The Sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans

[PuckChaser]

CFRG needs a ground up rebuild of processes and personnel redistribution. Anything else is a bandaid in a dam. When I joined the PRes in 2002, I started the process mid-April and was sworn in Mid-June. That's just how long it takes to get paperwork acknowledged now. Unacceptable.

 

[MilEME09]

CFRG needs a ground up rebuild of processes and personnel redistribution. Anything else is a bandaid in a dam. When I joined the PRes in 2002, I started the process mid-April and was sworn in Mid-June. That's just how long it takes to get paperwork acknowledged now. Unacceptable.

better then mine, I started the processes beginning of February 2009, sworn in end of September.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Two weeks from when I applied to when I had my date for Cornwallis. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Two weeks from when I applied to when I had my date for Cornwallis.

Which goes back to the RCN manning issue, CFRG can't fill courses because it takes a year to get in the door. Technical trades are drowning because of their inability to make those timings.

 

[Eaglelord17]

In regards to the manning issue in the navy. Is it just a case of not enough intake as compared to attrition? or is it deeper then that?

It is much deeper than a simple intake to attrition issue. That is part of the problem (if I recall correctly the intake for last year was half of what the releases were and apparently that was a banner year for recruiting), but the length of time to train people to a actual useful point is another issue. Since so many people have left the trade and the length of time required to retrain people to the standard lost, it is increasing the workload significantly for those that stay, and they get burned out from being asked to do more for less reward. There is a reason people have been leaving steady for years at this point, and I have never heard of anyone getting back in the trade or regretting leaving.

Certain trades have excellent civilian qualifications (For example, if you complete your 5s as a Stoker and you can challenge your millwright ticket) and when you can get paid more, and deal with less BS, on top of doing the job you signed up for, its a no brainer for most people.

Meanwhile what has happened to the crews of the Protecteur-class and the destroyers--and the frigates that are refitting?  Any surplus numbers there?  RCN’s REGULUS program surely not a full solution:

Mark
Ottawa

For the trades that are needed there are no surplus numbers. Some trades are so far in the red, if the release trend was to stop immediately for some reason, it would take 50 years to recover (about as long as we have been unified as the CAF). The other issue is even when you put those crews from those ships on to a frigate for certain trades your training is ship specific, so you need to retrain those seamen on the new ships.

 

[PuckChaser]

Is there restricted release for stokers for a period of time after they get qualified? Should be a little bit in there if we're losing experience right away.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

No there isn't unless your are NCM STEP or METTP. It is slowly killing the Navy's ability to maintain ships. Yes, FMF and contractors exist (and a version of ISSC is coming with future fleet) but you can only spread these work crews so thin before they become ineffectual. And keep in mind that FMF (like the CF) is a cross section of society meaning about 10-12% of your workforce is not really 'into it' combined with the 15-18% who are unavailable for various reasons at various times. Just to put things into perspective,  a recent engine change out in theatre on a deployed frigate (This engine came with an ISSC by the way) involved over 50 military and civilian DND staff as well as a good portion of ship's technicians and support personnel(on top of contractors) JUST to do the engine swap. All this with an in service support contract on said engine. Don't get me wrong, it was a challenge that was successfully completed and is well documented in an issue of the Maritime Engineering Journal but that is a huge chunk of our workforce ...for one ship...for one component...
Unfortunately as eluded to here somewhere, our technicians don't really do what we spend years training them to do. Only about 20% of a technician's work on a given day (and YES that is supported with data as some still serving can attest to and if not, PM me and I will tell you who to contact to get this info-It IS on the DIN) is spent 'turning wrenches'...getting their hands dirty...call it what you want. These trades (Mar Eng, ETech, HTech, Bosn, WEng and to a degree LOG), have one job and one job only when the ship is alongside and that is to conduct PM and CM OR to support the conduct of PM and CM in preparation for being deployed. I liken this to you taking your car in for service and for every hour billed, the mechanic spends only 12-15 minutes under your hood. The rest of the time he is painting the shop, sweeping the floor, helping out at the front desk, helping out a garage down the road who is short handed....I think you see where this is going. How long do you think this 'business' would stay afloat? We need some MAJOR culture change in my beloved Navy and until that happens, we will continue to sink to lower and lower readiness levels.
I don't know what the answer is but I am fearful that that Navy's proficiency and reliability and hence ability to complete it's mandate is in serious trouble and I dare say that there very well (and very likely) WILL be a incident of sorts in the coming months which will make this clear. I just hope it does not involve personal injury of any kind.

Plane and simple, someone senior somewhere needs to say "No" to someone more senior somewhere else. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Training is also an issue.  The various schools can only handle so many students at a time and some of the technician courses are lengthy.  My trades 5A is around 18 months, more or less with a loading of 8.  It is challenging to get everyone through in a timely fashion.  Now to add a few thumbscrews to the mix they're planning to merge in the not too far distant future all three marine engineering trades similarly to what CSE experienced recently.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I still haven't fully grasped the long term benefits of amalgamation except as a management tool. We will lose specialization in the end I believe and yes I have been part of the discussions the past year so am in a position to make that statement. Could one person theoretically isolate power to a piece of kit, do some hot work and then replace and test? Yes but is that really what this is all about? They (The big heads in Ottawa) also want to combine all the operator trades too. As I said, things may look good on paper but I look to the Pay and RMS trades who apparently are splitting again. As it is now it is a little much for one person to be a master of his/her  trade-Now they want to increase the knowledge baseline essentially 3-fold (and role in a strategic Reserve trade to boot). For the countless people who have spent time working this and too many sleepless nights planning this, I hope it does work. I know discussions have been had with RNZN, RAN and RN counterparts and many are pointing out problems. Lets make this a "Lesson Learned' and not  'Lesson Missed' exercise.

I am actually surprised that the article in Macleans still has relatively tame comments!

 

[MilEME09]

Training is also an issue.  The various schools can only handle so many students at a time and some of the technician courses are lengthy.  My trades 5A is around 18 months, more or less with a loading of 8.  It is challenging to get everyone through in a timely fashion.  Now to add a few thumbscrews to the mix they're planning to merge in the not too far distant future all three marine engineering trades similarly to what CSE experienced recently.

Of course with a lack of people in the trade comes lack of instructors to teach, might get enough for one course, you get three times that number release. The cycle then continues, in the case of the technical trades in the CAF would we not be able to bring in civilian contractors as instructors? we could run more courses and avoided situations i've heard of, people waiting years on PAT platoon to go on their 3's. I think if we can solve the training back log, perhaps there is hope to keep people in if there is a effort to lessen peoples work load by injecting more people in a timely fashion. Especially for trades were in takes 18 months, we need to get people on course as quickly as possible once they are in the system.

 

[George Wallace]

Of course with a lack of people in the trade comes lack of instructors to teach, might get enough for one course, you get three times that number release. The cycle then continues, in the case of the technical trades in the CAF would we not be able to bring in civilian contractors as instructors? we could run more courses and avoided situations i've heard of, people waiting years on PAT platoon to go on their 3's. I think if we can solve the training back log, perhaps there is hope to keep people in if there is a effort to lessen peoples work load by injecting more people in a timely fashion. Especially for trades were in takes 18 months, we need to get people on course as quickly as possible once they are in the system.

Using civilian MSE OPs to teach Air Brake Crses have been done for years in Pet.  Using Contractors to run ranges and Sims has been done for years.  This is nothing new for the CAF.  I am sure it can be expanded upon, given the knowledge and skills held by recently retired CAF members who could be attracted to come back as contractors. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I still haven't fully grasped the long term benefits of amalgamation except as a management tool. We will lose specialization in the end I believe and yes I have been part of the discussions the past year so am in a position to make that statement. Could one person theoretically isolate power to a piece of kit, do some hot work and then replace and test? Yes but is that really what this is all about? They (The big heads in Ottawa) also want to combine all the operator trades too. As I said, things may look good on paper but I look to the Pay and RMS trades who apparently are splitting again. As it is now it is a little much for one person to be a master of his/her  trade-Now they want to increase the knowledge baseline essentially 3-fold (and role in a strategic Reserve trade to boot). For the countless people who have spent time working this and too many sleepless nights planning this, I hope it does work. I know discussions have been had with RNZN, RAN and RN counterparts and many are pointing out problems. Lets make this a "Lesson Learned' and not  'Lesson Missed' exercise.

I am actually surprised that the article in Macleans still has relatively tame comments!

I don't honestly know of anyone (who is not being PC as situation demands), including myself, who actually believes this is a good idea and will not turning to a trainwreck.  I may be wrong, but IIRC the RN and RAN attempted this some years ago and have since abandoned the lunacy as it turned into a shit show.  My time left is limited and therefore I don't expect I will see much of what is to come but it will be painful for all involved I fear.  Maybe this Frankenstein's monster creation will live and breathe but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Peasantry out with pitchforks and torches one day.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Why pay a 'recently retired CAF member' when a 'billet' exists for a uniformed person to teach (even if the billet is never full). It is indeed a snowball effect and no one wants to say "No Sir, (or Mr Minister), we CANNOT do that at this time."

Oh and the Navy DOES employ civilian instructors. Unfortunately when training involves specific pieces of equipment, the MS or PO2 posted straight off the ship is worth his/her weight in gold to ensure training is up to date and relevant. As well, the shore positions are required to maintain the sea-shore ratio so after that MS does a 4 year tour on a ship, he/she can 'relax' on their 'shore' posting. Unfortunately (again), we are so short that shore postings see some doing MORE sea time than those actually posted to ships!!! I know of at least 2 stokers who took inland postings because they needed that emotional break away from ships. We are eating our own...and at an alarming rate!

 

[George Wallace]

Why pay a 'recently retired CAF member' when a 'billet' exists for a uniformed person to teach (even if the billet is never full). It is indeed a snowball effect and no one wants to say "No Sir, (or Mr Minister), we CANNOT do that at this time."

Oh and the Navy DOES employ civilian instructors. Unfortunately when training involves specific pieces of equipment, the MS or PO2 posted straight off the ship is worth his/her weight in gold to ensure training is up to date and relevant. As well, the shore positions are required to maintain the sea-shore ratio so after that MS does a 4 year tour on a ship, he/she can 'relax' on their 'shore' posting. Unfortunately (again), we are so short that shore postings see some doing MORE sea time than those actually posted to ships!!! I know of at least 2 stokers who took inland postings because they needed that emotional break away from ships. We are eating our own...and at an alarming rate!

My answer was to the statement that there was a "shortage of serving pers to instruct", due to the amount of releases affecting manning slates.  The use of civilians across the CAF has been a practice that has been going on for quite some years, and as you state not always possible due to specialized equipment and/or clearances required in certain areas.