# Despite recent discharges, Forces say recruiting on track



## 284_226 (23 Nov 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

From http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/542805.html



> Despite recent discharges, Forces say recruiting on track
> 
> By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
> 
> ...





Are these numbers truly accurate?

Given:


The current strength of the CF is 62,000, according to http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp
The CF is losing >1000 members/year due to medical releases
Depending on the source, the 13,000 additional reg force members were supposed to be over 5 years - meaning by 2011
the 5800 new recruits every year is offset by medical releases, forecast and unforecast attrition  (Does anyone have historical values for what our attrition rate is?)




> In 2000, 557 people were let go from the Canadian Forces on medical grounds. The number began to rise in 2002, after the country became heavily involved in the war in Afghanistan, and now totals about 2,000 in almost five years. There were 1,067 medical releases last year alone.
> 
> Liberal Senator Colin Kenny suggested the deployment policy didn’t make sense when the army, navy and air force are facing manpower crunches and critical shortages of trainers.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's served the Forces so well that we're releasing 31 year old members with 10 years experience and a history of kidney stones, in favour of enrolling 29 year old recruits with no experience and a history of kidney stones.

Can't question that logic.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2006)

> in favour of enrolling 29 year old recruits with no experience and a history of kidney stones.



I just know that I am going to live to regret this, but- you can prove the statement you just made, right?


----------



## 284_226 (23 Nov 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I just know that I am going to live to regret this, but- you can prove the statement you just made, right?



Now why would you regret asking?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49373.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53217.0.html


----------



## Trinity (23 Nov 2006)

I heard a presentation from someone at CFLRS who said they will 
be putting 7000 new recruits through a year for the next few years.. 
I think next 5 years.. but ... I forgot..


----------



## 284_226 (23 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I heard a presentation from someone at CFLRS who said they will
> be putting 7000 new recruits through a year for the next few years..
> I think next 5 years.. but ... I forgot..



Without knowing the attrition rates, my guesstimate would say that's a more realistic number in order to reach the target advertised in the budget.  I don't think RAdm Pile's numbers quite match the government's target, though - but I'm open to correction.  I think attrition from all sources is higher than the article alludes to, especially when one considers the large "bubble" of personnel around the 19-23 YOS (years of service) range.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

At present they have St Jean jammed to the rafters,
LFQA Training centre and pert much all the schools are going full tilt
The CF has begun hiring former members of the CF to teach basic courses AND some specialty stuff where we are thin on the ground...........

Yeah - we've got our hands full right now.


----------



## 284_226 (23 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> At present they have St Jean jammed to the rafters,
> LFQA Training centre and pert much all the schools are going full tilt
> The CF has begun hiring former members of the CF to teach basic courses AND some specialty stuff where we are thin on the ground...........
> 
> Yeah - we've got our hands full right now.



I have absolutely no reason to doubt you.  The real question is:  Does "jammed to the rafters" equate to a 75,000-strong force in 2011?  (assuming the figures above are correct, and I checked several sources to try and ensure that they were)


----------



## geo (24 Nov 2006)

Hiring the troops and training them is one thing
Adequately equipping Brigades is another thing altogether

With managed readiness programs, fighting vehicles are rotated thru units within each brigade so that they can have their turn at using the current/modern stuff they will use on deployment.  Because they don't have access to it all the time, troops DO NOT develop an expertise in the it's use.  They may become profficient but they don't become experts....


----------



## hank011 (24 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hiring the troops and training them is one thing
> Adequately equipping Brigades is another thing altogether
> 
> With managed readiness programs, fighting vehicles are rotated thru units within each brigade so that they can have their turn at using the current/modern stuff they will use on deployment.  Because they don't have access to it all the time, troops DO NOT develop an expertise in the it's use.  They may become profficient but they don't become experts....


We could always train with the older six wheeled series vehicles in the meantime...oh...I forgot, we gave them away to the AU  Did we have so many LAVIII's that we didn't need them??? Seriously, why did we do that???
I personally would love to drive any SMP vehicle...sadly I'm Air Force and (despite what the DM and CDS think) we dont drive green stuff of any description so dont get the training. To tell you the truth...I recently fired a C-7 with a scope for the first time in 18 years, the Air Force doesnt believe in scopes :blotto:. I got mortar gloves from supply the other day but dont actually plan to lay brick...I fooled them! :-\


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I have absolutely no reason to doubt you.  The real question is:  Does "jammed to the rafters" equate to a 75,000-strong force in 2011?  (assuming the figures above are correct, and I checked several sources to try and ensure that they were)



Remember, 75K (Reg F) referes to total strength, not trained strength.  Using usual metrics, I'd guess that the trained strength will be on the order of 67K (+/-), as you need to account for the Basic Training List (usually 12-15%), Med holding lists and other such pers who are paid, but are not militarily employable.

Of course, saying we'll get the recruiting numbers is one thing.  Getting the required occupational mix within that intake is quite another...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2006)

While I understand the need to improve fitness levels, wouldn't be better to keep them in less critical jobs until they can meet the standards or can be replaced? Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?


----------



## Bert (24 Nov 2006)

That is the general case.  Members, for reasons they become medically or physically unfit, are placed
in a medical category and exempted from the CF Express, BFT, MOC and medical standards. They may
still serve in their day to day job.  For a period of time, they continue on a medical rehabilitation and 
assessment process to promote recovery and discern whether they will be able to meet the CF medical 
and fitness standards.  At the end of this process, members will leave the Med Cat or begin a medical 
release process.  Special knowledge and circumstances may factor in some cases.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> While I understand the need to improve fitness levels, wouldn't be better to keep them in less critical jobs until they can meet the standards or can be replaced? Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?



In theory, we have training, base and HQ positions which provide some releif from deployments.  If all those positions are filled with miltiary pers unable to deploy, you are forced to rely on the same people again and again for your deployments.

It's a balancing act where there is never a perfect solution.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (24 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?



This is a good point. We are releasing people who have the detailed knowledge of closing with and destroying the enemy and have special knowledge that cannot be recovered if we release them. It takes a good 10 to 15 years to train a good specialist. After being wounded they are released, 55 to 75 million dollars of training gone! It is ridiculous. 

 In one case I can say that the lose of that knowledge caused the CF to not have anyone left in the Army that had the specialized training to teach the next  course. During the last course they could not complete the field portion due to  that specialty being now gone from the force. It would be easy to say let them be Sup Res and call them back as is needed to train but no way they wont. It is frustrating to watch the slow demise of the skill. 

Wounded and sitting on the side lines. So I guess the comments above could be a bias rant. I'm sorry for that.


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> After being wounded they are released, 55 to 75 million dollars of training gone! It is ridiculous.



And this statement is absolutely ridiculous. None of us (that includes you) are that important or special. 

Facts please?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (24 Nov 2006)

What is ridiculous the release or the cost of training?  
I would suggest that the figure is rather conservative for a specialist combat arms soldier. As for the navy or the airforce in particular a pilot the numbers are much higher. Just look above at the soldier who started the thread or yourself add up the cost the CF has incurred in training yourself. The number is very large unless you dont think your trade is worth that. ;D

 Edit typo


----------



## armyvern (24 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> What is ridiculous the release or the cost of training?
> I would suggest that the figure is rather conservative for a specialist combat arms soldier. As for the navy or the airforce in particular a pilot the numbers are much higher. Just look above at the solder who started the thread or yourself add up the cost the CF has incurred in training yourself. The number is very large unless you dont think your trade is worth that. ;D



3rd Your numbers are right out of it. Period. Your figures are rather conservative numbers? So where's your facts and figures to back up your numbers?? That's quite the inflation rate you've been living with since you got out isn't it?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (24 Nov 2006)

As the Librarian you must see me scrambling around the bookshelves pulling the cost analysis reference books for training.  ;D


----------



## Petard (24 Nov 2006)

3rd horse, shot PM over


----------



## 3rd Horseman (24 Nov 2006)

Petard,

  Shot out 5 ...pm inbound


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Nov 2006)

Back in the Day so add double for ammo and wages and triple for fuel and maint.
Obviously a SWAG to know the true cost would be to be the actual budget dude, on some I was not all.
OCdt school trg - 500K to 700K
2Lt/Lt Trades Trg - 3.5m 
Lt/Capt Specialty Trg - FOO - 1.5m school crse, Unit qual and up to Div shoots that are required to qual.
Lt/Capt    "               - FAC - 3.5m standard crse, NATO crse, Final qual plus annual check out.
Lt/Capt    "               - NGO - 1m standard crse, NATO crse, Final qual and annual check outs.

I have not gotten into these ones yet.
 LT/Capt first tour - Next will be LO, BAIO, Demolition, Recce, Advanced winter warfare, Mountain ops, NBCW, Nuclear fire planning (don't think they teach that one to Cdns anymore) standard Officer development crses basic.

Capt second tour - Staff college x2, CIMIC, Staff duties, BC Fire planning, IG.

Capt/Maj  12 to 15 year mark - Combat team commander, Staff college, Tech Staff.

Edit second line added


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Nov 2006)

Your numbers are easily refuted by the simple math...

Let's use your low figure of $55,000,000  per person  Let's use an even simpler(rough) figure of 50,000 people

$2,750,000,000,000

Not sure there would have been much money left for anything else...


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Lt/Capt Specialty Trg - FOO - 1.5m school crse, Unit qual and up to Div shoots that are required to qual.



One simple question:

*Is that the cost per course, or per candidate?*

If it's the cost per course, then the cost per candidate is *1.5M/# of candidates*, and your total cost to train an individual decreases substantially.  But maybe that math is too advanced for the purpose of your generalizations.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> While I understand the need to improve fitness levels, wouldn't be better to keep them in less critical jobs until they can meet the standards or can be replaced? Also if a combat veteran received wounds that would prevent further deployment, but can still serve as an instructor, does it not make sense to use them to teach and let the fit one go overseas?



Colin,

The problem is not that we are swamped with wounded Cbt Arms vets - the problem is that there are large numbers of soldiers (and officers) who are medically restricted from deploying as a result of their peacetime service. Their use as instructors is severely limited by a lack of operational experience (or recent experience) and the fact that they are often physically unable to lead from the front at the schools.

An example would be an Infantry Sgt. who has 19 years in the CF, but only one deployment - to the Golan Heights/Cyprus, in excess of a decade  ago. He has a bad back and bad knees, which may have been a side effect of his rather hefty physique. This individual has now been instructing at a school for 8-10 years, but is unable to run, dig, leopard crawl or march with a rucksack and rifle. How is he supposed to set an example for new recruits, when he cannot perform basic tasks?

Additionally, rotations through different units and schools are a part of the development of NCOs and officers - it makes them better - getting the knowledge in a field unit, and then passing it on in a school setting. If there are two seperate groups, the teaching group will become stale, and the operational group will become burnt out. Schools are also a nice break from the mile-a-minute pace of an operational unit. Training is generally done 9-5 (for the staff anyway), weekends off, predictable leave periods etc. This is why some people never want to leave them!


----------



## Petard (25 Nov 2006)

Training 9 to 5? Where the hell is that place?
There are places to employ a civilian cadre, for a limited time, in garrison, and leave the field instructing to the military.
In the Artillery School for example: the IFT operators, some command post training such as basic gunnery and communication systems.
There is a need for more staff at CTC, twist your opinions however you want about those who work in the schools, they are needed, and we don't have enough.
3rd's premise of using a dollar value to justify employing personnel is not as important in my mind as the fact that we are short of staff to train this increased intake. 
The CLS has already said that he intends to have more civilians involved in the training system, in limited ways. This is not so much to do with cost saving as it is to get these new people trained, without the staff to train them what else can you do? If there is not much of a focus on dealing with retention, then as 3rd has suggested we should be looking at trying to get a bit more mileage from those who have already left.
So because of this retention problem the cost, in my math, is almost doubled, whatever it might be. Why? First there is the cost to replace that instructor in the training system, on top of that is the cost to train this new person. By using retired or released military pers, in limited roles, in a roundabout way it can put off the cost of training that new instructor and easing the burden on the existing staff.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2006)

I can see your arguments over instructors, but if the person has a special skill set in short supply, I hope we aren't them in order to comply with a directive and causing ourselves more grief!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Your numbers are easily refuted by the simple math...
> 
> Let's use your low figure of $55,000,000  per person  Let's use an even simpler(rough) figure of 50,000 people
> 
> ...



The example was not an example of all soldiers, I clearly stated 12 to 15 years experience with specialty training. That would not be the lions share of the troops as you (edit out) detailed. 

 The original point being don't release highly skilled expensive to train and replace soldiers who have specific skills, due to being wounded and now medically unfit. MCpl Franklin comes to mind, what a great choice to keep him training,  the sad reality is he will get an accommodation for 3 years and then be out. I suggest we allowe these soldiers who fought and were wounded to be retained as Sup Res and get called back to help out the training system when they are short on the ground due to operational needs.

Mike Oleary - The SWAG I made for cost was per candidate not the entire course. Furthermore a single course is not were the costs associated with training ends, their is the after course field quals and check outs that follow the course.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Mike Oleary - The SWAG I made for cost was per candidate not the entire course. Furthermore a single course is not were the costs associated with training ends, their is the after course field quals and check outs that follow the course.



And yet you still miss the point.   How do you presume that the full cost of ANY training event is attributable to the cost of training each and every participating individual.

You'll have to provide a little more detail from this mythical SWAG spreadsheet before you achieve any credibility with your guestimates.  We rarely if ever only train one person on any course or exercise.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman,

I will join those that disagree with your numbers.  I for one have received some seriousy expensive training in my new MOC.  Picture the cost , so far. of providing me with Dash 8 aircraft complete with pilots for 11 flights , add the instructional staff, simulators, classrooms, fuel, accomodations, rations......all for 6 months.

Add to that 6 months of on-type OTU on an aircraft that burns 4000lbs of fuel an hour with a crew of 10 plus instructors....classrooms, simulators, staff......

Add to all that the cost of providing those aircraft to the course such as parts and maintenance.....

dont forget asociated cots of sending me on AMT and BEW.........

18 months of post-OTU upgrade training both at home and in places such as San Diego, Shemya, Sicily, Hawaii, Yellowknife.......and the associated fuel, maintenance and TD costs......

Then add the trips to the simulator every 6 monthst i have to do.........again, airfare, TD, R&Q.......


I've run army courses with budgets before when i was at CFSME...i know what its costs.......if my training didnt cost the numbers you bring up....i'm sure that you are out to lunch


----------



## 3rd Horseman (25 Nov 2006)

I'm slowly being surrounded..........I will conceded the numbers are rather high. Training cost are difficult to quantify. To say those figures I stated are way out would suggest that you think a 12 to 15 year soldier with specialty training has cost the CF as little as 1 or 2 million.  
Any fighter pilots want to chime in? 
 Let us not get off track of the real point due to my poor SWAG....it costs alot of money to train people and it is a poor use of our resources to release them after spending so much money on them. That kinda sounds better. ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Nov 2006)

Regardless, we spend alot of money to train everyone in the CF. Few private and public sector organizations could ever hope to afford the amount of time and resources we put into training our people. Yet we seem to be losing alot of people and all that investment walks out the door with them, mostly never to return. For example, how many ex-regs gets nice jobs, settle down and join the reserves? In my experience, not a bunch. Dear Abby: Is this a leadership issue at the unit level (or higher) that needs to be addressed, or is it caused by forces outside of our control e.g., a booming economy etc?


----------



## GO!!! (25 Nov 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yet we seem to be losing alot of people and all that investment walks out the door with them, mostly never to return. For example, how many ex-regs gets nice jobs, settle down and join the reserves? In my experience, not a bunch. Dear Abby: Is this a leadership issue at the unit level (or higher) that needs to be addressed, or is it caused by forces outside of our control e.g., a booming economy etc?



I'd say it's because it's a two way street. 

I get bored quickly if I don't learn and apply new things, either at work or on my own time. I've asked that same question to retiring mbrs, and they all say pretty much the same thing "why - what will I do there that I have'nt done here?"

If the reserves want retiring members, they have to be prepared to teach them something new, and not just take advantage of the skills they brought to to the table. Give and take.


----------



## MOOXE (26 Nov 2006)

So does it make sense to release medically unfit soldiers when we are having a hard time to recruit?

Nobody else really answered so I will just start off. It may of been covered in another thread but oh well....

I'v met a number of men and women who are on catagory, and cannot be deployed, ever, in the field or on operations. So the system places them in a job where field and operations are not part of the job. Problem solved? The med. unfit soldiers are now manning the desks while the rest of us go out and fight? It sounds really good. 

So this does work in one sense, but not in the other. We are all posted around to gain experience in all sorts of different jobs. If the med. unfit people start crowding those jobs, the rest of the people do not get the opportunity to do that job. Also, the medically fit soldiers theoretically have to go on operations more often. It shows every soldier that the system does not treat everyone equal, we should all be picking up our own "slack", not others. Getting a pension while serving is nice, but can also serve to show inequality among the troops. Worst case scenario, so-and-so has a desk job (that you want someday), and will always have that desk job, his responsibilities are to file paperwork all day, you are the same rank, he gets 1000$ a month for his back injury, you always go on tour, he never does... Not to mention its probably a pain in the butt for posting plots. Ofcourse there should be limits and individual circumstances taken into account. Overall though, it does make sense to not have medically unfit people in our line of work, whether or not we are having a hard time recruiting. No matter how much time and effort the military has put into training someone, they may have to be released. The cost of doing buisness in the military has never been cheap. Mission is the bottom line, not money.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

Mooxe,

I just want to point out one flaw in the below post to you ref the unfit/undeployable/cat pers sitting in desks jobs occupying them.

An MOCs strength is set at a certain level. 



> So does it make sense to release medically unfit soldiers when we are having a hard time to recruit?



In my trade, the answer is yes. Why? 

Because a trade is set at a maximum level, and those of us who are deployable in my trade...do it a lot. WE CAN NOT recruit new pers if those positions are filled by undeployable pers. If their name is on the Org Chart/manning list...the position is considered filled/manned, therefore no-one can be recruited for that job. See what I'm saying? So, the cycle continues, the undeployable pers sit at those desks filling a position so my trade is technicaly "at strength" when in actuality it's far from it (deployable strength). 

We just kitted out 12 recruits here today (and hey...this is a very small town), so I really don't think problems recruiting pers is actually a problem. It's being able to empty out those positions that require fit and deployable pers to recruit those applicants into. That's where they are desperately required after all.


----------



## mysteriousmind (26 Nov 2006)

> So does it make sense to release medically unfit soldiers when we are having a hard time to recruit?



In my humble opinion, if they are medically unfit, it normal to realease them. We cannt oave a force of unfit personnel.


as for recruiting faster....HAHAHAHA let me laugh *(insert sacarstic laugh)*


----------



## GO!!! (26 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> We just kitted out 12 recruits here today (and hey...this is a very small town), so I really don't think problems recruiting pers is actually a problem. It's being able to empty out those positions that require fit and deployable pers to recruit those applicants into. That's where they are desperately required after all.



And of course, we both forgot to mention the curse of a "dead trade".

While not a problem in the Cbt Arms, a dead trade is one in which there is no (or very little) career movement because the top levels are crammed with people who are unable to be promoted or posted to another unit (this can be due to a dearth of technical skills, medical category and it is'nt always the members choice). Since there is no turnover at the higher levels, no - one at the bottom can get promoted past a certain level, and all of the above get stale and restless. There is some concern that allowing soldiers to stay in the CF until their 55-60th birthdays will intensify this problem.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And of course, we both forgot to mention the curse of a "dead trade".
> 
> While not a problem in the Cbt Arms, a dead trade is one in which there is no (or very little) career movement because the top levels are crammed with people who are unable to be promoted or posted to another unit (this can be due to a dearth of technical skills, medical category and it is'nt always the members choice). Since there is no turnover at the higher levels, no - one at the bottom can get promoted past a certain level, and all of the above get stale and restless. There is some concern that allowing soldiers to stay in the CF until their 55-60th birthdays will intensify this problem.



Agreed.

Vern


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> And of course, we both forgot to mention the curse of a "dead trade".
> 
> While not a problem in the Cbt Arms, a dead trade is one in which there is no (or very little) career movement because the top levels are crammed with people who are unable to be promoted or posted to another unit (this can be due to a dearth of technical skills, medical category and it is'nt always the members choice). Since there is no turnover at the higher levels, no - one at the bottom can get promoted past a certain level, and all of the above get stale and restless. There is some concern that allowing soldiers to stay in the CF until their 55-60th birthdays will intensify this problem.



Like, say, the post-FRP Arty officer occupation?  How many old gunners are there in the PSel and TDev worlds now because the branch screwed things up badly?  (And how many just left the CF enitrely?)

The CF needs to be a bit moreheartless in releasing members to ensure the long-term health of various trades.  Keeping around a hockey-sock of people who will not progress and are holding up the rest of the trade might address a problem for this APS, but will create bigger problems in the future.


----------



## Trinity (27 Nov 2006)

UNLESS

you create new line serials for these people....

taking them horizontal in the system... keeping them at their
same trade/rank... allowing them to serve in whatever capacity
is best suited (line serials not at the unit level, but say.. in ottawa
and tasked to where needed)

by taking them out of their units/current line serials you open up
new ones for others to advance

thus.. the cf could keep people around to train others while still
opening up new positions for people to advance into because of
having two different distinct line serials 


kinda hard to describe without a diagram... or without you crawling 
into my head  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Nov 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'd say it's because it's a two way street.
> 
> I get bored quickly if I don't learn and apply new things, either at work or on my own time. I've asked that same question to retiring mbrs, and they all say pretty much the same thing "why - what will I do there that I have'nt done here?"
> 
> If the reserves want retiring members, they have to be prepared to teach them something new, and not just take advantage of the skills they brought to to the table. Give and take.



Call me a cockeyed optimist, but maybe the ex-regs could pass on some skills to young reservists heading to places like, oh, I dunno, Afghanistan?


----------



## GO!!! (28 Nov 2006)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Call me a cockeyed optimist, but maybe the ex-regs could pass on some skills to young reservists heading to places like, oh, I dunno, Afghanistan?



That's the point - so the ex reg guy spends all his time teaching - but what is he learning? Most successful soldiers I know want to continue to learn new skills, and while the militia has many opportunities for them to teach - it has few for them to learn.


----------

