# Anyone from LFRR on the board



## Devlin (1 Aug 2006)

Can anyone comment on the movement in the reserve world of the proposed integration of CSS units into Combat Arms units and doing away with the Svc Bn's? At present there is a lot of chatter/RUMINT around the CSS armouries about this proposal. 

Can anyone here offer any facts on this, ie first hand knowledge and perhaps explain the intent behind this?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2006)

Per the CLS Letter of 06 June 06 titled "STAFF DIRECTIVE - ARMY RESERVE ESTABLISHMENT REVIEW", annex A para 3e:



> I support moving to a more efficient  structure of Army Reserve units.  It is not just a matter of saving  a few positions at the LCol/RSM level.  It is about presenting a credible force structure to the CF and the people of Canada.  When we say we have a battalion, it must look, walk, feel like a battalion (consensus - at least two sub-units, approx 250 all ranks, with few exceptions).  48, 79 or 68 soldiers do not constitute battalions!  Army Reserve structures must adjust to the reality of the supporting population.  Administrative or Tactical groupings are parcticable options to preserve structure in case of mobilization while structuring for reality today.



The directive says nothing about "integration of CSS units in Combat Arms"; rather, it is asking all Area Commanders and staffs to come up with options for the overall Army Reserve force structure.  This will impact all units, Cbt A and CSS alike.


----------



## Gunner (1 Aug 2006)

If this is pushed through to fruitiion, this will be a very good first step in reducing the size of the Reserve structure down to a managable level.  Hopefully CBG HQ will be looked at next ... 1000 soldiers does not constitute a brigade!


----------



## Devlin (1 Aug 2006)

Ah ok then, there is a perception out there that there is a movement to integrate the CSS units into the Combat Arms units to serve the greater good. 

So if we lose the jargon and restructuring talk what are we really talking about here. Will units still remain an entity unto themselves and just act as part of a larger Bn or will we see units amalgamated?

I understand I may be asking questions that don't yet have answers.


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2006)

This is out of my lane, but I am curious. Is it realistically feasible to increase the number of reservists(edited to add: to a Btn level)? I had the impression, not sure where I got it from, that the reserves were having some difficulty retaining their existing numbers, which were not terribly high. 

I will plead ignorance here  ;D


----------



## Gunner (1 Aug 2006)

GAP, believe it or not, it is not an easy question to answer.  But is it feasible?  Yes, given proper funding, resources, mission, equipment, etc, etc.  Army Reserves in Canada are around 18,000 (dapaterson could give you specific numbers).


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> GAP, believe it or not, it is not an easy question to answer.  But is it feasible?  Yes, given proper funding, resources, mission, equipment, etc, etc.  Army Reserves in Canada are around 18,000 (dapaterson could give you specific numbers).



Wow, that's far better than I thought. I am more highly aware of the CF than the average person, and yet I had no clue it was that high.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2006)

As the CF transforms, the Army will transform.  As the Army transforms, the Army Reserve will transform.

There are still many unknowns in this process; Area Comds are presenting their concepts to the CLS at the next Army Council.  There remains the government's promised Reserve Force Expansion of 10 000, including territorial defence battalions, which may have an impact.

Fundamentally:  What do we want from the Army?  How do we get what we want from the Regular Force and Reserve Force?  How do we structure each to get what we want?

... and then, how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?


----------



## Devlin (1 Aug 2006)

Sounds like any changes may still be a long way off then, if were still in the define an design phase of this.


----------



## svcbn (1 Aug 2006)

Please do not talk about efficiency when worshiping to the great LFRR gods. Svc Bns are in the position they are in now because of trg systems in ability to trg CSS pers, many yrs of Liberal mismanagement, public misinformation as to who and what the P Res are, shortfalls in CSS funding, (cost of an inf trg pers vice CSS trg pers, the same, check out the figures) and the list goes on. If LFRR has its way the CSS will disappear and the next thing we'll hear about is how they are going to get civilians to the front. If given the proper funding to run a CSS unit the Svc Bn would be in much better shape. Why are we the only western army with a RF larger than its P Res force? Talk about inefficiency.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2006)

Gahhh... my old nemesis - counting the Army Reserve.

When reporting strength we generally report on paid strength by month - that is, the number of soldiers who paraded at least one day in a given month, be it class A, B or C.  Units do hold others on strength, some NES, some exempt drill and training; they are not counted.  To avoid double-counting of individuals who work full-time in an HQ and part-time at their parent units, pay records are used (at the national level, at least).  This also automates the process, and helps reduce the stream of reports and returns demanded of units.

In a given period, there are a number of folks who will not attend every month due to work or other commitments; this expands the bubble somewhat.  Thus, saying there are "500 Army Reservists parading in a month" means there are approximately 550 Army Reservists, with 500 parading in an average month.  (Numbers are rounded for simplicity, but ratios are close enough).

There have been structural changes over the past several years, removing the Medical elements from the Army Reserve.  In addition, for a variety of odd historical reasons, reserve field signals are not in the Army, but rather under the "Assistant Deputy Minister, Information Management" or ADM(IM).


Ballpark figures?  LFRR was to grow the Army Reserve in two blocks of roughly 1500: first, to an average monthly paid strength of 16000; then, on order, to continue to expand to 17300 (those numbers have been adjusted downwards to reflect the departure of the Medical reserve).

To date, the Army has achieved the first target; that is, an average monthly parade strength of 16000.  (slightly over for the past year, in fact, and remaining steady).  To date, the Minister of National Defence has not announced the "second" 1500; that may well be subsumed into the 10 000 reserve growth subsequently announced - the MND appears to have dropped me from his speed dial   and has not told me all the details of his plan.


**Edited due to my typing inability


----------

