# Senior Officer numbers - FB post by Col (Ret'd) Michel Drapeau



## dimsum (21 Aug 2021)

Shared without comment.






						Facebook
					






					www.facebook.com


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Aug 2021)

Think we have been barking up that tree for years, the numbers don't make sense, and eat up our budget for personal, if we had a 1 to 5/6 ratio, we could afford a lot more NCMs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2021)

> There are currently 23,892 commissioned officers to lead the 42,252 non-commissioned members (NCMs).



Is that accurate?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Aug 2021)

It's probably accurate, Jarnhamar. What else can you expect in a military where a quarter of your personnel is in the National Capital (and likely in staff positions at HQ)?

But the logic here for a country the size and in the economic position of Canada is not that we are over officered, it's that we are about 60,000 NCM's short of where we should be. NCM's aren't usually found in HQ staff positions, they are the ones that fight, fly and float - and that is what we need more of.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Aug 2021)

Delete ‘Duke’, insert ‘GOFO’ 

“A fully equipped duke costs as much to keep up as two Dreadnoughts, and dukes are just as great a terror - and they last longer.” 
-- David Lloyd George


----------



## dimsum (21 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> It's probably accurate, Jarnhamar. What else can you expect in a military where a quarter of your personnel is in the National Capital (and likely in staff positions at HQ)?


I can't remember the number off-hand, but I don't think it was 1/4.  More like 1/6 or so.

Still, a large amount are in the NCR.


----------



## FJAG (21 Aug 2021)

I'm looking at a somewhat older establishment from Dec 2017 which has listed 13,497 commissioned officers in the regular force and 47,753 non-commissioned ranks for a ratio of 1:3.54. At that time we had 106 GOFOs, 332 Cols and 531 CWOs. Quite frankly that's a lot more of all three ranks than what we need.

I can't see how the officer numbers could rise by 10,000 over three and one half years. My guess is that he has counted in the number of reserve force officers which back in 2017 was authorized at 8,088 (including 18 GOFOs, 92 Cols  - as well as another 215 CWOs) Although he doesn't seem to have counted in the reserve force ORs which were established at 39,212 (and, off course, nowhere near recruited or funded at that level)

In short, I don't trust his figures but, that said, I completely agree that we are grossly over-officered and the the numbers of folks in the NCR (together with the civilian element of DND) is obscene. Why this and the MND's incompetence aren't an election issue shows how little the CAF matters to any of the parties.

🍻


----------



## dimsum (21 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> In short, I don't trust his figures but, that said, I completely agree that we are grossly over-officered and the the numbers of folks in the NCR (together with the civilian element of DND) is obscene. Why this and the MND's incompetence aren't an election issue shows how little the CAF matters to any of the parties.


Has the number of officers been a point worth mentioning in any democratic, non-military junta-style countries during election periods though?

I also suspect our numbers are skewed because of the RCAF's aircrew officers.


----------



## Weinie (21 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> I'm looking at a somewhat older establishment from Dec 2017 which has listed 13,497 commissioned officers in the regular force and 47,753 non-commissioned ranks for a ratio of 1:3.54. At that time we had 106 GOFOs, 332 Cols and 531 CWOs. Quite frankly that's a lot more of all three ranks than what we need.
> 
> I can't see how the officer numbers could rise by 10,000 over three and one half years. My guess is that he has counted in the number of reserve force officers which back in 2017 was authorized at 8,088 (including 18 GOFOs, 92 Cols  - as well as another 215 CWOs) Although he doesn't seem to have counted in the reserve force ORs which were established at 39,212 (and, off course, nowhere near recruited or funded at that level)
> 
> ...


And yet they will go back to him, regardless of his bullshit stats, for quotes. One weeps.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Why this and the MND's incompetence aren't an election issue shows how little the CAF matters to any of the parties.
> 
> 🍻


The only time the CAF has mattered in  recent years is 2002-2014. 
The average Canadian could care less about the CAF until someone gets caught doing something they shouldn't, then they all become experts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> Shared without comment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For non-FB types

With apparent insouciance and in the absence of any guidance or direction by Parliament, the Regular Force has grown a high-density officer corps reaching alarming levels. There are currently 23,892 commissioned officers to lead the 42,252 non-commissioned members (NCMs). This is a ratio of 1 officer for every 1.8 NCMs.

We have one general officer for every 327 NCMs. We have more Generals (129) and Colonels (356) than Chief Warrant Officers (470). More Majors (3,817) than second lieutenants (1,509). As many Captains (6,565) than sergeants (6,804).

There is no apparent justification for this steady upward growth of officers. These numbers illustrate the need for reduction on the part of Parliament to establish quotas. A leaner ratio of officers/NCMs around the 1 to 5 or 1 to 6 level would be more in line with that of our NATO allies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2021)

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> But the logic here for a country the size and in the economic position of Canada is not that we are over officered, it's that we are about 60,000 NCM's short of where we should be. NCM's aren't usually found in HQ staff positions, they are the ones that fight, fly and float - and that is what we need more of.


Fair enough. I wonder if at one point when we were hammering class upon class through RMC someone raised a hand and asked about the 60,000 NCM positions we were missing and who these new leaders were going to lead.


----------



## Haggis (21 Aug 2021)

In 2010 there were almost 600 Reg F CPO1/CWO, so that's an improvement.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Aug 2021)

2017 is before the Chief modernization initiative that reverted a lot of technical chiefs to MWO. That probably changes Drapeaus numbers significantly.


----------



## Haggis (21 Aug 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> 2017 is before the Chief modernization initiative that reverted a lot of technical chiefs to MWO. That probably changes Drapeaus numbers significantly.


The CWO/CPO1 SEM provided a few new "off ramps" for Chiefs who were no longer part of the succession plan.


----------



## Kilted (21 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> I'm looking at a somewhat older establishment from Dec 2017 which has listed 13,497 commissioned officers in the regular force and 47,753 non-commissioned ranks for a ratio of 1:3.54. At that time we had 106 GOFOs, 332 Cols and 531 CWOs. Quite frankly that's a lot more of all three ranks than what we need.
> 
> I can't see how the officer numbers could rise by 10,000 over three and one half years. My guess is that he has counted in the number of reserve force officers which back in 2017 was authorized at 8,088 (including 18 GOFOs, 92 Cols  - as well as another 215 CWOs) Although he doesn't seem to have counted in the reserve force ORs which were established at 39,212 (and, off course, nowhere near recruited or funded at that level)
> 
> ...


If he somehow counted in the CIC, that would throw the numbers way off.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2021)

His numbers add up to about 66K, the last open source RegF number I can find is 68K (Canadian Armed Forces 101 - Canada.ca). I'd be curious to see his dataset, including its date.  At the very least, it appears that he may be counting OCdt/NCdts in the total, who are officers, but not commissioned.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Aug 2021)

Is that positions or actual people? The attrition right now is terrible so I expect a delta between those numbers which could explain the difference.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2021)

Per SSE, authorized strengths are 71500 Reg F and 30000 P Res.  Note that those are inclusive of BTL, SUTL, ATL and SPHL.


----------



## ballz (21 Aug 2021)

We've had some pretty bad recruiting/retention numbers since COVID, I've heard in the realm of -10,000 people in Reg Force. I wouldn't be surprised if we're below 60k at this point.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> His numbers add up to about 66K, the last open source RegF number I can find is 68K (Canadian Armed Forces 101 - Canada.ca). I'd be curious to see his dataset, including its date.  At the very least, it appears that he may be counting OCdt/NCdts in the total, who are officers, but not commissioned.


And many Air Force officer trades (specialist trades such as ACSOs, Pilots, ATC and AWC) don’t actually start leading people until they reach the rank of Major.  I wonder how many of Captains and below in those trades we have.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Aug 2021)

ballz said:


> We've had some pretty bad recruiting/retention numbers since COVID, I've heard in the realm of -10,000 people in Reg Force. I wouldn't be surprised if we're below 60k at this point.


given what I've heard, not to mention more signing bonuses being offered I'd guess you are right


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> And many Air Force officer trades (specialist trades such as ACSOs, Pilots, ATC and AWC) don’t actually start leading people until they reach the rank of Major.  I wonder how many of Captains and below in those trades we have.


You really, really don’t know much about what happens in the Air Force outside of a fighter wing, do you?

Supersonic Max is entirely incorrect.

ACSOs and pilots in MH Sqns are leading crews (as a minimum) within 18 months of OTU graduation. Not to mention all of the other day to day, basic officership (including PER writing) and secondary duty stuff that, by any definition is leadership and starts even before they become either Aircraft Captains or Crew Commanders.

I cannot speak for AECs, but suspect many would also take issue with the canard that RCAF officers “don’t lead”.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2021)

^ This.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Aug 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You really, really don’t know much about what happens in the Air Force outside of a fighter wing, do you?
> 
> Supersonic Max is entirely incorrect.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt they lead other operators tactically. Fighter pilots do as well.  If they lead administratively - being Flight Commanders/Commanding Officers (which seems to be the crux of the argument of the article), I stand corrected.  But even in non-fighter units (perhaps other than units where Majors are Commanding Officers and Senior Captains are flight commanders, which not as common), the vast majority of Captains do not lead people outside a cockpit/aircraft.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2021)

Isn't the cockpit/aircraft where they are supposed to lead?


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Aug 2021)

Infanteer said:


> Isn't the cockpit/aircraft where they are supposed to lead?


Sure but when we compare NCMs vs Officer numbers the way Drapeau does, it doesn’t work.  What Drapeau is arguing is related to an administrative chain of command.


----------



## kev994 (22 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I have no doubt they lead other operators tactically. Fighter pilots do as well.  If they lead administratively - being Flight Commanders/Commanding Officers (which seems to be the crux of the argument of the article), I stand corrected.  But even in non-fighter units (perhaps other than units where Majors are Commanding Officers and Senior Captains are flight commanders, which not as common), the vast majority of Captains do not lead people outside a cockpit/aircraft.


Agree. FWSAR is very much like this. A senior Capt is usually the pilot leader in charge of maybe 6 or so other Captains. Of those Captains a few are ACs, but they would have a different crew every flight and administratively outside the plane aren’t really in charge of any people. The flight commander is usually a Maj.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2021)

Edit: question answered


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2021)

Add to the discussion the Medical Branch. MO, NO, Physio, SocW, etc... most Med Branch officers don't actually lead troops.


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2021)

Going back to 2017 numbers, the ratio of authorized Reg F officers to NCMs in the Air Force (i.e. the Air Force rather than RCAF folks employed outside the Air Force) was 2,913/9,810 or 1:3.37 which is only slightly higher than the CAF as a whole. The Army's ratio was 2,804/18,902 or 1:6.74. The RCN 1,231/6,894 or 1:5.60. VCDS was 998/1759 or 1:1.76 and CJOC was 775/1286 or 1:1.66. Of course one would expect higher ratios for headquarters organizations vs field units.

I don't want to restart the rather lengthy thread about NCM pilots but ...  😉 

🍻


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Aug 2021)

When looking at it from a pragmatic point of view, and some of of arguments that were made (such as saving salary money), having NCM pilots wouldn’t change anything.  NCM pilots, if we ever have any, better be paid as much as Officer pilots.  

If all we’re trying to do is hit some magic Officer/NCM ratio, then sure, replacing some Officer pilots with NCM pilots would solve that…


FJAG said:


> I don't want to restart the rather lengthy thread about NCM pilots but ...  😉


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2021)

Fewer pieces of academic paper needed?


----------



## Harris (22 Aug 2021)

As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):

Pte(B), 0, 1857
Pte, 1296, 278
Pte/Cpl, 10378, 3325
Cpl, 6657, 1908
MCpl, 7903, 2166
Sgt, 5905, 1211
WO, 3491, 672
MWO, 1808, 322
CWO, 425, 14
OCdt, 0, 3126
2Lt, 0, 615
Lt/Capt, 1650, 990
Lt, 172, 121
Capt, 4173, 1364
Maj, 3424, 763
LCol, 1231, 154
Col, 331, 24
BGen, 61, 4
MGen, 31, 1
LGen, 9, 0
Gen, 1, 0
Totals, 48946, 18915 or if all positions were filled 67861

Reserve
Pte(R), 538, 246
Pte(B), 1, 1
Pte, 292, 184
Pte/Cpl, 10282, 6721
Cpl, 1497, 2067
MCpl, 2910, 4087
Sgt, 2265, 2823
WO, 958, 1464
MWO, 457, 536
CWO, 163, 53
OCdt, 244, 114
2Lt, 68, 38
Lt/Capt, 1077, 925
Lt, 218, 151
Capt, 1147, 1425
Maj, 840, 835
LCol, 281, 255
Col, 42, 53
BGen, 6, 7
MGen, 0, 4
Totals, 23286, 21989, or if all posns were filled 45275


So the ratio of all Reg Force filled officers vs all NCO posns is 3.41.  If all positions were filled that ratio changes to 2.71.
The Reserve numbers for filled posns is 4.93.  If all posns were filled it changes to 4.85.

Combining the numbers of filled posns Reg and Reserve would give 3.81 and 3.35 if we were full up posn wise.

Note these numbers *do not* contain Rangers or COATS posns.


----------



## dimsum (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> I don't want to restart the rather lengthy thread about NCM pilots but ... 😉


F no.  We've beaten that dead horse.  And NCM ACSOs and NCM AECs, and NCM AEREs, and so on.

I wonder if he suggests the 1:5 or 1:6 because that's how the Army organization works, without looking at the differences in working requirements, etc between the services.  I also wonder if, as someone stated in this thread, he counted COATS officers as well.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2021)

He used the counting method that substantiated his premise.


----------



## Weinie (22 Aug 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> He used the counting method that substantiated his premise.


Of course he did. No surprise.


----------



## dimsum (22 Aug 2021)

ModlrMike said:


> He used the counting method that substantiated his premise.


Ah, the ol' "situating the estimate" method


----------



## Blackadder1916 (22 Aug 2021)

For comparison, June 2021 numbers for US military






						DMDC Web
					






					dwp.dmdc.osd.mil


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> F no.  We've beaten that dead horse.  And NCM ACSOs and NCM AECs, and NCM AEREs, and so on.
> 
> I wonder if he suggests the 1:5 or 1:6 because that's how the Army organization works, without looking at the differences in working requirements, etc between the services.  I also wonder if, as someone stated in this thread, he counted COATS officers as well.


1:5 to 1:6 but no more than 1:7, in management theory, is generally regarded as the optimal supervisor:subordinate ratio…. Maybe it comes from there, using this number without context?


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Aug 2021)

It's more than just the ratio, as we all know. It's also about the culture. 

Here's an interesting article about that:

How Many Direct Reports Should You Have?​Most Leaders Miss This Critical Culture Element​
If you go to business school to get your MBA, you'll likely learn about a concept known as "span of control." In short, span of control means how many employees any one manager might have directly reporting to them.

Based on numerous academic studies that have researched this topic, the optimum number of direct reports for any manager should be the lucky number seven, plus or minus a few.

But when it comes to designing your organization, you might want to adjust this number based on a couple of different variables. Maybe your span of control should be lower-or maybe higher. We know, for instance, that managers in "flatter" organizations tend to have more direct reports compared to those who work in more hierarchical management structures. These flatter organizations tend to be less formal and have better information flow.  More hierarchical organizations with lower spans of control tend to be more formal.  In other words, when it comes to answering the question of how many direct reports should your managers have, the answer is: it depends, but it's an important element of organizational design and culture, so you can't just assume this will work out.

Let me explain.

*1.     Complexity of the work*

The first variable in assessing the span of control in your organization is to establish the complexity level of the work being done. If you run a call center that employs fairly standard routines for every employee, for example, then perhaps a manager can have as many as twenty or even thirty people directly reporting to him or her. But of you run a professional consulting firm, where the complexity of the work changes by the project, managers might be more effective with a smaller span of control to ensure employees get the attention and resources needed to get the work done.

*2.     Employee skills and experience*
On the flip side of the equation, you will also need to consider the skill level and experience of your employees. Even the best managers can handle training only so many new people on the job. If the people in our call center example are newly hired and have less than a few weeks experience, then you might need a much lower span of control as those new workers are trained on the job. But if most of the employees in the call center have worked there for two to three years, many of whom who may even have written the procedures everyone uses, then you get away with a much larger span of control.

*3.     Acceptable error rate*
Finding the right span of control also depends on the nature of the work being done, especially the allowable error rate. That means that the more precise the work needs to be, the fewer direct reports a manager should have. For example, if you run a family-style casual restaurant, you might be able to get away with a larger span of control because the customers will tolerate mistakes fairly readily. Or, worst case, you might have to comp a meal every now and again due to a server error. But if you run a Michelin three-star restaurant, your customers will tolerate nothing but elite service-or you run the risk of losing your rating. Everything, from the placement of the silverware and napkins to the pouring of the wine, needs to be precise. In such a case like this, your span of control should be much narrower.

*4.     Managerial experience*

Another key factor in assessing the span of control for your organization is to assess the skills and experience level of your leaders. An extremely seasoned CEO, for instance, might be able to effectively manage thirteen to fifteen VPS and directors. That's because the CEO has such a deep well of experience working in different roles within the business that he or she can remain effective even if their span of control is nearly double what the book number says. If you have promoted a fairly new leader into the CEO role, on the other hand, you may still want to limit their span of control for the first few years.

*5.     Dynamic environment*
The final element in determining the ideal ratio of direct reports to managers is to evaluate how dynamic the work or market environment is. As a rough rule, the more dynamic things are, the narrower the span of control should be. For example, if you operate in the tech industry, where new products are coming out monthly or even weekly, you risk overloading your managers by having too many people reporting to them. The opposite is true, of course, if you work in a very predictable and stable environment.

*6.     Use of Technology*
The pervasive availability of technology has allowed managers to increase their span of control because the tools allow more information flow.  There isn't a need for regular update meetings with you use a strategy deployment tool like Khorus to keep every project updated.  This includes extending to remote employees that the manager might rarely see face-to-face.  So highly technology enabled firms can operate with a larger span of control.

So, when it comes to designing your organization and deciding on the optimum span of control, you can start with the book number of seven. But a more thoughtful approach will be to modify that number based on these five variables to see what your magic number really is.










						How Many Direct Reports Should You Have?
					

Most leaders miss this critical culture element.




					www.inc.com


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> For comparison, June 2021 numbers for US military
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting to note that the 94,423 "officers" in the US Active Army includes 14,628 Warrant Officers.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Interesting to note that the 94,423 "officers" in the US Active Army includes 14,628 Warrant Officers.
> 
> 🍻


They are officers…eat in the same mess, etc.  some happen to be commissioned, other warranted, but all are officers.


----------



## Pelorus (22 Aug 2021)

This is a very weird post by Mr. Drapeau, even though the topic itself is worth debating. Often data without context is worse than no data at all.

It seems like he's conflating two distinct but related issues. One being the ratio of officers to NCMs, the second being the operations/support ratio of the CAF. As mentioned above, pulling straight numbers which includes lots of specialty trades which happen to be officers (e.g., med trades, PAO, TDO, PSO, etc.) and then rolling all of those numbers together into some implied context of a typical army construct misses the mark IMO.

If he was serious about presenting his argument, I would have thought that he would have used the image to present the data in some useful format, rather than a picture of Flag ranks and have his entire argument smashed into the body of the comments on that picture.

I think this line from his post is the most telling: "More Majors (3,817) than second lieutenants (1,509)." Someone who understands the basics of CAF career progression, which Mr. Drapeau almost certainly does, would not find the above at all surprising, seeing as 2Lt is a transitory training rank whereas Maj is a working rank. By including that line in his post it seems to me that his target audience is civilians who don't know how the military works, and will take his shoddy analysis at face value.


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> They are officers…eat in the same mess, etc.  some happen to be commissioned, other warranted, but all are officers.


Grammatically so are non-commissioned "officers" even though the NDA says that they aren't and now they're NCMs.

I was only mentioning the statistic to point out that the numbers of officers in the US Army do in fact reflect commissioned and warranted officers while ours do not. We're not comparing apples and apples here.

🍻


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Aug 2021)

Pelorus said:


> ....his target audience is civilians who don't know how the military works, and will take his shoddy analysis at face value.


Probably a reasonable summary of all his PR work.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Grammatically so are non-commissioned "officers" even though the NDA says that they aren't and now they're NCMs.
> 
> I was only mentioning the statistic to point out that the numbers of officers in the US Army do in fact reflect commissioned and warranted officers while ours do not. We're not comparing apples and apples here.
> 
> 🍻


And I was just pointing out that in the US Army, you see both commissioned and warranted officers in the O Club and mess (when it’s not a DFAC in your).  They are considered specialist officers (similar to the RAF’s ‘Specialist Airvrew’) and you will see in command circles, a CW5 treated as a specialist LTC/COL-eqvt to a Brigade Commander, CW4 similar to a MAJ in a Unit or Regt, and a CW3 like a CPT at Company level.  They are not treated like an NCO/Sr.Enlisted member.

Regards
G2G


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> And I was just pointing out that in the US Army, you see both commissioned and warranted officers in the O Club and mess (when it’s not a DFAC in your).  They are considered specialist officers (similar to the RAF’s ‘Specialist Airvrew’) and you will see in command circles, a CW5 treated as a specialist LTC/COL-eqvt to a Brigade Commander, CW4 similar to a MAJ in a Unit or Regt, and a CW3 like a CPT at Company level.  They are not treated like an NCO/Sr.Enlisted member.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


Sure. Read my Mark Winters, CID novels - the chief protagonist is a CW2 (later CW3) running the local Criminal Investigation Command det in Lakeland Florida. 😉 

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Sure. Read my Mark Winters, CID novels - the chief protagonist is a CW2 (later CW3) running the local Criminal Investigation Command det in Lakeland Florida. 😉
> 
> 🍻


😉

…and don’t forget, when it came came to making the plan and briefing POTUS on the hunt for OBL, it was the 160th SOAR(A)’s CW5 Doug Englen who was the senior most advisor in the US Army. 👍🏼


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> 😉
> 
> …and don’t forget, when it came came to making the plan and briefing POTUS on the hunt for OBL, it was the 160th SOAR(A)’s CW5 Doug Englen who was the senior most advisor in the US Army. 👍🏼



Who is a pilot - but we won't go there.   

🍻


----------



## dimsum (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Who is a pilot - but we won't go there.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Aug 2021)

FJAG said:


> Who is a pilot - but we won't go there.
> 
> 🍻


I’ve never been one of the naysayers…perhaps I’m to open-minded for the CAF/RCAF?


----------



## dimsum (23 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I’ve never been one of the naysayers…perhaps I’m to open-minded for the CAF/RCAF?


Invoking my...uh...OP powers, may I suggest this thread for that?    









						Non-Commissioned Pilots in the RCAF Discussion
					

That was not my point.  And yes, you have (probably fortunately) little awareness of the sheer amount of staff jobs filled by operators from all arms, including pilots, that exist in Ottawa. I am 100% confident that the staff jobs at Sqn level are both meaningful and relevant, likely the same...




					navy.ca


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2021)

Harris said:


> As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):
> 
> Pte(B), 0, 1857
> Pte, 1296, 278
> ...


I am not sure which report this is drawn from; the HRRS strength summary report dated 20 August is materially different in terms of actual strength for both Reg F and P Res; the numbers in HRRS are about a third greater.

There are certain reports which show occupied positions, which are misleading, as individuals are frequently double banked. Or, in some cases, units move all their pers to MMO in Guardian so they can rearrange them at leisure in Monitor MASS


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> Invoking my...uh...OP powers, may I suggest this thread for that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mine was a full-stop. Have enough t-shirts.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2021)

So, as per usual, Kirkhill is going to talk about Privates in a thread about Generals.   😁 

USMC is redirecting their training of new entries - teaching them how to employ all company weapons during their initial 14 week training schedule.   The training involves less lecturing and more EDIP - explain, demonstrate, imitate and practice - in the field environment, using the actual equipment.

Why is this an appropriate discussion in this thread?  For the same reason I felt it necessary to discuss the role of the LAV Commander in the Force 2025 thread.  I believe that when looking at the spectrum of operations detail matters.

This anecdote sums things up for me:



> Asked about his perspective on the types of additional skill sets that might enhance future capabilities, Pasciuti related his own recent field experience with the pilot class.
> 
> “During our patrolling exercise I got a squad together and physically went out to ‘hunt’ the students,” he said. “Remember, the instructors at this point are hands off and this is entirely a student-run event with their own student squad leaders and their own student radio operators. And the students had to set up a platoon patrol base as directed in their operation order.
> 
> ...








						Marine Corps Pilot Program Expands Infantry Skills
					

Marine Corps Pilot Program Expands Infantry Skills




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
				




The ratios of leaders to led is ultimately dependent, IMO, on how much confidence, how much trust, the leaders have in the led and the led have in the leaders.

And the rank structure matters less than how steep the pyramid is.   Most agile organizations operate with a flat pyramid.  A flat pyramid is predicated on (god I love buzz words) "empowering" its lower tier.

Now, I suppose, you could equally make a pyramid based on a lower tier of Brigadiers, each one with a Warrant Officer of some ilk.


----------



## kev994 (23 Aug 2021)

Harris said:


> As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):
> 
> Pte(B), 0, 1857
> Pte, 1296, 278
> ...


So there are 0 Ocdts in the CAF? Me thinks there be a glitch.


----------



## MJP (23 Aug 2021)

kev994 said:


> So there are 0 Ocdts in the CAF? Me thinks there be a glitch.


Nah, they aren't real people anyway


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Aug 2021)

kev994 said:


> So there are 0 Ocdts in the CAF? Me thinks there be a glitch.


Weird things happen when you go onto the BTL/ATL. There are also 0 Pte(B) and 2Lts in the list.  Assuming the data pull missed some scope (or isn't in Guardian).  Those all total up to over 5k unfilled billets in the list that aren't accounted for (although hard to believe there are 3126 OCdt positions).

Good data is hard to get and parse. Still remember taking a stats course back in the day and a prof was able to manipulate gas price tracking to show it was trending down.


----------



## Kilted (23 Aug 2021)

kev994 said:


> So there are 0 Ocdts in the CAF? Me thinks there be a glitch.


There apparently is also only one BMQ qualified troop waiting for trades training in the reserves.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2021)

Harris said:


> As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):
> 
> Pte(B), 0, 1857
> Pte, 1296, 278
> ...




Am I reading those numbers correctly?  In the Reg Force something like 1/3rd of the JR positions are unfilled?  And 2/3rds in the Reserves?

How much of a security clearance does a Pte require?  Especially a Reserve Pte?  Get them in the door. Attest them.  Slap a hat on their head and start training them.


----------



## dimsum (23 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> How much of a security clearance does a Pte require? Especially a Reserve Pte?


Depends on the trade.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2021)

Per my note, those numbers are at odds with other data sources.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2021)

dimsum said:


> Depends on the trade.


Seen

But I'm talking about "real" soldiers.  You know them.  The ones with the rifles in their hands?    😁


----------



## Weinie (23 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Seen
> 
> But I'm talking about "real" soldiers.  You know them.  The ones with the rifles in their hands?    😁


Ouch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2021)

Running SYEP programs again across Canada would introduce a lot of young people to the military lifestyle and act as a recruiting tool. Based on their performance they get a bonus for signing up in Reg/Res and completing basic. They could even skip a couple of weeks of basic and be in a SYEP platoon to hone the missing skillsets.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Aug 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Am I reading those numbers correctly?  In the Reg Force something like 1/3rd of the JR positions are unfilled?  And 2/3rds in the Reserves?
> 
> How much of a security clearance does a Pte require?  Especially a Reserve Pte?  Get them in the door. Attest them.  *Slap a hat on their head* and start training them.



Dude, you need to be more specific...

Is it a hat, a balmoral, a caubeen, a glengarry, a beret, a wedge cap, a peak cap, a toque, a bearskin....


----------



## Harris (23 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Per my note, those numbers are at odds with other data sources.


Those numbers are from Guardian so the MCS reporting website tells me.  But...The numbers change significantly if I were to generate numbers showing which positions have the correct trade and rank in them.  I've found that no two reporting methodology reports the same numbers for supposedly the same thing being counted.  Even within Monitor Mass, I get different numbers depending on what report I use.  Also note those numbers I quoted do not include any persons in COATS or Rangers posns.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, you need to be more specific...
> 
> Is it a hat, a balmoral, a caubeen, a glengarry, a beret, a wedge cap, a peak cap, a toque, a bearskin....


Sorry.  You're right.  And I forgot about the toques with the targets on top.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2021)

Generally the system uses the top level basic MCS data when reporting on total numbers.

MCS can be quite revelatory in looking at some demographics...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

Harris said:


> As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):
> 
> 
> Lt/Capt, 1650, 990



What is this group...anyone know? 



Harris said:


> Capt, 4173, 1364
> Maj, 3424, 763
> LCol, 1231, 154




Specific to the ranks above, (assumed) PML # of

5537 - Capt//Lt(N)
4187 - Maj/LCdr
1385 - Col/Cdr

The Maj/LCdr numbers seems high, if you 'pyramid' things down in a basic sense.  Any reason for the 4k+, or is it just me that sees that number as a little out of whack?

I know we have some specialist officers at the Maj/LCol ranks but...


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Aug 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is this group...anyone know?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the Lt/Capt means positions that can be staffed with a Lt (O-2) or a Capt (O-3) whereas the Capt/Lt(N) are positions that need to be staff with O-3s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

Copy, that makes sense.  I never thought of high/low ranked positions.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Aug 2021)

Capt = LT(N)


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2021)

"Hey you" Capt vs "Yes Sir" Capt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Aug 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Capt = LT(N)



I don't think that's the way the ranks/#s are broken out, though.  You'll notice it says Major, not Maj/LCdr...

🤷‍♂️


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Aug 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I think the Lt/Capt means positions that can be staffed with a Lt (O-2) or a Capt (O-3) whereas the Capt/Lt(N) are positions that need to be staff with O-3s.


There are a lot of positions like that, and also some Capt/Maj jobs. Years ago some ass clown got promoted by knocking down the ship HOD positions on the CPFs from Lt(N)/LCdr to Slt/Lt(N) to have a theoretical SWE savings.

The jobs are selected by a merit board and normally everyone there is also high on the promotion list, so they've had to stall promotions a few times so people could do their HOD tours first. Usually when you get promoted it comes with a posting message, but the big pay bump gets delayed by 6 months or more. All so someone could be seen to be 'leading change'. It's a job that you spend 10 years prepping for so pretty annoying to be in a place where you are considering turning down a promotion (if they go to the previous years projection) to do the job.

Probably some similar examples where bean counters looking at just HR make changes to a spread sheet that has long term impacts they never have to deal with.


----------



## FSTO (27 Aug 2021)

Navy_Pete said:


> There are a lot of positions like that, and also some Capt/Maj jobs. Years ago some ass clown got promoted by knocking down the ship HOD positions on the CPFs from Lt(N)/LCdr to Slt/Lt(N) to have a theoretical SWE savings.
> 
> The jobs are selected by a merit board and normally everyone there is also high on the promotion list, so they've had to stall promotions a few times so people could do their HOD tours first. Usually when you get promoted it comes with a posting message, but the big pay bump gets delayed by 6 months or more. All so someone could be seen to be 'leading change'. It's a job that you spend 10 years prepping for so pretty annoying to be in a place where you are considering turning down a promotion (if they go to the previous years projection) to do the job.
> 
> Probably some similar examples where bean counters looking at just HR make changes to a spread sheet that has long term impacts they never have to deal with.


That assclown’s name rhymes with nipple right?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Aug 2021)

dapaterson said:


> "Hey you" Capt vs "Yes Sir" Capt.


Huh.   It has been a while since I acknowledged a difference between the two...

The beauty of being retired *and* a contractor I guess


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Aug 2021)

FSTO said:


> That assclown’s name rhymes with nipple right?


Possibly; he's moved into the mythological realm at this point!


----------



## grayzone (30 Jan 2022)

Harris said:


> As of 19 Aug and according to Guardian, the CAF Reg Force is made up of (Read Rank, Filled, Unfilled):
> 
> Pte(B), 0, 1857
> Pte, 1296, 278
> ...





dapaterson said:


> His numbers add up to about 66K, the last open source RegF number I can find is 68K (Canadian Armed Forces 101 - Canada.ca). I'd be curious to see his dataset, including its date.  At the very least, it appears that he may be counting OCdt/NCdts in the total, who are officers, but not commissioned.


      As per his FB: "These numbers about the Regular Force were obtained from DND under the ATIP. They were released on August 16, 2021 under DND ATIP No A-2021-00803"
      ------

...what jumps out at me is these numbers, under Reg force: OCdt, 0, 3126 (filled, unfilled)

   Last I checked we have two military school campuses: CMR St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, and RMC Kingston... which should make up roughly 1200-1400 OCdts/NCdts on ROTP and 50-90 in ALOY program? Whatever the number, it's certainly not 0.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2022)

That's a data quality issue, I suspect.  Particularly for BTL/SUTL management, it's not unusual for individuals not to be assigned to a specific position.  So its entirely possible to have, for example, 100 positions for OCdts, 100 OCdts enrolled, and 100 vacant OCdt positions.

Frequently those responsible for data entry come up with work-arounds to simplify their work without necessarily understanding how the data they enter is rolled up and used; similarly, those at the top frequently create systems to create the data they want without design considerations to maximize utility for those doing the actual data entry.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jan 2022)

113,136 Regular Force and reservists "if all posns were filled".

How many people could we get on a plane and deploy next month?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> 113,136 Regular Force and reservists "if all posns were filled".
> 
> How many people could we get on a plane and deploy next month?


Are you assuming the transport aircraft would actually work or are we chartering Ryanair?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Are you assuming the transport aircraft would actually work or are we chartering Ryanair?


Great point but I just meant people who would dag green.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jan 2022)

Should be everyone, I thought we kicked out all the trash with the vaccination attestation mandate.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> Great point but I just meant people who would *dag green*.



A couple of years ago I heard a figure of around 40% being bandied about.

Based on our experiences deploying troops on various Domops, in the Reserves anyways, I think that's a little high.


----------



## quadrapiper (30 Jan 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> A couple of years ago I heard a figure of around 40% being bandied about.


Curious what percentage of the CAF is in units that are actually meant to be deployable, and how that 40% is distributed?

Also, wondering what the concerns were with the 60%: how many have simple-fix currency issues versus chronic or complex problems?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jan 2022)

Currency issues are self-made problems because we're risk adverse. They're waived all the time. The bigger issues will be the administrative and medical issues because we retain those folks in uniform.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 Jan 2022)

Speaking of waivers, can we stop the mass wave of advanced promotions? I've seen Sargeants stay in rank without their course for years because 6A courses haven't been running. We need to start kicking schools to run courses properly so we get timely career progression


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Jan 2022)

quadrapiper said:


> Curious what percentage of the CAF is in units that are actually meant to be deployable, and how that 40% is distributed?
> 
> Also, wondering what the concerns were with the 60%: how many have simple-fix currency issues versus chronic or complex problems?



Just a word of caution... those weren't exact numbers that I shared. 

I'm guessing that's one of the issues, of course: a lack of accurate, up to date data.


----------



## KevinB (31 Jan 2022)

Jarnhamar said:


> 113,136 Regular Force and reservists "if all posns were filled".
> 
> How many people could we get on a plane and deploy next month?


The question isn't could, its more would.
  The CAF could get them ALL on a plane, doesn't matter if they DAG Red, they could be put on a plane if the GOV said so.

   Realistically the issue isn't PY's, it is equipment.

How many sets of current NOD's, MFAL's, Body Armor, Radios, SHORAD, TTHAD, ATGM's does the CAF have.
   How many Planes, Trains and Automobiles could the CAF get to theatre?


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Currency issues are self-made problems because we're risk adverse. They're waived all the time. The bigger issues will be the administrative and medical issues because we retain those folks in uniform.


How is waiving currency on something like C7 or CBRN risk adverse, seems the opposite?

Comes back pretty quickly when I get out to the range, but outside of basic training I've never had to carry a C7, so big difference between DAGing green and actually getting effective pre-deployment training for those purple type jobs working in an Army situation. CAF was pretty good about dropping people into those with a two week notice in AFG, usually because the one person that was tagged for it DAGd red at the 11th hour.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jan 2022)

I meant we've made massive lists of items that we have to complete before deploying, because we're risk adverse. Not that the waivers are risk adverse.

Reading down those lists, very few actually relate to someone's core mission function, or is just a repeat of IBTS. It adds months to the predeployment training all in a CYA measure for Senior Officers.


----------



## KevinB (31 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> I meant we've made massive lists of items that we have to complete before deploying, because we're risk adverse. Not that the waivers are risk adverse.
> 
> Reading down those lists, very few actually relate to someone's core mission function, or is just a repeat of IBTS. It adds months to the predeployment training all in a CYA measure for Senior Officers.


I've often believed a lot of the Pre-Deployment training is just training that is sneaking other ways to be paid for...


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Jan 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> I meant we've made massive lists of items that we have to complete before deploying, because we're risk adverse. Not that the waivers are risk adverse.
> 
> Reading down those lists, very few actually relate to someone's core mission function, or is just a repeat of IBTS. It adds months to the predeployment training all in a CYA measure for Senior Officers.



DAG forms are like clearance cards... If you want to see how big our bureaucracy has gotten or an indication of our "mission creep" have a look at them.


----------



## MJP (31 Jan 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> DAG forms are like clearance cards... If you want to see how big our bureaucracy has gotten or an indication of our "mission creep" have a look at them.


You'll be thankful they exist when you encounter a fire and can use an extinguisher properly

/s


----------



## Halifax Tar (31 Jan 2022)

MJP said:


> You'll be thankful they exist when you encounter a fire and can use an extinguisher properly
> 
> /s



For me its anywhere I just go and they stamp it without having to review anything.

Library and post office I'm looking at you first...


----------



## coolintheshade (2 Feb 2022)

PuckChaser said:


> Are you assuming the transport aircraft would actually work or *are we chartering Ryanair?*


Nah...we taking WOW air. See what I did there. LOL


----------

