# Troop Strength to Increase



## Cloud Cover (17 Aug 2004)

From Today's Times Colonist:

Planners told to prepare for expanded military

a journalist
CanWest News Service

August 17, 2004

OTTAWA-- Defence planners have been told to push ahead with a scheme to add 5,000 troops to the ranks of the Canadian Forces and are now working on options to present to government on how to expand the military, says a senior adviser to Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The boost in the overall strength of the military could give a much-needed break to soldiers already serving in the ranks, but some analysts question where the money and personnel will come from to fuel the expansion.

The Liberals made the promise during the election to increase the number of troops by 5,000. "There is no question that the core commitment of an increase in the Forces to the tune of 5,000 will be upheld," said Scott Reid, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office.
He noted defence officials are working on various options which will be presented to cabinet by Defence Minister Bill Graham. Reid said those could include increasing the number of troops in existing units, creating a new brigade or establishing a specialized formation devoted to peacekeeping.

"The minister of defence is tasked with bringing forth to cabinet how best to proceed, over what time period, the cost options, and so on," Reid added. "It would be unfairly restrictive to the minister to suggest it will be this or it will be that."During the election there was also a commitment to increase the army reserves to 18,500 from 15,500. The government acknowledged it would like to make more use of the reserves, not only to deal with domestic emergencies such as forest fires and other natural disasters but also on overseas missions.
That increase in reserve force ranks had been made by former defence minister John McCallum but since there was not enough money to cover the salaries of new recruits, military officials did not proceed.

Various defence ministers have noted that Canadian soldiers need a break from overseas missions so they can spend more time training and with their families. That acknowledgement hasn't stopped the government from continuing to commit them to operations. Canadian troops just came back from Haiti while a new contingent has been shipped out to Afghanistan.

During the election the Liberal campaign promise of boosting the military by 5,000 noted that such an increase would significantly increase Canada's ability to participate in missions and allow the Canadian Forces to play a greater role in bringing security to troubled nations.
Canada has a regular force of about 60,000.

Defence analyst and retired colonel Howie Marsh said he believes it will take at least a decade before the Canadian Forces can boost its ranks by 5,000. That's because over the next six years it faces an exodus of experienced personnel who will reach early retirement, noted Marsh, a senior analyst with the pro-military lobby group, the Conference of Defence Associations. In addition, the military's existing training is not capable of handling a large influx of new recruits, he said. Troops who should be instructing new soldiers are finding themselves shipped off to overseas missions, he added."I don't think much can happen before 2012," said Marsh. "A fully manned and equipped fourth brigade by 2020 is a realistic goal."Other analysts have warned the funding needed to pay for the proposed increase in troop strength could come out of the military's existing budget -- a move that would hurt plans to buy new equipment.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2004


----------



## canuck101 (17 Aug 2004)

The last paragraph in the article says it all.


----------



## JasonH (17 Aug 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> The last paragraph in the article says it all.



 :'(


----------



## Armymedic (17 Aug 2004)

Exactly, it may be too little too late. 
Many of my "generation" got in during the 85-90 time frame when Cornwallis was hosting platoons of 100+ personnel. and all those hit 20 yrs...um in the next 5 yrs. So the longer they talk the sooner we leave. 
The only saving grace may be the plans to extend IE to 25, as per the new career/pension reforms due to come out sometime in the next yr.


----------



## rormson (17 Aug 2004)

The only thing that one can hope for with this current government's promises is that with a minority Parliament situation, the Conservative Defense critics will be all over the Liberals if they attempt to do more with the same budget and don't deliver on their promises. I found it very interesting that, during the election, PM Martin announced the new brigade well after the Conservatives had presented their plan to boost the CF.

As you guys know our per capita spending with respect to NATO countries is not great and as time moves on the Liberals will likely face more external pressure from our NATO cousins (not to mention an increasing number of average Canadians such as me) who have a desire to see a better equipped and manned CF. Here's a few stats for interest, mind you in 2004 I'm not sure where things are at exactly. Don't be fooled by the 1.5% for Germany because if you consider the side of their GDP it's a healthy amount of money. (In the early 1990s the UK and US had over 5% of their GDP devoted to defense!)

      

DEFENSE SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IN SELECTED YEARS, 1998-2000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1998 1999 2000a 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium   1.5   1.4   1.4 

Canada     1.3   1.3   1.2 

France      2.8   2.7   2.7 

Germany 1.5   1.5   1.5 

Netherlands   1.7 1.8 1.6 

Norway      2.3 2.2 1.9 

United Kingdom   2.7 2.5 2.4 

United States   3.1 3.0 3.0 
   
NATO Average   2.3 2.2 2.2 
NATO European Averaged 3 2.3 2.3 2.3 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office based on data from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). http://www.cbo.gov/


----------



## canuck101 (17 Aug 2004)

If they are serious about increasing the numbers in the CF. They will have to start leaving more experienced troops at home so they can train new soldier's.  when my father joined in the early 60's they started with 84 recruits every two weeks and about a 1/3 would not make it. How many do they train now and do they have the training course starting every two weeks year round.


----------



## Sundborg (17 Aug 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> If they are serious about increasing the numbers in the CF. They will have to start leaving more experienced troops at home so they can train new soldier's.   when my father joined in the early 60's they started with 84 recruits every two weeks and about a 1/3 would not make it. How many do they train now and do they have the training course starting every two weeks year round.



At St-Jean they have courses starting every week with about 1 or 2 platoons consisting of about 50 to 60 members.  But when it comes down to it, it all depends on how many people are applying.
When I went there, there were about 3 platoons that already started before us.  And after I started, there wasn't a new platoon for about 6 weeks.  And once they did start coming again, they had at least 1 french and 1 english platoon consisting of about 50 to 60 people each week.


----------



## canuck101 (17 Aug 2004)

i think they need to go to high schools more. talk to the graduating classes. I know that they show up at colleges and universities.  They need to be more aggressive in there approach. Show then what life can be like for them in the CF.


----------



## rormson (17 Aug 2004)

Check out the recruiting section of Army.ca for examples of "Application process samples" and see how long it takes CFRC's to process new recruits. Even suitable candidates, who would make good candidates for BMQ incur extreme delays before they get the chance to prove their worth (even if the units to which they are applying need and want them on board).


----------



## Highland Laddie (17 Aug 2004)

Well, I understand new recruits are waiting in excess of six months to begin their recruit courses at the superblock at St. Jean, so more 'recruits' will not boost our numbers without more resources and instructors. Just shoving more numbers into an already small funnel so to speak.

In a larger context, the Reserves have been authorized an additional 3,500 troops (15,000 to 18,500) for the past few years, but the actual number of troops 'on the ground' has not changed. Multiple reasons for this, starting with the horrible recruiting process and timelines (up to six months!). They have been talking about changing the recruiting process for the Reserves since I joined in 1993, and we still have the same problems (they have also talked about fixing the Reserve pay system that long, but I digress). The new modularized training system also means it can take over a year or more for a recruit to become a trained infantry soldier (versus the three months of hell under the old QL3 system), plus the troops still don't have the platoon support weapons training, which was included under the old QL3 course. Finally, we can recruit troops 'till the cows come home, but if there is not enough resources for progressive and varied training (not Warrior / ELOC / A to C / Patrolling too death!), and actually ammo to do it ( ), you can't keep the troops interested and in.

Can't speak for the Regs, but you gotta think when Cpl Bloggins has been in five years and already has three overseas tours (and a divorce), and a lack of other training, it can't be good for retaining the 'new' troops.


----------



## scm77 (17 Aug 2004)

The Liberals plan to increase troop strength: Have our current soldiers lift weights more.


----------



## Armymedic (17 Aug 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> Have our current soldiers lift weights more.


 :

We would, but we are to busy being deployed, getting ready to go, or just getting home....

Got any other gems?


----------



## scm77 (17 Aug 2004)

Sorry, I'm all out.

I'm all for adding more soldiers.  I'm not in yet but assuming I get in I'd like to have time for somewhat of a family life.  But I'll believe increased troop strength when I see increased troop strength.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2004)

Be interesting to see if the PM means to bring troop strength up to the currently authorized 60,000 before he adds another 5,000 (that could mean as many as 13,000 total) or does he just mean to bring trained effectives up to 57,000 from 52,000.  

Watch and Shoot??. ???


----------



## lfejoel25 (18 Aug 2004)

Personally, i think we should just have more "propaganda"!  Meaning ways to show people what the CF is really all about.  I'm currently in the recruiting process, and everybody i tell that i'm joining all start saying the stupidest things, trying to convince me not to join.  but then i realized that they don't know the difference between the CF and the americana that they watch on tv. i think a lot of canadians don't know what the role of the cf is, and confuse it with military aggression.


----------



## Yard Ape (18 Aug 2004)

Right, here is the priority for placing new PYs into the system (as I see it):

1) enlarge the number of personnel in training establishments (especially battle schools & CTC) so that they can handle more & larger courses (and so that the field force no longer has to send instructor augmenties every time an SQ or PLQ is run).

2) Rebuild Cbt Sp Coy (Mor, Pnr, AAP).

3) Bring back the fourth rifle Coy.

4) Increase the number of Engr & CSS pers.

5) Create a fully manned fourth brigade.

5) bring back military jobs replaced by ASD.

When Air & Sea pers requirements are looked at, the 5 000 new PYs will be used before working as far down my list as to reach building a fourth Bde.


----------



## Franko (18 Aug 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> 5) Create a fully manned fourth brigade.



Dreamer.....nothing but a dreamer.......  

Regards


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Aug 2004)

Getting back on Topic.
One stop gap that could be used but would require Legislation to protect the Reserves.

#-1  Activate x amount of Reserve Units and post them to their relevent trade for one year at atime until the required strength is reached and all will benefit.
The Reserves will get much needed training and the Reg.'s will have bodies to fill in the blank's and give some relief.

#-2 Activate x amount of Reserve Units for overseas Ops and post them to their relevent trades for the whole year or more if need be again all will come away the better.

All the above done till we get our numbers up.
Just an idea.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2004)

Spr Earl...do you propose that the Reserves move their 'promotions' into line with the Regs?  A Reservist working full-time with a Reg Unit, but progressing through the ranks faster than a Reg Force peer is a question that must be asked.  A Reg Force soldier requires up to four years of experience and courses to attain the rank of Cpl, while Reservists attain that rank in half the time.  That is one "perk" I don't think they want to give up as it is an incentive in their (read Reserve Unit) recruiting process.  

It would be a good thing, as already there are problems on taskings of Reserve Cpls sometimes overstepping their bounds with experienced Reg Force Pte/Tpr/Spr/Gnrs.  Usually dealt with quickly, but sometimes gets ugly. :crybaby:

GW


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Spr Earl...do you propose that the Reserves move their 'promotions' into line with the Regs?   A Reservist working full-time with a Reg Unit, but progressing through the ranks faster than a Reg Force peer is a question that must be asked.   A Reg Force soldier requires up to four years of experience and courses to attain the rank of Cpl, while Reservists attain that rank in half the time.   That is one "perk" I don't think they want to give up as it is an incentive in their (read Reserve Unit) recruiting process.
> 
> It would be a good thing, as already there are problems on taskings of Reserve Cpls sometimes overstepping their bounds with experienced Reg Force Pte/Tpr/Spr/Gnrs.   Usually dealt with quickly, but sometimes gets ugly. :crybaby:
> 
> GW



No not at all,every one is graded as is done now when going over seas.
We could make it harder.
If the Pers. are not up to snuff or have an attitude problem then they are R.T.U'd 

Like my self I'm a Master Jack (by choice) but dropped to Cpl both times when I went on Class C. with 1 C.E.R and I respected that decision as I'm not full time and also I went to learn from the full time.
I have never had any probs. serving with the Reg.'s of any trade because of my attitude which is "I'm here to learn"


The rank thing with in the Reseves is one of my pet peev's!! 
It's a gimmee and not on a merit based system which it should be.!!!!
It is done to retain people,thats why we get a lot of numpties promoted to Jr.N.C.O.'s and Snr. N.C.O.'s and some Officer's.

But with some good clear thinking I think it might work.


----------



## R031button (18 Aug 2004)

I think the best thing the Govt could do for the forces would be to disband, well not disband but stand down, a good number of the reserve regiments, and almalgamete the members. Far too much money is wasted on the administration of small "regiments" of less then 80 soldiers. Amalgamate them into say, two or three regiments per province, that way we'd have 500 infantry in BC being admnisitered by a battalion staff, not three different staffs. Building larger regiments would also increase moral as it would provide better training(large op For, more diverse options) and a greater moral from a sense of being part of a "real" unit. Assigning 3 regiemtns per brigade would save a great deal of money all across the board, not only in administrations coast but in terms of actual pay checks, it's alot easier to pay one light colonel then three or four.


----------



## Gunnerlove (18 Aug 2004)

Our main problem right now is recruiting. Or rather the processing of people who would like to join. 

6-12 months is a horrible time frame. Hell why not skip all this crazy CFRC stuff and get people to sign on for a two month training contract. You pass your training you get another two month contract then if the military thinks your worth keeping you get your three year contract. Tell them that if they fail to meet the standard they get 1 weeks severance and a bus ticket home. I guarantee this would keep the whining down in the ranks.This would also allow you to get your hands on them for 60 days of medical assessments, aptitude tests, drug tests etc. You would lose allot of people but I doubt it would be as many as the current system. 

With the current system people can spend their entire CF career in a PAT platoon being recoursed. 

Please note that this is just an idea and not a totally thought out plan. Just something to get people talking about our change.


----------



## Yard Ape (19 Aug 2004)

Franko said:
			
		

> Dreamer.....nothing but a dreamer.......


If the Liberals achieve my first 4 prioreties, maybe when the Conservatives get in they can start work on priorety five.


. . . dreams are great.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2004)

> Far too much money is wasted on the administration of small "regiments" of less then 80 soldiers. Amalgamate them into say, two or three regiments per province, that way we'd have 500 infantry in BC being admnisitered by a battalion staff



Ya nothing like driving 500 KMs to get your CO to sign a memo. 
Who cares about all the battle honours.


----------



## Yard Ape (19 Aug 2004)

R031button said:
			
		

> I think the best thing the Govt could do for the forces would be to disband, well not disband but stand down, a good number of the reserve regiments, and almalgamete the members. Far too much money is wasted on the administration of small "regiments" of less then 80 soldiers.



Check out this thread:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/16950.0.html


----------



## Gun Shy (21 Aug 2004)

In order to facilitate an increase of 5000 PY (not necessarily Army), DND would have to re-open an additional Recruit School. For Example When Cornwallis was running at full Steam. It would bring a new platoon of any wheres  of 100 to 140 pers per week. The only tiime that the school stood down was during the 2 week christams break. Cornwallis had a 12 platoon staffs to conduct the trg and 3 cadres. Therefore approximately 5000 tps were trained in any one year. Additionaly St. Jean trained Francophone Tps. Currently the canadian forces couldn't train enough tps to allow this increase to happen even if we wanted to without some new iniatrives.


----------



## GGboy (21 Aug 2004)

Here's your answer about the Liberals priorities and the validity of their elxn promises ... 

Promise could gut military
Ships, jets may be scrapped to fulfill Liberal troop pledge

Chris Wattie; with files from Mike Blanchfield
National Post, with files from CanWest News Service

Saturday, August 21, 2004

The Canadian military may be forced to mothball all of its remaining destroyers and ground up to a quarter of its front-line fighter jets in order to fulfill a Liberal election promise to create a new, 5,000-strong "peacekeeping brigade."
Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, is to present options on the proposed new brigade to Cabinet by the end of the month, but Defence sources have told the National Post the military has been told to prepare drastic measures to pay for the idea.
In an article posted yesterday on the Web site of Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group said senior Canadian officers have been working in secret on finding a way to pay for the promised influx of new troops.
Under the proposal, the navy is to take all of its Iroquois-class destroyers, the flagship vessels from which commodores or admirals can command a task force of warships, out of service, while the air force is to ground as many as 20 of its CF-18s, a quarter of its entire fighter force. The CF-18 Hornet is in the midst of a $2.3-billion, six-year modernization program.
During the federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to add a new brigade of 5,000 troops to the overstretched and chronically underfunded Canadian military specifically for peacekeeping and "peace support" missions.
The military was caught completely off guard by the pledge, which senior officers believe Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, made hastily in the heat of fighting an early Conservative surge in the campaign.
One senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Armed Forces are worried they "are going to be perceived as being in bed with this cockamamie idea."
They also fear the plan could lead to the effective demise of the navy and air force.
Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, said the Liberal government wants to make the Forces foot the bill for an election promise he said was made in haste without considering the cost.
"It's outrageous," he said. "They're talking about scavenging the navy and the air force to keep their promises. It's just smoke and mirrors ... they make the promises, but don't want to pay for them."
Analysts have estimated the cost of adding a new brigade at more than $2-billion and have cautioned it would take the military more than a decade to build up its strength from the current 53,000 troops.
Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group, estimated the cost at $1.5-billion for equipment, $750-million for infrastructure and approximately $400-million a year to maintain the additional soldiers. Defence officials say the Forces are already running a $1-billion annual deficit to pay for current operations.
Mr. O'Connor, a former brigadier-general in the army, said the army needs the extra troops but the air force and navy also need more resources. By stripping the budget of the other two services, he said the Liberals are "dumbing down the armed forces: They're reducing their ability to defend Canada and Canadian interests."
Much of the cost of the new brigade will have to come out of the existing National Defence budget. Military planners were told even before the election not to expect any increase in the $1.3-billion defence budget for at least two years, and officers say they are being asked to rush the plan through on the assumption there would be little or no new money to pay for it.
The government wants to have the peacekeeping plan ready for Mr. Martin to unveil when he visits the United Nations later this year, said one officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Options being considered include slotting the additional troops into the many regiments and brigades that are understrength, or creating a new brigade or some kind of specialized formation devoted to peacekeeping, Jane's reported.
While the air force and navy may be allocated some of the new troops, Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, a special advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff, told Jane's that "virtually all of the options have a heavy army flavour to them."
Mr. Martin has also backed down from conducting a broad review of defence policy, as he promised last December.
Mr. Graham announced last month that there would be no formal defence policy review, just an "in-house" examination with no public consultation.

But Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst at York University, said the government should conduct full public consultations. "To do it quietly in the night while you're just trying to scrounge money for the 5,000 peacekeepers, I'm not totally sure that's a candid approach to take with the public," said Mr. Shadwick.
"You could make a case intellectually for this 40 years ago, but not today," he said. "Even the word 'peacekeeping' is suspect. It's much more dangerous, much more demanding, much more likely to need the sort of skills that soldiers have."


----------



## JasonH (21 Aug 2004)

They decided not to do the defence review?    So many explitives... so little time  :crybaby:


----------



## canuck101 (21 Aug 2004)

no defence review no extra money for new troops. find money that we don't have nice :threat:   Well i guess we should start getting in line to  become American citizens.  No defence = no country.  Canada is on a long and slow road to a failed state.  Just keep voting in the liberals and we soon will be citizens of the country to the south. that is if they want us i have a feeling they would not.


----------



## JasonH (21 Aug 2004)

That was seems to be the majority of canadians choose to do.  So bloody sad.


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Aug 2004)

The latest on the 5,000


Promise could gut military
Ships, jets may be scrapped to fulfill Liberal troop pledge
   
Chris Wattie; with files from Mike Blanchfield 
National Post, with files from CanWest News Service 


August 21, 2004


The Canadian military may be forced to mothball all of its remaining destroyers and ground up to a quarter of its front-line fighter jets in order to fulfill a Liberal election promise to create a new, 5,000-strong "peacekeeping brigade."

Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, is to present options on the proposed new brigade to Cabinet by the end of the month, but Defence sources have told the National Post the military has been told to prepare drastic measures to pay for the idea.

In an article posted yesterday on the Web site of Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group said senior Canadian officers have been working in secret on finding a way to pay for the promised influx of new troops.

Under the proposal, the navy is to take all of its Iroquois-class destroyers, the flagship vessels from which commodores or admirals can command a task force of warships, out of service, while the air force is to ground as many as 20 of its CF-18s, a quarter of its entire fighter force. The CF-18 Hornet is in the midst of a $2.3-billion, six-year modernization program.

During the federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to add a new brigade of 5,000 troops to the overstretched and chronically underfunded Canadian military specifically for peacekeeping and "peace support" missions.

The military was caught completely off guard by the pledge, which senior officers believe Paul Martin, the Prime Minister, made hastily in the heat of fighting an early Conservative surge in the campaign.

One senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Armed Forces are worried they "are going to be perceived as being in bed with this cockamamie idea."

They also fear the plan could lead to the effective demise of the navy and air force.

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, said the Liberal government wants to make the Forces foot the bill for an election promise he said was made in haste without considering the cost.

"It's outrageous," he said. "They're talking about scavenging the navy and the air force to keep their promises. It's just smoke and mirrors ... they make the promises, but don't want to pay for them."

Analysts have estimated the cost of adding a new brigade at more than $2-billion and have cautioned it would take the military more than a decade to build up its strength from the current 53,000 troops.

Jane's Defence Weekly, the London-based defence publishing and analysis group, estimated the cost at $1.5-billion for equipment, $750-million for infrastructure and approximately $400-million a year to maintain the additional soldiers. Defence officials say the Forces are already running a $1-billion annual deficit to pay for current operations.

Mr. O'Connor, a former brigadier-general in the army, said the army needs the extra troops but the air force and navy also need more resources. By stripping the budget of the other two services, he said the Liberals are "dumbing down the armed forces: They're reducing their ability to defend Canada and Canadian interests."


Promise could gut military

Much of the cost of the new brigade will have to come out of the existing National Defence budget. Military planners were told even before the election not to expect any increase in the $1.3-billion defence budget for at least two years, and officers say they are being asked to rush the plan through on the assumption there would be little or no new money to pay for it.

The government wants to have the peacekeeping plan ready for Mr. Martin to unveil when he visits the United Nations later this year, said one officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Options being considered include slotting the additional troops into the many regiments and brigades that are understrength, or creating a new brigade or some kind of specialized formation devoted to peacekeeping, Jane's reported.

While the air force and navy may be allocated some of the new troops, Lieutenant-General Steve Lucas, a special advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff, told Jane's that "virtually all of the options have a heavy army flavour to them."

Mr. Martin has also backed down from conducting a broad review of defence policy, as he promised last December.

Mr. Graham announced last month that there would be no formal defence policy review, just an "in-house" examination with no public consultation.

But Martin Shadwick, a defence analyst at York University, said the government should conduct full public consultations. "To do it quietly in the night while you're just trying to scrounge money for the 5,000 peacekeepers, I'm not totally sure that's a candid approach to take with the public," said Mr. Shadwick.

"You could make a case intellectually for this 40 years ago, but not today," he said. "Even the word 'peacekeeping' is suspect. It's much more dangerous, much more demanding, much more likely to need the sort of skills that soldiers have."

(Ottawa Citizen)

© National Post 2004


http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b393159c-5380-4b7d-91f3-8266b57ac1bf


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

I expect the proposals going to cabinet will reflect (at least):

1.  Creating a new brigade & increasing the PYs by 5000;
2.  Creating a new brigade and using existing PYs from within the CF; and
3.  Adding 5000 PYs to the CF (mostly or all field force) without creating a new brigade.

Going back to what I see as prioreties, an option based on #3 would be best for us.  (Let the government create a new brigade with the next 5000 they want to give us)


----------



## DJL (22 Aug 2004)

> 3.  Adding 5000 PYs to the CF (mostly or all field force) without creating a new brigade.



Would 5000 be enough to "top up" the three current brigades? Or would there still be major shortfalls after 5000 troops were added?


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

That would be subjective (based on what one feels the brigades need added).  However, without recruiting & training, the new PYs will just become more vacant jobs.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

Gun Shy said:
			
		

> in order to facilitate an increase of 5000 PY (not necessarily Army), DND would have to re-open an additional Recruit School.


. . . or the CF could increase the capacity of St Jean and the Army's four area training centres.   Imagine if each ACT were given 3 BMQ/SQ course staff.   Putting all army recruits through BMQ at an ACT would allow them to lauch directly onto an SQ.   Then they would only have to sit in a PAT Pl once (while waiting for MOC trg) and not twice (between BMQ & SQ, then between SQ & MOC).


----------



## Armymedic (22 Aug 2004)

Bulk up the army and put the cock to the Air Force and Navy....

Oh yeah thats good for the CF.

We could use 5000 more pers just to fill in all those position currently unfilled. Find me a trade thats not currently understregth....


----------



## Slim (22 Aug 2004)

More Liberal bullshit! I knew they wouldn't do a damn thing!

Slim


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> We could use 5000 more pers just to fill in all those position currently unfilled. Find me a trade thats not currently understregth....


My understanding of the promise was that we would get 5000 more PYs (because we are already entitled to pers for the existing vacancies).

I will restate that priority for new PYs must go to the training system.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2004)

All good points so far, but don't look for the Libs to reverse course on this one. The spin masters are in place, and they are raring to go!! Eliminating the destroyers saves money now, and in the future by not having to replace them, same thing with the CF-18's, not they were ever going to be replaced anyway; mothballing 2 of the CPF, well that's 2 less to upgrade under the FELEX program, if that program even gets off the ground. My bet, the brigade gets announced, the equipment gets deleted, and the current regs force regiments are drawn down to create this "thing."

Assuming all of this is done, here is a brief synopsis of what will have happened to the CF equipment in the past 10 years:

1. Elimination of tanks;
2. Elimination of SP artillery;
3. Reduce army combat effective strength between 1/4 and 1/3; in addition to eliminating Airborne Regiment
4. Lower-eliminate training cycles and standards; 
5. Eliminate MR AAD for the navy; 
6. Eliminate Command and COntrol Capability for Navy;   
7. Mothball 30 percent of an already understrength Naval fleet;
8. Cut MP patrol aircraft and flying hours; 
9. Cut fighter aircraft strength by over 2/3rds;
10 Reduce AOR naval fleet by 1/3;
11. Reduce army formations by 1/4;

and the list goes on. But, on the bright side:

New Equipment:

1. LAV III, Coyote; G-wagens- all too few in number, not enough armour kits and not enough trained personnel to maintain;
2. Added a couple of remote control drones of questionable reliability;
3. Plan to equip with MGS death trap, probably cancel now that US is going to pull the plug;
4. Announce JSS program for vessel that does so many missions it can't really accomplish any of them effectively; 
5. "Modernize" Cf-18 to early '90's standard
6. Acquire 1980's era submarines that leak; squeak and reek;
7. Announce MMEV as a concept theory, where it will forever remain;
8. Replace SP artillery with oversized pickup truck, mounting 105 mm, a fancy CB radio, Canadian tire GPS and a laptop.
9. Out of work sailors, aircrew and armour troops remuster to new trades in the peacekeeping brigade. 

And, the list goes on ...

All because we are a "peacekeeping nation", "the troops come first", "it would be illberal not to do so"; and that list goes on.


----------



## Blindspot (22 Aug 2004)

lfejoel25 said:
			
		

> i think a lot of canadians don't know what the role of the cf is, and confuse it with military aggression.



The trouble is, our own government hasn't a clue what the role of the CF is. This was never more evident than the propaganda campaign against the CF during the last election by the Liberals, equating military expansion with Americanism and a desire to invade Iraq. Our society really doesn't have a desire to do the necessary dirty work for its protection and/or believe there will never be an immediate threat.

I had a teacher in high school many years ago who advocated that Canada should have absolutely no military at all. It was impossible to convince him that peace through resistance is currently the only sustainable method of delivering peace because some fellow member of the human species across the Atlantic or Pacific may not share the same visions of Utopia.


----------



## Slim (23 Aug 2004)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> I had a teacher in high school many years ago who advocated that Canada should have absolutely no military at all. It was impossible to convince him that peace through resistance is currently the only sustainable method of delivering peace because some fellow member of the human species across the Atlantic or Pacific may not share the same visions of Utopia.



I think all the 60's throwback hippies became teachers and, as a result, are having a bigger effect on students now than they ever dreamed possible!

The problem is that their Utopia could, all too easily come crashing down. If it does it will be very hard indeed to ever win our freedom and way of life back again.

Look how many of this countries enemies live here unmolested already. Don't believe me? Go and ask a reporter or journalist for TV tapes of some of the HUGE PARTIES BEING THROWN ON THE STREET DURING 911! :skull:

No, sticking our heads in the sand will not cut it in the long run!

Slim


----------



## G .Dundas (23 Aug 2004)

Slim, 
 I really hate to start my very first post here by disagreeing with someone,in this case you.But as far as I'm aware your parties in the street celebrating 9-11with one exception simply didn't occur. The exception took place in the Gaza strip.
 I have of course heard   the rumours of all sorts of street parties in Arab communities in the U.S. and Canada but have never seen any real proof.
I think that courtesy of the "net" the reality is   becoming more and more blurred as time passes.

 best regards, Gordon Dundas


----------



## Shec (23 Aug 2004)

Maybe its not for me to say as someone who is currently a bureaucrat and whose military claim to fame was service in the Militia 30 years ago but it occurs to me that the proposal to strip the air force and navy to create a "peacekeeping" brigade is sheer lunacy.     While reading this thread and other related ones on this board it occurs to me that this little virtual community is better able to   determinie defence policy than
policy wonks and the political strategists here in Ottawa.   Which by the way can be fairly described as 50 square miles surrounded by reality.

According to this board, or rather my interpretation of it, the 2 principal geo-strategic challenges facing DND   include the ability to participate in the war against against terrorism and the assertion of arctic sovereignity.     Is that not the national defence that us tax-payers are paying for?

So, how are we going to defend the second or third largest country in the world, one that is bounded by 3 oceans, without all three services properly equipped to do so?   Particularly when our historic practice has been to project our forces overseas to defend our homes here.

In my opinion, again based upon what I have read here, it seems to me fair to summarize that we need to build a model based upon the old Mobile Command concept or the immediate post WW2   MSF concept.     One in which the 3 brigades we have are readily deployable and appropriately manned and equipped to go anywhere at anytime and get the job done.   Whether that job is peace-keeping, peace-making, or protecting the homeland.

Do we need a fourth brigade?   Heck how would I know, I'm not a manning analyst?   But as I see it we need  "fire-brigades", not specialized and dedicated "peacekeeping" brigades.     And, I would hope that it goes without saying that to strip the other services to create it would be a major blunder.

Do we need to boost the size of our GNP allocation to defence spending?     Most certainly.     But not by an astronimical amount.   Another 1/2 a % age point could do the job without too much fiscal dislocation.

Just one man's opinion based on what I have read here.   In reality, I hope that the suggestion to conduct public consultations is indeed implemented and if it is I hope that you all participate and that your suggestions are heeded.  Thanks for letting me rant.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2004)

Rant away Shec.

Cheers


----------



## rormson (23 Aug 2004)

I know that the problems at Defence Headquarters in Ottawa have been mentioned before on Army.ca as one of the root causes of the repeated successful attempts of the Fed. Government to diminish the CF. I think there have been differing opinions on this, and specifically the role of senior defence staff (i.e. "The Generals"). I think that one very rapidly has to come to the conclusion that a failure amongst Senior DND Staff has got to be at least part of the problem here - - the other, public apathy or lack of understanding. If Sr. DND Staff in Ottawa keep accepting these ridiculous plans from political spin masters (who don't have a clue) then the trend will never end, save perhaps a terrorist attack or something to enlighten indifferent citizens. I long for the day when I read the paper and it says "DND Brass Stand Up to Ottawa" the next time they attempt to cut and shuffle. (Sorry, just dreaming.) In my view Sr. DND staff compromised what little credibility they had left when Chretien cancelled the helicopter deal. A responsible reaction to that decision would have been to say OK Parliament, OK PM, if that's the decision then no more maritime helicopter patrols, no more ship-borne helicopter deployments until we have new equipment. Instead, they cowed down, put personnel at risk, and "made due" as per usual.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2004)

Looks like someone is feeling a might "tetchy" these days.

I notice that this article says it is 5000 on top of current authorized strength and that new money is coming.  

The 5000 on top of current allows Paul to end up at the same number as Harper's Phase I.

Harper said he would increase from 52,000 to 65,000 on the way to 80,000.  Paul said he would add 5,000 to the 60,000 with no expression of what his desired end-state is.

Playing with semantics to maintain an "apparent" rather than a "real" difference?

I wonder what Harper's quid pro quo for support on missile defence is?



> Monday, Aug 23, 2004
> Speculation on possible navy, air force cuts irks top general
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The country's top general called an unusual news conference Monday to complain about what he called inaccurate speculation about possible cuts to the navy and the air force in favour of the army.
> ...



http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1694587


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Aug 2004)

There is one thing I would like to add here, it gets a little old expecting "the brass" to fall on their sword.
They do have mortgages and family to feed just like everyone else, the days past where they could "resign" and then go back to whatever money bought them their commission in the first place are long gone.
There are many decisions in my trade that drive me up the wall, but, the bottom line is, first and foremost, I work for money and if I have to swallow  a little, so be it.
Just think, if all the top brass with honour decide to resign over something, just exactly who does that leave running the ship?


----------



## Armymedic (23 Aug 2004)

The even more eager yes men below the newly resigned general? :crybaby:


----------



## Slim (24 Aug 2004)

I hate to say it but any changes must come from the government frist. If the top brass were told tomorrow to start building the army up again and given sufficient funds and support to do it I bet they would do a pretty good job. 

But what can you do when you're not supported and have no money for new toys!

Slim


----------



## Spr.Earl (24 Aug 2004)

You have that right Slim.

But me thinks Paul was thinking of him self a J.C. with the 5,000 and the loaves of bread and fish!!


----------



## DJL (24 Aug 2004)

.........and water into wine


----------



## rormson (24 Aug 2004)

Who said anything about resigning? The point is to maintain professional credibility and leadership on behalf of the Federal Department that has an incredible number of employees (i.e. you guys) who's safety and job capabilities are dependant on the decisions and policies set by the Sr. Staff, as well as the Government. I agree 110% with anyone who feels that the government (who is ultimately the public) must accept the need for additional capacity in the CF - - but to ignore the culpability of Sr. Staff in some of these decisions is to bury one's head in the sand. Kudos to those who had the fortitude and dedication to the ranks to leak the ridiculous plans to the media. I'm sure that wasn't a decision that they made on a whim. "Whistleblowing" perhaps.

I find it interesting that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who held the newsconference yesterday to dispel the rumor mill. If it was the Liberal's idea to create a brigade then why wasn't Bill Graham up there explaining where the cash would come from? My opinion as a civilian, rightly or wrongly, is that there are a number of lackeys up there, and yes, perhaps it is perpetuated by those looking to climb the ladder so to speak. Let's just hope that a new brigade will come with more money. Instead of presenting options for cuts it would be wonderful if the Sr. Defence Staff will be given the opportunity to build something new. Maybe I'm an idealist.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

RGO said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that it was the Chief of Defence Staff who held the newsconference yesterday to dispel the rumor mill.



Of course....He was holding the "umbrella" "over the Minister's head" to keep all the poop from landing on his shoulders.

GW


----------



## Slim (25 Aug 2004)

is that there are a number of lackeys up there,

Well...the majority of the CF would agree with you 110%. The problem (and incidentally how they control the top brass) is that when a Canadian Soldier reaches the rank of General Officer they are given the opportunity to "negotiate" their salaries based on loyalty to the government! Where does that leave them...Tow the party line or get frozen out!

Sucks but a VERY effective method of controling the top brass!

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2004)

Slim, that's a pretty provocative comment.

Could you flesh out what you are describing?  Do they negotiate for appointments, postings, transfers to civilian taskings, pensions?  Or do they negotiate directly for their salary in a particular appointment?  "I will be a good boy, if you pay me at the top of my pay-scale?"

Really curious.  I hope you are just being cynical in the typical curmudgeonly fashion of most of us on this board.  Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Aug 2004)

I believe it is Col and up that get to negotiate salary.  Would this be done through the Treasury Board?


----------



## Slim (26 Aug 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Slim, that's a pretty provocative comment.
> 
> Could you flesh out what you are describing?   Do they negotiate for appointments, postings, transfers to civilian taskings, pensions?   Or do they negotiate directly for their salary in a particular appointment?   "I will be a good boy, if you pay me at the top of my pay-scale?"
> 
> Really curious.   I hope you are just being cynical in the typical curmudgeonly fashion of most of us on this board.   Cheers, Chris.



Wish I was. I don' have a link but will try to find one for you. Incidently, this has been going on for some time...


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

What's the logic behind General and Flag officers negotiating their salaries?  Can't they just be part of the normal pay scale like the rest of the ranks (this is what the US Military does, with its pay grades of O-6 to O-10).


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Aug 2004)

It is because public service regulations classify their jobs as executives.  We are governed by the same rules that define the pay & benefits for all government employees.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

Well, there is the first problem.  Generals do not equal executives.


----------



## Shec (26 Aug 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> It is because public service regulations classify their jobs as executives.   We are governed by the same rules that define the pay & benefits for all government employees.



Another inconsistent policy decision.   To carry the rationale to its next logical conclusion should junior ranks be unionized?      : : :

The Civil Service is just that - a civilian service.   It does not have the same culture as a military service.   In this case mixing two such radically different cultures only serves to weaken rather than to reinforce.

Maybe I'm getting old and set in ways but a civilian manager manages issues.     A military officer leads troops.   There is a difference.     Maybe the CF should replace attache cases with map cases.


----------



## NMPeters (26 Aug 2004)

It's not exactly a "negotiation" of salary. It's a base salary and then they are given a yearly "performance bonus" based on their PER. It's for the rank of colonel and above. I think the only one who really negotiates a salary for himself is the CDS. I'm not 100% certain of this, but this is my understanding of the situation.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2004)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> It's not exactly a "negotiation" of salary. It's a base salary and then they are given a yearly "performance bonus" based on their PER. It's for the rank of colonel and above. I think the only one who really negotiates a salary for himself is the CDS. I'm not 100% certain of this, but this is my understanding of the situation.



I don't think there is a "base salary" per sae.  The pay scales go as hgh as LCol and no higher.  I am under the impression that they do infact put in sealed 'bids' as to what their salary will be.  If you had freedom to examine their pays, you may find full Colonels making more than Major Generals.

GW


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Aug 2004)

I have heard the same over the years George and I think it's a disgrace and if so should be stopped.
Every one should be on a pay scale right up to the C.D.S..
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!!
We are not a Fortune 500 Corp.!!!


----------



## NMPeters (27 Aug 2004)

Ok. I looked up the pay tables and there are pay tables for Colonels and Generals. I'd give you the link but it's on the DIN. Here are the rates with a minimum and maximum range:

Colonel: min - 86,100 max 101,300
BGen: min 98,600 max 116,000
MGen: min 119,900 max 141,100
LGen min 136,700 max 160,900

What I'm thinking is that everyone gets their minimum pay based on their rank and their performance pay is added so as not to exceed the maximum amount. I think. I'm not sure. I'll ask around though and find out how it works for sure. Give me a couple of days.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Aug 2004)

Curious to know what the General's salary is as well.


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Aug 2004)

Having common pay & benefits with the public service is one of the reasons that we no longer get married allowances.  However, most of the public service are not expected to move ever 2 - 4 years & their spouses can land stable jobs.


----------



## Harrier101 (6 Sep 2004)

How on earth does a country like Sweeden or Switzerland do it then? They half not even a quarter of the land mass we have, and they have a fairly decent Military. No? 

Slim has summed it all up in one, simple sentance....the government needs to change. I am kinda ashamed of being a Canadain based soley on the fact, that I am representative of a country that elect's a government into power that has a mandate of wrecking it and wasting millions on nuttin. It makes me laugh to think about the sponsership scandel...how much was that...WASTED? Could have gone to the forces. How about the HRDC Boondoggle a few years back with that Jane stewart wasn't it? Again, millions wasted.

And what does the mass populous do at the next election. Votes 'em back in. It makes me laugh. If the government never changes, or if
another government comes in that has as much disregard for money, and the country and for the military, hell will freeze before the forces is given the money, funding and support it needs in order to become a world class millitary. I frimly believe, we could defend this nation from  from a moderate attack by a rouge state......with bows, arrows and stones if we had too, only because it's members make the CF what it is, not because it is given the tools to do the job by the elected government of the day.

I will say a governemt has done what it said it would do when it has done it.


----------



## Slim (6 Sep 2004)

I am no history buff...Nor do I have an education in it past grade 12 Ontario, but I do like to read. It seems that the government has been doing this for as far back as anyone can remember...(pre-WW2)

If I'm wrong or someone has a more in-depth view please come forward and comment because I am interested in the whole situation (just as we all are)

How did the canadian government turn into an Old Boys Club? And wwhy do the important things always get screwed in favour of money wasting projects (like new Citation Jets for the Govt. when Seathings are falling right out of the sky!) 

Anyone know?

Slim ???


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Sep 2004)

Our country has notoriously start small, built up massively (one of the largest Navies end of WW2) and gradually reduced the military again.  As far as politics go Mulruney(sp) (PC) was no better then the Liberals.  They all lie, cheat and steal.  We're screwed either way until some terrorist blows up Martins flower garden.  Even then I'm not so sure.


----------



## Scott (6 Sep 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Our country has notoriously start small, built up massively (one of the largest Navies end of WW2) and gradually reduced the military again.   As far as politics go Mulruney(sp) (PC) was no better then the Liberals.   They all lie, cheat and steal.   We're screwed either way until some terrorist blows up Martins flower garden.   Even then I'm not so sure.



LMAO  I could not agree more.


----------



## Spanky (6 Sep 2004)

I just finished reading "Marching as to War" by Pierre Burton.  In it he traces the politics involved in going to war etc.  He begins with the Boer War and ends with Korea.  It's amazing how similar things ran between the war years.  The Forces being starved is nothing new.  The onle difference between now and then is the fact that todays forces are actually going on ops.


----------



## vr (6 Sep 2004)

It's quite silly to compare the Canadian Military to Sweden & Switzerland.  We are an all-volunteer force with a poor 2nd cousin Reserve Force that's kept under the kitchen sink and fed dog food.  Most of the Swiss & Swedish military ARE Reserves including, in the Swiss case, fighter pilots.  These countries have universal conscription with continuing reserve service obligations into your 40's & 50's.  In Switzerland most reservists keep their personal weapon at home as well.  Can you imagine how much solid waste would hit the oscillating air conditioner if they ever tried that here.

Switzerland & Sweden also have the experience of living on the front line of one world war and one Cold war.  They are also aware that declarations of neutrality (soft power) are only worth the paper they're printed on unless backed by force (real power).  Lastly these two countries have something that this country sadly lacks, namely a sense of pride in their history and a strong sense of national identity.


----------



## Slim (6 Sep 2004)

Well I like the comparison and I do think that there is quite a bit of validity in what was said.

However discussing Canada's lack of national pride will surely lead us down the path to discussing immigration policies that this country has adopted and even I won't kick the lid off of that can of worms.

I wish someone had the guts to stand up and say out loud that holiday trees and health care aren't the be all and end all of a countries needs...But of course that will never happen, will it!? Power is a too precious thing for a polatician to surrender for something as worthless (in their eyes) as the CF. :

Slim


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2004)

Perhaps we should take some pointers from the old story "The Mouse Who Roared".


GW


----------



## onecat (6 Sep 2004)

"However discussing Canada's lack of national pride will surely lead us down the path to discussing immigration policies that this country has adopted and even I won't kick the lid off of that can of worms"

The lack of pride really has nothing to do with current immigraqtion policies.  It has more do with out history than who we pick to come here.  Before the WW2 and after most Canadians were more proud of being in the British Empire then being Canadian.  And having a multi-cultural immigration policies hasn't made it any worst, in fact I think I it's made it better.  I know more first gen Canadians who more proud of and wave flag than being who's families have been here of 100 years or more.  Look how Canada is taught in schools, that alone explains why most Canadians don't who was the first PM, or the role our military played in keeping England a save.  I could on, but I don;t really want to get in a immigration debate either...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

Actually my take on the whole immigration things is that it seems a lot of new immigrants hold their previous countries politics, best interests etc first and Canada's second.  But like you that is my own opinion.


----------



## Acorn (7 Sep 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Actually my take on the whole immigration things is that it seems a lot of new immigrants hold their previous countries politics, best interests etc first and Canada's second.   But like you that is my own opinion.



And how large a sample of "new immigrants" have you collected? One's opinions should be formed from something more than a superficial glance. No?

Acorn


----------



## wongskc (7 Sep 2004)

Reading information like this makes me too depressed. :'(



So much for making the CF my career.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

Your right Acorn it should be done by more then a glance however I don't have the time to run a proper scientific study on the matter.  That is why I emphasised that it was my opinion and not something factual.


----------



## Acorn (7 Sep 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Your right Acorn it should be done by more then a glance however I don't have the time to run a proper scientific study on the matter.   That is why I emphasised that it was my opinion and not something factual.



Fair enough. We know about opinions right. In any case, when one's opinion tars a segment of society, one should be able to support it. "Opinion" is not an excuse to say anything you want is it?

Acorn


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Sep 2004)

True but this discussion would just end up as one up man-ship in the sense that I could ask you to prove that most 1st Gen immigrants support Canada first.  Hey I wouldn't blame them if they did support the country the just came from.  if I ever moved to the States I would always think of myself as a Canadian first.  After reading my original point that got you started I don't think I was being malicious or hateful in the slightest.


----------



## Acorn (9 Sep 2004)

Before I go on I'd like to note that I was making an observation. Urination contests tend to be wasted time, and often niether side knows if they're p*ssing for accuracy or distance.

In any case, to your point: my experience is different, though you may be right about more recent 1st gen immigrants (the ones I know tend to be older, and immigrated some years ago). That being said, on a debating point - if you voice an opinion and I disagree, it would traditionally be up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove you wrong.

My intent is not to be politically correct, though it probably appears that way. IMO voicing an opinion on admitted limited knowledge is a mistake - one that we've seen often on discussion groups. You know quite well the typical reaction to "newbies" and "wannabes" on these very boards when they say things on subject they know little about.

I'm not saying you can't have opinions (like I could stop you). 

Anyway, that's all I'll say on this as the thread sems to be dying anyway.

Cheers,
Acorn


----------

