Unification is a child of the 1960s, so who is looking backward?

[SeaKingTacco]

Nope- you've got it right.

Anyhoo- sorry about the tangent that I think I may have caused.

So- three quick things to fix the CF.  Discuss.

 

[Brasidas]

So- three quick things to fix the CF.  Discuss.

CANFORGEN to use powerpoint as a tool to show content-supporting visual images rather than cue card walls of text?

 

[Rifleman62]

Substitute Army.ca for CANFORGEN etc.

 

[murray b]

Greetings from a retired and completely civilian 'computer guy' in Edmonton.

The unification idea was pretty silly and I have seen nothing to suggest it saved much money.  It reminded me of a city saying that they were going to save money by having all the police, fire, and ambulence people wear the same uniforms, have the same kit, and drive the same vehicles.  No city would ever really do something that foolish.

Of course this problem can be easily solved by replacing all the military junk with a kind of combination flying jeep-tank-ship with invisibility.  [My nephew had a model of one of these when he was a kid.] Then unification would make some sense.

 

[armyvern]

The unification idea was pretty silly and I have seen nothing to suggest it saved much money.  It reminded me of a city saying that they were going to save money by having all the police, fire, and ambulence people wear the same uniforms, have the same kit, and drive the same vehicles.   No city would ever really do something that foolish.

Hmmmm interesting comment, but the CF wasn't that silly either. We ended at uniforms (& have since corrected that). We still have ships, planes, trucks etc etc ...

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am always mildly amused that so many people seem to think that Unification was only about uniforms (and only the dress uniform at that).

 

[McG]

It reminded me of a city saying that they were going to save money by having all the police, fire, and ambulence people wear the same uniforms, have the same kit, and drive the same vehicles.  No city would ever really do something that foolish.

No, but some cities have gone to a unified emergency responce organization for fire and ambulance - still with different vehicles & the right tools for specific jobs, but within a unified force.

 

[Trooper Hale]

I find this whole debate fascinating and I agree whole heartedly on the subject of separating "Services". My identity as a member of the Australian Army and Royal Australian Armoured Corps is hugely important to me.
There is great power, pride, history and tradition in a name. And I think those four things are some of the most important things for a soldier to have.

The issue of your PLQ is interesting too. Over here, each service trains its own people in what they need to know. The Air Force recruit training is infinately different to the Army Recruit training and the same obviously goes for Navy. The same then goes for your Junior Leaders courses.
We have a Chief of Defence Force (who's currently Air Force) and below him, the various service Chiefs. The system works and I would never want to see it changes as dramatically as was forced upon the Canadian forces.
When looking for a model why not look no further then the British Army or Australian Army? Our Army especially is quite similar to yours in size.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No, but some cities have gone to a unified emergency responce organization for fire and ambulance - still with different vehicles & the right tools for specific jobs, but within a unified force.

....and some have (for a little while, anyway, and unsuccessfully) had the police and fire services come under the command/admin of a single boss.

 

[Michael OLeary]

When looking for a model why not look no further then the British Army or Australian Army? Our Army especially is quite similar to yours in size.

Isn't it rather silly to suggest the modern Australian Army as a model to follow in a thread about changes to the Canadian Department of National Defence and the three services of the Canadian Forces forty years ago?

Then again, perhaps not for those who haven't moved on and now deal with today's issues.

 

[Trooper Hale]

My mistake, I should have written "Australian Defence Force". However, I dont think its silly at all to use our model or the British model if you were to look at changing your "Land Command".
I dont think its too hard for you to join the dots and figure out what I meant.

 

[Michael OLeary]

My mistake, I should have written "Australian Defence Force". However, I dont think its silly at all to use our model or the British model if you were to look at changing your "Land Command".
I dont think its too hard for you to join the dots and figure out what I meant.

This is a thread about Unification, in trying to stay with one topic I wasn't looking to connect with random "dots." If we start talking in a different thread about reorganizing the CF today, please feel free to add your vote for us to follow your preferred model.

If you believe the "Australian Defence Force" of the 1960s was a valid model to copy at that time, then feel free to  offer all of your detailed reasons way that might have been a valid course of action.

But, according to Wikipedia (please correct any errors you see), in the 1960s, there was no "Australian Defence Force" - they had three separate services, which were "unified" in the 1970s:

The importance of 'joint' warfare  was made clear to the Australian Military during World War II when Australian naval, ground and air units frequently served as part of single commands. Following the war, several senior officers lobbied for the appointment of a commander in chief of the three services. The government rejected this proposal and the three services remained fully independent.[13]  The absence of a central authority resulted in poor coordination between the services with each service organising and operating on the basis of a different military doctrine.[14]

The need for an integrated command structured received more emphasis during the Australian military's experiences in the Vietnam War.[14] In 1973, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Arthur Tange, submitted a report to the Government  that recommended the unification of the separate departments supporting each service into a single Department of Defence and the creation of the post of Chief of the Defence Force Staff. The government accepted these recommendations and the Australian Defence Force was established on 9 February 1976.[15]

Maybe the solution of the "Australian Defence Force" was copied from the Canadian example?

 

[Michael OLeary]

This article appeared in the Australian Defence Force Journal. (Link is a pdf file of the journal issue.)

Task Force on Review of the Unification of the Canadian Forces

Published a few years after the Australian Defence Forces' own unification, they were no doubt very carefully looking at the areas of success or failure of the Canadian example. The article provides a detailed look at the criticisms of unification as seen at the time, but it is one-sided in that respect.

 

[Trooper Hale]

I'm offer my apology. I must have misread the past 8 pages and misinterpreted every previous post. I thought there was definate suggestion about possible future changes but obviously I'm wrong.

Maybe the solution of the "Australian Defence Force" was copied from the Canadian example?

If it was then they took what the CF had done and ignored the vast majority of it. For a start, 40 years later theres no talk about the dramatic changes to the entire Defence structure that many of the people on this board are talking about.
The restructure of the ADF in the '70's following our experiances in Vietnam was a great success and has put our Army, RAN and RAAF in a good postion for the future.
I only hope that if the CF decided to carry out a restructuring that it is allowed the same success. But thats obviously for different threads.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is nothing especially "right" or "wrong" with having a single, unified military force, viz the Canadian Forces. The problems come, or go away, when one tackles the internal structure: joint (unified) commands? 'single service' (sometimes called specified) commands? some mix of both?

I believe that it is a fact that men and women have some difficulty in 'seeing' themselves as members of a single, cohesive purple force; most are much more likely to self-identify as sailors, soldiers and so on. Thus, despite having a legally unified entity, the CF, we do well to recognize that we have, de facto, a Navy, an Army and an Air Force - each with its own customs and traditions and standards. Some members are required to move between services during their careers, most do so with relative ease, bringing the best of their 'parent' identity to each task; many members spend their entire career, save, perhaps for a tour or two in a HQ or recruiting centre, in one service or environment; and a few have real difficulties moving between environments. The top level organizations cannot, generally, help the few who have difficulty adapting but they can exacerbate the problems by emphasizing the differences between members rather than the things all members share.

The CF, per se, is not the problem; such problems as exist are organizational within the CF.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There is nothing especially "right" or "wrong" with having a single, unified military force, viz the Canadian Forces. The problems come, or go away, when one tackles the internal structure: joint (unified) commands? 'single service' (sometimes called specified) commands? some mix of both?

I believe that it is a fact that men and women have some difficulty in 'seeing' themselves as members of a single, cohesive purple force; most are much more likely to self-identify as sailors, soldiers and so on. Thus, despite having a legally unified entity, the CF, we do well to recognize that we have, de facto, a Navy, an Army and an Air Force - each with its own customs and traditions and standards. Some members are required to move between services during their careers, most do so with relative ease, bringing the best of their 'parent' identity to each task; many members spend their entire career, save, perhaps for a tour or two in a HQ or recruiting centre, in one service or environment; and a few have real difficulties moving between environments. The top level organizations cannot, generally, help the few who have difficulty adapting but they can exacerbate the problems by emphasizing the differences between members rather than the things all members share.

The CF, per se, is not the problem; such problems as exist are organizational within the CF.

You know you hit nail on the head with this one. I personally am a Purple sailor (Sup Tech) and one of those types who has identified himself as a sailor, all stop. I think to solve this issues one of 2 things would need to happen:

1) Create a new and unique Tri-Service uniform for 3 element trades
or
2) Just simply do away with the Tri-service roles for 3 element trades

I know doing away with the Tri-service roles gets some people fired up, but we can continue to train jointly (I.E. CFSAL) and as for augmenters for a land deployment coming from non Army roles, it can be done. As we see now the NSE R9 is something in the neighborhood of 40-60% augmentees most coming from Air and Naval backgrounds with little to no "land" experience, and the job is still getting completed.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a sailor, soldier or airman not to develop a fierce allegiance to the environment they the serve when the walk, talk and act the same as the "hard Navy, Air, and Army" people they work for, with  and support. And I don't think this is something that afflicts Naval and Air personnel alone. In my year (and counting) with the NSE R9 so far I have met some very proud and fiercely Army personnel who have no interest or wish to go to Sea or to an Air Base, I applaud them in that as I think its good to draw an affiliation to your uniform, it builds pride and discipline.

 

[McG]

2) Just simply do away with the Tri-service roles for 3 element trades

Some where earlier in this thread, someone might already have suggested creating sea sub-occupations for some of those purple trades that serve on ships (like cooks & Sup Tech). 
That would generally achieve what you suggest with "hard" Navy sub-occupations doing Navy career courses, while the remainder of the occupation (which live and work on the ground) would be trained to an Army standard (because if they ever find themselves in a fight, it will be on the ground).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Even in the ear;y '60s, before we integrated and/or unified or whatever the 'exercise' really was, we had tri-service units and agencies - not just in HQ in Ottawa.

Some (a lot) of the purple organizations make good sense and we need good people in them. The trick is to serve, well, wherever one is needed, being proud of one's service and, always, doing the best job possible. I think it is, as I said, a matter of getting the organization right and of convincing every member that they are a valuable and valued part of the team - their service team and the bigger, CF team, too.

I know that sounds like a warm, fuzzy platitude but, after 35+ years of service, I believe it is true.

 

[murray b]

Hmmmm interesting comment, but the CF wasn't that silly either. We ended at uniforms (& have since corrected that). We still have ships, planes, trucks etc etc ...

It was the government that was silly they have always saved a penny and then wasted $5.  It was sill to try to save money on defence since the military has always been frugal.  It is not really possible to save much money without doing some kind of harm.  It is also far easier to justify spending taxpayers' money for things they understand like Army, Navy, and Air Force.  Many civilians think that there is just the Army now and funding should be minimal.  Some people do not understand why Army guys even want aircraft or ships and they already have tanks so they don't need any of those. 

Military funding debates have always reminded me of when I used to work as a computer guy and tried to explain the threat from viruses.  At the time there were 130k known viruses and X unknown viruses and the best security software could deal with 90% of the known viruses.  This meant that there was still a threat from 13k known viruses and most of X unknown viruses.  You would not believe how many bureaucratic types demanded to know exactly how may unknown viruses there were.  They did not even understand how stupid the question was. 

It is the same thing for defence.  No one can know in advance exactly how many future threats there will be but there will not likely be much time to mobilize to meet them.  That means having an adequate force trained and in place to deal with whatever comes up.  Methinks for Canada that could be as little as 100k soldiers providing they have the best affordable equipment but, sadly, I don't think this will happen any time soon.

 

[McG]

It was the government that was silly they have always saved a penny and then wasted $5.  It was sill to try to save money on defence since the military has always been frugal.  It is not really possible to save much money without doing some kind of harm.  It is also far easier to justify spending taxpayers' money for things they understand like Army, Navy, and Air Force.  Many civilians think that there is just the Army now and funding should be minimal.  Some people do not understand why Army guys even want aircraft or ships and they already have tanks so they don't need any of those. 

Military funding debates have always reminded me of when I used to work as a computer guy and tried to explain the threat from viruses.  At the time there were 130k known viruses and X unknown viruses and the best security software could deal with 90% of the known viruses.  This meant that there was still a threat from 13k known viruses and most of X unknown viruses.  You would not believe how many bureaucratic types demanded to know exactly how may unknown viruses there were.  They did not even understand how stupid the question was. 

It is the same thing for defence.  No one can know in advance exactly how many future threats there will be but there will not likely be much time to mobilize to meet them.  That means having an adequate force trained and in place to deal with whatever comes up.  Methinks for Canada that could be as little as 100k soldiers providing they have the best affordable equipment but, sadly, I don't think this will happen any time soon.

You are trying to defend your previous outlandish statement with this wildly off-topic post?