# Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate...



## TQMS (3 May 2018)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/military-adds-more-generals-and-admirals-than-soldiers-or-sailors-1.3913060

"OTTAWA - The Canadian military has been getting heavier up top and not in the muffin sort of way.

New figures show the ranks of the Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the military over the last 15 years as dozens of generals and admirals have been added." ...... 

More in the article.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (3 May 2018)

Nothing surprising here. I couldn't believe the amount of Snr Officers during my last tour on Op Impact.

Unreal.  :


----------



## Cwes (3 May 2018)

The statements in that article are just a gross defence of poor resource management.


----------



## Inspir (3 May 2018)

I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 May 2018)

Inspir said:
			
		

> I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.



So we can stack up more people on BTL? ACISS is around 78% PML and the school just cancelled 3 DP1 courses this year because they won't run them if the students don't have BMQ-L. The issue aren't just at the recruiting centre.


----------



## Old EO Tech (3 May 2018)

Inspir said:
			
		

> I don’t know why they don’t just swell the lower ranks and fill some of these newly created vacancies with Chiefs.



There is definitely a double standard here.  CWO have to be part of a Comd Team or be a "key specialist" to remain a CWO, but from LCol to GOFO's it seems this is not required.  And CWO makes less than Capt so this doesn't even make sense from a business planning perspective :-/

Jon


----------



## blacktriangle (3 May 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> There is definitely a double standard here.  CWO have to be part of a Comd Team or be a "key specialist" to remain a CWO, but from LCol to GOFO's it seems this is not required.  And CWO makes less than Capt so this doesn't even make sense from a business planning perspective :-/
> 
> Jon



I'm personally happy they are cutting the number of CWO/CPO1, but I definitely agree there is a double standard.


----------



## TCM621 (3 May 2018)

> Defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance stood by the additional brass in an interview on Wednesday and said he plans to grow the senior ranks even more in the coming years in response to new demands and challenges.



In unrelated news, a recent CANFORGEN was announced where we have 6 general officers as "Champions" of diversity and inclusion.


----------



## dapaterson (3 May 2018)

Secondary duties; such secondary duties have existed for a long time.


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 May 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> In unrelated news, a recent CANFORGEN was announced where we have 6 general officers as "Champions" of diversity and inclusion.



I want to be a Champion!  Sounds like an awesome job!  Everybody likes you when you have that title, right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 May 2018)

I'm already a Champignon!  Cuz they keep me in the dark and feed me BS.   ;D


----------



## Remius (4 May 2018)

Champions are sometimes called to fight in single combat to determine conflict outcomes.  They should be chosen and appointed by assessing opponents slain and capacity with bladed weapons.  The current slate of champions has me worried...


----------



## blacktriangle (4 May 2018)

I think we should deploy an all officer battle group. Sections can be led by LCol. And who needs a LAV Capt when you can have a LAV Col!


----------



## MJP (4 May 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Champions are sometimes called to fight in single combat to determine conflict outcomes.  They should be chosen and appointed by assessing opponents slain and capacity with bladed weapons.  The current slate of champions has me worried...



Maybe we are lining up the champions for a battle Royale down the line.  One can hope


----------



## Old EO Tech (4 May 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I'm personally happy they are cutting the number of CWO/CPO1, but I definitely agree there is a double standard.



For certain there are some CWO that were not doing work that needed that rank, but the CA is cutting 60 CWO were as the RCN and RCAF are only cutting approx 25 each....the CA is going to find in the next decade that they cut too deep, sadly it will take failing at tasks to prove this.

Jon


----------



## OldSolduer (4 May 2018)

Well this spiralled quickly...,,,


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2018)

Any one in the ranks could tell you the same thing in this article. Look at that "new" Canadian Support Brigade in gagetown, literally creating a new HQ and just moving existing units to it, creating HQ's just to justify our bloating officer ranks. I wish i could find numbers but I am coming up empty searching for a break down of officers vs enlisted both current and historical, but I'd put money down that we have more officers now then we did before the personnel cuts during the early to mid cold war.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 May 2018)

maybe that is why we are number 14 in the world!

tried to post the graphic of the top 15 military spenders but it didn't work


----------



## McG (4 May 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one in the ranks could tell you the same thing in this article. Look at that "new" Canadian Support Brigade in gagetown, literally creating a new HQ and just moving existing units to it, creating HQ's just to justify our bloating officer ranks. I wish i could find numbers but I am coming up empty searching for a break down of officers vs enlisted both current and historical, but I'd put money down that we have more officers now then we did before the personnel cuts during the early to mid cold war.


The article looked at the trend from 2003 to present.  During that time, the Army has seen sub-units and sub-sub units reduced in size and number through the field force.  2003/2004 was about the time that Pioneers & mortars were cut.  Other organizations were hollowed out to create "new capabilities" like CMTC.  I know there was some growth in 2007-2008, but a lot of that was directed outside the field force and in the years since both Army and VCDS have regularly come back to mine PYs out of the field force to continue development of new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).

I don't know how the ratio of commissioned to non-commissioned compares between now and the Cold War.  I do believe that the number of appropriate entry level positions for junior officers has been shrinking at the same time as the number of GOFOs increases.  I know that at the tactical level, officers are commanding smaller organizations for shorter periods of time with less authority to make decisions.  Even if the number of junior officers has remained relatively consistent, we are diluting the developmental experiences that build good generals.  Even if the number of junior officers has remained relatively consistent, they now represent a smaller gene pool in proportion to the larger GOFO population that they must sustain.

So we not only get more generals, we get proportionally more generals who are not ready to be generals and we get proportionally more generals who never should be generals.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> So we not only get more generals, we get proportionally more generals who are not ready to be generals and we get proportionally more generals who never should be generals.



Without over-generalizing, this is a managerial trend that commonly occurs in large, complacent private sector companies immediately prior to the point in time when the business fails.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 May 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Without over-generalizing, this is a managerial trend that commonly occurs in large, complacent private sector companies immediately prior to the point in time when the business fails.



but we can't fail the same way a business can, what I am seeing right now is jr NCO's picking up the slack for SNCO's and officers who actually don't know what they are doing, way more then should be happening. What I can see failing is we get into a shooting war and our top heaviness is going to bite us in the ass very very hard.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2018)

I agree that the CF must not fail the way a business can, but they appear to be well on their way to doing a great job of it anyway.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 May 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> What I can see failing is we get into a shooting war and our top heaviness is going to bite us in the *** very very hard.



But it didn't bite in the last war, and therefore the logical conclusion is that it must have been part of the explanation for success.  :sarcasm:


----------



## sandyson (4 May 2018)

And  shootings wars for Canada have always been optional and far away.  The bureaucratic war in Ottawa is a clear and present danger.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).



The other 3 might be fairly significant in numbers, but the Space one is relatively small in numbers (based on what was taught on the BSOC course).

The AEW part...not really sure what the measureable benefit of this one was/is.  Anytime a ATF is required, that I've been involved in, I've never seen a direct link to the AEW concept back to the ATF.   :dunno:


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 May 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> but we can't fail the same way a business can, what I am seeing right now is jr NCO's picking up the slack for SNCO's and officers who actually don't know what they are doing, way more then should be happening. What I can see failing is we get into a shooting war and our top heaviness is going to bite us in the *** very very hard.



Isn't the same thing happening in the jr ranks, where they get quickly promoted to fill up the more senior positions, which we have a hard time filling due to the attrition rate?  Maybe more acute in the Navy, but folks are getting into key positions with far less hands on experience than ever before. No big deal though; we have risk assessments in DRMIS to track it!  As long as you talk it til it's blue you are GTG!


----------



## Old EO Tech (6 May 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Isn't the same thing happening in the jr ranks, where they get quickly promoted to fill up the more senior positions, which we have a hard time filling due to the attrition rate?  Maybe more acute in the Navy, but folks are getting into key positions with far less hands on experience than ever before. No big deal though; we have risk assessments in DRMIS to track it!  As long as you talk it til it's blue you are GTG!



While that has been a problem in he past for some trades, at least in the CA, the SEM project and cutting of 60 CWO positions is going to put the breaks on this for likely the 2-5 years.  I'm seeing it already out west with having to find several post CSM MWO's jobs since they are not lined up this year for the few RSM jobs we have now.  This is going to trickle down to Sgt and MCpl promotions soon as well.

Jon


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 May 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> While that has been a problem in he past for some trades, at least in the CA, the SEM project and cutting of 60 CWO positions is going to put the breaks on this for likely the 2-5 years.  I'm seeing it already out west with having to find several post CSM MWO's jobs since they are not lined up this year for the few RSM jobs we have now.  This is going to trickle down to Sgt and MCpl promotions soon as well.
> 
> Jon



RSM jobs are not being cut.  CWO *technical* jobs are, and all of those positions are being converted to either MWO or Capt.  There is zero change to the number of CSM jobs that feed the RSM pool.  This is how the non-technical trades (read combat arms) have had to do things for a long time now.


----------



## Old EO Tech (6 May 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> RSM jobs are not being cut.  CWO *technical* jobs are, and all of those positions are being converted to either MWO or Capt.  There is zero change to the number of CSM jobs that feed the RSM pool.  This is how the non-technical trades (read combat arms) have had to do things for a long time now.



PPCLI Guy, no were did I state RSM jobs were being cut.  Yes the Combat Arms are not as affected as the CSS Corps, but they are still losing the CADTC Standard CWO and Career Managers, even the Combat Arms liked having tier 5 positions to develop CWO prior to being RSM's.  For the CSS Corps, losing the Tier 5 CWO means a large capability gap, downgrading them to MWO or Capt is not a solution, that just means a 25 year old Capts or 35 year old just promoted MWO are now the people being leaned on instead of a CWO with 30 years experience.  But this is another topic of discussion.

Cheers Jon


----------



## CountDC (7 May 2018)

never understood why we need so many generals when it seems at least some of it could be handled at the LCol/Col level instead until dealing with mbrs of that rank that will not accept an answer from anyone that does not out rank them.  Maybe all the top heaviness is there to tell those Light and full Colonel that their staff and his staff is correct on the regulations and policies.   :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2018)

Keep people at the Capt, Major and LCol ranks for longer, perhaps more pay levels and perhaps extra pay for certain skill sets/training. Since we know the maximum number of people that can be in, set the number of senior ranks to the numbers of pilots/soldiers/sailors serving. Also set the size of NDHQ civil and military to the size of the Combat Arms/squadrons and ships. You don't want to few senior officers, but you also don't want to many.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep people at the Capt, Major and LCol ranks for longer, perhaps more pay levels and perhaps extra pay for certain skill sets/training. Since we know the maximum number of people that can be in, set the number of senior ranks to the numbers of pilots/soldiers/sailors serving. Also set the size of NDHQ civil and military to the size of the Combat Arms/squadrons and ships. You don't want to few senior officers, but you also don't want to many.



Or we follow the lead of the private sector and embrace 'up then sideways' career pathing options: 

http://fortune.com/2011/10/13/how-to-make-a-smart-lateral-career-move/


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or we follow the lead of the private sector and embrace 'up then sideways' career pathing options:
> 
> http://fortune.com/2011/10/13/how-to-make-a-smart-lateral-career-move/



Oh we're going sideways alright.  And l don't mean in a cool Ken Block fashion either.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 May 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or we follow the lead of the private sector and embrace 'up then sideways' career pathing options:
> 
> http://fortune.com/2011/10/13/how-to-make-a-smart-lateral-career-move/



Interesting concepts.  I truly hope before any "advantageous" changes are made in Officer career progression, pay grades, ect, ect; that the NCM world is thoroughly overhauled.  LT(N)/Capt already have excellent pay rates in 10 IPCs.  Meanwhile I know CPO2/MWOs who are massively underpaid in comparison to their level of responsibility both in terms of pers management and operationally. 

I know a CPO2 that has roughly 75 people working for him (civi and Mil) and runs what is one of the busiest warehouses/depots in Canada, he has no Div O BTW.  Meanwhile we have an IPC 10 LT(N) who is I/C canoes.  Something is wrong there in the scheme of things, and lets not bring in the aiguillette folks who are paid to follow around our bloated brass.  

Our NCM corps deserves a major over haul in HR and Pay levels as they are in no way representative of what is expected and required of their jobs anymore, especially from the MS/MCpl rank and above.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 May 2018)

[quote author=Halifax Tar] Meanwhile we have an IPC 10 LT(N) who is I/C canoes.  
[/quote]
For real?


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 May 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For real?



Yup.  CIC/Reserve LT(N); I am unsure which as I haven't seem him with headdress on yet.  No names, no pack drill.


----------



## McG (8 May 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Yup.  CIC/Reserve LT(N); I am unsure which as I haven't seem him with headdress on yet.  No names, no pack drill.


So, you know this guy is IPC 10, yet you don’t know if he is PRes or CIC? How much more of your examples were made-up/exaggerated to suit your conclusion?


----------



## jeffb (8 May 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep people at the Capt, Major and LCol ranks for longer, perhaps more pay levels and perhaps extra pay for certain skill sets/training.



I think that time in rank is less important than the quality of time in rank. Look at the bios of most of the GOs from the Second World War. Simonds went from commanding 1 RCHA in 1940 to Bde Cdmd in 1942, Division Comd in 1943 and Corps command a year later. Patton had something like 2 weeks of combat experience before he commanded a Division in combat for the first time. Given the variety of ages and backgrounds on new officers these days, I'd offer that promotion should be more based on demonstrated competence then adherence to rigid gateways based on time. Not every year served actually improves experience or prepares for higher rank and there are many individuals entering the CAF now with civilian experience that is readily transferable.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 May 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you know this guy is IPC 10, yet you don’t know if he is PRes or CIC? How much more of your examples were made-up/exaggerated to suit your conclusion?



How does one distinguish Res V Reg V CIC in NCDs ?  We don't have differentiating epaulettes like the Army does with unit tiles, all of ours just say Canada.  Headdress is rarely worn in our area; And I can only go off of what I am told and have seen.  If you want to refute that the NCM career and pay channels aren't in major need of an overhaul, be my guest.  Mature debate is always welcome, and its probably the only way we will find balance.  

All this is to say, I dont care if that LT(N) is IPC 1 or 10, lets play happy medium and say hes IPC 5; hes still making more than that CPO2 with all that staff and operational responsibility, and that simply isn't right.  I/C canoes is a job for a LS/Cpl. 

Not all Officers are underemployed and not all NCMs are over employed, you can find examples in all avenues.  But in my still counting 18 years of, various bases, ships, regiments and units, I have noticed more and more work load and responsibility being pushed down upon the NCM corps without what I think is fair compensation, generally from MS/MCpl and above and especially at the MWO/CPO2 level and above.  Mean while we are cutting and slashing CPO1/CWO positions, while growing GOFO positions, because those CPO1/CWO aren't "command level".  

I have to ask, we have a uniformed service of what ?  65K (ish) ?  Yet we continue to produce shiny new A/SLTs and 2Lts at an astonishing rate.  Have a chat with your local Log O (Sea) folks, the backlog for A/HOD and HOD tours is immense, some will never get that opportunity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 May 2018)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I think that time in rank is less important than the quality of time in rank. Look at the bios of most of the GOs from the Second World War. Simonds went from commanding 1 RCHA in 1940 to Bde Cdmd in 1942, Division Comd in 1943 and Corps command a year later. Patton had something like 2 weeks of combat experience before he commanded a Division in combat for the first time. Given the variety of ages and backgrounds on new officers these days, I'd offer that promotion should be more based on demonstrated competence then adherence to rigid gateways based on time. Not every year served actually improves experience or prepares for higher rank and there are many individuals entering the CAF now with civilian experience that is readily transferable.



I generally agree with this.  And I think you could import it over to NCM as well.  But how do you propose we measure demonstrated competence ?  I have been told in the US Navy in order to advance in rank you have to merit against your peers and complete leveled exams on your job knowledge, the combination of both scores pushes people forward.  Perhaps something we should look at ?


----------



## jeffb (8 May 2018)

This is going to sound crazy but civilians companies do this all the time. What about a promotion board that looks at your performance in your current job and your potential to advance based on your experience? Maybe even an interview? For lower ranks, this could be done by a somewhat local board comprised of members from outside your unit along with a PSO type to ensure continuity. As it stands today, you have people who are promoted simply because they added a bubble to their PER score year after year until they made it to a board with bilingualism. Perhaps not the best way to deliver competent leaders in my view.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 May 2018)

If they really want to get the job done like a company, start promoting for organizational results and sacking at a ruthless rate.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 May 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> If they really want to get the job done like a company, start promoting for organizational results and sacking at a ruthless rate.



https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/

Yup  :nod:


----------



## McG (8 May 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> If you want to refute that the NCM career and pay channels aren't in major need of an overhaul, be my guest.


Not my goal, but ... occasionally people of influence skim these boards, and even good ideas and right answers can lose support if decision makers are presented with bad arguments that arrive by accident to the correct solution.  Even a broken clock is correct occasionally.  Unlike clocks, people can be challenged on how they got to where they are and (in the process) maybe they clean-up faults found in the arguments … show they are right by design and not accident.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How does one distinguish Res V Reg V CIC in NCDs ?


How does one distinguish one IPC from any other IPC in NCDs?  You stated as though it were known fact that this guy is IPC 10, but when you don't even know what component the guy is then I am skeptical you know his IPC.  And if you are ready to present something as known fact when it is not known fact, then you have to be prepared that people may question the veracity of everything you have typed.  It is not persuasive where your argument is that amelioration of officer career streams should be put on hold until NCM steams are addressed first (as though the two should be treated as independent silos and not addressed simultaneously) because you "know CPO2/MWOs who are massively underpaid in comparison to their level of responsibility" and you substantiate your position on two anecdotes & one generalization which may all three be solidly grounded in fiction or hyperbole.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> All this is to say, I dont care if that LT(N) is IPC 1 or 10, lets play happy medium and say hes IPC 5 …


How about we not invent “facts” that may not match reality?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> …hes still making more than that CPO2 with all that staff and operational responsibility, and that simply isn't right.


Is he?  Accounting for the potential pay variances linked to not knowing component nor IPC (can I assume that you know he is not part time?), do we know this Lt(N) is making more or is this conclusion an assumption?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I/C canoes is a job for a LS/Cpl.


At face value, absolutely correct.  So, does this anecdote of the IC Canoes support the idea that “NCM career and pay channels are in major need of an overhaul” and that some CPO2/MWO are “massively underpaid in comparison to their level of responsibility” or does this anecdote reflect an aberration of an individual employed well below the level at which he should be?  And on the other hand, do you know all the duties of this Lt(N)?  Is IC Canoes a primary duty or secondary duty?  You have already demonstrated that you will play loose with the facts, so what other details have you omitted or distorted to make your case?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I know a CPO2 that has roughly 75 people working for him (civi and Mil) and runs what is one of the busiest warehouses/depots in Canada, he has no Div O BTW.


Is he doing his job, or is he doing the job of a vacant Lt(N)/Capt position?  If he has stepped up and is filling a higher level function: would that support your idea that all CPO2/MWO should receive more compensation, or does it maybe suggest that the CAF could make more liberal use of AWSE promotions? 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Not all Officers are underemployed and not all NCMs are over employed, you can find examples in all avenues.


So it would seem reasonable that both officer and NCM positions should be examined to confirm personnel are being employed at the appropriate rank for the work being done?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> But in my still counting 18 years of, various bases, ships, regiments and units, I have noticed more and more work load and responsibility being pushed down upon the NCM corps without what I think is fair compensation, generally from MS/MCpl and above and especially at the MWO/CPO2 level and above.


I am not sure that I have seen this.  I have seen disproportionate workloads dumped on people of all ranks when other organizational positions are not filled, when the CAF elements try to do more than they were established to do, and when a few fit individuals get stuck carrying slack for unfit individuals.  I have also seen various levels of HQ claw-back authorities from subordinate levels, thereby diminishing the scope that leaders (particularly COs) have to take action.  

I have also seen plenty of Capt/Lt(N) doing jobs that should rightfully be done by Lt/SLt (and our system of time based promotions at that level sees a lot of Capt/Lt(N) who really were not ready to have been promoted past Lt/SLt).  Some clean-up and institutional discipline on this front could make sure only the right people are getting that second full bar (or third star) and that you never find them filling jobs intended to keep them away from places where they can be dangerous.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Meanwhile we are cutting and slashing CPO1/CWO positions, while growing GOFO positions, because those CPO1/CWO aren't "command level".


What is your counter proposal?  There are a few converted CPO1/CWO positions that have been converted to CPO2/MWO or Capt/Lt(N) that I would have preferred be left as is, but there are a whole lot more that should have been converted previously.  There is also requirement to do clean-up at the GOFO level, but going in the wrong direction at that level should not be argument for not going in the right direction at the CPO1/CWO level, right?


----------



## QV (8 May 2018)

I guess there are more than just one IPC 10 I/C of canoes around!


----------



## Journeyman (8 May 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... occasionally people of influence skim these boards, and even good ideas and right answers can lose support if decision makers are presented with bad arguments that arrive by accident to the correct solution.


I'm sorry Halifax Tar -- I am a fan of your posts, since you tend to post what you actually know about*... but I have to back MCG on this one. 


* Ya, for whatever that's worth.  
Yes folks, for Loggie (writ large) or Bin Rat (specific) issues: ArmyVern, Halifax Tar, dapaterson, and MJP.   :nod:

Yes, if you wear the crossed paper-clips and didn't make the list, maybe you need to up your game.


----------



## NavyShooter (8 May 2018)

I'll jump in for a sec.  

I know the CPO2 in question - his role is as I/C of a warehouse.  I work as a CPO2 in the same warehouse, but under a different umbrella.  He has 70+ pers (mil/civ) under his wings, and works damn hard.  That said, he does have a civilian counterpart that he works with - not my umbrella, not my people, but the two work together as equals with the Mil/civ issues.  

I do not know the referenced LT(N).  I won't go down that path at all.

NS


----------



## blacktriangle (8 May 2018)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'll jump in for a sec.
> 
> I know the CPO2 in question - his role is as I/C of a warehouse.  I work as a CPO2 in the same warehouse, but under a different umbrella.  He has 70+ pers (mil/civ) under his wings, and works damn hard.  That said, he does have a civilian counterpart that he works with - not my umbrella, not my people, but the two work together as equals with the Mil/civ issues.
> 
> ...



If I/C canoes is a real thing (and if what I saw in Ottawa was any indication, it wouldn't be a huge stretch) then you should totally beg for a CFR! What a gig!


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 May 2018)

This is funny shit. I was a Cpl in B Ops Chilliwack in 86-87. I owned  6 X Sealander bridging boats and all the wet bridging equipment at Cultus Lk.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 May 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is funny crap. I was a Cpl in B Ops Chilliwack in 86-87. I owned  6 X Sealander bridging boats and all the wet bridging equipment at Cultus Lk.



Sounds like the Queen owes you some backpay!


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 May 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Sounds like the Queen owes you some backpay!



Costa Rica, here I come!


----------



## AKa (9 May 2018)

As someone who has been in Ottawa too long, I don't have a sense of the issues on bases, but here I believe one of our biggest problems contributing to our rising GOFO numbers is our extreme risk aversion.  Nobody below the rank of Col is trusted to make any sort of decision so nothing can be settled without one.  And no decision can be made without reams and reams of briefing notes and analysis (all of which must be perfect in grammar, format, and assembled in a very precise manner). I usually feel like I had more authority as an Lt in the 90s than I do today.  As well, I see Capts sitting on their hands at work because their sections are undertasked but the CoC won't admit that they have more people than they need.  I'm not sure if it is mostly protecting the empire or the fact that there's never any possibility of getting more staff in a reasonable timeframe if your workload explodes.

I find the current situation is hard on morale.  And I am very glad I'm not just starting out in this environment.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 May 2018)

I’ve said for a number of years we over supervise. It starts at the soldier level where younger soldiers are not allowed to make mistakes and need to seek permission to wipe their.....noses. “Maximum supervision”  means micromanaging and it’s not needed.


----------



## gwp (18 Aug 2018)

General and Flag Officer contribution to Canada/US defence alliance

Canada has General Officers serving in Central Command and Indo-Pacific Command CENTCOM and PACOM. The CDS has a General embedded with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General embedded with US Cyber Command, and there are three Canadian Generals serving as Deputy Commanding General for Operations – in 1 Corps, and 18 Airborne Corps and, as of this summer, with US Army Alaska. We have two Generals and a Commodore serving within NORAD HQ, one being the Deputy Commander, and also have two Generals serving as Deputy Commanders of the Alaska and Continental NORAD Regions. The US also has senior officers serving in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax and Victoria to name only a few."

Full article
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/canadas-outgoing-defence-attache-us-and-canada-still-have-each-others-back?platform=hootsuite


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Aug 2018)

Here is a list of officers running key units.USARAK 's web site seems down,so we cant see the rest of the staff.Last I saw was a Canadian Colonel with USARAK. Then of course USForces in Korea is getting a Canadian 3 star I believe. There is a lot to be gained for Canadian officers working at these high commands.

BG Marc Gagne is at Ft bragg.

http://www.jber.jb.mil/Info/Biographies/

LTG Eyre is now on site in Korea.
http://www.usfk.mil/Leadership/


----------



## Old EO Tech (18 Aug 2018)

gwp said:
			
		

> General and Flag Officer contribution to Canada/US defence alliance
> 
> Canada has General Officers serving in Central Command and Indo-Pacific Command CENTCOM and PACOM. The CDS has a General embedded with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General embedded with US Cyber Command, and there are three Canadian Generals serving as Deputy Commanding General for Operations – in 1 Corps, and 18 Airborne Corps and, as of this summer, with US Army Alaska. We have two Generals and a Commodore serving within NORAD HQ, one being the Deputy Commander, and also have two Generals serving as Deputy Commanders of the Alaska and Continental NORAD Regions. The US also has senior officers serving in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax and Victoria to name only a few."
> 
> ...



I have no issues with the need for General/Flag officers to get this kind of experience that the Small CAF can't give them.  The problem I have is while the number of senior officer outcan postings on growing. There is a very small list of outcan opportunities for SA CWO's, and it is equally important for our CWO/NCM Corps to gain this valuable experience as well.  But instead we just slashed our base of CWO in the CAF...


----------



## winnipegoo7 (18 Aug 2018)

Edited again. I remember now. 

From the first page: 
“new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).”

Does AEW mean air expeditionary wing?

Thanks


----------



## MJP (18 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I have no issues with the need for General/Flag officers to get this kind of experience that the Small CAF can't give them.  The problem I have is while the number of senior officer outcan postings on growing. There is a very small list of outcan opportunities for SA CWO's, and it is equally important for our CWO/NCM Corps to gain this valuable experience as well.  But instead we just slashed our base of CWO in the CAF...



The loss of those CWO posns were posns that were almost purely technical or career in nature and could for the most part be done by MWO/CPO2 minus a few exceptions here and there.  They weren't designed nor were they being used to further develop pers into command Chief posns or really benefit the institution in any great way by virtue of them being chiefs.  We could and probably should do the same sort of rationalization on the officer side of the house.


----------



## Old EO Tech (18 Aug 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> The loss of those CWO posns were posns that were almost purely technical or career in nature and could for the most part be done by MWO/CPO2 minus a few exceptions here and there.  They weren't designed nor were they being used to further develop pers into command Chief posns or really benefit the institution in any great way by virtue of them being chiefs.  We could and probably should do the same sort of rationalization on the officer side of the house.



Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified.  But non command team CWO, actually lead the institution more than RSM's do, RSM's are busy with the day to day business of a tactical unit, Div or higher level CWO in non CT jobs truly lead the institution as they don't "own" the troops/leaders they are mentoring, and have the job of enforcing policy on behalf of a Comd, very much enabling the success of their Divs and the CA.  Who do you think is enforcing the CAERP?  It's not MWO that can use the influence that a CWO has to lead these initiatives, and in 10 years the CA will find out the results of cutting all the CWO from Div HQ.  You only have to look at the RCAF, who kept every single CWO in 1 CAD, because they know what removing that experience from that HQ would do to it.  And the SEM project has hard coded entry level SEM CWO, it's only the CA that has removed them all, and only considers post-RSM SEM positions as valid, like the AJAG CWO.

But this is a tangent.  The CWO in outcan jobs are SA CWO for certain, and properly so, but IMHO CWO should have a non CT role once in their careers, without that they don't have the knowledge of what these CWO have been doing for the CA for years.  And this is one reason why the CSS community failed in our job to properly institutionalize these jobs since unification.  But more SA CWO jobs would give the CAF a more experienced CWO Corps and increase the number of all available CT and non-CT positions, as it is doing for officers.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Aug 2018)

Do what the USMC does by putting officers and senior NCO's into reserve units as advisors.Or place senior NCO's and officers into what we call ROTC units at civilian colleges.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Aug 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Do what the USMC does by putting officers and senior NCO's into reserve units as advisors.Or place senior NCO's and officers into what we call ROTC units at civilian colleges.



We tried that during the 10/90 era (10% Reg F, 90% Reservists).

It might have worked well somewhere, but not anywhere that I saw


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Aug 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I’ve said for a number of years we over supervise. It starts at the soldier level where younger soldiers are not allowed to make mistakes and need to seek permission to wipe their.....noses. “Maximum supervision”  means micromanaging and it’s not needed.



Over supervise is an understatement, Just after I was given my leaf a more senior MCpl came over to me just after I was given a simple task of having some troops more tables and chairs from point A to B one room over, he tried to tell me I needed to stand there and watch the troops move the tables and chairs. Having me stand there was a waste of a body and of time, I promptly but politely told him I had no interest in his management style.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified.  But non command team CWO, actually lead the institution more than RSM's do, RSM's are busy with the day to day business of a tactical unit, Div or higher level CWO in non CT jobs truly lead the institution as they don't "own" the troops/leaders they are mentoring, and have the job of enforcing policy on behalf of a Comd, very much enabling the success of their Divs and the CA.



If we need CWOs to get in the weeds like that, than we are not training and preparing our MWOs properly.

Same goes for officers.  Often we say "we need somebody at "X" rank to be able to do this" when said rank is one or even two ranks too high.  If capability is cited as the rationale for "X" rank, then we need to look at how we are training and preparing officers one to two ranks below.


----------



## FJAG (19 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We tried that during the 10/90 era (10% Reg F, 90% Reservists).
> 
> It might have worked well somewhere, but not anywhere that I saw



I've always sat on the fence as to whether reg f people should occupy command or advisor positions in the reserves.

I had one tour as an Regular Support Staff Officer before I turned to the legal and reserve side of the world. In that job I probably received the best terms of reference from my reg f SO3 Ops (we were in districts in those days) then at any other time in my career.  "If there's any reservist in the unit who knows how to do the job, let him do it. If there's a reservist in the unit who doesn't know how to do the job but is willing to do it then teach him how and let him do it. If there's no reservist in the unit who knows how to do the job nor is willing to learn to do it then you do it." 

Long story short, in some cases I was the commander but in most just a teacher/advisor. We got the job done. We did have a dilettante or two but nothing like what you guys on the west coast seem to have to deal with.

 :cheers:


----------



## Old EO Tech (19 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If we need CWOs to get in the weeds like that, than we are not training and preparing our MWOs properly.
> 
> Same goes for officers.  Often we say "we need somebody at "X" rank to be able to do this" when said rank is one or even two ranks too high.  If capability is cited as the rationale for "X" rank, then we need to look at how we are training and preparing officers one to two ranks below.



I don't "get into the weeds" at all.  I have other staff that do that part, at the Capt/MWO level.  What I do is is direct/advise people, including Senior Officers, that for instance, proper data input into DRMIS is critical as Comd's at all levels make key decisions based on that data.  That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.

You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.



If an MWO with 25 years of experience is "not taken seriously right away" then we have a problem with the system, not with not having enough CWOs to be taken seriously.  As well, I'm not sure where you're getting the sense that CWOs seem to get instant respect for rank, let alone expertise.  That certainly hasn't been my experience.



> You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....



They most likely are.  We routinely overrank in the CAF, and it is an indicator of indiscipline in organizational management.  It has a deleterious effect on the system, as it stifles the development of the lower ranking positions and clutters up the information stream with additional points of friction.  Example.  Brigadier-General has two Majors to do task X for him.  The Majors do task X, which is demanding and really works them, and they interface with the Brigadier-General to assist him in executing his/her duties.  They develop their capabilities and they increase their experience by managing task X and through routine interaction with the Brigadier-General they work for.  Now, the system determines the Brigadier-General needs a COS.  So now he/she's got four Majors and a Lieutenant-Colonel in between.  The four Majors do the same work, but with additional tasks because work invariably expands to fill the time available ("fill out this spreadsheet!").  As well, instead of reporting to and working for a Brigadier-General, they prepare material and brief the COS.  The COS doesn't really do the work himself - why would he, as he has Majors that do that work - and the Majors just pass the work on to get briefed by their staff superior.  Learning and experience value degrades, as Majors are doing mundane work and Lieutenant-Colonels are reviewing stuff and having much of their work done for them.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2018)

You left out "Majors and Lieutenant Colonel complain that they are too busy, and, having recently been posted in. don't really know the background to the item, so important short sue items get punted to civilians."


----------



## Old EO Tech (19 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If an MWO with 25 years of experience is "not taken seriously right away" then we have a problem with the system, not with not having enough CWOs to be taken seriously.  As well, I'm not sure where you're getting the sense that CWOs seem to get instant respect for rank, let alone expertise.  That certainly hasn't been my experience.



Well our experience differs considerably then, which is fine we can just agree to disagree on these points.

And as for your example with the Majors, its actually likely worst than that, the COS at a Div HQ is a Col, who has an A/COS LCol, then a few Majors working in the short hallway.  Not to mention all the Branch Heads are LCol, and feeding advice to the A/COS....another LCol...

But FYSA, for what it is worth, I had a recent conversation with DRCEME, who feels not only that the CWO should stay and are critical, but we should not be even working for G4 but for the COS himself, that way it's our 30 years plus experience being directly used to advise a Col.   Not that this is going to happen, but it's an indication that the issue is not dead at least.

Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Not to mention all the Branch Heads are LCol, and feeding advice to the A/COS....another LCol...



The more experienced they are, and the more authority they are delegated, the less 'advice' they need and the smaller the HQs can be. 

Hence the reason for the huge staff complements these days, I guess.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I don't "get into the weeds" at all.  I have other staff that do that part, at the Capt/MWO level.  What I do is is direct/advise people, including Senior Officers, that for instance, proper data input into DRMIS is critical as Comd's at all levels make key decisions based on that data.  That is just one example, but as a CWO I'm listened to right away, and my advice is taken seriously.  That can not be said about and MWO or Capt, they do not have the instant respect that a CWO has.
> 
> You maybe correct about rank inflation writ large, but no matter how you slice it, there seems to be a much larger appetite for having large numbers of Senior/GOFO officers, and the same yard stick is not applied to CWO's.  If a guy like me is not required to be a CWO, to advise a Col/LCol, who are also staff postions, then maybe they are over ranked as well....
> 
> Cheers



A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional.  

High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all. 

The original posts related to the value that multinational command-experienced general officers add to US forces globally, not senior technical advisory staff.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Old EO Tech (19 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional.
> 
> High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all.
> 
> ...



I could write an essay here about what I actually do day to day, telling anyone how to push buttons in DRMIS is not one of them.  I have a LEMS DRMIS Help Desk at the Div for that :-/  It happens to be a Sgt not a MCpl...   You are misunderstanding my statement on DRMIS that I used as an example, I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.

I fully understand the difference between Command and Advise roles.  I was never saying they were the same, I was replying to other comments that were critical of what CWO in Advisory roles do.  My original point was that CWO in Command Team roles do not have the same relative opportunities to go on international postings as do officers and that is a problem.  And of course that it seems to be OK to have vast amounts of Senior Officers in staff roles but that is not OK for CWO...   But we have beat this topic to death I believe.  

Cheers


----------



## Old EO Tech (19 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> A CWO to advise a senior officer how to use DRMIS is overkill...in fact, a savvy MCpl is likely the best, most competent advisor for how to make MASIS/DRMIS/whatevernamechangeisnext more functional.
> 
> High-level technical expertise in the Canadian system does not have the same command-associated aspect that say CWOs in the US Army do, where a CW3 or CW4 may in fact command a section of aircraft on an operational mission.  Do not mistake ‘advice’ with ‘command’...the system will place the greater accountability on the latter, not the former.  Advice is useful, if worthy, but it’s not the be all and end all.
> 
> ...



And I do agree that while we are miles ahead of the Brits in our Command Team philosophy, we are miles behind the US and what the authorities they give Senior CWO/SM.  They would never think that the NCO Leadership Academies would not be commanded by a Senior Appointment SM...  Let alone the authorities granted to Formation and higher SM's, who can actually sign off on promotions etc


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> And of course that it seems to be OK to have vast amounts of Senior Officers in staff roles but that is not OK for CWO...   But we have beat this topic to death I believe.



Actually it hasn’t been beaten to death...it has actually rarely been discussed in the context of staffing and the demographics of rank within staff, be they officers or NCMs.  Senior officers are just the middle 1/3 band of officers, between junior officers and general/flag officers, so if we took the middle band of NCMs, we’d have Sgts/PO2s and WO/PO1s, and it’s not unreasonable to think of having such a groups primarily looking after duties intermediate between Pte/OS-Cpl/AB and MWO/CPO2-CWO/CPO1.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Old EO Tech (19 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Actually it hasn’t been beaten to death...it has actually rarely been discussed in the context of staffing and the demographics of rank within staff, be they officers or NCMs.  Senior officers are just the middle 1/3 band of officers, between junior officers and general/flag officers, so if we took the middle band of NCMs, we’d have Sgts/PO2s and WO/PO1s, and it’s not unreasonable to think of having such a groups primarily looking after duties intermediate between Pte/OS-Cpl/AB and MWO/CPO2-CWO/CPO1.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.

Cheers


----------



## McG (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ... I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.


What does this mean? It kinda sounds to me like NDHQ work if by “manage” you mean you create & maintain “strategic policy” (we can debate what you think this means too).


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified....



Such as ?  



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.
> 
> Cheers



100% in agreement.  We are our own worst enemies at times in the CSS trades.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well at 3 Div HQ, I'm going to say maybe, we are 30% NCM's, many of the duties in the G1, G3, G8, JOC are done by Sgt/WO.  While the G4 is mostly MWO heavy due to the experience needed in Supply/Transport/Maint.  Could we replace more Capt/Maj jobs with Sgt/WO?  That certainly require some analysis.  But I can say for certain that some Capts are doing work that could easily be done by a Sgt/WO.  And then of course were do you position a CWO Advisor in all this?, assuming that at some point they make a return.  Myself and other remaining CWO in G4 work directly for the LCol, and work with the Majors, including a lot with the G34.  Of course I blame ourselves a lot in part as we as CSS Corps have never done any work to institutionalize these roles, so it's understandable that the CA doesn't understand either.
> 
> Cheers



So what, for example, would a technical CWO advisor in a functional sub-set of the Div HQ be providing as advice to the G4 that would be more appropriately passed to the Div Comd directly, and that the Div SM is not providing?  I'm intrigued and would like to better understand the tear-line between technical specificity/expertise and generalized/institutional (even at the tactical/operational level) appreciation of issues.

For the record, I do believe the CAF should be pursuing significantly more exchange amongst allied forces at the NCM level, but a challenge will always be less standardization of known product amongst allied forces at the non-commissioned level.  An interesting point of discussion would be how technical expertise is/can be a double-edged sword in NCM exchange consideration, as I have heard anecdotally that forces are less willing to accept exchange NCMs for the very reason that the particular national armed service is highly dependent on its own specific way of doing things, and where there is not as great a degree of commonality of task-specific expertise between even like-minded militaries.

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> You are misunderstanding my statement on DRMIS that I used as an example, I manage *strategic* LEMS/DRMIS Policy for the Div.



Divs don't do strategy, nor strategic policy.  Divs may manage local (tactical at best) policy interpretations / direction to their subordinate formations and units.

Strategic level LEMS is managed out of ADM(Mat); DRMIS is merely a supporting tool.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

The CAF does not teach strategy very well, nor does it use the word properly.  Its akin to calling anything with a turret and some armour a tank.  Hew Strachan's article should be mandatory reading.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396330500248102


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Aug 2018)

I've noticed that too. If one goes back to look at SSE and other similar documents, there is a lot of "strategic" but a misuse or lack of the word strategy (because there probably is none). They have different meanings....


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> What does this mean? It kinda sounds to me like NDHQ work if by “manage” you mean you create & maintain “strategic policy” (we can debate what you think this means too).



Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Such as ?
> 
> 100% in agreement.  We are our own worst enemies at times in the CSS trades.



Well IMHO, the G4 Foods and the Master Driver would be very difficult to justify as CWO, simply because all they do on top of what a MWO does is manage a pers spreadsheet, and that is not justification for a CWO.  I'm not enough of an expert on what the DSC did day to day as they work in G1 not G4, but the I've had discussions with 3 different G4's and our consensus was the ETSM and the Snr Supply Tech, are the two CWO critical, both LEMS and MMDS are not in good shape currently and need to be steered in the right direction.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.



Cool.  I look forward to reading all of that so I can better understand your assertions.


----------



## McG (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Without sending you my Terms of Reference, I would be writing quit a lot here to explain in detail what I mean, and what I do day to day to execute my tasks.


Okay but, as others have noted, neither "strategic" nor "policy" describe tasks within the level of a Canadian Army division.  So it sort of sounds like you are keeping yourself really busy doing work that should be centralized at a higher level, or maybe you are doing work that exists only because the HQ has capacity beyond what it needs, or maybe your talking yourself up, or I don't know.  

But if you are telling me that your work illustrates why the Army needs more CWO and the best description of your work that you can give is a shallow reference to things you should not be doing at that level of HQ, then I am left to maybe conclude that your conclusion is wrong.


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Okay but, as others have noted, neither "strategic" nor "policy" describe tasks within the level of a Canadian Army division.  So it sort of sounds like you are keeping yourself really busy doing work that should be centralized at a higher level, or maybe you are doing work that exists only because the HQ has capacity beyond what it needs, or maybe your talking yourself up, or I don't know.
> 
> But if you are telling me that your work illustrates why the Army needs more CWO and the best description of your work that you can give is a shallow reference to things you should not be doing at that level of HQ, then I am left to maybe conclude that your conclusion is wrong.



Well my intent was not to get into a debate on the proper use of the words strategic vs operational.  Yes our sub-formations are of course tactical.  And I deal with DGLEPM(ADM-MAT), DDRMIS and CA G4/CA DRMIS on a daily basis.  However, I would say that those organizations do rely on the CA Div's to manage and execute and even produce strategic policy in some cases.  Maybe in a perfect world that would all be done in the NCR, but the fact is they don't and I would even say can't know in detail all the difficulties faced in the Div's, nor should they.  And living out west for the past 7 years I will certainly say this is true, or we would not still be struggling with MBT support issues more than a decade after they were introduced, and a dozen BN later....that is another issue, that I don't want to get off on a tangent :-/

But I assure you I am not "just talking myself up", though it is apparent as myself and Halifax Tar have stated, we in the CSS world certainly have failed to message what we do, and that is even more apparent in this forum.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The CAF does not teach strategy very well, nor does it use the word properly.  Its akin to calling anything with a turret and some armour a tank.  Hew Strachan's article should be mandatory reading.
> 
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00396330500248102




.... if we could afford the article


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well IMHO, the G4 Foods and the Master Driver would be very difficult to justify as CWO, simply because all they do on top of what a MWO does is manage a pers spreadsheet, and that is not justification for a CWO.  I'm not enough of an expert on what the DSC did day to day as they work in G1 not G4, but the I've had discussions with 3 different G4's and our consensus was the ETSM and the Snr Supply Tech, are the two CWO critical, both LEMS and MMDS are not in good shape currently and need to be steered in the right direction.



Is there not room for the Snr Trades person to be a CPO1/CWO anymore ? The advocate for and be all end all SME for their given profession seems to me to be a reasonable position. 

But I admit having said the above the CAF has made it abundantly clear that is not a role for a CPO1/CWO anymore. 



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well my intent was not to get into a debate on the proper use of the words strategic vs operational.  Yes our sub-formations are of course tactical.  And I deal with DGLEPM(ADM-MAT), DDRMIS and CA G4/CA DRMIS on a daily basis.  However, I would say that those organizations do rely on the CA Div's to manage and execute and even produce strategic policy in some cases.  Maybe in a perfect world that would all be done in the NCR, but the fact is they don't and I would even say can't know in detail all the difficulties faced in the Div's, nor should they.  And living out west for the past 7 years I will certainly say this is true, or we would not still be struggling with MBT support issues more than a decade after they were introduced, and a dozen BN later....that is another issue, that I don't want to get off on a tangent :-/
> 
> But I assure you I am not "just talking myself up", though it is apparent as myself and Halifax Tar have stated, we in the CSS world certainly have failed to message what we do, and that is even more apparent in this forum.



I find terribly difficult to explain to my wife what I do all day as  PO1 Storesy.  Most of my day is managing my 7 Storesmen, planning for our ships reactivation and being up to nose looking for references and digging through the various manuals that control how we weild the dark art of Naval Logistics.  

What we do is mundane and unexciting. It lacks any "glory" and seldom are you ever appreciated publically for your contribution.  Most outside my world see me as some magician that is to be avoided at most time and only to involved when the mess gets too big for the operators and the techs. 

Having said the above nothing will destroy and chance of mission success quite as fast as a faulty or broken supply chain.  

How exactly do I advocate for that ? And is anyone really interested in listening, until of course when its too late. 

Old EO Tech our predecessors let us down.  Know we have to right the ship now my friend.


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So what, for example, would a technical CWO advisor in a functional sub-set of the Div HQ be providing as advice to the G4 that would be more appropriately passed to the Div Comd directly, and that the Div SM is not providing?  I'm intrigued and would like to better understand the tear-line between technical specificity/expertise and generalized/institutional (even at the tactical/operational level) appreciation of issues.
> 
> For the record, I do believe the CAF should be pursuing significantly more exchange amongst allied forces at the NCM level, but a challenge will always be less standardization of known product amongst allied forces at the non-commissioned level.  An interesting point of discussion would be how technical expertise is/can be a double-edged sword in NCM exchange consideration, as I have heard anecdotally that forces are less willing to accept exchange NCMs for the very reason that the particular national armed service is highly dependent on its own specific way of doing things, and where there is not as great a degree of commonality of task-specific expertise between even like-minded militaries.
> 
> ...



I would prefer to use the term SME CWO as used in the SEM directive language.  Particularly as the CA equates technical to skills that stop at MWO or lower.  But to answer your question, the DSM is most certainly the command team partner to the Div Comd, and an outstanding leader, but is not an expert in everything that a Div HQ does to enable the formations.  It's much the same relationship as the ETQMS or RQMS has as advisors to the CO/RSM of a unit, but they are not the CSM Admin Coy.  The problem being is that the ETQMS/RQMS roles are embedded in doctrine, we failed to do the same since unification, to the CWO SME at a Div HQ, for years/decades we could not even decide to move them out of a Svc Bn to a Div HQ :-/

I at least here in 3 Div, do spend a lot of time on the second floor, working with the G3 staff as well as my boss the G4 to ensure we are collectively giving good accurate and timely advice to the Div Comd and COS.  I may not go myself to the CUB or COS Coord, but my influence and knowledge is going.  And maybe because I happen to know BGen Tevor Cadeau personally, from his time breaking tanks at LdSH as a Capt, but he does like to wander around Div HQ and talk directly to his staff, and I've had more than a few direct conversations with him on CSS issues.  So I'm certainly not replacing the Div SM, but I am providing expertise that he can't.  And really more importantly I am working every day to ensure that the Div's LEMS structure is being an enabler to our success and not an impediment.  

As to your second point, yes the differing ways if doing sustainment in NATA/ABCA countries could be a challenge, but from a purely Canadian/Commonwealth perspective I think we train our people extremely well, and for example I did some short exchanges with the Brits in Bosnia in the 90's, and it was not hard at all for me as a FCS Tech to adapt to their system and integrate.  Though I see OUTCAN NCM postings being more leadership slots than SME Advisors.  Much like the current posting to the US Army NCO Academy in Texas is now.  And we have an instructor slot for a US Army SM in the Osside Institute in St. Jean.  But at these senior level postings, what we call leadership vs advisors gets pretty blurry for sure.  Many GOFO postings are "advisors" to other NATO Commanders, on how to employ the Canadian troops/equipment under their command.  In that scenario I think an appropriate SA CWO would be very easy to do and very easy to employ.

Cheers


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Is there not room for the Snr Trades person to be a CPO1/CWO anymore ? The advocate for and be all end all SME for their given profession seems to me to be a reasonable position.
> 
> But I admit having said the above the CAF has made it abundantly clear that is not a role for a CPO1/CWO anymore.
> 
> ...



I do not envy you doing Logistics on a ship, my short exposure to a ship in Victoria left my knees aching after just an afternoon tour of a frigate :-/  

I fear that it will be our replacements that will have to fight this fight for us, I will certainly leverage everything I can in my remaining years, but it will likely take 5-10 years to prove to the CAF that SME CWO are a good thing for the CAF as an institution.  I'll be retired likely before new leadership is in place that will realize that.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

Why can't you just train SME MWO to do that job?


----------



## Old EO Tech (20 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Why can't you just train SME MWO to do that job?



In your opinion can a SME MWO be the AJAG SM?

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.

A MWO fresh from a sub-unit Sergeant Major appointment, where they deal with it first hand, is probably well-positioned to move into advising and assisting at the AJAG level.  In fact, where I've been, its the MWOs as opposed to the CWO that handle the day-to-day management of disciplinary issues.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

By the way, I'm not just bagging on MWO/CWO.  There are numerous positions where the same questions/analysis should be done at the Col, LCol, and Maj levels.  We routinely have Majs doing things that Capts should be doing.


----------



## Furniture (20 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.



If this is the bar that needs to be met than maybe a Sgt can handle it... I was trained as a Sgt by the AJAG CPO1 in Esquimalt, and I doubt my understanding was less adequate than a PO1+...  

There is a weight/authority assigned to rank, whether we want to acknowledge it officially on not. Down ranking NCM positions while continuing to push more senior officer bloat devalues NCM ranks. Now maybe my experiences aren't indicative of the entire CAF, but I have been disregarded because I'm not "senior enough" by officers with significantly less experience than me. As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...


----------



## Old EO Tech (21 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know, that's why I asked the question.  I thought we were discussing CSS positions, but sure.  What's the purpose of an AJAG SM, in a branch/work environment where the junior rank is a Captain?  Certainly not to deal with dress, deportment, or discipline issues.  Nor is it as a technical expert, as there is no NCM legal occupation.  From my experience, they assist with advising and training unit level disciplinarians on how to handle CSD issues, charge laying, investigations, etc.
> 
> A MWO fresh from a sub-unit Sergeant Major appointment, where they deal with it first hand, is probably well-positioned to move into advising and assisting at the AJAG level.  In fact, where I've been, its the MWOs as opposed to the CWO that handle the day-to-day management of disciplinary issues.



Yes and I would agree, that its not the RSM but the CSM/DSM/QMSI that are handling the disciplinary files, the RSM only vets them before they go to the CO.  I'm just playing the devils advocate here, as this is not just about CSS CWO, we just took the brunt of the CWO cuts in the CA.  The SEM project defines us all as SME CWO, AJAG CWO included, and even the CADTC Standards CWO that are also being cut.  I'm just saying we are being very inconsistent in the CA, when we call the AJAG CWO a KP position, requiring it to be filled by a former RSM, but the CSS CWO and the CADTC CWO are not...   So that was the discussion I had hoped to get your opinion on.

Cheers


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes and I would agree, that its not the RSM but the CSM/DSM/QMSI that are handling the disciplinary files, the RSM only vets them before they go to the CO.  I'm just playing the devils advocate here, as this is not just about CSS CWO, we just took the brunt of the CWO cuts in the CA.  The SEM project defines us all as SME CWO, AJAG CWO included, and even the CADTC Standards CWO that are also being cut.  I'm just saying we are being very inconsistent in the CA, when we call the AJAG CWO a KP position, requiring it to be filled by a former RSM, but the CSS CWO and the CADTC CWO are not...   So that was the discussion I had hoped to get your opinion on.
> 
> Cheers



I would be interested to see the equation and decision making process behind the decisions about what are KP and SA CPO1/CWO positions and what are to be downgraded to MWO.  

I know the RCN has grabbed all of its CPO1 Positions.  This has been having an interesting impact.  For example now we have seen non HRA and FSA clerks CPO1 take over the CPO1 position at Base Admin.  The same is a very real possibility for the BLog/TEME Orgs, although we have been able to maintain RCN DEU Sup Techs in that position so far.  But there could come a day where a CPO1 Boatswain (For example) will be what is essentially the CPO1 for Base Supply. 

I understand that we have this idea that CPO1/CWOs should be able to fill any role at that rank, with in reason, but some of this seem very strange to me.  

Perhaps I just fear change too much.


----------



## Haggis (21 Aug 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see the equation and decision making process behind the decisions about what are KP and SA CPO1/CWO positions and what are to be downgraded to MWO.



SA CPO1/CWO positions are intended to be environmental and institutional leaders at the operational and strategic level (CAFCWO, Army SM, RCAF CWO, Bde and Div SM).  They are part of a command team with a superior commander (CDS, CCA, Bde Comd, Div Comd, Comd MARLANT, WComd).  KP CPO1/CWO are advisors at the environmental and institutional level and are not part of command teams.


----------



## garb811 (21 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> In your opinion can a SME MWO be the AJAG SM?
> 
> Cheers


My turn to be pedantic...

Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.



			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...


The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.

Back to the topic at hand, my point of view is if we want to retain the knowledge and expertise of a CWO for the purposes of staff duties, that is better accomplished by SCRP. I'd just make a further adjustment to that program to provide an off-ramp for "promotable" MWOs who have not been selected for succession planning into a command team position in order to employ them as SME on staff simply because there aren't enough command team positions to keep things flowing smoothly.  It doesn't make sense to me, even with support trades, how promoting a MWO to CWO with no hope of them ever being in a command team position makes sense given what we as an institution have decided as the role of the CWO.  

That would mean folks would have to start being realistic about what their expectations are for their career and start accepting the fact that even for those who are lucky enough to get a command team appointment as a CWO, that might be the end of the road for them and if they want to continue serving, it won't be as a CWO.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> My turn to be pedantic...
> 
> Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.



To be fair, the proper term of address for any MWO/CWO in the RCAF, regardless of the rank of those addressing them, is "Brent" or "Marjorie"



> The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.
> 
> Back to the topic at hand, my point of view is if we want to retain the knowledge and expertise of a CWO for the purposes of staff duties, that is better accomplished by SCRP. I'd just make a further adjustment to that program to provide an off-ramp for "promotable" MWOs who have not been selected for succession planning into a command team position in order to employ them as SME on staff simply because there aren't enough command team positions to keep things flowing smoothly.  It doesn't make sense to me, even with support trades, how promoting a MWO to CWO with no hope of them ever being in a command team position makes sense given what we as an institution have decided as the role of the CWO.
> 
> That would mean folks would have to start being realistic about what their expectations are for their career and start accepting the fact that even for those who are lucky enough to get a command team appointment as a CWO, that might be the end of the road for them and if they want to continue serving, it won't be as a CWO.



Better employment of SCRP to fill junior specialist positions would have to overcome a significant degree of institutional bias in the MWO/CWO corps against junior officers.

Of course, do a better job of selling the pay increase and related improvement of their best 5 years for pension purposes, and it might become more popular.


----------



## Old EO Tech (21 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> My turn to be pedantic...
> 
> Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.
> The RCN does this quite a lot and I've seen it in action.  Tasks where a Snr MP Cpl or a MCpl would be sent if the support was being provided to the Army or RCAF were being filled by a Sgt simply because of the understanding that unless the MP was a member of the right mess, they just wouldn't be "heard", even though they were the SME for certain subject matters.
> ...



SRCP is officially an off ramp career line in the SEM project, but the actual positions have not been formalized much as of yet.  That being said SRCP is only one of 3 lines careers for CAF CWO.  Subject Matter Expert CWO is a line by itself.  So I disagree that "the institution" has decided that CT appointments are the only option.  This is a Army centric problem that the CA doesn't understand a need or entry level SME CWO, the other elements are much more open to having SME CWO.  The only caveat the SEM directive says is that you can't go from a entry level SME CWO to a level 2 SME without doing a unit CWO/RSM job after your entry level job.


----------



## garb811 (21 Aug 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> To be fair, the proper term of address for any MWO/CWO rank in the RCAF, regardless of the rank of those addressing them, is "Brent" or "Marjorie", unless they are a pilot at which point it become "Scooter" or "Dumbo" or...
> 
> Better employment of SCRP to fill junior specialist positions would have to overcome a significant degree of institutional bias in the MWO/CWO corps against junior officers.
> 
> Of course, do a better job of selling the pay increase and related improvement of their best 5 years for pension purposes, and it might become more popular.


Fixed that for you



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> SRCP is officially an off ramp career line in the SEM project, but the actual positions have not been formalized much as of yet.  That being said SRCP is only one of 3 lines careers for CAF CWO.  Subject Matter Expert CWO is a line by itself.  So I disagree that "the institution" has decided that CT appointments are the only option.  This is a Army centric problem that the CA doesn't understand a need or entry level SME CWO, the other elements are much more open to having SME CWO.  The only caveat the SEM directive says is that you can't go from a entry level SME CWO to a level 2 SME without doing a unit CWO/RSM job after your entry level job.


I really don't see the need to have a "technical" CWO giving technical advice at a Div or even Army HQ, let alone NDHQ. SCRP 'em and that way you don't have to worry about a getting an "entry level SME CWO" a CT position prior to them going to a "level 2 SME CWO" position.  CSS CT positions are few and far enough in between that we really don't need the fratricide of tying up one of those positions just to get a "SME CWO" from Div HQ to Army HQ as a "SME CWO" when a SCRP'd Capt can freely move amongst those levels without difficulty now.

As was stated previously by PPCLI Guy, I might be missing something about what a "SME CWO" at Div HQ is bringing to the table that requires the rank of CWO that can't be provided by a MWO or Capt.  You're essentially just giving us the "trust me, it's required" thing instead of some concrete examples of what you, specifically, bring to your Comd and his senior SOs other than a few examples that can be done with a much lower rank.   :dunno:


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you
> I really don't see the need to have a "technical" CWO giving technical advice at a Div or even Army HQ, let alone NDHQ. SCRP 'em and that way you don't have to worry about a getting an "entry level SME CWO" a CT position prior to them going to a "level 2 SME CWO" position.  CSS CT positions are few and far enough in between that we really don't need the fratricide of tying up one of those positions just to get a "SME CWO" from Div HQ to Army HQ as a "SME CWO" when a SCRP'd Capt can freely move amongst those levels without difficulty now.
> 
> As was stated previously by PPCLI Guy, I might be missing something about what a "SME CWO" at Div HQ is bringing to the table that requires the rank of CWO that can't be provided by a MWO or Capt.  You're essentially just giving us the "trust me, it's required" thing instead of some concrete examples of what you, specifically, bring to your Comd and his senior SOs other than a few examples that can be done with a much lower rank.   :dunno:



My fear is that we are merely aping the customs of our American cousins by requiring every formation to have a 'X/XX/XXX/XXXX etc' RSM as well as a Commander. These are merely 'show pony' positions at best, political positions at worst.

The right place for good CWOs is in the units, making sure that the right things get done in the right way - or else - and that our leadership supply chain is producing good material. They are best employed at the coalface, 'where the bayonet meets the belly' as one of my former CSMs described it to me, because no one else with the right experience can do that job. Good soldiers (and Officers) cross the Start Line because they are, in equal portions, both confident and afraid of failing to meet 'the standard', and our CWOs can ensure that the right balance is maintained to ensure victory.

Get a Captain/ Major to drive your Comd's rover, or make his coffee, or crank up a PowerPointless presentation, or present a report with 'advice' at the higher HQ levels. 

Our CWO's have real work to do.


----------



## Underway (21 Aug 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> There is a weight/authority assigned to rank, whether we want to acknowledge it officially on not. Down ranking NCM positions while continuing to push more senior officer bloat devalues NCM ranks. Now maybe my experiences aren't indicative of the entire CAF, but I have been disregarded because I'm not "senior enough" by officers with significantly less experience than me. As a Sgt I had OODs with a few weeks on ship disregard my advice because a SLt knows better...



This goes both ways.  I've had quite a few Sgt, POs etc... disregard me over the years because my "experience" was less valued than theirs and watched it bite them in the ass.  Sometimes people make mistakes. But I completely understand your frustration .

As for Snr officer bloat, maybe we are looking at the issue from the wrong side.  Perhaps we have a correctly sized senior officer corp, but an undersized everything else?  The problem might not be with the Snr Officer numbers but the size of the military in general.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2018)

Underway said:
			
		

> As for Snr officer bloat, maybe we are looking at the issue from the wrong side.  Perhaps we have a correctly sized senior officer corp, but an undersized everything else?



If that were true, than why the increase in 50% in a decade?  Was something not functioning during the height of our Afghan War?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Aug 2018)

During the last 10 years what new headquarters have been added ? Each HQ will generate flag officer spaces. Of course NORAD for exa Additmple may have caused additional generals to be needed. Like the posting of LTG Eyre to Korea where Canada had not posted anyone there maybe since the Korean War.


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My fear is that we are merely aping the customs of our American cousins by requiring every formation to have a 'X/XX/XXX/XXXX etc' RSM as well as a Commander. These are merely 'show pony' positions at best, political positions at worst.
> 
> The right place for good CWOs is in the units, making sure that the right things get done in the right way - or else - and that our leadership supply chain is producing good material. They are best employed at the coalface, 'where the bayonet meets the belly' as one of my former CSMs described it to me, because no one else with the right experience can do that job. Good soldiers (and Officers) cross the Start Line because they are, in equal portions, both confident and afraid of failing to meet 'the standard', and our CWOs can ensure that the right balance is maintained to ensure victory.
> 
> ...



I'm with Barmy on this one. At the unit level, the RSM is a major and highly necessary NCO because he deals directly with the junction point of young soldiers and young officers where a strong knowledgeable guiding hand does the most good. At higher levels it basically becomes a less significant job of setting dress and deportment standards across the brigade, etc. Yup there are other things they do too but mostly those become issues of micro-management of what the unit RSMs and unit staff should be left to do on their own. By the time one becomes a unit RSM supervision by brigade CWO is neither desired nor necessary.

We've had an explosion of CWOs across the forces and many of them in jobs where their experience isn't as necessary as we make out. The problem is that we simply don't want to lose good soldiers who still have years of service in them so we've developed numerous positions for them. When we first started the JAG CWO position I wasn't in favour of it. I much preferred the American system where legal technicians/administrators at the warrant officer rank (specialty 270A) and paralegal soldiers (MOS 27D) filled many of the jobs we currently assign to former RSMs and civilian staff. I've always thought that the absence of such personnel greatly handicapped the operational deployability of legal offices. (as an aside I do prefer the US warrant officer concept (ie individuals who are neither NCOs nor commissioned officers) for specialty and technical trades/occupations rather than ours system where warrant officers are part of the NCO stream.)

I'm resigned to the fact that I'm speaking heresy here and that the system is not about to change. Please spare me your moral outrage. I'm just  :stirpot:

 :cheers:


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> My turn to be pedantic...
> 
> Just like we misuse "Strategic" and "Operational", army folk who should know better have a really bad habit of calling anyone in an Army uniform "SM" simply because the person is a CWO or MWO. The Navy gets this. I have yet to hear a CPO1 called "Cox'n" when they did not hold that appointment; I can't imagine anyone in Halifax or Esquimalt referring to the AJAG CPO1 as "AJAG Cox'n" without being immediately corrected.  Better yet are Army pers who insist on translating that to RCAF CWO/MWOs as well.



You are quite right, I was posting quickly, but living in a Joint HQ, were we have lots of RCN types, I've given up on correcting these things, I get called "Chief" daily, were if I used that when I was a Junior NCO towards an Army CWO, I'd have many weekends on duty to consider my mistake....

But does not a AJAG Cell have a CO?  I'm not knowledgeable enough about their current structure to say.  But if they have defacto someone doing a CO or OC job, then having a "SM" is also correct.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Aug 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My fear is that we are merely aping the customs of our American cousins by requiring every formation to have a 'X/XX/XXX/XXXX etc' RSM as well as a Commander. These are merely 'show pony' positions at best, political positions at worst.



Hmm.  Not sure what experience you have had with US Senior Enlisted Leaders - it appears to vary from mine.  They do not have Command Teams per se.  They have SNCOs with very narrowly prescribed arcs, within which they have surprising latitude.  The primary focus seemed to be, in my experience, on Force Protection,  They remain confused by our concept of a Command team, as do most of our Allies, all of whom pay nothing more than lip service to the value of a very Senior NCO.  

The Brits actually had to take an LSE LCol and revert him in rank to the equivalent of CWO in order to create their first Army SM.  They absolutely DO NOT get the whole Command Team Thing....


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Aug 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you
> I really don't see the need to have a "technical" CWO giving technical advice at a Div or even Army HQ, let alone NDHQ. SCRP 'em and that way you don't have to worry about a getting an "entry level SME CWO" a CT position prior to them going to a "level 2 SME CWO" position.  CSS CT positions are few and far enough in between that we really don't need the fratricide of tying up one of those positions just to get a "SME CWO" from Div HQ to Army HQ as a "SME CWO" when a SCRP'd Capt can freely move amongst those levels without difficulty now.
> 
> As was stated previously by PPCLI Guy, I might be missing something about what a "SME CWO" at Div HQ is bringing to the table that requires the rank of CWO that can't be provided by a MWO or Capt.  You're essentially just giving us the "trust me, it's required" thing instead of some concrete examples of what you, specifically, bring to your Comd and his senior SOs other than a few examples that can be done with a much lower rank.   :dunno:



Well I certainly did not make these rules I was just stating them....IMHO we should be able to go on the SME stream, just like the CT stream or in theory the SRCP stream. 

And I'm certainly not afraid of putting a microscope on what I do specifically as an ETSM, so rather than type for ages here I will simply attach my ToR, both primary and as part of the RCEME regional network, none of which is in any way classified.  And then you are free to judge for yourself if I am worthy of being a CWO :-/

Cheers


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm with Barmy on this one. At the unit level, the RSM is a major and highly necessary NCO because he deals directly with the junction point of young soldiers and young officers where a strong knowledgeable guiding hand does the most good. At higher levels it basically becomes a less significant job of setting dress and deportment standards across the brigade, etc. Yup there are other things they do too but mostly those become issues of micro-management of what the unit RSMs and unit staff should be left to do on their own. By the time one becomes a unit RSM supervision by brigade CWO is neither desired nor necessary.
> 
> We've had an explosion of CWOs across the forces and many of them in jobs where their experience isn't as necessary as we make out. The problem is that we simply don't want to lose good soldiers who still have years of service in them so we've developed numerous positions for them. When we first started the JAG CWO position I wasn't in favour of it. I much preferred the American system where legal technicians/administrators at the warrant officer rank (specialty 270A) and paralegal soldiers (MOS 27D) filled many of the jobs we currently assign to former RSMs and civilian staff. I've always thought that the absence of such personnel greatly handicapped the operational deployability of legal offices. (as an aside I do prefer the US warrant officer concept (ie individuals who are neither NCOs nor commissioned officers) for specialty and technical trades/occupations rather than ours system where warrant officers are part of the NCO stream.)
> 
> ...



Well I am actually a fan of the US WO System too. Maybe we would not have had to make PA's fully commissioned officers if we had a semi-commissioned WO alternative for the CFMS...just to pay them enough so they don't get out for civy jobs...

I agree that RSM's are critical at the unit level, but I will disagree that formation SM's are not needed, or just in charge of the 4D's at a higher level.  Comd are surrounded by senior officers that are all no doubt good at there jobs at this point in their careers, but only the SM has the background to advise the Comd from 30+ years as an NCO, representing the concerns of the NCO's in the formation.  Not to mention providing a private sounding board for the Comd.  There is likely a whole lot more "projects" on a formation SM's desk, but TBH I don't work in the short hallway upstairs so I can't speak to the DSM's workload and what the Comd tasks him with on a daily basis.  But I am sure that these guys are important leaders in their formations and while they are not really RSM's like at a unit level, that doesn't mean they have not evolved equally important roles.

Cheers


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> But does not a AJAG Cell have a CO?  I'm not knowledgeable enough about their current structure to say.  But if they have defacto someone doing a CO or OC job, then having a "SM" is also correct.



I suppose if an AJAG organization was an "army" element, it would be acceptable to use the title of "sergeant major" for the senior NCM.  However, since all the legal types are in the JAG chain of command, they are a CF unit vice an army unit, so the generic term of AJAG CWO/CPO1 is appropriate.  Just as they are referred to in the JAG annual report.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-annual-2016-17/ch-1-who-we-are.page





> Office of the Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer
> 
> The JAG Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) serves as the senior non-commissioned member advisor to the JAG. Based on the command team concept, the JAG CWO provides perspective to the JAG and his leadership team on strategic issues related to the JAG’s statutory roles, the CAF and the Office of the JAG.
> 
> ...


----------



## MJP (22 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well I certainly did not make these rules I was just stating them....IMHO we should be able to go on the SME stream, just like the CT stream or in theory the SRCP stream.
> 
> And I'm certainly not afraid of putting a microscope on what I do specifically as an ETSM, so rather than type for ages here I will simply attach my ToR, both primary and as part of the RCEME regional network, none of which is in any way classified.  And then you are free to judge for yourself if I am worthy of being a CWO :-/
> 
> Cheers



Thank for posting these, only 5 div had theirs in acims and they aren't nearly as complete as these are.  

Just because it sounded like I was hacking on CWOs in my earlier postings, I fully agree with a few other posters here in that we should be rationalizing what rank does what across the board for officers and ncm alike.  I am fairly convinced that most of the CWO cuts have fairly strong rationale, but as always open to revisit my opinion (that and $2 will buy you a coffee).


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Aug 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I suppose if an AJAG organization was an "army" element, it would be acceptable to use the title of "sergeant major" for the senior NCM.  However, since all the legal types are in the JAG chain of command, they are a CF unit vice an army unit, so the generic term of AJAG CWO/CPO1 is appropriate.  Just as they are referred to in the JAG annual report.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-military-law-annual-2016-17/ch-1-who-we-are.page



So given that its a CAF unit, then I image if we down-ranked the position it would just be call AJAG MWO/CPO2 then...


----------



## Old EO Tech (22 Aug 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> Thank for posting these, only 5 div had theirs in acims and they aren't nearly as complete as these are.
> 
> Just because it sounded like I was hacking on CWOs in my earlier postings, I fully agree with a few other posters here in that we should be rationalizing what rank does what across the board for officers and ncm alike.  I am fairly convinced that most of the CWO cuts have fairly strong rationale, but as always open to revisit my opinion (that and $2 will but you a coffee).



Don't get me wrong either, I'm not at all afraid of a real analysis of what CWO should be doing or not.  In fact the SEM project/CDS directed that we do this analysis, its just that in the CA that analysis became a simple two part question.  

1. Are you part of a Command Team(not a leadership team)? 
2. If not, are you in a job that is a post RSM, institutional SME? Such as a Corps SM, AJAG etc

If both of those are answered no, analysis done...downgrade to MWO or SRCP Capt.

And, if we are doing this to CWO, of course we should be doing the same to every officer job Maj and higher as well.  And yes, my opinion and $2.20 gets you a coffee at Timmies :_/

Cheers


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2018)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> You are quite right, I was posting quickly, but living in a Joint HQ, were we have lots of RCN types, I've given up on correcting these things, I get called "Chief" daily, were if I used that when I was a Junior NCO towards an Army CWO, I'd have many weekends on duty to consider my mistake....
> 
> But does not a AJAG Cell have a CO?  I'm not knowledgeable enough about their current structure to say.  But if they have defacto someone doing a CO or OC job, then having a "SM" is also correct.
> 
> Cheers



An AJAG cell does not have a CO. While an AJAG is a LCol, he does not carry the official CO designation or powers. There is only one CO for the entire Office of the JAG which if memory serves me correctly is/was the DJAG COS who is a full Colonel.

There was also one specific CWO/CPO1 who is designated JAG CWO and was the principle advisor to the JAG himself/herself. Unfortunately the outward facing JAG website, like the rest of the CF website, is short on information and I can't tell you who fills what job these days but you might be able to find the info on the JAG's DWAN site. There is the following blurb about the JAG CWO and the other CWOs/CPO1s in the last JAG Annual Report:



> Office of the Judge Advocate General Chief Warrant Officer
> 
> The JAG Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) serves as the senior non-commissioned member advisor to the JAG. Based on the command team concept, the JAG CWO provides perspective to the JAG and his leadership team on strategic issues related to the JAG’s statutory roles, the CAF and the Office of the JAG.
> 
> ...



 :cheers:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Aug 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The Brits actually had to take an LSE LCol and revert him in rank to the equivalent of CWO in order to create their first Army SM.  They absolutely DO NOT get the whole Command Team Thing....



Actually, they took the Academy Sergeant Major (who had already been commissioned as a LE Captain but continued to served as a WO1) and made him the Army Sergeant Major.  When his term is up he'll be promoted to major and go to staff college to continue his career.




			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well I am actually a fan of the US WO System too. Maybe we would not have had to make PA's fully commissioned officers if we had a semi-commissioned WO alternative for the CFMS...just to pay them enough so they don't get out for civy jobs...



There are no more Warrant Officer Physician Assistants in the US Military and haven't been for nearly twenty years.  They were all made commissioned officers (those that were able to get a bachelors degree by the deadline) for basically the same reason that the CF did.  The entry to practise requirements (civilian licensing criteria) changed so that a minimum of a bachelors (or in some jurisdictions, a masters) became the norm.  Since having a four year degree was the minimum education level for that MOS, they were treated the same as all other MOS that have the same educational requirement, they became a commissioned officer occupation.


----------



## Haggis (22 Aug 2018)

About 8 or 9 years ago, I did a comparison of CPO1/CWO to CPO1/CWO positions.  At the time there was a move to designate new SA and KP CPO1/CWO positions but the VCDS wanted to know what and who was out there before proceeding.  The result was that there were around thirty or so CPO1/CWO occupying CPO2/MWO and Lt(N)/Capt, and LCdr/Maj positions.  There were a variety of different reasons for this, some good, some not.  Some had to do with the staffing challenges in various L1 and L2 HQs during Afghanistan when Capts and Majs were in short supply.  Some had to do with the CAF's addiction to Class B as a staffing tool to meet these shortfalls and the annuitant employment policies of the day which pretty much encouraged double dipping.  As a result of this study and the VCDS's direction, many CPO1/CWO in non-CPO1/CWO positions were told to CFR, relinquish or retire.

Shortly after this the CWO SEM was released which provided more clearly articulated "off-ramps" and "holding positions" for those CPO1/CWO who were not destined for new KP or SA employment but still willing and deemed acceptable to serve.  Then, in 2012, I believe, a CANFORGEN announced that the 35/55 cap would be rigorously applied to Regular Force CPO1/CWO in order to "cull the herd".  Due to the challenges faced in the P Res with generating sufficient CPO1/CWO to meet succession planning requirements, this policy was not applied to the P Res CPO1/CWO community as long as a need existed for continued employment and the member was, in all other ways, suitable and qualified to remain in uniform beyond CRA55.

It's also important to note that when a CPO1/CWO is posted to the Senior Appointment List (SAL) they become part of a new occupation (MOSID 00351). KP remain part of their occupation.  Also SA have their own pay scale while KP do not.

There is a lot of influence and prestige with being a CPO1/CWO, particularly as a member of a Command Team.  This is something not easily surrendered.  Pay and pension aside, this sometimes makes SEM off-ramps leading away from the CWO rank unpalatable.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's also important to note that when a CPO1/CWO is posted to the Senior Appointment List (SAL) they become part of a new occupation (MOSID 00351). KP remain part of their occupation.  Also SA have their own pay scale while KP do not.



As of this summer, ALL CPO1/CWO will be part of the 00351 MOSID.


----------



## Haggis (22 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As of this summer, ALL CPO1/CWO will be part of the 00351 MOSID.



Not that I doubt you (and I am a few years removed from inner workings of the CWO world) but how will this work for Tier 4 CPO1/CWO (i.e. Unit RSM, SCWO, Coxn)?  Do they all get SA pay now?


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2018)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Not that I doubt you (and I am a few years removed from inner workings of the CWO world) but how will this work for Tier 4 CPO1/CWO (i.e. Unit RSM, SCWO, Coxn)?  Do they all get SA pay now?



There are now 5 tiers: Tactical Leadership Team, Tactical Post-Unit Leadership Team, Post-Tactical Leadership Team, Strategic Leadership Team, and CFCWO.  The MES IP states that there will be a pay review, with each tier possibly getting its own pay scale.

The MES IP is ambiguous on how a MWO gets moved into his or her first appointment at the unit level.  I tried reading through it, but its built on some complex assessment model.  From my understanding, it is feasible that an Artillery Regiment could end up with a CWO from, say, a Supp Tech background as an RSM.  Perhaps somebody else familiar with the change could elaborate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2018)

Since, in battle, the role of the RSM of an Artillery Regiment is ammo management, it may actually be instructive to have a Sup Tech background CWO in that role.

Where things go pear-shaped is the technical oversight of the NCMs as gunners. Currently, most (all?) Reg Force Artillery Regt RSMs are also Master Gunners, which means that when the CO or a Battery Sargeant Major looks to the RSM for technical advice on gunnery, they can get it.


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> There are now 5 tiers: Tactical Leadership Team, Tactical Post-Unit Leadership Team, Post-Tactical Leadership Team, Strategic Leadership Team, and CFCWO.  The MES IP states that there will be a pay review, with each tier possibly getting its own pay scale.
> 
> The MES IP is ambiguous on how a MWO gets moved into his or her first appointment at the unit level.  I tried reading through it, but its built on some complex assessment model.  From my understanding, it is feasible that an Artillery Regiment could end up with a CWO from, say, a Supp Tech background as an RSM.  Perhaps somebody else familiar with the change could elaborate.



Please tell me that this is just a nightmare on your part. Surely we don't have people at the top who would even consider that at this level, RSM in a combat arms or support unit is just a career appointment that can be filled by an "any" CWO with the right check boxes on his resume. That's wrong on so many levels.

 :not-again:


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Since, in battle, the role of the RSM of an Artillery Regiment is ammo management, it may actually be instructive to have a Sup Tech background CWO in that role.
> 
> Where things go pear-shaped is the technical oversight of the NCMs as gunners. Currently, most (all?) Reg Force Artillery Regt RSMs are also Master Gunners, which means that when the CO or a Battery Sargeant Major looks to the RSM for technical advice on gunnery, they can get it.



Two of the stated duties of the RSM in an artillery regiment are to "maintain a high order of discipline and advise the CO on matters pertaining to Non-Commissioned Members; . . . assist the RCPO in maintaining a uniformly high standard of gun drill;". I would suggest that the combination of these functions mandates that the RSM must have an intimate knowledge and experience of the tasks and duties of all gunners within the unit including all NCM and junior officer positions. I would expect that these responsibilities/requirements are identical to any armour, infantry or engineer unit and probably most army units.

 :cheers:


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2018)

Possibly.  There is some system of management that considers "environmental competencies," which is, I assume, the mechanism for putting new CWO/CPO1 in a position relevant to their previous MOSID experience.  Someone better familiar with the system would have to confirm.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Please tell me that this is just a nightmare on your part. Surely we don't have people at the top who would even consider that at this level, RSM in a combat arms or support unit is just a career appointment that can be filled by an "any" CWO with the right check boxes on his resume. That's wrong on so many levels.
> 
> :not-again:



My Infantry unit has had a non-Infantry CO and non-Infantry RSM at one time. 

Let's just say that it didn't go well... for us mostly  :


----------



## Journeyman (22 Aug 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Notice in Ottawa that the GOFOs/ Chiefs that do that seem to be a lot more relaxed than the micromanagers; they can give general direction and make decisions, but otherwise stay out of the weeds unless things start going off the rails. They also tend to take the time to mentor people and explain some of their thought process, which takes a bunch of effort, but seems to result in more capable subordinates, so makes it easier in the long run.


^^^  Just wanted to repeat this.... and note that it's not an "Ottawa" or necessarily a "GOFO/Chief" thing.   :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Aug 2018)

Hence your handle.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Sep 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If that were true, than why the increase in 50% in a decade?  Was something not functioning during the height of our Afghan War?



Can you tell us? Honest question.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Sep 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ^^^  Just wanted to repeat this.... and note that it's not an "Ottawa" or necessarily a "GOFO/Chief" thing.   :nod:



Fully agree, GOFO/Chief was more under the lines of the discussions, but it's a good general leadership practice.

Never dealt with the GOFOs on the coast, but generally interact with them a lot more here (from briefings to casual chats in the coffee line). Sure it's similar in operational lines but they are a bit more insulated through the CoC structure.  Maybe it's a function of everything in Ottawa being matrixed?


----------



## Journeyman (15 Sep 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a function of everything in Ottawa being matrixed?


You mean a make-believe world, disconnected from reality, where your posting message doesn't come with the red pill?


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Sep 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You mean a make-believe world, disconnected from reality, where your posting message doesn't come with the red pill?



Between your post and signature block, one would almost think you were familiar with the NCR!  :nod:


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Sep 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You mean a make-believe world, disconnected from reality, where your posting message doesn't come with the red pill?



Reality is overrated!  Why worry about operational effectiveness when there are new pieces of flair to design, or placemats to build.  Please fill out the form and we'll get back to you in 5-10 business days*


*not a guarantee


----------



## Journeyman (15 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> ….one would almost think you were familiar with the NCR!  :nod:


Posted there once, and not ashamed to admit that I went crawling to a 'regimental godfather' to escape the Career Manager's pending second round.  :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Oct 2018)

Interesting article: 

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2018/10/about-10-percent-of-flag-officer-positions-can-be-replaced-by-lower-grades-study-says/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0nyi7q3rXc7sAxNOC9O4hLooVh_trVMawrYonOXscurAOoRem6bJlKA0E


----------



## mariomike (28 Oct 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Interesting article:
> 
> https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2018/10/about-10-percent-of-flag-officer-positions-can-be-replaced-by-lower-grades-study-says/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0nyi7q3rXc7sAxNOC9O4hLooVh_trVMawrYonOXscurAOoRem6bJlKA0E



An interesting article, about the US military,

"Congress thinks there are too many generals and flag officers holding positions in the Defense Department."


----------



## Journeyman (28 Oct 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> An interesting article, about the US military


The US downsizing their GO/FO numbers could provide a knock-on effect for Canada.

For example, do those RMC cadets _really_  need a BGen?  Of course not..... but West Point, USAFA, Annapolis all have a 1-star, therefore....


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Oct 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> An interesting article, about the US military,
> 
> "Congress thinks there are too many generals and flag officers holding positions in the Defense Department."



Thanks tips, or are you Capt Obvious ?  Its not like we are immune to outside influences... 



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> The US downsizing their GO/FO numbers could provide a knock-on effect for Canada.
> 
> For example, do those RMC cadets _really_  need a BGen?  Of course not..... but West Point, USAFA, Annapolis all have a 1-star, therefore....



Solid questions that need to be asked.


----------



## mariomike (28 Oct 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Thanks tips, or are you Capt Obvious ?



My intent was not to offend you. Sorry if you took it that way.


----------



## dimsum (28 Oct 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The US downsizing their GO/FO numbers could provide a knock-on effect for Canada.
> 
> For example, do those RMC cadets _really_  need a BGen?  Of course not..... but West Point, USAFA, Annapolis all have a 1-star, therefore....



Strictly on 3rd-hand info, aren't the US service academies about 4-5x the number of folks than RMC?  If so, why would RMC need a 1-star even if the other Cmdts are of that rank?


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Oct 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Strictly on 3rd-hand info, aren't the US service academies about 4-5x the number of folks than RMC?  If so, why would RMC need a 1-star even if the other Cmdts are of that rank?



About 20 years ago I took a look at our PF GOs in early 1939. Proportionally we had more then in terms of size of our permanent force, but of lesser rank. RMC was commanded by Brigadier HDG Crerar, if memory serves me.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The US downsizing their GO/FO numbers could provide a knock-on effect for Canada.


One can hope.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Nov 2018)

Posting from phone 

Here an interesting link:

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/08/number-of-generals-will-grow-says-canadas-top-soldier/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Nov 2018)

I note the comments "if we get involved in more conflicts we need more generals"...not "we need more troops" "we need more/newer equipment" "we need more funding". 

I guess the CAF sustainment plan could be called "OP Ouroboros"?


----------



## FJAG (11 Nov 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Posting from phone
> 
> Here an interesting link:
> 
> https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/08/number-of-generals-will-grow-says-canadas-top-soldier/



Un-freakin'-believable. This is like Canadian unions: always comparing themselves to other organizations who have a structure/pay scale most favourable to what they want.

Let's look south for a little comparison:



> The U.S. Code explicitly limits the total number of four-star officers that may be on active duty at any given time. The total number of active-duty general or flag officers is capped at 231 for the Army, 162 for the Navy, 198 for the Air Force, and 62 for the Marine Corps.[10] For the Army, Marine, Navy, and Air Force, no more than about 21%[11] of each service's active-duty general or flag officers may have more than two stars,[12] and statute sets the total number of four-star officers allowed in each service.[12] This is set at 7 four-star Army generals,[12] 6 four-star Navy admirals,[12] 9 four-star Air Force generals[12] and 2 four-star Marine generals.[12]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_duty_United_States_four-star_officers

and



> The U.S. Army has 315 General Officers.  Generals (O-7 to O-10) comprise 0.06% of the Army.  There is 1 General for every 1600 Soldiers.
> 
> The number of Generals is limited by US Code. See 10 U.S. Code § 526 - Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty.  The Army is authorized a total of 231 Generals.  Additionally the Secretary of Defense can authorize an additional 310 Generals or Flag Officers to serve in Joint assignments.  These slots are split between uniformed services.



https://www.quora.com/How-many-generals-are-there-in-the-US-army

 :cheers:


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2018)

We will increase the number of generals while the gene pool that creates them stagnates or shrinks.  The result will be that the average quality of our generals starts to noticeably dip, and our allies will not want all these new Canadian generals at the table.


----------

