Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades

[George Wallace]

This is a really poorly worded and/or thoughtout statement from the Minister.  We do not now, nor in the near future, have the manpower to implement such a plan.  There are several problems other than that which should also be considered.

Some of the smaller Units and Trades that are necessary for Force Protection are stressed to the limits now.  They are also being told that they will double, triple or even quadruple their tasking requirements in Theatre.  They are finding problems manning the next three ROTO's as is, this just makes their capabilities impossible.  

To re-role Armour and other Trades as Infantry, compounds the problems of those Trades to fill their requirements in Theatre.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or 'Plug 'n Play', is not the solution.

Next question on the wisdom of these statements is what kind of experience must the Junior Leaders and Senior Leaders have on Tour?  Do we want our Section/Platoon/Coy Commanders to have as little experience as the Privates they are leading?  That is a ridiculous theory.  We need that operational experience in our leadership at all levels.

Another related problem being faced with the manpower shortages, is also the equipment shortages.  Some of the equipment we currently have in Theatre have stripped Units in Canada of nearly all of their resources.  With more requirements in Theatre for that equipment, they are being left with nothing to continue training on.  As equipment is destroyed in Theatre, there will soon be nothing left to replace it with.  This just aspirates the problems faced by the CF due to the neglect over the last two or three decades.  With no equipment left to train on back in Canada, the Troops will be ill-equipped to operate equipment in Theatre.

All the flesh and blood and steelwool in the world will not be enough to knit the Troops and equipment to fulfill the Ministers ill-thoughtout statements.

 

[warrickdll]

On the other side of this is that there will be those who have not been to Afghanistan because of the courses or taskings they were assigned. Wouldn't sending these people over on the next available tour be a priority?

Sending the same people over again and again in order to have experienced leaders would deny the CF the ability to gain depth in its experience pool (no pun) - there would be a few very experienced leaders and a bunch of leaders completely lacking in experience.

I am not agreeing with a hard cap on tours, but priority should be given to gaining overall experience. Rerolling trades to fill Infantry tasks is not required (perhaps a limited use as individual augmentees to spread some skills - but not from recruit schools).

In general, there is not a shortage of Infantry (...in general).

 

[McG]

On the other side of this is that there will be those who have not been to Afghanistan because of the courses or tasking they were assigned. Wouldn't sending these people over on the next available tour be a priority?

Announcements from the top typically don’t get down into the weeds.  However, in order to make a best effort at achieving the MND’s intent, then the military will have to do more to rotate newly returned soldiers into schools (and to get soldiers that have spent time in schools back to units).  This same dynamic will have to apply to all EREs.  I think it this is a good thing.  It will ensure the soldiers making decisions with operational & strategic implications have fresh operational experience.  It will ensure fresh operational experience in the soldiers training our new soldiers & leaders. 

Things like managed readiness (in its ever changing form) must drive individual training cycles on national courses and it must drive when pers will be posted into & out of units.  The CANFORGEN is out.  Missing a career course because you were on Ops will not delay a promotion any more (however, you’d better expect to be doing that course some time shortly after the requirements for any pers tempo waivers expire).

Despite the potential to improve the efficiency, WRT personnel stagnating in ERE positions while other pers in units are doing 18 month operational cycles, I am doubtful that we will come close to meeting the MND’s goal. 

 

[acheo]

Has anyone heard that untrained personnel could be re-directed infanteer should the army needs it? I heard this from 2 different guys this week. Seems like this was mentionned on national TV.

Could anyone confirm or unconfirm these news?

Thanks

 

[McG]

Read here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-464346.html#msg464346

 

[acheo]

In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling.

When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry.

then my next questions would be:

For a DEO officer:
1. Is this applicable for someone who has been in the service for sometime and is in the process to be qualified in his own trade or only for new applicants?
2. Is this applicable for someone who has been removed from training because of accademic/training failure even if this one is considering other technical trades ?

 

[armyvern]

In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling. When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry.

then my next questions would be:

For a DEO officer:
1. Is this applicable for someone who has been in the service for sometime and is in the process to be qualified in his own trade or only for new applicants?
2. Is this applicable for someone who has been removed from training because of accademic/training failure even if this one is considering other technical trades ?

I'd wager that no-one will be able to answer your questions until the defense planners are done their planning and the actual options are indeed laid out on the table. All that we know for now is that they are exploring some options, including re-rolling, the actual specifics of which remain to be seen. I'm betting that you're also not the only anixiously awaiting the word on what exactly any of these options will encompass.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

You're in the army now
Military could start using sailors to replenish troops in Afghanistan
Chris Lambie, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 21 Oct 06
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/535722.html

Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan.

Military planners are looking at several possibilities to avoid sending soldiers to the devastated country more than once. Those include "re-rolling," which means taking members from a branch of the Canadian Forces and putting them in the infantry.

"We’re all part of the same family. It doesn’t matter if we’re in the navy or the air force or the army — we all signed on the dotted line," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a navy cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan.

"We’re all here to defend our country, and that’s what we’re paid to do."

Canada has promised to keep a force in Afghanistan until 2009. Forty-two Canadian soldiers have been killed there since 2002.

"The military is looking at a number of ways to generate the required troops to meet the commitments in Afghanistan, with the goal of minimizing the number of personnel that must re-deploy," National Defence spokeswoman Karen Johnstone said.

"So they’re looking at a whole bunch of options to meet that goal, and one of them is this temporary use of people outside of their primary role."

Afghanistan is "not just an army deployment," said Kenneth Summers, a retired rear admiral.

"There are lots of navy people over in Afghanistan right now," he said, pointing out that clearance divers are being used to defuse bombs and naval logisticians are filling support roles at Kandahar airfield.

It’s "entirely possible" to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier, Mr. Summers said.

"The only danger that you run into is some of the ships are short-staffed right now," he said. "So I think you have to look at the old robbing Peter to pay Paul approach."

Sailors who serve on naval boarding parties could become excellent infantry soldiers, Mr. Summers said.

"Those guys going on the small boats boarding rogue ships — that can be pretty dangerous, too. You don’t know what’s around the corner," he said. "In many ways, what they’re doing in Afghanistan is not too dissimilar. They’re going down alleys with big walls, and they don’t know what’s on the other side of the wall or what’s just around the corner. They’re trained in the same type of weapons and they’re trained in the same type of discipline."

One aspect of the transformation "that’s supposedly going on" within the military is "that everybody’s supposed to be a soldier," said Dan Middlemiss, a defence analyst at Dalhousie University.

"This is back to basic principles that we’re not supposed to have cooks in the army that can only cook," he said. "They’re supposed to know what the business end of a rifle’s like and what to do with it."

As time goes on, it will be increasingly difficult for the military to keep a force of about 2,200 in Afghanistan, he said. "They’re just desperately trying to find stop-gap measures to get by."

( clambie@herald.ca)

 

[Cloud Cover]

It’s "entirely possible" to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier, Mr. Summers said.

Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free. We all just have to stick together until this war craze blows over.


w601

 

[GAP]

Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free. w601

Uhh....you've got that confused with taking showers...  ;D

 

[armyvern]

Uhh....you've got that confused with taking showers...  ;D

I'm not so sure there GAP, ever seen a bunch of soldier's let out of the asylum on a 60?  

 

[284_226]

We had a briefing yesterday by the Air Force CWO, and he assured all those in attendance that the media is reading far more into this than what the CDS stated.  He stated that the "re-roling" (which is a term I hate already) will be done on artillery and armoured personnel, and not to any other trades.  He went on to say that command is quite aware that diverting personnel from AF or Navy production streams would cause significant hardship on organizations that are already having manning problems.  From the AF point of view, "re-roling" personnel in the AF production stream couldn't be done because of the requirement to maintain the existing aircraft fleet, as well as train personnel on the C-17, MHP, the new tactical transport (probably the C-130J), and Chinooks.

 

[GAP]

I'm not so sure there GAP, ever seen a bunch of soldier's let out of the asylum on a 60?  

The only "deep down sailor" in soldiers is the time they spend playing with the little yellow duckies and going "vroooom" as they push their plastic tub boats around.  ;D

 

[Petard]

I had hoped this idea of re-rolling Artillery soldiers, or whatever term you want to use, was losing steam. Unfortunately it seems to have momentum. Maybe it's because some are thinking along the same lines as what Infidel 6 is:

"Oh I forgot the Arty went to a 4 gun Bty    (there used to be 4 gun troops )  from the 6 Gun batteries.  An Arty Reg't is hardly raped to provide the tool they are being asked too.

I have not paid attention to the Arty since E Bty became track toads -- but they used to have 3 gun Bty's (at 6 tubes /bty) and a AD Bty (this is 93-94 timeframe went I left for the Pat's) plus a HQ Bty.
I think the AD guys died or all retired.

Not surprised with the FOO/FAC when you get that gig and a NCO you tend to hang on and beat others off with a stick and just rotate officers thru."

Normally I would say I-6's MPI is on the mark, but not in this case, and worse it appears he's not alone. I suspect they are making an assumption based on what used to be, but in reality never was, and in any case has changed quite a bit.

I left E Bty (Para) in the summer of 91, and the manning situation wasn't that good then. I had to leave my gun (or mortars) in the gun park and become the Recce Sgt (good for me) simply because there weren't enough soldiers to man the 6th and sometimes 5th gun (bad for the Regt). F Bty could barely put a troop of 3 guns out, and in most cases it was only 2. D Bty fared a bit better because of their AMFL role, but not by much. The numbers improved a little with the close of Germany, but this was quickly eliminated with the force reduction of the 90's. Pre-2005 add on a growing question of the relevance of Artillery, and even contempt, and the Artillery never quite recovered.

Things have changed quite a bit. The role of the guns in theatre has proven that it is very relevant. But manning those guns has made the Artillery look towards the Reserves in order to sustain just that capability. Now add on the re-roling of gun dets into FOO's, FACs and UAV operators (and no the Air Force has not taken over the Spewer TUAV completely, but I wish they would, as well Gunners are operating the min-UAV until the Armoured and Infantry Recce can take them over), plus sound ranging, all with 0 PY growth, and a very different picture emerges of whether or not the Artillery can sustain losing even 1's and 2's to the infantry. We need those ones about to be trained, every damned one of 'em.

What needs to be looked at, IMO, is a more deliberate plan to employ reservists and deal with the retention problems we're having. Maybe we should take another look at 10/90 units? I served with 30Fd in Ottawa for 2 years doing this, and although there were some teething problems at 1st, eventually it produced what I would say is at least a gun Tp that could be relied on to deploy, with the work up training, as a whole. Maybe posting more Reg Force Artillery NCO's and some Officers to reserve units may also help with QOL and retention problems. Don't know for sure, It would take some researching which locations would support this idea, but I think its worth looking at. Could this work for the infantry too?

 

[boondocksaint]

Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free.

I just threw up a little bit, in my mouth  ( humour- not an indication of my opinion of sailors )

Someone mentioned more of an attempt at retention, I agree. We just spent $XXXX on an Infantry Pte to train him up, offer him a cookie, keep him.

The potential for a radically new army 10 years down the road is being wasted by losing these guys. When I was a new guy ( 91), the only experience the bulk of my leadership had to dazzle us with was Cyprus or RV XX. Both of which contained more drinking antidotes then anything to do with soldiering. There were of course some outstanding leaders and mentors, but none with combat experience.

Now we have some young guys, with new ideas and the experience to back them up. Lets keep those guys before expending effort in forcing someone to 're-role'

Once we lost the CBT support companies, we lost a spot where someone could go for a break from the 'colony', now these young guys can look forward to being shuffled between sections, or platoons as a break. Seniority gains them little, where before it meant going to mortars or pioneers to be treated like a mature soldier. Noone enjoys being 3i/c of a section as a senior Cpl. He'd be a #1 on a gun tube, or given lead roles in pioneers.

Dont get me started on Tow.

Signing-resigning bonus maybe

Hopefully not too 'Hijacked'

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I am more than just a little offended at the notion that "anyone can be re-roled infantry".  The modern infantry is not a dumping ground, and requires specific skills and attributes.  Moreover, it will take just as long to train a re-roled sailor as it will a newbie - and the sailor will come with all kinds of preconcevied notions and bad habits.  Just keep sending BIQ platoons to the Battalions - 1 PPCLI will be getting one in Jun 07, and nothing else is on the horizon.

As to BDS' comments on retention - he is bang on.  We need to fight to retain every single experienced soldier out there - particularily if they are combat hardened.  The CLS intends to bring back Pioneers, which is good.  Now we have to start cycling people through Recce and E Coy to give them a new challenge - and be willing to get way outside the box in terms of other retention initiatives.

The next two years should be interesting...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I couldn't agree more and have posted this before.  What does the CF do to keep people in?  Unless they're a doctor or a dentist, the answer's nothing - zero.  Where are the financial bonuses for signing after a BE? Where are (aside from the miniscule increase in FSP) the bonuses for multiple tours?  Where is the bonus for signing on past 20 years? 

All of our structural decisions over the past 10 years have been aimed at doing one thing:  saving the almighty dollar.  Enough is enough.  Our structures were originally built for very valid reasons - as BDS points out - and we're only now seeing the effect of trashing them.

Instead of trying to retain trained people, we're looking at re-rolling untrained people  : .  We have aircraft that cannot fly because of a lack of support, ships that are laid up for want of crews, CSS units that are severely undermanned and shortages in just about every trade.  We cannot afford to force some wannabe shipdriver into the infantry just for short term gain.  Keep the people we've got, and work on filling the holes.

Until they those holes are filled, and structrual issues are coherently addressed, perhaps it's time to examine exactly what we're committing to deployments and rationalizing those commitments to meet reality, rather than vice versa.

 

[Booked_Spice]

Bare with my response.

My husband is one of the new soldiers with combat experience who right now is considering his release. He loves his job and the infantry. However during the last week things have happend since coming back to work that have frustrated him and as he said It is not worth the BS. He also said that he went through his tour and would do it again in a heartbeat but if he has to sit back here and deal with what has been happening this last week then it is not worth it. He has been saying he wants to release for a little while but he always changes his mind because deep down he loves his job and the guys he works with. Something changed this week and I never seen him want to release so bad as he has now. From what I gather through the conversations with him ,he has indicated to me from his company alone there have been several of releases already going in. Retention is  an issue. If we are loosing our guys/gals with experience then who is there to lead the new guys coming in?

From conversations I don't think it is a money issue such as a signing bonus. I think it is more of they get respect overseas and then they come home and they are treated him like crap again. Then to come home and find that guys that get kicked off tour for a variety or reasons are getting promoted over the guys on tour because they just happened to be at home. I think we need to realize that there are more issues that guys are releasing then money. I do believe that a lot of the reasons are quick fixes, we just need to try and fix these reasons and take the time to do so.

Just my 2 cents and hubby would throat punch me for writting this but I do know a couple of guys from his section would agree with this post.


Edit cause I can't spell today or even have nice grammar

 

[Infanteer]

This goes back to the "manning priorities thread" that was going on a week or so ago.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51429.0.html

I still don't understand the rationale behind re-rolling other trades (in any forum); as PPCLI Guy says, Infantry is a highly skilled trade (like any other in today's force) and other trades are all equally depressed in their manning.  How are we supposed to maintain batteries of M777 to support our infantry if we've taken all their future gunners and turned them into grunts?

As I said earlier and Teddy and PPCLI Guy pointed out above, the key is retention.  1 battle-tested Private 3 who just got back from Afghanistan is worth 5 to 10 Privates that we put through the meat-grinder at CFLRS.  Just recently, the CF was offering $40,000 for certain trades with certain backgrounds.  They were giving much of this money to guys before they were even qualified in their trades (which can be quite extensive and demanding for those like Combat Engineer Officer).  If so, why would it be so hard to justify giving a signing bonus to key guys finishing their first BE?  Stick 20,000 - 40,000 bucks on a 5-year extention (everybody wants to pay a huge chunk of their house or car down) and you get a two-fold advantage:

1.  You got a young Private or Corporal who will be ready to become a JNCO and provide a steady and experienced hand to those 5-10 Privates who are coming through the CFLRS pipeline.

2.  After serving an additional 5-years, you're probably more likely to keep the guy for a career, gaining a SNCO out of the deal.  I have nothing to prove this guess, but I figure it's easier to walk away from 3-years of Service than 8 (when a pension and all that seems much more palatable).

Of course, money isn't going to solve alot of the key problems that drive guys away - you can't buy guys off if the job sucks.  I just see it as an added incentive to get guys thinking about more longer term commitments.  Other structural things like specialists units (Pioneer, etc), specialist courses (that "Command Course" idea or jump courses) that keep young Type-A folks interested.  As well, for our CS/CSS pers, we have to look at what - tradewise - keeps them interested (I was talking with MedCorps about this last night WRT to the Medical side; things like more chances for clinical work in cities or something?).

Anyways, I'm nursing a hangover and felt the need to ramble.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[McG]

I think the key thing that we lose in re-rolling for a mission is much of what the Sr NCO provides: experience.  Sure, it is possible to teach a whole group of people, that happen to have the right ranks, how to be infantry.  However, they will not have the corporate knowledge of real infantry.  They likely become those individuals we refer to as knowing just enough to be dangerous to themselves.

As is noted above, money is not the retention panacea; job satisfaction is the answer.  The promotion problem should be solved through a recent CANFORGEN, but this is not likely to resolve dissatisfaction resulting from missed promotions during the last many years (including the first half of this year).