state of readiness all the time.
The plus side is troops are doing stuff they are not doing here.
The military appears to be moving their major exercises overseas and away from local training areas. How is that being done?

Question to you why wouldn't it be a benifit. How can we make the situation work?

Well for one what we’re doing for our existing commitment is at present working and working well. It’s been working since the initial deployments to Poland in 2014, and has managed the increases since 2016 fairly well.

I would say the idea that they’re on one continuous exercise isn’t accurate. If I was going to average out my time there it was probably 2:1 for time in garrison to time “on ex” (ie sleeping in the field for a few weeks). Every exercise I did there was, minus the international cooperation, something I’d done in Canada at some point. Just with more swamps.

The only major exercises being moved will be the validation for the eFP contributions. That’s simply because we used to do Maple Resolve, then a TMST ex d-30, to show in Latvia and do the NATO certification Ex. So we’re dropping that to doing less here and still doing the very ex.

The other changed, i wouldn’t call it a move myself, is that the light Bns are being validated in the states with US IBCTs vs being shoe horned into an exercise designed for mechanized units. Overall well received.


As to why 30 on 30 off wouldn’t be a benefit. The major challenge in the eFP construct is getting the HQ all on the same page. All those diverse elements from different nations all have to get to know how we work nationally and individually. If we’re rotating every 30 days that means we’re redoing that at least twice. It also means that no only do we have to coordinate our readiness with other national rotations ( for example we went on high readiness status when the Italians were being changed out, the Spanish covered our relief), but we’d have to do that six times as often which will each into training time and create more scheduling difficulties. For what it’s worth a six month deployment split by a 3 week HLTA is fairly easy to manage.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Take note that nobody does six months of predeployment training now, nor did we in Afghanistan when we were actually fighting (the prep exercises were roughly 2 months).

That's not true.

I was an augmentee twice. My WUP training both times was 8 or 9 months.

Most of it wasn't valuable, and it could have been condensed; but Armies are gonna Army.

 

[markppcli]

Take note that nobody does six months of predeployment training now, nor did we in Afghanistan when we were actually fighting (the prep exercises were roughly 2 months).

2007 I arrived at 1 VP in April, to deploy in February 2008.