# RCN charting a new course in command roles and the reserves



## McG (20 Jan 2014)

Looks like the Naval Reserve can expect to look more like the Army Reserve, and the Atlantic and Pacific commands will each take on national level functional responsibilities for the whole RCN.


> *Commander RCN sets a course with Executive Plan*
> 13 January 2014
> DND Press Release
> 
> ...


http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-attention.page?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2014)

So does this mean they are going to start reducing HQ RCN and the Commodores and Captains in it dedicated to pers management and warfare policy?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Jan 2014)

Full circle?

That is just about the distribution of duties and responsibilities in the RCN prior to unification (except for individual training, where basic took place at Cornwallis, then trade training on whichever coast member posted to).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So does this mean they are going to start reducing HQ RCN and the Commodores and Captains in it dedicated to pers management and warfare policy?



Certainly a possibility.

Also possible under such scenario is that, as has happened a few times in the days of the old RCN, the senior seaman is Marlant and CNS is equal or junior to him/her.


----------



## q_1966 (21 Jan 2014)

"At the operational level, functions are being delegated to one of the two coastal commanders. Commander Maritime Forces Pacific will assume responsibilities for Naval Training Systems, individual training and education, as well as governance of the Personnel Coordination Centres. Commander Maritime Forces Atlantic will focus on collective and operational training, operational planning, fleet readiness, and warfare policy."

HMCS Stadacona & HMC Dockyard: Operational training, planning, fleet readiness and warfare policy
HMCS Naden & HMC Dockyard: Naval Training Systems, Individual Training and Education

No teeth in the west, surely the west is more capable than just training. This seems like the Cold War idea with the west coast relegated to training squadrons.


----------



## Ostrozac (21 Jan 2014)

Are MARLANT and MARPAC both going to retain their extra hats as Commanders of CJOC Joint Task Forces?

If so, then there is your teeth for the west coast -- both Commander MARPAC and Commander MARLANT would still have to retain enough capability to be able to command operations.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Jan 2014)

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> HMCS Stadacona & HMC Dockyard: Operational training, planning, fleet readiness and warfare policy
> HMCS Naden & HMC Dockyard: Naval Training Systems, Individual Training and Education
> 
> No teeth in the west, surely the west is more capable than just training. This seems like the Cold War idea with the west coast relegated to training squadrons.


Don't make the mistake of confusing the new roles for Comd MARPAC and Comd MARLANT with what the fleets on each coast will be doing. This is NOT a return to the days of the Training Squadron. Comd MARPAC and his staff _in addition_ to having responsibility for the CANPAC AOR _will also_ be the commander responsible for the NTS and IT&E within the RCN. We're talking about MARPAC the man and his staff, not the fleet. Think of the way that Comd MARPAC is also Comd JTFP - it's an additional responsibility.



> Looks like the Naval Reserve can expect to look more like the Army Reserve


If you mean an emphasis on Reg F augmentation vice having specific "NAVRES roles" then I guess you could say that, but not in terms of adopting an organizational concept based around the deployability of the reserve units themselves. The idea is that the units will FG individuals who can work interchangably with Reg F members on any ship in the fleet, at a level commensurate with their rank and QL (which is how it worked in the pre-unification RCN, BTW). This still looks more like the way NAVRES has been operating over the past 15 years than like the CA Res.


----------



## Mike5 (21 Jan 2014)

Is there any information as to what the change will look like for the Naval Reserve (i.e. new / different MOSIDs or training cycles) - or is it still too early?


----------



## MARS (21 Jan 2014)

Mike5 said:
			
		

> Is there any information as to what the change will look like for the Naval Reserve (i.e. new / different MOSIDs or training cycles) - or is it still too early?



still too early but I think any changes to those items you mentioned would not be affected by this change.

I do know that NAVRES will cease to be its own Formation and will fall under MARPAC.  But again, that change and the associated effects are not likely to impact training cycles, MOSIDS or many deck plate-type issues, I wouldn't think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2014)

MARS said:
			
		

> still too early but I think any changes to those items you mentioned would not be affected by this change.
> 
> I do know that NAVRES will cease to be its own Formation and will fall under MARPAC.  But again, that change and the associated effects are not likely to impact training cycles, MOSIDS or many deck plate-type issues, I wouldn't think.




What happens to the HQ in Quebec City?


----------



## MARS (21 Jan 2014)

Unknown, by me at least.  Some talk - just talk as far as I know, that perhaps COMNAVRES and/or some of the senior staff _might_ be shifted to MARPAC.  That would  make sense in some regards, but I wouldn't see any savings or efficiencies by moving a lot of that HQ.  A lot of those functions can be accomplished without co-location with the Formation HQ.


----------



## Stoker (21 Jan 2014)

MARS said:
			
		

> Unknown, by me at least.  Some talk - just talk as far as I know, that perhaps COMNAVRES and/or some of the senior staff _might_ be shifted to MARPAC.  That would  make sense in some regards, but I wouldn't see any savings or efficiencies by moving a lot of that HQ.  A lot of those functions can be accomplished without co-location with the Formation HQ.



It will certainly be interesting to say the least. I would imagine moving operations from NAVRES will be met with some resistance as it is in Quebec and is a strategic asset.  Talk has it that all CM functions may be shifted to Ottawa.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would imagine moving operations from NAVRES will be met with some resistance as it is in Quebec and is a strategic asset.


In what way?

(Not a smart-ass question; I'm just not sure how you're using the term)


----------



## Stoker (21 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In what way?
> 
> (Not a smart-*** question; I'm just not sure how you're using the term)



Sorry I meant more the unit there actually. In conversations over the years about NAVRES and talk about it moving back to Halifax where it was before, placing it in Quebec was always touted as a political decision as was placing the fleet school there. I would imagine some sort of fall out if and when NAVRES is moved. We have very large units all over Quebec with 50 people max parading, why keep them open? Answer was they are considered a strategic asset, perhaps not the best use of the word though.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2014)

Got it. Thanks


----------



## McG (22 Jan 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We have very large units all over Quebec with 50 people max parading, why keep them open?


I suppose it is the same reason the Army keeps +/- company sized battalions in its reserve: emotional attachment & appeasing local politics/interests.


----------



## Stoker (22 Jan 2014)

I was talking to NAVRES today and indeed they will be under MARPAC. NAVRES will still be in QC as briefed by the Commander of the RCN.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Jan 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I was talking to NAVRES today and indeed they will be under MARPAC. NAVRES will still be in QC as briefed by the Commander of the RCN.


Yep - a "key constraint" of the transition plan is that the total number of RCN FTEs located in QC will not change. That's not to say that certain current NAVRES functions might not eventually be moved to Esquimalt or Ottawa and other RCN staff functions moved to QC (not a bad plan, given the pressure from the centre to reduce manning in Ottawa), but the overall head count won't change. The announcement indicated that the new staff arrangement is unlikely to be much visible from the unit floor level.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We have very large units all over Quebec with 50 people max parading, why keep them open?


Well, "all over" - there are two out of six in Quebec that fit that description. The units there are kept open for the same reason four units in the rest of the country that fit the same description are left open: hope springs eternal.


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Jan 2014)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Well, "all over" - there are two out of six in Quebec that fit that description. The units there are kept open for the same reason four units in the rest of the country that fit the same description are left open: hope springs eternal.



That is a good point, and one that may be applied to the army reserve as well as the navy reserve. Have we ever, in the last 30 years or so, looked at a reserve unit and said -- "not sustainable, time to close it down?" I'm not talking about reroleing, or the various reorgs that have happened in the service battalions, signals, artillery and engineer worlds that still kept the same people working in the same armories, under new names. I'm talking about actually closing down a reserve unit. I remember that happening to the combat engineer unit in Flin Flon, Manitoba, but that's the only one that comes to mind.

Is there a point where a reserve unit just isn't sustainable anymore? Or is it so difficult to establish a footprint in a new town, that it is worth keeping a unit running even if it's a CO, 50 troops and a weapons vault, because once you lose it, it's probably gone forever?

Although this is probably off-topic for the reorg of the RCN. Mods, feel free to move it.


----------



## Stoker (22 Jan 2014)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Yep - a "key constraint" of the transition plan is that the total number of RCN FTEs located in QC will not change. That's not to say that certain current NAVRES functions might not eventually be moved to Esquimalt or Ottawa and other RCN staff functions moved to QC (not a bad plan, given the pressure from the centre to reduce manning in Ottawa), but the overall head count won't change. The announcement indicated that the new staff arrangement is unlikely to be much visible from the unit floor level.
> Well, "all over" - there are two out of six in Quebec that fit that description. The units there are kept open for the same reason four units in the rest of the country that fit the same description are left open: hope springs eternal.



Its really too bad, some of these units are pretty impressive facilities and they can't get the members. In time of emergency they can also support military assistance so they do have purpose.


----------



## Stoker (22 Jan 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That is a good point, and one that may be applied to the army reserve as well as the navy reserve. Have we ever, in the last 30 years or so, looked at a reserve unit and said -- "not sustainable, time to close it down?" I'm not talking about reroleing, or the various reorgs that have happened in the service battalions, signals, artillery and engineer worlds that still kept the same people working in the same armories, under new names. I'm talking about actually closing down a reserve unit. I remember that happening to the combat engineer unit in Flin Flon, Manitoba, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
> 
> Is there a point where a reserve unit just isn't sustainable anymore? Or is it so difficult to establish a footprint in a new town, that it is worth keeping a unit running even if it's a CO, 50 troops and a weapons vault, because once you lose it, it's probably gone forever?
> 
> Although this is probably off-topic for the reorg of the RCN. Mods, feel free to move it.



The only naval reserve unit that I know of that was paid off was HMCS Caribou in Corner Brook NL. Opened in 53 and paid off in 64, not sure why though. There were more but they were reactivated.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Jan 2014)

Not quite. HMCS Chatam also has been desestablished.

Moreover, I suggest you consult the back of the book "Citizen Sailors" that came out during the centenary year. You will see that many of the currently existing units have had a history of being stood up for a few years, then stood down for many others, then back in commission, etc. Malahat has been in and out of existence three times already.

The Navy has no qualms with opening and closing reserve units, which are not like "regiments" in the Army, but like ships so they can commission/decommission as the need arises.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2014)

The Fd Engr Sqn in Flin Flon Manitoba went away; urban legend has a CO who didn't quite understand the difference between the Crown's property and that of his personal business.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jan 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Fd Engr Sqn in Flin Flon Manitoba went away; urban legend has a CO who didn't quite understand the difference between the Crown's property and that of his personal business.



Rumour also has it that once the Cold War went away the cover story for the field squadron also disappeared. A story I heard had to do with conductivity of signals of seismic events, such as subsurface nuclear detonations, through hard rock.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Jan 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not quite. HMCS Chatam also has been desestablished.
> 
> Moreover, I suggest you consult the back of the book "Citizen Sailors" that came out during the centenary year. You will see that many of the currently existing units have had a history of being stood up for a few years, then stood down for many others, then back in commission, etc. Malahat has been in and out of existence three times already.
> 
> The Navy has no qualms with opening and closing reserve units, which are not like "regiments" in the Army, but like ships so they can commission/decommission as the need arises.


Well said. More recently, a couple of projected NAVRES units that made it to the execution phase of the Naval Presence in Quebec expansion plan were shuttered at some point early on: planned units in Valleyfield and Sherbrooke, if I recall correctly.


----------

