# The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces



## FJAG (3 May 2020)

As we seem to be winding down from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, the thought crosses my mind that there will be consequences effecting the DND/CAF. Simply put we have several factors:

a. first and probably foremost in the eyes of the current and future government is going to be money. The Liberals are more likely not to be too concerned about any immediate debt accumulation over the next few years notwithstanding that they have committed over $80 billion in programs and tax deferrals in order to keep the economy and workers going. Any future Conservative government may see things differently. Regardless it seems quite logical that any cost cutting that the Feds will do will undoubtedly involve the DND/CAF;

b. regardless of the financial relief offered, unemployment will be up which might influence CAF recruiting in a positive way;

c. international threats will not lessen and in all probability tension will be heightened as major players struggle over their internal problems leaving others to fill vacuums by expanding their spheres of influence over countries hit hard;

d. generally the internal response to this pandemic amongst the western world has been poor, showing an overall weakness of our ability to deal with major disasters. While this one was biological in nature, we are equally vulnerable to cyber disruption of our economy and have shown ourselves to be especially divided in how we respond to curtailment of civil liberties;

There are numerous other factors at play which will (or at least, might) impact the shape and role of the DND/CAF in the foreseeable future. I've started this thread to foster discussion on where we're heading in both the near and long term. While I want to focus the discussion on the DND/CAF, examples and articles as to what other countries are, or might be, doing are also relevant.

To start it off, here's a an article from War on the Rocks:  Five Ways the US Military Will Change After the Pandemic

Alright. Let's open this  :worms:


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2020)

[quote author=FJAG]

Alright. Let's open this  :worms:

b. regardless of the financial relief offered, unemployment will be up which might influence CAF recruiting in a positive way;

[/quote]

I think it will see increased numbers but may have a negative effect in terms of the quality and mentality of applicants.

Do we want applicants who are only joining the CAF now because they're desperate/don't have other options?



Also, after sitting at home getting paid to chill for 2 months (or maybe until August?)  I wonder if we'll have issues with members deciding they don't want to go back to work and either releasing, mass OTs or looking for MELs.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think it will see increased numbers but may have a negative effect in terms of the quality and mentality of applicants.
> 
> *Do we want applicants who are only joining the CAF now because they're desperate/don't have other options?
> *



Why should the CAF change now?  Okay, I'm being flippant . . .  but periods of high unemployment has always provided a target rich environment for recruiting.  The more who are looking for a well paying, stable job means more from whom to select the best candidates.  As the dust starts to settle from the economic fallout of Covid-19 (and the concurrent oil price drop) the demographic that is most affected by job loss fits right into the demographic that the military looks for; young, looking for work, looking for training that leads to a stable career.  And as the CF struggled to meet recruiting targets for women, this on-going crisis is like manna from heaven - women have accounted for 60% of the lay-offs.  Now if only the CF can rise to this recruiting challenge.


----------



## dimsum (3 May 2020)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And as the CF struggled to meet recruiting targets for women, this on-going crisis is like manna from heaven - women have accounted for 60% of the lay-offs.  Now if only the CF can rise to this recruiting challenge.



Were those women going to look at the CAF anyways?  :dunno:


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2020)

[quote author=Blackadder1916]but periods of high unemployment has always provided a target rich environment for recruiting.[/quote]
Are we just in a period of high unemployment or is this an all together different scale?



> The more who are looking for a well paying, stable job means more from whom to select the best candidates.


But we're not looking for the best candidates. We're looking for candidates to make the demographic of the CAF mirror Canada. We tell males a trade is closed while allowing females to join it and we (may) allow aboriginals from up north to join the CAF even if they fail the aptitude test.



> And as the CF struggled to meet recruiting targets for women, this on-going crisis is like manna from heaven - women have accounted for 60% of the lay-offs.


So now we can attract women to join the CAF out of desperation whom otherwise weren't interested in joining the CAF. I can imagine some problems that might create.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 May 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Were those women going to look at the CAF anyways?  :dunno:



Why does that matter?  Or would you make the same comment if the discussion was about tapping into a new pool of male talent?  If the CF only looked at those who were born with an interest in military service then the ranks would have been pretty thin for all of its history.  Recruitment is a process of *finding and attracting* the potential resources for filling up the vacant positions in an organization.  It's not just doing the enrolment paperwork of only those who show up at the door.  That "attracting" part is pretty important.


----------



## brihard (3 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do we want applicants who are only joining the CAF now because they're desperate/don't have other options?



When has this ever *not* been a noticeable portion of our applicant pool for some of the occupations with lower educational requirements?


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2020)

While not a military issue, here's another example of an institution which looks to be undergoing a paradigm change operations as a result of issues brought about by the pandemic:



> Coronavirus: Pandemic forces Ontario justice system ‘stuck in the 1970s’ to modernize
> BY PAOLA LORIGGIO AND LIAM CASEY THE CANADIAN PRESS
> Posted April 29, 2020 7:38 pm
> 
> ...



https://globalnews.ca/news/6885464/coronavirus-ontario-justice-system-modernize/

It strikes me, from discussions in other threads, that DND was/is not as successful in modifying it's pandemic work processes. I'm not so sure if anyone on this site has found any benefits in how the system has handled this crisis. Are there any?

 ???


----------



## CBH99 (3 May 2020)

From a recruiting perspective, this can be both a blessing and perhaps a cultural challenge at the same time.

Yes, the pandemic may cause some people in desired demographics to explore options in the military that they hadn't previously thought of.  That could be great & also possibly come with challenges down the road...that's possibly a separate issue. 

A larger pool of interested applicants is always good to have, and yes we may attract a lot of people who hadn't previously thought of the military as an option.  

That being said, it is our responsibility to streamline recruiting into a fast, easy, 'checkmark list' process to get applicants processed, sworn in, and ready for training.  As discussed extensively in other threads, one of our biggest challenges in filling the ranks is a wound of our own making.

A streamlined process of attracting people to various in-demand trades, educating the public not only about the opportunity but also about the quality of life, salary, and opportunities goes a long way to attracting those people.  

But once they walk into a recruiting center, we have to do a better job of getting applications processed and moving forwards at a decent pace...having good people walk away because their applications took a year (or more) to get processed is pathetic.  Streamline the PLAR system, get qualified people at least started and in the door, and get going.



This could be great for us as an organization, if we the organization don't screw it up for ourselves.   :2c:   




**Disclosure - perhaps recruiting is in better shape now than when I was in.  I'm not up to date on everything recruiting these days.

When I was doing recruiting/community relations a decade ago or so, CFRC Calgary had thankfully set up a pretty streamlined system.  Applicants would come in to do their CFAT in the morning, initial interview & medical in the afternoon, and applications were fired off.  Credit checks & criminal record checks were already done before.  Obviously some applicants, and some cases/trades, would slow things down - but for the most part, a bulk of applicants at least got the first few steps of their application process done pretty quickly.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> From a recruiting perspective, this can be both a blessing and perhaps a cultural challenge at the same time.
> 
> Yes, the pandemic may cause some people in desired demographics to explore options in the military that they hadn't previously thought of.  That could be great & also possibly come with challenges down the road...that's possibly a separate issue.
> 
> ...



Wish it was that stream lined when I got in, in 09, took two months to get everything done. Then 6 months to find out i couldn't join my selected trade due to being a VC 4. picked a different trade as was sworn in a month later.


----------



## CBH99 (3 May 2020)

*Wish it was that stream lined when I got in, in 09, tooled two months to get every done. Then 6 months to find out i couldn't join my selected trade due to being a VC 4. picked a different trade as was sworn in a month later.*


CFRC Calgary, at that time anyway, really had a good system in place and a good relationship with recruiters from various reserve units in Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, etc.

Applicants would apply online, and bring us a few documents.  Credit checks & criminal records checks were completed pretty expediently.  Applicants would then do their CFAT in the morning, then they would do their medical/initial interview in the afternoon.  (Half would do medical first, half interview first...then switch.)

By the end of the day, CFAT was done, medical done, initial interview was done.  The credit & crim checks were already completed prior to them even attending the interview.  Package was sent off to Ottawa, which seemed to process them pretty quick since everything was already done, members were sworn in maybe a month or two later.  Boom, done.


Some applications did take longer, but that was usually because of a specialized trade, PLAR requirements for that trade, or 'unconventional applications' for unique postings.  (I remember a very specialized marine engineer type guy, who was PLAR'ing his way into a very specialized engineering position on the frigates, as an example.)   

But I'd say about 80% of the applications we processed were done according to the 'checkmark list' we had been given, and things were pretty quick.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 May 2020)

Fair enough, hopefully the system is just as streamlined, but if we see a massive amount of recruiting, and I mean in the thousands, would we need to rob field units for instructors in order to get more courses going? What is the max load on a BMQ these days? Mine was 58 pers in 2010.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2020)

You're noting an important principle - that "recruiting" in and of itself is part of a larger personnel production system.  That requires balancing training demands with operational demands; sometimes prioritizing specific recruiting to align recruit gradation with follow-on training; and, if you have finite capacity for recruit training, deciding where to take risk, that is, which trades will you recruit less (in the short term) and risk not having enough?


----------



## Remius (3 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Fair enough, hopefully the system is just as streamlined, but if we see a massive amount of recruiting, and I mean in the thousands, would we need to rob field units for instructors in order to get more courses going? What is the max load on a BMQ these days? Mine was 58 pers in 2010.



Post 911 we ramped up recruiting.  The training system was not ready for it.  Pat platoons, delayed training etc.  Some people had completed their VIE before even getting their Full qualification in trade.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 May 2020)

Exactly. Places like PRETC, CFSCE PAT etc were overflowing a decade or so ago. Lots of people sitting around for months or years, staff overwhelmed, and in some cases even members AWOL that basically went unnoticed or unpunished.


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2020)

When we downsized the CAF in 1969/70 we found ourselves with a surplus of personnel in the artillery which needed some time to remuster to other trades or let go through various force reduction processes. The end result is for a few years we did no recruiting at all and had very very few promotions amongst the ORs

When things opened up again around 1973 when we resurrected air defence and locating, we went into recruiting in a big way. Bigger than the combat arms school could handle and accordingly we ended up running numerous serials of TL3 (ie basic gun number) courses within the regiments. IMHO that turned out very well, as the troops became integrated into the regiment from step one and we had excellent resources available. Personally I think we could easily have taken on what the US Army calls "one station training", ie BMQ, BMQ(L) and DP1. The resource bill for a platoon/troop is not high and most units had/have the appropriate equipment and facilities readily available.

 :cheers:


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 May 2020)

The biggest expense on CAF/DND in the next five years are great big capital expenses. Aside from the contractual aspects locking them in to a certain logical extent, programs like the NSS have been sold as job creators (which they do). I think improving the messaging on that aspect would be helpful (as they always bury the annual reports, and the reams and reams of job creation data is simplified to a misleading pie chart or something).

Maybe trimming down the procurement on new stuff coming down the pipe might be more feasible, but usually by the time they get through to TBS they've been trimmed down to the bone and other programs put on hold to do that, so expect it would be pretty painful.  With the kind of expenses they are running up, the entire DND budget would barely make a dent.  Also, think a lot of the programs are massively inflated budgets as a cap, so the actuals may be lower.


----------



## Dale Denton (4 May 2020)

a. first and probably foremost in the eyes of the current and future government is going to be money. The Liberals are more likely not to be too concerned about any immediate debt accumulation over the next few years notwithstanding that they have committed over $80 billion in programs and tax deferrals in order to keep the economy and workers going. Any future Conservative government may see things differently. Regardless it seems quite logical that any cost cutting that the Feds will do will undoubtedly involve the DND/CAF;
Unlikely, but i'd like to see a big promotion of what the CAF has been doing for local retirement communities here in Ontario. Hopefully a capability expansion throughout the entire CAF. Responding to natural disasters and events like these supports any call to be more mobile, and for more investment in capabilities. CAF should be leveraging this good-will to better secure its future capability-building.


b. regardless of the financial relief offered, unemployment will be up which might influence CAF recruiting in a positive way;
Might help if we started to at least air TV ads again...


Looking at this in a different way, we now know how vulnerable we are.

I'd like to see a large growth in HADR capability: 

A. Build a LPD/LSD here, foreign off-the-shelf design, to use as a hospital ship in these situations to treat coast communities.
B. Make local gov't assistance / disaster response a reserve job#1. Invest in Reserve support and capabilities, pers retention/recruiting.
C. Investment in mobility, vague on purpose.
D. What else?


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 May 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> When has this ever *not* been a noticeable portion of our applicant pool for some of the occupations with lower educational requirements?


I'm not sure. I think this level of unemployment and financial insecurity is unique compared to any high levels we may have seen in the past. Last week someone was asking me questions about joining the CAF as an NCM. She was 52 or 53. Not unheard of but she was also a hard core left wing "anti-imperialist" anti-conservative but she needs a job. It was an equally weird and sad conversation to have with someone.

I think Blackadder1916 is really on to something about recruiting though. The CAF has failed for years to reach their gender goal. This is a perfect situation to bump those numbers up. Under the current direction we're pushing I could even see us recruiting women only or women first until we hit 20% women or even 51%.


----------



## ueo (4 May 2020)

I agree the recruiting base might widen somewhat , but does the system have the capability to access this, process a large intake and then train these folks. Seems to me that the system is strapped for manpower, both instructional and logistical, at present with our overseas commitments so finding competent recruit/basic level instructors may be an insurmountable task. A few may be available through a massive reserve call up. Not sure what facilities still exist to sp the influx, physical administrative or logistical system appear to have been civilianized or severely degraded in the past while. Also don't think a mass rush to arms will occur, this is not 1914 or 1939 contrary to the political speak making the rounds so Canadian spirit probably will not be a factor. Did we have a great increase after 9/11?


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a large growth in HADR capability:
> 
> A. Build a LPD/LSD here, foreign off-the-shelf design, to use as a hospital ship in these situations to treat coast communities.



Bonus points if it can make it into the great lakes. Actually that would be a major project if the channel locks were expanded to accommodate larger ships.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 May 2020)

Depends on who is governing at the time. I have zero faith - negative faith - if there is such a thing , in the Liberal Party of Canada. I think they will chop the budget and reduce numbers if possible. I've never seen such incompetent toadies in cabinet.
If the Conservatives have a majority government then some common sense might prevail.


----------



## GR66 (4 May 2020)

Will this finally be enough incentive to cut the HQ bloat and put more manpower into the units?


----------



## GAP (4 May 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> If the Conservatives have a majority government then some common sense might prevail.



I wouldn't count on it.....once an election is over, the main job is getting reelected....... :tsktsk:


----------



## blacktriangle (4 May 2020)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Will this finally be enough incentive to cut the HQ bloat and put more manpower into the units?



You mean peoplepower, right? And no, probably not.


----------



## CBH99 (4 May 2020)

ueo said:
			
		

> I agree the recruiting base might widen somewhat , but does the system have the capability to access this, process a large intake and then train these folks. Seems to me that the system is strapped for manpower, both instructional and logistical, at present with our overseas commitments so finding competent recruit/basic level instructors may be an insurmountable task. A few may be available through a massive reserve call up. Not sure what facilities still exist to sp the influx, physical administrative or logistical system appear to have been civilianized or severely degraded in the past while. Also don't think a mass rush to arms will occur, this is not 1914 or 1939 contrary to the political speak making the rounds so Canadian spirit probably will not be a factor. Did we have a great increase after 9/11?




1.  Yes, we had a massive increase in people wanting to join after 9/11.  Training capacity was increased, somewhat.


2.  Finding instructors for BMQ or BMQ(L) shouldn't be hard.  

It's learning basic dress and deportment, basic drill, rank structure, first aid, etc etc.  Some units should run a BMQ on their own (reserve side) so summers can be used for courses that actually produce useful soldiers, rather than wasting everybody's time having a recruit sit around during the year only to come back at the end of summer still being non-deployable.

Teaching a BMQ or BMQ(L) isn't hard, and it shouldn't be hard to find instructors.  These aren't specialized courses requiring specialized training facilities.  It's the most basic s**t in the world.



I don't believe every single recruit needs to go through St. Jean, personally.  Streamline recruiting, and get a few regional BMQ courses going, etc.  Running BMQ, some unit level Driver courses (Multiple units can come together to run one, isn't the first time), etc.  Get people in, get people trained up, and let's get going - so that the specialized instructors can focus on getting people trade qualified.   :2c:

(Someone mentioned One Station Training, the way the US Army does it sometimes.  Get things moving, keeps people motivated because they join & instantly start making progress towards career/goals, and aren't sitting around being 'make work' projects.)


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> 1.  Yes, we had a massive increase in people wanting to join after 9/11.  Training capacity was increased, somewhat.
> 
> 
> 2.  Finding instructors for BMQ or BMQ(L) shouldn't be hard.
> ...



Where I am we run one sometimes two local weekend BMQ's in calgary during the training year to get people on their trades courses come summer, then run full time courses in the summer time. Drivers courses are a more difficult beast, as you need to be qualified as a in cab instructor to teach, or a driver examiner to do road tests, this is something some unit's lack from my experience.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Teaching a BMQ or BMQ(L) isn't hard, and it shouldn't be hard to find instructors.  These aren't specialized courses requiring specialized training facilities.  It's the most basic s**t in the world.



Don't tell St. Jean that, they make you do a course to learn how to teach a BMQ. As opposed to the PLQ that is literally designed to teach you how to teach on a BMQ...


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't tell St. Jean that, they make you do a course to learn how to teach a BMQ. As opposed to the PLQ that is literally designed to teach you how to teach on a BMQ...



Sounds like something that could just be an briefing for new instructors and take an afternoon. I can't imagine there is much to add in regards to teaching a BMQ of all things


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds like something that could just be an briefing for new instructors and take an afternoon. I can't imagine there is much to add in regards to teaching a BMQ of all things



I'll double check with my buddy how long it was, but it wasn't an afternoon from how he described it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'll double check with my buddy how long it was, but it wasn't an afternoon from how he described it.



GMT-I is 2 weeks IIRC.

This thread is one perspective of where the CAF is going into the COVID pandemic.  While not 100% accurate it presents a fairly bleak look at the CAF, IMO.  

Opinion - Liberators of the Netherlands in 1945, today... - CBC


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Teaching a BMQ or BMQ(L) isn't hard, and it shouldn't be hard to find instructors.  These aren't specialized courses requiring specialized training facilities.  It's the most basic s**t in the world.



* edit - repeating something PC just said.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

*the General Military Training - Instructor course has the basic aim of taking members from all branches/trades of the CAF and attempting to ensure that there is as much standardization in the delivery of the BMQ/BMOQ QS and TP to each candidate at CFLRS as possible.  A PPCLI MCpl, in theory, will deliver the training 'the same way to the same standard' as a AVN Tech MCpl will, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Under the current direction we're pushing I could even see us recruiting women only or women first until we hit 20% women or even 51%.



Under current federal legislation?  I don't know if that is possible but...hey, if anyone is going to ignore stuff like that it might be the sitting government.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

What cuts if any do people see happening in the CAF/DND?  A few of us were having a private chat on FB over the last few days and we were thinking about courses that could be cut.  PLQ was one that a couple people thought about for certain trades.   Like all courses, they're expensive when you think about transportation, meals, housing and everything else and for many trades, useless.  Take for example and HRA or FSA and some others.  They get promoted, do the job as a MCpl for up to two years and sometimes longer depending on availability or injury/illness and then go back and keep doing the same job they did prior to going on course.  Learning section attacks, giving O groups etc doesn't train us to be better supervisors in the OR.  The only think I can think is beneficial is learning to teach a lesson and that can probably be done at the unit level. There are probably many other courses as well.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What cuts if any do people see happening in the CAF/DND?  A few of us were having a private chat on FB over the last few days and we were thinking about courses that could be cut.  PLQ was one that a couple people thought about for certain trades.   Like all courses, they're expensive when you think about transportation, meals, housing and everything else and for many trades, useless.  Take for example and HRA or FSA and some others.  They get promoted, do the job as a MCpl for up to two years and sometimes longer depending on availability or injury/illness and then go back and keep doing the same job they did prior to going on course.  Learning section attacks, giving O groups etc doesn't train us to be better supervisors in the OR.  The only think I can think is beneficial is learning to teach a lesson and that can probably be done at the unit level. There are probably many other courses as well.



Maybe they will just phase out a lot of the HRA and FSA, and supplement more and more with civilians making less money.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] Learning section attacks, giving O groups etc doesn't train us to be better supervisors in the OR.  The only think I can think is beneficial is learning to teach a lesson and that can probably be done at the unit level. There are probably many other courses as well.
[/quote]

1. You're still in the military.
2. If you're deployed and get attacked and there isn't security/combat arms around then your subordinates are going to look to you for leadership.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Maybe they will just phase out a lot of the HRA and FSA, and supplement more and more with civilians making less money.



To be honest, that wouldn't be a bad thing.  IMO, a big problem is even with the split there are so many functions we need to learn and it can take a while.  As soon as we start getting comfortable with it, it's time for a posting to another unit or base who does it different.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 1. You're still in the military.
> 2. If you're deployed and get attacked and there isn't security/combat arms around then your subordinates are going to look to you for leadership.



I know I'm still in the military but that doesn't mean I can't have opinions and it doesn't mean that just because something has been done a certain way for ages, that it's the right way to be doing things.  
I haven't deployed but I've heard several people including many Sr NCO's who have deployed make this comment that PLQ needs to be revamped to be realistic to what many trades will do  Does anyone really picture an image tech getting orders and then giving an O group and leading a section attack. I've had friends who've been to Afghanistan and Iraq and they all say that when the alarm goes, they all run to the designated shelter.  I don't picture a bunch or HRA's or FSA's sitting around a base by themselves.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> To be honest, that wouldn't be a bad thing.  IMO, a big problem is even with the split there are so many functions we need to learn and it can take a while.  As soon as we start getting comfortable with it, it's time for a posting to another unit or base who does it different.



Absolutely, and it happens elsewhere in the CAF as well. But ultimately, I think these sort of changes will be driven by cost. The potential for increased effectiveness will just be a byproduct. It's also by no means guaranteed to work out better. An endless rotation of cheaper contract workers could be what you get stuck with. If you look at some other trades, I think cost will be reason that they stay military. No one wants to pay a police constable 100k if they can pay a Cpl MP 75K. Same goes with some of the more technical trades.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I know I'm still in the military but that doesn't mean I can't have opinions and it doesn't mean that just because something has been done a certain way for ages, that it's the right way to be doing things.
> I haven't deployed but I've heard several people including many Sr NCO's who have deployed make this comment that PLQ needs to be revamped to be realistic to what many trades will do  Does anyone really picture an image tech getting orders and then giving an O group and leading a section attack. I've had friends who've been to Afghanistan and Iraq and they all say that when the alarm goes, they all run to the designated shelter.  I don't picture a bunch or HRA's or FSA's sitting around a base by themselves.



Right. And just because something has been done for ages doesn't mean it needs to be changed either.

Plq could use some changes I'm sure. It still needs to have some raised voices and raised adrenaline so when things get scary, like someone shooting rockets at you, leaders don't curl up in a ball and wet themselves. Not saying that sarcastically either. From what I recall clerks aren't hard assessed on section attacks but they're exposed to it. 

Being able to fight is a common task for the military. Section attacks teach muscle for fire and movement for 8 directions.
No, a clerk sergeant probably won't be taking a section of clerks and attacking bad guys but they may have to take some privates and withdraw while getting shot at. Plq will give the leader some exposure controlling people moving around with guns.

I think a lot of soldiers are hoping we keep doing this work from home, part time hours thing. Not going to work long term.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right. And just because something has been done for ages doesn't mean it needs to be changed either.
> 
> Plq could use some changes I'm sure. It still needs to have some raised voices and raised adrenaline so when things get scary, like someone shooting rockets at you, leaders don't curl up in a ball and wet themselves. Not saying that sarcastically either. From what I recall clerks aren't hard assessed on section attacks but they're exposed to it.
> 
> ...



You'd think though that with all the technology we have, we'd be able to find more ways of keeping our HR and Finance professionals out of high-threat environments.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think a lot of soldiers are hoping we keep doing this work from home, part time hours thing. Not going to work long term.



You're absolutely right, and some people are surprisingly saying it publicly on FB groups and in the office.  Many people including CAF mbr's are afraid of catching this virus.  It's not the same as going off on deployment and getting hurt or killed, people can catch it and pass it on to their kids or spouses.  If push comes to shove I think they'll go back but I've heard several people say they will quite first.  Again, I don't believe they will but who knows.  The CAF still has several mbr's that are diabetic or have other conditions that put them at higher risk of complications and those mbr's are and need to be protected so they won't be able to go back to business as usual for a while. 
One thing I will say about working from home is that believe it or not, a lot is still getting done.  I've read articles as I'm sure others here have as well quoting various companies saying this working at home thing is more productive than they thought it would be.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2020)

What _ lots of work_ is getting done at home by the military?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What lots of work is getting done at home by the military?


D Mil Pay sure isnt working from home, been waiting a year and counting on my LDA audit and backpay...


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> D Mil Pay sure isnt working from home, been waiting a year and counting on my LDA audit and backpay...



Maybe they're moonlighting as VAC employees.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> D Mil Pay sure isnt working from home, been waiting a year and counting on my LDA audit and backpay...



I obviously don't know when you last followed up on it with your OR but a year seems long even for them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2020)

Stellerpanther the people you seem to enjoy conversing with on FB and other places sound like real anti-soldiers. It seems like you've fallen into their anti-soldiering mentality too. I highly doubt the people who you're talking to are threatening to quit the caf to protect their family from covid. They just don't like going to work and they're going to latch on to every reason they can not to go back to work.


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Many people including CAF mbr's are afraid of catching this virus.



Nothing wrong with being afraid. As long as you do your job.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Stellerpanther the people you seem to enjoy conversing with on FB and other places sound like real anti-soldiers. It seems like you've fallen into their anti-soldiering mentality too. I highly doubt the people who you're talking to are threatening to quit the caf to protect their family from covid. They just don't like going to work and they're going to latch on to every reason they can not to go back to work.



You are probably right that most of the people threating to quit won't actually do so and I said that in my post.  You might see some people who were close to retirement and on the fence as to whether they're ready to pull the pin do it but who knows.  Some of the people are still young and would need to still have a job and it's not going to be any different on civi street.  The older ones may just collect their pension and enjoy life.
As far as who I converse with, I don't think they are anti-soldier because the majority of them still enjoy being in the CAF as do I.  Just because some people would like to see some changes, doesn't mean they're anti-soldier.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As far as who I converse with, I don't think they are anti-soldier because the majority of them still enjoy being in the CAF as do I.  Just because some people would like to see some changes, doesn't mean they're anti-soldier.



Do you think that the changes they want are the product of their environment? Someone doing their whole career in a cubicle in the NCR will see far less value to PLQ or other "soldier training" than someone in the same trade in a Bde. You can apply the same rationale to a shore billet sailor (before RCN folks jump on me). You can apply the same concept in reverse, a field force solider/sailing sailor will see less value in all those "office environment" training courses on DLN or administrative paperwork that they see getting away of doing the business downrange.

The bigger question is, what do we want the CAF culture to be? Majority office employees wearing a uniform of convenience learning how to "deal with people in the NCR" with a few folks on the pointy end with a completely different culture causing a giant rift between the 2? Majority pointy end folks looking down their nose at a small minority office folks? Or somewhere in the middle where we can move experienced field force folks into office roles with minimal culture change as everyone is trying to pull the ship in the same direction?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What cuts if any do people see happening in the CAF/DND?  A few of us were having a private chat on FB over the last few days and we were thinking about courses that could be cut.  PLQ was one that a couple people thought about for certain trades.   Like all courses, they're expensive when you think about transportation, meals, housing and everything else and for many trades, useless.  Take for example and HRA or FSA and some others.  They get promoted, do the job as a MCpl for up to two years and sometimes longer depending on availability or injury/illness and then go back and keep doing the same job they did prior to going on course.  Learning section attacks, giving O groups etc doesn't train us to be better supervisors in the OR.  The only think I can think is beneficial is learning to teach a lesson and that can probably be done at the unit level. There are probably many other courses as well.



Then you're forgetting about the 'solder first' idea, and as a HRA or FSA, you are not 100% "never" going to be involved with basic force protection/defence tasks.  When I was on IMPACT, the ASF was primarily made up of JTF-SC types who never left 'that location'.  Who would provide that 'section level' leadership?  

Principle of Universality of Service

2.4 The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.

Forget the word 'supervisors' for a minute; although it is heavily used it is a 'civilian' term.  Use superior officer (IAW the QR & O definition);  the CAF PLQ course is not specific to any trade, it is part of the PD system and NCM General Specifications for a reason.  You learn more than just section attacks and O Gps.  CAF mbrs who are holding the MCpl/MS appointment are superior officers to their subordinates.  They must be able to lead and be effective in "not just the duties of their military occupation".

Re: your comments about "can you see an image tech leading a section attack"?  I've taught PLQ in the past;  the reason section attacks are used is to assess the candidates ability to maintain command and control of a small group of people in a simulated, pressure environment.  The 'tactics' portion of said section attack is basically 'unassessed', because most student Section Commanders have no idea how to put in an attack, really.  I was Cbt Arms and I didn't know that stuff, as I wasn't an infanteer.  I could, however, properly assess any candidate on their ability to command, control and maintain focus and composure, their ability to assess/plan/implement plan, etc.  Section attacks are simply a cost-effective tool at assessing many things in candidates, including the stuff I mentioned and more (teamwork, fitness, etc).  On a leadership course, you're not only being assessed when you are the student Sect Comd.

The solution to the (IMO, unacceptable) large number of Acting/Lacking ranks out there is not to lower the standard.  It is to make the successful completion of all courses a pre-requisite to promotion.  When I was on SLC (now called ILP, WO leadership qual) back in 2002, there were 2 PLQs running at the same time.  All the PLQ candidates were A/L MCpl-MS.  We, the CAF, have accepted a lower standard for far to long.  

I disagree with your PLQ suggestion, 101%.  If we do that, then I say remove the MCpl-MS appointment for any/all trades who say they do not need the training.   

Why not take some time, get your hands on a copy of the Non-Commissioned Member General Specification document and review it, so you understand more about why PLQ is a required training program we need to train our Jnr NCO Corps, and as a foundation of leadership training, skills and abilities that will be added to as Jnr NCOs progress thru the Snr NCO and Warrant Officer ranks?

I do, however, think the PLQ course should always be open to discussion about content, delivery, etc.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The solution to the (IMO, unacceptable) large number of Acting/Lacking ranks out there is not to lower the standard.  It is to make the successful completion of all courses a pre-requisite to promotion.  When I was on SLC (now called ILP, WO leadership qual) back in 2002, there were 2 PLQs running at the same time.  All the PLQ candidates were A/L MCpl-MS.  We, the CAF, have accepted a lower standard for far to long.



It hasn't changed much, my PLQ in 2018 about half was acting/lacking. How many trades have specialty leadership courses after PLQ? I know armoured have their crew commander course, in RCEME we have DP2 Common RCEME which is our MRT Commander/workshop supervisor course. It takes what you learn on PLQ and applies it specifically to your trade, battle procedure is tweaked a bit in each trade I find. For HRA/FSA perhaps some kind of office management course is required if it doesn't exist after plq.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Many people including CAF mbr's are afraid of catching this virus.  It's not the same as going off on deployment and getting hurt or killed, people can catch it and pass it on to their kids or spouses.  If push comes to shove I think they'll go back but I've heard several people say they will quite first.



If they want to release, because they are that worried, I say call the release section and good luck in your next career and I am sincere about it.  Some people join the CAF and don't fully realize that it comes with unique conditions of employment and risks including death caused by the performance of their duty.

Flying operations have continued in the RCAF;  that usually puts 2 pilots in close proximity in a cockpit with re-circ'd air.  If the Air Force can do it, I am sure Orderly Rooms, etc can as well.



> The CAF still has several mbr's that are diabetic or have other conditions that put them at higher risk of complications and those mbr's are and need to be protected so they won't be able to go back to business as usual for a while.



In those cases, I trust the professional in CF Health Svcs will provide the member(s) with the necessary MELs;


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they want to release, because they are that worried, I say call the release section and good luck in your next career and I am sincere about it.  Some people join the CAF and don't fully realize that it comes with unique conditions of employment and risks including death caused by the performance of their duty.
> 
> Flying operations have continued in the RCAF;  that usually puts 2 pilots in close proximity in a cockpit with re-circ'd air.  If the Air Force can do it, I am sure Orderly Rooms, etc can as well.
> 
> In those cases, I trust the professional in CF Health Svcs will provide the member(s) with the necessary MELs;



They have.  They are being given a 6 month - 1 year T-Cat depending on base, that says words to the effect" Not to be employed in an area where 2 meters distancing can't be maintained and must have the ability to wash hands frequently.  There's one or 2 other things also but can't remember what those were.  I have a friend in that situation and he was given a chit a week or so ago.  According to one MO, it's not going to be treated as a normal T-Cat meaning that it won't lead to a medical release if not resolved in the future.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> It hasn't changed much, my PLQ in 2018 about half was acting/lacking. How many trades have specialty leadership courses after PLQ? I know armoured have their crew commander course, in RCEME we have DP2 Common RCEME which is our MRT Commander course. It takes what you learn on PLQ and applies it specifically to your trade, battle procedure is tweaked a bit in each trade I find. For HRA/FSA perhaps some kind of office management course is required if it doesn't exist after plq.



I'm not tracking most trades current DP trg, but some (most?) trades have a DP2/3 course like a "6B" (Sgts) course, was renamed DP3B I think when things switched back around 2001 to the DP system.

My trade does not have a "Sgts" course, but we have other training and 'tools' to assess and merit JNCOs for promotion to the Snr NCO rank, and then later into the Warrant Officers rank levels.  The RCAF also has an Intermediate Air Environmental Qualification (not an overly challenging course, 1 week long) that is one all Snr NCOs posted to RCAF units are required to take.  

In the DP system itself, and the NCM GS/PD system, the next 'leadership' qual is the ILQ (WO/PO1 course).  I think that PD/leadership trg system 'works' well enough to not revamp it pan-CAF.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

As I don't want to hijack this thread since there already is a PLQ thread, what other changes/cuts does anyone reasonably predict?  With the amount of money that's been lost and will be lost due to job loses and money the government has paid out, I just can't see how budgets won't be cut.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> As I don't want to hijack this thread since there already is a PLQ thread, what other changes/cuts does anyone reasonably predict?  With the amount of money that's been lost and will be lost due to job loses and money the government has paid out, I just can't see how budgets won't be cut.



I don't think it is a hi-jack;  I didn't agree with your 'cutting out' PLQ.  Suspending it?  Maybe that will be a fiscal decision where Snr Comd accepts the risk and suspends PLQ courses UFN.  

Maybe the % of postings will be reduced the next X amount of years (saving money on all move-related costs).  Maybe they will extend the life-cycle timeline of CAF IT equipment an extra year, saving $ on procurement costs.  

I think the one cut many people are wondering about;  a pay and/or rank freeze period.  That affects everyone;  it can have a negative affect on mbr's close to retirement "best 5", it can mean losing a posting, it can mean a couple of hundreds dollars a month in disposable income.

I would think that a lot of people are also wondering if this might affect PLD; that also has some very negative financial implications for many svc mbr's and their families.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther] Just because some people would like to see some changes said:
			
		

> They have.  They are being given a 6 month - 1 year T-Cat depending on base, that says words to the effect" Not to be employed in an area where 2 meters distancing can't be maintained and must have the ability to wash hands frequently.  There's one or 2 other things also but can't remember what those were.  I have a friend in that situation and he was given a chit a week or so ago.  According to one MO, it's not going to be treated as a normal T-Cat meaning that it won't lead to a medical release if not resolved in the future.



No risk of field time for that friend eh?


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

I don't think they will touch PLD or anything that will have a huge quality of life affect on families. I agree a posting freeze may happen, or they may increase the time between postings. Moving people across the country costs a lot after all. Exercises like Maple Resolve will likely be scaled back in scope, less serials per year of certain courses.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2020)

I don't think cutting PLQ will save as much money as you think. Want to save $25M a year? MAPLE RESOLVE is a pretty good target. Postings are a probably pretty good one too at roughly $200K (I've heard) a pop for a cross country move. Snowbirds? That's a big line item with now a public history of A/C issues starting to crop up. Skyhawks cut? How about all the TD for CAF Musicians to fly around the world and play for everyone but the CAF (except for a few small occasions)? Maybe we'll end up with less CSCs or delayed LEs for Upholders, but those are critical Irving employee votes the Liberals need.

PLD already hasn't been touched specifically (this is the cynic in me) to save money. Setting Ottawa as a baseline was a deliberate cost cutting move and we won't see that change in our lifetimes.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

Perhaps we will get someone with a truely good idea start merging or eliminating unnecessary HQ's?


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think cutting PLQ will save as much money as you think. Want to save $25M a year? MAPLE RESOLVE is a pretty good target. Postings are a probably pretty good one too at roughly $200K (I've heard) a pop for a cross country move.



I assume you meant to say 20k right?  About 7-8 years ago I heard it was approx. 20k so it's probably closer to 30k now if that old figure was right.  I can defiantly see moves being affected.  I've already been hearing that people that need to be moved for things such as promotions are being moved closer to where they are currently posted if possible to try to save money.


----------



## dimsum (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I assume you meant to say 20k right?  About 7-8 years ago I heard it was approx. 20k so it's probably closer to 30k now if that old figure was right.  I can defiantly see moves being affected.  I've already been hearing that people that need to be moved for things such as promotions are being moved closer to where they are currently posted if possible to try to save money.



Completely anecdotal, but each of my handful of OUTCAN friends have had their postings extended.


----------



## stellarpanther (2 Jun 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Completely anecdotal, but each of my handful of OUTCAN friends have had their postings extended.



My personal thinking on this is that if we have a second wave which a lot of experts think is a certainty, we will be in the same situation next APS as well.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

Any one with a RCAF background want to chime in on what cuts may happen on that side of the house? Could flight hours be cut back to save cost on fuel? what is the minimum flight hours most pilots require?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I assume you meant to say 20k right?  About 7-8 years ago I heard it was approx. 20k so it's probably closer to 30k now if that old figure was right.  I can defiantly see moves being affected.  I've already been hearing that people that need to be moved for things such as promotions are being moved closer to where they are currently posted if possible to try to save money.



Yeah, I might have been thinking of my buddy's OUTCAN. That's probably a real good target to reduce money.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one with a RCAF background want to chime in on what cuts may happen on that side of the house? Could flight hours be cut back to save cost on fuel? what is the minimum flight hours most pilots require?



It's too early to say what cuts will occur.  It will all depend on the economic recovery.  Many are saying we may be in for a V Shaped economic recovery.  

Q2 results will most likely be terrible but we need to see what the effects are in Q3 and Q4 before any hard decisions will be made.

My investments have been on fire and the banks are well positioned to weather the storm so it may not be as bad as some people think.

As well, CRA has begun cracking down on the CERB and other COVID 19 related benefits.


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I don't think they will touch PLD or anything that will have a huge quality of life affect on families.



There is something in the works with PLD. I don't know exactly what, but the next ECE (whatever that is) won't happen without a PLD restructuring. This is according to several presentations I found buried on the Sharepoint site. This was happening before the COVID came to town.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one with a RCAF background want to chime in on what cuts may happen on that side of the house? Could flight hours be cut back to save cost on fuel? what is the minimum flight hours most pilots require?



Flying training and maintenance of tickets/categories will continue.  Each fleet has specific requirements to 'maintain currency', but some cuts to YFR (yearly flying rates) could happen while not affecting currency.

Currency is not the same as proficiency, however. A cut in YFR would potentially cut into proficiency.  There is some mitigation with simulation, but simulation is not the same as being airborne.

Those currency requirements exist for all aircrew, not just pilots so flying will continue.  Is a cut to YFR possible?  Certainly. Maybe cut back on some exercises (sending an Aurora Det away from 3-4 weeks is a nice chuck of change, as an example).

Core capabilities and currency requirements will continue as before (my opinion).  It costs more to re-gain a currency in most cases than to maintain one.

Quick/dirty answer...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (2 Jun 2020)

I don't want to re-initiate a thread hijack, but HRAs can absolutely find themselves in command of a Garrison Auxiliary Security Force (GASF) section.  They can also find themselves instructing on courses. All that to say, PLQ is a bone fide requirement.


----------



## ballz (2 Jun 2020)

I'm a proponent of "soldier first" and a course like PLQ, however if our performance on internal audits over the past 5 or so years is any indication, we should probably care more about FSAs knowing how to pay an invoice and less about their ability to do a recce patrol. It is "soldier first" and not "rifleman first" after all.

Let's not have tactical/operational risks cloud our ability to think about institutional/strategic-level risks. If we think it's bad now, wait until the AG cleans the DND's clock with an audit...



			
				reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> You'd think though that with all the technology we have, we'd be able to find more ways of keeping our HR and Finance professionals out of high-threat environments.



You would think that but you'd be wrong. It took a global pandemic for ADM(Fin) to finally allow e-signatures.... and only for _five_ documents mind you, the rest you still have to sign with a chisel. I am sure there are bunch of finance weenies on pins and needles right now over e-signatures being used, despite the fact that they will accept an email as evidence of financial authority (which can be forged in about 3 seconds with the CDS's signature block on them).

If CJOC has been any indication, we can't even tie our own shoes without an FSA to do it for us. I think they must be using them as rifleman they require so many.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jun 2020)

If you want to save money in regards to PLQ, stop sending people who aren't ready to go, be more selective with who we want as leaders. I witnessed people being sent on plq simply because the only position open to keep them at a unit was a MCpl. This kind of disregard for why we have leadership training needs to stop.


----------



## Furniture (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What cuts if any do people see happening in the CAF/DND?  A few of us were having a private chat on FB over the last few days and we were thinking about courses that could be cut.  PLQ was one that a couple people thought about for certain trades.   Like all courses, they're expensive when you think about transportation, meals, housing and everything else and for many trades, useless.  Take for example and HRA or FSA and some others.  They get promoted, do the job as a MCpl for up to two years and sometimes longer depending on availability or injury/illness and then go back and keep doing the same job they did prior to going on course.  Learning section attacks, giving O groups etc doesn't train us to be better supervisors in the OR.  The only think I can think is beneficial is learning to teach a lesson and that can probably be done at the unit level. There are probably many other courses as well.



I'm a bit late to the party, but let me tell you a story about a young Met Tech. 

Back in Sep '06 I was tasked to join D Bty 2 RCHA on a deployment to Kandahar the following Feb. As a Met Tech I had never been to the field, my last time sleeping in tents and carrying a rifle was basic training nearly 6 years prior. I lucked out since my Sgt, and Mcpl that were both OTs from the infantry, so on our first field ex in Gagetown I was brought back up to speed on the basics of fieldcraft. After that is was IBTS training with the NCE guys(I was a late addition and missed the BG training in Pet).

Fast forward to Oct/Nov in Wainwright, and we were supposed to be doing the full "work up" training for Kandahar. Unfortunately the gunners were rotating the troops through live fire training, and needed Met data, so I spent the entire exercise launching weather balloons rather than doing training. 

Now it's Feb '07, and I'm sitting in the back of a Bison(first time ever) as we roll down the roads leading from KAF to Spur. We do a long halt for a vehicle breakdown, and I have no idea what to do. I'd never done a long halt in training... The night unfolds as a near continuous comedy of errors, with the drive to Spur taking many hours. I learned more about what to do in a convoy during that CLP than I had in the months leading up to the deployment.  

The first time I drew a range card was sitting in the middle of the Maywand district, in the CC hatch of my Bison(I was now CC of the Met Bison) with a Gunner sitting beside me explaining what to do. 

The first time I fired a C6 was in theatre, the same C6 I used as CC. Also drove the Bison though I was only qualified TLAV... 

I could go on, but the point is, as a Met Tech I was woefully unprepared to be in the field in theatre. Other support trades found themselves in the same situation, and as a result of that all the soldiering stuff was added to PLQ. 

So if you want someone to blame for having to learn at how to lead a section attack, give orders, etc. blame me.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No risk of field time for that friend eh?



I'm not sure how an infantry soldier or anyone else for that matter already assigned to a field unit will be dealt with.  What about someone assigned to a ship?  They're packed in like sardines and definitely can't really social distance too well.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I'm a bit late to the party, but let me tell you a story about a young Met Tech.
> 
> Back in Sep '06 I was tasked to join D Bty 2 RCHA on a deployment to Kandahar the following Feb. As a Met Tech I had never been to the field, my last time sleeping in tents and carrying a rifle was basic training nearly 6 years prior. I lucked out since my Sgt, and Mcpl that were both OTs from the infantry, so on our first field ex in Gagetown I was brought back up to speed on the basics of fieldcraft. After that is was IBTS training with the NCE guys(I was a late addition and missed the BG training in Pet).
> 
> ...




To add another story to that, one of my old instructors, who is now probably a warrant at 1 svc, was in the stan in the late 2000's, Weapons tech with the strats. QRF call came in, they were short a few people, well the vehicle tech should know how to drive, and the weapons tech should know how to load the gun, so they grabbed the techs, threw them in the tank and off they went. Just because it isn't your trade doesn't mean you will not do it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how an infantry soldier or anyone else for that matter already assigned to a field unit will be dealt with.  What about someone assigned to a ship?  They're packed in like sardines and definitely can't really social distance too well.



The Navy has already sailed multiple ships, safely, in this new COVID environment.  There is a plan.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how an infantry soldier or anyone else for that matter already assigned to a field unit will be dealt with.  What about someone assigned to a ship?  They're packed in like sardines and definitely can't really social distance too well.



With those 2 meter MELs you can't even drive in a car with someone.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With those 2 meter MELs you can't even drive in a car with someone.



Has something changed? During SARS, I rode with my partner. As long as we had our N95s on, it was ok.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Has something changed? During SARS, I rode with my partner. As long as we had our N95s on, it was ok.



Different ball park my friend. You driving around during SARS isn't you being a member of the CAF with Medical Employment Limitation saying ordering you to remain 2 meters from everyone else where you and your chain of command are obligated to abide by it.

If I put someone with that chit in a military vehicle to transport them somewhere I would be violating their MELs (it doesn't say anything about N95 masks).
If I sent someone with that chit to the range and didn't have a hand washing station set up for them I would be violating their MELs.


----------



## CountDC (3 Jun 2020)

Had some good laughs reading this board.

PLQ - as noted by others needed by everyone.  They just changed it a few years back so that even musicians need it. No matter who you are or where you may need the basic skills taught and marked on the course.  A few days in the field on the standard course is a good assessment and experience for everyone.  The combat folks will get their additional trade course after such as the AJLC (hasn't changed yet hopefully).    I have been saying since at least 2007 that the military has to stop with the over use of acting masters, it is ridiculous to have someone acting 5+ years, send them on a course 3 times only to fail and then take the leaf away.  It was astonishing to sit at a HQ and see the monthly messages come in taking the leaf from people due to course failure.

Moves - they were already largely cut back around 2012 give or take a few years.  Current CFM is $39k for a domestic in Canada move.  High end now is $74k for a move from Canada to outcan (outside North America).  In 2011/2012 I was billing an OGD $50k for outcan posting moves which was fairly close to the actuals I tracked.

Every time the talk of HRA and FSA cuts comes up it reminds me of the joke while in Ottawa.  Some nice young officers thought it was great idea to replace the military clerks with civilians and save money.  Presenting the idea they were asked one question they didn't take into account.  At 1500h when you decide you need someone to stay late to type that report you sat on, on Friday when you decide you need a clerk for the weekend or you need someone to work overtime for any number of tasks you waited on who do you think is going to come in? The civilian may tell you to pound sand, if they do come in you are now paying them overtime thus the savings you touted are gone.    Of course you could always do the clerical work yourself.    Idea went away with a wimper. 

Audits - they are the reason we now have 2 trades which many of us pushed when they decided to amalgamate 2 trades and eliminate 1.  Losing all the finance expertise would bite them in the … and it did.  Separating the trades after 20 years again is the attempt to bring back the speciality and improve our audit performance.  It is going to take several years to get back to some similar state we were in before with finance expert.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Has something changed? During SARS, I rode with my partner. As long as we had our N95s on, it was ok.



CAF mbr's aren't using N95's they've just recently started issuing Cadpat looking masks.  Even medics and doctors aren't wearing N95's when they see patients. They have one of those blue masks they normally told people to put on when they had a cold and some are wearing a face shield.  That part is up to the individual medic/doctor.


----------



## Harris (3 Jun 2020)

Saw the issue with civilians first hand the last couple of months.  High priced help was wondering why none of them were on the calls held after 1600.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Had some good laughs reading this board.
> 
> PLQ - as noted by others needed by everyone.  They just changed it a few years back so that even musicians need it. No matter who you are or where you may need the basic skills taught and marked on the course.  A few days in the field on the standard course is a good assessment and experience for everyone.  The combat folks will get their additional trade course after such as the AJLC (hasn't changed yet hopefully).    I have been saying since at least 2007 that the military has to stop with the over use of acting masters, it is ridiculous to have someone acting 5+ years, send them on a course 3 times only to fail and then take the leaf away.  It was astonishing to sit at a HQ and see the monthly messages come in taking the leaf from people due to course failure.
> 
> ...



I assume you're not HRA?  We don't type out reports.letters etc for people, that's been out well before for years.  It reminds me of an older Captain that posted into our unit about 10 years ago and the outgoing Captain was introducing him to us.  One of his comments was "who should I see if I needed something typed out of mailed.  Myself and the Sgt looked at each other and the other Captain spoke up and said "I generally lick my own envelops and if you ask then nice, I doubt they'll type it for you but I'm sure they'll send you the link to the form".  We never had a problem but the Sgt did mention it to the OC who may have said something to him.

As for PLQ, I could be wrong but don't many trades need PLQ before getting promoted?  That might be a good idea.  As you mentioned, some people get promoted, pass mod 1 and wait a year or 2 or even longer. ( supposed to be completed in 2 years) and fail or get injured.  From what I've heard, they usually don't take the leaf away and try to give you more chances to complete it with the home unit hopefully better preparing the mbr for success. I know someone who failed twice now and on the third try got RTU'd for an injury.  Apparently the mbr will get another crack at it.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> CAF mbr's aren't using N95's they've just recently started issuing Cadpat looking masks.  Even medics and doctors aren't wearing N95's when they see patients. They have one of those blue masks they normally told people to put on when they had a cold and some are wearing a face shield.  That part is up to the individual medic/doctor.



I was referring to 9-1-1 calls. They told us "those blue masks" were good enough. When enough guys started getting admitted to ICUs, that's when they issued the N95s. 

After that, no Toronto paramedics became ill with SARS.


----------



## Cronicbny (3 Jun 2020)

Harris said:
			
		

> Saw the issue with civilians first hand the last couple of months.  High priced help was wondering why none of them were on the calls held after 1600.



Many asked themselves the same question here when we needed to send Crews into isolation - the civilian members of the crews had to be replaced (at very short notice) with military folks. Some good lessons identified, I think.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

We simply need to stop promoting people to MCpl unless they have PLQ, regardless of their trade. 

Want someone to be a MCpl? Send them on PLQ then promote them.

Showing up to teach on a leadership course and having your 2IC a MCpl without PLQ is annoying too. We need to stop doing that as well.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We simply need to stop promoting people to MCpl unless they have PLQ, regardless of their trade.
> 
> Want someone to be a MCpl? Send them on PLQ then promote them.
> 
> Showing up to teach on a leadership course and having your 2IC a MCpl without PLQ is annoying too. We need to stop doing that as well.



I agree with you one hundred percent.  The problem is that a lot of people in my trade and FSA and I'm sure others work in an office setting with no field experience at all other than what they learned on BMQ years ago.  They often get no extra training other than you're in charge  of your cell with a Sgt in the office holding a meeting (O group) once or twice a week and you repeat it.  They then go to PLQ and are at the mercy of instructors who they hope will be understanding and teach them what they need to learn to teach.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I know someone who failed twice now and on the third try got RTU'd for an injury.  Apparently the mbr will get another crack at it.



rly:



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We, the CAF, have accepted a lower standard for far to long.



I don't care how great the person is in their occupation;  if that mbr is a A/L MCpl-MS, they should have had it removed after the 2nd failure.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

Medical RTU'S do not count towards the allowed 3 attempts at PLQ. Because injuries are usually outside the members control.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2020)

3 attempts = too many attempts.   :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

[quote author=stellarpanther] They then go to PLQ and are at the mercy of instructors who they hope will be understanding and teach them what they need to learn to teach.
[/quote]

There are a bunch of checks and balances to make sure MCpl Clerk doesn't show up on PLQ and Sgt Infantry fails them for not banging off the perfect recce patrol. I want to say all the instructors I know, and myself having been in those shoes, understand the difference between a clerk and a combat arms soldier when it comes to PLQ, or BMOQ-L.

If a clerk, or whoever, doesn't want anything to do with that military crap and just want to be office people I'm sure they can get priority hiring to be a civilian clerk with DND.

I'll concede and say PLQ needs more admin training. Interview and speaking techniques, PDRs and PERs. MS Word, Excel and powerpoint training. Ethics, Op Honour, bystander training.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Medical RTU'S do not count towards the allowed 3 attempts at PLQ. Because injuries are usually outside the members control.



That makes sense but there must be a limit?  If a person has osteoarthritis for example in their knee of back, they might be able to get through it with advil or they might tighten up after a few days on the drill square or not be able to do the ground arms properly let alone teach it if they get picked to do that movement.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> rly:
> 
> I don't care how great the person is in their occupation;  if that mbr is a A/L MCpl-MS, they should have had it removed after the 2nd failure.



I think some trades/units feel backed into a corner when their "superstar" A/L MCpl fails off PLQ as it reflects poorly on them. So they want to find a way to push that person through rather than admit a mistake.


----------



## stellarpanther (3 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 3 attempts = too many attempts.   :facepalm:



You can think that but I would bet a lot of money that if things were as tough and people held to the rigid standard that it seems you are saying, people would be releasing in even greater numbers than they already are.  I don't know if you're still in or regular or reserve but if you are reg force, you probably know that we have a retention problems at all rank levels but especially at the  MCpl and below level.


----------



## ballz (3 Jun 2020)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Audits - they are the reason we now have 2 trades which many of us pushed when they decided to amalgamate 2 trades and eliminate 1.  Losing all the finance expertise would bite them in the … and it did.  Separating the trades after 20 years again is the attempt to bring back the speciality and improve our audit performance.  It is going to take several years to get back to some similar state we were in before with finance expert.



I didn't know you were such an optimist.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jun 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> I think some trades/units feel backed into a corner when their "superstar" A/L MCpl fails off PLQ as it reflects poorly on them. So they want to find a way to push that person through rather than admit a mistake.



Absolutely thats the case. I have seen push beyond push on plq. Personal example, i had a clerk given to me as my 2IC for a VPS, during a hard assessment I was struck with Sniper fire, and two IEDs that split my section in 2. I had 3 radios, one with me, my c9 gunner and my 2IC. After 2 IEDs split my section in 2 my 2IC had the only radio on the other side. Wasn't replying on comms, slowly made my way over there after calling in a 10 liner. Re established contact with section, completed the mission. Found out after the fact my 2ic had a mental break down and fucked off on me which is why I couldn't get them on comms.

Fast forward a few days this same person got a presance patrol, talked to one civi, and scenario over. I got a 60% pass, they got a 86% pass. Our course warrant had nothing to say about it at our ECR.

Pushing on a leadership course should not exist.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Absolutely thats the case. I have seen push beyond push on plq. Personal example, i had a clerk given to me as my 2IC for a VPS, during a hard assessment I was struck with Sniper fire, and two IEDs that split my section in 2. I had 3 radios, one with me, my c9 gunner and my 2IC. After 2 IEDs split my section in 2 my 2IC had the only radio on the other side. Wasn't replying on comms, slowly made my way over there after calling in a 10 liner. Re established contact with section, completed the mission. Found out after the fact my 2ic had a mental break down and fucked off on me which is why I couldn't get them on comms.
> 
> Fast forward a few days this same person got a presance patrol, talked to one civi, and scenario over. I got a 60% pass, they got a 86% pass. Our course warrant had nothing to say about it at our ECR.



2IC should have been nailed for a leadership failing and IMO hauled in front of the OC to explain why they should be allowed to remain on the course.


----------



## CBH99 (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You can think that but I would bet a lot of money that if things were as tough and people held to the rigid standard that it seems you are saying, people would be releasing in even greater numbers than they already are.  I don't know if you're still in or regular or reserve but if you are reg force, you probably know that we have a retention problems at all rank levels but especially at the  MCpl and below level.




You bring up a good point here, especially in regards to the thread of "Post Pandemic CAF".


Assuming our budget is at where it will be at, or possibly trimmed, moving forwards in the post COVID period.  

*My question is - what do you folks think we could do/should do to maximize retention, during a period of reduced spending?*


Retention can be due to quality of life, quality of working environment (getting jacked up over dumb nonsense, not being treated like a professional, lack of interesting opportunities, etc)

What are some of the doable things, moving into the post-COVID budget environment, do you think would be helpful with improving retention?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> You can think that but I would bet a lot of money that if things were as tough and people held to the rigid standard that it seems you are saying, people would be releasing in even greater numbers than they already are.  I don't know if you're still in or regular or reserve but if you are reg force, you probably know that we have a retention problems at all rank levels but especially at the  MCpl and below level.



I'll take some of the weaker (mentally, physically) jnr ranks releasing to make room for those who have the stuff to lead before I'll take lowering the standards anymore.  Like it or not, UoS is a reality of service.  

Lowering the standard isn't the solution if people are that limp-spined that they can't make it through the generic CAF PLQ.  Those individuals need to get off their ass, get in shape so they can handle the course, just like they had to at CFLRS to make it thru Basic.  If the average Jnr NCM is that removed from the realities of wearing a uniform and serving their country, then we need to solve that issue as well.  If they believe 'they are just office workers!' etc and that can't be changed, by all means, see the Release Section.  We can't lower our standards any more than they are for fitness, for junior leadership training.  If we did, soon they'll be totally online courses where people can sit home in their "jammies" and do the course while laying on the couch.

I've taught PLQ.  It should be a challenge to most.  It is supposed to separate those who can from those who can't.  Some just can't.  If they aren't happy with life as a Cpl, get your shit together so you can pass PLQ, accept a Cpl pension, or release.  Life doesn't get easier once the Leaf falls.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> *My question is - what do you folks think we could do/should do to minimize retention, during a period of reduced spending?*



Do you mean maximize retention? The CAF is already doing a pretty good job of minimizing how many people they retain every year....


----------



## ballz (3 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 2IC should have been nailed for a leadership failing and IMO hauled in front of the OC to explain why they should be allowed to remain on the course.



Strongly disagree with this. It's training, it's okay to fail and it's where the failing is supposed to occur. We should be challenging people more and giving them more opportunities to fail, not scuttling someone because they thundered in.

They should have been counselled, mentored in whatever way they will respond best (shamed, encouraged, whatever it is that is going to make them step up to the challenge), and then put through the ringer again until they overcame their deficiency or proved they are incapable. The error here was not in giving them a second chance, it was in lobbing them a softball.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Jun 2020)

Course critique from my CLC we almost unanimously brought up that a 2 i/c should also be hard assessed, as a good one can save you and a shitty one can scuttle you. That was 30 years ago, good to see some thing never change.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Course critique from my CLC we almost unanimously brought up that a 2 i/c should also be hard assessed, as a good one can save you and a shitty one can scuttle you. That was 30 years ago, good to see some thing never change.



It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though. 

Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now).  

You are never, ever, going to use logisticians to advance to contact and clear trenches; if you are using us all doctrine has failed and rear echelons are now in the wrong position and our position is probably dire to begin with.  But we should be able set up camps and ordinance parks, conduct CLPs and DPs and hold the ground we are on.  All of these can produce easily relatable scenarios that Log troops can find commonality in and gain some real world value for future deployed employment.

I stand by to recieve the diluge of: "but I know a cook who says they stormed a taliban filled wadi with a C7 in one hand and lobbing grenades with the other; while in the stan so we all need to operators operating operationally ALL THE TIME".  

As for the post-pandemic part, I think we are going to see allot of our archaic processes and necessities get vetted and rightly so.  We are a terrible institution for doing things just because that’s the way they have always been, instead of optimizing and improving.  I have no doubt we all have examples of that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Strongly disagree with this. It's training, it's okay to fail and it's where the failing is supposed to occur.



It's okay to make mistakes and fail. (teaching someone how to deal with failing is important too Imo)

I don't think this is just a little mistake. 


> 2ic had a mental break down and fucked off on me


That should lead to a big discussion on whether someone is ready or capable of being a leader.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jun 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though.
> 
> Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now).
> 
> ...



I agree with you somewhat. I don't think branches should be doing their own thing, but I agree that we could improve the way we teach PLQ. 

We need people that can function in their jobs, while deployed forward. We don't need to pretend that our support pers are going to be storming the beached on D-Day. Participate in a section attack, but not lead one. 

On my PLQ my assessed run was patrol that comes under fire. I was assessed on my ability to control my people, "lead" a section attack, then reconsolidate and continue the patrol. I'm a career Met Tech that was assessed on my section attack by a career AVN Tech. So you can likely tell how useful that was as a teaching moment, and how effective my assessment was... 

That said, other people had tasks like setting up a gate guard, or roadblock, and then dealing with scenarios designed to add pressure. In my opinion that was a much more useful way to go about things, as it presented a very realistic scenario. 

(helmets on) Back in Kandahar all of us apart from the medic were expected to stand sentry shift at Spur, or in the field. As a Cpl I was expected to handle odd situations as they came up, so expecting support trade MCpls to be able to do it is both realistic, and practical. (helmets off)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> On my PLQ my assessed run was patrol that comes under fire. I was assessed on my ability to control my people, "lead" a section attack, then reconsolidate and continue the patrol. I'm a career Met Tech that was assessed on my section attack by a career AVN Tech. So you can likely tell how useful that was as a teaching moment, and how effective my assessment was...



I think the important part here is that the section attack is a 'scenario', much like the ones you also note below, and that each of those scenario's is assessed using the same assessment form/guide (assumption on my part, from my PLQ instructor experience).  The 'tactics' part would be non-assessed, which should 'level the playing field'.  You're assessment by the AVN Tech...he/she was scoring you on generic aspects such as "devise plan", "communicate plan", "lead sub in completion of mission", etc the same as any other scenario would.  My hard assessed small party task was 'load the MLVW with course stores'.  I had to go thru the same steps/procedures and follow the same SOPs as everyone else, although some people had scenarios that were different (set up CCP/FA station, set up defensive stores, etc).

Even on an airfield, you could end up "fighting thru the enemy" and consolidating afterwards.  It is likely?  I say "no". Is it possible?  Always.



> That said, other people had tasks like setting up a gate guard, or roadblock, and then dealing with scenarios designed to add pressure. In my opinion that was a much more useful way to go about things, as it presented a very realistic scenario.



This scenario rotation is important;  it fights boredom and 'everyone is learning' throughout the rotation.  My CLC in '93, we did section attacks by day, recce patrols by night.  Guess how long it took for things to get boring?  Not having had the benefit of those various scenarios when I did my JL trg, I am a huge fan of them.  And I believe, course critiques are a very important part of the continuous improvement process; ones that get lip service will result in that same level of change in the QS/TEP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Jun 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It’s been a while since I did my JLC/PLQ I think we were assessed as 2 I/C and I/C.  I could be wrong though.
> 
> Anyways I would like to see leadership training delegated down to branches.  As an example I will use for this is the Log Branch (I know RCLS now).
> 
> ...



I disagree that branches should train themselves.  That's incestuous and I've worked in a few organizations that self-validate and have seen the problems that can create.

PLQ is supposed to be a common course, the problem is it's basically a JInfantry course that doesn't acknowledge that there are other tasks carried out by different environments/trades that are just as difficult.  

I personally think PLQ should be environment specific and that the environments should focus on leadership specific to that trade.  

Damage Control scenarios would be a great thing to test Navy Pers on for instance.

Likewise, I think PLQ should put a greater emphasis on problem solving, logic, development of communication skills, etc.  There are tonnes of ways to do this that don't involve anything occupation specific.

Attached is an example of something I did with 1st year RMC Cadets as an instructor at RMC.

I ran a simulation using the game Diplomacy.  Cadets were broken in to teams of eight and were given the task of running a specific Nation through a campaign against their peers who also controlled specific Nations.

There was no dice involved and the focus of the simulation was to practice/develop the following skills:

Teamwork
Logic
Coordination
Interpersonal Communication 
Decision Making

I built the boards and developed the activity myself.  It's fairly easy to do stuff like this and people actually learn something about themselves and others in the process.  The Simulation was executed and Administered by a number of fourth year Cadets.


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Even on an airfield, you could end up "fighting thru the enemy" and consolidating afterwards.  It is likely?  I say "no". Is it possible?  Always.



But does the AVN Tech etc that did a leadership course 15 years ago really need to "lead" the fighting? Wouldn't it be better for them (regardless of rank) to fall in on a section led by an experienced (and current) Cbt Arms/MP/Security Forces type?


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jun 2020)

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> But does the AVN Tech etc that did a leadership course 15 years ago really need to "lead" the fighting? Wouldn't it be better for them (regardless of rank) to fall in on a section led by an experienced (and current) Cbt Arms/MP/Security Forces type?



Until that Cbt Arms/MP/Security Force type gets shot in the face. In a gun fight I'd rather have lead something a couple times 15 years ago than have to lead it never seeing anything close to that.

As someone said earlier, no one is expecting a cook (unless they're Steven Segall) to lead a doctrinally perfect Section Attack on their PLQ. What's being expected is to show someone has sufficient emotional stability, effectiveness under demanding circumstances and situational awareness. Its the same as a CCP, it doesn't need to be the medic at the chokepoint, anyone can be that leader with some basic knowledge of how its supposed to function and leadership skills to set up that medic for success.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jun 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I disagree that branches should train themselves.  That's incestuous and I've worked in a few organizations that self-validate and have seen the problems that can create.
> 
> PLQ is supposed to be a common course, the problem is it's basically a JInfantry course that doesn't acknowledge that there are other tasks carried out by different environments/trades that are just as difficult.
> 
> ...



A pet peeve of mine from my time on the left coast is the navy's obsession with DC to the exclusion of all other types of training. The navy needs far more FP training at all levels, and it needs to be exercised regularly. The standard 1600 "fire" in the wardroom flats/cabins, fridge flats, 2 stores, etc. is useful, but a few FP exercises every week wouldn't kill anyone.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> II ran a simulation using the game Diplomacy.  Cadets were broken in to teams of eight and were given the task of running a specific Nation through a campaign against their peers who also controlled specific Nations.



So thirty years from now when those cadets still hold grudges against each other and act out against each other when they command the various CAF L1s, we now know it was all your fault.  (Diplomacy betrayals run long and deep...)


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Until that Cbt Arms/MP/Security Force type gets shot in the face. In a gun fight I'd rather have lead something a couple times 15 years ago than have to lead it never seeing anything close to that.
> 
> As someone said earlier, no one is expecting a cook (unless they're Steven Segall) to lead a doctrinally perfect Section Attack on their PLQ. What's being expected is to show someone has sufficient emotional stability, effectiveness under demanding circumstances and situational awareness. Its the same as a CCP, it doesn't need to be the medic at the chokepoint, anyone can be that leader with some basic knowledge of how its supposed to function and leadership skills to set up that medic for success.



Fair enough on all points, PC.

My final thoughts: The enemy will (in many cases) be the one that dictates who gets shot in the face, so it could just as easily be the 20 year CFL with no PLQ that has to lead. So maybe everyone that wants to deploy or stay in past their BE (and become a Cpl) needs to successfully complete PLQ? Also, emotional stability and effectiveness are variables that can change due to a multitude of reasons. Perhaps things like that need to be objectively re-assessed at regular intervals. It would definitely weed some out, but as others have said, maybe that wouldn't be so bad? Anyways, just my half-baked ideas. I no longer have any skin in the game. Good luck to those of you that do. 

Cheers.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This scenario rotation is important;  it fights boredom and 'everyone is learning' throughout the rotation.  My CLC in '93, we did section attacks by day, recce patrols by night.  Guess how long it took for things to get boring?  Not having had the benefit of those various scenarios when I did my JL trg, I am a huge fan of them.  And I believe, course critiques are a very important part of the continuous improvement process; ones that get lip service will result in that same level of change in the QS/TEP.



While I agree that scenario rotation is important, it is also possible to rotate the "events" of a scenario while keeping the basic scenarios more realistic. It's hard to feel pressure to perform well when you are doing something so ridiculously out of touch with reality that is comical. 

Like was mentioned by Humphrey Bogart, more realistic element/occupation based scenarios make far more sense. You get better "buy in" from the troops if there is a reasonable chance they may be asked to do something remotely similar to PLQ tasks in the real world. Otherwise the scenarios become a joke, and valuable lessons can get lost in the absurdity. 

To be fair, maybe I'm a bit biased because the only thing I learned on PLQ that hadn't been taught better by Army Cadets was the CFPAS system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> While I agree that scenario rotation is important, it is also possible to rotate the "events" of a scenario while keeping the basic scenarios more realistic. It's hard to feel pressure to perform well when you are doing something so ridiculously out of touch with reality that is comical.



The CAF needs students to put valuable feedback in with course critiques and the staff need to have a vested interest in making the training better, every course, or it goes stale.  Like, the AF DRSET courses like ETHAR (not much point in me spending 180+ slides on IED stuff from Afghanistan when I am training for the fight, airborne, inside Iraq and Syria.).



> To be fair, maybe I'm a bit biased because the only thing I learned on PLQ that hadn't been taught better by Army Cadets was the CFPAS system.



AirCom Academy PLQ?


----------



## Furniture (4 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The CAF needs students to put valuable feedback in with course critiques and the staff need to have a vested interest in making the training better, every course, or it goes stale.  Like, the AF DRSET courses like ETHAR (not much point in me spending 180+ slides on IED stuff from Afghanistan when I am training for the fight, airborne, inside Iraq and Syria.).



Agreed, and I have seen examples of both sides failing at this.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> AirCom Academy PLQ?



Indeed, it was a lot of fun but not of much value. It was also 12 years ago, so things may have changed.


----------



## stellarpanther (4 Jun 2020)

I don't know when it changed, I don't think that long ago but PLQ is being run in your own environment.  They are also working on making at least a portion of it element specific.  I believe some mbr's who were air force or navy and posted to Pet, Edmonton, Shilo etc used to be put on the course there if available but now they are sending those people to Borden, Halifax and Esquimalt.


----------



## Furniture (4 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't know when it changed, I don't think that long ago but PLQ is being run in your own environment.  They are also working on making at least a portion of it element specific.  I believe some mbr's who were air force or navy and posted to Pet, Edmonton, Shilo etc used to be put on the course there if available but now they are sending those people to Borden, Halifax and Esquimalt.



It's been that way since about '08. Even though Gagetown was running PLQ serials on a regular basis I was sent from there to Borden because I wear a blue hat. 

There are some people that end up on other element's courses for various reasons, but since at least '08 that has been the exception.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2020)

Very recently I was overseas when Canadian soldiers (support trades) who weren't normally carrying weapons had to grab them and secure their compound/camp. It was just a training event but insider attacks and infiltrators are a very real threat. Where I ended up had a legitimate alarms and support dudes didn't have the luxery of letting other people deal with it.

There's a pretty big chance that if things go squirrely it's going to be Canadians securing their own shit. Not the US (who can be shockingly F-ed up) or a British hired- private security company from south Africa who don't speak English.

CAF members who may find themselves carrying a gun while deployed either every day or in emergencies need more training than laying in the prone on a sunny afternoon shooting paper 100 meters away. Leaders who may find themselves in charge of those soldiers with assault rifles and live rounds need exposure and training organizing and directing them. Clerks aren't failing PLQ for tactics.


----------



## stellarpanther (4 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> There are some people that end up on other element's courses for various reasons, but since at least '08 that has been the exception.



I believe you need to request it and have a valid reason to do outside your element.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Very recently I was overseas when Canadian soldiers (support trades) who weren't normally carrying weapons had to grab them and secure their compound/camp. It was just a training event but insider attacks and infiltrators are a very real threat. Where I ended up had a legitimate alarms and support dudes didn't have the luxery of letting other people deal with it.
> 
> There's a pretty big chance that if things go squirrely it's going to be Canadians securing their own crap. Not the US (who can be shockingly F-ed up) or a British hired- private security company from south Africa who don't speak English.
> 
> CAF members who may find themselves carrying a gun while deployed either every day or in emergencies need more training than laying in the prone on a sunny afternoon shooting paper 100 meters away. Leaders who may find themselves in charge of those soldiers with assault rifles and live rounds need exposure and training organizing and directing them. Clerks aren't failing PLQ for tactics.



Bingo - you won the internet for the day.

I fully agree - EVERYONE on deployment needs to be trained to carry weapons with live ones in the mag attached to the weapon. Muscle memory must be developed by drills and practice until its second nature.


----------



## quadrapiper (4 Jun 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Bingo - you won the internet for the day.
> 
> I fully agree - EVERYONE on deployment needs to be trained to carry weapons with live ones in the mag attached to the weapon. Muscle memory must be developed by drills and practice until its second nature.


This all sounds like something that needs refreshing on some sort of routine basis, whether during WUPS for a specific task or on an annual basis per installation: develop a purple FP requirement, individually, and something realistic as far as collective exercises.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Jun 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> This all sounds like something that needs refreshing on some sort of routine basis, whether during WUPS for a specific task or on an annual basis per installation: develop a purple FP requirement, individually, and something realistic as far as collective exercises.



You win as well. In a combat arms unit its not easy to achieve but can be done. Cooks gotta cook, clerks gotta clerk etc.

EVERYONE needs to be able to pick up their weapon and defend themselves or others.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Muscle memory must be developed by drills and practice until its second nature.



I don't disagree but for those people who are in certain location such as NCR, some air force units and even Borden.  I'm not sure that's possible when you shoot once a year if that.  I've always been told that it's once a year but then you get other higher ranks in the CoC say it's every 2 years.  Every time I go the range they quickly ask when the last time everyone went, there is usually at least one or two people there that haven't been there in 3-4 years.  If a mbr pushes it and wants to go once a year I don't think most Coc's will say no but a lot won't force the person sitting next to you to go.  
It's impossible to develop muscle memory when so many people shoot so infrequently.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't disagree but for those people who are in certain location such as NCR, some air force units and even Borden.  I'm not sure that's possible when you shoot once a year if that.  I've always been told that it's once a year but then you get other higher ranks in the CoC say it's every 2 years.  Every time I go the range they quickly ask when the last time everyone went, there is usually at least one or two people there that haven't been there in 3-4 years.  If a mbr pushes it and wants to go once a year I don't think most Coc's will say no but a lot won't force the person sitting next to you to go.



Legal branch here, one of the least "combatty" branches of the Forces. Full of sailors, flyboys and ground pounder. Even (perhaps especially) in Ottawa, annual pistol and rifle classification was mandatory.

A bad day on the ranges is better than a good day in the office.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't disagree but for those people who are in certain location such as NCR, some air force units and even Borden.  I'm not sure that's possible when you shoot once a year if that.  I've always been told that it's once a year but then you get other higher ranks in the CoC say it's every 2 years.  Every time I go the range they quickly ask when the last time everyone went, there is usually at least one or two people there that haven't been there in 3-4 years.  If a mbr pushes it and wants to go once a year I don't think most Coc's will say no but a lot won't force the person sitting next to you to go.



That's sad. Members should want as much trigger time as possible. Free rifle? Free ammo? PAID range time? Hell I would spend every day on the range I could get.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Legal branch here, one of the least "combatty" branches of the Forces. Full of sailors, flyboys and ground pounder. Even (perhaps especially) in Ottawa, annual pistol and rifle classification was mandatory.
> 
> A bad day on the ranges is better than a good day in the office.
> 
> :cheers:



That's good to hear but not all JAG Officers were following that so I assume keeping it up to date was on the honor system.  I'm obviously not going to start naming names but I know for a fact that at least one didn't.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> That's sad. Members should want as much trigger time as possible. Free rifle? Free ammo? PAID range time? Hell I would spend every day on the range I could get.



I personally love going to the range, maybe not in the winter but it's great to spend a late spring morning out there, get a free lunch and then go home.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> That's sad. Members should want as much trigger time as possible. Free rifle? Free ammo? PAID range time? Hell I would spend every day on the range I could get.



I actually don’t really like the small arms range.  To me, it’s a necessary evil, akin to having to work out to stay in shape.  The least I do it to maintain the required level of proficiency, the better.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That's good to hear but not all JAG Officers were following that so I assume keeping it up to date was on the honor system.  I'm obviously not going to start naming names but I know for a fact that at least one didn't.



It was not on the honour system. Weapons qual, attendance at First Aid Refresher and the PT testing was very much recorded and taken into consideration during personal evaluations.

I'm not going to argue that there may not have been some who skipped around it the odd year. There's always someone somewhere who thinks that the rules don't apply to them.

I never could understand why anyone would skip a range day. Sunshine, box lunches and the opportunity to lie down in the grass and punch little holes in Figure 11s. Who doesn't like that?

 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Jun 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I disagree that branches should train themselves.  That's incestuous and I've worked in a few organizations that self-validate and have seen the problems that can create.
> 
> PLQ is supposed to be a common course, the problem is it's basically a JInfantry course that doesn't acknowledge that there are other tasks carried out by different environments/trades that are just as difficult.
> 
> ...



I actually like your idea.  But how do you accomplish this for the RCN FSA who has been posted to Pet for their who career because their spouse/partner is a Royal ?  In the RCLS we mismatch/wild card uniforms and environments all the time.  How about the Army Sup Tech who has only ever been to non-Army postings ?  

My solution is to sort out once and for all this unnecessary necessity of posting Log pers all over god’s creation.  Army with Army, Sea with Sea and Air with Air.  SOFCOM being joint and volunteer from all services, as it is now.  Forced uniform changes as required.  This would have the knock on effect of greatly help us in succession planning as well. 

I still think common standards and goals could be achieved while letting the branches determine the content.  But I like your ideas and I would compromise to that.




			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> I agree with you somewhat. I don't think branches should be doing their own thing, but I agree that we could improve the way we teach PLQ.
> 
> We need people that can function in their jobs, while deployed forward. We don't need to pretend that our support pers are going to be storming the beached on D-Day. Participate in a section attack, but not lead one.
> 
> ...



Yup I get you.  It’s funny we have way more casualties at sea and alongside but we hardly ever practice that during DW Exercises.  Its 90% fires.  

And I get you as well.  I too have chewed some moon dust.  I also spent close 2 years of my life holding down picnic tables on Army bases for predeployment training. How about we use that time to fill those holes. Instead of resting a career on leadership course taught through a skill set that 90% of the CAF can reasonably never be expected to have practiced or employ or practice in their future.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I don't disagree but for those people who are in certain location such as NCR, some air force units and even Borden.  I'm not sure that's possible when you shoot once a year if that.  I've always been told that it's once a year but then you get other higher ranks in the CoC say it's every 2 years.  Every time I go the range they quickly ask when the last time everyone went, there is usually at least one or two people there that haven't been there in 3-4 years.  If a mbr pushes it and wants to go once a year I don't think most Coc's will say no but a lot won't force the person sitting next to you to go.
> It's impossible to develop muscle memory when so many people shoot so infrequently.



There are (should be?) orders for each Command/Group that detail what Readiness Training is done, and how often;  I can only speak to the RCAF, but this is fairly well laid out in *1 Cdn Air Div Orders, Vol 5, 5-114 RCAF Readiness Training - Individual Training Policy*.  It details the three FGBL (Force Generation Baseline Levels), and what exactly has to be done for each level.  5-114 applies to all 1 and 2 Cdn Air Div units and personnel, so 'some air force units' would fall under this.   

IBTS for Land Operations is the national standard to 'ensure standardization across the CF'.  Sounds like a good starting place for folks who aren't sure what applies to them.  

Leaders, at all levels, really just need to know where to find the applic policy, and follow it.



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> ...so I assume keeping it up to date was on the honor system...



Negative; it is a requirement under policy, orders, directives.  And, it is all recorded on a mbr's Monitor Mass MPRR (at the very end).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2020)

Except that certain Sqns in certain places have virtually no access to Ranges or SATs and the very same Air Div that mandated the training be done annual or bi-annually (depending on your deployment status) is suddenly unconcerned with helping out because fixing the problem comes with a fairly large expenditure of cash.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Except that certain Sqns in certain places have virtually no access to Ranges or SATs and the very same Air Div that mandated the training be done annual or bi-annually (depending on your deployment status) is suddenly unconcerned with helping out because fixing the problem comes with a fairly large expenditure of cash.



There are these, and other problems, with the implementation and content of the trg, for certain.  Assuming the Sqns have addressed the issue to their Wing, and Wing to the Div, I'd think the issue would be fwd'd to DRTSET to resolve?

But...well,  DLN ETHAR course tells me that "change/improvement" doesn't happen fast for those folks...guess the applic Comd has accepted the risk?

In a word; * waiver*.   ;D


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...
> My solution is to sort out once and for all this unnecessary necessity of posting Log pers all over god’s creation.  Army with Army, Sea with Sea and Air with Air.  SOFCOM being joint and volunteer from all services, as it is now.  Forced uniform changes as required.  This would have the knock on effect of greatly help us in succession planning as well.
> ...



That's anti unification/integration heresy. Before you know it you'll have everything back to the mid '60s.

 ;D


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That's anti unification/integration heresy. Before you know it you'll have everything back to the mid '60s.
> 
> ;D



Why would that be bad to have distinct branches like so many other countries do and we used to have?  Some people want to serve their country but simply don't like to play in the mud and sleep with the bugs or live on a ship packed like sardines for weeks or months on end with no privacy for an entire career and then there are those that don't mind.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Except that certain Sqns in certain places have virtually no access to Ranges or SATs and the very same Air Div that mandated the training be done annual or bi-annually (depending on your deployment status) is suddenly unconcerned with helping out because fixing the problem comes with a fairly large expenditure of cash.


And there lies the issues. Dollars count and if you spend it on frivolous things like ranges and weapons training     etc the numpties that have big ideas won't have the cash cow anymore.


----------



## ballz (5 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's okay to make mistakes and fail. (teaching someone how to deal with failing is important too Imo)
> 
> I don't think this is just a little mistake. That should lead to a big discussion on whether someone is ready or capable of being a leader.



A little mistake is not a fail, so if you're saying you only deserve a second chance after "little" mistakes, you have fallen victim to our failure-adverse institution. Big mistakes are fails, and the biggest learning opportunities. If you bury people after they fail, you'll have outed every bit of *experience* and left yourself with a bunch of people who only do cookie-cutter solutions because they are too boring to actually stick their neck out and do something useful.

There doesn't need to be a discussion because of one hard fail. Sometimes people need that experience of freezing up just to wake them up. That's literally how you develop people, you challenge them. You have to expect them to fail sometimes if you're doing it right. They get three attempt built into the system. If they fail hard *three* times and each attempt shows zero growth, then there can be a discussion (and there will be, it's called a "_*progress* review_ board" for a reason).

All of this PLQ talk about how the non-combat arms types don't learn anything from combat arms tasks, I would argue the benefit is they actually get to solve novel problems. It's the checked out combat arms person who solves problems which are not novel to them for the entire course that should be complaining about the uselessness of the course.

In fact, as I read the thread and we were talking about how the assessment is not on tactics, but on planning, battle procedure, communication, etc... I thought of my  BMOQ where we had to do the Leadership Assessment Course. These were weird small-party tasks, where the goal was to use your section to move an object from one side of a sandbox to another (without touching the sand), which was essentially a puzzle, with odd obstacles and different variety of tools at your disposal (ropes, 2x6, etc.). I can't remember how   much time we had, something like 10 or 15 minutes from the time you saw your task to the time the buzzer went and you were complete.

Thinking of that experience, perhaps PLQ would be better served using a similar tool as the "novel problem." If the goal really is to learn how to plan, how to communicate, how to lead, etc., this type of task (it could be something a lot more substantial than 15 minutes), then this type of task if perfect. You won't be able to use an orders template, you will have to learn how to make SMESC really work for you. A combat arms-type can't just mail it in on something he's done 100 times before. The non-combat arms types can stop complaining that they are being assessed at something they aren't used to, because everyone else is too.

Then we can deal with ensuring each person has the required military skill sets separately. Instead of worrying about assessing those in leadership positions on section attacks as an "assessment tool," we can just frigging train them on how to do section attacks, given that they've proven their ability to lead, plan, communicate, etc. through an actual novel problem.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jun 2020)

Sometimes it isn't that we lack the skills because of our trade but because our units ignore some BTS in favor of others. Example recce patrols, CSS BTS says we should do them, I never did a recce patrol until PLQ. My instructors did an excellent job with the time available to teach us the best the can but at the end of the day units need to be better preparing troops for PLQ and general warfighting skills. The person I used as my example 80% stumbled due to a lack of preparation for a course they were thrown on because the home unit didn't want to loose them come posting season. The person eventually dropped out during mod 4(mod 6 for you older folks). 

This pandemic has shown even on minimum manning work is still getting done, so we need to reassess priorities and how we do our job.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jun 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> A little mistake is not a fail, so if you're saying you only deserve a second chance after "little" mistakes, you have fallen victim to our failure-adverse institution. Big mistakes are fails, and the biggest learning opportunities. If you bury people after they fail, you'll have outed every bit of *experience* and left yourself with a bunch of people who only do cookie-cutter solutions because they are too boring to actually stick their neck out and do something useful.
> 
> There's doesn't need to be a discussion because of one hard fail. *Sometimes people need that experience of freezing up just to wake them up.*



Exactly. In the example we're talking about I don't think it's a mistake. To me it's a critical leadership failing. Instead of staff ignoring the fact that he had a break down and abandoned his responsibilities (then banged off an easy walk) I think he should have been brought in front of the OC as a wake up call. Look him in the eye and ask him if he has what if takes to be a leader. If he says yes then likely give him another chance. If he waffles or says no send him home. I think it's called a PO99? We re-coursed members for unethical behavior. No warnings. The example wasn't an ethics fail but I think it's a critical one non the less. 

The downside about teamwork on leadership courses is that sometimes people that shouldn't pass get carried through. Now we're putting other humans lives in their hands.

If I was rewriting PLQ I would make a part one common to everyone (law, teaching techniques, administration process and programs, basic security tasks, maybe convoy stuff) and make the second part more specific to elements.


Edited to add - I'm open to being 100% wrong too


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If I was rewriting PLQ I would make a part one common to everyone (law, teaching techniques, administration process and programs, basic security tasks, maybe convoy stuff) and make the second part more specific to elements.



Leaders need to be able to keep leading through chaos and a host of unfamiliar situations. 

Maybe the right mix is one part leading through 'familiar' tasks, and one part 'WTF kind of looking glass have I just stepped through?' kind of tasks...


----------



## BDTyre (5 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sometimes it isn't that we lack the skills because of our trade but because our units ignore some BTS in favor of others. Example recce patrols, CSS BTS says we should do them, I never did a recce patrol until PLQ. My instructors did an excellent job with the time available to teach us the best the can but at the end of the day units need to be better preparing troops for PLQ and general warfighting skills. T.



My unit has, for the past several years, been running a "mandatory" pre-PLQ package. Sure, go ahead and do your Mod 1 DL, but before you actually leave for the in-person portion they run you through several weekends and evenings worth of how to teach, leading PT, recce patrols, etc., etc. For the most part, it seems to have been successful but we get the odd person who gets put on a PLQ without it (usually due to time constraints) or doesn't do that well on it but still gets put on the course because we need MCpls.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> My unit has, for the past several years, been running a "mandatory" pre-PLQ package. Sure, go ahead and do your Mod 1 DL, but before you actually leave for the in-person portion they run you through several weekends and evenings worth of how to teach, leading PT, recce patrols, etc., etc. For the most part, it seems to have been successful but we get the odd person who gets put on a PLQ without it (usually due to time constraints) or doesn't do that well on it but still gets put on the course because we need MCpls.



Are you in a Reg or Res unit?  What you suggest is a great idea, IMO but Reg force HRA/FSA units don't seem to do anything with the exception of maybe getting the person to do a small presentation such as a brief on something if they're lucky.


----------



## sidemount (5 Jun 2020)

See and I really think thats the point of PLQ. Its not teaching you how to do a section attack or recce, its teaching you the steps of battle procedure, things to take into consideration while developing CoAs, and executing those orders under a stressful situation. 
When the shit hits the fan people don't rise to the occasion, they fall back onto the training that was drilled into their head. So I agree that a "wtf" scenario is needed to induce that stress. 
Every leader in every trade will at some point be required to make decisions under serious stressful circumstances and need to be prepared to do so.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jun 2020)

sidemount said:
			
		

> See and I really think thats the point of PLQ. Its not teaching you how to do a section attack or recce, its teaching you the steps of battle procedure, things to take into consideration while developing CoAs, and executing those orders under a stressful situation.
> When the crap hits the fan people don't rise to the occasion, they fall back onto the training that was drilled into their head. So I agree that a "wtf" scenario is needed to induce that stress.
> Every leader in every trade will at some point be required to make decisions under serious stressful circumstances and need to be prepared to do so.



However we need to give troops the mental tools so to speak that when crap hits the fan we have the ability to analyze and respond.


----------



## sidemount (5 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> However we need to give troops the mental tools so to speak that when crap hits the fan we have the ability to analyze and respond.


Exactly, and I think that's what is being lost in how PLQ is being taught. The focus shouldn't be executing the perfect doctrine recce, it should be focused on the planning process, maintaining C2 throughout and making sensible decisions (they don't need to be perfect, they just need to make sense and in a timely fashion) under a stressful senario. I believe DS scoring guide also supports this.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jun 2020)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Exactly, and I think that's what is being lost in how PLQ is being taught. The focus shouldn't be executing the perfect doctrine recce, it should be focused on the planning process, maintaining C2 throughout and making sensible decisions (they don't need to be perfect, they just need to make sense and in a timely fashion) under a stressful senario. I believe DS scoring guide also supports this.



Right now executing the mission accounts for very few points on assessment, you can get 100% for battle procedure, C2, fail the mission and still pass.


----------



## sidemount (5 Jun 2020)

Thats what I thought.
Back when I did PLQ 7 years ago, some of the instructors had such hard on for the proper execution of whatever task we were given. That could be an issue with always having incremental staff teaching (not sure if staff still are CFTPO'd in or not). No real standard of teaching developed.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jun 2020)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Thats what I thought.
> Back when I did PLQ 7 years ago, some of the instructors had such hard on for the proper execution of whatever task we were given. That could be an issue with always having incremental staff teaching (not sure if staff still are CFTPO'd in or not). No real standard of teaching developed.



Some staff are, my course was about 50/50 of those posted to A coy, and supplementary staff, problem was some of the CFTPO staff didn't even want to be there. Our course officer was hated by the end because she refused to give a shit once we got in the field. Questions of why or requesting deeper detail would result in a sigh  and eye roll and a half assed answer. We had a officer who joined us in the field to work the alternate shift from our Course O who did the opposite, made every task fit in the scenario,imaginative answers and cared about the troops.

I learned more about what not to do from my staff , and more about good leadership from my course mates. Not to say all my staff were terrible but some were.


----------



## ballz (5 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Right now executing the mission accounts for very few points on assessment, you can get 100% for battle procedure, C2, fail the mission and still pass.



But if we're giving them a templated solution, it defeats the whole point of battle procedure.. so if they're doing great on the 16 steps of battle procedure it can be because we've given them the answer instead of them actually being able to use the steps of battle procedure and doing a proper combat estimate. And the assessment can't fix that.

The whole doctrinal recce patrol is based off of someone having done a combat estimate, and come up with those items (release point, security force, recce force, cloverleafing, etc.). So we're actually defeating the whole point, and turning it into an army test where we give them the answers the night before they write the test and then they just memorize them.

We need to present novel problems for people to apply these tools to.

On Infantry Phase 3/4 I struggled with combat estimates because I already knew what the answer was before I started. I couldn't articulate my thoughts in this weird template as a result. Looking back I wish they would change the way they taught it to us. They should have had us do a combat estimate for the task and come up with a plan, let us struggle with it all, present our answers and why we chose to do certain things (based on our deductions), and then at the end of it all, after we've had a true crack at it and had the _opportunity_ to fail, show us the combat estimate that leads to a "doctrinal" raid....


----------



## sidemount (5 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Some staff are, my course was about 50/50 of those posted to A coy, and supplementary staff, problem was some of the CFTPO staff didn't even want to be there. Our course officer was hated by the end because she refused to give a shit once we got in the field. Questions of why or requesting deeper detail would result in a sigh  and eye roll and a half assed answer. We had a officer who joined us in the field to work the alternate shift from our Course O who did the opposite, made every task fit in the scenario,imaginative answers and cared about the troops.
> 
> I learned more about what not to do from my staff , and more about good leadership from my course mates. Not to say all my staff were terrible but some were.


I think thats where the major issue is with PLQ, are the instructors like that. This is the first course where pers get the opportunity to plan and make decisions. This is the foundation that is needed to be a successful leader as they continue to advance through the ranks. Its really doing everyone a disservice by having instructors that dont give a shit. 

Especially the course officer you mentioned....that nonsense drives me. 

So is there really a problem with the course....or how it is presented? (Fyi I was a support trade going through it as well)


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Questions of why or requesting deeper detail would result in a sigh and eye roll and a half assed answer.



Sometimes I think this comes down to the superior not having any actual knowledge or insight to pass down. Rather than admit that they don't know something, they dance around the issue or fluff it off completely. I've seen the same thing happen a number of times when operational/technical questions have been posed, so it's not just a PLQ problem.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

So reading all these posts, I can see how some of the stuff taught could be useful in certain situations such as leading a WASF section or if deployed overseas needing to lead those under you.  The problem is, many MCpl's/MS in a lot of trades get promoted first and take their PLQ a year or 2 or even longer into the future but are still put into leadership rolls during that time.  If they are expected to lead other mbr's despite not yet having PLQ what's the point in the course?  It's kind of like closing the door after the horse has already left the barn.


----------



## dangerboy (5 Jun 2020)

I blame their trades for allowing that to happen. It is almost unheard of in the Infantry and most combat arms trades for a person to be promoted without the qualification. The problem now is that this has been so prevalent within some trades/branches that it is hard to reverse. As said in some trades to get merited onto a PLQ you almost have to be a MCpl about to hit the deadline.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jun 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> My unit has, for the past several years, been running a "mandatory" pre-PLQ package. Sure, go ahead and do your Mod 1 DL, but before you actually leave for the in-person portion they run you through several weekends and evenings worth of how to teach, leading PT, recce patrols, etc., etc. For the most part, it seems to have been successful but we get the odd person who gets put on a PLQ without it (usually due to time constraints) or doesn't do that well on it but still gets put on the course because we need MCpls.


If there is a requirement to run a "pre-PLQ" in order to make it passable, we've failed as an institution at making it what we collectively want it to be.  Stating we need to run a pre-PLQ for people is as valid as saying we need to run a pre-QL3 or a pre-ILP or even a pre-BMQ/BMOQ (although we do that in a sense with whatever they are calling where those who fail the FORCE test end up being held).

Does your unit also run a pre-ILP, a pre-ALP and a pre-SLP to run aspiring WOs, MWOs and CWOs through how to do things such as writing briefing notes, writing service papers, how to mount a military funeral etc etc etc?

Like it or not, there are always going to be courses where people are being introduced for something for the first time, that's the whole point of a qualification or leadership course. Teach the material to a common standard, test the knowledge/skill to a common standard and produce a person with the skills and knowledge at a common standard at the end.  It's no wonder some trades show up on a PLQ and look like a bag of hammers in comparison to their peers. Some trades and units just don't have the luxury of time to give Cpl or A/L MCpl Bloggins three weeks of pre-training whereas apparently there are still some units with time to kill...


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jun 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I blame their trades for allowing that to happen. It is almost unheard of in the Infantry and most combat arms trades for a person to be promoted without the qualification. The problem now is that this has been so prevalent within some trades/branches that it is hard to reverse. As said in some trades to get merited onto a PLQ you almost have to be a MCpl about to hit the deadline.



This BS I am seeing of sending Pte's with waivers or fresh Corporals that haven't reached far enough in their trade to normally be allowed to go on PLQ needs to stop too. Normally in my trade you can't go on plq until after DP2.3, DP2 is 7 mods so they allow if half way in the Pres due to the time it takes to get qualified. For me this was at the 7 years of being in Mark. Now troops with only DP1 are being pushed to do PLQ in the winter and their QL5/DP2 the following summer. Atleast RCEME School put their foot down on this 5 year sgt BS and mandated 3 years time in rank as a MCpl before you can be considered for your 6A.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jun 2020)

I did pre CLC twice. All it did was add three weeks of belt fed rooster to my life that I didn't need. If you need to know it they'll teach it to you.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jun 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I blame their trades for allowing that to happen. It is almost unheard of in the Infantry and most combat arms trades for a person to be promoted without the qualification. The problem now is that this has been so prevalent within some trades/branches that it is hard to reverse. As said in some trades to get merited onto a PLQ you almost have to be a MCpl about to hit the deadline.



If all of the trades except Combat Arms are having that problem, is it the Trades or CTC/Div TCs who are at fault? There clearly is a capacity issue, and I've had my troops told they will not be entertained for PLQ until they're already promoted. Heck, we have the same problem with ILQ where we have 2nd or 3rd year WOs at St. Jean taking the course. Maybe the Army underestimated the numbers when PLQ-A was opened up to a lot more "non-traditional" trades, or they're underfunded and cannot provide the Just In Time training that the troops need. 

When we talk retention, waiting years for a career course is definitely a sticking point for some.


----------



## dangerboy (5 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If all of the trades except Combat Arms are having that problem, is it the Trades or CTC/Div TCs who are at fault? There clearly is a capacity issue, and I've had my troops told they will not be entertained for PLQ until they're already promoted. Heck, we have the same problem with ILQ where we have 2nd or 3rd year WOs at St. Jean taking the course. Maybe the Army underestimated the numbers when PLQ-A was opened up to a lot more "non-traditional" trades, or they're underfunded and cannot provide the Just In Time training that the troops need.
> 
> When we talk retention, waiting years for a career course is definitely a sticking point for some.



Good question. I know when I was in Wainwright running courses we ran as many as possible from Sept till June, once June hit our focus was geared towards reserve course (still running PLQs). As soon as one finished the next one started, there was such a demand. I don't think there is an easy answer.


----------



## garb811 (5 Jun 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If all of the trades except Combat Arms are having that problem, is it the Trades or CTC/Div TCs who are at fault? There clearly is a capacity issue, and I've had my troops told they will not be entertained for PLQ until they're already promoted. Heck, we have the same problem with ILQ where we have 2nd or 3rd year WOs at St. Jean taking the course. Maybe the Army underestimated the numbers when PLQ-A was opened up to a lot more "non-traditional" trades, or they're underfunded and cannot provide the Just In Time training that the troops need.
> 
> When we talk retention, waiting years for a career course is definitely a sticking point for some.





			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> Good question. I know when I was in Wainwright running courses we ran as many as possible from Sept till June, once June hit our focus was geared towards reserve course (still running PLQs). As soon as one finished the next one started, there was such a demand. I don't think there is an easy answer.


It's not just a PLQ issue, it's also a BMQ-L issue for some trades. 

I have no doubt that when you were in Wainwright, you had MP showing up for BMQ-L who had already been through their QL3. At some points there simply hasn't been an ability to get a BMQ-L for pers before they were scheduled for their QL3. It's easy to say that shouldn't happen but when the Army cancels or reschedules a BMQ-L that has MP scheduled to go on it, the choice can become getting a waiver to let them do their QL3 out of sequence, or holding a full QL3 course of people in the training system for a year after BMQ because of that. When the trade is yellow/red, the choice becomes pretty simple as to what is going to happen.

We've also been in the situation, at times, where we've had people who needed to get onto BMQ-L in order to be promoted A/L MCpl/MS on graduation because of this issue and we've also had people not start getting spec pay because they couldn't be substantive Cpls after their QL5 due to lacking BMQ-L.

Note that I'm not pointing a finger here, crap happens and sometimes courses get cancelled or rescheduled outside of anyone's control, but there are significant consequences when that happens and it can take a long time to fix the damage that falls out of that.


----------



## stellarpanther (5 Jun 2020)

I curious if anyone has stats on how many people get promoted to MCpl/MS each year.  Would it even be possible to get everyone loaded on to a PLQ between the time the board rankings come out and the summer when they get promoted?  Also what would happen if they failed their PLQ, since they normally get at least 1 more try and then don't forget the injuries that could extend that time even longer.  Typing this, a hundred different scenarios are going through my head.  For the Cbt arms people, when your mbr ranks, what happens if he fails the PLQ, do they still get promoted even if it's a year or 2 later?


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I learned more about what not to do from my staff , and more about good leadership from my course mates. Not to say all my staff were terrible but some were.


 Wise you are young Jedi.

I've always maintained I've learned much from bad leaders - what not to do.


----------



## Furniture (6 Jun 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> It's not just a PLQ issue, it's also a BMQ-L issue for some trades.
> 
> I have no doubt that when you were in Wainwright, you had MP showing up for BMQ-L who had already been through their QL3. At some points there simply hasn't been an ability to get a BMQ-L for pers before they were scheduled for their QL3. It's easy to say that shouldn't happen but when the Army cancels or reschedules a BMQ-L that has MP scheduled to go on it, the choice can become getting a waiver to let them do their QL3 out of sequence, or holding a full QL3 course of people in the training system for a year after BMQ because of that. When the trade is yellow/red, the choice becomes pretty simple as to what is going to happen.
> 
> ...



For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue. 

I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release...   

In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Are you in a Reg or Res unit?  What you suggest is a great idea, IMO but Reg force HRA/FSA units don't seem to do anything with the exception of maybe getting the person to do a small presentation such as a brief on something if they're lucky.



I have never heard of an HRA/FSA unit before but I digress.  I witnessed this during work up training for my AFG deployments.  Remember now I am a Naval Storesman.  We were heavily augmented with reserve Log and FP folks in the NSE.  All good people.  BUT the Log and RCEME reservists were undertrained woefully in their primary function which is their trade.  The knew their IAs and stoppages on a C7 like clockwork; they were way way better than than most of us at infantry stuff; but they couldn’t fill out, locate of identify a CF100 let alone be considered as OFP for their respective trades.  They had their courses, sure, but no practical ability.  Some even showed up wearing regimental accoutrements when they should have been in Log or RCEME cap badges ect. 

If you take 5 hours a week away from your clerical duties, what effect does that have on the people you support ?  What claims aren’t getting processed ?  Did you fix Johnny’s pay problem ?  Or is he going another pay period with messed up pay ?  Again we have no business pretending that Storesmen and Clerks need to be able to advance to contact.  They should be versed and able to apply soldiering skills to convoys, defensives, and camp security.  Closing with the enemy is the job of the combat arms.  Our job is to enable and sustain their victory. 



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> I blame their trades for allowing that to happen. It is almost unheard of in the Infantry and most combat arms trades for a person to be promoted without the qualification. The problem now is that this has been so prevalent within some trades/branches that it is hard to reverse. As said in some trades to get merited onto a PLQ you almost have to be a MCpl about to hit the deadline.



So what’s your solution ?  I am a member of the largest trade in the forces (Now that FSA and HRA exist).  We promote upwards of 100 - 200 MS/MCpls a year.  We need 10 courses of 20 students a year (on the high end) just for Sup Techs to keep up with that.   Mind if your regiment gives up a few spots there chap ? 



			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue.
> 
> I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release...
> 
> In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.



Exactly.  Again Set a common standard, and let branches fill in the content with relatable material.  If the Patrolling part of leading a patrol on your PLQ isn’t important then it can be changed to something more relevant, relatable and useable to students.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (6 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> ...In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time...



But isn’t that also, at least in part, due to the fact that the trade is grossly under-staffed, even to the point that there are recorded instances of pers being denied leave at that location and others, because there isn’t the bodies to cover the absences? Sending mbrs on courses can be hampered by extreme shortages also, unfortunately.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2020)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> My unit has, for the past several years, been running a "mandatory" pre-PLQ package. Sure, go ahead and do your Mod 1 DL, but before you actually leave for the in-person portion they run you through several weekends and evenings worth of how to teach, leading PT, recce patrols, etc., etc. For the most part, it seems to have been successful but we get the odd person who gets put on a PLQ without it (usually due to time constraints) or doesn't do that well on it but still gets put on the course because we need MCpls.



What's old is new again;  back in '93, before I went on CLC (PLQ), there was a Pre-CLC course that had to be successfully completed before being course-loaded on CLC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue.
> 
> I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release...
> 
> In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.



Ref the yellow part, this is a disadvantage to you as the mbr.  You're 'best five' are based on Substantive rank, IIRC.

There are 'farther on' issues created with these training issues, not just one in the near/mid term future.

Thinking about it...I can't recall the last time I knew someone in my trade who was promoted WO and wasn't A/L.  Or MCpl, for that matter.  The A/L MCpl presents a problem at flying Sqn's; recent years' experience is most COs will not sign off on things like Lead appointments for anyone who does not have PLQ (even though it isn't explicitly required in the FOM, like it is for SAR Tech Tm Lead).


----------



## stellarpanther (6 Jun 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have never heard of an HRA/FSA unit before but I digress.



You're right, I should have said section.


----------



## stellarpanther (6 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You're 'best five' are based on Substantive rank, IIRC.



I had never heard of this before so during a quick email to my WO on another work issue, I asked him about this also.  He asked if I could get a for a ref for this because he wasn't aware of it either.  We're going to enquire Monday with Pension Services as it's not really something HRA's deal with.  If that's the case, why would someone accept a promotion when they only have a couple years left if it's not going to help them with their pension?  It often takes a year or longer to get on a course. Yes, I understand everything isn't all about money but when it get's towards the end of a career, money is something most people start thinking about.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I had never heard of this before so during a quick email to my WO on another work issue, I asked him about this also.  He asked if I could get a for a ref for this because he wasn't aware of it either.  We're going to enquire Monday with Pension Services as it's not really something HRA's deal with.  If that's the case, why would someone accept a promotion when they only have a couple years left if it's not going to help them with their pension?  It often takes a year or longer to get on a course. Yes, I understand everything isn't all about money but when it get's towards the end of a career, money is something most people start thinking about.



Agree, but and AFAIK, mbr's who are A/L are getting paid that rank, and would therefore be making pension contributions at that pay level as well I'd think?  

If a mbr did A/L WO-PO1 for 2 years, it still would be a pay increase for 2 years.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2020)

1. You best five is based on salary (not allowances), regardless if it is substantive or acting.  See the CFSA.

2. Substantive vs Acting only comes into play for Severance Pay; it is paid out at substantive rank on release.  See CBI 204.40.


----------



## stellarpanther (6 Jun 2020)

I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
> My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.



Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.

Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
> My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.



Correct.  Pension is based on best five years of pay, not rank.  Severance Pay is the only payment I know of that is based on substantive rank at the time of payment.


----------



## MJP (6 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.
> 
> Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so



You are not actually answering the question asked

SP is talking about what is your* pension payment in this case *and you are talking about the rank you have at retirement.

In any case Dapaterson has answered the question...


----------



## stellarpanther (6 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.
> 
> Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so



If within their control and they don't take the course within the required time frame absolutely they will get dropped down but I believe the time they were in rank prior to getting put back will still be calculated at that rank.  In the Res is there not a requirement to have the course completed within the specified time frame or get or revert back to the previous rank?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jun 2020)

Aaaaand, Dapaterson is correct: Pension is completely rank blind, acting/temporary/substantive or any other.

Best five years of pay, regardless of when they happened.


----------



## garb811 (6 Jun 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Aaaaand, Dapaterson is correct: Pension is completely rank blind, acting/temporary/substantive or any other.
> 
> Best five years of pay, regardless of when they happened.


Yep, and this can cause some weirdness.

I knew one guy who OT'd as a Sgt. As it was voluntary, he had no vested right to pay so he dropped to Cpl 4.  Four years later, he hit 20 years and retired as a Cpl with his 40%. His pension calculation was based on his salary as a MCpl and Sgt in his previous trade because those were his "best 5 years" but his severance was based on his Cpl 4, which was his substantive rank at the time of release.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jun 2020)

I wouldn't call it weirdness.  IIRC, severance was always at substantive rank.  One of the reasons I didn't take the PIL as I was A/L WO at the time.  Got my ILP before retirement, so got severance at the WO rank.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2020)

Thanks to those who cleared up my misunderstanding!  

Maybe that is why we have so many A/L folks...no impact on pay/pension!   ;D


----------



## stellarpanther (7 Jun 2020)

I just got off the phone with a friend who will probably be going on one of the first PLQ's once they start up again and he asked me the following question that I didn't know the answer to.  

He has severe sleep apnea which was reviewed by D Med Pol and he's ok to continue serving.  The issue is that he has a BiPap machine, which is similar to CPAP but a bit different.  Apparently they don't make small travel sizes or battery operated ones like they do with CPAP.  What happens with people like him when he goes to the field but needs an electrical supply to plug in his machine?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2020)

All depends. 

1. Hook his machine up to a generator
2. Deal with not sleeping well for a few days, like everyone else on course.
3. Get driven on to base to sleep in transient quarters every night.


----------



## stellarpanther (7 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> All depends.
> 
> 1. Hook his machine up to a generator
> 2. Deal with not sleeping well for a few days, like everyone else on course.
> 3. Get driven on to base to sleep in transient quarters every night.



I wouldn't have thought 1 and 3 would be an option considering it's a course.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jun 2020)

Mod 4 works on 36 hours work, to 4 hours of forced rest for a max of 14 days (if max course load). Likely they can make accommodations for him as stated above. You do not get a lot of rest and that is deliberate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I wouldn't have thought 1 and 3 would be an option considering it's a course.



All depends what's considered reasonable and resources available. He's not being released for it so it's not going to kill him not having the machine. 

Driving him out of the field is a huge administrative burden but I've seen it done for a other member on a course for different reasons.

Some plq courses do admin in the field and have laptops set up, need generators for that. 

Course staff would make the call.


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jun 2020)

They can set up his tent next to some currant bushes to plug into.


----------



## stellarpanther (7 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> All depends what's considered reasonable and resources available. He's not being released for it so it's not going to kill him not having the machine.
> 
> Driving him out of the field is a huge administrative burden but I've seen it done for a other member on a course for different reasons.
> 
> ...



If it went to D Med Pol, I would assume he has a chit that says something along the lines of: must have access to AC power when sleeping or something like that.  There's a standard line that's normally on the CF2088 and that usually means the person has a CPAP or BiPAP machine.  Not sure how someone could be in the infantry and have a chit like that if they go somewhere with no access to power.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> If it went to D Med Pol, I would assume he has a chit that says something along the lines of: must have access to AC power when sleeping or something like that.



I would think that would make him undeployable and violate UoS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2020)

At the end of the day, the course is governed (maybe not the best word...) by a Qualification Standard, and a Training Plan/Training & Education Plan.

If a student has MELs that are assigned that preclude them from completing a course, they don't complete the course and do not get the qualification.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, the course is governed (maybe not the best word...) by a Qualification Standard, and a Training Plan/Training & Education Plan.
> 
> If a student has MELs that are assigned that preclude them from completing a course, they don't complete the course and do not get the qualification.



Oh ya. I love that can't miss more than 24 hours of field time rule.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Oh ya. I love that can't miss more than 24 hours of field time rule.



I recall a course a student insisted they couldn't sleep in the field because they were allergic to the sleeping bags or something like that.

Student was sent to MIR, got chit saying "no sleeping in the field", came back with smile on their face.  Later that afternoon, after they'd seen the Coy 2 I/C and found out they were being RTUd..._not so big_ of a smile on their face.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2020)

That was going to be my suggestion for SPs friend. Get a no field chit.


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would think that would make him undeployable and violate UoS.



I don't see many CF2088's like I used to because of where I work but when I was at CFSU(O) I would see them all the time.  The one about having access to electricity is a very common one.  Another one that is also very common and I would assume it would prevent a person from completing a PLQ is the Category that says no drill/parade greater than 30 minutes or PT limited in scope and intensity.  I've even seen a few that said self directed PT at own pace.  Those come back from D Med Pol.  Mbr's certainly still get released for medical reasons but not nearly as much as before.  Many things that would be a guaranteed release even 5 years ago will not get a person released.  I would love to get my hands on the checklist doctors sometimes show patients when determining if they meet UoS.  Some might be surprised what's on it.


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That was going to be my suggestion for SPs friend. Get a no field chit.



Would that not be a breach of UoS.? Also, how would a mbr complete PLQ?


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Would that not be a breach of UoS.? Also, how would a mbr complete PLQ?



No because a chit is temp, if he was put on PCAT then yes. Simple answer without going to the field you can't complete plq.


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Would that not be a breach of UoS.? Also, how would a mbr complete PLQ?



So I'm sensing now that was sarcasm because obviously if you can't do the field portion you can't pass PLQ.  Would having a P-Cat saying no field not also be a breach of UoS?  I would assume yes but who knows these days.  As I said earlier, the P-Cat that seems to be common saying no drill/parade greater than 30 minutes essentially means no parades.  Other than those quick parades that are done in the concourse at NDHQ that last about 10 minutes, I haven't been on any that are less than 30 minutes.  Even parade practices are usually 1-2 full days.  I know a few people with those chits and they don't get put on them.  Can you imagine showing up for practice and in the middle of drill having your alarm on your watch go off and when the MWO says something about it you say sorry sir, I'm done with this for today, see ya!


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jun 2020)

As far back as my memory goes, if a member has limitations that prevent them from completing the course, said member is considered unfit until such time as the situation resolves itself. Plenty of people don't get leadership training and don't advance in their careers. Not everyone gets to be RSM, plenty of lifer corporals, like me, out there, and I did the course.


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> As far back as my memory goes, if a member has limitations that prevent them from completing the course, said member is considered unfit until such time as the situation resolves itself. Plenty of people don't get leadership training and don't advance in their careers. Not everyone gets to be RSM, plenty of lifer corporals, like me, out there, and I did the course.



That makes sense... I'm going to tell him to show up with his chit in hand about needing to use his machine and I guess it will be up to the staff to take it from there.  As far as Cpl for life, I don't think it's a bad thing and a lot of people prefer it.  I once heard someone say that MCpl is probably the worst rank to have and I think that's accurate.  Sure you get out of a lot of the shit jobs but you also get shit on a lot more if things don't go right.  Money wise, it's certainly not worth the aggravation for the little extra you make.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> That makes sense... I'm going to tell him to show up with his chit in hand about needing to use his machine and I guess it will be up to the staff to take it from there.  As far as Cpl for life, I don't think it's a bad thing and a lot of people prefer it.  I once heard someone say that MCpl is probably the worst rank to have and I think that's accurate.  Sure you get out of a lot of the shit jobs but you also get shit on a lot more if things don't go right.  Money wise, it's certainly not worth the aggravation for the little extra you make.



It's thankless, that's for sure, but you don't get your third hook without it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> So I'm sensing now that was sarcasm because obviously if you can't do the field portion you can't pass PLQ.  Would having a P-Cat saying no field not also be a breach of UoS?  I would assume yes but who knows these days.  As I said earlier, the P-Cat that seems to be common saying no drill/parade greater than 30 minutes essentially means no parades.  Other than those quick parades that are done in the concourse at NDHQ that last about 10 minutes, I haven't been on any that are less than 30 minutes.  Even parade practices are usually 1-2 full days.  I know a few people with those chits and they don't get put on them.  Can you imagine showing up for practice and in the middle of drill having your alarm on your watch go off and when the MWO says something about it you say sorry sir, I'm done with this for today, see ya!



Do 28 minutes of drill then go sit on a chair for 10 minutes to rest then back to drill.
Easy fix, that way someone doesn't feel left out or like they're not a part of the team.

Is this friend with the sleeping machine the same friend with the covid19 chit?


----------



## FJAG (8 Jun 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> stellarpanther said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe it appears thankless, but I'll tell you a little secret from a troop commander's point of view.

Most of us tend to look at MBdrs/MCpls very carefully because you can often tell who is destined for higher rank in the way they handle themselves. You want to make sure that the select ones get the right experience, course opportunities and mentoring to make their way up the ladder.

Once you make sergeant there's an expectation that you probably have those abilities so you're watched just as much to see if you've still got that fire in your belly or whether you're starting to become complacent. 

In my time I've worked with some excellent MBdrs most of whom were filling sergeants' positions (it was a crappy time for promotions back then) and doing brilliantly at it. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I recall a course a student insisted they couldn't sleep in the field because they were allergic to the sleeping bags or something like that.
> 
> Student was sent to MIR, got chit saying "no sleeping in the field", came back with smile on their face.  Later that afternoon, after they'd seen the Coy 2 I/C and found out they were being RTUd..._not so big_ of a smile on their face.



I have encountered this before in Supply.  We simply bought civilian sleeping bags that were not made with the same material.  We do the same for people who are too tall for our sleeping bags.  Annecdotal, I have also processed a dude who's head too big for our Army helmets.  Yup we special sized a helment for him lol.  Its not just boots.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Jun 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have encountered this before in Supply.  We simply bought civilian sleeping bags that were not made with the same material.  We do the same for people who are too tall for our sleeping bags.  Annecdotal, I have also processed a dude who's head too big for our Army helmets.  Yup we special sized a helment for him lol.  Its not just boots.



DSSPM handles this all the time. It is fairly common as Halifax Tar said for all clothing and equipment, and written into most statement of works that the provision for special sizes must occur.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Would having a P-Cat saying no field not also be a breach of UoS?  I would assume yes but who knows these days.



I don't think anyone on here can make that determination but, you can always familiarize yourself with the policy.

DAOD 5023-1, Minimum Operational Standards Related to Universality of Service


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jun 2020)

Thanks aii. I think he's just going to show up with his machine and chit and go from there.  He had the P-Cat before he got promoted so thinking about this more, it wouldn't have made sense for him to get promoted if he wasn't going to be able to complete PLQ because of a permanent MEL.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Thanks aii. I think he's just going to show up with his machine and chit and go from there.  He had the P-Cat before he got promoted so thinking about this more, it wouldn't have made sense for him to get promoted if he wasn't going to be able to complete PLQ because of a permanent MEL.



That's probably the best route, be forthcoming with the staff.


For the second part, CANFORGEN 012/17 delinked medical category from promotion criteria. That allows people on TCAT/PCAT who are selected to be promoted not to be held back by those conditions. It allows removes the time criteria from reverting from Acting/Lacking rank if member cannot complete the required career course/training due to that TCAT/PCAT. That means your friend will remain a A/L MCpl even if he cannot complete the field portion of PLQ-A due to his PCAT. If he can, then he won't be restricted from being further promoted as well.


----------



## dangerboy (8 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Thanks aii. I think he's just going to show up with his machine and chit and go from there.  He had the P-Cat before he got promoted so thinking about this more, it wouldn't have made sense for him to get promoted if he wasn't going to be able to complete PLQ because of a permanent MEL.



If I was his chain of command I would contact the training centre that is running the course and talk to them bringing up the concerns of the MELs and the machine and see if it is possible to do the course before sending him on it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jun 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If I was his chain of command I would contact the training centre that is running the course and talk to them bringing up the concerns of the MELs and the machine and see if it is possible to do the course before sending him on it.



Good idea. One phone call can save a world of hurt....


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2020)

Start of a post--please don't get enraged off the top, just some thoughts of mine further to those of the author quoted on how most effectively to deal with the major defence funding cuts almost certainly coming, in order to have CAF that can still contribute usefully at home and continue to contribute to some important international security activities. My wild-ass ideas are hardly anything like definitive conclusions, just ideas to stimulate further thought and discussion:



> Covid-19 Facing the Canadian Government and Military with Major Decisions on Force Structures, Employment and Equipment–how Radical a Re-Shape?
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Thanks aii. I think he's just going to show up with his machine and chit and go from there.  He had the P-Cat before he got promoted so thinking about this more, it wouldn't have made sense for him to get promoted if he wasn't going to be able to complete PLQ because of a permanent MEL.



Is he HRA?


----------



## stellarpanther (27 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do 28 minutes of drill then go sit on a chair for 10 minutes to rest then back to drill.
> Easy fix, that way someone doesn't feel left out or like they're not a part of the team.
> 
> Is this friend with the sleeping machine the same friend with the covid19 chit?



No


----------



## stellarpanther (27 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is he HRA?



No and he's Air Force so he doesn't do Mod 4 and will be going to Borden.  His CoC got a hold of the school and was told they get a lot of mbr's with machines and they work around it, whatever that means.


----------



## stellarpanther (27 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do 28 minutes of drill then go sit on a chair for 10 minutes to rest then back to drill.
> Easy fix, that way someone doesn't feel left out or like they're not a part of the team.
> 
> Is this friend with the sleeping machine the same friend with the covid19 chit?



No it's not the same person.  To meet UoS, you need to be able to do drill/parade for up to 30 minutes in a 24 hour period.  Maybe someone on here has the sheet that medical uses to determine whether a person meet UoS?  I'm sure some would be surprised what is on it.  I laughed when I first looked at it.  I recall someone pointing out one time when we were looking at it that you do have to be able to safely handle a weapon.  You don't need to be able to complete a 13km ruck march like some people think.  That's not even required on BMQ anymore.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2020)

_off topic_


----------



## dangerboy (27 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> No it's not the same person.  To meet UoS, you need to be able to do drill/parade for up to 30 minutes in a 24 hour period.  Maybe someone on here has the sheet that medical uses to determine whether a person meet UoS?  I'm sure some would be surprised what is on it.  I laughed when I first looked at it.  I recall someone pointing out one time when we were looking at it that you do have to be able to safely handle a weapon.  You don't need to be able to complete a 13km ruck march like some people think.  That's not even required on BMQ anymore.



https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/medical-standards-military-occupations/generic-task-statement-all-caf-members.html


----------



## stellarpanther (28 Jun 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/medical-standards-military-occupations/generic-task-statement-all-caf-members.html



Thanks.  Surprisingly even though it say "inability to perform medical procedures (injections, use of CPAP, etc.)", not sure exactly what that means, I can tell you for a fact that they do not release people for CPAP.  Other than drill/parade or PT P-Cats, CPAP is probably the most common one out there.  It doesn't say it on there but I know they look at trade as well.


----------



## stellarpanther (28 Jun 2020)

Looking at this more, they actually have a newer version that they use, I read it briefly once.  It uses trade and rank.


----------



## MJP (28 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Looking at this more, they actually have a newer version that they use, I read it briefly once.  It uses trade and rank.



You are confusing MOSID standards with the generic task standards.  They are different things, all CAF mbrs must meet the latter, different MOSIDS and ranks have stricter (for lack of a better term) medical/task standards


----------



## dangerboy (28 Jun 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> You are confusing MOSID standards with the generic task standards.  They are different things, all CAF mbrs must meet the latter, different MOSIDS and ranks have stricter (for lack of a better term) medical/task standards



Look at appendix 1 of Annex D of the document and it will link you to the various MOSID standards


----------



## stellarpanther (28 Jun 2020)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Look at appendix 1 of Annex D of the document and it will link you to the various MOSID standards



Thanks, that was what I was referring to.  Looking at some of the standards for various trades, I was somewhat surprised by some of the things.  Some of the things that are listed for various trades I thought were a requirement for everyone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Thanks.  Surprisingly even though it say "inability to perform medical procedures (injections, use of CPAP, etc.)", not sure exactly what that means, I can tell you for a fact that they do not release people for CPAP.  Other than drill/parade or PT P-Cats, CPAP is probably the most common one out there.  It doesn't say it on there but I know they look at trade as well.



That is probably from the "note" on DAOD 5023-1, Minimum Operational Standards Related to Universality of Service, which refers to Canadian Armed Forces Medical Standards (CFP 154), Annex D, Appendix 1;  these Task Statements are the MOS ID-specific duties according to rank.

* I have no idea why there is no Appendix for Commissioned members.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jun 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> * I have no idea why there is no Appendix for Commissioned members.



The old quip of "don't call me 'sir', I work for a living" comes to mind.


----------



## stellarpanther (28 Jun 2020)

Even UoS isn't as cut and dry as people would think.  I've seen reports come back from D Med Pol saying the breach is minimal.  CO's usually recommend retention and that's the end of it.


----------



## MJP (28 Jun 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Even UoS isn't as cut and dry as people would think.  I've seen reports come back from D Med Pol saying the breach is minimal.  CO's usually recommend retention and that's the end of it.



You are massively oversimplifying the CO's AR/MEL process but yes 99% of the low risk of breaching UofS 4395s(?) that come from DMEDPOL come back as Retain without Restriction (RWOR).  Much of it also has to do is that very few units actually follow the process correctly anyway.


----------



## stellarpanther (28 Jun 2020)

MJP said:
			
		

> You are massively oversimplifying the CO's AR/MEL process but yes 99% of the low risk of breaching UofS 4395s(?) that come from DMEDPOL come back as Retain without Restriction (RWOR).  Much of it also has to do is that very few units actually follow the process correctly anyway.



It wasn't intentional and I know there is more the CO looks at which we as an HRA's we don't see.  I was just trying to say that a lot of people including me thought that if you are in breach of UoS, you are automatically released and I was just trying to say, not necessarily. 
I'm still probably not wording it as I should.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2020)

Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?



Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.

Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

I for one look forward to reading the resulting comments.

Or hearing them read out at the resulting summary trial, whatever.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.
> 
> Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.
> 
> :cheers:



This assumes that Bloggins is on Facebook.  If Bloggins does not have a Facebook account, is it a legal order to oblige him to create one?


----------



## stellarpanther (8 Jul 2020)

I find it hard to see that order enforced and I don't just mean a CoC.  I'd love to see JAG's opinion on that topic.  About 5 years ago I got a verbal warning (since disappeared) for being on FB during my lunch hour and told we are not allowed to be on FB or other social media on DWAN computers.  I know of someone who was written up less than a year ago for the same thing at a different unit.  Also, not everyone has FB and I really don't think you can be forced to get an account.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?



How would they know if one is watching? Do they require comments/likes?   ???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?



My thought is "no", if they're *working from home* and/or using their own Internet/computer/cell date/etc.  (the _pick the hill you die on_ aspect is a separate convo  ;D)

Like Defence O365;  if I don't want it on my pers computer at home, it isn't happening.  Mid-April, I stopped using my pers cellphone for work when I had used to it a few times for teleconferences (dialing into a NCR local) and was then told there is 'no mechanism to reimburse for using personal cellphone'.  Well, then my pers cellphone isn't a 'mechanism for conducting non-personal business'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.



Can the CAF issue a legal order for mbr's to use _personal_ internet/cell services and devices for 'crown business'?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> About 5 years ago I got a verbal warning (since disappeared) for being on FB during my lunch hour and told we are not allowed to be on FB or other social media on DWAN computers.  I know of someone who was written up less than a year ago for the same thing at a different unit.



If it was a DWAN computer...

DAOD 6002-2, Acceptable Use of the Internet, Defence Intranet, Computers and Other Information Technology Systems

Statement of Use

3.3 This DAOD provides instructions to authorized users on the use of IT systems.

3.4 For purposes of this DAOD, there are official, authorized, unauthorized and prohibited uses of IT systems.

3.5 Authorized users must only use IT systems for official or authorized uses.

3.6 Authorized users must not use IT systems for any unauthorized or prohibited uses. Section 5 outlines actions that may be taken in the event of such use.

4.5 The ADM(IM), a DND manager or supervisor, or a commander, CO or military supervisor, may restrict or prohibit any otherwise-authorized use if:
the use threatens the capability or integrity of an IT system; or
the restriction or prohibition is necessary for operational or administrative reasons.

Unauthorized Use

4.6 “Unauthorized use” is any use of an IT system that is not an official, authorized or prohibited use, including:

authorized use that is not of a reasonable duration or frequency;
authorized use that interferes with the performance of the duties and official functions of an authorized user;
authorized use that is restricted under paragraph 4.5;
use that would result in personal profit, e.g. electronic gaming or a business venture;
union business not specifically pre-authorized in writing by a manager or supervisor (see DAOD 5008-1);
use contrary to any order, instruction or other DAOD issued by or on behalf of the DM or the CDS; and
use that would reflect discredit upon the GC, the DND or the CAF.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Can the CAF issue a legal order for mbr's to use _personal_ internet/cell services and devices for 'crown business'?



That is the $64,000 question that no one in ADM(IM) bothered to think about.

To say nothing of the "You must either give a third party personally identifiable information (cell number) or install invasive software on your personal device as a two-factor authentication tool" and "if you do install the apps on your iOS and Android device, you must also install software that will enable DND to remotely unlock and delete your device."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That is the $64,000 question that no one in ADM(IM) bothered to think about.
> 
> To say nothing of the "You must either give a third party personally identifiable information (cell number) or install invasive software on your personal device as a two-factor authentication tool" and "if you do install the apps on your iOS and Android device, you must also install software that will enable DND to remotely unlock and delete your device."



But..."leading change"!!!!


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But..."leading change"!!!!



I'm glad you understand the vital ground.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'm glad you understand the vital ground.



I've always said if we could somehow insert "effective" between "leading" and "change"...we'd kill 60-70% of that 'vital ground'.  

I'm surprised, to be truthful, how much "CAF business" was conducted on FB/ZOOM/etc.  I received emails (over Hotmail) that contained info it should not have (eg - PA such as Svc #s) and had to remind people *internet isn't DWAN*, both up and down my COfC.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

Internet is better than DWAN, since you can send YouTube links.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Jul 2020)

I'm currently looking at a phone, laptop, and dual external monitor setup all provided at no cost by a private sector employer. 

Amazing what can happen in the real world...


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2020)

I'm officially changing what I said above from:



> Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, I can see no reason why not.
> 
> Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing for reservists.
> 
> :cheers:



to:



> Assuming that you are ordinarily "on duty" at that time, have been provided with appropriate equipment that can access the internet and are not otherwise prohibited from accessing Facebook; I can see no reason why not.
> 
> Might be a bit more of an unenforceable thing in all other circumstances.
> 
> ...



Sometimes I tend to forget (it's been 11 merciful years since I hit CRA) just how mucked up an organization DND/CAF is when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Can the CAF issue a legal order for mbr's to use _personal_ internet/cell services and devices for 'crown business'?



Right?

If I'm logging in to Facebook to watch a change of command parade do I have to change my name to my real name or can I stick with my screen name, Sugar ButtButtt. 

What if the chain of command doesn't like some of the facebook groups I'm in. Can they tell me to leave them? I can be charged or put on administrative action for liking memes or posts after all.

I know it sounds like I'm just stiring the pot (the order to watch a Facebook change of command parade is a real thing out west) but it's interesting to see where we'll draw the line with this stuff.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> . . .  (the order to watch a Facebook change of command parade is a real thing out west) . . .



Did that order include the requirement to watch in real time (in uniform?) or could one do it later, in their gitch or while taking a crap?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right?
> 
> If I'm logging in to Facebook to watch a change of command parade do I have to change my name to my real name or can I stick with my screen name, Sugar ButtButtt.
> 
> ...



The same direction has been issued at my Sqn for the Squadron Brief (I don't think it should be on FB/ZOOM to start off with but...);  deemed "mandatory".  Many people will likely just 'fall in line'...I'm more of the "I pay?  My say" type.  I balance it with 'common sense'...but, I also ack it is easier for me to push back than it is for Pte's, NCOs and the "junior" Jnr Officers.

There is no "policy" specifically that I know of, but I liken it to the "use of PMV" one;  I can't be _ordered_ to use my PMV, it can be_ requested_ and there is compensation for it _if I agree_.  

Like I mentioned earlier...never again will I use my daytime airtime minutes for duty purposes on my cell phone.  I've had multiple requests for me to call people for duty reasons while working remotely and I always (politely, but firmly) say "no" with the reason. The $66 in usage fees for "duty reasons" I ate one month was enough of that.

BTW - that's an awesome FB name...


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?



I love these.

For starters, this unit is assuming everyone has internet access.  How about those individuals with data caps?  Will they be able to claim overages?  It just seems like they are opening the door to all kinds of ass pain.

I don’t get it.  My daughter just graduated high school and the entire 8 hour event was streamed live on YouTube.

So why doesn’t the unit suggest to it’s members that the CoC parade will be live streamed on YouTube?   No account creation necessary. Don’t call it a “parade” because it isn’t.

What’s next? Facebook mess dinners? 

What the fuck are they teaching in Toronto?  How do ideas like this gain traction?


----------



## FJAG (8 Jul 2020)

Will there be rifles on parade? Do you have to stand to attention and at ease at the appropriate times? Will there be a march past?

Asking for a friend.

 :waiting:


----------



## BDTyre (8 Jul 2020)

We've been "warned" that there is a change of command & appointment parade coming in September or October and that if social distancing rules are still in effect (they will be) that members will be voluntold to particiapte in a socially distanced parade. At the beginning of respiratory illness season.

Maybe they'll stream it and the rest of us will be "ordered" to watch? But who will inspect my DEUs if I have to sit at home? What if lag in the stream causes my drill to be poor?  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2020)

"No, that was my five year old who sent the poop emoji as the outgoing commander was speaking about all his accomplishments, not me."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

:rofl:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can soldiers be ordered to log into Facebook and watch a change of command parade being broadcast live "because its a parade"?



Is this for real?  If it is, the level of stupidity in this organization knows no bounds.  

 Why not send a letter to your troops introducing yourself with a biography and your expectations?  Have a small ceremony or something and make watching it optional?

Alternatively, Microsoft Teams can support up to 250 people in a single chat, is totally free software and doesn't require you to give up personal information to a third party, unlike Facebook. 

If I were taking over a unit as a CO, I would personally want my Change of Command to be a World of Tanks or World of Warships party.  Anyone that wanted to play could.  Any Troop that dusts me on the virtual field of battle gets a LCBO or other gift card of their choice!

Very fitting for these socially distanced times!


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> What’s next? Facebook mess dinners?



Great.  Now you gave them ideas.  

At least the food will be (arguably) better.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> What’s next? Facebook mess dinners?





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Great.  Now you gave them ideas.



Uhhhhhhhhhh..._that_ ship already left harbour in the spring, I'm afraid... :Tin-Foil-Hat:

https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/pcb.10156938013561237/10156938012996237/?type=3&theater


----------



## Weinie (8 Jul 2020)

OK. I watched the level of paranoia about what CAF was going to impose escalate exponentially on this forum. Until someone in authority (read L1's, CDS) distributes direction, stupid local interpretation is not authority to direct policies. FFS guys. And if it does happen, PM me.


----------



## FJAG (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> OK. I watched the level of paranoia about what CAF was going to impose escalate exponentially on this forum. Until someone in authority (read L1's, CDS) distributes direction, stupid local interpretation is not authority to direct policies. FFS guys. And if it does happen, PM me.



These kind of issues shouldn't need CDS/L1 involvement. It's middle management stuff but since it's "novel" (pun intended) it means there will be a bit of trial and error and in some cases decent ad hoc solutions will be found in others; not so much. The trouble is the CAF is generally so micro-manged from the top that some people have minimal ability to deal practically on new situations without central guidance.

Like always: If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined.

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> OK. I watched the level of paranoia about what CAF was going to impose escalate exponentially on this forum. Until someone in authority (read L1's, CDS) distributes direction, stupid local interpretation is not authority to direct policies. FFS guys. And if it does happen, PM me.



I'm not sure exactly which topic/subj you're referring to...re: distributes direction.

Stupid local interpretation...why would anyone expect that?  It's not like it happened with say...BOOTFORGEN or BEARDFORGEN...right?   ;D


----------



## Weinie (9 Jul 2020)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I love these.
> 
> For starters, this unit is assuming everyone has internet access.  How about those individuals with data caps?  Will they be able to claim overages?  It just seems like they are opening the door to all kinds of *** pain.
> 
> ...



OK. Where is the CAF order "ordering" pers to go onto Internet/Facebook. Show me. 



Staff edit to reflect quote syntax


----------



## ballz (9 Jul 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> These kind of issues shouldn't need CDS/L1 involvement.



It's L1 involvement that has likely _caused_ this to happen, given that it was an L1 Deputy Comd (DCCA) that has personally directed that all Changes of Command will be live-streamed on FB... it was inevitable that someone would eventually turn that into the troops being required to watch.



			
				Weinie said:
			
		

> And if it does happen, PM me.



Have a fun chat with MGen Macaulay.


----------



## Weinie (9 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's L1 involvement that has likely _caused_ this to happen, given that it was an L1 Deputy Comd (DCCA) that has personally directed that all Changes of Command will be live-streamed on FB... it was inevitable that someone would eventually turn that into the troops being required to watch.
> 
> _*Have a fun chat with MGen Macaulay.*_



You may be old enough to remember the game of "phone tag" where one person in a circle starts a message and then whispers it in the ear of the next, and so on until it reaches the end, with often hilarious/catastrophic results. My boss will have a chat with Derek(DCCA), it will likely be fun, because they are old friends.

Appreciate the feedback


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> OK. Where is the CAF order "ordering" pers to go onto Internet/Facebook. Show me.
> 
> 
> 
> Staff edit to reflect quote syntax



Mine is an email from the CO, thru my Flight Commander.  "Sqn [virutal] morning briefs are _mandatory attendance_"; they were done on FB live and ZOOM.  If you didn't have FB, you were encouraged to 'join' and as a minimum, expected to watch the recording later if nothing else.


----------



## Weinie (9 Jul 2020)

Send me the e-mail, via PM if you want to protect identities. I will forward it, with an "encouragement" to make it stop.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mine is an email from the CO, thru my Flight Commander.  "Sqn [virutal] morning briefs are _mandatory attendance_"; they were done on FB live and ZOOM.  If you didn't have FB, you were encouraged to 'join' and as a minimum, expected to watch the recording later if nothing else.


Is Facebook secure? I don't think so.
 :facepalm:

How ridiculous.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> OK. Where is the CAF order "ordering" pers to go onto Internet/Facebook. Show me.




I've seen a few email chains that start on high where a general or colonel makes a suggestion. Something along the lines of "let's see if we can get some more interest in this voluntary thing". 

By the time it makes its way down to the company and platoon level it turns into "troops WILL do this and have it complete NLT tomorrow morning. Confirm to me when all pers have completed it"


Not an order from the "CAF" but an order from the CAF.

If a unit chief orders the unit to be on Facebook to join a change of command parade troops generally won't say no even if it does sound like a wonky thing.


----------



## dimsum (9 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mine is an email from the CO, thru my Flight Commander.  "Sqn [virutal] morning briefs are _mandatory attendance_"; they were done on FB live and ZOOM.  If you didn't have FB, you were encouraged to 'join' and as a minimum, expected to watch the recording later if nothing else.



I would love to see the charge of AWOL being thrown out because someone has a bad Internet connection and can't join the FB/Zoom conference.

Considering there are zero questions 99% of the time on Sqn morning briefs, why can't they just be a bullet-point document of what the CO, etc wants to say?  Or even have the exec do a meeting and have the minutes sent out to the sqn?


----------



## Weinie (9 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen a few email chains that start on high where a general or colonel makes a suggestion. Something along the lines of "let's see if we can get some more interest in this voluntary thing".
> 
> By the time it makes its way down to the company and platoon level it turns into "troops WILL do this and have it complete NLT tomorrow morning. Confirm to me when all pers have completed it"
> 
> ...



I was the ADC to a two star in the early nineties. When we visited units, the subbies that I knew would say "what the phuk was the General thinking when he ordered XYZ." After several iterations, it became apparent that the interpretations and orders passed down through the one star, colonels. LCol's, Coy Comds, Pl Comds, CSM's was like the version of phone tag that I posted earlier, the original intent was nothing like the end message. Garbage passed at the high end equals garbage.  Just trying to clean up the trash.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2020)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Is Facebook secure? I don't think so.
> :facepalm:
> 
> How ridiculous.



Nothing that shouldn't have been discussed (Designated/Classified) was but...still.

ZOOM...I actually will not use it, on my personal phone/laptop/desktop devices.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would love to see the charge of AWOL being thrown out because someone has a bad Internet connection and can't join the FB/Zoom conference.
> 
> Considering there are zero questions 99% of the time on Sqn morning briefs, why can't they just be a bullet-point document of what the CO, etc wants to say?  Or even have the exec do a meeting and have the minutes sent out to the sqn?



 :dunno:

I can tell you there was Comd in the RCAF and RCN that did 'virtual townhalls', and Sqn's that did virtual Morning Prayers.

I'd rather Leadership be honest and use words like "encouraged to partake" instead of "mandatory attendance".  I was wondering if the Sqn's/units doing this were actually watching/caring about the # of people who were "attending", almost like "rating" would be to a TV program.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> I was the ADC to a two star in the early nineties. When we visited units, the subbies that I knew would say "what the phuk was the General thinking when he ordered XYZ." After several iterations, it became apparent that the interpretations and orders passed down through the one star, colonels. LCol's, Coy Comds, Pl Comds, CSM's was like the version of phone tag that I posted earlier, the original intent was nothing like the end message. Garbage passed at the high end equals garbage.  Just trying to clean up the trash.



This is why anything other than the next day’s timings should be issued via written orders using brevity and conciseness.  While avoiding all ambiguity.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> I was the ADC to a two star in the early nineties. When we visited units, the subbies that I knew would say "what the phuk was the General thinking when he ordered XYZ." After several iterations, it became apparent that the interpretations and orders passed down through the one star, colonels. LCol's, Coy Comds, Pl Comds, CSM's was like the version of phone tag that I posted earlier, the original intent was nothing like the end message. Garbage passed at the high end equals garbage.  Just trying to clean up the trash.



I had a (clearly insane) CO try to charge people for not replying to his emails.

Maybe that's the result of one of these misinterpretations?


----------



## Kilted (9 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Right?
> 
> If I'm logging in to Facebook to watch a change of command parade do I have to change my name to my real name or can I stick with my screen name, Sugar ButtButtt.
> 
> ...




That reminds me of the whole Bloggins issue back in 2014. I remember hearing a lot of rumours that people were going to get charged for liking that page. 

That was a big gong show that I'm surprised we haven't had more similar issues. 

Did they ever publicly name who was responsible for it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2020)

It's possible to put ones foot down and fight the system when a unit oversteps their bounds. Paying for a civilian lawyer when one is getting threatened frivolously helps people think twice as well. 

You can also randomly get pulled off being course loaded on a coveted ARP course to do a tasking capable of being filled by someone a couple ranks below you and posted away afterwards, too.

Sounds like the makings of a good book. _Hills to die on._   ;D


----------



## ballz (9 Jul 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> You may be old enough to remember the game of "phone tag" where one person in a circle starts a message and then whispers it in the ear of the next, and so on until it reaches the end, with often hilarious/catastrophic results.



Indeed, which is what I alluded to when I said it started with direction from L1 ("all Changes of Command ceremonies will be live-streamed") and predictably turned into something (even more) ridiculous. Personally I'm more surprised by the fact that this is surprising, this is just an every day occurrence. As Jarnhammer notes, most just aren't a good hill to die on for your average person, they're just a mildly annoying, mostly harmless, common occurrence.

Meanwhile a few million dollars in compensation for soldiers that was publicly ordered to be paid out a year ago by the CDS still has no action or even an indication that anyone who can do something about it actually will...


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jul 2020)

We use Microsoft Teams for work on our personal devices (with a DND Teams account).  It works well and we can share up to Prot A and discuss up to Prot B via voice.  It is on my personal device (iPad in my case) and it costs me 0 extra to run it.  It probably takes 5GB of data a month.  

I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



Many civilian jobs (private and public) supply the hardware and cover the costs when they expect you to be responsive. Obviously not all, and I'm sure it depends. But lots of employers find a way to make it happen (with smaller budgets, and less IT/procurement staff than CAF/DND)

I get that it's not practical to issue every Pte/Cpl a tablet or smartphone. But organizations also don't need to go overboard in what they expect a person to do on their own device and dime. If it is so vital that someone be responsive, provide the means.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2020)

ballz said:
			
		

> Indeed, which is what I alluded to when I said it started with direction from L1 ("all Changes of Command ceremonies will be live-streamed") and predictably turned into something (even more) ridiculous. Personally I'm more surprised by the fact that this is surprising, this is just an every day occurrence. As Jarnhammer notes, most just aren't a good hill to die on for your average person, they're just a mildly annoying, mostly harmless, common occurrence.
> 
> _*Meanwhile a few million dollars in compensation for soldiers that was publicly ordered to be paid out a year ago by the CDS still has no action or even an indication that anyone who can do something about it actually will...*_



Im sorry, what now ?  Did I miss something ?


----------



## Furniture (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We use Microsoft Teams for work on our personal devices (with a DND Teams account).  It works well and we can share up to Prot A and discuss up to Prot B via voice.  It is on my personal device (iPad in my case) and it costs me 0 extra to run it.  It probably takes 5GB of data a month.
> 
> I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



I also use my personal computers to conduct business when at home, or on the road through DND O365, and find it far more convenient than scrolling through my work phone to read emails, and reports.   

In my opinion O365 is one of the positive things to come from the whole pandemic response. While I get that some people may not have the ability to use it, I'd hate to see it taken away from the rest of us.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jul 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I also use my personal computers to conduct business when at home, or on the road through DND O365, and find it far more convenient than scrolling through my work phone to read emails, and reports.
> 
> In my opinion O365 is one of the positive things to come from the whole pandemic response. While I get that some people may not have the ability to use it, I'd hate to see it taken away from the rest of us.



O365 is a stopgap, poorly planned, that is further fracturing our IM ability.  Is that email / document in O365, or DWAN, or CSNI or... ?  Which address was it sent to?  Where is it stored as an item of business value?  How do we migrate from one to the other?  Who has access to which system?

Computer programs are easy.  Managing the resulting data and information?  That's the hard part, and where we have significant friction.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



Really?  Any?  Well mine doesn't.....my GF's doesn't.   That's at least 2 just seconds after reading your post.


----------



## mariomike (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



I looked forward to their calls to my home phone. Four (4) hours pay at time-and-a-half.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2020)

Maybe a bit ff topic: but ...

I know that no one ever wants to hear about COMSEC, but, unfortunately, unlike about 98% of what 95% of all CF GOFOs say and do, COMSEC actually matters.

The CF's use of the Gov't of Canada's security system remains a stupid mistake ... ALL military members and all DND civilians working on military issues should use ONLY the military security system which has detailed, enforceable rules (you, even a general, can go to prison for a long time for breaking them) and the COMSEC implications of those rules are well understood and well documented (were, 20+ years ago, anyway).

(Anecdotally, 20+ years ago I sat in a van with a handful of senior PCO and CF people. My techs used a piece of readily available civilian equipment that, back then, cost more than a luxury downtown condo, and we "read" a cabinet document from a secure DND computer, all because the senior officer behind the computer didn't want her/his desk and chair too far away from the window. (S)he was, by the way, several stories high and I was parked more than a block away ... that's how far the radiation from a CRT computer screen used to travel.)

Today's LED screens produce less (but nowhere near zero) radiation, but they can still be "read." And high-grade receivers and very high gain antennae are cheaper and smaller today, too, and are readily available on the open market ... just look at the Rohde & Schwarz product line to see what any civilian can buy. Governments, ours and foreign ones, can buy even better kit and I would be shocked if foreign agents are not using it in Ottawa, today.

Every CF members who is required to work outside of the secure office area should have a shielded computer (MilSpec 461, I think) (yes, they are heavier and more expensive) connected via a secure link (SCIP, now, I think) to the DND network. _*Anything*_ less is amateurish.

My (out of date, I've been retired since some of you were in diapers) but still informed *opinion*.


Edited to add:

By the way, I have been convinced (since 1984) that the CF is directed (politically), managed and commanded by amateurs. Before 1984 I _suspected_ that but I could not see it, close up ... nothing has changed my opinion in the intervening 35 years.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jul 2020)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I looked forward to their calls to my home phone. Four (4) hours pay at time-and-a-half.



And that's exactly how I've seen some of my (smarter) clients deal with that, especially for unionized employees. It's a good idea.

The 'excluded' staff? It's trickier, but constant emails expecting responses at 5 in the morning are a good indication that you might want to keep your options open....


----------



## MJP (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



I see your point and the occasional use of my personal device is not the hill I am going to die on.

In the private sector those same companies that expect pers to use personal devices also provide a benefit for that usage as well. As an anecdotal example I am aware of a security company that has an app that their guards use on their personal phones for check ins and other things related to their job and they reimburses the employees for the usage of their own phones to a certain degree each month. Companies also have no issues signing T2200s for their employees to be able to deduct employment expenses, trying to get the same from DND/CAF next to impossible (although it may change this year given the situation).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2020)

consolidated/moved down the page a few posts.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jul 2020)

We had a system when DVPNI was limited where people on a WhatsApp chat would “claim” a slot to use it and “release” it when done.  This way, we didn’t have to have assigned Individual timeslots for work and allowed a more efficient use of our unit’s assigned slots.  We had people that initially refused to join.  It was fine.  We gave them the midnight to 4AM slots and expected their work to be done on time.  You are working from home, saving on gas, saving on parking (for some) with a more flexible work schedule where you can spend more time with the family.  Even if it costs you $50 a month more, you probably saved more in transportation costs to/from work.  The least you can do is show a bit of flexibility for the organization, especially in a context where there is absolutely no precedent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2020)

You can give people all the 0000-0400 time slots you want;  if they don't want to use (or, say, don't even have) a personal Internet connection and/or devices...what is that accomplishing exactly?   ???

What level of info/data has WhatsApp been assessed for/approved for, IRT conducting official CAF business?  I'm not seeing it under the "Run Advertised Programs" on my DVPNI laptop as available software...meaning it would have to be assessed and approved for your/other units (which could be the case...).

I'm not debating this from a personal situation perspective;  I have DVPNI, I have a separate laptop at home for O365 (or I can assure you, it would not be installed on my personal device - see my earlier comments about how much I'll use my pers cellphone in the future for CAF business) and I do not have usage-based billing for my Internet.  My only real issue is the way 0365 *must* use MS 2FA for 365 to work.

The bigger, more important question is "should the CAF be relying on members using their own devices and internet (that the Crown does not pay for/maintain);  was this REALLY the solution in the (likely thousands of...) BCPs?


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I honestly don’t see why some people are against communicating with work though means not provided by work. I can guarantee you that any civilian job will expect you to be responsive on your personal devices....



Really? ???

My company provides me with a full suite of IT resources.  They don’t have my personal mobile number, nor do they expect to have it. All work and communications is executed through company assets.  The same applies for all 50,000 employees around the world. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Jul 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I had a (clearly insane) CO try to charge people for not replying to his emails.
> 
> Maybe that's the result of one of these misinterpretations?



"Then there was the strawberry incident..."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We use Microsoft Teams for work on our personal devices (with a DND Teams account).  It works well and we can share up to Prot A and *discuss up to Prot B via voice*.





> I've not seen any of the documentation on O365 or Teams that mentions anything PB is authorized.  The documentation I have on O365 (including MS Teams) states "All work undertaken with this capability must remain at the PROTECTED A level or below" (underlining from my Onboarding directive on my Forces email).



I recalled there is an Internet document as well (the email I referred to above was sent to me PB).

Defence O365 frequently asked questions

2 - What is Microsoft (MS) Teams?
Microsoft (MS) Teams is a collaborative tool set to help you and your colleagues communicate when not in the office. You can use MS Teams to hold video conference meetings, or to share transitory information.  For more information about MS Teams, visit the Microsoft Teams Wikipedia article.

4 - Why should I use MS Teams when I’m already using similar Apps/Software?
While there are many apps and software available now, Defence O365 has been identified as the preferred option.  Using your Defence O365 account with MS Teams provides a common platform to work and collaborate with your peers from the Defence Team.  The tool provides intuitive features such as chat, message boards, calendar and videoconference.  The tool is also an alternative to audio teleconference bridges.  This tool will allow us to improve our ability to work remotely and collaborate during this emergency period.

6 - How secure is this solution?
The Defence O365 environment was customized for DND’s needs. It was assessed by both the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security and DIMSecur. *This tool has been approved to storing and processing up to Protected A information* .  A number of security measures have been included in this solution, including active monitoring.

Authorized Use (Protected A)
25 - What is the appropriate usage of this tool – what type of work tasks am I allowed to complete in the Cloud?
Office 365 supports browser-based versions of all Microsoft Office Suite Applications such as: Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote. However, it is only suitable for information up to Protected A at this time. Please note that Protected B, Classified, Controlled Goods and ITAR information is not permitted on Defence O365 at this time.



Additionally, IRT WhatsApp and similar software:

DND/CAF Security Guide for Teleworking during the COVID-19 Response

* note - not seeing WhatsApp on this list...I'll assume it falls under "not assessed" as discussed in Para 6 above.

2. Share only unclassified* information: No sensitive information (Protected A, B, C or classified) is permitted.  

4.  Be inclusive: Some people may not have Internet access, have accessibility challenges, or have concerns using certain public cloud services. Find ways to ensure everyone can participate.  

Now, maybe it's only me, but I don't think "_fuck you, you get the 0000-0400 slot_" is what they meant in Para 4.  Great leadership, though (gold clap).


----------



## BDTyre (10 Jul 2020)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really?  Any?  Well mine doesn't.....my GF's doesn't.   That's at least 2 just seconds after reading your post.



Same here. My civilian employers does not have my cell # on record, nor have they asked for it. I have voluntarily given it to a few select people under very certain circumstances.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jul 2020)

I meant voice as in phone lines.  For the midnight to 4AM slots, our units spans across Canada.  We had people on at 6AM Eastern time (4 AM Cold Lake time) and off at 2330 Cold Lake time, the slots being used about 80% of the time.  We were not good going to give people that were refusing to partake out of principle (they did have internet access, used Facebook and even WhatsApp on their personal devices already) convenient slots at the  expense of 40 other folks.  G2G: my dad has a blue collar job and is expected to give his personal phone number to his employer and be ready to be called for work.  Same for airline pilots on reserve.  These are truly first world problems especially when put into a pandemic context.  People lost their jobs and were forces to drastically reduce their income and can barely (if at all) make ends meet.  I bet they would trade their phone number for work...


----------



## trooper142 (10 Jul 2020)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Im sorry, what now ?  Did I miss something ?



I just wanna jump on this, I had heard the military was ordered to back pay for short Changing troops related to TD travel; as they were only reimbursing up to 500km one way for pmv travel, but didn't seek treasury board approval for the change. 

Any news on this front?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I meant voice as in phone lines.



check



> We were not good going to give people that were refusing to partake out of principle (they did have internet access, used Facebook and even WhatsApp on their personal devices already) convenient slots at the  expense of 40 other folks.



So, we're back full-circle.  Can you order people who've been ordered to not report to their place of duty to use personal devices for GoC/CAF reasons?   If you can't order it, should you expect it?  Or should you just be thankful for those who are willing?

Is there a BCP out there, at the higher or lower (Sqn/Unit) levels that says "members shall be expected to use personal devices and data connections to conduct normal duties"?  (serious question there)


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jul 2020)

Well, with giving them the available timeslots, they did not have to use their personal device.  They logged in when it was their turn.  That was our way of being flexible (and the only one that did not affect the whole unit.  

Do you ask the military to pay for your gas to/from work and provide you with a vehicle?  To me, nowadays, it is pretty much the same thing. 

Most (99.9%) people appreciated using tools like this as it allowed them flexibility in their daily routine, juggling home schooling and work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Well, with giving them the available timeslots, they did not have to use their personal device.  They logged in when it was their turn.  That was our way of being flexible (and the only one that did not affect the whole unit.



I'm missing something here, I realize.  What were they connecting with; DVPNI?



> Do you ask the military to pay for your gas to/from work and provide you with a vehicle?



Of course not, but use of a PMV for DUTY reasons, I would. 

But those differences are clearly laid out in policy.

CFTDI, Chap 5, Section 3 - Transportation benefits
5.20 General
(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel:
a. to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis; and
b.  in respect of a mess dinner, mixed dining-in, or other similar event.



> To me, nowadays, it is pretty much the same thing



But, is what you consider 'the same thing' equate CAF expectations?  This is part of the issue;  mbr's who have a personal opinion on a subj like this that begins to equal 'expectations of their subordinates', but with no *Snr Command* input/direction.  "You will watch the CofC ceremony on your FB accounts"  "Everyone in the section except Jimmy and Jane use WhatsApp how/when we want on their pers devices...lets give them crappy times because they aren't Bending The Knee".  



> Most (99.9%) people appreciated using tools like this as it allowed them flexibility in their daily routine, juggling home schooling and work.



I'm one of those people, but I'm fortunate to have had DVPNI as well, AND a separate device for O365 AND no usage-based billing.  Not everyone is in that boat; those are the cases I'm cyber-advocating for...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jul 2020)

There's always going to be people who make a fuss about the chain of command having their cell numbers or whatever and fight it every step. Personally I don't care but I'm sure we've all seen it abused here and there so sometimes people have valid reasons for their privacy

I have a wicked schedule and I'm loving the amount of time I have with my family. If my boss wants to call me at 730pm because they need to know how many non-white females between 19 and 35 years old completed the FORCE test in the last 4 months and needs to know by tomorrow morning then sure whatever*.

Simply put there needs to be boundaries. Because if there isn't then you have sergeants ordering their section to download chat apps of their choice to stay in touch. Lieutenants ordering their platoons to download Strava to track PT. CSMs ordering companies to use chat programs for call outs (and you better explain yourself if you don't respond within 30 minutes). CWOs ordering units to access and use facebook to watch a parade. Majors and LCols pushing out complete sets of orders over Whatsapp.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jul 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Simply put there needs to be boundaries. Because if there isn't then you have sergeants ordering their section to download chat apps of their choice to stay in touch. Lieutenants ordering their platoons to download Strava to track PT. CSMs ordering companies to use chat programs for call outs (and you better explain yourself if you don't respond within 30 minutes). CWOs ordering units to access and use facebook to watch a parade. Majors and LCols pushing out complete sets of orders over Whatsapp.



So.... you've been talking to a few people I know out this way then?


----------



## stellarpanther (10 Jul 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm missing something here, I realize.  What were they connecting with; DVPNI?
> 
> Of course not, but use of a PMV for DUTY reasons, I would.
> 
> ...



I've heard people say we work 24 hours a day and are always on duty yet they pay you to come to work if you get recalled.  Why not pay you to use a personal device?  Although I'm not sure I want their apps on my phone regardless.

5.24 Recall to work
Subject to instruction 5.20 (General), a member who is recalled from home to the member's workplace is - if the recall is the second trip to the workplace in a 24 hour period - entitled to be reimbursed:

a.  in respect of a member using a PMV, two times the kilometric rate for the direct road distance between the member%u2019s home and the workplace; and

b.  in respect of a member using local transportation - including buses, subways, commuter trains, taxis, bridge tolls, docking fees, and other transportation 
     charges authorized by the approving authority ordering the recall, the member%u2019s actual and reasonable expenses including gratuities.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Sep 2020)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-don-t-plan-to-cut-military-spending-to-rein-in-deficit-sajjan-1.5106032#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=mDqwJ6b


Minister says defense cuts are not on the table, and that they went to accelerate military spending due to covid. Likely in my opiniom to stimulate the economy.

I'll believe it when the budget comes down without us loosing money.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-don-t-plan-to-cut-military-spending-to-rein-in-deficit-sajjan-1.5106032#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=mDqwJ6b
> 
> 
> Minister says defense cuts are not on the table, and that they went to accelerate military spending due to covid. Likely in my opiniom to stimulate the economy.
> ...



Accelerating spending is pretty hard right now; I'm sure the various COVID impacts have slowed down our system, but it's also impacted every aspect of the supply chain, and best of luck if you need anything that requires on the ground support for installation/set to work/trials from outside of Canada.  There is no way that we won't underspend this year, and if it's NP money it's just lost.

It would be a good time to fill up the part bins except they severly curtailed warehousing, so that's not an option either.

The budget really doesn't matter during something like this, and no chance of it ending this fiscal year and will still be slowing down any planned spending next year.


----------



## FSTO (16 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-don-t-plan-to-cut-military-spending-to-rein-in-deficit-sajjan-1.5106032#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=mDqwJ6b
> 
> 
> Minister says defense cuts are not on the table, and that they went to accelerate military spending due to covid. Likely in my opiniom to stimulate the economy.
> ...



Doesn't the "Architect" know about our procurement process?


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Sep 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Doesn't the "Architect" know about our procurement process?



Right? Our procurement system only has a slow down button, never speed up.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Sep 2020)

Once upon a time,, when I was a captain, I got glared at by some senior officers for suggesting our procurement system was designed to keep lots of people employed when there was no money to buy anything.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-don-t-plan-to-cut-military-spending-to-rein-in-deficit-sajjan-1.5106032#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=mDqwJ6b
> 
> 
> Minister says defense cuts are not on the table, and that they went to accelerate military spending due to covid. Likely in my opiniom to stimulate the economy.
> ...



I'll believe it when I see an F 35 flying over my house.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberals-don-t-plan-to-cut-military-spending-to-rein-in-deficit-sajjan-1.5106032#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=Facebook&_gsc=mDqwJ6b
> 
> 
> Minister says defense cuts are not on the table, and that they went to accelerate military spending due to covid. Likely in my opiniom to stimulate the economy.
> ...



You give DND a lot of money and ensure they can't spend it and it returns to general revenue to fund politically beneficial programs. How to dodge a political bullet.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You give DND a lot of money and ensure they can't spend it and it returns to general revenue to fund politically beneficial programs. How to dodge a political bullet.



F7ckin brilliant analysis - seriously. Well said.


----------



## dimsum (16 Sep 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You give DND a lot of money and ensure they can't spend it and it returns to general revenue to fund politically beneficial programs. How to dodge a political bullet.



To paraphrase Blackadder, that is so cunning that it could be a fox appointed as a Professor of Cunning at Oxford.


----------



## FJAG (10 Jan 2021)




----------



## GR66 (10 Jan 2021)

We're going to be deeply in debt as a nation after Covid.  We've got huge spending upcoming for ships and aircraft.  We have high personnel costs and yet we still have issues recruiting/training/retaining people across a whole range of trades. 

There has already been lots of discussion about cutting HQ's and reducing administrative overhead and also about fixing the Reserves, but maybe it's time to seriously look at technologies that will allow us to do more with less people.

Maybe we need more units of unmanned aircraft, surface and underwater vessels and ground vehicles instead of more fighters, helicopters, ships, subs, tanks, IFVs and artillery.  

The CF is unlikely to grow and personnel costs will continue to rise.  To maintain and increase our capabilities maybe we need to focus much more on manned/unmanned teaming for all our capabilities.  Don't just plan to replace our MPAs/Fighters/Tanks/C3's/etc. with a new piece of kit...instead, plan right from the start to replace the existing capability with a mix of manned and unmanned platforms that can give the desired capabilities using less people.  

If the CF doesn't do something fairly radical, I fear that it will simply become ineffective across the board as a military force.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jan 2021)

GR66 said:


> There has already been lots of discussion about cutting HQ's and reducing administrative overhead and also about fixing the Reserves, but maybe it's time to seriously look at technologies that will allow us to do more with less people.



I'll stop you right there. Any new technology that appears to save PYs on the front end, increases the taskload and PYs required of the backend support which is in 90% of cases, Signalers. Slamming more network intensive technologies at a trade who's been around 70% PML for 10 years and not recovering to save a handful of shooter PYs on the front end is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I'll stop you right there. Any new technology that appears to save PYs on the front end, increases the taskload and PYs required of the backend support which is in 90% of cases, Signalers. Slamming more network intensive technologies at a trade who's been around 70% PML for 10 years and not recovering to save a handful of shooter PYs on the front end is a recipe for disaster.


Seconded. And it isn't just the communications networking requirement, which, as you correctly point out, is substantial -- UAV/UAS/RPV require maintenance, fueling, arming, weather and intelligence support, not to mention the operators/crew themselves, who, while not sitting inside the airframe, still need to be trained and force generated in significant numbers. For example, the NATO AGS programme, which operates 5 Global Hawk variants, has 550 personnel at its base in Sicily. Unmanned aircraft are quite manpower intensive.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

Any tech we employ such as say an unmanned tank, might save a couple bodies up front but you are still gaining techs, and will need more of them, especially for an unmanned piece of kit because you have no user input to figure out issues, more wires to chase, more software and hard ware to troubleshoot.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Any tech we employ such as say an unmanned tank, might save a couple bodies up front but you are still gaining techs, and will need more of them, especially for an unmanned piece of kit because you have no user input to figure out issues, more wires to chase, more software and hard ware to troubleshoot.


Also, politically (and probably LOAC reasons) Canada, at this time, will not allow weapons release without a person in the loop.  So you may save a few people, but we're not at SkyNet levels here.  

This is one of the fundamental reasons why I have trouble with people being so scared about RPAs conducting kinetic strikes, when it is really not all that different than a fighter or bomber doing the same thing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jan 2021)

GR66 said:


> We're going to be deeply in debt as a nation after Covid.  We've got huge spending upcoming for ships and aircraft.  We have high personnel costs and yet we still have issues recruiting/training/retaining people across a whole range of trades.
> 
> There has already been lots of discussion about cutting HQ's and reducing administrative overhead and also about fixing the Reserves, but maybe it's time to seriously look at technologies that will allow us to do more with less people.
> 
> ...


Which takes us back to the big question: What is our mission?, of course


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2021)

From way down here it looks like the CAF has done it's damn best to keep the status quo alive and are giddy to get back to it, sans any substantial changes.

Sure, we finally got on board with electronic signatures, Microsoft Teams, and Sharepoint. Anybody with any sense would recognize that it's an immense failure that it takes a global pandemic to make even the most incremental progress. And look how easy those changes were... there goes all the pre-pandemic excuses about why it was so "complicated."


----------



## lenaitch (10 Jan 2021)

And what about the issue of taking the warrior out the warzone but not out of the war?  I've seen articles about US military RPAS operators, based in the US, basically 'walking to war' from home.  When you kill someone, regardless of whether it is via video, there are still the emotional and mental issues that go along with that that are perhaps not being recognized and addressed.  You do your thing, get up from the console and go home to the family.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> And what about the issue of taking the warrior out the warzone but not out of the war?  I've seen articles about US military RPAS operators, based in the US, basically 'walking to war' from home.  When you kill someone, regardless of whether it is via video, there are still the emotional and mental issues that go along with that that are perhaps not being recognized and addressed.  You do your thing, get up from the console and go home to the family.


Yes.  There are lots of studies and articles about not only the aircrew (Pilots and Sensor Operators) but also the Int personnel who have to analyze the video.  That part gets glossed over by folks that think it's just a video game.

Reaper Force, written about the RAF MQ-9 Reaper fleet, has a pretty good section devoted to this.  It was a great read.









						Inside Britain’s Reaper Force: Human Stories and Ethical Dilemmas
					

Peter Lee, Reaper Force: Inside Britain's Drone Wars (John Blake, 2018) We know how to operate with … and they pretty much speak English too, so that



					warontherocks.com


----------



## FJAG (10 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> And what about the issue of taking the warrior out the warzone but not out of the war?  I've seen articles about US military RPAS operators, based in the US, basically 'walking to war' from home.  When you kill someone, regardless of whether it is via video, there are still the emotional and mental issues that go along with that that are perhaps not being recognized and addressed.  You do your thing, get up from the console and go home to the family.


That's pretty much a red herring. Those issues will always be there regardless of the weapon systems. The real issue is recurring personnel costs to develop a defence capability output. 

When I look at some of the newer artillery systems I see a gun capable of being operated by a single driver and one operator. Sure there's an ammo reload team at the back but how highly trained do they have to be compared to the driver/gunner. Veh and system techs - you betcha. My old M109 battery had around fifteen give or take. I'm not sure that a battery of Archers or HIMARS, being primarily wheeled and with fewer vehicles, need that many.

Same for wheeled UAV systems - a small core of highly trained personnel and a number of handlers who require less training and experience.

🍻


----------



## GR66 (10 Jan 2021)

The problem is that with increasing personnel costs and increasing weapon costs you end up with smaller and smaller fleets of vehicles/weapon systems.  Does having the capability of fielding a single sub operationally mean we have a sub force?  A single deployable tank squadron means we have an armoured capability?  Is 65 fighters enough to defend an airspace the size of Canada's?  

Which capability is easier to generate in modern Canadian society and to train for operations?  IT techs or pilots?  Mechanics or tankers?  The kind of trades that can support technology have direct civilian analogies unlike military-specific trades.  Are we more likely to find recruits that want to join the military in a trade that will give them skills that will set them up for a civilian career when they release?  

All I know is that my gut tells me that what we are doing now isn't working.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Which takes us back to the big question: What is our mission?, of course


Doesn't matter as long as you tell me twice


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Jan 2021)

The way the wind looks like blowing, increasingly taking the "armed" out of the CAF and resulting in a a less and less combat-oriented CAF (except perhaps for the RCN which has little domestic relevance and provides all those juicy shipbuilding jobs! jobs! jobs!):



> *Military efforts at home are increasingly the norm. A Joint Task Force Canada is the next logical step*





> _Christian Leuprecht is Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership at the Royal Military College, cross-appointed to Queen’s University and senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute._





> Two years ago, few could have imagined that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) would end up managing a global supply chain for national vaccine distribution and backstopping the provincial mismanagement of 54 long-term care homes. The pandemic also showed that no one in government fully understands national supply chains across Canada. Still, no part of the country ran out of personal protective equipment even when supply was critically short, because CAF logisticians had the managerial savvy to locate it, CAF planners executed without having to rely on other partners or equipment, and the Royal Canadian Air Force transported it where it needed to go.





> Time and again, the Department of National Defence has been called on as the only federal organization with the highly trained, well-educated and experienced roster of specialists and assets to plan and execute complex and large-scale operations in short order. Under Operation Laser, the CAF had a COVID-19 plan that it was able to execute while coming to the assistance of other government departments…





> Over the past decade, Canada has become more reliant on the CAF to respond to domestic emergencies: the number of CAF’s domestic taskings has doubled and tripled over the two previous decades. These operations have proven well within the capabilities of the CAF. But in the event of floods, forest fires, or a grave international crisis, CAF assets currently dedicated to the pandemic may have been unavailable. Climate change is bound to multiply the frequency of crises such as wildfires and floods in the coming years, and that will increase demand for CAF resources. The pandemic is a harbinger of future CAF domestic operations that are more frequent and complex, longer and larger without the ability to rely on help from allies. Although the CAF has been able to deliver, after 15 years of efforts focused on counterinsurgency and building partner capacity, Canada’s military still has much to learn and re-learn about large-scale operations.





> For decades, the CAF has prioritized a strategic culture premised on Army expeditionary operations despite the fact that Afghanistan represented the only such mission in the past 60 years [but see just below this paragraph, Prof. Leuprecht is being rather selective].  Since the late 1950s, CAF leaders have vehemently resisted anything seen as diluting the combat role: they argue that it is easier to “scale down” from combat than to “scale up” from domestic operations. But that is a false dichotomy, and politicians are looking for a broader contribution to national security from their annual defence investment of $22-billion…





> [Afghanistan has been the Army’s only *combat* expeditionary mission since 1960 and then only from 2006-11. But there have also been several major and sometimes dangerous Army “peacekeeping” missions with both the UN and NATO, e.g. in Somalia, in former Yugoslavia, in Kosovo and Macedonia (a hybrid operation: the RCAF engaged in bombing and then the Army in peacekeeping) and in Afghanistan itself 2003-05. Plus a major army contribution to NATO in West Germany from the 1950s through the 1980s, and since 2017 a significant Army presence leading the forward NATO multinational force in Latvia. And substantial numbers of Canadian special forces have been engaged in a variety of activities in Iraq since 2014.]





> Evidently, domestic operations are no longer a part-time sideshow, yet the CAF still responds to emergencies with pick-up teams. CJOC  needs a dedicated Joint Task Force (JTF) for domestic operations, composed of regular and reserve forces. The newly appointed Chief of the Defence Staff, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, is experienced at conducting domestic operations: he was the commander of JTF Pacific from 2016 to 2018 and ran humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations as maritime component commander of JTF Haiti in 2010. That background should come in handy as the CAF ponders how to optimize its force structure in response to growing domestic, continental and international demands on its limited assets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess where most governments, the populace and the media will favour putting Canada’s future “defence” priorities and efforts. Especially given almost everybody’s intense aversion to taking fatal casualties in anything beyond the most minimal numbers.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

Part of the problem is with the downsizing of bases in the 90s, it takes time to mobilize and move a force for a DOMOP to a given location. Logically then you look to the reserves to be that local QRF but in most cases we lack the equipment to respond to even the most basic tasks to hold the line till the reg force arrives. If the CAF wants us to be better prepared, PRes Service battalions should be used to preposition kit for DOMOPs. Especially engineering equipment.


----------



## FJAG (10 Jan 2021)

MarkOttawa said:


> The way the wind looks like blowing, increasingly taking the "armed" out of the CAF and resulting in a a less and less combat-oriented CAF (except perhaps for the RCN which has little domestic relevance and provides all those juicy shipbuilding jobs! jobs! jobs!):
> ....
> 
> Guess where most governments, the populace and the media will favour putting Canada’s future “defence” priorities and efforts. Especially given almost everybody’s intense aversion to taking fatal casualties in anything beyond the most minimal numbers.
> ...


An academic's view that totally misses the point (unfortunately the whole article is behind a pay wall so my opinion is based solely on what is quoted here.)

As General Simonds pointed out back in the sixties, a military force trained in general combat can easily adapt to domestic disaster operations; the reverse is not true.

If we want a domestic response force we could for considerably less money create a civil defence corps of a few trained professionals, storehouses of equipment and a largely volunteer standby force to ramp up in case of a disaster whether flood, fire or pandemic. You simply do not need a full-time force for such matters - it's more a seasonal requirement.

To reallocate funds from National Defence or to refocus direction of existing defence resources is playing a risk game based on the proposition that we will never have to fight again. In what is becoming a more dangerous world with more complex weapon systems and more complex skills needed it is virtually impossible to build a defence force from scratch - a large part of it needs to be there full-time albeit that much of it can be trained and on part-time standby.



GR66 said:


> The problem is that with increasing personnel costs and increasing weapon costs you end up with smaller and smaller fleets of vehicles/weapon systems.  Does having the capability of fielding a single sub operationally mean we have a sub force?  A single deployable tank squadron means we have an armoured capability?  Is 65 fighters enough to defend an airspace the size of Canada's?
> 
> Which capability is easier to generate in modern Canadian society and to train for operations?  IT techs or pilots?  Mechanics or tankers?  The kind of trades that can support technology have direct civilian analogies unlike military-specific trades.  Are we more likely to find recruits that want to join the military in a trade that will give them skills that will set them up for a civilian career when they release?
> 
> All I know is that my gut tells me that what we are doing now isn't working.



That's why I keep saying focus on keeping the weapon systems that provide the defence capability outputs and find a better cheaper personnel solution across the board. There's a point where we have to stop the death spiral.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jan 2021)

GR66 said:


> The problem is that with increasing personnel costs and increasing weapon costs you end up with smaller and smaller fleets of vehicles/weapon systems.  Does having the capability of fielding a single sub operationally mean we have a sub force?  A single deployable tank squadron means we have an armoured capability?  Is 65 fighters enough to defend an airspace the size of Canada's?
> 
> Which capability is easier to generate in modern Canadian society and to train for operations?  IT techs or pilots?  Mechanics or tankers?  The kind of trades that can support technology have direct civilian analogies unlike military-specific trades.  Are we more likely to find recruits that want to join the military in a trade that will give them skills that will set them up for a civilian career when they release?
> 
> All I know is that my gut tells me that what we are doing now isn't working.


This article about US Defense spending suggests cuts might b a feature of a Biden government. We might follow suit, now free of the Trump bullying, and emboldened by another 'left wing' government next door. I mean, we own a pipeline now and nee dot pay for that, right? 

"A Biden administration would likely see Democrats keep control of the House and possibly win the Senate. Should Democrats control both chambers and the White House, they would likely seek to reduce topline defense growth, if not impose cuts on defense spending. There are clear divisions in the Democratic caucus between progressives and moderates that might mitigate against such cuts (defense spending remained high during the period of unified Democratic control in 2009 to 2010), but the party has shifted somewhat to the left in the interim. It is difficult imagine the broader caucus not pushing for reductions when, for instance, the chairman of House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, has talked about level or reduced spending. Republicans in this scenario would likely try to block Democratic moves in the Senate through the use of the filibuster. However, the party in the White House tends to struggle in midterms, so Democratic control of government might not extend past 2022. Should Democrats fail to take the Senate, it becomes much harder to see defense spending falling significantly, as Senate Republicans will almost certainly demand defense spending levels be treated similarly to non-defense spending."









						U.S. Defense Spending During and After the Pandemic - War on the Rocks
					

“I've ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the United States military. Had great support from the Senate. I've had great support from



					warontherocks.com


----------



## HiTechComms (10 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> This article about US Defense spending suggests cuts might b a feature of a Biden government. We might follow suit, now free of the Trump bullying, and emboldened by another 'left wing' government next door. I mean, we own a pipeline now and nee dot pay for that, right?
> 
> "A Biden administration would likely see Democrats keep control of the House and possibly win the Senate. Should Democrats control both chambers and the White House, they would likely seek to reduce topline defense growth, if not impose cuts on defense spending. There are clear divisions in the Democratic caucus between progressives and moderates that might mitigate against such cuts (defense spending remained high during the period of unified Democratic control in 2009 to 2010), but the party has shifted somewhat to the left in the interim. It is difficult imagine the broader caucus not pushing for reductions when, for instance, the chairman of House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, has talked about level or reduced spending. Republicans in this scenario would likely try to block Democratic moves in the Senate through the use of the filibuster. However, the party in the White House tends to struggle in midterms, so Democratic control of government might not extend past 2022. Should Democrats fail to take the Senate, it becomes much harder to see defense spending falling significantly, as Senate Republicans will almost certainly demand defense spending levels be treated similarly to non-defense spending."
> 
> ...


LOL. Democrats making cuts.. They are more likely to start more wars and conflicts. Hate the orange man but he had a longer streak of non authorized use of military then Jimmy Carter. 

Trump bullying.. How so.. by saying pay for your own defense? Why should the American tax payer pay for world security? 

Biden is a Warhawk so is Harris. Their track record of voting speaks in volumes. 

I rather see a world of no conflict and carry a big stick.. Despots, dictators and crazies don't care if you are a pacifist. 
Than again I am an eastern european and I know better.


----------



## lenaitch (11 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> That's pretty much a red herring. Those issues will always be there regardless of the weapon systems. The real issue is recurring personnel costs to develop a defence capability output.
> 
> When I look at some of the newer artillery systems I see a gun capable of being operated by a single driver and one operator. Sure there's an ammo reload team at the back but how highly trained do they have to be compared to the driver/gunner. Veh and system techs - you betcha. My old M109 battery had around fifteen give or take. I'm not sure that a battery of Archers or HIMARS, being primarily wheeled and with fewer vehicles, need that many.
> 
> ...


I think there's a difference between fewer human assets operating a particular platform or performing a particular function in a high risk/warzone and personnel executing combat or lethal functions hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jan 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I think there's a difference between fewer human assets operating a particular platform or performing a particular function in a high risk/warzone and personnel executing combat or lethal functions hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.


You're right, there is. 

However, your previous point was that operators of remote weapon systems also had mental health issues like their combat zone counterparts which I agree with to a point. My position simply was that mental health issues are irrelevant in a discussion about using fewer operators (or part-time operators or minimally trained operators) in systems that are highly automated and thus cheaper to operate year to year.

🍻


----------



## GR66 (18 Jan 2021)

Interesting article from the Modern War Institute reporting on Stanford's class on "Technology, Innovation and Modern War".  

https://mwi.usma.edu/what-we-learne...lass-on-technology-innovation-and-modern-war/

I found the link to the interview with Adm. Lorin Selby, the Chief of Naval Research quite interesting in terms of less reliance on "exquisite" platforms and more on networks of shorter-lived platforms that turn over technology more quickly.  

It would be interesting to apply this thought process to what the CAF could look differently if it applied these concepts.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jan 2021)

Interesting article indeed. It reminds me of two quotations:



> "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." - Dwight Eisenhower





> "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Donald Rumsfeld



🍻


----------



## CBH99 (19 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> This article about US Defense spending suggests cuts might b a feature of a Biden government. We might follow suit, now free of the Trump bullying, and emboldened by another 'left wing' government next door. I mean, we own a pipeline now and nee dot pay for that, right?
> 
> "A Biden administration would likely see Democrats keep control of the House and possibly win the Senate. Should Democrats control both chambers and the White House, they would likely seek to reduce topline defense growth, if not impose cuts on defense spending. There are clear divisions in the Democratic caucus between progressives and moderates that might mitigate against such cuts (defense spending remained high during the period of unified Democratic control in 2009 to 2010), but the party has shifted somewhat to the left in the interim. It is difficult imagine the broader caucus not pushing for reductions when, for instance, the chairman of House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith, has talked about level or reduced spending. Republicans in this scenario would likely try to block Democratic moves in the Senate through the use of the filibuster. However, the party in the White House tends to struggle in midterms, so Democratic control of government might not extend past 2022. Should Democrats fail to take the Senate, it becomes much harder to see defense spending falling significantly, as Senate Republicans will almost certainly demand defense spending levels be treated similarly to non-defense spending."
> 
> ...


Sorry for replying to a post from a week or so ago.

I don't think it will matter whether it's the democrats or republicans in the white house, when it comes to defense spending.

As much as I am not a Trump fan, he increased the budget & was a very pro military guy.  He also did this at the same time as not starting any 'lets call it anything but war so we don't have to get Congressional approval' during his time.


The conflict with China, I believe, will dictate the US military budget over the next few years.  That is the real threat, and that is going to be a very nasty fight when it finally kicks off.  I think circumstances will dictate budget & priorities.

0.02


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jan 2021)

Ready for Adaptive Dispersed Operations: The Army’s modernization strategy | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com
				





Somewhat related, a look at some of the topics being tossed about including reorganization, though I am skeptical any meaningful reorg would happen.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Feb 2021)

CityNews
					






					www.660citynews.com
				




Related, covid is causing a significant back up, short 2k reg force doesn't seem like much but of the troops we have I am willing to bet a large chunk are not trained either. Tough calls are going to need to be made if we are to clear the back log.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2021)

People could be brought into recruit training, while awaiting certain checks. Teaching people how to live in a group, use a mop, polish their boots and march is not exactly a high security risk. Yes you lose a few people and resources, but likley the long term gain far out weighs that. Be honest that there is no guarantee till all the checks have cleared.


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> People could be brought into recruit training, while awaiting certain checks. Teaching people how to live in a group, use a mop, polish their boots and march is not exactly a high security risk. Yes you lose a few people and resources, but likley the long term gain far out weighs that. Be honest that there is no guarantee till all the checks have cleared.


Recruiting people without security checks doesn’t really solve the problem — it just moves it down the road, instead of people waiting at home for the go-ahead to enlist you’d have BMQ qualified people waiting for the go-ahead to start their DP1. And PAT as it is constructed seems to be a dissatisfying experience.

Personally, I’d replace the whole concept of PAT platoons with a posting to a ceremonial/force protection unit. That way the CAF gets some value out of a post-BMQ recruit, and if a member never gets their clearance, they can spend their initial contract presenting arms and guarding ships/airfields/bases. But given that the NCR is brutally expensive and has no single quarters that may not be the best place to put these Privates — maybe Montreal/St Jean and then TD detachments up to the NCR or wherever they are needed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2021)

We ran SYEP courses, with minimal security checks and did not have that many issues. You could have them parade at a militia unit in each major city. Teach a standard course and they can choose to live a barracks (if available) or commute to work everyday. This way you make use of existing infrastructure, employ reservists in a useful role.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (14 Feb 2021)

My main concern reading this is the crazy backlog we will have in some trade like aircrews. It takes years to get someone through the pipeline and trained. This is really gonna hit the RCAF and other elements really hard.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Feb 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> People could be brought into recruit training, while awaiting certain checks. Teaching people how to live in a group, use a mop, polish their boots and march is not exactly a high security risk. Yes you lose a few people and resources, but likley the long term gain far out weighs that. Be honest that there is no guarantee till all the checks have cleared.


You know ERC is basically just a Criminal Records Check, right? Which is contracted to take less than 30 days? The only people who do full Secret screening are individuals who have lived outside of Canada for long periods in the last 10 years.

By removing the ERC requirement you could potentially get sex offenders and career criminals into BMQ... sounds like a recipe for success.

The problems in recruiting are bureaucratic, not security based.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> You know ERC is basically just a Criminal Records Check, right? Which is contracted to take less than 30 days? The only people who do full Secret screening are individuals who have lived outside of Canada for long periods in the last 10 years.
> 
> By removing the ERC requirement you could potentially get sex offenders and career criminals into BMQ... sounds like a recipe for success.
> 
> The problems in recruiting are bureaucratic, not security based.


I agree, my understanding is the security checks are done in Ottawa, how much faster could things get done if it was decentralized to local cells of the MPs? Or other organizations?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> CityNews
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reading thru the article...I am wondering how much the impact had on the training system because "it shut down temporarily", vice "recruiting numbers".  Most trades have untrained members (PATs) who are waiting;  my trade had a good sized buffer last spring (I was looking after BTL folks at that time).  Short term production should have been mainly affected by the stand-down of CAF TEs.  The "lack of ability to recruit effectively" should really only be realized in the production of newly qual'd folks in the 21/22 FY (or, perhaps longer) possibly?

I think the CAF has been "below PML" in recent years, including before COVID...is it accurate to name COVID as the PML shortfall at this point?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> You know ERC is basically just a Criminal Records Check, right? Which is contracted to take less than 30 days? The only people who do full Secret screening are individuals who have lived outside of Canada for long periods in the last 10 years.
> 
> By removing the ERC requirement you could potentially get sex offenders and career criminals into BMQ... sounds like a recipe for success.
> 
> The problems in recruiting are bureaucratic, not security based.


With every course of action, there are risks, we managed those risks before. Currently you seem to be losing people because they end up waiting for a year or so to join. Getting them to do the SYEP style course gives both the military and them a taste of each other and chance to decide what is the best next course of action.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> I agree, my understanding is the security checks are done in Ottawa, how much faster could things get done if it was decentralized to local cells of the MPs? Or other organizations?



Considering a VSS/CPIC is about 3 weeks when you go to the OPP/MPs, we're not really saving any real time here on a process that is over a year for most people.



Colin Parkinson said:


> With every course of action, there are risks, we managed those risks before. Currently you seem to be losing people because they end up waiting for a year or so to join. Getting them to do the SYEP style course gives both the military and them a taste of each other and chance to decide what is the best next course of action.



The risk of having a career criminal or registered sex offender show up at BMQ or any DND program is not worth it. We're losing people for a myriad of reasons, long recruiting process is just one of them. Clogged training systems, COVID-19 and a benefits/PLD system stuck in the 1990s are significantly more pressing issues than ERCs.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Feb 2021)

What about just setting up some sort of agreement with the local police service, and have the CPIC check done the same day it's requested?  It isn't hard to check CPIC, and print it out.

As long as the local police service is accredited (which shouldn't be an issue) -- this would make things easier on Ottawa, and speed up that aspect of the process immensely.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2021)

Or, we could like many employers, require the applicant to provide a police records check and vulnerable persons check as part of their end of the process.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> What about just setting up some sort of agreement with the local police service, and have the CPIC check done the same day it's requested?  It isn't hard to check CPIC, and print it out.
> 
> As long as the local police service is accredited (which shouldn't be an issue) -- this would make things easier on Ottawa, and speed up that aspect of the process immensely.


The Commissionaires do CRCs (and finger printing) too. https://commissionairesviy.ca/


----------



## lenaitch (15 Feb 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> Or, we could like many employers, require the applicant to provide a police records check and vulnerable persons check as part of their end of the process.



That would make the most sense - shows commitment.  But I get the impression with the CAF recruiting process, background checks are not a huge time thief.  In Ontario, you have to apply through the service where your reside.  If the military tried to strike some deal with police services, many municipals use the income as part of their budgeting process to their councils and will want to retain (or enhance?) that.

If the military requires fingerprint verification (VSS-level), that extends the process from a standard CPIC check.


----------



## AndCurt (15 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> What about just setting up some sort of agreement with the local police service, and have the CPIC check done the same day it's requested?  It isn't hard to check CPIC, and print it out.
> 
> As long as the local police service is accredited (which shouldn't be an issue) -- this would make things easier on Ottawa, and speed up that aspect of the process immensely.


It shouldn't take 3 weeks, and depending on the volume, it could be done within the day. I would suspect that the delays are linked to volume and/or low numbers of personnel actually doing the work off the side of their desk.

I would caution you, it's not as easy as printing off a CPIC and you're "good to go". Having done them myself, I would make them a priority as I didn't want to hold up anyone's job or application. That being said, being thorough was the overall objective. As someone else mentioned, it's not worth having career criminals, sex offenders, and the ilk join the CAF and have access to weapons and systems.

And that's just the Reliability level, let alone S and TS.


----------



## winds_13 (15 Feb 2021)

I fail to see the importance of CPIC processing WRT reduced hiring of new CAF members during the pandemic. The main issue seems to be reduced capacity to train new members, resulting in less new offers of employment going out.

I think the following article better highlights some of the current issues WRT personnel generation during the pandemic. Note the example it gives of a recruit who enrolled in January 2020, with an original BMQ start date in April 2020, that then had their BMQ pushed until January 2021... that is a whole year of someone's VIE spent waiting to start basic. 









						Canadian Forces adapts to address backlog created by COVID-19 pandemic
					

COVID-19 changed most people's plans this year and for many joining the Canadian Armed Forces it's meant long delays.



					calgary.ctvnews.ca


----------



## GR66 (15 Feb 2021)

Stepping away from the recruitment issues, this Op Ed in the Thin Pinstriped Line discusses the hard choices to be made by the British Army in relation to tight budgets, increasing costs and competition with the RAF and RN for funding.  I think it closely mirrors many of the issues facing the CF.

https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> Stepping away from the recruitment issues, this Op Ed in the Thin Pinstriped Line discusses the hard choices to be made by the British Army in relation to tight budgets, increasing costs and competition with the RAF and RN for funding.  I think it closely mirrors many of the issues facing the CF.
> 
> https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html



Of course, the last time they signalled a big cut in Defence spending the Argies heard it more like a starter's pistol, something that most people forget when it comes to Thatcher and the Falklands War:

The *1981 Defence White Paper* (titled "The UK Defence Programme: The Way Forward" Cmnd 8288) was a major review of the United Kingdom's defence policy brought about by the Conservative government under the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The main author was the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Nott. The aim of the review was to reduce expenditure during the early 1980s recession and to focus on supporting NATO rather than out of area operations. It was ultimately judged however to have been extremely detrimental to the Defence of the Realm, being among other things widely considered to have been one of the contributing factors that led to the outbreak of the Falklands War.






						1981 Defence White Paper - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

GR66 said:


> Stepping away from the recruitment issues, this Op Ed in the Thin Pinstriped Line discusses the hard choices to be made by the British Army in relation to tight budgets, increasing costs and competition with the RAF and RN for funding.  I think it closely mirrors many of the issues facing the CF.
> 
> https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-numbers-game-why-reducing-british.html


I think once we choose a fighter replacement and have them in our hangers, and the CSC fleet is more or less built - the Air Force and Navy WILL BE the premier elements of war fighting coming up.  

In any peer conflict situation, both the navy and Air Force will be able to deliver effects faster & on a larger scale.

The Army is obviously extremely important. But unless we end up buried in another COIN type operation, I think our contributions to any action against China (only peer competitor we are likely to fight) will be in the form of ships and jets.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

Speaking of post pandemic spending...

Does DND still return $1B to $2B annually??


----------



## HiTechComms (16 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I think once we choose a fighter replacement and have them in our hangers, and the CSC fleet is more or less built - the Air Force and Navy WILL BE the premier elements of war fighting coming up.
> 
> In any peer conflict situation, both the navy and Air Force will be able to deliver effects faster & on a larger scale.
> 
> The Army is obviously extremely important. But unless we end up buried in another COIN type operation, I think our contributions to any action against China (only peer competitor we are likely to fight) will be in the form of ships and jets.


How come the idea of getting rid of Fighter jets and replacing them with a fleet of drones, automation, and investing in missiles is never considered, well I haven't seen any media or gov talking about it. (Might exist but I have never seen it)

Its no secret automation is the future yet the dnd/gov doesn't consider this alternative route.


----------



## lenaitch (16 Feb 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> How come the idea of getting rid of Fighter jets and replacing them with a fleet of drones, automation, and investing in missiles is never considered, well I haven't seen any media or gov talking about it. (Might exist but I have never seen it)
> 
> Its no secret automation is the future yet the dnd/gov doesn't consider this alternative route.



I could well be wrong, but does an autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft for air superiority even exist or under development?  The obviously exist for surveillance, air-to-ground, COIN, etc.  Given to long planning and procurement timelines, how do we plan for and work towards something that doesn't yet exist?


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I could well be wrong, but does an autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft for air superiority even exist or under development?  The obviously exist for surveillance, air-to-ground, COIN, etc.  Given to long planning and procurement timelines, how do we plan for and work towards something that doesn't yet exist?



'They' want you to 'think' they don't exist 

Actually, it's been in development for years. I first heard about the 'loyal wingman' concept way back in 1987.

here's the Boeing example. There's a bunch of interesting info on it if your Google-fu is strong:



			Boeing: Airpower Teaming System


----------



## HiTechComms (16 Feb 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I could well be wrong, but does an autonomous or remotely-piloted aircraft for air superiority even exist or under development?  The obviously exist for surveillance, air-to-ground, COIN, etc.  Given to long planning and procurement timelines, how do we plan for and work towards something that doesn't yet exist?


I think it does exist (Boeing) . Air superiority.. Well if you have 10 drones to 1 fighter isn't that superiority? 
If the government is gone blow billions of dollars and have yesterdays technology delivered tomorrow why not do what the future is going to be.

Air navigation would be something easily to automate relatively speaking.


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Feb 2021)

We tried replacing aircraft with missiles before,  it was called the bomarc, didn't work out how we wanted.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> I think it does exist (Boeing) . Air superiority.. Well if you have 10 drones to 1 fighter isn't that superiority?
> If the government is gone blow billions of dollars and have yesterdays technology delivered tomorrow why not do what the future is going to be.
> 
> Air navigation would be something easily to automate relatively speaking.


If you have 10 drones in the air, against 1 enemy fighter....isn't that superiority?

No.  No it isn't.

You could put 10 Cessnas against an F-16...does that give you air superiority??


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> How come the idea of getting rid of Fighter jets and replacing them with a fleet of drones, automation, and investing in missiles is never considered, well I haven't seen any media or gov talking about it. (Might exist but I have never seen it)
> 
> Its no secret automation is the future yet the dnd/gov doesn't consider this alternative route.


Automation is the future, indeed.  But when it comes to UCAVs, we aren't quite there yet.

Replacing manned fighters with UCAVs, or at least supplementing them with UCAVs, will happen in the future.  No doubt.  Supplementing them with UCAVs now is doable, as the 1st generation of UCAV is being implemented as a 'loyal wingman' concept.

However, these are 1st generation UCAVs, and as such - there is a lot of growth to be had in terms of speed, maneuverability, payload, network speeds, etc etc.

Longer range A2A missiles is also something that is very much on the horizon.  The new Aim-260 missile is the first purpose built long range A2A missile the Americans have produced in decades - we've all been relying on enhanced versions of the Aim-120D, Aim-9X, Meteor, etc etc.  

So between some loyal wingman UCAVs with long range missiles coming into service, it will change the A2A game, absolutely.  But we aren't at a place where we can replace manned fighters with unmanned, yet.


As for any missiles with longer range than what falls into the A2A category, you don't even want to go there.  Any ground based missiles with extended ranges start to fall under various international treaties, and that's a hassle no Canadian government will touch with a 10ft pole.  (This is the same country that refused to support BMD...)


----------



## HiTechComms (16 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> If you have 10 drones in the air, against 1 enemy fighter....isn't that superiority?
> 
> No.  No it isn't.
> 
> You could put 10 Cessnas against an F-16...does that give you air superiority??


Not if Cessna are equipped with state of the art long range missiles and radars. 
At the pace of tech advancement it might not matter what goes into the air but what and how many are being used to shoot at the enemy.

We use to build battle ships and now? Tech has really changed the game.

If Canada refuses to engage in some plans because of treaties it will be left behind. Upside is we have the southern neighbors that have no qualms.
I understand that its not the time right now but by the time there is a replacement fighter that Canada purchases that time might be then.


----------



## dimsum (16 Feb 2021)

HiTechComms said:


> How come the idea of getting rid of Fighter jets and replacing them with a fleet of drones, automation, and investing in missiles is never considered, well I haven't seen any media or gov talking about it. (Might exist but I have never seen it)
> 
> Its no secret automation is the future yet the dnd/gov doesn't consider this alternative route.


Snarky answer:  Because there is a big fighter mafia in the RCAF (and almost all other AFs and Naval Aviation organizations) who probably look down upon RPAs as "beneath them".

There was/is an uproar when the USAF proposed giving RPA crews combat medals.  They did it anyway, but the comments were salty.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2021)

Until a nation goes for a 100% cyber force, there will always be humans in/on physical platforms, no matter the environment...air, land, sea (surface, sub-surface), space.


----------



## lenaitch (16 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> 'They' want you to 'think' they don't exist
> 
> Actually, it's been in development for years. I first heard about the 'loyal wingman' concept way back in 1987.
> 
> ...



Yes, I am (very) basically familiar with the project, but even Boeing describes it as a "team with existing military aircraft", which is different than "getting rid of" and "replacing with".

Air superiority means to me that there is a chunk of sky that you want to deny from others.  if you can do it with a Cessna, bully.   Remotely-piloted might be one thing but autonomous shoot/don't shoot is, I think, a long way off.

It reminds me of a thread on another forum that I following that contends that autonomous vehicles are so closely poised to spring on the market, some say by 2024 (because Musk and others say so) that municipalities should scrap all of their transit plans because we'll all be zipping around on ride-hailed AVs and railways are doomed because everything will move on AV trucks.

Things are moving fast, but making multi-billion/multi-year decisions based on concepts is a challenge.  The F-35 began in what, 2006, and a lot of the tech is still being sorted out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Yes, I am (very) basically familiar with the project, but even Boeing describes it as a "team with existing military aircraft", which is different than "getting rid of" and "replacing with".
> 
> Air superiority means to me that there is a chunk of sky that you want to deny from others.  if you can do it with a Cessna, bully.   Remotely-piloted might be one thing but autonomous shoot/don't shoot is, I think, a long way off.
> 
> ...



Coincidentally, we did some work for a client estimating what it would take to implement ACATS (Advance Connectivity and Automation in the Transportation System). 

One or two issues: it would cost billions to re-engineer our infrastructure (there's a reason Elon wants to dig a tunnel under LA - it's cheaper and faster), and oh, it's still illegal  

20 years from now? Might be a thing....


----------



## Weinie (16 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Coincidentally, we did some work for a client estimating what it would take to implement ACATS (Advance Connectivity and Automation in the Transportation System).
> 
> One or two issues: it would cost billions to re-engineer our infrastructure (there's a reason Elon wants to dig a tunnel under LA - it's cheaper and faster), and oh, it's still illegal
> 
> *20 years from now? Might be a thing....*


20 years from now Skynet might be a thing..................


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2021)

They're already here... https://www.skynetworldwide.ca/


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Feb 2021)

Weinie said:


> 20 years from now Skynet might be a thing..................


----------



## Weinie (16 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


>


Yeah it will be fine, until the big one happens, and you all fall into the sea. When, not if.


----------



## FSTO (17 Feb 2021)

All this autonomous military tech is fantastic, but does that not also involve a secure communications capability with massive amounts of BB and NB capacity? 
I'm just a rube when it comes to all this tech, but in my red cell mind how are all these whiz bang gadgets going to work in the emcon denied environment?


----------



## dimsum (17 Feb 2021)

FSTO said:


> All this autonomous military tech is fantastic, but does that not also involve a secure communications capability with massive amounts of BB and NB capacity?
> I'm just a rube when it comes to all this tech, but in my red cell mind how are all these whiz bang gadgets going to work in the emcon denied environment?


Yes it does.  That's an aspect that I find people don't really talk about until you dig into it.  All of those need a 2-way comms capability.  If it's working past line of sight, then it has to be satellite-based or using repeating towers, which adds infrastructure and associated cost.  

Not only that, depending on where you're looking to use it (e.g in the poles past 65N/S), you start getting into issues with some of the "standard" comms satellite constellations like GPS.


----------



## Loachman (19 Feb 2021)

"it has to be satellite-based or using repeating towers, which adds infrastructure and associated cost" - and _delay_.

As far as I know, only two of us on this fine Site have any real experience with UAVs - my quoted comrade being the other - and there are many obstacles in the way of unmanned combat systems.

The delay between transmission and reception of satellite-routed signals is minor for simple communications, but critical when trying to direct machines involved in manoeuvering combat or dropping/launching on moving ground targets (USAF and RAF Predators and Reapers were operated locally for that reason), plus there is a huge lack of situational awareness when sitting in a ground control station compared to a cockpit.

As a Pilot, I relied on such things as peripheral vision, sound of my engine and transmission, and sensations of motion and vibration. As a CU161 Sperwer Mission Commander, I had none of those. We often only realized that we'd flown into a thunderstorm when either the thermal imager blanked out or the altimeter showed an almost-instantaneous drop of eight hundred feet or so, or both.

I lost three AVs in rapid succession during my tour in late-September 2008 to end-April 2009, one for a parachute failure during the recovery phase, one for an "AV close to stall speed" indication which turned out to be caused by a failure in one of two engine cylinders that was not obvious combined with the machine's automatic adoption of a climb attitude in its attempt to maintain altitude, and one for an engine-out indication which turned out to be nothing more than a fault of the RPM indicator system.

We almost lost another when the AV symbol on the moving-map display froze one night. We could still see with the thermal imager, but had no idea where we were as we did not know how long it had been since the problem occurred and when we noticed it. We were finally able to recognize Kandahar City and thus blunder our way back to Kandahar Airfield, but fine navigation was impossible - we actually inadvertently crossed the runway while setting up for one of many recovery attempts. Fortunately, this was late at night and there was no traffic around. We could not judge altitude, so relied on relayed information from ATC and altitude thus fluctuated wildly from several hundred feet below to several hundred feet above the specified recovery altitude. My PO (Payload Operator) could only look either ahead or down, but not both due to the narrowness of the thermal imager's field-of-view. That made it almost impossible to judge our proximity to the rather small recovery area, or even to line up on it. None of us had trained for a manual recovery. There was no means to do so, and it wasn't considered to be doable (recovery was by parachute, and the machine calculated wind drift effect to place itself in the correct position autonomously). When my AVO figured that we were in the best possible (or least-worst possible) position, he triggered the recovery process. We actually came down on the boundary between the recovery site and the uncleared minefield adjacent to it. Our relief was tremendous, and success was entirely due to the phenomenal co-ordination between my AVO and PO. While we, ourselves, were in no danger, there was a very real fear factor throughout

I read, much later (but still several years ago), a collection of UAV crews' disorientation experiences, including a Predator or Reaper that had somehow become inverted without the Pilot realizing it - he couldn't figure out why it was turning in the opposite direction to his control inputs. Many of those incidents resulted in loss of the machine, and I could well understand the problems and confusion that those guys had. I cannot find it online now, but it may have been a paper article. I did find the following four articles, which contain snippets of relevant information:









						Do Drones Get Vertigo, Too?
					

Up there or down here, it can be a struggle to maintain “situational awareness.”




					www.airspacemag.com
				












						The Drone Zone (Published 2012)
					

At a desert facility, Air Force pilots are trained to fight America’s remote-controlled wars.




					www.nytimes.com
				




https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military (I do not agree with all of the statements in this article)

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a543186.pdf (I've only skimmed this so far but will read in more detail later; I know Linda Bossi fairly well, and have enormous respect for her).

The Sperwer only had a thirteen-foot wingspan and was powered by a Rotax snowmobile engine, but we were told that it cost more per flying hour to operate than any other aircraft in the entire CF. It had a high loss rate (we were concerned that the Roto before us would not leave us any serviceable AVs by the time that they were finished) and, between the AVs, the Ground Control Stations (GCSs), Ground Data Terminals (GDTs), and other components, was a maintenance nightmare. There was an incredible number of minor/trivial malfunctions that could delay or scrub a mission or cause an AV loss.

Now, yes, this was ancient (and French) technology, but many of the same factors still exist, and will for several years to come.

*AND DON'T CALL THEM "DR***S".*

Please


----------



## CBH99 (20 Feb 2021)

Loachman!  Haven't seen you here in ages mate, good to see your name pop up again


----------



## HiTechComms (20 Feb 2021)

How about we make it that before any military deployment we put Politicians in a Fancy dome cage on giant suspenders and give them rusty sporks and make them fight each other first.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Feb 2021)

The idea of the CAF replacing manned fighters with Autonomous Aircraft in the near future is laughable.

Autonomous systems of the type we are discussing are more expensive than a manned aircraft because they require extensive Comms and C2 Infrastructure.

We don't have the institutional or technical know how to even manage those programs let alone the ability to adequately fund them.

We are currently equipped with Ships and Aircraft that are using 1970s/1980s technology and have been attriting capability year over year for the past few decades.

Autonomous Systems will be reserved for serious Military players.  They are at the top of the Spectrum of Military Capabilities and are not for a Military like ours.


----------



## GR66 (20 Feb 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The idea of the CAF replacing manned fighters with Autonomous Aircraft in the near future is laughable.
> 
> Autonomous systems of the type we are discussing are more expensive than a manned aircraft because they require extensive Comms and C2 Infrastructure.
> 
> ...


I was one of the people that initially brought up the Loyal Wingman concept as something perhaps for the RCAF to consider.

In response to the above comment let me again clarify my original question to be discussed.

Would it be worthwhile for Canada to consider looking at reducing it's new fighter purchase (preferably the F-35 in my opinion) from the planned 88 fighters to the originally stated 65 fighters and use the savings from the 33 extra fighters to invest in 65 x Loyal Wingman type UCAVs instead.

The idea being that 88 combat aircraft isn't enough for a country the size of Canada while having a split fleet of manned/unmanned aircraft we could get back to a fleet of 130 aircraft.

I never suggested REPLACING manned fighters and only using UCAVs.  Simply consider if a mixed manned/unmanned fleet might have advantages for a country of our size with a limited budget.

The key things to note about the Boeing Loyal Wingman project are that:
a) They are semi-autonomous and are controlled from the partner aircraft NOT by remote comms stations or satellites.  No additional C2 structure would be required.
b) Boeing says the target cost of the Loyal Wingman is $2million USD each.  I'm assuming of course that this is promotional BS, but even at a unit cost of 10-15 times this amount ($20-30 million each) it is still considerably cheaper than a manned fighter.
c) Boeing also says they are expecting to have the program in full-scale production by mid-decade or possibly even sooner.

Again I'd agree with those that say that UCAVs can't replace manned fighters and that they're not ready for combat TODAY.  But come the late 2020s to 2030 when we'll likely see our 65th CF-18 replacement fighter coming into service might not a Loyal Wingman-type UCAV not be a viable, cheap way to expand our combat airpower?  If that's the case then wouldn't it be wise to start looking into these options today (like the Aussies, Brits and Americans already are) so that we're not behind the technological curve?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Feb 2021)

I think something like loyal wingman has more merit than alot of other RPAS applications. Because the are controlled, line of sight from another human occupied aircraft, most of the latency and C2 infrastructure problems go away.

The thought that we are somehow going to send RPAS to do an intercept North of Inuvik with today’s technology is...optimist at best.


----------



## Loachman (22 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Loachman!  Haven't seen you here in ages mate, good to see your name pop up again


Thanks. I've been a little busy and interweb access has been limited.


----------



## Loachman (22 Feb 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Autonomous Systems will be reserved for serious Military players.  They are at the top of the Spectrum of Military Capabilities and are not for a Military like ours.


I doubt that there's be much public support for lethal autonomous systems.

I certainly don't support the idea.


----------



## Brash (25 Feb 2021)

Loachman said:


> I doubt that there's be much public support for lethal autonomous systems.
> 
> I certainly don't support the idea.


If adversaries deploy autonomous and/or swarm vehicles, you will have to get on board pretty quickly.

To Defeat Enemy Drone Swarms, Troops May Have to Take a Back Seat to Machines, General Says


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2021)

Loachman said:


> Thanks. I've been a little busy and interweb access has been limited.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2021)

Well, the near future is certain, for some people who will have their postings cut this year.  Anywhere from 30 to 50% slashes to cost moves this APS.  Thankfully, we've given lots of money away for stupid shit so...those members and families will be nothing but grateful.

Next "bad news" for CAF members and families - pay freeze at 2017 rates.  I'm sure some people will match their GAFF accordingly.


----------



## Messerschmitt (26 Feb 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Well, the near future is certain, for some people who will have their postings cut this year.  Anywhere from 30 to 50% slashes to cost moves this APS.  Thankfully, we've given lots of money away for stupid shit so...those members and families will be nothing but grateful.
> 
> Next "bad news" for CAF members and families - pay freeze at 2017 rates.  I'm sure some people will match their GAFF accordingly.


According to gossip, new pilot pay is still being implemented and currently sitting with TBS for signature and TB for approval by April 2021.


----------



## CBH99 (27 Feb 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Well, the near future is certain, for some people who will have their postings cut this year.  Anywhere from 30 to 50% slashes to cost moves this APS.  Thankfully, we've given lots of money away for stupid shit so...those members and families will be nothing but grateful.
> 
> Next "bad news" for CAF members and families - pay freeze at 2017 rates.  I'm sure some people will match their GAFF accordingly.


Do you mean members took a slight pay cut, from 2020 rates to 2017 rates?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Well, the near future is certain, for some people who will have their postings cut this year.  Anywhere from 30 to 50% slashes to cost moves this APS.  Thankfully, we've given lots of money away for stupid shit so...those members and families will be nothing but grateful.
> 
> Next "bad news" for CAF members and families - pay freeze at 2017 rates.  I'm sure some people will match their GAFF accordingly.


Considering we've lost approx 7% to inflation since 2017, that'll be the nail in the coffin for most folks. Back to the 90s with Ptes at food banks?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Feb 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Considering we've lost approx 7% to inflation since 2017, that'll be the nail in the coffin for most folks. Back to the 90s with Ptes at food banks?



If so it looks like they'll have alot of company. US data....

Hardship Remains High, Latest Census Data Show​
Hardship remains high across the board although some measures halted their upward trend in early January, Census data released today show. Millions of people report that their household didn’t get enough to eat, isn’t caught up on rent, or struggled to cover usual expenses. While the relief package enacted in December amidst surging hardship and a stalling recovery will provide important help to many people, another substantial stimulus and relief package is needed to address ongoing hardship and extend key provisions of the December package that will expire in coming months.

Our updated tracker features new data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey showing the pandemic’s ongoing impact. According to the latest Pulse data, collected January 6-18:


Nearly 24 million adults — 11 percent of all adults — reported that their household sometimes or often didn’t have enough to eat in the last seven days.
An estimated 15.1 million adults living in rental housing — 1 in 5 adult renters — weren’t caught up on rent.
More than 80 million adults — 35 percent of all adults — reported it was somewhat or very difficult for their household to cover usual expenses in the last seven days.
Hardship rates are particularly high among families with children, raising serious concerns about the long-term consequences of persistent hardship for children’s health and their academic outcomes. Food hardship among adults living with children is _four times_ above pre-pandemic rates, available data suggest. Between 9 and 12 million children live in a household where children didn’t eat enough because the household couldn’t afford it, according to our analysis of detailed Pulse data collected December 9-21 (the latest available for this measure). Nearly half of all children live in households that had trouble covering usual expenses. And more than 4 in 10 children living in rental housing live in a household that either isn’t getting enough to eat or isn’t caught up on rent.









						Hardship Remains High, Latest Census Data Show | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
					

Hardship remains high across the board although some measures halted their upward trend in early January, Census data released today show. Millions of people report that their household didn’t get...



					www.cbpp.org


----------



## BurmaShave (28 Feb 2021)

Where's the pay freeze rumour coming from? Does it apply to civil servants, given that we mimic their pay? (cause PSAC is done negotiating and will be _livid_)


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2021)

PSAC has received their pay increase, in fact...

The CPC did call for a General officer pay freeze, not an across the board freeze.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Feb 2021)

So...what is the official work on a pay increase for the CAF?  It's been almost 4 years...

From what I can tell;  nothing.  For the most recent pay raises, we knew around fall timeframe.  This time around?

SFA.  As mentioned...PSAC has their pay increase.  We are the group that can get told to PFO and there's nothing that can be done about it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2021)

I'll _very happily_ admit I was wrong, out of my lane, talking out of my butt.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Mar 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll _very happily_ admit I was wrong, out of my lane, talking out of my butt.


We can all be wrong from time to time.


----------



## Weinie (4 Mar 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll _very happily_ admit I was wrong, out of my lane, talking out of my butt.


I'm with you doing the happy dance, moving my butt.


----------



## AKa (5 Mar 2021)

> Eye In The Sky said:
> 
> 
> > So...what is the official work on a pay increase for the CAF?  It's been almost 4 years...
> ...





> Are you prescient?  I guess you have the answer now.  I was surprised that there wasn't any chatter about this as there was for previous pay raises.  REgardless, I'm very happy to see it and the mood in our minimally manned office was upbeat today.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Mar 2021)

I guess you didn't see my _other_ post....



Eye In The Sky said:


> I'll _very happily_ admit I was wrong, out of my lane, talking out of my butt.


----------

