# Troop Level Decrease



## Newguy1 (1 May 2014)

I was just reading this article http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-just-can-t-get-around-army-cuts-hillier-says-1.1467584

If this proposal to cut the CAF down to 50,000 actually happens, what trades do you think would be most affected, aside from infantry?


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2014)

It would depend on what the government directs the CAF not to do.  And would depend on whether the CAF was instructed to close bases.  Those decisions would heavily influence what occupations would be reduced.

Similarly, if the government decided to increase the size of the CAF, what they directed the CAF to increase would determine what would grow.  So direction to add more ships (say, going to 20 frigates, 6 submarines, 18 coastal defence vessels and 8 arctic patrol icebreakers) would result in a lot of new positions for hard sea trades, perhaps a few more aircrew and maintainers for maritime helicopters, but no growth for the infantry.


----------



## ballz (2 May 2014)

I was only 12 at the time so forgive me, but does anyone remember approximately how many Reg Force / PRes pers did the CAF have prior to 9/11/01?


----------



## Tibbson (2 May 2014)

Newguy1 said:
			
		

> I was just reading this article http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-just-can-t-get-around-army-cuts-hillier-says-1.1467584
> 
> If this proposal to cut the CAF down to 50,000 actually happens, what trades do you think would be most affected, aside from infantry?



If the price is right I'd gladly leave and do my part.  Lemme hear those three lil letters, starting with an F and ending with a P, with an R jammed in the middle.


----------



## McG (2 May 2014)

Newguy1 said:
			
		

> I was just reading this article http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-just-can-t-get-around-army-cuts-hillier-says-1.1467584
> 
> If this proposal to cut the CAF down to 50,000 actually happens, what trades do you think would be most affected, aside from infantry?


I would hope that it be bandsman followed by TDO, PSel and PAO.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would hope that it be bandsman followed by TDO, PSel and PAO.



So, that's less than 600 pers, all ranks.  And I'd argue that that capabilities that T Dev and PSel give are better vested in the Reg F.  Better to cut Cbt Arms (relatively low training cost occupations) and put more in the Res F for Force Generation and keep the higher training/education occupations in the Reg F.


----------



## McG (2 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, that's less than 600 pers, all ranks.  And I'd argue that that capabilities that T Dev and PSel give are better vested in the Reg F.  Better to cut Cbt Arms (relatively low training cost occupations) and put more in the Res F for Force Generation and keep the higher training/education occupations in the Reg F.


I figured they would amount to small absolute numbers, but as percentage of occupation I would like to see them lead in the hits.  I agree with preserving support in the RegF, but I don't know that TDev and PSel provide  anything we could not get from civilian public servants.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 May 2014)

It's not just senior/long service peers that would be tempted to leave. There's more than one in the Junior Ranks that would be happy enough to walk - given the right incentive. But with the job market the way it is, we aren't all going to sign off our IE25's without a little "sugar".


----------



## Infanteer (2 May 2014)

The numbers point to the obvious.  If you wish to cut 10,000 positions, the Army field force is where you have to go, as it houses 15,000 of the 60,000 Regular Force positions (25%).  I don't believe there is ways to get around cuts here if you reduce the size of the regular force.


----------



## CBH99 (2 May 2014)

I don't mean to take this thread off topic at all, so forgive me for my little bit of a short rant/sidetrack.  

But why on earth would we DECREASE the number of personnel in our military, while the world still has a great demand for the types of operations we are capable of.  

If the reasoning behind decreasing the number of personnel is purely financial, why can't we stop wasting tens - if not hundreds - of millions of dollars in the beaurocratic mess they call defence procurement?  

Why can't we streamline the process, make common sense and rational decisions, and work to proactively provide our military with modern equipment in a streamlined and well organized fashion. 

(Example - it costs $10M per year to keep the project office open re: new trucks.  $10M can buy A LOT of trucks, yet every year we keep this project office open that is $10M worth of trucks that we can no longer buy, as that money was spent on the project office.  Just one of MANY examples.)

I think we need to sit down, stop shooting ourselves in the foot, and get organized.  Have a clear direction for what the government wants from the CF, create a streamlined and cost effective method of procuring equipment, and get our ducks in a row. Until that happens, I think decreasing the number of personnel is absolutely absurd.  

Just my 0.02


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> It's not just senior/long service peers that would be tempted to leave. There's more than one in the Junior Ranks that would be happy enough to walk - given the right incentive. But with the job market the way it is, we aren't all going to sign off our IE25's without a little "sugar".



I highly doubt that will happen. Some public servants were hoping for golden handshakes and they never came. But the cuts have.  They'll start with attrition and hiring freezes then targeted cuts.  No FRP, no sugar.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 May 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that will happen. Some public servants were hoping for golden handshakes and they never came. But the cuts have.  They'll start with attrition and hiring freezes then targeted cuts.  No FRP, no sugar.



We'll if they do,  I'm on the FRP wagon too!   Or what ever the would call it now so as to distance them selves from the previous expedition into force reduction.


----------



## Tibbson (2 May 2014)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I don't mean to take this thread off topic at all, so forgive me for my little bit of a short rant/sidetrack.
> 
> But why on earth would we DECREASE the number of personnel in our military, while the world still has a great demand for the types of operations we are capable of.
> 
> ...



In my pea sized brain, the answer to why they would wish to decrease is simple...there is an election due and the Govt wants to be able to claim a balanced budget.  To do that they have to cut expences which means cutting CF numbers.  Cancelling contracts for CF purchases has already been done to death and to do more would mean contractors get pissed and ridings get lost.  Cut 10, 000 CF personnel means big savings and fewer pissed off voters across the board, not concentrated in ridings where damage could be wrought.


----------



## McG (2 May 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The numbers point to the obvious.  If you wish to cut 10,000 positions, the Army field force is where you have to go, as it houses 15,000 of the 60,000 Regular Force positions (25%).  I don't believe there is ways to get around cuts here if you reduce the size of the regular force.


If cuts were targeted at WO to CWO and to Maj+, how much reductions do you think we could squeeze from redundant and/or bloated HQs?


----------



## DAA (2 May 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> If cuts were targeted at WO to CWO and to Maj+, how much reductions do you think we could squeeze from redundant and/or bloated HQs?



Redundant yes, bloated is a matter of interpretation.  If the GoC, Treasury Board and all the other intertwined departments who like to stick their fingers into things, would stop imposing silly checks/balances and control measures on some of our activities, then yes, absolutely, you could reduce the HQ staff.  But it just keeps getting worse.

Now a days, due to "segregation of duties" aspects, it takes three different people, just to pay a friggin phone bill or approve a claim.      :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (2 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> In my pea sized brain, the answer to why they would wish to decrease is simple...there is an election due and the Govt wants to be able to claim a balanced budget.



In my peas sized brain, the solution to their balanced budget would be NOT to continue sending billions upon billions of dollars overseas in aid and forgivable loans to failing states.







Now I will be off to invest in my 649 Retirement Plan.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 May 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> If cuts were targeted at WO to CWO and to Maj+, how much reductions do you think we could squeeze from redundant and/or bloated HQs?



That's nice and all but just how do you tell folks with that kind of time in that "Even though you've done nothing wrong, we're firing you just because you managed to work your way up our rank structure."?


----------



## McG (2 May 2014)

Maybe the same way as has been told to reduced civilian PS and Class B reservists in recent years.
We could also follow the same approach as the civilian workforce reduction which allowed pers to self-identify for the reductions ... Self-identifiers would be let go, and enduring positions would be freed for those who want to stay.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> Redundant yes, bloated is a matter of interpretation.  If the GoC, Treasury Board and all the other intertwined departments who like to stick their fingers into things, would stop imposing silly checks/balances and control measures on some of our activities, then yes, absolutely, you could reduce the HQ staff.  But it just keeps getting worse.
> 
> Now a days, due to "segregation of duties" aspects, it takes three different people, just to pay a friggin phone bill or approve a claim.      :facepalm:




Your point about unnecessary check and control measures imposed by other departments and agencies, especially the ones involved in _social engineering_, is a good one and it's very valid.

But: it does not alter the fact that the CF has too many HQs, that if you _delayered_ (cut redundant HQs) the resulting C2 superstructure would still be overstaffed, and, perhaps most important, that the CF has too many too senior officers.

The CF needs less gold (fewer GOFOs) and more grey (ships and aircraft) and green (tanks and guns and helicopters, and, and, and ...).


----------



## ballz (2 May 2014)

We could buy out a lot of the PATs who have been in the training system for 2.5 years and still haven't made it through... since they are all (almost all, if not all) on a 3 yr VIE that would mean a cheap buy-out of untrained pers.


----------



## captloadie (3 May 2014)

If the Department was even going to consider another FRP, I imagine they would look towards some of our Allies who have recently reduced force size. 

The Brits for instance used what was probably the most sensible system. There were two streams. You could self identify, which was one stream, and then there was a list of deadbeats and not further employable individuals identified. This was stream two. Stream two were all cut (if the numbers required it).

Then, if targets per rank and trade required more cuts they looked at the self identifed individuals and held a merit board. Those who merited high, _*were kept*_ and those that were just doing their job were allowed to separate/release/retire early. They didn't lose as many strong individuals, and weren't left with a bag of hammers to keep things running. 

Now, the system wasn't perfect, as some of those in stream two had alot of corporate knowledge and their only fault was age and rank, but for the most part I think it worked well.


----------



## Transporter (3 May 2014)

This is just Hillier talking, the same guy who had the great idea to create four new operational level HQs (take from the tooth, add to the tail)... you know, the failed experiment that we're currently trying to reverse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the PM is on record as saying he will not entertain any reduction in CF personnel numbers as part of the department's effort to cut expenditures.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 May 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the PM is on record as saying he will not entertain any reduction in CF personnel numbers as part of the department's effort to cut expenditures.



I don't know if he is officially on record for that, but certainly that the impression he likes to leave is that the country is defended and we are strong partners to others. Well, maybe it is/ and we are, but I am skeptical of that ..... And in any case I am very doubtful that defence needs are met by personnel strength as the dominant metric. I would argue that the main area of interest for examination would be a critical review of the ability to have a dominating influence over our own affairs by having the necessary forces and equipment to deliver lethal capabilities whenever and wherever  necessary.     But that requires a level of thinking beyond the ideology of the current government which is "election based" and not "best interest" based.


----------

