# "$3M cut to naval reserves"



## mariomike (8 Jul 2010)

July 8, 2010:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/07/08/ns-naval-cuts.html


----------



## Teeps74 (8 Jul 2010)

More Res love from Ottawa... We love, you, we are trying to grow you... Oh, by the way, can you give us back your budget? We only need numbers, we do not need trained troops, how silly...


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Jul 2010)

This is indeed unfortunate but before everyone flips, keep in mind that these are typical cuts (5-10%) across the board. Just my Section within my Division of my School had the $$$ available reduced from 50K+ for FY 08/09 to 42K for 09/10 to 35K for 10/11. I am still waiting for next year's forecasted numbers. It is the same everywhere - Do more with less. Interesting factoid here:
-A HALIFAX class frigate at 20 knots on 2 GT (Gas Turbines) burns approx 3800 litres/hr
-On PDE (Propulsion Diesel) at 16 knots burns approx 1500 litres/ hr
-At approx $1/litre for naval distillate (home heating fuel), that equates to $2300/hr...over the course of a few deployments...multiplied by 12 platforms.....a "few" $$$s each month.....My point?....
Teach OOWs to stop driving these things like they are stolen!!!!...save some gas money!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jul 2010)

Greatly unfortunate. I would say here we go again.

In another thread (6 MCDV to be mothballed, I think), someone complained about the reservists who do nothing but hang around the messes of NRU's and have their beers: But if you keep cutting training and ops budget, what else are they supposed to do ???

Besides, with deficit slaying becoming the "in" thing in Ottawa again, this is probably going to become the norm for the next few years. When Ottawa is in such mode, the peacetime (I exclude ops in Afghanistan here) military has a great big red bulls-eye on its back.

Lets wish ourselves luck.

P.S.: PAt in Halifax: When did M.E.S. get out of fashion? In the old steamers days, it was S.O.P. that wherever we went, it was "Most Economical Speed unless otherwise required for operational purposes".


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In another thread (6 MCDV to be mothballed, I think) ...


What are the chances that this announcement is the fall-out of re-allocating funds to keep the MCDVs operating?
Everyone knew something had to give when that reversal was directed.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2010)

This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> More Res love from Ottawa...



Yes thats it, more big bad Ottawa sticking it to reservists again.

 :




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea.



Probably the same reason why the AF tends to group specific fleets together at main bases. Logistical chains are simpler and maintenance resources can be more effectively concentrated.


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?


Probably because it would be contrary to the political debate & direction reversal that now calls to see all maritime costal defence vessels active & defending our coasts.  The 6 vessels that could not be manned will be manned.  There is not the option to put them somewhere else.  Something else had to give.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/93567.25.html


----------



## DONT_PANIC (9 Jul 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Probably because it would be contrary to the political debate & direction reversal that now calls to see all maritime costal defence vessels active & defending our coasts.  The 6 vessels that could not be manned will be manned.  There is not the option to put them somewhere else.  Something else had to give.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/93567.25.html



I spent some time last month out west doing some OJT, and what really struck me was that even alongside with no real crew, these MCDVs could be really usefull training platforms during times (like the summer) when there are generally be more trainees (sometimes far too many) that billets on ships that are sailling.  If adequate staff could be provided, they could be used by many trades to complete a number requirements on their various OJPRs, as well as develop a wide range of general seamanship skills.

For instance, it could be a great place to get people double banked as quartermaster and other dutywatch related jobs and start getting people quartermaster qualified.  People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done.  Trainees could have a chance to go through various damage control evolutions in slow time to get adjusted from how things were done in DC school to how they are done on ship.  No reason the ship couldn't go through flying stations or force protection states either.  In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such; NCIOPS could go through flashup routines, message processing etc... No reason the cooks can't cook soup/lunch.  

At any rate, this could keep trainees developing usefull skills.  I heard of several people on OJT contracts being sent to the field to act as a demo platoon for a BOTC course instead.  That probably did little in developing any relevant trade skills...


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jul 2010)

DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> If adequate staff could be provided,



I'm sure that is at the heart of the problem....


----------



## DONT_PANIC (9 Jul 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm sure that is at the heart of the problem....



I partially agree.  In retrospect, an arrangement like the above sounds similar to the C-OJT program of years past, where trainees would rotate in and out of a ship, and work on other aspects of their OJPR while ashore.  Often, the program just seemed to mass produce personel that were on paper, qualified, but lacked many competencies in practice.  I think that well trained sailors that came out of the program were either very motivated themselves, or benifited from effective divisional petty officers that showed alot of initiative in getting their trainees to sea anyway they could.  I can definetly understand any uncertainty towards trying to repeat the experiment.

Perhaps the solution to providing more supervision could lie in tapping both the NRDs and ships.  For example, lets say  each department on a ship  was able to provide even one trade qualified sailor to supervise trainees on the downship.  This would certainly increase the burden on the remainder of the crew that was sailing and would require standing 1 in 2s instead of 1 in 3.  However, this would also free up another bunk for a trainee at sea.   This would also give the ships much more input into the actual training of the sailors they'd be receiving in the future.  

I think the manning situation might have to get worse before it gets better.  But when we have people on OJT contracts spending their time doing demo platoon on a BOTC course while cutting the budget we should probably be asking ourselves why we are spending money to put them on contract in the first place...


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (10 Jul 2010)

I agree that anything that can be done with the MCDVs while alongside is better than nothing. I think that using the platform as a DC training platform is actually a pretty good idea. DC School is pretty good for the "fighting the fire" aspect, but everything else looks more like a building than a ship.



			
				DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> Perhaps the solution to providing more supervision could lie in tapping both the NRDs and ships.  For example, lets say  each department on a ship  was able to provide even one trade qualified sailor to supervise trainees on the downship.  This would certainly increase the burden on the remainder of the crew that was sailing and would require standing 1 in 2s instead of 1 in 3.  However, this would also free up another bunk for a trainee at sea.   This would also give the ships much more input into the actual training of the sailors they'd be receiving in the future.



With personnel shortages, I don't think putting more stress on the ship themselves is the solution. I don't know about the frigates, but for the 280, in the CSE department, people are already sailing 1 in 2 pretty much on each trip. The technical knowledge needs to be retained on the ship for her to be able to perform.




			
				DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done.
> 
> In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such...



I assume you meant MSEO...?

I these points, I totally disagree, the KYSB are class specific. It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists. It's pretty much the same for the equipment. It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit... 

Basically, the only thing that can be usefully done is training that is general and not class specific... seamanship evolutions, duty watch training, DC training...


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Jul 2010)

I guess we have to give this back now:


----------



## MARS (10 Jul 2010)

KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> I assume you meant MSEO...?



Nope.  He means MESO.  Marine Engineering Systems Operator.  We just increased the MESO QL1 to something like 21 weeks.  They need all the help they can get.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (10 Jul 2010)

... more of the same...

My point still stands...


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (10 Jul 2010)

KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> I these points, I totally disagree, the KYSB are class specific. It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists.


I’m pretty sure the OP was talking about reservists… 



			
				KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit...


The Kingston Class don’t qualify as “real” units in your view?


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (10 Jul 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The Kingston Class don’t qualify as “real” units in your view?



Kingston Class with tied alongside with barely any crew on board does not fit as a unit in my book...

Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)

I was thinking along more general lines, since we wont have the manpower or money to gainfully employ the MCDVs, we might as well use them to train both reservist and regulars...


----------



## Stoker (10 Jul 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This has got me thinking/wondering why someone hasn't come up with a plan to take a few of these MCDVs that can not be manned and placing them in locations such as HMCS Star in Hamilton, HMCS York in Toronto, as well as places like Quebec City, Kingston and Thunder Bay as Training platforms, either alongside or dry docked?  This would provide trained Reservists to augment the MCDVs that are still being sent to sea.



That would be a good idea if we had the funds, however to do that and it was looked at to station 1 or 2 hulls in Quebec city for training. Unfortunately things like jetty space and planned maintenance requirements would prevent that from happening.


----------



## Stoker (10 Jul 2010)

DONT_PANIC said:
			
		

> I spent some time last month out west doing some OJT, and what really struck me was that even alongside with no real crew, these MCDVs could be really usefull training platforms during times (like the summer) when there are generally be more trainees (sometimes far too many) that billets on ships that are sailling.  If adequate staff could be provided, they could be used by many trades to complete a number requirements on their various OJPRs, as well as develop a wide range of general seamanship skills.
> 
> For instance, it could be a great place to get people double banked as quartermaster and other dutywatch related jobs and start getting people quartermaster qualified.  People could have a chance to crawl through all the spaces in detail and get their know your ship books done.  Trainees could have a chance to go through various damage control evolutions in slow time to get adjusted from how things were done in DC school to how they are done on ship.  No reason the ship couldn't go through flying stations or force protection states either.  In terms of trade development, I assume MESOs would have a great opportunity to work on drawings and such; NCIOPS could go through flashup routines, message processing etc... No reason the cooks can't cook soup/lunch.



That is an excellent idea and what is being done with KINGSTON right now, however as of 1st Aug the ship is suppose to be preserved and locked up or being turned over to the contractor for preservation. The ships are being mothballed.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (11 Jul 2010)

KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)


Less comments about the Kingston Class not being "real" units would help. :2c:


----------



## MARS (11 Jul 2010)

Unless I am misunderstanding your point, it sounds like you are contradicting yourself.  First you say:



> It would be a huge waste of time and resources, unless they are used to train reservists. It's pretty much the same for the equipment. It is useless to work on drawings and equipment that you're not going to use anyway and you'll need to do again once you join a "real" unit...



then you say:



			
				KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> Also, I think we need to distance ourselves from the us and them concept. (res vs reg)
> 
> I was thinking along more general lines, since we wont have the manpower or money to gainfully employ the MCDVs, we might as well use them to train both reservist and regulars...



So which is it?  Waste of time and resources or "might as well use them"???



> Basically, the only thing that can be usefully done is training that is general and not class specific... seamanship evolutions, duty watch training, DC training...



Think about the scope of all of that training you just described.  It is hardly "the *only thing *that can be usefully done".  We haven't even got around  to discussing MARS officer training, which, prior to ORCA, was conducted exclusively in KINGSTON Class MMs.

There was a whole lot of regular force officer training in KINGSTON Class ships for years - one of the few occupations that didn't was yours - CSEO.  

You might want to find your way back into your lane...
_Edited for clarity_


----------



## Stoker (11 Jul 2010)

I find it amazing that after 15 years there are navy personnel who don't have a clue to what the MCDV's do even though we're in the same fleet. Even though we're so cost effective we're simply a easy target to cut. Just go to the CBC news site and listen to the comments, pathetic.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (11 Jul 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Less comments about the Kingston Class not being "real" units would help. :2c:



Ok, I think I'm not clear enough... :-\

We all know that even though the CDS said on May 14 that the 6 MCDVs were not going to be mothballed "officially," they will just sit in the harbour doing pretty much nothing, specially with the new cut in training. So, in my opinion, those ships, and any other in a similar position, are not real units. 

For IRO, we put the ship in dry dock in Dec 09, the crew was scattered among the fleet (specially ATH) and on random tasks (OP Podium, IFR etc.) There was about 30 people left at the shore office, most of them leaving at noon for lack of useful tasks to do and most of them waiting for a posting out of ATH. Can you describe that as a unit? I don't think so... It is only use for administrative reasons. A unit is more than a hull or a building, you need, at least, some kind of cohesion between the members.

My intent has never been to imply that reservists unit were not real units.



			
				MARS said:
			
		

> So which is it?  Waste of time and resources or "might as well use them"???


Here you're mixing two things...

I said it is a waste of time and resources to train (reg) sailors on equipment they are not going to use because they'll be posted to another class with totally different equipment (I'm thinking more on the technical side here).

The "we might as well use them" as a reference again to the CDS's statement of May 14th. So we are ordered to keep them but we still don't have the manpower or money to deploy them as they are intended to... so we might as well use them for training for both reservists and regulars for everything not class specific...



			
				MARS said:
			
		

> Think about the scope of all of that training you just described.  It is hardly "the *only thing *that can be usefully done".  We haven't even got around  to discussing MARS officer training, which, prior to ORCA, was conducted exclusively in KINGSTON Class MMs.



Note that in the quote you used, I clearly mentioned "not class specific" MARS being clearly in that category. So, in a near future, when FELEX will tie most ships alongside, why not go back to using the MCDVs training platform for MARS or any other trade with transferable knowledge...


----------



## kratz (12 Jul 2010)

STOP the world. I want off. The NDP is defending the military.  :moose:

from CBC.ca



> Naval reserve cuts threaten coasts: NDP
> Last Updated: Monday, July 12, 2010 | 7:12 AM .
> 
> The New Democratic defence critic says a cut to naval reserve training will have serious repercussions for how well Canada can patrol its own coastlines.
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Jul 2010)

I think we are now losing sight of the real issue, which is: How can Ottawa claim that they appreciate reservists service and "increase" their numbers and at the same time cut their training/ops budget in half?

This is where the contradiction really is. That ships may and can be taken out of service temporarily or even for extended period of time is a time honoured tradition of the Navy. Heck, Nelson's Flag ship HMS Victory spent most of its active career at anchor, with half crew on half pay!

However, we are not in Nelson's days when it comes to qualifying crew for service (we don't use press gangs for one thing) and when more ships are temporary laid up, you have to find ways to  train, qualify and promote the reservists some other way if your stated objective is to increase their number, otherwise you will have serious retention problems (more than even the current average).

In another thread, I have proposed that we do away with the reserve units (I know, sacrilegious) and save on the cost of maintaining and operating 24 buildings. Instead, they would be replaced by larger, fully equipped regional reserve training centres, full of every conceivable simulators and manned, for the trainers, by regular force personnel. Four such centres, Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and Western, would be required. Atlantic and Western could easily be accommodated on base at Halifax and Esquimalt. Quebec would use the already built naval complex in Quebec city, Ontario could easily move back into a refitted and expanded Great Lakes Tr. Centre located in Hamilton at the current HMCS Star facility.

After completing basic, reservists careers would fall under the control of one of those centres. They would receive a schedule requiring them to attend one week end a month and, at least, two weeks a year, at which time they would receive training. Upon request, they would be sent on longer courses or OJT periods when appropriate or to move up faster. Anyway, its my suggestion.

And by the way, could you younger people out there do me a favour and stop using "random" inappropriately. When you get hit by lightning at the Halifax golf course, that will be random. If you are assigned to odd jobs around the base here and there, these are "various" tasks.

Also, Krazyhamburglar, your tag line is wrong: As far as I know, the oldest frontline warship in the western world is the USS Enterprise, she commissioned in 1961 and is still active. That's 11 years more than IRO.


----------



## kratz (12 Jul 2010)

The concept of regional reserve training centres has some merit, with a major hurdle. Travel distance and times.
As things are currently, when reservists must travel more than 1.5hours away from their unit, regular attendance becomes more of a challenge. 

In your suggestion, between the suggested Western RRCT and Central RRCT is close to 2000kms. If we apply Treasury Board's travel standards, there is a wide gap in between the remains out of reach of potential sailors.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jul 2010)

kratz said:
			
		

> STOP the world. I want off. The NDP is defending the military.  :moose:
> 
> from CBC.ca


Are the planets in line?  More from the NDP's web site - highlight mine:


> Reports suggesting Canada’s already cash-strapped Navy is facing a $3 million cut to its reserves are alarming for sailors. New Democrats are calling this five percent budget reduction a major blow during what should be a year celebrating and strengthening Canada’s navy.
> 
> “The Harper government is more than happy to use the navy’s centennial to serve its own public relations agenda, but it is clear that there isn’t the same enthusiasm when it comes to providing the navy with adequate resources,” said New Democrat Defence Critic Jack Harris (St. John’s East).
> 
> ...


I don't think this is as much an ideological stance as a "cuts to work in the home riding/ridings with NDP reps" stance.


----------



## MARS (12 Jul 2010)

KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> Ok, I think I'm not clear enough... :-\
> 
> We all know that even though the CDS said on May 14 that the 6 MCDVs were not going to be mothballed "officially," they will just sit in the harbour doing pretty much nothing, specially with the new cut in training. So, in my opinion, those ships, and any other in a similar position, are not real units.
> 
> ...



Seen.  Thanks.


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Jul 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In another thread, I have proposed that we do away with the reserve units (I know, sacrilegious) and save on the cost of maintaining and operating 24 buildings. Instead, they would be replaced by larger, fully equipped regional reserve training centres, full of every conceivable simulators and manned, for the trainers, by regular force personnel.



That would take away the principal naval presence from 20 communities, many of them inland, to the detriment of the public's knowledge of the navy as a whole.  The Naval Reserve's purpose is broader than just providing MCDV crews and individual augmentation of other units.  It has an important role in connecting with the population of a country, many of whose inhabitants have never seen salt water.

The Forces as a whole did something similar in the '90s when we consolidated bases and withdrew from many smaller centres in favour of a few "super bases".  Might have saved some money but we've paid for it in other ways.


----------



## kratz (13 Jul 2010)

from the Chronicle Herlad 



> Stoffer: Reserve cuts 'wrong way to go'
> 
> By JEFFREY SIMPSON Provincial Reporter
> Tue. Jul 13 - 4:53 AM
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jul 2010)

A loss of 4 trainig days on 45 represents a cut of just under 10% to the class A reservist.  Interesting how class A reserve pay is always seen as flexible, but Regular Force pay is somehow sacred - we'd never dream of standing down the Reg F for a week or two to meet a fiscal crunch.


And though I'm not a sailor, I suspect that refresher training on damage control and firefighting could be seen as rather important skills to maintain in the Navy.


----------



## kratz (13 Jul 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> *SNIP*
> 
> And though I'm not a sailor, I suspect that refresher training on *damage control and firefighting*  could be seen as rather important skills to maintain in the Navy.



Yes, those are part of most trade's CRRs and if they are not current, you can be DAG'ed red and not deployable.


----------



## GK .Dundas (25 Jul 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think we are now losing sight of the real issue, which is: How can Ottawa claim that they appreciate reservists service and "increase" their numbers and at the same time cut their training/ops budget in half?
> 
> This is where the contradiction really is. That ships may and can be taken out of service temporarily or even for extended period of time is a time honoured tradition of the Navy. Heck, Nelson's Flag ship HMS Victory spent most of its active career at anchor, with half crew on half pay!
> 
> ...


I suspect what would happen is that is the reserve units would shut down and the department would then spend the next 25-30 years  doing studies and conducting seminars on weather to build  the training centres


----------



## jewalsh (20 Oct 2010)

A 3 million dollar cut to NAVRES was the easiest decision that NDHQ and the government could have made.

PSS Esquimalt alone saved about 1-2 million FYI (although many deadbeats were posted there!)

The MCDVs on the West Coast were so poorly managed at MOG 4, that people quit serving on these vessels. The home port duty watches were outright atrocious. They changed their home port policy afer ten years since their ignorance of morale lost out to a very bit of reason.

NAVRES has failed to train and encourage people to stay in the Naval Reserves since they first introduced C-OJT in 2003. People enduring their OJT phases were treated like 12 year old children. They had very little opportunities to learn their real jobs due to poor selection of OJT instructors and even poorer selection of most senior staff. Umm lets jam 15 people on a ship that is very small and expect all trainees to learn their job to a satisfactory level in less than two months with poor leaders guiding them.

I worked my ass off to get the best training possible for NAVRES personnel. However the "Old boys club" decided that I was too strong and held me back.

To be honest, there is a lack of leaders on extra MCDVs to encourage the spending of 3 million dollars. An entire full time crew plus 20-25 class B billets is 3 million dollars. Oh sure there are enough people promoted into positions that are meant to fill leadership roles to fill the REMAR easily. However those extra people lack any real leadership to actually run a MCDV or anything actually. Those same dead end Lt(N)s and POs work only to promote their "buddy buddies" and the next hot ass that can give them some mess entertainment.

It makes me sad that NAVRES continues to pay life time dead end Lt(N) and POs to stay in their position of nothingness at NRDs and disqualify real candidates for promotion in NAVRES due to the 'Old Boys Dead Weight constitution drafted Febrary 31 1999.n

I too would cut the NAVRES budget by 3 million after seeing the quality of leadership and lack of dedication of the 24 NRDs.


----------



## navymich (21 Oct 2010)

jewalsh said:
			
		

> ... with poor leaders guiding them.


Are you counting yourself into that?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97021/post-980137.html#msg980137


> I have done the best job possible (maybe ever) when I backed a PO1 position as a senior OJT instructor in 2006 when I was the supervisor of the largest department for that summer. Also my people got the best training out of all sections by quite a bit.





			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> PSS Esquimalt alone saved about 1-2 million FYI (although many deadbeats were posted there!)


At the time that PSS was stood up, it was a great necessity.  The pers posted there worked long, hard hours in nasty weather and positions.  My hats off to all of them for the job that they did.



			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> The MCDVs on the West Coast were so poorly managed at MOG 4, that people quit serving on these vessels.


People quit serving on them for a variety of reasons:  contracts ended, family and school commitments, decisions to CT or retire.  Do you have published numbers to indicate that reasons for those leaving were because of poor management?



			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> NAVRES has failed to train and encourage people to stay in the Naval Reserves since they first introduced C-OJT in 2003.


I call BS on that.  I was there for 3 years after they introduced C-OJT and they still had people clamoring for Class C contracts which indicates that people were obviously still interested in being a member of NavRes.



			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> Those same dead end Lt(N)s and POs work only to promote their "buddy buddies" and the next hot *** that can give them some mess entertainment.


Do you have published documentation of this fact?  I know a great number of Lt(N)s and POs who know their own position inside and out and ensure that training is regimented and knowledgeable.



			
				jewalsh said:
			
		

> It makes me sad that NAVRES continues to pay life time dead end Lt(N) and POs to stay in their position of nothingness at NRDs and disqualify real candidates for promotion in NAVRES due to the 'Old Boys Dead Weight constitution drafted Febrary 31 1999.n


Can you please provide the link for this Old boys constitution?  I am curious to read through it as I have never seen it much less heard of it.


*Note:  I am aware that before jewalsh posted on this topic that it was 3 months old and it should be dead.  I am not trying to "feed a troll" but instead am trying to put into perspective for others that might search for NavRes and read this thread.  Although I am no longer a member of NavRes, I am offended by many of these accusations within jewalsh's post, both for myself when I was a member, and for a large number of friends that are still proud to be called a SHAD.


----------



## Stoker (14 Nov 2010)

Found out some more info about the ships that are sitting alongside in Halifax. Apparently the "plan" as it is now is to dock both the KINGSTON and GLACE BAY next year and get them back to sea with a mixture reserve/regular force crew. People are being briefed that some of Coxn billets are being given to PO1 regulars to give them experience. If this is all true it makes sense, the ships are no good to anyone rotting alongside.


----------



## DONT_PANIC (16 Nov 2010)

Stoker said:
			
		

> If this is all true it makes sense, the ships are no good to anyone rotting alongside.



To a certain extent, I disagree.  I think that even along side, there can be considerable value in using the hull as a training platform for OJT related training.  For instance (I think I may have said this before), it could be an ideal place to get a know your ship book done; a place for stokers to crawl through and get drawings completed; a place to get quartermaster qualifed; a place for NCIOPs to practice flashup and presail checks.  I think the list could go on.  To a certain extent, this sounds a bit like C-OJT of years past (a consolidated location for all OJTs to work on their packages before heading out to the ships for consolidated training).  I can understand the reluctance for going bck to that model, as quality control (in my admitedly limited opinion) was an issue.  

I know the ships that are sailling are often short bodies, but I think the way forward might be for them to each contribute a few bodies to help supervise the OJTs.  These bodies in turn would (hopefully) be replaced by someone from an NRD that while trade qualifed, just needs some refresher training to be brought up to speed.  As packages start getting close to completion, the OJT could start to rotate onto the sailing ships as double banks.  I think that involving the ships actively in the OJT process right from the start might help mitigate some issues from COJT, in that COJT instructors were often (and certainly not always) from NRDs, not from the ships; they didn't have a day to day stake in the quality of the trainees.

The flip side of this is that we should limit the number of OJT contracts given out during the summer months.  If we can't provide meaningful training, we shouldn't give them contracts to begin with.  Simply overstuffing COJT (as has happened in the past) doesn't work.  Without COJT, sending them to the ships doesn't work either, as capacity can often become an issue very quickly.  For instance, during summer of 2010, some ships were gone for weeks, and weren't getting back for weeks to come.  D702 kept sending trainees down to Nanaimo, where they were busy trying to get ready for RRIs and going to see again.  When Nanaimo sailed, they transfered all the excess OJTs (I think there were about 20+ at that point) on the downships with little in the way of meaningful trade supervision.  I head that a number ended up doing demo platoon for BOTC courses being run out at Venture, which brings me back to wondering why they have contracts for OJT, if there is no meaningful plan to get them meaningful OJT?


----------



## Stoker (16 Nov 2010)

I agree that what we should be concentrating on now is force generation. There are hundreds of pers in the training pipeline that need OJT. From what I was told COJT is on the West coast this year. As stands now Kingston and Glace Bay are in a state of "preservation" but is fairly easy to reactivate. I did bring up the fact just the other day with CCD that we haven't see anybody on the ship to train and we have 2 wonderful training platforms to train on, Scotian is spending Wed nights on board and conducting training. What I would like to see is both ships with reduced manning operating out of Halifax this coming summer and conducting as much OJT as we can to get bodies trained. Until NAVRES spends more money on OJT which they aren't right now we won't see any OJT's for a while. We are wasting a golden opportunity right now to train people. It also doesn't help that 2 ships are being sent to NATO in the med in Mar, not much chance for OJT there.


----------



## Snakedoc (16 Nov 2010)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Scotian is spending Wed nights on board and conducting training.



Perks of being an NRD on the coast.  It would be nice to have some sort of platform to conduct weekly 'Wednesday night' training on during the year.


----------



## Stoker (16 Nov 2010)

Years ago a lot of small units had unit tenders, perhaps we should bring that back?


----------



## navymich (16 Nov 2010)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Perks of being an NRD on the coast.  It would be nice to have some sort of platform to conduct weekly 'Wednesday night' training on during the year.



Years ago, the non-coastal NRDs spent at least 2 weekends in a training year on either coast for a "Pig boat" weekend.  It was mandated and worked into the budget. (Yes, I'm aging myself here  )


----------

