Naval Reserve Issues

[Stoker]

Is these things ever get built, the Naval Reserve will prominently play a role in the manning. These ships will have a core crew of about 45 pers with more added as the mission required IE air det etc. Reserve officers are going to need up grading for example ice navigation, we already have a number of officers with ice experience and taken ice coursing. What I have heard from some reliable sources is that the regular force is not interested in manning the AOPS because of the shortage in the Navy now. Its looks like maintenance will be carried out much like the current MCDV's with outside contractors, the ship will have a "return home" capability in case of mechanical failure. Crews will be responsible for preventive maintenance. Most trades are being revamped to provide more technical training to bring them in line with their regular force counterparts. The AOPS will also have the addition of a hull tech dayworker which will bring to the table experience we currently do not possess in the naval reserve.
The only problem I can see is numbers which right now we have plenty of Class C billets, but not enough personnel to fill them. Hopefully over the next 5 years we can address that concern.

 

[Sailorwest]

The only problem I can see is numbers which right now we have plenty of Class C billets, but not enough personnel to fill them. Hopefully over the next 5 years we can address that concern.

That is the crux of the matter isn't it? Navres recruiting has not been able to keep up with attrition over the past few years. To date, I don't think that we are starting a recruiting process to take people directly into Cl C or B billets either. A great deal of effort has gone into making life better for perma-shads (pensions, PLD, Cl C pay, etc.) yet transfers to the Reg force or release's, are getting more and more common.  The two very different worlds of reservists (full time vs. part time) are at a certain level mutually dependant but us part-timers are finding it more and more difficult to be interested. When the NRD's start to shut down due to a lack of core manning, so will the intake into the full time world. Once that happens, manning of AOPS, and for that matter KIN class will become a non-issue as the only ones capable will be in the Reg force.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is slightly off topic, and I may be restating the obvious, but, I think it is vital for the Navy, the whole 'system', indeed, to understand that those part-timers, the Saturday sailors, provide the foundation upon which the successes the Navy has had with reservists manning operational war ships was built. The needs - recruiting, training, periodic employment and retention - of the Class A people are important if that success is to continue.

 

[Sailorwest]

I apologize for the divergence of topic from the AOPS. It is important to recognize that manning the MCDV's came at a cost and that is the viability of the NRD. The reason that the KIN class are suffering from manning issues is directly related to that. As the AOPS come on stream, that problem will be exacerbated unless, and this is a big if, the navy stands down more destroyers or frigates. I really don't think people who are planning around manning for the AOPS should be looking at NAVRES as the solution.

 

[Stoker]

I apologize for the divergence of topic from the AOPS. It is important to recognize that manning the MCDV's came at a cost and that is the viability of the NRD. The reason that the KIN class are suffering from manning issues is directly related to that. As the AOPS come on stream, that problem will be exacerbated unless, and this is a big if, the navy stands down more destroyers or frigates. I really don't think people who are planning around manning for the AOPS should be looking at NAVRES as the solution.

I do agree that manning the MCDV's have decimated the NRD's and took away a much of the corporate knowledge that the NRD's possessed. We all know recruitment and retention is a problem, however it seems that NAVRES hasn't a clue that we have a problem and what to do about it. I put this question to the Commodore this Summer and she seemed surprised, what do that tell you? I think a lot of the problem is we are still in the mindset that this a part time job, until we recognize that one can have a satisfying career and improve conditions and benefits we will see more and more transfer out to the regular force. There are a lot of "full time " people sailing and a good percentage of those never intended to make this a career, I know I didn't but circumstances changed and i'm still here.
As for the regular force standing down other assets to man AOPS, I really don't think that will happen.

 

[Sailorwest]

I guess that I don't quite understand that people who find the lifestyle and work to be something that they want to do, don't go and join the reg force early on. Too many people I know have 15+ years of continuous Cl B/C service, haven't set foot in an NRD since they started, yet are still considered 'reservists'.
They way things look to me is the going to sea jobs will be given to those on Cl B or C and the port securty event work will be given to those who are normally Cl A. Unfortunately, that is a big dissatisfaction issue for me and many others who joined (or stayed) because we like the work at sea.

 

[Stoker]

I guess that I don't quite understand that people who find the lifestyle and work to be something that they want to do, don't go and join the reg force early on. Too many people I know have 15+ years of continuous Cl B/C service, haven't set foot in an NRD since they started, yet are still considered 'reservists'.
They way things look to me is the going to sea jobs will be given to those on Cl B or C and the port securty event work will be given to those who are normally Cl A. Unfortunately, that is a big dissatisfaction issue for me and many others who joined (or stayed) because we like the work at sea.

One thing they should get rid of is the term Class A, either your on Class B or C. I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it. As for the work at sea, you are more than welcome to sail, however there is really no part time aspect to it anymore.

 

[Sailorwest]

One thing they should get rid of is the term Class A, either your on Class B or C. I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it. As for the work at sea, you are more than welcome to sail, however there is really no part time aspect to it anymore.

I guess i don't understand what you are suggesting here. If you were to get rid of Cl A (us great unwashed part timers who do 40 hrs+ in our chosen career) you get rid of the need for having the NRD. If you get rid of the NRD, you get rid of the members able to participate in Port Security. Additionally, if there is no NRD, there is no way to intake people into the Naval Reserve and you functionally have no Naval Reserve. If you are going to recruit people into the system to work full time, then they join the regular force. By and large, the people who want to work full time (Cl B, C) are doing so now. The rest of us have other jobs that keep us busy.

 

[Stoker]

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm saying get rid of the Class A designation altogether not the Class A organization. If your at the unit you still get Class B if your on the ships you get Class C. I never did like the 3 classes of pay.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I really can't see port security work be given to full time members, because of the part time aspect of it.

Full time as in Class 'C', or full time as in Reg?

 

[Stoker]

Full time as in Class 'C', or full time as in Reg?

Full time Class C.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Ok...just wondered about that. The MOG voluntold me for HDU stuff when I was a Reg. Sounded weird to me at the time.

 

[Sailorwest]

I would suggest that the MOG could assign anyone to a Port security unit, reg, reserve, Cl A, B, or C. As an example, I would think that the olympics in Vancouver, should a PSU be stood up as is expected, that all those people will be on Cl C for the term of their employment and they may draw from elsewhere to get the number needed.

 

[whitehorse]

To the site administrators you may wish to create a separate thread on this since it has little to do with AOPVs. May I suggest a new topic or even category called Naval Reserve Issues?

Stoker:

Based upon what I read between you and Sailor West I am guessing that you have spent the bulk of your 'reserve' career working full time for the navy. In which case you seem surprisingly confused about classes of service in the reserve.

Class A and B are the same rate of pay (about 85% of Reg F rates) the only difference is that Class B can't run for less than 2 weeks and can obviously run for an indefinite period. Class A is casual and can cover both whole and half days and hence largely applies to part-time folks, like me.

Class C is full -time and usually for periods of time ranging from 2 weeks to 20 years (like class B) but is defined as being when a reservist occupies a Reg F position. Rates of pay are = to Reg F. This idea has evolved over time and this class of service is now often invoked when there is perceived to be a heightened level of 'risk' or 'commitment' involved. (e.g. as suggested by Sailor West it might be used during the winter Olympics for the PS team, but is also used on MCDV crews etc).

As far as your idea of getting rid of Class A it simply doesn't make sense since part-timers are an integral part of the reserves (at least for now). If on the other hand you are saying that rates of pay (obviously divided into daily or half daily rates) should be the same regardless of 'full-time' or 'part-time' status I quite agree.

The simple reality is that most if not all of our NATO allies do this already. UK, US, Aus and NZ are but some examples of this.

As far as how the AOPV are going to be manned I guess I really only have 2 points:

First: Don't count your chickens - Unless you have been in a cave in the last 3 months, you will have noticed that we are headed into a severe recession or even depression. Discretionary spending on non-stimulus items are extremely unlikely despite political promises and statements, regardless of their source. Building 6 or 8 AOPVs is unlikely and the odds are decreasing every day. Ditto for JSS, CADRE etc etc. Even the FELEX program could be cut back. No contracts have been signed yet, and are unlikely in this environment.

Second: I suspect that the crew composition of these vessels is simply not predictable at this time. A lot depends on the building of other platforms from JSS, CADRE, SSC (or whatever these acronyms have morphed into in Ottawa). The sad reality is that we could see the fleet reduced to 8-12 CPFs, 8 MCDVs, maybe 3 SSKs and nothing else. In which case 'reserves' either 'full time' pr part time could well become redundant.

 

[Stoker]

To the site administrators you may wish to create a separate thread on this since it has little to do with AOPVs. May I suggest a new topic or even category called Naval Reserve Issues?

Stoker:

Based upon what I read between you and Sailor West I am guessing that you have spent the bulk of your 'reserve' career working full time for the navy. In which case you seem surprisingly confused about classes of service in the reserve.

Class A and B are the same rate of pay (about 85% of Reg F rates) the only difference is that Class B can't run for less than 2 weeks and can obviously run for an indefinite period. Class A is casual and can cover both whole and half days and hence largely applies to part-time folks, like me.

Class C is full -time and usually for periods of time ranging from 2 weeks to 20 years (like class B) but is defined as being when a reservist occupies a Reg F position. Rates of pay are = to Reg F. This idea has evolved over time and this class of service is now often invoked when there is perceived to be a heightened level of 'risk' or 'commitment' involved. (e.g. as suggested by Sailor West it might be used during the winter Olympics for the PS team, but is also used on MCDV crews etc).

As far as your idea of getting rid of Class A it simply doesn't make sense since part-timers are an integral part of the reserves (at least for now). If on the other hand you are saying that rates of pay (obviously divided into daily or half daily rates) should be the same regardless of 'full-time' or 'part-time' status I quite agree.

The simple reality is that most if not all of our NATO allies do this already. UK, US, Aus and NZ are but some examples of this.

As far as how the AOPV are going to be manned I guess I really only have 2 points:

First: Don't count your chickens - Unless you have been in a cave in the last 3 months, you will have noticed that we are headed into a severe recession or even depression. Discretionary spending on non-stimulus items are extremely unlikely despite political promises and statements, regardless of their source. Building 6 or 8 AOPVs is unlikely and the odds are decreasing every day. Ditto for JSS, CADRE etc etc. Even the FELEX program could be cut back. No contracts have been signed yet, and are unlikely in this environment.

Second: I suspect that the crew composition of these vessels is simply not predictable at this time. A lot depends on the building of other platforms from JSS, CADRE, SSC (or whatever these acronyms have morphed into in Ottawa). The sad reality is that we could see the fleet reduced to 8-12 CPFs, 8 MCDVs, maybe 3 SSKs and nothing else. In which case 'reserves' either 'full time' pr part time could well become redundant.

When I made that post it was back in Oct and before the reality of the current financial situation. As for cut backs unless the coalition gets into power, it has already been mentioned in the media that part of a economic stimulus package, naval ship building projects in Canada has been mentioned as a way to stimulate the economy and keep people working. As for the doom and gloom you are predicting for the military it still makes financial sense to employ reserves and reserve ships to take up the slack. In fact last week in Halifax we were briefed by the Commodore and were told for the immediate future we could expect the sea days for the MCDV's to increase to 130 sea days per unit.
As for my comments about getting rid of Class A, if you reread my comments I said I would like to get rid of the terms the Class A, B or C not the actual personnel or jobs. I would like to see it abolished and streamline it to see two classes of reserves "full time or part time", because that's what we have right now isn't it. There are a lot of full time reserves right now and will continue to be. This in fact has been recognized by Commodore Bennett and is part of the "way ahead" for the reserves.
In fact if we were to have a "full time " reserve or "part time", that may lead to separate merit lists for promotion.

 

[whitehorse]

Stoker;

The point was to clear up terminology. Ultimately I think we can agree that pay rates should be equal regardless of type of service.

As far as the 'way ahead' goes, anything is possible. Yes, the current Defence Minister (who is also an MP from NS) has made a number of speeches in the last few weeks indicating that ship building should be used as part of a 'stimulus' package. However, simply calling it that doesn't necessarily make it one. In fact most economists today regard defence spending as a poor economic stimulant since it requires relatively few people (and a lot of technology) to build most modern military equipment. You get better bang for your stimulus buck if you spend it on roads and bridges not warships or tanks.

The reality that has coalesced in the last few months necessitates that the Feds spend 10's of billions to prop up Ontario's manufacturing sector as well as mining and forestry. Building warships in NS or BC probably isn't in line with this objective but ultimately this will become a cabinet discussion. If teh 'coaltion' takes over then the chances of cabinet seeing it this way diminish even furhter.

To focus once again on reserve issues here my guess is that the future of the Naval Reserve and the ships it crews will largely depend on factors beyond the navy's control (as usual). Yes the MCDVs will be busier as DND operating budget cutbacks make these relatively cheap platforms more attractive (hence more sea days). But I would remind you that these platforms are now past the half way mark in their life cycle. The acquisition timeline for DND projects (and in particular warships) usually takes about 10 - 15 years. You do the math.

Finally, I quite agree with you that we should quite clearly delineate and separate the two 'worlds' of the Naval Reserve. I for one left the Primary Reserve in part because of my frustration with an establishment that refused to recognise this simple reality.

 

[Stoker]

Well I certainly hope we won't feel the pinch of the current economic downturn, however historically the military has always been a easy target, time will tell.
I really can see the platforms life being extended from the expected 25 years to god knows what. Have we ever had a class of ships in modern times that weren't continuously extended past its expected hull life? Even though the so called "midlife" refit was cancelled, the ships are getting a lot of needed upgrades. New radars, new ops room, IBIS, Telular, Drager SCBA fit, new funnels, new diesel beds and lots of others are in the works. I can foresee the ships lasting longer, especially with the economy being some bad.
Yes it is frustrating that there is no recognition that there is indeed a full time reserve, but that is changing. I'm looking fwd to doing another 5 years full time and retiring with a pension.

 

[Pendant]

The naval reserves are in horrible shape right now, i dont know how they look back at nrd's i havnt been at mine in about 3 years but i can tell you that the ships arnt doing to good right now and im not to sure who said it but the commodore saying that the mcdv's are expected to sail 130 days is crazy, we sail that in half a year now on the east coast, the problem with retention is because the reserves have a hard time keeping their people happy, especially alot of the ones sailing now, i dont know how many people expect to be home for a bit and are told they will have to sail with another ship because their short manned, and i agree 100% with the argument made about the need for only 2 classes of reservist. the problem is that they always find loopholes, i only just got class c which is bull, they just kept giving me contracts which last like 3-4 months so they could keep me on class B and i know one case that someone was given a contract for like 3 weeks under a year and they arnt able to get PLD because of it. I heard a rumour that everyone on MCDV's are now being paid class C i dont know if this is true but i know that all core crew get class C and those who arnt core crew are usually class b with the odd one getting lucky enough to get class C.

and now their is no longer any money for some trades to sail creating even more manning problems, the budget for those trades to do OJT onboard is dry and that means that the only real positions are the core crew and the few who were under contract before they money ran out.

Now for the Port security. It is not a position held by class A sailors, both coasts have full time class C personnel at the port security units. The worst part about manning too is that both coast are short manned and it is looking more and more like both coasts will have 2 down ships because of it, and the majority of personnel at Port security arnt in the navres, their army reservists. so 2 mandates which are suppose to be done by the Navres arnt able to be done because of manning problems. if they expect us to fully man the new aops if they ever come, which is a total of 8 ships with an estimated manning of 45, i dont know if thats max or its minimum but were gonna have a really hard time doing this.

thats my two cents though i dont want to get on anyones nerves or try to make it look like im taking sides, im just blowing off steam, ive been thrown around by navres for over a year now, im transfering because of it. anyways thats it

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe it's time for the CF to make two shocking admissions:


First, we're in stage 3+ mobilization, based on the number of full-time Reservists compared to the overall population (more than half of Reservists at certain ranks are on full-time service).

Second, many "full-time Reservists" meet the legal definition of being in the Regular Force.  That is, they are employed on "continuing, full-time military service" - I'd argue that any Reservist in part I of the CFSA has met that definition.  If a BE in the Reg F is 3 years, and we have Reservists employed full-time for 3+3 years in positions, they'd seem to fall into that category.


Finally, on a semi-Nav Res note, I suspect in the near future the Army will refuse to provide pers to work as gate guards; the Army is having enough troubles filling its own billets that those positions will be left empty.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

the commodore saying that the mcdv's are expected to sail 130 days is crazy, we sail that in half a year now on the east coast,

When I heard her say that in December, I thought "ok, a given ship might only sail 130 days, but given manning issues, I'd bet the average sailor will be spending much more time at sea than that, just on a different ship".