# Stephen Harper pledges expansion of military reserves



## blackberet17 (17 Aug 2015)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/stephen-harper-pledges-expansion-of-military-reserves-1.3193200


Stephen Harper pledges expansion of military reserves

Conservative leader announced series of proposals to boost military reserves during Fredericton campaign stop



> Conservative Leader Stephen Harper unveiled a plan to boost the number of military reservists to 30,000 in the next four years during a campaign stop in Fredericton on Monday.
> 
> Under the proposal, the Conservatives would expand the primary reserve to 30,000 personnel from 24,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2015)

Until the Reserve recruiting system is fixed, this is a hollow promise.  That has to come first.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Until the Reserve recruiting system is fixed, this is a hollow promise.  That has to come first.



From the article:



> The federal government will also streamline and shorten the recruiting process to bring in new reservists under this proposal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2015)

So, are we going to add 50 more large platoon/small company sized units, each commanded by a lieutenant colonel or lieutenant commander, or are we going to give the 30,000 members of the reserves a useful, somewhat efficient and even slightly effective structure within which to operate?  :deadhorse:


----------



## McG (17 Aug 2015)

The CAF has still not hit the growth he promised in earlier elections and he is going for more?

I also see that this will come with more domestic response and ceremonial duties.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2015)

This, from the official party news release (also attached if link doesn't work)


> *Harper announces expansion of Canadian Armed Forces Reserves*
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced a suite of measures to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces reserve force in order to better protect Canada’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to deepen the connection between the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian communities.
> 
> ...





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I also see that this will come with more domestic response and ceremonial duties.


Those bits in yellow jumped out at me, too. Let the tea leaf reading continue!


----------



## Haggis (17 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From the article:



Seen it. Don't believe it until I see it in the recruiting centres and more boots on the armoury floors.  The whole recruiting system is broken, not just the Reserve part.

Secondly, do we have the schoolhouse capacity to train these new members?  I'd say no, unless we dust off old ideas and decentralize training once again.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Aug 2015)

Quid tu agis, Stephen?

" _… as well as giving the naval reserve an enhanced role in protecting coastal and offshore waters._"

Upgrade/mid-life the MCDVs?
Replace MCDV's with larger coastal surveillance vessels?
Purchase new and more efficient Mine hunting sonars/AUV's/ROV's?
Acquire "Mid-Shore" vessels for reserve manning?
New boats to replace the tired RHIB's of Harbour Defence Units?
Small PB's (20-25 meters) for Reserve units?

What else?

One thing is for sure: Right now, the reserve already mans the Harbour Defence Units, the Port Inspection Diving Units, and part of the MCDV and it is undermanned to do just that. What else will you task them with?
 And second question: Before actually tasking the Naval reserve, has the PM consulted with the CMS to see what he has planned for the Naval Reserve as a task within the RCN? I don't think it's up to the PM to decide operational tasking. After all, the PM is not our boss - the GG is.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Seen it. Don't believe it until I see it in the recruiting centres and more boots on the armoury floors.  The whole recruiting system is broken, not just the Reserve part.
> 
> Secondly, do we have the schoolhouse capacity to train these new members?  I'd say no, unless we dust off old ideas and decentralize training once again.



Time to resuscitate HMCS CORNWALLIS?


----------



## Lumber (17 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Time to resuscitate HMCS CORNWALLIS?



Not a chance. West Nova was taken by the Conservatives in the last election with 47% of the vote. I don't see them needed to build anything there to keep their seat.

Maybe a new base in Quebec...


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quid tu agis, Stephen?
> 
> " _… as well as giving the naval reserve an enhanced role in protecting coastal and offshore waters._"



Well, given that the new Defence Procurement Strategy is all about pouring defence dollars into Canadian industry, I'm certain the RCNVR will enjoy their new capital fleet.


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2015)

.


----------



## dimsum (17 Aug 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> .



Don't give them any ideas.  I'm sure one of the political parties will think that is legit.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Aug 2015)

Oldie but still a goodie


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (17 Aug 2015)

What's the status of the Regular Force as of today? Is it fully manned meaning we have 68,250 fully functioning soldiers, sailors and airmen? I keep reading and hearing that this trade in the Army and that trade in the Navy is undermanned so is this a way to remedy that problem? My understanding is that the reserves are meant to augment the Regular Force and if the intention is to increase the size and capability then is this meant to take pressure off the Regular Force?


----------



## Underway (17 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quid tu agis, Stephen?
> 
> " _… as well as giving the naval reserve an enhanced role in protecting coastal and offshore waters._"
> 
> ...



With the navy now taking reservists on class C for deployments now its looking more and more like the way the army does things.  Fill empty billets in an operational ship, blended crewing etc....  NAVRES is a training organization now anyways.



			
				FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> What's the status of the Regular Force as of today? Is it fully manned meaning we have 68,250 fully functioning soldiers, sailors and airmen? I keep reading and hearing that this trade in the Army and that trade in the Navy is undermanned so is this a way to remedy that problem? My understanding is that the reserves are meant to augment the Regular Force and if the intention is to increase the size and capability then is this meant to take pressure off the Regular Force?


No its blowing political smoke up the electorals.... behinds.  The only thing that's really changing is PRes sailors are filling in more billets on RegF ships than usual the last few years.  And vice versa for MCDV's.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/stephen-harper-pledges-expansion-of-military-reserves-1.3193200
> 
> 
> Stephen Harper pledges expansion of military reserves



I call bullshit.  I remember in 2010/11? when the conservatives slashed budgets and a lot of reserve class B positions got cut.

Adding 4000 positions, which will be mangled by the recruiting centers anyways, will make some kind of difference?

Lots of units still go on exercise with 7 "troops" and a dozen + high ranking members.

Hard not to imagine these positions creating even more HQ bloat.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2015)

Let's be fair, we were addicted to Cl B reservists, and that was a lot of money coming out of O&M to pay for them. As with any political promise, its short on detail for those that actually care.


----------



## cupper (17 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Time to resuscitate HMCS CORNWALLIS?



That would be a big resounding no.

Most of the infrastructure was in deplorable shape when I was doing work terms there the year before it was closed. 

Then when it was turned over to the local municipality for commercial development, a significant amount of the building inventory was converted into production facilities for commercial ventures. The biggest of which I was involved with after graduating. The drill hall, ice rink and parade square were turned in to a manufacturing facility for furniture sold exclusively to IKEA. After the 5 year contract expired, so did the manufacturing facility.

The gym burned down several years ago, and I'm not sure it if was ever replaced.

Only the Sea Cadet summer camp HMCS Acadia was kept in operation after the base closed. 

In order to resuscitate Cornwallis you'd essentially need to build an entirely new base.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> In order to resuscitate Cornwallis you'd essentially need to build an entirely new base.



Isn't that cheaper anyway.  Look at all the Bases around the country that are tearing down old quarters only to build new ones.  Look at all the Bases that built new infrastructure, and then closed the following year(s).


----------



## kratz (17 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> That would be a big resounding no.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In order to resuscitate Cornwallis you'd essentially need to build an entirely new base.



If a government ever needed to  buy votes, building a new base in Canada would be a novel promise.


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2015)

A little more information from the Globe and Mail.  Growing the reserve to 125% of its current authorized strength is not a new promise; it is an undelivered promise from the last election.

I do wonder about the money.  The article talks about the reserve budget as though it were something separate from the defence budget.  Will the additional 6000 reservists be paid through growth in the defence budget, or by taking money from elsewhere in the defence budget?

I also wonder where the new wildfire-fighter and flood response training will fit in the annual training calendar.  What drops out to fit these ideas in?  

In a more positive note, the article suggests that meaningful reforms to the PRes structure may indeed have been put on hold by the military until after the election.  A course of action I previously suggested might be wise.



> Harper promises to strengthen Canadian Armed Forces reserve program
> KRISTY KIRKUP, The Canadian Press
> The Globe and Mail
> 17 Aug 2015
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-promises-to-strengthen-canadian-armed-forces-reserve-program/article25989846/


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This, from the official party news release (also attached if link doesn't work)
> 
> 
> > .... The Prime Minister outlined several distinct components of the plan to strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Force:
> > •Accelerating the expansion of the Primary Reserve from 24,000 personnel currently to reach 30,000 within the next mandate ....


Sound familiar?


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here*** is the Conservative Party’s platform.
> 
> ".... A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue rebuilding the Canadian Forces and providing the equipment that our Navy, Army and Air Force require. We are committed to a Canada First Defence Strategy that will provide predictable growth for Canada's defence budget, increase the size of our forces to 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserves ...."


More from the _Toronto Star_ here.

*** - _That link doesn't work anymore, but this one to an uploaded-and-stored copy does._


----------



## Lumber (18 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the reserves are meant to augment the Regular Force...



Unless they are also planning on chaging the role of the PRes, this is not actually their purpose.

The purpose of the PRes is to provide a strategic reserve, so that in case of an actual war, we already have the infrastrutre, units, chains of command, etc. to expand the military to meet the threat. 

E.g. If WW3 broke out, you wouldn't need to creat new infantry regiments, you would just expand the reserve regiments and send them off to war.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2015)

Honestly I don't think I can fall for this again...


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2015)

CTV offers some analysis, but not anything I would call conclusive.



> Fact check: Would expansion of military reserves be beneficial?
> Angela Mulholland
> CTV News
> 18 Aug 2015
> ...



http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/fact-check-would-expansion-of-military-reserves-be-beneficial-1.2521946


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2015)

> E.g. If WW3 broke out, you wouldn't need to creat new infantry regiments, you would just expand the reserve regiments and send them off to war.



It would probably take the reserves 2 years of training (and firing people) to put them into a position to deploy overseas as regiments

I find this pledge embarrassing and amateurish.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It would probably take the reserves 2 years of training (and firing people) to put them into a position to deploy overseas as regiments.



Sort of like WWII  

You could reduce the training requirements and send what you have but you'd probably have a few glowing defeats your first few engagements.  Dieppe comes to mind.


----------



## Stoker (18 Aug 2015)

It would be nice to see more money avaiable to the reserves after the last few years of cuts that eliminated many positions from NAVRES. Even with the 60/40 split on the MCDV's we are struggling to fill positions after the last five years of telling trained, dedicated people to work somewhere else.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2015)

Perhaps this will help getting the SIP sorted out and keep the Reserve units happy.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

Are there incentives for Regular Force members who have finished their contracts and wish to leave but go PRes? If not that would help tremendously with what Harper has planned. I'm not sure how the process is from Reg to PRes but that would be a great asset to reserve regiments across the country.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Are there incentives for Regular Force members who have finished their contracts and wish to leave but go PRes? If not that would help tremendously with what Harper has planned. I'm not sure how the process is from Reg to PRes but that would be a great asset to reserve regiments across the country.



You assume a lot of Reg Force members want to serve after they leave a Reg Force.  A lot of Reg Force officers and soldiers don't really like the Reserves and look at the entire organization with contempt.  When a lot of people leave the Reg Force, they leave the CAF for good.


----------



## Lumber (18 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Are there incentives for Regular Force members who have finished their contracts and wish to leave but go PRes? If not that would help tremendously with what Harper has planned. I'm not sure how the process is from Reg to PRes but that would be a great asset to reserve regiments across the country.



On your release form there is are two check boxes, one saying "I want to be transfered to the Primary Reserve" or "I do not...".

Are there incentives to doing so? No more than whatever you would consider a benefit of being part of the PRes.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You assume a lot of Reg Force members want to serve after they leave a Reg Force.  A lot of Reg Force officers and soldiers don't really like the Reserves and look at the entire organization with contempt.  When a lot of people leave the Reg Force, they leave the CAF for good.



Add that to the list of things to fix in the CAF, then.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You assume a lot of Reg Force members want to serve after they leave a Reg Force.  A lot of Reg Force officers and soldiers don't really like the Reserves and look at the entire organization with contempt.  When a lot of people leave the Reg Force, they leave the CAF for good.



I've always been of the opinion that it was dependant on their level of professionalism that dictaded their view of the reserves.  

A lot of regular force members choose to leave for good because they can't double dip anymore or are just tired of the CAF as a whole or just want to enjoy retirement like any other Canadian.


----------



## MJP (18 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I've always been of the opinion that it was dependant on their level of professionalism that dictaded their view of the reserves.



There is that, I would also suspect that the level of professionalism (good or bad) that they have observed from the reserves plays a part as well.  

Quite frankly unless there is some sort of substantial restructuring of the reserves, the promise from Mr. Harper is as hollow as the units themselves.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I've always been of the opinion that it was dependant on their level of professionalism that dictaded their view of the reserves.
> 
> A lot of regular force members choose to leave for good because they can't double dip anymore or are just tired of the CAF as a whole or just want to enjoy retirement like any other Canadian.



Notice I didn't say whether I support that view   but you can't deny that it doesn't exist.  I used to be in the Reserves and it has it's place but I can't hold my hand on my chest and say the unit I was part of was in any way, shape or form, a professional military organization able to be called upon at a moments notice by the government.

It was a glorified old boys drinking club like so many small town Regiments are.  It had and still has deep political connections to the community but it's military value was/is negligble at best.  Now could this unit like so many others provide a valuable military contribution?

With the proper funding, structure, leadership and fulltime cadre sure but you and I both know that's not going to happen.  Until it does, the Reserves; notwithstanding lots of very strong individuals with all the qualities to make top soldiers and officers, will remain an organization whose primary focus is social functions with politicians along with buttons and bows.  

That's on the Leadership of the Army Reserve.  It is the citizen army and it is what you want it to be.   :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2015)

The differences between one Reserve unit and all others will vary.  Some are very "professional", some not so, and some are just "social clubs".  The same may be said for Regular Force pers who may be Releasing, in that some want nothing to do with the military after Release, and others may hold a special bond with their former Reserve units.  Experiences will vary.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Are there incentives for Regular Force members who have finished their contracts and wish to leave but go PRes? If not that would help tremendously with what Harper has planned. I'm not sure how the process is from Reg to PRes but that would be a great asset to reserve regiments across the country.



I think you are looking at it from the wrong end.  Why incentivize soldiers to go Reserve when it makes better economic sense to incentivize them to stay in the Reg Force?  It costs more to recruit and train that regular replacement to the same standard than it does to recruit and train a reservist who does not have to meet the same standard.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The unit I was part of was in any way, shape or form, a professional military organization able to be called upon at a moments notice by the government.
> 
> Now could this unit like so many others provide a valuable military contribution?



Given the current state of the regular army, navy and airforce I would hazard a guess that with the exception of a few high readiness units the regular force is in exactly the same shape (proportionately speaking) and they are supposed to have the assets to do this.  

This is a CAF wide problem that isn't just limited to the reserves.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Given the current state of the regular army, navy and airforce I would hazard a guess that with the exception of a few high readiness units the regular force is in exactly the same shape (proportionately speaking) and they are supposed to have the assets to do this.
> 
> This is a CAF wide problem that isn't just limited to the reserves.



I would dispute this as you can still assign a unit of Regulars a task and expect it to be conducted in some sort of organized fashion.  Many Reserve units couldn't organize a kiddy corral much less get themselves ready for war in any sort of reasonable amount of time.  

There is a big difference between a Regular Battalion/Regiment and a Reserve Unit.  If you don't think so and think that they are somehow interchangeable than you're part of the problem.


----------



## kratz (18 Aug 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I think you are looking at it from the wrong end.  Why incentivize soldiers to go Reserve when it makes better economic sense to incentivize them to stay in the Reg Force?  It costs more to recruit and train that regular replacement to the same standard than it does to recruit and train a reservist who does not have to meet the same standard.



There is the sticking point (in yellow).

When the reserve is trained to the RegF standard....it "takes too long", for many justifiable reasons.

When the reserve is not trained to the RegF standard....we are not considered reliable when needed, defeating the purpose for the reserve and eroding confidence in the organization.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I would dispute this as you can still assign a unit of Regulars a task and expect it to be conducted in some sort of organized fashion.  Many Reserve units couldn't organize a kiddy corral much less get themselves ready for war in any sort of reasonable amount of time.
> 
> There is a big difference between a Regular Battalion/Regiment and a Reserve Unit.  If you don't think so and think that they are somehow interchangeable than you're part of the problem.



Your bias is showing.  I don't think you have a real grasp on the current state of the CAF.  I never said they were the same so don't put words in my mouth. It all depends on the task you give them.  Aside from a few high readiness units the CAF as whole has the same problems the reserves have at getting ready to jump at a moments notice like you stated.  We can barely put ships at sea, the recruiting system is effed up, the regular force can barely man it's own positions let alone fill their RSS spots.  The CAF regular force is not a high readiness machine you make it out to be.  DART, SOF and a few limited units at most.  Heck they can barely get anyone for tasks without having to go to the reserves for bodies. 

If you think the reserves are the only ones with these issues then I would argue that YOU are part of the problem.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Aug 2015)

Ok so lets hypothetically say they get the bodies in the door, who is going to train them? we would have a massive training back log especially for support trades which have limited room. I would see the CAF having years of training backlog beyond what it already is. Was talking to a guy today who waited almost his entire contract before he was on his QL3 (reg force), I know reservists that have had to wait years because intake was full and only say 3 or 4 from their brigade were taken each year. This is an unacceptable wait time, combined with recruiting system short falls, it is no wonder how sorry of a state the CAF is in. Overhauling recruiting would fix is one problem, we need to get people in the door in under three months or majority of them will walk. Is it possible? I think so but it goes back to short staffing all across the system. The second problem is once they are in especially in the reserves, is keeping them in, saying to johnny oh by the way you wont be able to do your trade for 3 years because of a training back log is unacceptable.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Aug 2015)

I was Reg Force at one time and now I am a reservist. I have deployed as a reg force and a reserve soldier.

Let me lay down the infantry perspective
-Yes, the Reg Force are generally at better at doing the job, you usually practice the skills more often (when $$$ allow)
-The reservist can gain a considerable amount of professionalism and skill sets, while maybe NOT at the reg force level, BUT pre-deployment trg can really shake things out.
-IMO, if after 4-6 months of pre-deployment trg you are not ready, YOU NEVER WILL BE (no matter if Res F or Reg F)
-Yes, there are some Reserve force members (usually older longer serving guys) that treat it like a social club but lets not forget the reg force old dog hidden away in some job and clinging desperately to the CAF for a job, but unable to ever go back to a battalion because of age, medical, pissed off who-ever

I personally believe we really need to bolster reservist, especially numbers. IMO, we should outnumber Reg F 3:1. The Regs will have a deeper pool of troops to call upon. And if recent history says anything, you will call upon us.

Army (Farmy) Rick out


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2015)

Well said.

A three to one ration would indeed be ideal but much like this promised expansion, I doubt we'll see it any time soon unfortunately.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

What's being proposed by Harper isn't radically different than what Reservists are doing now. Ceremonies? GD, Warrior's Day Parades, Remembrance Day. Natural Disasters? Look what happened just recently with firefighting roles. 

When I was parading as a Infantry recruit I noticed that we never paraded at full or even 75% strength. Many people showed up once a month and went on exes and that was it. In the Admin side there were so many people waiting to be released after having made no contact with their Chain of Command they were released 5f. Many of the Cpls were doing the duties of Sgts, too. 

Not sure what this accomplishes... jobs?


----------



## LightFighter (18 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> When I was parading as a Infantry reservist



You mean when you were parading as a recruit, you never finished BMQ.  


As a recruit in PAT Pl, how were you aware of the unit strength on paper vs parade strength of who showed up and "many of the Cpls doing the duties of a Sgt" etc. 

I don't doubt a couple Cpls may have been employed in what is typically a Sgt job(section commander) but I wouldn't say that's many Cpls doing a sgt's job or what you as a recruit believe is a Sgt's job.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> You mean when you were parading as a recruit, you never finished BMQ.



Yes I stand corrected


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> You mean when you were parading as a recruit, you never finished BMQ.
> 
> 
> As a recruit in PAT Pl, how were you aware of the unit strength on paper vs parade strength of who showed up and "many of the Cpls doing the duties of a Sgt" etc.
> ...



I surmised based on many the recruiter said was in the unit vs what I saw and was told while in the Training company. Do I know specifics? No given what the "on paper" size of the regiment vs the attendance on a parade night it was a big difference. On the issue of what duties this or that person does it was told to me by my 2 i/c who said he can do the job of x rank on certain courses/exercises.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2015)

The budget allows for 68,250 Full Time Equivalents.

I regularly hear that there are only something like  60,000 paid and 55,000 effectives.  That seems to leave a shortfall of anything from 8 to 13,000 FTEs annually.

The Reserves have an authorized strength of 24,000, potentially expanding to 30,000.  About 20,000 of the existing 24,000 are allocated to the Army Reserves.

If we start from the premise that a Reserve soldier, when not on parade, costs zero dollars then 24,000 times zero equals zero.

If we take the FTE shortfall at 8000 FTEs then there should be money in the budget to employ every one of those Reservists for 1/3 of the year, or 80 to 120 days, depending on how you calculate it.

If the Reservists were handled by the USMC and their system then in year 1 of their 8 year contract the reservist would be employed for 84 days in Basic training + 24 days of monthly training (1 weekend per month) for a total of 108 days.

In years 2,3 and 4 the employment requirement is for 24 days of monthly training plus 15 days of annual camp for a total of 39 days or 117 days total.

After year 4 the Reservist transfers to the Individual Ready Reserve, or Supp List, and is not required to show up at the Armouries but is liable for call up.

That means that an eight year contract requires a total of 225 days of service - or roughly one PY: a ratio of 8 Reservists for 1 FTE.  That would suggest that an 8000 PY shortfall in Regs, could accomodate a Reserve of 64,000 with half of that being on Class A status or Basic and the other half being recently qualified troops on the Supp List.

That would create a pool of trained, effective, troops that can be called up to fill in the blanks.

It doesn't appear to me that the problem is one of lack of resources.  The problem is one of effectively managing the resources available.

A larger pool of Reservists doesn't have to cost more.  In fact a larger pool means fewer demands on any individual reservist that makes it more likely that the service will appeal to a larger pool of civilians.

 :2c:


http://www.marines.com/eligibility/service-options/reserve

Edit to add:  I am sure that bringing in young soldiers right out of High School to do their Basic in the summer holidays would result in many of those volunteering for extra days (beyond the minimum 39) in the next couple of summers allowing them to fill up the ranks in Reg Force units during the summer exercise season.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The budget allows for 68,250 Full Time Equivalents.
> 
> I regularly hear that there are only something like  60,000 paid and 55,000 effectives.  That seems to leave a shortfall of anything from 8 to 13,000 FTEs annually.



Strongly incorrect.  Reg F numbers are signficiantly larger.  On an annual basis, funding is allocated to meet expected strength, with unused funds reallocated prior to the start of the FY to address a variety of pressures.


----------



## quadrapiper (19 Aug 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I think you are looking at it from the wrong end.  Why incentivize soldiers to go Reserve when it makes better economic sense to incentivize them to stay in the Reg Force?  It costs more to recruit and train that regular replacement to the same standard than it does to recruit and train a reservist who does not have to meet the same standard.


How much would a "meaningful" incentive (bonus, IPC jump, whatever), perhaps available only to departing members beyond a certain rank/training level, cost compared to _X_ years of training a reservist to the same point?


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> > If WW3 broke out, you wouldn't need to creat new infantry regiments, you would just expand the reserve regiments and send them off to war.
> 
> 
> It would probably take the reserves 2 years of training (and firing people) to put them into a position to deploy overseas as regiments


If it were to come to such a scenario, I think we will find equipment (not people) to be the critical path.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> RoyalDrew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You understand that DART does not actually exist as a ready-to-go unit?  It is a small Ops and resource caretaker organization that draws on Reg F augmentation from various units accross the country.  Meanwhile, the recent Saskatchewan fire responce was launched by an average Reg F Infantry Bn which was, at the time of call-up, just going about its routine buisness in garrison.



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I personally believe we really need to bolster reservist, especially numbers. IMO, we should outnumber Reg F 3:1. The Regs will have a deeper pool of troops to call upon. And if recent history says anything, you will call upon us.


As we start moving away from the Conservative proposal and discussing our own good ideas on PRes roles, organization and size, then I think we are getting into discussion more befiting of this thread.  But ...  How do you arrive at the 3:1 ratio?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The budget allows for 68,250 Full Time Equivalents.
> 
> I regularly hear that there are only something like  60,000 paid and 55,000 effectives.  That seems to leave a shortfall of anything from 8 to 13,000 FTEs annually.
> 
> ...


Be carefull that you are using your terms correctly.  FTE is a term that encompasses all _types_ of human resources.  Three civilian casual employees who operate riding lawnmowers through the summer may equate to an FTE.  "FTE" could be used to discuss reservists with Class A, Class B and Class C all considered, but it would seem to be an abstract means of accounting for most purposes.  FTE is not a synonym for Reg F PY, but I think it is Reg F PYs that you are talking about.  Are you proposing that the authorized Reg F establishment be cut in order to fund more PRes pay?


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (19 Aug 2015)

Assuming this does happen will this mean the creation of new regiments or expanding existing ones?


----------



## CountDC (19 Aug 2015)

Heres an idea - how about we fill the positions we already have?  Last re-org in 2013 removed the war time/peace time positions and made them all available but with restricted SIP, enormous wait times for recruits to get in and limited budgets units are not able to fill them.  Shorten the recruiting time, take care of the course issues and increase the funding so that units functioning at less than half strength can fill more of their establishment.  Include fully funding all the Class B positions instead of just 75% along with giving them back to the units instead of taking them for Bde and Divs.


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> If it were to come to such a scenario, I think we will find equipment (not people) to be the critical path.
> 
> 
> You understand that DART does not actually exist as a ready-to-go unit?  It is a small Ops and resource caretaker organization that draws on Reg F augmentation from various units accross the country.  Meanwhile, the recent Saskatchewan fire responce was launched by an average Reg F Infantry Bn which was, at the time of call-up, just going about its routine buisness in garrison.



Agreed.  Equipment is definitely an issue and it is why this is a CAF issue not just a reg or reserve issue.

Well aware of DART's composition.  But they have an ready HQ, equipment, a readily accessible base and sigs unit. And equipment.  The people they pull from across the CAF aren't just randomn.  They are for the most part dagged, pre screened and have trained for DART.  

As for the fire response, yeah, but the reserves managed the same thing during the ice storm (and they were in far worse shape back then as far as being equipped).  Like I said it depends on the task or the mission or the logistics and dependant on geography and the ability to get there.


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2015)

back to the election promise...

Like I said I don't buy it.  I bought it last time.  I have no reason to believe they will follow through. 

I've mentioned this before but I suspect that reserve restructure and increase could come with an NDP government.  But at the expense of the regular force and with a completely different view of what they would do.  Not an ideal alternative.


----------



## geo (24 Aug 2015)

You can plan to hire and employ as many reservists as you want, but the day the government tells the CF to cut xx millions from his budget, where do you think he's going to cut 1st....

Class A reservists payroll & field training budget is one of the only places the CDS can cut, without hamstringing his ability to field an effective fighting force.


----------



## cupper (24 Aug 2015)

geo said:
			
		

> You can plan to hire and employ as many reservists as you want, but the day the government tells the CF to cut xx millions from his budget, where do you think he's going to cut 1st....
> 
> Class A reservists payroll & field training budget is one of the only places the CDS can cut, without hamstringing his ability to field an effective fighting force.



I remember those days in the mid 80's. Training nights and weekends reduced, charging certain members to the District JV accounts rather than the unit accounts.

Happy days are here again!


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> I remember those days in the mid 80's. Training nights and weekends reduced, charging certain members to the District JV accounts rather than the unit accounts.
> 
> Happy days are here again!



Which is a great argument for separating the Militia budget (NOT the Reserves) and signing the Militiamen to hard contracts after the fashion of the US system of Guard and Reserves.

The budget becomes a contractual obligation.


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Which is a great argument for separating the Militia budget (NOT the Reserves) and signing the Militiamen to hard contracts after the fashion of the US system of Guard and Reserves.
> 
> The budget becomes a contractual obligation.



I think the gov't and the CF should stop considering the Reserve's budget as being their "loose change" - something they can do without - the path of least resistance.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2015)

geo said:
			
		

> You can plan to hire and employ as many reservists as you want, but the day the government tells the CF to cut xx millions from his budget, where do you think he's going to cut 1st....
> *
> Class A reservists* payroll & field training budget is one of the only places the CDS can cut, without hamstringing his ability to field an effective fighting force.



I would say Class B reservists and post reg force members in to fill the spots.


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2015)

Huh?


----------



## jhk87 (26 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Given the current state of the regular army, navy and airforce I would hazard a guess that with the exception of a few high readiness units the regular force is in exactly the same shape (proportionately speaking) and they are supposed to have the assets to do this.
> 
> This is a CAF wide problem that isn't just limited to the reserves.



On the contrary, it's pretty clear you have a negligble understanding of the MRP, BTS, and assigned LoO / NEO tasks.


----------



## McG (4 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Reviving an uber-necro thread with the latest - the latest Conservative election 2015 promise (also attached in case link doesn't work):
> 
> 
> > *Harper Announces Plan To Establish A Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Unit In Yukon*
> ...


Well, looks like the promised growth is going to mean a continuation of the trend for more old-is-new capbadges, and more mini-units (Plattalions and Tregiments) with LCols and CWOs.  Maybe we can expect to see the Alberta Dragoons and the London and Oxford Fusiliers parade around again.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, looks like the promised growth is going to mean a continuation of the trend for more old-is-new capbadges, and more mini-units (Plattalions and Tregiments) with LCols and CWOs.  Maybe we can expect to see the Alberta Dragoons and the London and Oxford Fusiliers parade around again.



The only relevant community in Yukon is Whitehrose, just shy of 28,000 people. Marginal, but possible. Whitehorse currently has a three man JTF(N) det of an InfO Maj, an RCAF Log Capt, and an RMS MCpl as detachment clerk. There's a Cl B Sup Tech WO running the local stores at the cadet camp, which is 90% of the logistical work.

A hypothetical unit in Yukon, likely Infantry, would either wear a (reestablished) Yukon Regiment cap badge under 39 CBG out of B.C., or would become another remote company of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment out of 41 CBG. Which brigade frankly doesn't matter as Yukon has no PRes formation presence whatsoever, just Rangers and the small Reg Force det. I bring up the Loyal Eddies because they have a company in Yellowknife. A unit in Yukon would likely be structured as a company with a Major just to hang a big enough sig block on any support requests. There's no reason to establish a battalion structure, it would be a waste. It should likely leverage the existing structure of either the Loyal Eddies (likely, as they have a company colocated with the JTF(N) det in Yellowknife), or perhaps the Rocky Mountain Rangers.

As for an org structure, I would forsee an infantry platoon, with a second training/admin platoon for PATs and the various clag. The Inf Maj in command of JTF(N) could easily double hat as the OC, since a PRes OC is a part time job anyway, and frankly JTF(N) Yukon hasn't got a lot on its plate anyway. The other two reg force staff could be similarly double hatted and so between the two of them, and with a Cl A RMS clerk or two likely cover most of the admin. The Cl B Sup Tech WO ought to be able to handle the duties of RQ without great difficulty if properly augmented by Cl A or possibly a Cl B member. So you'd need someone to deal with transport, not a huge issue. That covers most of the support.

As for the actual 'so what?' part of the unit- an Inf Platoon's worth of recruits would be easily enough gathered, and a Pl Comd could be sustained within a couple years, but NCOs would be hard. There's a PRes Inf Sgt kicking around, and a smattering of other former reservists and a few released RegF guys, mostly in various government jobs. A few would come out to play, but for a few years a modest RegF cadre of MCpls and a couple Cpls (QM, Transport) would likely need to be posted in the get it off the ground. I don't know how the Loyal Eddies company in Yellowknife was stood up, but they had the advantage of an existing 200 person JTF(N) base. Yukon hasn't got that.

An interesting political promise, but difficult to sustain and at the remote end of a long logistical train either up the Alaska Highway for two days form Edmonton, or by military/commercial air from Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, or Yellowknife. It would take some posted augmentees and some keen, switched on people to make happen. The population could support it I think, and the political support at territorial level is certainly present (the speaker of the territorial legislature is a former Sgt, and the local Legion branch has a strong voice). But the big chokepoint would be qualified, experienced NCOs for the first... call it 5 years until a newly established regiment could begin getting Cpls through the entirety of PLQ. The experience of the Loyal Eddies in Yellowknife suggest it would be a tenuous, chancy thing...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, looks like the promised growth is going to mean a continuation of the trend for more old-is-new capbadges, and more mini-units (Plattalions and Tregiments) with LCols and CWOs.


The Yukon Platallion - few and cold  ;D


----------



## chrisf (5 Sep 2015)

2nd bn rnfldr does quite well with recruiting in corner brook, a community of 19000 (though there are a number of small communities nearby where many recruits come from)

Don't under estimate the recruiting draw of "something to do" in a place without much going on, coupled with a moderate unemployment rate.


----------



## Haggis (5 Sep 2015)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Don't under estimate the recruiting draw of *a paid form of* "something to do" in a place without much going on, coupled with a moderate unemployment rate.



TFTFY

I'd also like to see more money and effort spent on reducing the crushing admin burden on reserve units.  A tremendous amount of leader's time is taken up with activities that don't contribute to training and retention and is mostly to satisfy the curiosity of higher HQs.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Sep 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> I'd also like to see more money and effort spent on reducing the crushing admin burden on reserve units.  A tremendous amount of leader's time is taken up with activities that don't contribute to training and retention and is mostly to satisfy the curiosity of higher HQs.



Higher HQs that don't realize or accept that you can't compel a Reserve member to parade. They don't understand why something in the RegF that takes four days to complete might take the ResF four months to complete.


----------



## brihard (5 Sep 2015)

Yup, the 'Platallion'- the curse of the small town militia. But that's another discussion for another day.

I think there's a good enough work force in Whitehorse that a unit could be more viable than, say, some of the small town units in Ontario. But it's just so damned far from all the logistical support, and far enough from any other unit to make a 'tactical grouping' of reserve units convenient...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2015)

Bonner's Ferry, Idaho.  Population 2473









> The Idaho Army National Guard is headquartered in the state's capital, Boise. Affiliated units are dispersed throughout the state in 28 diverse communities. Idaho's citizen soldiers have a long and honorable history dating back to the Nez Perce Indian Wars of 1877. Today, over 3,500 soldiers make up Idaho's Army National Guard.



That is one armo(u)ry for every 125 guardsmen.

Perhaps you would be happier if we just created numbered independent companies.

If I remember correctly, from driving in by it recently, it is a Log Coy in Bonner's Ferry.


----------

