# Deployment Rates/Durations



## PPCLI Guy (8 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Simpler solution.   6 Taskforces instead of 9.   8 month tours instead of 6.   1 tour every two years.



This one deserves discussion.  When are we going to break out of 6 month-itis?  

Dave


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This one deserves discussion. When are we going to break out of 6 month-itis?



As discussed else where, I think 6 months is the ideal breakdown for a rotation cycle, especially if Career cycles can be fixed with it.   Ideally, I would like to a see a two year rotation that sees 6 months small unit training (Indiv/Section/Platoon), 6 Months unit training and Strategic Reserve (Up to Brigade), 6 Months Ready Reserve/Deployed, and 6 months Drawdown (course, taskings).   This can be broken into nice two year cycles.   Moving to longer time frames may make it harder to apply "Career Cycles".   This is the logic I am using when I state "6 months".

That being said, the proposal here for a 2:2:2 Light/Cav setup can't fit into a four Phase cycle - until the Army can expand, we may settle for a 8/8/8 cycle of Training/Readiness/Drawdown.

Anyways, too much time on operations means time away from training - if these operations are View II in nature (PSO), this can be a really bad thing.   6 months seems to be a "manageable" lump of time.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As discussed else where, I think 6 months is the ideal breakdown for a rotation cycle, especially if Career cycles can be fixed with it.   Ideally, I would like to a see a two year rotation that sees 6 months small unit training (Indiv/Section/Platoon), 6 Months unit training and Strategic Reserve (Up to Brigade), 6 Months Ready Reserve/Deployed, and 6 months Drawdown (course, taskings).   This can be broken into nice two year cycles.   Moving to longer time frames may make it harder to apply "Career Cycles".   This is the logic I am using when I state "6 months".



To put my question in context, I spent a couple of hours in Ottawa yesterday doing a preliminary mission analysis for ROTO 4.   How does one create a campaign plan for a single ROTO?   Whither the continuity?   What of the uproar of frequent rotations?

Dave


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2005)

If we were to look at maintaining just ONE task force:

Would these things be possible?

A more robust structure (meaning more redundancy, not more capabilities - maybe even sacrifice capability for redundancy) allowing for deployed troops longer and more frequent leaves?

With better leaves would that incline members to be more accepting of longer tours?

With longer tours and less change-overs would that make the Canadian contribution more effective?

Supporting only ONE task force could mean only having to find 4 TFs in the Army - one deployed, one on unit trg, one on sub-unit trg and one on reconstitution during which individual training needs could be met.

9 month tours would mean a 36 month cycle, the length of a Basic Engagement.  New Entries could join their units at the beginning of Sub-Unit Training period having completed their basic individual training and would serve out their engagement with one unit.

Similarly, if focusing on supplying just one TF with the reduced man-power needs could the "spare" manpower available (with or without the additional 5000) be put into these Tier II special force raiders that seem to be the flavour of the day.  The Raiders have the advantage that because they are light, lack vehicles and don't stay around as long then they don't require the same logistical tail in theatre.  WITH TRANSPORT they can be easily deployed from Canada and return, (following the News-Cycle said he cynically) or equally they can be added to a coalition force at a relatively low logistical cost.

Besides with a 9 month cycle you can say goodbye to your girlfriends and be back in time for the birth. ;D


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To put my question in context, I spent a couple of hours in Ottawa yesterday doing a preliminary mission analysis for ROTO 4.   How does one create a campaign plan for a single ROTO?   Whither the continuity?   What of the uproar of frequent rotations?



I'm afraid I don't think I'm understanding this as fully as I should, could you explain this a bit further?

Are you saying that _"6 months is not a large enough time frame to allow a unit to effect a significant presence"_ and that _"frequent turnovers on ROTOs are a costly thing in both resources and local knowledge"_?   That is how I am reading that.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 9 month tours would mean a 36 month cycle, the length of a Basic Engagement. New Entries could join their units at the beginning of Sub-Unit Training period having completed their basic individual training and would serve out their engagement with one unit.



Nine months, or even twelve, are worth looking at.   We should never assume "6 months plus leave" to be an entitlement in the CF.

With regards to a View I type of conflict, I think it is a non-issue.   The 3VP Battlegroup, deployed to Afghanistan on a Warfighting task, was not given any date of return and a very limited opportunity for leave (I think it was 4 days in a sand-pile).   Anyways, on warfighting tasks, we must be flexible with mission requirements and "getting the job done".   That being said, 6 months can be a decent time frame to rotate units through, ensuring that you don't burn units out by keeping them deployed in a demanding enviroment for too long.   I think the Americans were having problems with leaving units in Iraq for a year.

However, with are "humdrum" View II missions that we frequently deploy on, I have two concerns on lengthening the tours:

1)   After 6 months, it is simply time to go.   PSO's can be boring and routine.   More then 6 months is too much time spent away from focusing on training for Warfighting (View I).   I can recall being eager about leaving Bosnia after 6 months - I wasn't really keen on spending a year there, keeping up the daily routine of driving around and waving at the locals.

2)   I remember the most productive part of the tour was the first and last month because there was no soldiers on leave.   In the middle of the tour, there was a point where our platoon had 10 guys running a huge AO.   Not very good for a View II mission that requires "boots on the ground".   If you start extending tours, you are going to have to start extending leave periods and, by extention, periods where the units are not as effective as they should be.   The other option is to drop a lot of the leave, but you'll see morale plummet as well.   

Perhaps we've naturally settled into a six-month groove because it best compromises "enough time" to let soldiers get a feel for their AO and conduct some significant OPs with "not too much time" where skill loss, morale, and capability aren't adversely affected.   Plausible?


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2005)

We cannot be so tied to 6 months that it defines the limit of our capabilities.  Consider something scalable:


*Green**Yellow**Red**WAR*One BG/TF indefinitely deployed
One BG/TF in ReserveTwo BG/TF indefinitely deployed
One BG/TF in ReserveBde(-) indefinitely deployed
One BG/TF in Reserve*Whatever is needed*6 Months6 Months1 Year
(if Bde(-) has 2 or less manoeuvre units,
those may stay on 6 month cycle)*indefinite*


----------



## Infanteer (8 Mar 2005)

I like that.  When a unit goes into a readiness cycle, it is given the "Condition" and prepares accordingly.

That being said, where would you stick our units (and our Army) right now?


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2005)

Managed readiness will keep us at green and yellow.  We could have continued the original scale of Op ATHENA had we used "Op Tempo RED."  I think I'll split that level for better definition . . .


*Orange**Red*Bde(-) indefinitely deployed
including two BG (or less) indefinitely deployed
One BG/TF in ReserveBde indefinitely deployed
including three BG indefinitely deployed
One BG/TF in Reserve*1 Year for Bde units & HQ
6 Months for Mvr units**1 Year for all*


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Mar 2005)

> Are you saying that "6 months is not a large enough time frame to allow a unit to effect a significant presence" and that "frequent turnovers on ROTOs are a costly thing in both resources and local knowledge"?   That is how I am reading that.



No, not really.   I was throwing up a trial balloon while I sorted my thoughts out.   I really should be doing reading for my Organisational Behaviour course, but this is more interesting...

While I acknowledge that six month tours make all kinds of sense in terms of managed readiness, operational and personnel tempo, and and quality of work, I believe that six month-itis (and the related condition of "unlimited internet on ROTO zero-itis" which may be the subject of a separate rant) is being accepted as the only way of looking at land based operational deployments (short of the DART), and that this is having an impact on decisions and decision-making at the national, strategic, operational and tactical levels.

Situations that cause the deployment and perhaps expenditure of national treasure are seldom discrete events that fit nicely into a planning calendar, much as planners in the PMO, DFA and DND might wish that is the case.   If one views all likely responses through the lense of six month deployments, this will certainly flavour perception of the crisis and hence likely or possible responses.

At the national / political level, six month-itis can have a few impacts:
- defer decision making on deployment until there is enough certainty to manage the response in six month chunks
- pre-establish timelines for withdrawal / redeployment, irrespective of effects acheived on the ground
- lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy of long term deployments such as PALLADIUM or SNOWGOOSE
- lead to an avoidance of taking on a mission without an appropriate coalition, framework etc - hampering abilities to respond quickly to emergencies such as Darfur

At the strategic level, effects are:
- ability to lowball troops required estimate to meet Defence Tasks, based on planning assumptions of six month tours (you don't need as big a reserve (not Reserves)etc
- creating culture of deliberate and pedantic planning (one could argue this is a good thing)
- pre-establishing nature of solutions offered to GOC

It is at the operational level is where I believe the biggest impacts are felt:
- Comds are trained (by virtue of the Command Appt cycle of two years) not to overly tie their successors hands.   However, at the operational level, one needs a campaign plan - and the timeline must be greater than the six-month planning window.
- this leads to disjointed preosecution of the lines of operation - indeed CofG etc invariably changes from ROTO to ROTO - vice due to change of situation
- Hence no continuity in operational design - and one might add no development in our collective skills at the operational art.

At the tactical level, the effects aren't as obvious, although there are shadows and reflections from all of the points above.

This little diatribe reflects early thoughts on this problem - and I am still struggling with a viable solution.   Perhaps it is as simple as appointing TF Comds (and their key staff) for one year vice 6 months, or in ensuring that a designated operational level HQ (JOG comes to mind) creates the camapaign plan, which is applied by a succession of Commanders.

Anyhoo - back to my studies.

Dave


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 Mar 2005)

I'm just throwing this one out there for argument's sake, but at least one really switched-on contingent in ISAF had three month tours.  They get in, get savvy, and get out.  They have no HLTA manpower or organizational crisis and complacency issues.  Perhaps we could look at offering smaller Roto 0 contingents and then staying at that level instead of our wildly swinging Rotos.  Could we make three-month tours work for us for long-standing commitments?

We might also want to take a look at our pre-deployment training.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Mar 2005)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> We might also want to take a look at our pre-deployment training.



Amen.  I am deploying to pet in end Apr to prepare for a 6 mth tour that starts in mid Aug...masny tours reach their mid-way point when you get on the plane to deploy overseas.


----------

