# Cut PRes funding to support the Reg F (Split from: Base closures?)



## BACKERCOY (7 Jan 2011)

Q: This wouild be a tough call but what if DND stood down all of the PRes Units and applied all budget savings to maintaining reg force bases

  :yellow:


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> Q: This wouild be a tough call but what if DND stood down all of the PRes Units and applied all budget savings to maintaining reg force bases
> 
> :yellow:


Then the USSR would then become resurgent, and absorb half of Europe, including NATO Ally Poland.  Then there would be war, I would be relevant again, Cold War Warrior and all that I am.


----------



## BACKERCOY (7 Jan 2011)

LOL - good response - but seriously, given that at least our army reserve is a small force relative to the US and others isn`t there an argument to me made - i mean i see the waste in the reserves and if it were all directed top the regs maybe that would be best right - happy new year guys

 :nod:


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> our army reserve is a small force relative to the US and others



How is that relevant ?


----------



## REDinstaller (7 Jan 2011)

To base closures not at all. Most reserve units aren't on Bases anyways, the supporting base might be hours away. ie, LSSR Marathon to CFB Winnipeg.


----------



## BACKERCOY (7 Jan 2011)

Its completely relevant because economically other countries have figured out that it is cheaper to have the larger portions of its armed service on "reserve" status that in garrison full time - think about it - in the US a "Guardsman" is not on the public payroll for the most of his service career unless called up - we have it backwards - our Reg force is larger than our reserve force - SO if that is the model the government wants then do away with the reserves.


----------



## REDinstaller (7 Jan 2011)

And some of their Guard units also are liable to deploy as such, A UNIT. We don't have that capability at all, hence why the reserves AUGMENT the RegF on deployments.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> SO if that is the model the government wants then do away with the reserves.



The smaller size of the reserves in Canada does not eliminate the need for one. As far as what the US is doing, yes we should do it the way they do. Everything the US does is better right ??




> Rank: Cpl
> Unit: 4RCR
> MOC: INF



Might want to update your avatar then........


----------



## REDinstaller (7 Jan 2011)

Worst thing is, it changed about 5 min ago.


----------



## BACKERCOY (7 Jan 2011)

The smaller size of the reserves in Canada does not eliminate the need for one. As far as what the US is doing, yes we should do it the way they do. Everything the US does is better right ??

Yes Aviator you got it! They spend properly on defence. The public supports them more. They have better kit. Better post deployment rehab - on and on I could go.... Let's live in the real world. I hate to believe it but the Canadian taxpayer does not put their money where their mouth is and that's why this thread started "Base Closures" - we have nothing left to close that is a "base" that does not critcially support the reg force so logically what is left dudes? the RESERVES. (i'm not saying this with glee). :-\


----------



## REDinstaller (7 Jan 2011)

Since when does the taxpayer choose where their tax money goes besides the Receiver General? The politicians do all the spending.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> They spend properly on defence.



...and spending themselves into ruin too ! Go ask SECDEF Gates if he thinks they are spending properly.



> The public supports them more.



So f'ing what.....



> They have better kit.



They have *some* better kit.



> Better post deployment rehab



Yeah...never any scandals at VA over poor treatment and benefits...............



> - on and on I could go....



So could i, i work along side US forces regularly.



> Let's live in the real world.



I most certainly do.




> Canadian taxpayer does not put their money where their mouth is



Actualy, they do. It is not in defence but it is what the majority wants. Politicians spend money where it will get the votes.


----------



## BACKERCOY (8 Jan 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Since when does the taxpayer choose where their tax money goes besides the Receiver General? The politicians do all the spending.



?? - By electing an MP who will represent their views in the House. The Reciever General does not set DND policy at last check :boring:


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> ?? - By electing an MP who will represent their views in the House.



Pssssssttt.......They have.


----------



## REDinstaller (8 Jan 2011)

He does receive all the back tax checks that are submitted. And an MP can say all he wants until elected, then try firing him until the next election. Good luck with that.


----------



## BACKERCOY (8 Jan 2011)

OK CDN Aviator - your a pro obviously and I won't argue - if it were not for the US we would have been invaded long ago - but I guess I'm just an army guy that does not understand that our airforce can't actually patrol and defend our airspace without the yanks 

MHO - good night and happy new year to all iper:


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> if it were not for the US we would have been invaded long ago -



Oh yeah ? By who ?




> but I guess I'm just an army guy that does not understand that our airforce can't actually patrol and defend our airspace without the yanks



You certainly got the first part right.........


----------



## gcclarke (8 Jan 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And some of their Guard units also are liable to deploy as such, A UNIT. We don't have that capability at all, hence why the reserves AUGMENT the RegF on deployments.



I would like to point out that our reserve units are also liable to deploy as a unit, IAW section 31 of the NDA, when said unit is placed upon active service by the Governor in Council. It's just not likely to happen unless we enter into another total war.


----------



## Brasidas (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> Q: This wouild be a tough call but what if DND stood down all of the PRes Units and applied all budget savings to maintaining reg force bases



Why do you think that maintaining infrastructure (as opposed to consolidating to fewer bases) is more important than having a ready reserve of trained personnel?


----------



## Spanky (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> Its completely relevant because economically other countries have figured out that it is cheaper to have the larger portions of its armed service on "reserve" status that in garrison full time - think about it - in the US a "Guardsman" is not on the public payroll for the most of his service career unless called up - we have it backwards - our Reg force is larger than our reserve force - SO if that is the model the government wants then do away with the reserves.


Using this argument, we should greatly reduce the size of the regular force, and use the savings to increase the size of our reserve.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> given that at least our army reserve is a small force relative to the US and others isn`t there an argument to me made - i mean* i see the waste in the reserves and if it were all directed top the regs maybe that would be best* right


If you really believe this, why not get rid of at least some of the waste now, and join the Regs or an American unit?

Also, on a historical note:


			
				Tango18A said:
			
		

> To base closures not at all. Most reserve units aren't on Bases anyways, the supporting base might be hours away. ie, *LSSR Marathon *to CFB Winnipeg.


FYI, the LSSR hasn't had a Marathon (or Geraldton) Pl since the 1980's or so.  Good example, though, of how looooooooooooong some of the support chains can be for PRes units.


----------



## BACKERCOY (8 Jan 2011)

Spanky said:
			
		

> Using this argument, we should greatly reduce the size of the regular force, and use the savings to increase the size of our reserve.



I guess if one would believe the Reg Force is large enough. I fear base closures are not intended to save money to extend the pie to the PRes world though.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> I fear base closures are not intended to save money to extend the pie to the PRes world though.



Of course they are not.


----------



## Stoker (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> Q: This wouild be a tough call but what if DND stood down all of the PRes Units and applied all budget savings to maintaining reg force bases
> 
> :yellow:



Can see that really happening IE standing down reserve units,  although with Afghanistan winding down and pers returning to base, a lot of Class B positions are going to be cut and filled with the pers coming home. In the naval reserves we have already had budget cuts to training and money reallocated to the reg force.
If they did start standing down units and the media found out, big backlash from the public.


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If they did start standing down units and the media found out, big backlash from the public.


Does the public really hold any great emotional attachment to individual reserve units?  I know certain units hold loud lobbies that can make a lot of noise within a local community, but is it really anything that will produce a backlash (even mild) to the federal level if a reserve unit here or there is closed?

Beyond the current question of robbing reserves to better finance the regular force (or the other way around), what about identifying economically unviable reserve units in order to reinvest the money in reserve units or locations of greater potential?


----------



## Stoker (8 Jan 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Does the public really hold any great emotional attachment to individual reserve units?  I know certain units hold loud lobbies that can make a lot of noise within a local community, but is it really anything that will produce a backlash (even mild) to the federal level if a reserve unit here or there is closed?



I know in the case of the Maritime Coastal Defense Vessels, it was announced that several would be mothballed. There was such a public reaction the MND publically rescinded the order.  A little bit different since its a operational unit, although with the right media coverage things could be changed.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Jan 2011)

BACKERCOY said:
			
		

> if it were not for the US we would have been invaded long ago



Actually, the correct statement is "if it were not for the US we would *not* have been invaded long ago".


----------



## REDinstaller (8 Jan 2011)

I guess he doesn't know why the White house is white either.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jan 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I guess he doesn't know why the White house is white either.



I think this explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4


----------



## larry Strong (8 Jan 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think this explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7jlFZhprU4



:rofl:


----------



## REDinstaller (9 Jan 2011)

Now I'll have to watch all of the 3 Dead trolls songs. Thanks. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2011)

Somehow this has to be Hitler's and the Nazis' fault.


----------



## larry Strong (9 Jan 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Somehow this has to be Hitler's and the Nazis' fault.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ed5fBHHVU&feature=related

 ;D


----------



## REDinstaller (9 Jan 2011)

Not too Kamp at all.  :blotto:


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Jan 2011)

Lets look at the original proposal

Scrap all the reserve units and put the money towards saving reg f bases? It doesn't work that way

1. Scrapping a single armoury or a reserve unit is a huge deal by itself, let alone the entire reserves, the political uproar would be huge.
2. So you have seen alot of waste in the PRes? Guess what, the Reg F is just as guilty my friend.
3. DND would not simply re-allocate the money back to base infrastructure
4. If a base is deemed irrelevant and needed to be closed it will be closed, end story
5. Cutting out the reserves would hurt Ops for the CF period.

To be honest this is one of the dumbest idea in the long sad history of dumb ideas.

To save money amongst the reserves, I would reccomend consolidating units, but another topic perhaps?


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> To save money amongst the reserves, I would reccomend consolidating units, but another topic perhaps?


In fact, there is another long topic on reserve structure that examines this very idea to great depth.  You may want to take the current conversation over there: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24381.0.html


----------

