# DG Land Reserve on "sustainable Reserve Force"



## The Bread Guy (30 Apr 2014)

Provided without comment straight from the Info-machine - let the tea leaf reading begin!


> Brigadier-General Kelly Woiden, Director General Land Reserve talks about maintaining a sustainable Reserve Force while achieving a work-life balance for reservists.
> 
> The Canadian Army Reserves are an essential component of the total Army force representing the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) in communities across Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Apr 2014)

> Once or twice during his or her career,



Try four or five for techs General, that are on average of 7 weeks. When reservist leave legislation only covers 20 days, tell me again how i am suppose to keep my job?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Try four or five for techs General, that are on average of 7 weeks. When reservist leave legislation only covers 20 days, tell me again how i am suppose to keep my job?



The question then becomes, do we destroy PRes tech training so its nothing like the Reg F but easier to stomach for PRes members, or stop offering those trades as PRes options?


----------



## pbi (30 Apr 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Provided without comment straight from the Info-machine - let the tea leaf reading begin!



I was Kelly Woiden's COS when he was Comd 38 CBG: an able commander and IMHO one of the most capable GO's in the Army Reserve. He certainly understands pressure of Res duty/civ work/life balance: he had a demanding job in the defence industry, was doing his Masters, and was raising a family at the same time as he was commanding a Bde spread from Prince Albert to Thunder Bay.

That aside, I see absolutely nothing here that doesn't get dredged up, almost like clockwork, every few years or so. Most of it is boilerplate or good wholesome motherhood. My gut feel is not to read too much into it at this point.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Apr 2014)

pbi: 





> He certainly understands pressure of Res duty/civ work/life balance: he had a demanding job in the defence industry, was doing his Masters, and was raising a family at the same time as he was commanding a Bde spread from Prince Albert to Thunder Bay.



I would say very demanding job, with a fair amount of international travel. 

Then the skunks got into his house and contaminated the ventilation system.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (1 May 2014)

Okay, who is **actually** in charge of the Reserves?

VCDS oversees the Director General Reserves and Cadets (DGRC), which is headed by the Chief of Reserves and Cadets.

CMP has a Reserve Support Advisor (DRSM).

Now we have this person (to be clear - nothing against him), who is the Director General of the "Land Reserve."

Who *actually* oversees and represents reservists? Is this another case of HQ bloat paralyzing the existing commanders from being able to act?


----------



## MilEME09 (2 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The question then becomes, do we destroy PRes tech training so its nothing like the Reg F but easier to stomach for PRes members, or stop offering those trades as PRes options?



They actually just did that, instead of a 3 month QL3, a 6 month OJT period and another 3 month QL5, it is 4 mods that are roughly 35-45 training days each. Much of the equipment that would put us on par with the reg force is gone, sniper rifles, shotguns, mortors, sig, lee enfield for working with the rangers to name a few. As a token gesture our last mod is now C3 howitzer. Vehicle tech is about the same now, but all our training is done at the school with no outside OJT putting the burden on units to get us doing our trades.


----------



## DAA (2 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Okay, who is **actually** in charge of the Reserves?
> 
> VCDS oversees the Director General Reserves and Cadets (DGRC), which is headed by the Chief of Reserves and Cadets.
> 
> ...



I do believe, that DGRC acts more in an "advisory" capacity, as opposed to C2.  Reserve Forces are "environmental" and controlled by the respective groups.  (ie; Army PRes, NavRes, ARAF, CMP (DRSM), etc, etc).

So the DG Land Reserves, respresents the Army Primary Reserve only.


----------



## pbi (2 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Okay, who is **actually** in charge of the Reserves?
> 
> VCDS oversees the Director General Reserves and Cadets (DGRC), which is headed by the Chief of Reserves and Cadets.
> 
> ...



They're under the command of their respective Service. Since all Army Reserve units answer to a Division HQ, that Division Comd represents them to the CCA, but that is complemented by a Res DComd in the Div and a Res "rep" in Army HQ.  DGLRes has no command authority unless CCA delegates something to him. This position existing long before the current crop of DotCom HQs appeared.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (3 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> I do believe, that DGRC acts more in an "advisory" capacity, as opposed to C2.  Reserve Forces are "environmental" and controlled by the respective groups.  (ie; Army PRes, NavRes, ARAF, CMP (DRSM), etc, etc).
> 
> So the DG Land Reserves, respresents the Army Primary Reserve only.



Understood. So DGRC is a horizontal or lateral "liasion" if you will, representing all of the reserve forces together to the VCDS?

My question is somewhat rhetorical. It seems to me that we have too many hands in the pot, all trying to represent "the reserve force."  If each environment has a reserve advisor that pushes up their concerns to the environmental command, then why does VCDS need his own?  That's an MGen (or BGen now, I believe) whose sole purpose is to liaise with BGens and Colonels?


----------



## Ostrozac (3 May 2014)

To further complicate things, there is more to the reserves than the army, navy and air force. The Provost Marshall has reserves. So does CANSOFCOM and CF Health Services Group. The NDHQ Primary Reserve is a substantial number of people -- and they are commanded by the VCDS. Since our reserve force is so complicated, administrating and commanding it as one entity seems to be equally complicated.


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Okay, who is **actually** in charge of the Reserves?


I can help you with this. 

In short, the people in "charge" of the Reserves are the environmental commanders and the heads of various Primary Reserve Lists - therefore the army, navy, air force, Comms Branch commanders are in "charge" of their respective reservists (Each has a senior reservist on their staff who are designated the DG Land Res (a BGen); Comd Nav Res (a Commodore); Comd Air Res (BGen); and Comd Comm Res (Col)) . The JAG and DG Health Services are in charge of the reservists on strength with their respective PRLs (They are designated DJAG Res (a Col); and D Health Services Res (a Col)). These senior reservists have varying command or advisory functions respecting the reservists belonging to their organizations and serve as Class A or B depending on the organization.

In addition to that there are numerous directorates and agencies within the CF and DND who have responsibility for "reserve" issues e.g. recruiting, pay and benefits, etc.

Finally there is an advisor to the CDS called the Chief of Reserves and Cadets (who is a Class A reservist MGen) His/Her organization comes under the organizational structure of the VCDS but note that the advice function goes directly to the CDS (In fact the CR&C sits on the CDS's Armed Forces Council). 

In order to do the job of monitoring, coordinating and implementing reserve issues within the Forces, the CR&C has a staff and his own council. 

The staff is responsible for day-to-day activities and is led by a regular force BGen designated the Director General Reserves and Cadets and a Class B reservist Colonel designated the Director of Reserves. Much of the staff's work deals with the VCDS and other elements of the VCDS's empire.

As well there is a Reserve CWO. 

The CR&C Council meets at approximately one month intervals to get briefed on and to discuss issues respecting reservists in general. The members of the CR&C's Council are the DGR&C; DRes; CR&C CWO; DG Land Res; Comd Nav Res; Comd Air Res; Comd Comm Res; DJAG Res and DHS Res. In addition both the Commandant of the Canadian Defence Academy and the Director General Military Human Resources Policy and Planning sit as ex officio members of the Council.

That defines the overall high-level leadership and authority structure for the CF reserves. Note however that "being in charge" is a relative term. Command and advisory functions vary depending on how each environment or PRL is organized. I think you can safely say, however, that the senior regular force commanders to whom the reservists belong are "in charge".

Hope that helps.

 :cheers:


----------



## Ostrozac (3 May 2014)

FJAG,

Just an update to your info -- the Communications Reserve has been folded back into the standard army reserve structure, and the MP's have left the army reserve and now are part of the Provost Marshall organization.


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> FJAG,
> 
> Just an update to your info -- the Communications Reserve has been folded back into the standard army reserve structure, and the MP's have left the army reserve and now are part of the Provost Marshall organization.



Ah! The passage of time and the lack of information available on the CF internet pages. I should have prefaced this with "correct as of the day I retired in 2009".

I knew that as I was leaving that all the army Comms Res types were going over to the army but it was my understanding that a Comms  Res element remained with the C&E branch. I'm not sure if that is correct as of today or if the Comms Res are still represented on CR&C Council.

The change within the MPs are a new one on me but I would expect that if they transferred to the Provost Marshall then there would now have to be a new PM PRL. I have no idea as to whether or not their representative sits on the current Council but it would seem logical that someone should.

All in all, the various changes in organization and individual representatives on Council do not effect the general thrust of the question as to who is "in charge" of the reserves.

Thanks for the update, Ostrozac.

 :cheers:


----------



## NSDreamer (5 May 2014)

The article isn't realistic as it is. I'd quote out the line stating one weekend a month and 4 thursday nights, but I fail at quoting from quotes apparently and will now stop trying.

 My average month consists of 1-3 Tuesday nights, 4 thursday nights 2 weekends at a minimum, usually 3, if we are running courses and you're qualified to instruct, you can be looking at 4. 

 We feed recruits the line of 1 weekend, 4 training nights and then we ask a lot more and state no taskings or courses unless you attend all because of the IBTS requirements... 

 It's all messed...but hey, fun right?  :


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2014)

The remaining Comm Reserve is essentially an ADM(IM) PRL, less than 150 pers in size.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 May 2014)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> The article isn't realistic as it is. I'd quote out the line stating one weekend a month and 4 thursday nights, but I fail at quoting from quotes apparently and will now stop trying.
> 
> My average month consists of 1-3 Tuesday nights, 4 thursday nights 2 weekends at a minimum, usually 3, if we are running courses and you're qualified to instruct, you can be looking at 4.
> 
> ...



Dont forget the being one of only a hand full of people that actually show up so its six people doing the work of 20


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2014)

Who ever gets off the bus.... And it's usually the same bunch.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2014)

Too many Army Reserve units are unwilling to take the necessary action to release folks who rarely show up and don't contribute.  Of course, they are not helped by higher headquarters that state, in writing, that Pers Admin is about #5 on the priority list (until it gets bumped further down).


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Too many Army Reserve units are unwilling to take the necessary action to release folks who rarely show up and don't contribute.  Of course, they are not helped by higher headquarters that state, in writing, that Pers Admin is about #5 on the priority list (until it gets bumped further down).



It doesn't help, that when a unit does try to get rid of its 'deadwood', higher levels of HQs (Bde and Area, now Div) sit on the documents for long periods of time, perhaps even losing it in the process.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Who ever gets off the bus.... And it's usually the same bunch.



Unfortunately, the elephant in the room is that many of our soldiers' senior leaders ride the 'short bus', which factors in to the decision of a reservist to even get on the bus in the first place.  ;D


----------



## pbi (7 May 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Who ever gets off the bus.... And it's usually the same bunch.



I think it 'twas ever so. I know it was that way when I joined the Militia in 1974, and never changed much until I ended up my days, once again, in the Reserve in 2012. It might be a problem for all volunteer organizations: when I was in Quantico VA I belonged to our local volunteer fire dept. We had well over 100 names on paper but on some nights we could barely crew two pieces of apparatus. But, when we had the annual summer FD fish fry on the shores of Chesapeake Bay: look at all them guys with "Volunteer Firefighter" t-shirts on!

Something similar, I think.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I think it 'twas ever so. I know it was that way when I joined the Militia in 1974, and never changed much until I ended up my days, once again, in the Reserve in 2012. It might be a problem for all volunteer organizations: when I was in Quantico VA I belonged to our local volunteer fire dept. We had well over 100 names on paper but on some nights we could barely crew two pieces of apparatus. But, when we had the annual summer FD fish fry on the shores of Chesapeake Bay: look at all them guys with "Volunteer Firefighter" t-shirts on!
> 
> Something similar, I think.



Would this qualify them as "Walt Wannabes"?    >


----------



## pbi (7 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Would this qualify them as "Walt Wannabes"?    >



I believe the correct term is "Waltabees"


----------



## FJAG (7 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I think it 'twas ever so. I know it was that way when I joined the Militia in 1974, and never changed much until I ended up my days, once again, in the Reserve in 2012.



I'll take that back ten years to 1965 when I joined artillery in Toronto. At the time we had amalgamated three regiments into one and could muster twenty four detachment commander sergeants and almost three hundred people on parade. On the other hand we went on exercises with 4 or 5 men for each of our eight guns (there should have been 7) and on one exercise in Meaford I was given command of a gun detachment as a gunner because no sergeants and only a few bombardiers showed up.

Kit recovery from people who simply stopped parading was also an issue although our procedures were a little less legalistic than they are today. As drivers from our transport section we'd be dispatched around the city and simply show up at people's houses, knock on the door and say that we're here for "Joe Bloggins'" kit, walk in, pick up everything armyish and leave.

As you said: "'twas ever so".

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I believe the correct term is "Waltabees"



Gold  :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Too many Army Reserve units are unwilling to take the necessary action to release folks who rarely show up and don't contribute.  Of course, they are not helped by higher headquarters that state, in writing, that Pers Admin is about #5 on the priority list (until it gets bumped further down).



Sounds about right, like my signature says about my unit, we may call our selves one thing but when we do a head count its a different story. Our platoon has 36 pers on paper, eliminate the every one above MCpl and we maybe have 24. Remove those that say work up in the oil sands and we only see once every three months, and those I call "fair weather" soldiers, we maybe have a pool of 8-12 people we can potentially see on any given training night on a good day. Lowest turn out I've seen is 4, and yet our CoC's solution has been and continues to be "ask your buddies wtf, and get them to come out"


----------



## Eowyn (7 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds about right, like my signature says about my unit, we may call our selves one thing but when we do a head count its a different story. Our platoon has 36 pers on paper, eliminate the every one above MCpl and we maybe have 24. Remove those that say work up in the oil sands and we only see once every three months, and those I call "fair weather" soldiers, we maybe have a pool of 8-12 people we can potentially see on any given training night on a good day. Lowest turn out I've seen is 4, and yet our CoC's solution has been and continues to be "ask your buddies wtf, and get them to come out"


And if you were the shoes of your CoC, what would your solution be?


----------



## MilEME09 (7 May 2014)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> And if you were the shoes of your CoC, what would your solution be?



Well for one I wouldn't be protecting those people who might not be able to show up due to work for months at a time. Policy clearly says they you must attend one in every five training days, if you cant meet that minimum commitment in the long term, you should be sent on your way. One thing my OC tried but was told he couldn't do was prevent people from going on career courses who were soldiers of convenience. Instead he set up a simple marit list for the battalion, those in good standing with the unit would know about the cool/fun/gucci courses first and have first crack at them.


----------



## pbi (7 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well for one I wouldn't be protecting those people who might not be able to show up due to work for months at a time. Policy clearly says they you must attend one in every five training days, if you cant meet that minimum commitment in the long term, you should be sent on your way. One thing my OC tried but was told he couldn't do was prevent people from going on career courses who were soldiers of convenience. Instead he set up a simple marit list for the battalion, those in good standing with the unit would know about the cool/fun/gucci courses first and have first crack at them.



Why was he told he couldn't do this? Why can't course selection reflect merit? Is it a military unit or an employment agency? Reservists don't somehow "deserve" full time employment as some kind of entitlement. If you can't contribute, don't expect to stand in the way of those who can.

Now, should we be reasonable about people who have real civvy job committments? Yes, of course, or the Reserve will be populated with the unemployed and unemployable. But not, I suggest, to the point that it begins to harm the unit. The CO is responsible for the good order, function and efficiency of the unit, and has to be able to take reasonable measures to do that.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Why was he told he couldn't do this? Why can't course selection reflect merit? Is it a military unit or an employment agency? Reservists don't somehow "deserve" full time employment as some kind of entitlement. If you can't contribute, don't expect to stand in the way of those who can.
> 
> Now, should we be reasonable about people who have real civvy job committments? Yes, of course, or the Reserve will be populated with the unemployed and unemployable. But not, I suggest, to the point that it begins to harm the unit. The CO is responsible for the good order, function and efficiency of the unit, and has to be able to take reasonable measures to do that.



I'll have to get back to you on that one, but I suspect he isn't allowed to block career courses. I agree with you that we need to be flexible, but when you have say a section commander working in Ft Mac 90% of his time, who cant keep up with emails and keeping his section informed and sending up returns. Should the unit not consider "okay, clearly things arent working here, maybe you should go on ED&T while your away or release/sup reserve"


----------



## Eowyn (8 May 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Why was he told he couldn't do this? Why can't course selection reflect merit? Is it a military unit or an employment agency? Reservists don't somehow "deserve" full time employment as some kind of entitlement. If you can't contribute, don't expect to stand in the way of those who can.
> 
> Now, should we be reasonable about people who have real civvy job committments? Yes, of course, or the Reserve will be populated with the unemployed and unemployable. But not, I suggest, to the point that it begins to harm the unit. The CO is responsible for the good order, function and efficiency of the unit, and has to be able to take reasonable measures to do that.


I suspect it is a "cultural" mind set.  In the past there has been pressure from higher to get the troops trained up to QL5 and PLQ mod 6 because of the lack of instructors for the summer courses.  In addition, there has been a focus to attempt career management of the lower ranks to make sure they aren't languishing.  These factors add up to an reluctance of denying courses.


----------



## Eowyn (8 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well for one I wouldn't be protecting those people who might not be able to show up due to work for months at a time. Policy clearly says they you must attend one in every five training days, if you cant meet that minimum commitment in the long term, you should be sent on your way. One thing my OC tried but was told he couldn't do was prevent people from going on career courses who were soldiers of convenience. Instead he set up a simple marit list for the battalion, those in good standing with the unit would know about the cool/fun/gucci courses first and have first crack at them.


I can assure you that the NES policy is enforced.  Between the Adjt and the OR, a NES report is generated monthly.  What you may not know is the NES procedure is quite lengthy and time consuming.  The best outcome is when the member receives the first letter, they decide to voluntarily release.  That speeds things up considerably.  Several people have chosen that in the past couple of months.

As well, there are some soldiers make sure they make a parade a month to stay off that report.  Are they effective?  No, but there is lower hanging fruit to get at.


----------



## NSDreamer (8 May 2014)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> I can assure you that the NES policy is enforced.  Between the Adjt and the OR, a NES report is generated monthly.  What you may not know is the NES procedure is quite lengthy and time consuming.  The best outcome is when the member receives the first letter, they decide to voluntarily release.  That speeds things up considerably.  Several people have chosen that in the past couple of months.



 That might be true in your case, but I've recommended 3 people this year for NES release, both having more then just one occurrence, but in fact a pattern of failing to parade, making BS excuses to not parade ( My friend came from university to visit so I can't go do our BFT) I point all these out, I offer troops assistance in getting time off work,I even offered one of said 3 troops help getting a higher paying position at my  company, they told me they would send me their resume.  3 Months later, no parade, no resume, submitted for NES, 7 months later? Still up at BDE Hq/Div Hq. 

 It's not just the unit level that holds up the NES.


----------



## dapaterson (8 May 2014)

NES letters go out with the CO's signature, on the CO's authority.  No need for Bde/Div engagement until release.


----------



## NSDreamer (8 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> NES letters go out with the CO's signature, on the CO's authority.  No need for Bde/Div engagement until release.



 Well this concerns me more, as this is the response I'm getting from my OR... Looks like it's time for a phone call  :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson (8 May 2014)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Well this concerns me more, as this is the response I'm getting from my OR... Looks like it's time for a phone call  :facepalm:



If they are already NES nd the CO has sent them in for 5f release, then the paperwork will have gone up the chain.

Look at A-PM-245; chapter 19 is Reserve pers admin, and chapter 15 is Release.


----------



## George Wallace (8 May 2014)

Perhaps we are confusing the initiating of Release for NES through the Registered Letter sent out in the name of the CO of the unit and the actual Release procedure that involves documentation and acknowledgement/approvals at higher commands.  I don't believe that a CO has approving authority for the Articles of Release given to a member; only the ability to recommend.


----------



## dapaterson (8 May 2014)

Short version: For Pte-CWO and OCdt, a CO is the release authority for a 4a, 4c or 5a release.  For a 5f release, for Pte-CWO and OCdt the release authority is the Div Comd; for commissioned officers, it is the Div Comd who is the authority to initiate release.  The release authority for all commissioned officers, regardless of the reason, is the Governor General.


----------



## NSDreamer (9 May 2014)

After consultation, the above is certainly correct. The members are waiting on release paperwork, or rather the CoC, two of the members haven't called in to the unit to query proceedings yet despite multiple voicemails.   :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2016)

I am resurrecting an 2+ year old thread rather than start a new one, because I think this fits with the topic ...



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one is mentioning all the new things going on for the naval reserves. The mission of the Naval reserves will be Class A, Orca and new NST. The MCDV's are changing 40% of their billets to regular force this year, and the year after 100%. All class of ship will have 5% reserves at any one time in the future, mostly as back fills. Contracts up to a year will be given no more than two consecutive contracts. All members on Class B/C that have a year experience Class C in the last 5 years will be offered a transfer at rank up to PO1 and LCdr.



I think we, Canada, at large and DND and the CF, in particular, owe the NAVRES a vote of thanks for showing us both the capabilities and limitations of reserve forces over the past 25 years.

The _Kingston_ class of ships was, originally, more about "industrial support" for (then) HDIL (Halifax-Dartmouth Industries Limited) and _SNC-Lavelin_ than it was about the Navy's needs or wants and the decision to make them "shad boats" (reserve crewed vessels) was taken because the big, institutional (regular) Navy wasn't terribly interested.

The Naval Reserve, 4,000_ish_ people in 24 Naval Reserve Divisions, was able to provide 400+ (well enough) trained people to crew a dozen small warships, top to bottom. But, as the years wore on the "bill" could only be paid by having, as the NAVGEN message says, "A CADRE OF FULL-TIME CLASS C RESERVISTS WHO FOR SEVERAL YEARS WERE ABLE TO MEET KINGSTON MANNING REQUIREMENTS," but who were, essentially a new, second tier of the NAVRES: full time, at sea, not "at home" training reserve sailors in their Divisions for the NAVRES' primary task: augmentation of the fleet. But, the NAVRES showed us all what good people can do when there is opportunity, which in this case, meant a flotilla of modern ships. If the 4,000 strong NAVRES could crew a dozen ships we have to assume that the 18,000 people in the Army Reserve ought to be able to field, say, 50+ (well enough trained) platoon/troop sized units from within the 11 Reserve brigades, IF they had enough proper equipment and fuel and ammunition etc for training.

The Naval Reserve also showed us the limits of trying to do too much with too little. The Navy is right, _in my opinion_, to want one "full time" fleet, crewed, in the main, by regulars and augmented by reservists and to have a reserve "base" from which "surge" manning, in a war, can be found without having to build the foundations. I do not doubt that the NAVRES can provide hundreds of well enough trained people to augment ships for both work-a-day tasks and for training. Equally, I do not doubt, that, given the right focus, each Canadian Army Reserve brigade could produce four or five platoon/troop sized units to, annually, train with regular force regiments and battalions, _*and*_ to provide hundreds of individual augmentees on an ongoing basis.

But what the NAVRES did to and for the Navy, and vice-versa, was only possible because there was both equipment, the _Kingston_ class ships, (and now the _Orcas_), _*and money*_ available to make it happen. The Army Reserve, _it appears to me_, from far away, lacks both ... and maybe more.

The key, 20+ years ago, was that the institutional Navy was committed to making the _Kingston_ class ships at least minimally useful so resources were provided ... sometimes grudgingly, but more and more freely as the little _Kingstons_ proved their worth in training and operations from the High Arctic to the Caribbean.

I wonder if the institutional Army's leadership has anything like that sense of commitment to the Army Reserve.

_*It seems to me*_ that we, Canada, needs the Department and the CF to recognize the capabilities and limitations of its reserve forces and direct, staff, equip and fund them to do practical, achievable, useful, important things.


Edit: typo


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But what the NAVRES did to and for the Navy, and vice-versa, was only possible because there was both *equipment*, the _Kingston_ class ships, (and now the _Orcas_), and *money* available to make it happen. The Army Reserve, it appears to me, from far away, lacks both ... and maybe more.
> 
> The key, 20+ years ago, was that the institutional Navy was committed to making the _Kingston_ class ships at least minimally useful so resources were provided ... sometimes grudgingly, but more and more freely as the little _Kingstons_ proved their worth in training and operations from the High Arctic to the Caribbean.
> 
> I wonder if the institutional Army's *leadership* has anything like that sense of commitment to the Army Reserve.


I would say there are three strikes, not the two you initially highlighted.  The leadership simply isn't there.  'Connect with Canadians' in Butt-f Saskatchewan doesn't garner much attention or support.

....in my opinion.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would say there are three strikes, not the two you initially highlighted.  The leadership simply isn't there.  'Connect with Canadians' in Butt-f Saskatchewan doesn't garner much attention or support.
> 
> ....in my opinion.



Honestly is feels like the army is a federal political party, cares about Ontario and Quebec, doesn't give a rats ass about the rest until they absolutely have to. Connecting with Canadians is also difficult when many of our bases in or around major populations centers were closed (probably to get us out of sight and mind along with the rest of the politics behind it) Winnipeg, Calgary, Chilliwack, Downsview, London to name a few. The Canadian Armed forces has lost over the past 30+ years much of its footprint and visibility in Canadian society.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Honestly is feels like the army is a federal political party, cares about Ontario and Quebec, doesn't give a rats *** about the rest until they absolutely have to. Connecting with Canadians is also difficult when many of our bases in or around major populations centers were closed (probably to get us out of sight and mind along with the rest of the politics behind it) Winnipeg, Calgary, Chilliwack, Downsview, London to name a few. The Canadian Armed forces has lost over the past 30+ years much of its footprint and visibility *in Canadian society*.



Which, coincidentally, lines up geographically with 80% of the Army reserve units in Canada. The closest regular force infantry company to us is based a 14 hour bus ride (ask my troops about that one last summer) away.

The Naval Reserve seems to be co-located with their regular counterparts, so augmentation/ collaboration is much easier from the get go.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Naval Reserve seems to be co-located with their regular counterparts, so augmentation/ collaboration is much easier from the get go.



Umm no.... The RCN has 2 regular bases (Esq and Hfx) they each have 1 of the 24 NRDs across the country.  The other 22 are very much on their own.

Ask HMCS Unicorn or HMCS Queen how long they have to travel to interact with the regular RCN.  You aint driving that distance for a weekend ex sonny Jim!


----------



## Remius (16 Dec 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Umm no.... The RCN has 2 regular bases (Esq and Hfx) they each have 1 of the 24 NRDs across the country.  The 22 are very much on their own.
> 
> Ask HMCS Unicorn or HMCS Queen how long they have to travel to interact with the regular RCN.  You aint driving that distance for a weekend ex sonny Jim!



Question though.  Would you still consider Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City as on their own?


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Question though.  Would you still consider Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City as on their own?



When the nearest RCN regular counterpart is in roughly 1800, 1400 and 1200Kms to the east in Halifax, yes.


----------



## Remius (16 Dec 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> When the nearest RCN regular counterpart is in roughly 1800, 1400 and 1200Kms to the east in Halifax, yes.



I was asking just in regards to port access, ressources etc and what not.

Thanks.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Umm no.... The RCN has 2 regular bases (Esq and Hfx) they each have 1 of the 24 NRDs across the country.  The 22 are very much on their own.
> 
> Ask HMCS Unicorn or HMCS Queen how long they have to travel to interact with the regular RCN.  You aint driving that distance for a weekend ex sonny Jim!



I give!

 :surrender:


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I give!
> 
> :surrender:



Striking your colors, how nautical.   I accept



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I was asking just in regards to port access, resources etc and what not.
> 
> Thanks.



I can see how that may seem so on the surface; but there are no ships, regular or reserve, stationed at these locations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2016)

How much is this manning change driven by a lack of big ships? We lost the 2 AORS, all of the Tribals are gone with no replacements, are they now looking at the Kingston's as a place to put warm bodies? Once the fleet starts to grow with AOR and AOP's, will the manning of the Kingstons become less interesting to the Regular Force?


----------



## Stoker (19 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> How much is this manning change driven by a lack of big ships? We lost the 2 AORS, all of the Tribals are gone with no replacements, are they now looking at the Kingston's as a place to put warm bodies? Once the fleet starts to grow with AOR and AOP's, will the manning of the Kingstons become less interesting to the Regular Force?



At first the RCN needed a place to employ the extra sailors from the Iroquois and Tankers. Although many of them went to the rest of the fleet which was short and at times it was hard to find sailors to fill the reg spots. With the coming of the tankers and AOPS those extra sailors will be needed for those ships and the general fleet. The CT offers come with the caveat that they may need to remain with the Kingston Class for several years before moving on. The end state is 5% reserves on each class, for the Kingston's that's 2 reserve sailors per ship. What I have been hearing is that realistically more than 5% will be reserves because the RCN won't be able to fill all the billets and not all will be taking the CT. There are also studies to streamline crewing on the Kingstons as well. There are many Kingston Class sailors at the units who would love to come out for a contract, but if they adhere to the 5% rule, they will be disappointed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> How much is this manning change driven by a lack of big ships? We lost the 2 AORS, all of the Tribals are gone with no replacements, are they now looking at the Kingston's as a place to put warm bodies? Once the fleet starts to grow with AOR and AOP's, will the manning of the Kingstons become less interesting to the Regular Force?



While we're waiting for ships to put them in, we could always stand up the Royal Canadian Navy Division. It's all been done before, of course


----------

