LGEN Leslie: Troops, helicopters, tanks needed

[MarkOttawa]

General insomnia: army boss says military woes keep him awake at night (reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
CP, Feb. 27
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=29bebd39-8040-4caf-bc20-c3cebb180cbc&k=71056

The commander of the army says Canada's military problems are serious enough that they keep him awake at night, including recruiting troubles and the need for new equipment.

The comment by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie to the Senate defence committee on Monday prompted one senator to wonder if the general is getting any sleep at all. Leslie said the need to recruit thousands of new soldiers to expand the army is a problem because many of the people needed to train the recruits are in Afghanistan or training to go to there.

The army is already troubled by attrition which can run as high as 12 per cent a year in the infantry, meaning that to increase the force by 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers requires an annual intake of 5,000 to 6,000.

"We need more regular and reserve soldiers to do all that we've been asked to do," he said...

Leslie also said he frets at night about helicopters.

"I really, really, really would like to see medium-and heavy-lift helicopters in theatre as soon as possible."

Canadian troops in Afghanistan have had to hitch rides with allies to move around by air. The military sold its medium-lift Chinook helicopters to the Dutch in the early 1990s and now is looking for replacements [CH-47 looks a done deal, with a sweetener for Quebec].
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070227.AIRCRAFT27/TPStory/National

Transport helicopters, however, would also require helicopter gunships - either Canadian of allied - to escort them in some dangerous areas.

Finally, Leslie said his sleep is also troubled by tanks - or the lack of them.

"I want more mass, more Kevlar, more steel around our young men and women when they're travelling on those dangerous roads."

The army's aging Leopard tanks - basically a 1960s design - have saved "innumerable" lives in Afghanistan, Leslie said, but they are getting hard to maintain.

They are also designed to fight in European conditions, not the hot dust of an Afghan summer...

Leslie said he hopes the government will decide within two or three months about a Leopard replacement. He said he has no particular tank in mind, but says the troops need something with solid protection and the ability to shepherd the infantry over the kind of mud-walled ramparts that can shelter Taliban forces...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jarnhamar]

The army is already troubled by attrition which can run as high as 12 per cent a year in the infantry, meaning that to increase the force by 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers requires an annual intake of 5,000 to 6,000.

Try fixing CF recruiting.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Try fixing CF recruiting.

Before they turn their hands to recruiting, Generals Hillier and Leslie better fix the bigger problem: retention - see Ruxted on the 3Rs.

 

[tomahawk6]

Had LTGeneral Leslie been a member here he would be sleeping much better at night. For example I will resurrect one of my proposals for making up for lack of trainers. The US Army has used reservists to train recruits. Canada could do the same. Use qualified reservists to replace trainers needed to fill out a rotation or to fill shortages.

I see some advantages one instead of training a reservist NCO to go to Afghanistan use him as a trainer freeing up a regular force soldier that has volunteered to deploy. Reservists are a resource and should be utilized as such. In my own experience I went through AIT at Ft Polk during the summer. A Reserve Training Division took over our training company for a few weeks so our DI's could take vacation. The quality of our training didnt suffer in fact it was seamless.

 

[dapaterson]

Tomahawk: Already using many reservists to augment the training system.  And to augment operations.  There are a finite number of personnel, Regular and Reserve (or, in US parlance, Active Duty and Reserve).

 

[Flesh.Injected]

Canada's lack of air craft and heavy machinery has been a problem for years. I am in the middle of my enrollment process so I'm doing my part to help fix the recruiting problem. But in my opinion these problems all leads to a lack of military funding.

 

[KevinB]

Retention is a given issue that needs to be addressed.  I know MANY members of the CF who are leaving - they just dont see it is a life for them anymore for several reasons (most of which where hit by the Ruxted article) - EPS has recruited a number of Patricias...

Recruiting.
  When I went to get back into the CF -- I had my interview on 12 Sept 2001 -- my TOS date was 2March 2002.  This was from a 4b (end of contract) release in 1997 - WTF over?  Nothing had changed (with the exception of me going to UofC for 4 years) - and it took nearly 5 months AFTER my interview to get me back in...

I know several people (Cdn citizens) trying to join the CF who gave up (inc several multilingual inc Arabic ) after it took 11months of waiting.  The fact is good people will get other jobs and wont sit still for an incompetant - or inefficient system.


 

 

[Flesh.Injected]

what did you apply to do in the CF?

 

[geo]

missionstatement
Kevin served in the PPCLI and is a standup guy.
You could do worse than to listen to him.

 

[KevinB]

GEO - thx
  MissionStatement -- my point was the CF recruiting system has a lot of problems.

- same trade CT's from res to reg need to be fixed into a less than 30 day issue (in my humble opinion.)

 

[Kiwi99]

There are a lot of issues that a commander of the level deals with that many of us could never fathom, but we all have ideas how to make his sleep easier. Here is mine.  He knows what needs to be accomplished, but is running into  problems.

1.  Dinosoars at all levels of the chain that should have retired that are afraid of new equipment that they feel would finally force them into retirement.  I know the DS are going to be all over this statement, but we all know that these people exist, so why deny it.  These people, normally in postions of seniority, deny the fact that we need new kit, and believe that the training scenarios that they encountered in the 70s and 80s are still relevant today.  The old tune sings loudly in the CF;
            " I managed to get by without it, so why do they need it now".

2.  Politics.  Every politician believes that they know more than the soldier, based on their education level and position of authority.  They do not understand what soldiers need and they never will, as they have never put on the uniform. Its an age old problem that will never go away.

3.  Retention and recruiting.  Be honest, do the current CF recruiting ads make you want to run out and sign up?  Admittedly, they are better than 5 years ago, but not by much.  We need boots on the ground wanting to fight the enemy.    Why do people join the military? Excitement, danger and the overwhelming urge to blow xxxx up!  We are at war with soldiers fighting the enemy every day.  You want  a bunch of keen young men and women to go and fight, then attract them with relevant advertising that shows the army for what it is... fighters. And the recruiting process is far to long as well, but someone will disagree with me on that.  Think of a soldier in battleschool that want s out, but only till he is ready and then he will rejoin.  But after 8 months of the release process, he has become disheartened and the CF has lost what may have been a crack troop. With ref to retention, yes, it is a problem.  Why?  Because we do not offer anything in return for our soldiers service.  And don't start going on about pride and honour and all that stuff.  Armies around the world offer retention bonuses for the services of their soldiers.  It works.  Sure it costs money, but why spend thousands of dollars on an investment if you are going to just let it walk away three years later?  Soldiers are just that.  Make the initial investment, and keep feeding into it as it develops.  It sounds a lot like a business, but we have to do what we can to keep these investments.

4.  Buying new kit and weapons.  We cripple ourselves with a process that will take a piece of combat proven equip, spend years doing trials and tests, and then more time ensuring that it gets a contract to be built in Quebec.  Take the clothe the soldier rucksack programme.  7 years to develop a rucksack...maybe people need to be switched up in that dept.

At the end of the day we deal with our own little areas of the CF, and try to make them better.  We all run into problems and deal with them.  Now take those problems you deal with and multiply it by 100.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves for these issues.  See how many people admit to that.

 

[tomahawk6]

If retention is a problem then that can be turned around with bonus money, better pay raises and improving the quality of life.

 

[a_majoor]

With all due respect to tthe General, having an infinite number of tanks, helicopters and troops won't make any difference at all unless and until the bloated overhead in the CF is sorted out. My day to day example is 31 CBG. If the wind, stars and planetts are all in line we could theoretically muster @ 1800 troops. There are 15 "Regimental" headquarters and a further half dozen or so LCol "ACOS" positions at the HQ itself, for a very small and totally unequipped equivalent of a battlegroup.

The problem is replicated at every level above us as well (LFCA, JTFC, CANCOM, EXCOM, NDHQ.......). If we need to get things done, then a pretty drastic shakeout of this level would free up PY's, funds and streamline decision making, all "win win" scenarios for the CF I should think.

My 2 Afghani's

 

[MarkOttawa]

a_majoor: Glad to see you know the difference between the people and the currency .

Now if only our media would stop repeating the nonsense about an "invasion" of Afstan in 2001.  My form letter:

'There was no invasion of Afghanistan.  Before the fall of Kabul to the insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001, and the consequent collapse of the Taliban regime, there were no foreign regular
combat formations in Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance did receive air support and assistance from special forces (both U.S. and British); that however is not an invasion.  Substantial foreign ground combat
forces--including Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces.  Those foreign troops entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance.

Speaking of invading Afghanistan tends to equate actions there with Iraq where there really was an invasion--and implicitly to call into question the legitimacy of actions in Afghanistan.'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dapaterson]

a_majoor:

But that's heresy!  Every Reserve unit needs a LCol to command their 75 soldiers because, well, because, well, you know!

That's about the level of discourse when such topics are broached.  I have no real issue with Reserve CBGs of 2000 or so soldiers commanded by a Colonel; those Colonels in turn should command 4 or 5 Lieutenant Colonels (and maybe a COS in their HQ as well).

But there is still a strong "mobilization" culture in parts of the Army Reserve; that is, the main role of of the Army Reserve is to wait for 1939, have the young men flock to the colours, then go give Jerry a right swift kick in the ass... 4 1/2 years later, or so.  And while that is an element of the role of the Reserve Force it is hardly the be-all and end-all.

However, the old guard are canny, starting letter writing campaigns at the drop of a hat, engaging their MP to prevent any moves that would be "damaging to the community's ability to defend itself" or other such crock.

Sigh... I was getting rady to head off to bed, but now you've got me worked up 

 

[Northern Ranger]

I just find it comforting to know that someone other than I (and all those that have the same problem)  while lying in bed start thinking of all the things that are wrong or need to be improved and then get worked up about those that stop those things from happening.  I ask for no pitty as I get paid for the problems I have and so does the General (and I know he wasn't asking for pity).

3 or 4 glasses of port and some country tunes help me get to sleep, but can only do that 5 nights a week. ;D

Misery loves company 

 

[hank011]

Before they turn their hands to recruiting, Generals Hillier and Leslie better fix the bigger problem: retention - see Ruxted on the 3Rs.

I'm not sure they are getting that message through to career managers. There is a concerted effort to force people out by deliberately posting people where they dont want to go. Our career manager admits it freely and proudly.
Is retention really a priority after all?

 

[c4th]

Problem Retention.  Solution: Money to the soldiers wanted to be retained
Problem Equipment. Solution: More money and a procurement program that takes less than a generation
Problem Recruiting.  Solution: In addition to some of the changes already implemented in 2006 getting recruiters who are both qualified in the trade that are recruiting for and want to actually do the job might be a good place to start. For good measure, throw some money at it.

Not rocket science unless we are taking about replacing the ERYX.

As for the customary digression to the PRes argument of being HQ heavy, I don’t think the General loses any sleep over 15 class A LCols in 31 CBG or anywhere else for that matter.  Could their jobs be done by Majors?  Probably, but the savings would be negligible as they are paid far less then the work they do or would do anyway.  Would having 15 less LCol’s in 31 CBG increase the number of soldiers, particularly deployable soldiers in 31 CBG.  I doubt it, so at the end of the day the General is not getting anymore sleep.  However, reducing staff overhead in order to throw more money at deployable soldiers sounds like a great idea, particularly since I am one. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good point E.R.Campbell.
Retuxed group gives me the willies a little bit but your right about their points on 3Rs

Retention is a huge problem.  Lots of the re guys sounded disgrunteled and said they were done.
I remember back in 2001 a general speaking to us telling us how great recruiting was and how great retention is. The sgt's mcpls and WOs were telling him he was wrong and that the battalion had SO many people quitting after tour and warned him that there was going to be a problem. General looked at the NCOs like they were drunk and stupid and continuted to assure us retention wasnt a problem.

I'd say retention and recruiting go hand in hand.  Keeping older experienced soldiers doesn't mean much if there isn't new soldiers to drive the lavs take the trench or change the oil.

Kev I agree with ya. I firmly believe the CF wouldnt have any recruiting problems if our recruiting wasn't s screwed up. If our recruiters wouldnt make people wait a year to join and if they didn't ty and talk people out of combat arms trades.  I've tried to bring a lot of people into the CF. I've gotten a lot to join but I've also had near a dozen people loose interest because of the hassels and problems with getting in.

 

[jimmy742]

And yet, when I was in the service, the numbers entering basic were higher and the time lag between signing on the dotted line and you getting that first haircut was measured in weeks. I signed my papers in September and was in St- Jean three weeks later ( that dates me...) What happened?

It's an interesting comment you make about Generals living in their own reality. We had a general tell us with a straight face that we couldn't get new equipment because we were doing too great a job maintaining the old. We laughed....in private of course.

As they say, the quality and efficiency of an organization is a reflection of its leadership.