# Is the Canadian Naval Reserve all but finished?



## RCNVRSHAD

Drastic changes about to be implemented to the Navres.

The Navres will no longer be an operational Formation.

It will be moved under MarPac west coast.

The majority of full time naval reserve positions will cease to exist.

If the Navres thinks they have a retention problem now (they do), what will it be like a year from now?

 :trainwreck:


----------



## Pat in Halifax

It doesn't make it any easier but this was public knowledge with the restructuring of the Navy that commenced in late 2010. What will become of NAVRESHQ and CFFSQ as a physical entity, I do not know.


----------



## Privateer

I've heard informal discussions of this, but can someone point me to an official plan / message / document suitable for those without DIN access?   What happens to the KINGSTON class crews?  I don't see them being whisked off and replaced with Reg crews all of a sudden.


----------



## Stoker

RCNVRSHAD said:
			
		

> Drastic changes about to be implemented to the Navres.
> 
> The Navres will no longer be an operational Formation.
> 
> It will be moved under MarPac west coast.
> 
> The majority of full time naval reserve positions will cease to exist.
> 
> If the Navres thinks they have a retention problem now (they do), what will it be like a year from now?
> 
> :trainwreck:



There are certainly changes a foot. NAVRES is already under MARPAC. Little change really, NAVRES is still in Quebec and remain there as will the Fleet School. Yes it is true some positions will not be funded due to budgetary reasons. Some long term full time people on the coasts have been told there is no job for them, mainly people who do ATR type jobs, no one is having their full time contract cut. Some of the these people have been offered ship postions, however many do not want to sail. The MCDV's will still run 3 ships each coast with 4 crews for the foreseeable future. You will see more regs on the ships in the future, however they are hurting as well. The Naval Reserve was never a full time organization, however is very unique as they have been given a operational mission since 95 and have had many full timers, including myself.


----------



## Privateer

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> NAVRES is still in Quebec and remain there as will the Fleet School.



Is that a certainty?


----------



## Stoker

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is that a certainty?



I guess stranger things have happened. I for one would love to see NAVRES and the Fleet school move to Halifax or Esquimalt. It is fact that they are viewed as a strategic asset and politics are in play. The latest NAVRES LINK magazine talks about some of the changes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As I read the navy's _strategy_, and its' been a while since I have read it, the NAVRES is still in OK shape, relative to the Army's reserve, in any event.

I think _common_ training and co-manning is good for the NAVRES. There will be fewer _full time careers_ for the NAVRES but that's not why we have reserves ... or, at least, it's not why we _should_ have reserves.

The full time mission for the NAVRES was an interesting idea but I'm not sure it was ever the best use of ships or people. I believe there is a valid, indeed important role for minor war vessels. I also believe that some, a few reserve folks can have useful, long term, full time jobs, but most, the overwhelming majority of people we you the CF needs for full time service ought to be 'regulars.' The business of using "full time" reservists, by definition 'part time' sailors, to crew operational warships was not, in my opinion, thought through in sufficient detail. That the NAVRES did it so well, for so long is a tribute to the _permashads_.  

Times are tough, money is tight, everyone must adjust and adapt.


----------



## Stoker

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As I read the navy's _strategy_, and its' been a while since I have read it, the NAVRES is still in OK shape, relative to the Army's reserve, in any event.
> 
> I think _common_ training and co-manning is good for the NAVRES. There will be fewer _full time careers_ for the NAVRES but that's not why we have reserves ... or, at least, it's not why we _should_ have reserves.
> 
> The full time mission for the NAVRES was an interesting idea but I'm not sure it was ever the best use of ships or people. I believe there is a valid, indeed important role for minor war vessels. I also believe that some, a few reserve folks can have useful, long term, full time jobs, but most, the overwhelming majority of people we you the CF needs for full time service ought to be 'regulars.' The business of using "full time" reservists, by definition 'part time' sailors, to crew operational warships was not, in my opinion, thought through in sufficient detail. That the NAVRES did it so well, for so long is a tribute to the _permashads_.
> 
> Times are tough, money is tight, everyone must adjust and adapt.



I think you have a very accurate assessment there. I would imagine as the MCDV's are phased out over the next 5 to 10 years and the new ships will come online you will see naval reserve personnel augment crews on on all classes of ship either for a deployment or up to a couple of years if needed. There will be full timers of course but in small numbers. Its encouraging though that many full timers will try to be employed in order to make minimum pension requirements if close.


----------



## stoker8

Question asked of the new admiral November 2013

_*How do Reserve Force sailors contribute to the overall capability of the RCN?*_

Answer:

The Naval Reserves are an integral part of our “one navy”, and they have been ever since Walter Hose established them as the RCN’s visible footprint across Canada in the 1920s. In many cities and towns, the Naval Reserves are the navy, and that speaks to one of their most enduring functions. I’m really proud of our Naval Reserves – those who have chosen to make a difference by serving as part-time sailors within their own communities, as well as those serving full-time in the fleet and elsewhere in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

From their stellar performance in responding to domestic floods and providing maritime security during Op Podium (the CAF mission in support of the 2010 Winter Olympics), our part-time sailors have demonstrated the importance and utility of having a strategic reserve whose competence is centred in sea service. At the same time, the full-time reservists who make up the overwhelming majority of our Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessel crews have developed indispensable skills in coastal defence and mine warfare.

By the way, the Admiral joined as a reserve stoker and spent five years at HMCS Cataraqui prior to transferring to the regular Navy.


----------



## NavyShooter

Was briefed the other day by a real nice coat of arms representing some important folks in the RCN.

The ONE NAVY concept means that (as I understood it) we'll be seeing Naval Reservists sailing on all classes of RCN ships, with the exception of the Submarine Fleet.

The Reserve force will actually be better integrated, and offered more/different sailing opportunities than they may have previously seen before in the MCDV's.

NS


----------



## stoker8

Yes, reservists will be offered more platforms to serve on in the future other than MCDV's.

However, just how will a true Naval reservist ever gain a qualification on a Frigate/ Destroyer/ JSS or AOP's when the average Naval reserve member can only give a couple of weeks a year and parades one or two nights a week locally?

Regular full time Navy coursing is months in length not days or even weeks?

I remember the seventies and even the eighties when reserve sailors who came aboard "the heavy's" were treated as nothing more than cheap labor for cleaning stations etc. because they simply did not have the qualifications and could not even get loaded on the regular navy courses even if they could get the time off from their civilian work.


----------



## Stoker

stoker8 said:
			
		

> Yes, reservists will be offered more platforms to serve on in the future other than MCDV's.
> 
> However, just how will a true Naval reservist ever gain a qualification on a Frigate/ Destroyer/ JSS or AOP's when the average Naval reserve member can only give a couple of weeks a year and parades one or two nights a week locally?
> 
> Regular full time Navy coursing is months in length not days or even weeks?
> 
> I remember the seventies and even the eighties when reserve sailors who came aboard "the heavy's" were treated as nothing more than cheap labor for cleaning stations etc. because they simply did not have the qualifications and could not even get loaded on the regular navy courses even if they could get the time off from their civilian work.



You have a good point, but most of the reserve trades accomplish that now as most trades training is the same for reg or reserve. We have reservists now that sail on CPF's for a month here and a month there and they manage to get their packages signed off. Technical trades is another thing altogether, although the MESO's competently took the KINGSTON Class to sea for the last 19 years and they are only meant to be operators. Active reservists still do come out for several months during the summer  so much could be accomplished then. The days of the "Shads" acting like cheap labour are over thankfully.


----------



## Monsoon

stoker8 said:
			
		

> However, just how will a true Naval reservist ever gain a qualification on a Frigate/ Destroyer/ JSS or AOP's when the average Naval reserve member can only give a couple of weeks a year and parades one or two nights a week locally?


I don't know who these reservists are - these ones that keep getting mentioned whenever this sort of discussion comes up. They definitely don't look like the majority of people in my unit. At the front end of their careers, reservists are either university students or straight up itinerantly employed (as most young folks are) and have months a year if not years straight to give. It's only once the rhythm of a career and family life settle in that the two-nights-a-week-and-two-weeks-a-year pattern is set. By then, you should only be needing to focus on refresher training.

The length of those six-month long QL3 courses in the Reg F is driven more by the rhythm of the posting season than by academic requirements. They can certainly be seen off in a few condensed months augmented by extensive DL/DT and an OJT package. The Reg F itself is looking at fixing its coursing this way. And quite frankly, a KYSB for a heavy takes maybe two weeks longer to complete than for a MWV once you're trade qualified.

Also, fixed this thread title.


----------



## dapaterson

See also: this thread or, for the Army Reserve, Reserves 2000.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The length of those six-month long QL3 courses in the Reg F is driven more by the rhythm of the posting season than by academic requirements. They can certainly be seen off in a few condensed months augmented by extensive DL/DT and an OJT package.


Not sure where this came from but that (as Stuart said to Sheldon) "couldn't be more wrong". Not even training for trade specific coursing is based on posting cycles as courses, due to changing content, are always in a state of flux. Could DL be used in some cases? Yes, it could but we are already seeing that there are issues with 5-10 day DLs for the various Leadership courses due to limited bandwidth at sea and/or the inability to free up personnel on operational deployments. As well, did you know that submariners have to be landed for DL-sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it. DL is not the end all to be all that many leaders are counting on it to be and some people are going to have to wake up to reality soon. Every single QSP review I have ever been involved in has several goals and one is ALWAYS the reduction of time in a classroom and more time in an operational Unit. The problem is that some of these course by virtue of the trade requirement MUST be in the 12 - 18 month range and conventionally a Reservist is not available as there is a follow up 12 month OJPR attached to that. This is NO DIFFERENT than a Community College technician/technologist diploma. 
Personally, I see this as the single most prevalent stumbling block to the MESO trade and God knows, many of us are trying to come up with a solution to this but someone either CTing or cross training to something other than KIN class is going to have to sacrifice rank and as unfair as that is, right now, we are scratching our heads trying to come up with a fair and equitable but also effective option. I think we will but it will be years and not months as the grown ups in Ottawa would like to see.  As effective as the KIN class and their crews continue to be, the 'Reserve only' crewing (yes, I know there's a WEng (NET) and ETech posit), and at no fault at all to those who gave their all in support of the training and operational deployment of these ships, the leadership forgot about one of the mandates of the Reserves; support to RegF operations. The crews had to become so class specific in their training that some trades (not all) ceased to be able to meet this mandate...again, no fault AT ALL to the dedicated women and men who continue to sail these ships.
Finally, I don`t like the change in the title you made. Based on what has occurred in the Naval Reservist world in the last 20 years, someone (high up) finally realized a fundamental mistake had been made; tying Naval Reserve training to one class of vessel. It took 20 years to realize this error and leadership wants it fixed `tomorrow`. No one ever said change was good, it is, however, inevitable and I can`t help but wonder where this conversation might be 5 years from now. If it were Pat`s decision right now, it would be a matter of a simple interview to see if an individual wants the RegF lifestyle and a CT over with no loss in rank but a restriction in employment until training can be brought up to the RegF equivalent-That a person`s career may be `stalled ` for a period is an unfortunate reality but atleast there is no loss of rank. Alas, that is a pipedream and I knew it as I typed.

My 4 am Saturday morning two cents worth.

Pat

PS: And yes, I am a firm believer that `atleast` should be one word!


----------



## Monsoon

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Not sure where this came from but that (as Stuart said to Sheldon) "couldn't be more wrong". Not even training for trade specific coursing is based on posting cycles as courses, due to changing content, are always in a state of flux. Could DL be used in some cases? Yes, it could but we are already seeing that there are issues with 5-10 day DLs for the various Leadership courses due to limited bandwidth at sea and/or the inability to free up personnel on operational deployments.


You're right - let me caveat my observations to say that I was talking about the operator/non-tech trades, which predominate in NAVRES. Does an NCIOP/NAVCOM/Boatswain/RMS Clk/Cook QL3 really need to be six months long? No, but since the tech trade courses need to be that long, it makes it easier to establish an initial training battle rhythm for the fleet as a whole that sees all QL3s occupy roughly the same number of calendar months between BMQ/NETP and posting to ship.

MESO (and the Reg F tech trades) are an entirely different story, and one that frankly I don't know enough about to comment on.



> As well, did you know that submariners have to be landed for DL-sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it. DL is not the end all to be all that many leaders are counting on it to be and some people are going to have to wake up to reality soon.


I hear this a lot from people. When I talk to them further it turns out they've had no exposure to DL/DT, but they "just know" it won't work, or they're thinking of those stupid online e-courses that it's become faddish to force people to take (not saying that's the case with you, but it speaks to a general resistance to, well, everything that predominates in our organization). Let's look at the USN training model - they do a lot of things wrong, but can anyone say that the largest and most effective navy in the world doesn't know what it's doing? Members get the minimal amount of training ashore possible and are posted to ship with the expectation that the ship's CoC will continue to drive their training through a mix of DL, DT (they're different things) and OJT. Their whole employment model is predicated on an assumption that the majority of members will spend only two to three years in the military: training and operational employment time. I don't think we want to go there as a force, but we sure as hell can learn from them when it comes to figuring out the minimal viable product we can post to sea.



> Finally, I don`t like the change in the title you made. Based on what has occurred in the Naval Reservist world in the last 20 years, someone (high up) finally realized a fundamental mistake had been made; tying Naval Reserve training to one class of vessel.


I entirely agree - and now we're fixing that problem, effectively going back to the way it was between 1920 and the early 1980s when reserve training QSPs fell behind their Reg F equivalents, and we have people waving their hands and crying that "the end is nigh". The RCN suffers from a discouragingly defeatist organizational culture towards the base of the pyramid.



> If it were Pat`s decision right now, it would be a matter of a simple interview to see if an individual wants the RegF lifestyle and a CT over with no loss in rank but a restriction in employment until training can be brought up to the RegF equivalent-That a person`s career may be `stalled ` for a period is an unfortunate reality but atleast there is no loss of rank.


If the reserve is organized to force generate individual augmentees, and those individual reservists don't have the necessary training to augment at their current rank, then what is the point of giving them that rank? Not saying that's how it IS now, but let's agree at least on how it SHOULD be.


----------



## ModlrMike

Small derail:

Until such time as they migrate all DL to a system that is easily accessed from home, the DL system will continue to be difficult for reservists to access, regardless of element.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Also, when I mentioned that submarines have to land personnel for DL, it is because there is physically no way to do it when the submarine is deployed. As for operational sea going units, previously as NCM PD Chief in MARLANT, I would get 3-4 per session who just couldn't do it due to insufficient bandwidth. CDA/CFLRS has since come up with a workaround for that but the submariners are still hooped.
I think the Naval Reserve as we got to know it WRT KIN class will soon be a thing of the past but my comment about CTing over at the same rank is because in some cases, the rank is a requirement for the qual...again, it would mean restricting postings (other than training) to one class and a bunch of shore postings. 
The RegF also needs to get it's s*** together WRT PLARS. MPs, RMS clerks (cooks?) are getting there but we are not yet for the majority. Even though the Navy has 2 technical training plans through civilian institutions, essentially if you join with this diploma as a civi, you wont get credit for all the stuff you did in uniform. We are hurting in the tech trade world and the Reserve force has the potential to be a resource as yet untapped.


----------



## Journeyman

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Also, when I mentioned that submarines have to land personnel for DL, it is because there is physically no way to do it when the submarine is deployed.


Perhaps it's time to bulldoze the Canadian Defence Academy, if all those high-priced Generals and Colonels can't figure out a way to produce a DL program on CD that a sailor with a laptop/tablet can work on while at sea then submit once ashore.

I know of several civie institutions that managed that, before everything became internet-centric.


----------



## Monsoon

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Also, when I mentioned that submarines have to land personnel for DL, it is because there is physically no way to do it when the submarine is deployed. As for operational sea going units, previously as NCM PD Chief in MARLANT, I would get 3-4 per session who just couldn't do it due to insufficient bandwidth.


Subs are different for a lot of reasons: the crews are small relative to the complexity of the systems (as compared to an MCDV of a comparable crew size), so I don't think there's a lot of room to accommodate junior members who aren't fully trade qualified (as compared to on a heavy) even in low-readiness sailing. But subs are the RCN's "special" capability - no one's talking about delivering JTF2 or CLD training by DL either. The 90% use case to target is paring back the time to OFP for operator trades on the heavies.


----------



## Navy_Pete

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...
> I hear this a lot from people. When I talk to them further it turns out they've had no exposure to DL/DT, but they "just know" it won't work, or they're thinking of those stupid online e-courses that it's become faddish to force people to take (not saying that's the case with you, but it speaks to a general resistance to, well, everything that predominates in our organization). Let's look at the USN training model - they do a lot of things wrong, but can anyone say that the largest and most effective navy in the world doesn't know what it's doing? Members get the minimal amount of training ashore possible and are posted to ship with the expectation that the ship's CoC will continue to drive their training through a mix of DL, DT (they're different things) and OJT. Their whole employment model is predicated on an assumption that the majority of members will spend only two to three years in the military: training and operational employment time. I don't think we want to go there as a force, but we sure as hell can learn from them when it comes to figuring out the minimal viable product we can post to sea.
> ....



Their model can't be applied to the RCN (or RN, RAN, RNZN etc) for a few reasons;

1.  They have a huge number of available billets on ships at sea.  They do a very significant amount of hands on OJT.  We have very few billets on actually operational ships.  We don't have room for many trainees oboard, so people have to show up with a lot of training already done, including a lot of the hands on stuff, which DL isn't really appropriate for.

2.  Their technicians are specialized; our sailors are generalists.  You need less initial training if you only do one small task.  We require more initial training as our sailors are required to know a little about everything (ie everyone does DC, FP, first aid, etc in addition to primary jobs)

Have a tonne of respect for the USN folks btw; their sailors are very professional and the experienced ones are experts in what they do.  They do however have folks onboard on some of the carriers that are untrained whose sole job is to do things like cleaning etc.  On the new ships they've specifically reduced the billets due to the lifetime costs associated with crewing them, so they have to have the crew show up better trained, which will eventually mean more ashore training.

Basically, comparing anyone to the USN is apples and oranges; if you look at the RN, RAN, or other similar NATO navies (French Navy as well), we all have similar trade training requirements.  Likely that we aren't all doing things wrong.


----------



## Monsoon

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Their model can't be applied to the RCN (or RN, RAN, RNZN etc) for a few reasons;
> 
> ...
> 
> Basically, comparing anyone to the USN is apples and oranges; if you look at the RN, RAN, or other similar NATO navies (French Navy as well), we all have similar trade training requirements.  Likely that we aren't all doing things wrong.


I agree for the most part, but I think we're kidding ourselves when we say we absolutely can't apply any of the USN's techniques successfully to pare a four-month QL3 down to, say, three months plus a longer OJT package and small DL/DT phase.


----------



## ModlrMike

To add, DL does not mean electronic delivery exclusively. It could be a combination of self directed learning and online exams or submissions of coursework for example.


----------



## quadrapiper

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To add, DL does not mean electronic delivery exclusively. It could be a combination of self directed learning and online exams or submissions of coursework for example.


Which, while it might be a hassle-trending-to-unworkable for personnel on deployed units (barring solutions particular to those situations) sounds tailor-made for the NRDs.


----------



## stoker8

A good read here when time permits, pretty much sums it all up, even though it's a couple of years old. 

http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/view.php?topic=35

I for one believe that the title of this forum subject could be correct (hope not...). Not for al trades of course, but for Meso and even Mars bar...?

The Navres (Navy) has spent a huge sum of money over the last dozen or more years on recruiting and the good ole Navy bus attraction thing.

They put two fulltime recruiters at each unit and told them to "sell" the Navres by offering "employment" plain and simple, along with some tuition reimbursement and a class A dental plan.

When those that were recruited using this model figure out that the employment angle has pretty much dried up they are not going to hang around I bet.

The majority of units can barely maintain a decent size now, and the French units are in very bad shape personnel wise.

The coastal units fare better and also attract quite a few ex reg sailors as well, so they will be o.k.

The Navres has never achieved it's authorized manning level and is shrinking last time I saw the numbers.

The "grown-ups need to get a grip on this fast"...


----------



## Stoker

stoker8 said:
			
		

> A good read here when time permits, pretty much sums it all up, even though it's a couple of years old.
> 
> http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/view.php?topic=35
> 
> I for one believe that the title of this forum subject could be correct (hope not...). Not for al trades of course, but for Meso and even Mars bar...?
> 
> The Navres (Navy) has spent a huge sum of money over the last dozen or more years on recruiting and the good ole Navy bus attraction thing.
> 
> They put two fulltime recruiters at each unit and told them to "sell" the Navres by offering "employment" plain and simple, along with some tuition reimbursement and a class A dental plan.
> 
> When those that were recruited using this model figure out that the employment angle has pretty much dried up they are not going to hang around I bet.
> 
> The majority of units can barely maintain a decent size now, and the French units are in very bad shape personnel wise.
> 
> The coastal units fare better and also attract quite a few ex reg sailors as well, so they will be o.k.
> 
> The Navres has never achieved it's authorized manning level and is shrinking last time I saw the numbers.
> 
> The "grown-ups need to get a grip on this fast"...



At my home unit Cabot you would think for sure they would have a rather large unit, truth be told perhaps 60 or 70 pers parade on a regular basis and its the same pretty much everywhere. When I joined in the late 80's we had over a 160.  They do recruit a fair number of personnel but retention is not good as was previously mentioned. The naval reserves always had a certain number of people CT, but it was only a few years ago when the floodgates opened when then Commodore Bennett came to a town hall in Halifax and made comments that Class C is like crack, and people should seek employment elsewhere. I don't know for the life of me why she said that. Next came the reg Commodore and basically said the same thing, there was a panic and we lost a lot of good people. By the time a more positive message came, it was too late. The problem right now is that there are too many rumors going around and no one in NAVRES is quelling them, so you get posts like the first one in this thread. 
Getting back to the MESO thing, yes the trade is in trouble and have been for sometime. Do I think the trade will cease, no I do not. I firmly believe that we are a resource that can benefit the regular force, all it would take is someone to recognize that. The only thing going for us right now is the amount of MAR ENG leaving due to the Spec pay issue and the amalgamation of the trade with the ET's. If they had the numbers the MESO's would be replaced on the MCDV's long ago. We do have people like Pat fighting for us, hopefully it'll be enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I found the referenced (Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies/Canadian Naval Review)article, and the discussion following very interesting and informative.

Let me address the _informative_ bit, first. My guess is that most serving senior officers are like me, as I was when I served: loaded with _good will_ towards the reserve forces, constantly flummoxed when we tried/try to do something about, for or to the reserves and, broadly and generally, ignorant of the reserves. The fact that many, many senior officers started their careers in the reserves doesn't mean they actually know much about the reserves. There are very, very few (none?) officers in senior positions who have, for example, served as (full time, regular force) COs of Naval Reserve Divisions or reserve regiments, thereby learning and comprehending what the real, local, unit level challenges are.

I did not have any meaningful interactions with the reserves until I was a unit CO. My dealings then spanned the spectrum: from frustration, even occasional anger with one (nearby) unit through to continuous admiration for the qualities of the reserve folks, especially the NCMs, and their willingness to put themselves out to get training and experience.

I shouldn't be too surprised, my father began his career in an RCNVR's _half company_ (that's what NRDs were called, apparently) when he was a university student, way back in the 1920s. He startd as an ordinary seaman and became an officer and then remained in the reserves while he started a civilian career. He went to sea, full time, fairly often ~ more often, in the mid 1930s,  as the full effects of the _Great Depression_ set in. He was lucky to have been well enough trained and the RCN found fairly long term billets for him. That is, for me, the first lesson: reservists must be "well enough trained" to be able to _"backfill"_ in full time (regular) positions on pretty short notice. The second lesson, from my own father's service and from my own experience, is that we have excellent people in the reserves: often, in my experience usually better people that we find in the regular force. (That shouldn't surprise us ~ one of my mentors told me once that we had (do we still have?) a "student militia" in which the soldiers in the ranks are, mostly, qualified to be officers in the regular force. I saw that in the enthusiasm and adaptability of reserve people when I initiated a somewhat imaginative training programme (I sent NCOs and equipment to some reserve units over the winter (got my knuckles rapped after the fact for abusing TD, etc, but it was all good ~ forgiveness is always easier to get than permission) and then (gentlemen's agreement) the 'owners' of the reserves sent me people I needed to "backfill" in the next year.) So, we have a useful _primary_ role: backfill ~ which requires good enough individual skills training, some (much?) of which can be done in local reserve units on training nights and weekends, sometimes using simulators and properly designed and managed DL. And we have the kinds of people who, I think, are likely to make good (imaginative) use of local resources.

Slightly  ff topic: but:

Take a look at this list.

Every single Naval Reserve Division is, I think, very near a navigable waterway: some big rivers, some big (HUGE) lakes and two oceans. Why can't every single NRD have a vessel? Every NRD is also near an army reserve unit.






UK _Archer_ class inshore patrol craft  




Swedish CB90 riverine patrol vessel

I know the answer is money, but ... just think of the useful, imaginative _joint_ training that could be conducted with the army reserves if the local Naval Reserve Division had a couple of these:





US sailors and marines using the Swedish CB90 and a RHIB type vessel

It is training for war ... not training for this or that or any specific war. The only thing I know, with 100% certainty, is that no one in Ottawa (or Washington or Beijing), including Gen Lawson and LGen Thibault (who may be the smartest guy in NDHQ), knows what the next war will look like. Maybe inshore patrol vessels and riverine operations will be useful skills, maybe not ... But I am pretty sure that actual (lightly armed) vessels ans joint training will be good for moral and moral matters, doesn't it?

/higjack ends

I don't have any real answers to the reserve dilemmas, and I think the plural matters because I think the problems (and opportunities) that face, say, _HMCS York_ on one hand and the _Queens York Rangers_ on the other are different, and I think that the problems (and opportunities) that face _HMCS York_ on one hand and _HMCS Cabot_ on the other are also different. I think better regular reserve _integration_ might help  and I think that needs to be a two-way street: more and better regular force people are needed to help the reserves to help themselves because that will, in the longer run, help the regular force ~ *short term pain for long term gain*, as then finance minister John Crosbie said of the 1979 budget (specifically an 18% gas tax) that cost the (Joe Clark) PCs their government. I think the reserve army needs a massive reorganization to save overhead ~ all those LCols and CWOs in units that cannot parade more than two platoons ~ and those savings need to be applied to things that make reserve service more attractive: summer work (they're students, after all and summer jobs matter) and useful, challenging, "fun" things to do in winter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> summer work (they're students, after all and summer jobs matter) and useful, challenging, "fun" things to do in winter.



And travel!  A big draw for me to NavRes was the ability to have summer work away from home, sort of independent if you will.  Many young people would love the opportunity to get away from mom and dad for summer. 

Of course I joined NavRes as a Sup Tech expecting I would be a sailor, boy was I wrong.  It wasn't until I was half way through my basic that I found out NavRes Sup Tech's don't sail.  Why join any facet of the Navy if you wont get to go to sea ?  

I loved my short time in the Nav Res but when the contract I was offered was in Quebec City; and all I wanted to do was go to sea, I quickly jumped ship to the regs.  No pun intended.


----------



## stoker8

Exactly E.R Campbell, your link, "Take a look at this list".

Drives home my point about the Navres recruiters selling "employment" perfectly, look at all the email addresses for each unit, "Jobs Jobs Jobs".

The Navres is not a fulltime job/ career, yet that is what they are still pushing! 

And that in the end will be the downfall of the organization unless they sell it for what it really is, "part time service to your country", citizen sailors who live work and serve within the community representing the RCN and giving up their vacation time to train away from home.

Early in their service yes they will serve more lengthy periods of time, but they should not get hooked on class B/ C employment, just look at the paperwork they use as well, it's called a "contract" not a "posting message"...


----------



## Stoker

stoker8 said:
			
		

> Exactly E.R Campbell, your link, "Take a look at this list".
> 
> Drives home my point about the Navres recruiters selling "employment" perfectly, look at all the email addresses for each unit, "Jobs Jobs Jobs".
> 
> The Navres is not a fulltime job/ career, yet that is what they are still pushing!
> 
> And that in the end will be the downfall of the organization unless they sell it for what it really is, "part time service to your country", citizen sailors who live work and serve within the community representing the RCN and giving up their vacation time to train away from home.
> 
> Early in their service yes they will serve more lengthy periods of time, but they should not get hooked on class B/ C employment, just look at the paperwork they use as well, it's called a "contract" not a "posting message"...



Back when I joined you usually received one training night a week, an admin night for supervisors and a weekend a month for training. If you were lucky you got a 100 day NATTRAP for the summer to make a few thousand for school. Generally we either sailed the Gate vessels, YAGS or painted rocks somewhere. Pay was low (around 60% of what we get now), no benefits, no pension. If you were lucky you may get on a destroyer for a trip. The full time work started to come when the reserves were given the MSA's, the precursor to the MCDV's. The 12 MCDV's were manned with people out of the units on a full time basis, that lasted for a year or so and we seen a general decline ever since and for any other reason, the amount of sailing people got, people got burnt out.
I think there is room for full time people in the reserves, but in certain positions to ensure corporate knowledge is not lost. I would love to see a overhaul to the entire reserve system and make it more in line to the US model of active or part time, letting personnel transit back and forth.


----------



## whitehorse

Quite a few commentators on this post have referred to an article I wrote some time ago on the Reserves and AOPs and so I guess I should comment here as well. For some background I was for most of my 28 years in the Naval Reserve a 'traditional' reservist (i.e. a part timer). As a result of very fortunate circumstances with my employer I had an unusual opportunity to command an MCDV in the late 90s (you'll have to guess which onehttp://forums.army.ca/forums/Smileys/Armyca/nodsmile.gif). I subsequently commanded an NRD on a part time basis. I transferred to the Supp Res in 2008 and therefore I really haven't been involved witht eh Naval Reserve since that time but find the current situation (to the extent that I am aware of it - I don't have any access to the DIN) very interesting albeit predictable.

When I left the Naval Reserves in 2008 it was clear to me as well as a number of my contemporaries that the situation (i.e. the burning out of the full time folks while ignoring the part timers) as it existed at that time was not sustainable. It was also made perfectly clear to me then that part-timers regardless of their experience were there to be seen and not heard. I was told point blank by very senior people that as a part timer I had little chance for promotion and none for any further commands. The comments attributed to Commodore Bennett concerning Class C service were pretty much at odds what I was being told by others a just a few years prior.

Time has moved on and now with the impending end of service of the MCDVs the naval reserve finds itself in the same situation it faced in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s....What do we do next? All I can say is that I hope that whatever the future holds it includes some allowance for at sea, team training for part-time reservists from NRDs. I believe now as then that without it NRDs and ultimately the Naval Reserve are not sustainable. The obvious platform for this is the ORCAs and I have noted that some NRDs make use of these platforms when available. Good for them. Although I must add that I appreciate the difficulty that units further east encounter in using these platforms.

While I certainly understand and appreciate the other roles of NRDs (and ultimately the Naval Reserve) both current and proposed I believe that without this essential glue the whole will not hold together.  

Thanks to those for reading my article written on AOPS so many years ago I don't know what the current situation is but I suspect that on the whole it hasn't changed much other than that the numbers have gotten a bit worse since I left. To those still active in the Reserves, good luck.


----------



## Svanen

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Every single Naval Reserve Division is, I think, very near a navigable waterway: some big rivers, some big (HUGE) lakes and two oceans. Why can't every single NRD have a vessel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK _Archer_ class inshore patrol craft



Good idea; but unfortunately the Archer-class boats are a poor example.

The Archers are assigned to URNUs, not local RNR divisions. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that following the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the RNR lost its seagoing functions. Much like the RAuxAF, it is now essentially restricted to providing administrative-type support to the regular forces.

Both the RNR and RAuxAF are now very small organisations, and have difficulty achieving their authorised manning levels. Small wonder, as few people join the reserves for the opportunity to sit at a desk.


----------



## Svanen

whitehorse said:
			
		

> When I left the Naval Reserves … it was clear to me as well as a number of my contemporaries that the situation (i.e. the burning out of the full time folks while ignoring the part timers) as it existed at that time was not sustainable. It was also made perfectly clear to me then that part-timers regardless of their experience were there to be seen and not heard. I was told point blank by very senior people that as a part timer I had little chance for promotion ...
> 
> I don't know what the current situation is but I suspect that on the whole it hasn't changed much other than that the numbers have gotten a bit worse since I left. To those still active in the Reserves, good luck.


Ditto!


----------



## FSTO

I was at QUEEN just a few years ago when the chickens were coming home to roost. The one bright spot is that NAVRES and CRCN knew it. The policy of "1 Navy" was being contemplated when I was there. Also the Naval Reserve was to return to the classic "Part Time Service" and class B and C service would be a rarity, not the norm. Case in point, all NRD CO's that were Class B positions had their contracts terminated (they weren't offered another one when their current one ended). Also NAVRES pers would have more opportunities to sail in the heavies (but with the speed that we are losing them there may not be room for any extras). There are many other things happening in the Naval Reserve which will change its make up and mission. I just hope the MCDV days have done too much damage to the foundations of the Naval Reserve.


----------



## Mike5

I'd like to see more consideration of the supply side of the equation.  There is a greater supply of labour in the major markets (GTA, Edmonton - Calgary, Vancouver, ...).  This labour is skilled, employed, experienced, available evenings / weekends / several weeks in the summer.   Then the key question becomes, 'can the RCN effectively leverage this labour pool -- given their advantages (experience) and constraints (limited availability) -- to further the mission of the RCN?'


----------



## Crispy Bacon

Why not have the Navy take on more of the coastal patrols/domestic waterway control from the Coast Guard (which, for some strange reason, falls under DFO)?


----------



## McG

Privateer said:
			
		

> I've heard informal discussions of this, but can someone point me to an official plan / message / document suitable for those without DIN access?


Already posted: http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/113705.0

and the link to an official announcement:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=commander-rcn-sets-a-course-with-executive-plan/hqdzq9uf


----------



## Monsoon

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Why not have the Navy take on more of the coastal patrols/domestic waterway control from the Coast Guard (which, for some strange reason, falls under DFO)?


For the same reason 3 PPCLI doesn't do policing in Edmonton.


----------



## Sailorwest

Mike5 said:
			
		

> I'd like to see more consideration of the supply side of the equation.  There is a greater supply of labour in the major markets (GTA, Edmonton - Calgary, Vancouver, ...).  This labour is skilled, employed, experienced, available evenings / weekends / several weeks in the summer.   Then the key question becomes, 'can the RCN effectively leverage this labour pool -- given their advantages (experience) and constraints (limited availability) -- to further the mission of the RCN?'


The problem of course, is that those people who live in GTA, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver are not skilled, employed and experienced in being a sailor. By hard experience we've found that people who are already full time in a real career are very hard to retain in the naval reserve as they frequently can't spend enough time to become qualified in whatever trade they might be interested in with the RCN. 

Our best demographic to attract is still the high school and university aged folks who frequently need gainful summer employment. The more of them that we can attract the greater the chance that some of them will stick around for awhile in the reserve after they have finished school and moved on to their careers. It would also be useful if we could retain people who move out of the reg force but this has always proved difficult if their trade isn't a match with the existing reserve trades.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I've often wondered why the Naval Reserve doesn't employ the Air Reserve model.  All Reg Force trades are represented in the Air Reserve- you just can't really get trained in most of them while being Reservist. You have to come over from the Reg Force already trained.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I've often wondered why the Naval Reserve doesn't employ the Air Reserve model.  All Reg Force trades are represented in the Air Reserve- you just can't really get trained in most of them while being Reservist. You have to come over from the Reg Force already trained.



We used to have ET's and medic's years ago. Most of the regs I know want nothing more to do with the military after they retire. That being said some trades can switch over, the ones that can't are the tech trades with the exception of MARENG.


----------



## dapaterson

Medics were lost to RX2000, which repatriated all medical trades to Health Services.  It was the beginning of the stovepiping the was followed by the MPs, and that the Int branch is likely going to try shortly.


----------



## mikeninercharlie

NAVRES medical personnel being cut had nothing to do with Rx2000, they were gone before that program kicked off. In the mid 90's here was a perceived issue of the med pers being unable to maintain their clinical skill sets by the MARCOM Surgeon. He had a choke on for the NAVRES for years and held the belief that patients were being endangered at home NRDs by substandard care after 1 or 2 questionable cases. When he finally got in to the big seat, the writing was on the wall. Unfortunately, his view wasn't shared by the folks who had the opportunity to have "shad medics" in their employ. Their basic course was equivalent to the RegF, many were nursing or medical students, and they could jump into any clinic and get the job done with minimal hassle. They same couldn't be said about the majority of Army reserve casualty aides... If you ever wondered where to medical positions ended up, look to the diving world


----------



## Monsoon

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I've often wondered why the Naval Reserve doesn't employ the Air Reserve model.  All Reg Force trades are represented in the Air Reserve- you just can't really get trained in most of them while being Reservist. You have to come over from the Reg Force already trained.


I'm in full agreement with your sentiment: it's ridiculous that a PO2 NET can't be in NAVRES without retraining as something else. Surely he can do exactly as much refresher training on weekends and weeks at sea as any other trade; he just also happens to have years of prior Reg F experience to help mitigate the skill fade. At least now we have the General Service Officer/NCM trade to help facilitate switchovers, but why needlessly deprive people of the trade qualifications they work years to achieve that the RCN can still use?

I hope the solution that sees the reserve fully integrated into the RCN a la "One Navy" addresses this. Right now, the issue stems from NAVRES' position as a formation with an establishment for specific ranks and trades. The reality is that the majority of NAVRES positions at the PO1/LCdr and up ranks are effectively ATR as far as the formation is concerned (with the obvious exception of, say, trade instructors, comptrollers and ship COs). I think once NAVRES occupation/career management is merged with the RCN HQ/D Mil C-level and we start thinking of occupations as being the same regardless of whether a member is currently in the P Res or in the Reg F, then the apparent barriers to other trades being in the reserve will fall away.

Hopefully. There's a lot of change that has to happen between here and there, and it's just a matter of how long command intent stays swung in a "One Navy" direction.


----------



## Infanteer

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I think once NAVRES occupation/career management is merged with the RCN HQ/D Mil C-level and we start thinking of occupations as being the same regardless of whether a member is currently in the P Res or in the Reg F, then the apparent barriers to other trades being in the reserve will fall away.



Really?  I never figured the Army Reserve would be ahead of you guys in anything, but it appears that they are.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Really?  I never figured the Army Reserve would be ahead of you guys in anything, but it appears that they are.



To be fair, Army Reserve trains a subset of the Reg F skillset (since not all skills can be maintained on a part-time basis).  Carefully documenting the delta means you know what you've got, which is part of the Army Res success- knowing what you don't know, so to speak.

The experiential delta is the big problem at higher ranks, though; civilian work experience can translate in some ways, but it's a huge variable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

To be clear- I am not advocating Res W Eng techs be created from scratch in Nav Res.  I I think that would be too hard.  However, if one walks into your local NRD from the Reg F and says he wants to CT, surely the RCN could keep him as a W Eng and slap an R in front of his MOS?


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Really?  I never figured the Army Reserve would be ahead of you guys in anything, but it appears that they are.


From what I understand, "career management", such as it is, in the Army Reserve is more or less the unit chain of command, (rather than the D Mil C-esque structure that NAVRES mirrors but isn't integrated with) so I assume you're talking about occupation management. I think in that case the advantage the Army Reserve has is that its occupations benefit from a strong "branch" culture - for instance, it's difficult for me to put my finger on who exactly would be the equivalent of, say, the Director of Artillery in the RCN. The Operations Branch Advisor, maybe? In the Army Reserve, there at least exists a few days a year in which D Arty is compelled to think about reserve artillery and what it does and doesn't do in relation to Reg F artillery (as dapaterson pointed out). I would hazard a guess that the number of days a year the RCN Ops Branch Advisor has spent thinking about the reserve component of the occupations in his branch has traditionally approached the low zero-digits, but this is surely as much NAVRES' fault as his.

What NAVRES needs to move away from is the happy place it inhabited when it took over the manning of the Kingston-class: essentially running a small shadow-navy with it's own parallel universe of "Occupation Managers" and "Branch Advisors" who could make training changes based on the needs of the Kingston-class in isolation. This culture spilled over to its Log and Int branch trades, but these are now being swiftly brought back into line, at least partially aided by the fact that those trades have reserve components in other environments. In fact these so-called NAVRES "Occupation Managers" and "Branch Advisors" need to recognize that what the are in a One Navy context is "Reserve Advisors" on their trade/branch.

As I say, I gather this is all in the process of unfolding. It will be interesting to see how it develops.


----------



## dapaterson

I hope it goes well for the RCN; I am concerned about the Int Branch desire to grow and expand regardless of need or ability (a curse that afflicts everyone).

And in my perfect world the Army would look outside its green borders to learn from the RCN; they do do some Reserve things very well; one hopes that the desire for some to earn "leading change" PER points won't override the needs of the institution.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I hope it goes well for the RCN; I am concerned about the Int Branch desire to grow and expand regardless of need or ability (a curse that afflicts everyone).



I'm good buddies with a Reg Force LCdr Intelligence Officer at MARPAC. I should ask him to comment on the relationships between Intel officers who wear different DEU's. It's quite the relationship.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am concerned about the Int Branch desire to grow and expand regardless of  need or *ability*


I know they _used_ to have a MWO that put effort into teaching analysis - "thinking about thinking."

Sorry, but I haven't seen a lot of it coming from the Int world on operations.

/tangent


----------



## PuckChaser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I haven't seen a lot of it coming from the Int world on operations.
> 
> /tangent



I've worked in it, and you're spot on save for a few blight lights that are shoved in a corner somewhere.


----------



## Journeyman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... save for a few blight lights ....


Freudian typo?


----------



## Infanteer

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> What NAVRES needs to move away from is the happy place it inhabited when it took over the manning of the Kingston-class: essentially running a small shadow-navy with it's own parallel universe of "Occupation Managers" and "Branch Advisors" who could make training changes based on the needs of the Kingston-class in isolation. This culture spilled over to its Log and Int branch trades, but these are now being swiftly brought back into line, at least partially aided by the fact that those trades have reserve components in other environments. In fact these so-called NAVRES "Occupation Managers" and "Branch Advisors" need to recognize that what the are in a One Navy context is "Reserve Advisors" on their trade/branch.



Wow.  Never knew that...talk about needless excess HR management.  And I thought the Army had it bad with parallel Res chains in the Div and National HQ, but at least occupational management is under one roof.


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow.  Never knew that...talk about needless excess HR management.  And I thought the Army had it bad with parallel Res chains in the Div and National HQ, but at least occupational management is under one roof.


Well, to be fair those Branch/Occupation Advisors are class "A" positions, and positions that do indeed need to exist as reserve advisors to the branch/trade. The problem now is in how they see their role and who they work predominantly with (i.e. not with the RCN-level branch/occupation advisors). Once that realignment happens, things will be better positioned for success.


----------



## Mike5

The discussion seems constrained by existing rules and approaches.  Consider something outside the box:

- In the major centres you have a supply of skilled tradespeople and professionals, who are largely available evenings, weekends and two to four weeks a year.  What could you do with a pool of  surgeons / criminal lawyers / firefighters / mechanics / accountants if you only ever had them evenings / weekends / one month a year?  Are there things that the RCN would like to do -- things that are not being done now but would further the mission of the RCN -- and do not require extended training and annual committments of four months of seatime?

- If the answer is 'No, everything the RCN should do unfortunately requires extended periods away', then the RCN should probably focus Reserve recruiting efforts on the only demographic that can consistently deliver extended periods away from work: teachers and other similar seasonal workers.

Rather then 'One Navy'  I would like to see a 'Greater Navy' with a broader scope of operations.  I am WAY outside my lane here so would appreciate critical thoughts,

Regards,


----------



## Stoker

Mike5 said:
			
		

> The discussion seems constrained by existing rules and approaches.  Consider something outside the box:
> 
> - In the major centres you have a supply of skilled tradespeople and professionals, who are largely available evenings, weekends and two to four weeks a year.  What could you do with a pool of  surgeons / criminal lawyers / firefighters / mechanics / accountants if you only ever had them evenings / weekends / one month a year?  Are there things that the RCN would like to do -- things that are not being done now but would further the mission of the RCN -- and do not require extended training and annual committments of four months of seatime?
> 
> - If the answer is 'No, everything the RCN should do unfortunately requires extended periods away', then the RCN should probably focus Reserve recruiting efforts on the only demographic that can consistently deliver extended periods away from work: teachers and other similar seasonal workers.
> 
> Rather then 'One Navy'  I would like to see a 'Greater Navy' with a broader scope of operations.  I am WAY outside my lane here so would appreciate critical thoughts,
> 
> Regards,



When I joined we saw quite a few teachers and lawyers join usually as officers and they were able to deploy for a few months during the summer. The biggest demographic is students that did the training nights and deployed for several months during the summer to make money for school. This worked on the old Gate Vessels, they only really sailed during the summer, except for the "Gate Vessel" weekends during the year. The Gates did their thing (basic seamanship) and we were known as summer shads or weekend warriors and generally lacked any respect from the regs. With the MCDV's we were now given an operational role and deployed with mostly full time and a few part time pers and during the summer we get the students. Most of us full time people want to stay and won't go back to the units. If the regs were smart we would be rolled over to the regs on a 5 or 10 year contract and made class specific or until we complete delta training to go the rest of the fleet. This way some billets would not have to be manned by the major ships, we could even continue on to A/OPS when the KIN class are paid off. Along with not wanting to lose our employmemt, I don't want to see a reversal of the hard won respect the MCDV pers have from the regs now. Going back to a part time organization, that does the odd ORCA weekend and is not allowed to progress in the mainstream is shortsighted, done right there is room for both.


----------



## mariomike

Saw this in my father's papers from the war. Not sure who wrote it. He served on HMCS FUNDY ( J88 ),  HMCS LOCKEPORT ( J100 ), HMCS UNGAVA ( J149 ), HMCS FORT ERIE ( K670 ) and enjoyed traveling to Art Apps naval reunions across Canada. He hosted one year in Toronto, and I got to meet some of them.
I think it was one of the songs they sang? 

This poem / song is about the _wartime_  Canadian Naval Reserve. Not the present day. It is posted for historical interest only. Posted "as is" ( a bit "salty" in parts. I XX'd one particular word I thought was in poor taste. )

THE SWAN SONG OF THE RESERVIST

The war's over and we're in clover
     We leave the job to you;
This is no guff, it's safe enough,
     We've shown you what to do.

With telescopes at proper slopes,
     And hankies up your sleeves,
Just pace the decks of painted wrecks.
     In jackets made at Gieves.

With brand new ships and salty dips,
     With half rings gained ashore,
Don't tell us how to do it now,
     Or how you won the war.

Oh - it's V.R.'s for the V.R.'s,
     And Gins for the R.C.N.
Who stayed ashore throughout the war,
     And now sail forth again.

The Winters cruise and lots of booze,
     And awnings aft and fore;
Is all you'll do the whole year through,
     Till you go back ashore.

To buxom gXXh with lots of cash,
     And scheming maiden aunts,
You shoot the flannel about the channel,
     And hostile coasts of France.

Lord God Almighty you've never seen Blighty,
     Where did that accent come from?
It must be schools and manning pools
     And draughts of pusser rum.

From the V.R.'s and the N.R.'s
     Here's a toast to the R.C.N.
Come times of stress and deep duress
     We'll take the strain again.

Author unknown.

Note: V.R. during the war did not mean what it does now.


----------



## CougarKing

A new role for the naval reserves?

Naval Today



> *New security unit to protect Canadian Navy ships on deployment*
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is developing a new capability called the Naval Security Team (NST) that will be tasked with protecting Canadian Navy ships and sailors while on deployment.
> 
> According to the navy, *NST will be composed primarily of naval reservists *and will include a full-time command team to ensure personnel, training and equipment are available for deployment.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not really a new role, more like an extension of an existing one: An enhanced harbour defence Unit, so to speak. I suspect it would be something akin to the difference between a ship's boarding team and the new Enhanced Naval Boarding Party Team 1.

What worries me far more in this scheme is the maintenance of the operational readiness level. I just can't see that level of performance being maintained with part time reservists. First of all, if you trained 30 to 50 actual "part-time" reservists, you would not be able to deploy more than about ten to fifteen of them on less than 6 months notice, and even then. Even for long planned exercises, we had to build up some harbour defence team with members from other teams to fill the ranks. 

On the other hand, if you select those 30 to 50, train them up to high standard and keep them active for available service, you are creating yet another reserve "permanent" manned situation, like the MCDV.

I have asked the question before, and never got a proper response: At which point does a reservist who spends his life in actual service become a regular?


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...."part-time" reservists, you would not be able to deploy more than about ten to fifteen of them on less than 6 months notice, and even then.


But they "will include a full-time command team....".  That ensures the HQ staff is good to go, and keeps some Officers and Chiefs off of the street corners.   :nod:

 I wonder what their badges will look like?   op:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

mariomike said:
			
		

> Probably a good question for this 45-pager,
> 
> Component Transfers (Reserve to Regular): Q&A



My question was more philosophical than practical. 

What I want to understand is why we keep creating tasks/units that obviously require to be available and standing 365/6 days a year, then man them with "reservists' who obviously are making this a career, with the full knowledge that this is what we are doing or that it is how it will end up. Why not do the staffing required to just make those task/units part of the permanent establishment and hire real regulars to man them?

Otherwise, when a large portion of them are out serving full time, IMHO, you cease to have a reserve because it cannot be called out in an emergency.


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why not do the staffing required to just make those task/units part of the permanent establishment and hire real regulars to man them?



Part-timers are cheaper? They can be sent back to Class A any time the service choses to do so.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Otherwise, when a large portion of them are out serving full time, IMHO, you cease to have a reserve because it cannot be called out in an emergency.



aka A lack of "Surge Capacity".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have asked the question before, and never got a proper response: At which point does a reservist who spends his life in actual service become a regular?



I think you know the answer to that question.  

The employability and deploy-ability of a full time reservist and a regular force member are "oceans apart".  Thought I would keep it nautical for you  

As for this unit, sounds interesting.  I was planning on retiring in 2020 and going Army reserve (the RCN make me :stars but this might be "neat".


----------



## Stoker

This a capability that been talked about for many years and makes perfect sense. There are many reservists around with Port Security experience that plays well with what the intended purpose of this unit. As well much of this training can be conducted in house at certain units. These deployed Class C members are under the same rules as any regular force deployed member.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But they "will include a full-time command team....".  That ensures the HQ staff is good to go, and keeps some Officers and Chiefs off of the street corners.   :nod:
> 
> I wonder what their badges will look like?   op:



And let's be fair, between press gangs and other unsavoury activities, this is the best place for them really.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hold on.... wasn't the Port Security details that were created following 9/11 and were then supplementing security at the gates and on the water for years afterwards, killed off in pursuit of paring down costs to satisfy shrinking budgets in the lead up to the last general election?  If they were too expensive to maintain then, then how the hell are they going to be less expensive now?  

I too, think this was a great role for the Reserves.  Would be fine with seeing it come to pass as it role that needs to be filled once again.


----------



## mariomike

Port Security sounds a bit like,

Airfield defence role for PRes?
9 pages.


----------



## Journeyman

mariomike said:
			
		

> Port Security sounds a bit like,
> 
> Airfield defence role for PRes?
> 9 pages.


Except this isn't Port Security;  this is a unit intended to protect Canadian Navy ships on deployment.  

I can't recall the last time we deployed an airfield.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

With the caveat, also, that the Naval Reserve has been in the port security game for a little over twenty years now. 

It started before 9/11. The Harbour Defence Units evolved out of the Coastal Defence Organization and were always meant to be deployable forces. 9/11 just happen to make their first actual deployment a deployment to our own home harbour by sheer coincidence, until the proper materiel and personnel could be acquired and developed by the regular force to ensure ongoing port protection in halifax and Esquimalt.

Which is why I conclude that this is just an extra evolution of the existing task of the NR.


----------



## mariomike

Journeyman said:
			
		

> this is a unit intended to protect Canadian Navy ships on deployment.



From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have asked the question before, and never got a proper response: At which point does a reservist who spends his life in actual service become a regular?



Well, the NDA refers to continuing, full-time service as being the difference between Reg F and Res F.  And somehow, a 3 year engagement for a Reg F member meets that definition, but a three-year period of full-time service for a Res F member does not.

We have de facto created a "Reg F lite", with different pay and different terms of service.  Perhaps that's what needs to be institutionalized: a Reg F with different TOS and different pay rates to replace the long term full-time Res F.


----------



## Journeyman

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.


I stand corrected; a lesson on staying within arcs.


----------



## mariomike

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I stand corrected; a lesson on staying within arcs.



I would say your arc is considerably wider than mine!


----------



## McG

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I read in Airfield defence role for PRes?, it discussed a unit intended to protect RCAF aircraft on deployment.


The thread described an idea to create a PRes force to defend airfields.  Thread participants conceived a different role for a rapid deployment PSD type group to protect aircraft and aircrew.

Debate orbited around the ideas that existing infantry are capable of filling the first role (which is what the RCAF was looking at), and Reg F infantry in high readiness should be called for short notice requirements.  This was countered with arguments that infantry are not well suited to the point (aircraft) and personnel security tasks, and that SOF like rapid responses would be required to keep pace with the short notice at which aircraft could be dispatched internationally and Reg F infantry just are not up to that quick a launch ... of course, PRes PSDs would also not be that quickly responsive either so ...

In any case, that thread was two different ideas talking past each other.


----------



## tomahawk6

Very similar to what the Coast Guard mission is and that of the USAF Security Force.I am probably lacking key information to make a judgement but it wouldnt be the first time. ;D
What enables the US to effectively use reservists are our laws guaranteeing a reservists civilian job.We have both individual mobilization designees and reserve units so if there is a need for fillers we can dip into the individual ready reserve.Modernizing the reserve system is key for facing the uncertainties of the future.


----------



## Furniture

Looks to me much like the security positions in KAF that were filled with guys on one year class "C" contracts. Hired for one particular Roto and then a new crew comes in for the next mission. Frees up the MSE/CSE types a bit more to do the maintenance that can't be done at sea. Makes sense if done right, and gives a good oportunity to deploy for the Nav Res.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> With the caveat, also, that the Naval Reserve has been in the port security game for a little over twenty years now.
> 
> It started before 9/11. The Harbour Defence Units evolved out of the Coastal Defence Organization and were always meant to be deployable forces. 9/11 just happen to make their first actual deployment a deployment to our own home harbour by sheer coincidence, until the proper materiel and personnel could be acquired and developed by the regular force to ensure ongoing port protection in halifax and Esquimalt.
> 
> Which is why I conclude that this is just an extra evolution of the existing task of the NR.



Maybe it's because we're still short on facts, but I just don't see how this is suppose to be affordable. 

What we've been briefed so far is that the security team would fly out a couple weeks before the ship arrives in order to situate themselves. Well, I can tell you that sometimes our ships only spend 4-7 days on patrol before returning to port for 3-4 days (that was the experience of my friends on the recent FREDERICTON deployment; my experience was more like 10-12 days between Port Visits).

With such short times between ports, you would need 2 or 3 full teams going if you wanted to give each of them 1-2 weeks of lead time in each port ahead of the ship arriving. 

Or is this team only meant to augment ships when they are in particularly dangerous ports? Or ports that don't have adequate security of their own?

In any case, even if out of a dozen port visits during a 12 month deployment, they only require this tea, for 1/3rd of them (so, 4), that's still a sh*t tonne of money to fly this team half way around the world back, and put them all in hotels with full means and incidentals for 2-3 weeks per port visit. Plus wouldn't they get any danger pay and foreign service premium that the ship is entitled to? 

Are we going to sign MOUs with all of these Asian/European countries, or is this security team going to use nothing but loud hailers and billy-clubs?


----------



## Monsoon

Lumber said:
			
		

> Or is this team only meant to augment ships when they are in particularly dangerous ports? Or ports that don't have adequate security of their own?


This. But the concept of use is that the team could be, for instance, committed as part of a coalition contribution where it could provide littoral security for a multinational task group that's being supported out of a specific port that isn't deemed to have robust enough organic security arrangements over the course of many months.


----------



## dimsum

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> This. But the concept of use is that the team could be, for instance, committed as part of a coalition contribution where it could provide littoral security for a multinational task group that's being supported out of a specific port that isn't deemed to have robust enough organic security arrangements over the course of many months.



I could see pier-side FP for a multinational task force, but would other nations allow foreign FP personnel onboard their ships/submarines?


----------



## Monsoon

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I could see pier-side FP for a multinational task force, but would other nations allow foreign FP personnel onboard their ships/submarines?


NTS will be pier-side and on-water FP, not onboard.


----------



## Torlyn

All good comments and questions...  As things stand right now, please remember that we're looking at NST from a pre-IOC phase.  While we have the concepts created, we are working on making that concept a reality.

Using the Class A framework is going to be the largest stumbling block we have, for many of the reasons listed above.  Remember, this is not a surge capability.  This is a deliberate deployment, and as such, will have a 6-9month lead time.  

A set of IT (Individual Training) requirements will be submitted to all NRDs, with NAVRES HQ support.  Those selected will be brought to Esquimalt 5 weeks before deployment for CT (Collective Training) to be completed on site.  Once the herd has been thinned, and we have reached the appropriate watermarks for training, we will deploy to whichever port the ship(s) will be at that we're supporting.  

Don't think of this as something for every port visit, rather something for the RAMP visits.  We arrive 3-4 days in advance, we execute whatever force protection is required based on the threat and ship's CO concurrence, wave the ship off, and return home.

Again, we are in the trial phase.  IOC is scheduled for the upcoming summer, and it is a proof of concept.  There's a lot of moving pieces, both strategic and tactical, that need to be weighed off prior to deploying.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to post them here, or in an appropriate forum.  I'd prefer to keep all of this public, so you have the transparency needed to fully understand what the team is going to be.

Cheers,

NST Team


----------



## jaysfan17

My last parade night we had a briefing and a small portion of it was in regards to the NST. The NST portion was very vague. What I was told was NAVRES wants to get 400 personnel trained up (Primarily Class A) and from there NST will take a portion (70-100 was the estimated number for one deployment) of that to deploy wherever. I was also told there will be some training for NST run in early to mid summer and that there could be a deployment as early as the summer of 2018 to East Asia. Again, not much was said but so far it sounds like something really interesting.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is no reason a smaller vessel 50' can't be stationed at any of the marine based Reserve units and be taken out on Saturday or even during the evening. A lot of the basic seamanship stuff is built around just doing it.


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> There is no reason a smaller vessel 50' can't be stationed at any of the marine based Reserve units and be taken out on Saturday or even during the evening. A lot of the basic seamanship stuff is built around just doing it.



I'm an advocate of building another 8 ORCA's and stationing them on the Great Lakes, during the winter they could be hauled out of the water and put through a 2 month maintenance period. From Spring until late Fall they could ply the lakes.


----------



## Stoker

I'm surprised no one is mentioning all the new things going on for the naval reserves. The mission of the Naval reserves will be Class A, Orca and new NST. The MCDV's are changing 40% of their billets to regular force this year, and the year after 100%. All class of ship will have 5% reserves at any one time in the future, mostly as back fills. Contracts up to a year will be given no more than two consecutive contracts. All members on Class B/C that have a year experience Class C in the last 5 years will be offered a transfer at rank up to PO1 and LCdr.


----------



## Stoker

Hot off the press

RAAUZYUW RCCLHBF2012 3501424-UUUU--RCWBMBA.

ZNR UUUUU ZOC

R 131717Z DEC 16

FM NDHQ C NAVY OTTAWA

TO NAVGEN

BT

UNCLAS NAVGEN 041/16 RCN 048/16

SIC CNV/DPV/WLF

SUBJ: COMPONENT TRANSFER OPPORTUNITY FOR NAVRES TO REG F RCN

REF: A. NAVGEN 034-13 - NAVAL RESERVE SEA SERVICE

B. NPI 003 - NAVAL RESERVE SEA SERVICE

C. DAOD 5002-3 - COMPONENT AND SUB-COMPONENT TRANSFER

D. CF MIL PERS INST 20-04 - ADMIN POLICY OF CLASS A, CLASS B, AND

CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE

E. CF MIL PERS INST 03-08 - CF COMPONENT TRANSFER AND COMPONENT

TRANSFER CAREER PROGRAMS

1. IT IS THE CDS AND MND VISION THAT OUR RESERVES EVOLVE TO FULFILL

A MODERN, STRATEGIC ROLE BASED ON AUGMENTING THE REGULAR COMPONENT

OF THE CAF. WITHIN THE RCN, THIS INTENT CONTINUES TO BE THE RAISON D

ETRE OF THE ONGOING MODERNIZATION OF THE NAVAL RESERVE STRUCTURAL

REVIEW. CONCURRENT WITH THIS REVIEW IS A CHANGE IN THE CREWING MODEL

FOR OUR KINGSTON CLASS SHIPS

2. SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS CLASS IN 1995, THE NAVAL RESERVE

(NAVRES) HAS BEEN TASKED WITH THE CREWING OF THESE VESSELS. THIS LED

TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CADRE OF FULL-TIME CLASS C RESERVISTS WHO

FOR SEVERAL YEARS WERE ABLE TO MEET KINGSTON MANNING REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, IN THE LONG TERM, THIS FORCE GENERATION MODEL PROVED TO BE

UNSUSTAINABLE.

3. AS A CONSEQUENCE, IN THE NEAR FUTURE THE CREWING OF THE KINGSTON

CLASS (I.E. THE ESTABLISHMENT) WILL CHANGE AS THE RCN REPURPOSES

EXISTING REGULAR FORCE POSITIONS INTO THESE VESSELS. THE GOAL IS TO

TRANSITION OUR CURRENT CREWING MODEL AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AND AS

SEAMLESSLY AS POSSIBLE, SUCH THAT BY 2019 THE KINGSTON CLASS WILL BE

CREWED PRIMARILY BY REGULAR FORCE PERSONNEL, WITH RESERVE PERSONNEL

AUGMENTING AT A LEVEL ACROSS THE ENTIRE RCN SURFACE FLEET AT A

MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT PER UNIT

4. IN LIGHT OF THESE CHANGES, ALL RESERVISTS, LCDR AND BELOW AND PO1

AND BELOW WHO MEET THE CRITERIA, WILL BE INVITED TO COMPONENT

TRANSFER (CT) TO THE REGULAR FORCE, AT RANK. THE CRITERIA ARE AS

FOLLOWS (NOTE THAT PERSONNEL WHO FALL OUTSIDE OF THE CRITERIA AND

WHO DESIRE A CT TO THE REGULAR FORCE WILL BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE EXISTING CT APPLICATION PROCESS):

A. PERSONNEL CURRENTLY EMPLOYED IN A CLASS C CAPACITY IN A KINGSTON

CLASS VESSEL

B. PERSONNEL CURRENTLY ON CLASS A OR B EMPLOYMENT WHO HAVE BEEN ON

CLASS C CONTRACT WITHIN THE PAST 5 YEARS (FROM DATE OF PROMULGATION

OF THIS MESSAGE) IN A KINGSTON CLASS VESSEL

C. ARE LCDR OR BELOW (OFFICERS) OR PO1 AND BELOW (NCMS) IN RANK

D. CURRENT MOS IS: MARS, NCIOP, NAV COMM, BOSN, MESO, OR COOK (SEE

PARA 8A)

5. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT UNDER THIS INITIATIVE PERSONNEL SELECTED

FOR CT WHO ARE CURRENTLY POSTED TO A KINGSTON CLASS SHIP WILL

INITIALLY CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT WILL

BE IAW NORMAL POSTING/CAREER CYCLES WITH THE INTENT THAT SERVICE IN

OTHER CLASSES OF SHIPS WILL REQUIRE DELTA TRAINING. PERSONNEL SHOULD

BE AWARE THAT FUTURE POSTINGS MIGHT INVOLVE POSTINGS OUTSIDE HPD IN

KEEPING WITH THE REGULAR FORCE REQUIREMENTS. FOR PERSONNEL CURRENTLY

POSTED ASHORE IN CLASS A OR B POSITIONS WHO MEET THE CRITERIA ABOVE,

A DETERMINATION OF DELTA TRAINING WHEN/IF REQUIRED WILL BE RESOLVED

ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS

6. THE RCN WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE ITS BEST OFFICERS AND NCMS BASED

ON MERIT. SELECTION BOARDS WILL IDENTIFY SAILORS WHO HAVE MASTERED

PERFORMANCE AND LEADERSHIP AT SEA AND HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO LEAD AT

THE NEXT RANK. I FULLY EXPECT THAT GIVEN THE MANY YEARS OF SEA-GOING

EXPERIENCE AMONGST THE PERSONNEL WHO CHOOSE TO CT, THAT THEY WILL

COMPETE FAVOURABLY AT THESE BOARDS.

7. CT CANDIDATES WILL BE PROCESSED IAW EXISTING CAF CT POLICIES.

HOWEVER, SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES WILL BE INTRODUCED TO

STREAMLINE AND EXPEDITE THE CT PROCESS. AS SUCH, MEMBERS WILL NOT

APPLY ON-LINE, BUT RATHER A LETTER OF OFFER WILL BE SENT DIRECTLY TO

THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MEETING THE

AFOREMENTIONED REQUIREMENTS. D NAV P AND T 3, SUPPORTED BY PCC

QUEBEC, WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPILING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION

AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, CONFIRMING THAT MEMBERS ARE QUALIFIED

IN OCCUPATION AND RANK, AND IDENTIFYING REGULAR FORCE POSITIONS INTO

WHICH MEMBERS WILL BE POSTED. THE LETTERS OF OFFER WILL ALSO INCLUDE

INFORMATION ON RANK AND POSITIONS. INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVE THESE

LETTERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO RESPOND NLT 30 JUN 17. ONCE AN

INDIVIDUAL ACCEPTS THE OFFER THEY WILL BE CONTACTED TO CONFIRM PAY

INCENTIVE, EPZ, COS, AND ADDITIONAL TRANSITION DETAILS. PERSONNEL

WHO MEET THE STATED CRITERIA AND WHO HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED CT

APPLICATIONS VIA THE REGULAR PROCESS NEED NOT WITHDRAW THOSE

APPLICATIONS, AS THEY WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THIS INITIATIVE

8. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR NCMS:

A. AT THIS TIME THE INITIATIVE PERTAINS TO NCIOP, NAV COMM, BOSN,

AND MESO. ASSISTANT CMP IS THE OCCUPATION AUTHORITY (OA) FOR THE

COOK OCCUPATION AND IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE RCN WILL EXTEND THIS

INITIATIVE TO THE COOKS, ALTHOUGH THEIR LETTERS WILL BE MODIFIED TO

ADDRESS DIFFERENCES. NAVRES NCMS IN OTHER OCCUPATIONS ARE STILL

ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT CT REQUESTS THROUGH THE EXISTING CT PROCESS

B. FOR MESO, PERSONNEL ARE TO INDICATE IN THEIR RESPONSES PREFERENCE

FOR EITHER THE ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL STREAM

C. THE PORT INSPECTION DIVER (PID) OCCUPATION IS BEING CONSIDERED

FOR INCLUSION IN THIS INITIATIVE. ONCE CONFIRMED, FURTHER DETAILS

WILL BE FORWARDED

9. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR OFFICERS:

A. THE INITIATIVE PERTAINS TO MARS OFFICERS ONLY. FOR FUTURE

EMPLOYMENT, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH

COMMAND OF AN FFH OR JSS WILL NOT CHANGE (I.E. ORO COURSE PLUS

SURFACE COMMAND QUALIFICATION). COMMAND OF A MMS OR AOPV WILL

REQUIRE EITHER A MINOR WAR VESSEL COMMAND QUALIFICATION OR A SURFACE

COMMAND QUALIFICATION. NAVRES OFFICERS IN OTHER OCCUPATIONS ARE

STILL ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT CT REQUESTS THROUGH THE EXISTING CT PROCESS

B. CDR AND CPO FILES WILL BE REVIEWED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND

RANK/POSITION OFFERS/RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TAILORED TO INDIVIDUAL

CAPABILITIES AND EXPERIENCE

10. FOR ALL RANKS, PERSONNEL WHO BELIEVE THEY HAVE SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS NAVGEN (FOR EXAMPLE THOSE

ELIGIBLE PERSONNEL WHO WISH TO CT INTO A RCN MANAGED OCCUPATION NOT

IDENTIFIED IN PARA 8A OR PARA 9A) AND WHO WISH TO BE CONSIDERED

UNDER THIS CT INITIATIVE ARE INVITED TO CONTACT D NAV P AND T 3.

SIMILARLY PERSONNEL WITH QUESTIONS MAY CONTACT D NAV P AND T 3

DIRECTLY

11. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY IS COMPLETELY

VOLUNTARY AND THAT THOSE PERSONNEL WHO DO NOT WISH TO COMPONENT

TRANSFER INTO THE REGULAR FORCE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT

THROUGHOUT THE SURFACE FLEET OR IN OTHER CAPACITIES.

12. THIS INITIATIVE IS AIMED AT ENHANCING THE CAPABILITY OF THE RCN

WHILE MEETING THE PRIORITIES OF TODAY S FLEET AND PREPARING FOR THE

FUTURE FLEET.


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm an advocate of building another 8 ORCA's and stationing them on the Great Lakes, during the winter they could be hauled out of the water and put through a 2 month maintenance period. From Spring until late Fall they could ply the lakes.



We said this exact thing to the Cmdre, with the exception that we said we'd be happy with 2 to 4 Orcas. Her answers was, "sure,  but you'll have to cut that cost from somewhere else."


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> We said this exact thing to the Cmdre, with the exception that we said we'd be happy with 2 to 4 Orcas. Her answers was, "sure,  but you'll have to cut that cost from somewhere else."



How about the money spent on all the social experimentation that goes on in the CAF.  >


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> How about the money spent on all the social experimentation that goes on in the CAF.  >



Or taxpayer funded sports teams?


----------



## CBH99

Oh boy...

Did she seem to understand that there was a long, long list of readily available things we could cut & redirect to more 'military things'?  

Good thing she didn't ask where we could have taken that money from.  I'm sure she'd have left with banker boxes full of lists.   >


----------



## Lumber

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Oh boy...
> 
> Did she seem to understand that there was a long, long list of readily available things we could cut & redirect to more 'military things'?
> 
> Good thing she didn't ask where we could have taken that money from.  I'm sure she'd have left with banker boxes full of lists.   >



I'm actually going to claim ignorance here. As far as I can see, NAVRES is doing a good job of spending the money it has. The NRETS events are expensive, but that's nature of the beast; training people from 24 units across the country costs a lot in travel expenses. But I doubt those travel expenses, added up, equal the price of an ORCA, plus the infrastructure needed to maintain it.

Where else could we cut money from in NAVRES?


----------



## ModlrMike

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm actually going to claim ignorance here. As far as I can see, NAVRES is doing a good job of spending the money it has. The NRETS events are expensive, but that's nature of the beast; training people from 24 units across the country costs a lot in travel expenses. But I doubt those travel expenses, added up, equal the price of an ORCA, plus the infrastructure needed to maintain it.
> 
> Where else could we cut money from in NAVRES?



How about NAVRESHQ? Shift the remaining functions to PacFlt and call it done.


----------



## Monsoon

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How about NAVRESHQ? Shift the remaining functions to PacFlt and call it done.


I think there's been enough trimming in QC that we can say that we've gotten to the point where there isn't really any duplication of function between NAVRESHQ and MARPAC HQ (i.e. IT, admin and finance services, etc). Everyone who's doing the minimal organizational support work in QC would just be shifted to Victoria, so there'd be relocation costs and no particular longer-term savings. The Fleet School in particular is now effectively just a classroom building and accommodations facility that can host courses owned by NPTG and staffed by augmentee instructors - not much fat to trim there either, and a useful bit of training capacity during peak periods.


----------



## Torlyn

Morning,

Hopefully I can provide some clarification.

NAVRESHQ is looking for 400 people, to determine training requirements, desire, ability to deploy, etc.  These 400 people will not be trained beyond the scope of what would normally be expected for someone who is looking to potentially take a class B or C contract.  They will most likely get extra resources to ensure that they are able to maintain C7/C8, Sig, first aid, etc.  Intent behind that is to get as much of the individual training done at the units.

I will be releasing the CFTPO's for the team later today, through PCC(O), who will then source via PCC(Q).  Working with them, we will select the 70 people who will be joining us for a 2 month contract for training and deployment to Korea, in order to test the RCN's capability of deploying a predominately class A expeditionary land force.  While this is something our friends in green do all the time, it's a new concept for us, and we want to make sure we do it right.

The training and deployment will take place from 15 May - 15 July (give or take a day or two) and will be on the west coast.  Should you want a contract for the remainder of summer, I've been assured that this will happen.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions, let me know if you have any more.

XO - NST



			
				luttrellfan said:
			
		

> My last parade night we had a briefing and a small portion of it was in regards to the NST. The NST portion was very vague. What I was told was NAVRES wants to get 400 personnel trained up (Primarily Class A) and from there NST will take a portion (70-100 was the estimated number for one deployment) of that to deploy wherever. I was also told there will be some training for NST run in early to mid summer and that there could be a deployment as early as the summer of 2018 to East Asia. Again, not much was said but so far it sounds like something really interesting.


----------



## nick21infinite

I've heard informal discussions of this, but can someone point me to an official plan / message / document suitable for those without DIN access?   What happens to the KINGSTON class crews?  I don't see them being whisked off and replaced with Reg crews all of a sudden.  [lol:


----------



## Monsoon

nick21infinite said:
			
		

> I've heard informal discussions of this, but can someone point me to an official plan / message / document suitable for those without DIN access?   What happens to the KINGSTON class crews?  I don't see them being whisked off and replaced with Reg crews all of a sudden.  [lol:


I don't think anyone is getting "whisked" anywhere. From what I understand, the plan is for the individuals to remain for the most part in their current positions, just with new (Reg F rather than class B/C) terms of service. At that point, when folks are posted off their ship in a future APS (maybe two or three years down the road) they'll either be replaced by a Reg F member or a class B/C person depending on availability.


----------



## Stoker

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is getting "whisked" anywhere. From what I understand, the plan is for the individuals to remain for the most part in their current positions, just with new (Reg F rather than class B/C) terms of service. At that point, when folks are posted off their ship in a future APS (maybe two or three years down the road) they'll either be replaced by a Reg F member or a class B/C person depending on availability.



CT's are coming for Kingston Class personnel who want them and from what I have been told some, not all are taking them. The CT's are some time away and as previously stated some will remain in the Class until delta training can be completed and eventual transition to future fleet. Currently for some trades no further core crew SOU's are being given out however extensions are still being granted. I expect in regards to the core crew billets all trades will eventually be closed to personnel wanting them, with the eventual transition to an entire regular force crewing model with the exception of 5% (2 pers) being reserve on ship.
I suggest that any personnel looking for reserve employment call their career manager.


----------



## Monsoon

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> CT's are coming for Kingston Class personnel who want them and from what I have been told some, not all are taking them. The CT's are some time away and as previously stated some will remain in the Class until delta training can be completed and eventual transition to future fleet. Currently for some trades no further core crew SOU's are being given out however extensions are still being granted. I expect in regards to the core crew billets all trades will eventually be closed to personnel wanting them, with the eventual transition to an entire regular force crewing model with the exception of 5% (2 pers) being reserve on ship.
> I suggest that any personnel looking for reserve employment call their career manager.


I think you're right, but the target is a minimum of 5% reserve crewing "across the fleet" - that's about 150 positions. Bearing in mind that by the time they reach that point they'll have taken anyone who wants to transfer into the Reg F, that number sounds about right for augmentee/OJT/experiential training/etc for predominantly class "A" reservists. I agree with your point that anyone looking to make a lifetime career of sailing should take the offer, though.


----------



## Stoker

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I think you're right, but the target is a minimum of 5% reserve crewing "across the fleet" - that's about 150 positions. Bearing in mind that by the time they reach that point they'll have taken anyone who wants to transfer into the Reg F, that number sounds about right for augmentee/OJT/experiential training/etc for predominantly class "A" reservists. I agree with your point that anyone looking to make a lifetime career of sailing should take the offer, though.



The message says "WITH RESERVE PERSONNEL AUGMENTING AT A LEVEL ACROSS THE ENTIRE RCN SURFACE FLEET AT A
MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT PER UNIT". Now that being said more than 5% is probably going to be utilized as the NRD's do have a fairly large number of qualified personnel and they would be short-sighted not to utilize that.
At this time it does appear that long term personnel like myself will be employed to meet pension goals. I have already been contacted about a CT, however unless its something I want to take i'll continue with Class B/C  as I'm 3 yrs away from 25 yrs full time. With the state of manning pan RCN it is my opinion that if anyone reservist wants a job on a ship and they can fill that job they should be allowed to do so seamlessly transiting from part time to full time and vice versa.


----------



## Halifax Tar

This, of course, is all depending on people actually wanting to roll into the Reg Force as members of the RCN in their current trades.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This, of course, is all depending on people actually wanting to roll into the Reg Force as members of the RCN in their current trades.



From what I have being seeing less than 50% are taking it as many are only doing to make money from school etc. The actual full time hard core reservist numbers are fairly small. I'm one of the last Kingston Class Chief Engineer qualified reservists down here and fulfilling a billet where there is no one with the experience required to effectively do it. That will change of course in a few years when we have more trained personnel.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> From what I have being seeing less than 50% are taking it as many are only doing to make money from school etc. The actual full time hard core reservist numbers are fairly small. I'm one of the last Kingston Class Chief Engineer qualified reservists down here and fulfilling a billet where there is no one with the experience required to effectively do it. That will change of course in a few years when we have more trained personnel.



Its tough.  I was a Naval Reservist.  Lots of great folks, many will CT but many of those who CT are looking to go into other trades.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its tough.  I was a Naval Reservist.  Lots of great folks, many will CT but many of those who CT are looking to go into other trades.



The special CT offer is direct rank transfer to the same trade. If someone wants to go reg to another trade then its the normal wait, and rank most likely will be LS at best.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The special CT offer is direct rank transfer to the same trade. If someone wants to go reg to another trade then its the normal wait, and rank most likely will be LS at best.



Not arguing, just saying that many will CT to the reg force but off to other trades.  We get lots in Supply and I know the RCAF tech trades get a good number too. 

The same rank thing does irk me though.  That should have been based on individuals and their experience they have, not a carte blanche approach.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not arguing, just saying that many will CT to the reg force but off to other trades.  We get lots in Supply and I know the RCAF tech trades get a good number too.
> 
> The same rank thing does irk me though.  That should have been based on individuals and their experience they have, not a carte blanche approach.



Understood, I was just commenting on the special CT offer for Class C personnel to the same trade. Obviously over the years through the regular CT process many went to the air force and other trades as the RCN didn't recognize the experience of the sailors and no decent PLAR's. That is somewhat changed now with better offers based on experience.


----------

