# Change of Command - RAWC 2021:  Are We "getting it right"?



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

I noticed this today on the RCAF FB page:





__





						Log in or sign up to view
					

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.




					www.facebook.com
				




While I'm not privy to all the career info on either the former and current RAWC Comd, I'm wondering...are we getting it right?

The outgoing Comd is an Air Op Officer, with operational experience dating back to Somali.  A pilot by trade, so part of the Air Operations Branch.

The incoming Comd is a Contruction Engineering Officer.  I'm left scratching my head.  Not to disrespect CE Officers...but they aren't trained, experienced or familiar with...well....aerospace warfare.

I am an Air Operations Branch WO;  my expectation to be posted to a Wing Msn Sp Sqn as the CE Unit WO is "nil".  I simply don't have the required experience and knowledge to lead and manage CE and Fire Services trades etc.  Could I do it?  Certainly.  But I definitely would not be the best choice, regardless of my operational experience and knowledge in my current trade and rank.

So...this leads to my question "*are we getting it right*?".  Are we picking (1) the best people from (2) the most suited trade/classification for leadership in "current and future operations" and our institutions (training, developmental, operational)?

I took a look on the RAWC site;  the CWO is an ATIS Tech (nothing against that trade...it was my previous one).  Again...best trade for Aerospace Warfare leadership?  Maybe a AWACS background AC Op, or an AES Op CWO is more suited because they come from the "air operations" world as operators.

Some might dogpile on me here; that's fine as I am not saying my thoughts and opinions are correct, but this is something I've been wondering in recent years so thought it might start an interesting discussion.

* I'll outright state I am not a huge fan of the current version of the "CWO/CPO Corps" and the "_A Chief is a Chief is a Chief_" mantra.  It's simply not true IMO.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 May 2021)

I think that's what we're seeing now.  We have a cook as the base supply Coxn in Halifax now.


----------



## dimsum (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I noticed this today on the RCAF FB page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know nothing about the incoming CO's background, but even as a general rule, I'll respectfully disagree.  

I also don't know a ton in detail about the RAWC, but what I do know makes me think that it isn't like a line sqn, where the CO needs to be familiar with aircraft operations, etc.  It's more of an "umbrella" with areas of specialization.  Those leaders (directors?  Whatever the term is) should be familiar with Aerospace Warfare.  

However, I don't think that the leader of those directors (the CO in this case) needs to be.  If anything, it could be a benefit because they are more likely to say "I'm not 100% sure but I have these specialists who are better informed than me."  

My 2c.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

Ok...not "needs to be"...but '_is better suited_'?  And that is what I am driving at..."_the most suited for_".  

I think we're going too far away from the "most suited for" part and I think it is an important part.  You can be the more talented CE Officer in the world and know/understand SFA about tac/op level air operations;  not because of any other reason than "you never did them". 

The same can be said about CE operations and management.  How many Air Ops Officers have been posted in as the Cmdt of CFSME?  I'll be none...not because they are stupid, or they couldn't 'do it'.  They simply aren't the most suited trade/classification for that command position.

Let's take the 14 Wg Comd.  It isn't likely s/he will have operational and command experience in both the LRP and SAR communities...but s/he will be able to understand thru common experience of 'conducting/commanding air operations' that they will have command credibility with the Sqn bosses.

WFH affords too much time to wonder about these things?  😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think that's what we're seeing now. We have a cook as the base supply Coxn in Halifax now.



This was discussed in a trade townhall I attended recently;  I've not heard any support for this stuff, except the CPO1 who presented the SEM/TEM Proj briefing to the WO/Sgt mess fall '19.  I didn't like it then...and like it less as I heard more about 'how it will work'.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I noticed this today on the RCAF FB page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I dunno... 'Engineer' and 'Aerospace' seem pretty compatible to me at first glance, not that I know anything about those two things.

Just don't go checking the qualifications of some of our Army Generals though


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

Here's a link to the Internet RCAF Aerospace Warfare Center page and the RAWC Organization (Units) page with descriptions.


----------



## McG (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> While I'm not privy to all the career info on either the former and current RAWC Comd, I'm wondering...are we getting it right?
> 
> The outgoing Comd is an Air Op Officer, with operational experience dating back to Somali. A pilot by trade, so part of the Air Operations Branch.
> 
> The incoming Comd is a Contruction Engineering Officer. I'm left scratching my head. Not to disrespect CE Officers...but they aren't trained, experienced or familiar with...well....aerospace warfare.


I don't know Col Lehoux, but I do know a few CE Officers who have worked various A3 jobs in Winnipeg. Is there not a possibility that such individuals might actually have a better idea of integrating air force effects than somebody who has never seen the outside of their platform community? 

And, if we can believe this: Royal Canadian Air Force Aerospace Warfare Centre

RAWC looks to be the RCAF organization for history & heritage, doctrine writing, future concepts, and probably some modeling & simulation (M&S). History & heritage can be done by just about anybody. The doctrine staff should already be full of SMEs. Future concepts generally benefit from outside the box thinking and a range of perspectives. M&S normally gets thrown to technical trades anyway. Aside from branding, is there a need for selection criteria more specific than a competent generalist with skilled leadership capabilities?



Eye In The Sky said:


> How many Air Ops Officers have been posted in as the Cmdt of CFSME?


Potentially the same number as CE Officers who have been Cmdt of CFMSE. Which might be something around zero.
Not because they cannot do the job, but because army fills CFSME and air force fills 1 ESU.
It's some kind of detente.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

McG said:


> Aside from branding, is there a need for selection criteria more specific than a competent generalist with skilled leadership capabilities?



This is the question, perhaps, I am asking only better worded.  I've nothing against the Col, the CE Officer trade, truly.

I would have had the same question in my head if the article was about a LogO who became the Cmdt of the CF H Svcs Trg Center (sorry if that isn't the actually name);  "is that the best person and trade for that position?"  Obviously I guess...I think not.

So for these catagories of positions, 'competent generalist' is historically a key factor at the Col/Capt(N) level?  I guess what I mean is..."has this always been they way, and I just did not know/care" or is this a new (last decade +/-) 'trend'?


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Here's a link to the Internet RCAF Aerospace Warfare Center page and the RAWC Organization (Units) page with descriptions.


After looking at that link...CE? That's crazy.

Pilot, ACSO, Air Operations Officer (not sure if that's a thing yet?) If they want an engineer, isn't there still AERE as a trade? Or even a civilian engineer or other classification (possibly with RCAF background?) All better options, IMO.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> This is the question, perhaps, I am asking only better worded.  I've nothing against the Col, the CE Officer trade, truly.
> 
> I would have had the same question in my head if the article was about a LogO who became the Cmdt of the CF H Svcs Trg Center (sorry if that isn't the actually name);  "is that the best person and trade for that position?"  Obviously I guess...I think not.
> 
> So for these catagories of positions, 'competent generalist' is historically a key factor at the Col/Capt(N) level?


Perhaps some are mixing up Air Force CE officers with CELE(Air) officers?  I can’t help but have an element of consideration along the lines of EITS’ original question, given past experience with both CELE(Air) and CE(Air) (up to LGen in both MOSIDs).  CELE(Air) tends to think networked and inter-connective (which I think fits nicely into RAWC’s mandate).  I have found CE(Air) to be more materially-minded.

That said, if the establishment position is ‘AIR ANY’ then the Comd could rightly come from any air officer MOSID.


----------



## McG (7 May 2021)

reveng said:


> After looking at that...CE? That's crazy.
> 
> Pilot, ACSO, Air Operations Officer (not sure if that's a thing yet?) If they want an engineer, isn't there still AERE as a trade? Or even a civilian engineer or other classification (possibly with RCAF background?)


Construction engineer officers are air force.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

reveng said:


> Pilot, ACSO, Air Operations Officer (not sure if that's a thing yet?)


AEC, as well.  I had the opportunity to attend the 2020 ADLAP - my first conference with the AEC/AC Op community and I was extremely impressed with their professionalism and knowledge.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2021)

McG said:


> Construction engineer officers are air force.


Sure, but that position seems focused on air & space ops...don't AERE do space stuff? Air Force construction engineers are more about airfield related stuff, aren't they? I suppose if we were looking at implementing some kind of forward air operations like the USMC in the Pacific (i.e. more dispersed, FARPs etc) than perhaps it would make more sense.

I suppose since this is a Col they are filling an executive role more than anything? I'm sure they can draw on the insights of the LCol/Maj in the units subordinate to them? (Not sure how these units are organized, only familiar with 414)


----------



## coolintheshade (7 May 2021)

OP....I hear ya and valid question you post, however, you might not be privy to the incoming Comd's background and previous experience. My guess is these two individuals are both of the 'Air' element right? If an Air Col was being replaced at the RAWC with a Land Col, that will be the real head scratcher.

CALWC, has had different occupation CO's. Also, take CFSCE or CFJSR for example.....in very recent years, the CO & Comdt have been Sigs, with the DCOs CELE. I mean is there any reason why the posns can't alternate each year?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Perhaps some are mixing up Air Force CE officers with CELE(Air) officers? I can’t help but have an element of consideration along the lines of EITS’ original question, given past experience with both CELE(Air) and CE(Air) (up to LGen in both MOSIDs). CELE(Air) tends to think networked and inter-connective (which I think fits nicely into RAWC’s mandate). I have found CE(Air) to be more materially-minded.



If it was CELE (Air), I would have thought nothing of it, but that is from having a friend or two at the CELE LCol+ level and knowing where they've been posted and what competencies/skills/knowledge they bring.

Similarly (and speaking as someone who had a brief period of service as an ATIS Tech before remustering again), when I was curious as to who was the AWC CWO, I saw "ATIS Tech" and sort of frowned...and then saw "time with The Gypsies and 42 Rdr" and went "oh, nice".  Right or wrong, there is that aspect of credibility that comes with some things (maybe individually, what qualifies as 'credibility' differs).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

coolintheshade said:


> you might not be privy to the incoming Comd's background and previous experience.


 Just the Comd Bio on the RAWC Intranet site...which is 'a summary'.


----------



## coolintheshade (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just the Comd Bio on the RAWC Intranet site...which is 'a summary'.


Many 'Bios' are a case of copy pasta...rather than asking for an update from the individual.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

coolintheshade said:


> Also, take CFSCE or CFJSR for example.....in very recent years, the CO & Comdt have been Sigs, with the DCOs CELE



Seen, however...they are both 'born and bred' at CFSCE and within the C & E branch, and have enough in common to wear the same cap badge...whereas...Air Ops / Engr...not so much?



> Many 'Bios' are a case of copy pasta...rather than asking for an update from the individual.



True.  However, none of a CE Officers experience will be conducting Air Ops; they could fly every second day and it will all be "PAX hours". There's a huge knowledge delta (for an org that is a "warfare center) . Perhaps the name of the RAWC is what needs changed.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 May 2021)

Perhaps the individual is truly exceptional, and will do an excellent job regardless of background. Perhaps this is also a way to give them wider exposure to prepare them to progress further in the RCAF? It might end up benefiting the RCAF or CAF as a whole down the line, and this is simply a focal point of something positive for the institution.

I don't like what they've done with the CWO rank, but perhaps on the officer side there is more merit in these sort of initiatives.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I would have had the same question in my head if the article was about a LogO who became the Cmdt of the CF H Svcs Trg Center (sorry if that isn't the actually name);  "is that the best person and trade for that position?"  Obviously I guess...I think not.



HCA and HSO are really just Log-Health, so why not?


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2021)

Sometimes I think we defer too much to background, and not enough to capability and capacity.

"Position needs a Cbt Arms Officer" as opposed to "Position needs a talented Staff Officer"


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2021)

Not sure you intended to striate things into Cbt Arms/Operator vs Staff Officer?


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2021)

I used those as examples.  Replace with:

"Pilot Officer" as opposed to "Competent and Intelligent Leader"


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2021)

One could say any COL/GOL position should be filled with just that...a COL/GOL, then.  I don’t know the specifics of the RAWC Comdt position, so the discussion may not be an issue, especially if an AIRGEN position.  The only example I’ve ever seen as senior levels was actually the Army that chose to experiment with a non-operator as Commander...not sure if the position was revised to state operator (or even Cbt Arms) or just a ‘won’t likely ever happen again’ thing.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2021)

Heck, the Army was once so desperate for GOFO talent they let a TacHel BGen be Chief of Staff, Operations in the Army HQ.


----------



## McG (7 May 2021)

1 CAD took an Army Engineer officer as its COS not that long ago.


----------



## Mick (7 May 2021)

I believe it was MGen St-Louis at 1 CAD a few years ago, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## McG (7 May 2021)

Mick said:


> MGen St-Louis








						Canadian Army - Canada.ca
					

Official Canadian Army website. News and photos about soldiers and Canadian Armed Forces. Jobs for Reservists.




					www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca
				



It seems he did serve there, but the bio does not specify the job. 
 I was thinking this guy:





						Colonel Martin Gros-Jean, CD | Canadian Military Engineers
					






					cmea-agmc.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> HCA and HSO are really just Log-Health, so why not?



Because neither of those trade are _providing_ health care, they are _supporting the provision_ of it.  

So, back to my point;  is your example the best combination of (1) the best person from (2) the best trade.  

Somewhat similar;  I've had to deal with people who have never operated a sensor, or crewed an aircraft and spend hours and hours trying to get them to understand that their opinion is wrong, despite what their belief is, on a certain function.  I've related it to real world operations - peacetime like SAR, operations, war.  They don't and won't get it because there is no 'experience' to relate to, to bridge the gap. 

T


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 May 2021)

St-Louis was the COS at 1 CAD in the 2011/2012 timeframe.

I have no real concerns for non-“operators” to be in such positions, even Wing Command as long as they have an operational mindset and are surrounded by strong staff to guide them.  What is more important is for them is to have an understanding of the institution and strong cognitive abilities. At that level, this is a lot more important than knowing flying/sailing/walking.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I have no real concerns for non-“operators” to be in such positions, even Wing Command as long as they have an operational mindset and are surrounded by strong staff to guide them. What is more important is for them is to have an understanding of the institution and strong cognitive abilities.
> 
> At that level, this is a lot more important than knowing flying/sailing/walking.


By “operational mindset” is it just the mindset and desire to be a good Commandant that matters then?  As well, would be interested to understand your concept of “staff to guide them.”  I thought Command-Staff relationship was the other way around, but things may have changed since I retired... 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## dimsum (8 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Somewhat similar; I've had to deal with people who have never operated a sensor, or crewed an aircraft and spend hours and hours trying to get them to understand that their opinion is wrong, despite what their belief is, on a certain function. I've related it to real world operations - peacetime like SAR, operations, war. They don't and won't get it because there is no 'experience' to relate to, to bridge the gap.


I think that's more a function of the person, more than anything else.  That person is unwilling to take in information - that's just bad leadership (irrespective of operational experience or not).

In the same scenario, someone without that same experience could also say "you're the SME here, what do you think works best?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 May 2021)

It's not _quite_ that simple, and not limited to a single person...and involves a few different dept's.  They are "higher up" the food chain though, so despite their lack of knowledge and experience, they 'do as they see fit'...to the deteriment of the objectives and goals.

Which is my point, partially I guess.  If the chosen Commander isn't 'from the best trade', are they (balance of probabilities context) not less likely to make the best choices/decisions because they're going to have a hand that is a few cards short?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 May 2021)

Thanks to those who've contributed.  I know my exposure is usually topped at the CO, ATF Comd, possibly WComd level and I have no experience or real understanding of how positions like RAWC Comd are selected, etc.

Some decent points and considerations...thanks for that.


----------



## McG (8 May 2021)

Another perspective to ponder. If you are worried that a colonel level officer from a support occupation cannot possibly oversee the development of doctrine & capability that relates to the air operations occupations, how do you think the officer from an air operations occupation can possibly oversee the development of doctrine & capability that relates to air logistics? The RCAF will not benefit if RAWC only looks at the shiny things that fall under the Act function.


----------



## dimsum (8 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thanks to those who've contributed. I know my exposure is usually topped at the CO, ATF Comd, possibly WComd level and I have no experience or real understanding of how positions like RAWC Comd are selected, etc.


Yeah, the tactical/operational side is very different than the strategic/"support" side.  Ask anyone who's been posted to the NCR.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 May 2021)

Mick said:


> I believe it was MGen St-Louis at 1 CAD a few years ago, if I'm not mistaken.


He was COS. My dealings with him were excellent.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thanks to those who've contributed.  I know my exposure is usually topped at the CO, ATF Comd, possibly WComd level and I have no experience or real understanding of how positions like RAWC Comd are selected, etc.
> 
> Some decent points and considerations...thanks for that.



I was in one (mo-lisha) Infantry unit that was commanded by an Engineer, and another that had a Sigs Officer as CO. 

In the case of the former, he was smart enough to realize that he didn't have much of a clue about our job so was open to being advised by us, which generally worked out OK (except that he was a micro-managing office dweller). The RSSO we had at the time did a good job keeping it all on the right path.

In the case of the latter, he thought that he knew more about our jobs than we did, which went less well all round of course especially since the RSSO we had at the time was awful in a spectacular way


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> By “operational mindset” is it just the mindset and desire to be a good Commandant that matters then?  As well, would be interested to understand your concept of “staff to guide them.”  I thought Command-Staff relationship was the other way around, but things may have changed since I retired... 🤷🏻‍♂️


Operational mindset, to me, is synonymous with primacy of operations and a fighting spirit. 

As far as staff guiding commanders, people have to be honest with themselves. We can't be experts in everything therefore, we need people to guide our decisions (that's also true for "operators" who need guiding on the log/maintenance side). Any other way would be, imo, a very arrogant way to command.  The CO of my previous unit was a non-operator (AERE) as the CO (Colonel) of a flying unit. As his senior pilot/operator in the unit, one of my main jobs was to guide his decisions regarding flying operations and all that it encompasses. Sometimes, he entirely delegated parts of flying operations and he retained the authority over some other areas. I thought it was a very effective way to leader the unit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Operational mindset, to me, is synonymous with primacy of operations and a fighting spirit.
> 
> As far as staff guiding commanders, people have to be honest with themselves. We can't be experts in everything therefore, we need people to guide our decisions (that's also true for "operators" who need guiding on the log/maintenance side). Any other way would be, imo, a very arrogant way to command.  The CO of my previous unit was a non-operator (AERE) as the CO (Colonel) of a flying unit. As his senior pilot/operator in the unit, one of my main jobs was to guide his decisions regarding flying operations and all that it encompasses. Sometimes, he entirely delegated parts of flying operations and he retained the authority over some other areas. I thought it was a very effective way to leader the unit.



So handing over leadership of the key role of the unit to you was the best option? 

Got it


----------



## Zoomie (9 May 2021)

Col Lehoux is good.  She was DWComd 17 Wing when I was there.   Very smart, very well rounded.  She will do well at the RAWC.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> So handing over leadership of the key role of the unit to you was the best option?
> 
> Got it


That was one of the roles, not the key role.  The unit’s mandate was fight test.  He retained the authority (as the flight test authority) for that.


----------



## captloadie (10 May 2021)

I had the opportunity to listen to LGen Rouleau speak at CADSI recently, and was quite impressed with one of the messages he was pushing. This surprised me a bit, because I'm not a Rouleau sycophant, and in the past have questioned his motives on issues.

To paraphrase, he said we need to stop picking the next generation of Institutional leaders based on how well they excelled as Operators/Combat Leaders/War fighters. There are capable, qualified and exceptional individuals within the CAF who would serve the CAF well based on their broad experience and understanding of how the institution works. However, they are over-looked, or not given the credit for their experience, because they haven't followed the "Command billet path to success" (my words not his).

Because of the way the RCAF has organized itself, most L3 commanders are at the pinnacle of the CoC on their Wings (there are exceptions, but for the most part this holds true). Therefore, having the senior officer not being a flying trade (have we had AERE, CELE or AEC WComds at large flying Wings?) worries the rank and file that there isn't an "operator" in charge. But ask many of those WComds how much of their job was related to flying issues, and how much simply needed leadership and institutional know how, and I think most would see that it is here that the Leadership requirements of senior ranks begins to diverge.


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

captloadie said:


> have we had AERE, CELE or AEC WComds at large flying Wings?


17 Wing's last WComd (Col Charron) was a CELE, I believe.  

I think it was the first time they tried it, and technically 17 Wing doesn't have any aircraft - 435 administratively belongs to 19 Wing in Comox (for...reasons?) and 1 CFFTS/3 CFFTS belong to 2 CAD.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 May 2021)

And 17 Wg supports a lot of 1 CAD/2CAD connectivity, so makes sense.  So long as the logic behind Commander section is solid, that should matter the most.  I just recall what was seen as the Army’s ‘experiment’ with LGen Leach....mixed reviews.


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

To bring it back to tech-related stuff like the RAWC, I have another example:

The last Cmdt (now changed and not sure who the current one is or their background) of RCAF Barker College was LCol Scott Ash, a Logistics Officer.  While Barker College does have the AFOD piece, the top floor of the building has very tech-y stuff like the Electronic Warfare courses, Space Operations courses, and Aerospace Studies Program. 

Barker College used to always have a Pilot or ACSO Cmdt until LCol Ash was selected.  I'm pretty sure he had no technical experience in any of those subjects.


----------



## coolintheshade (16 May 2021)

McG said:


> Canadian Army - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Official Canadian Army website. News and photos about soldiers and Canadian Armed Forces. Jobs for Reservists.
> ...


Note: 1 CAD is NOT the same as CADTC


----------



## Mick (16 May 2021)

coolintheshade said:


> Note: 1 CAD is NOT the same as CADTC


Correct.

MGen St-Louis was COS of 1 CAD years ago, as a Colonel.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 May 2021)

Army has been providing the COS of 1 CAD while RCAF provides the COS Ops of 1st Cdn Division. Maybe not "fair" now that 1st Cdn Div belongs to CJOC, but it does serve to cross-pollinate.


----------



## McG (16 May 2021)

coolintheshade said:


> Note: 1 CAD is NOT the same as CADTC


Thanks Captain Obvious. That was known information.
If you read the biography on the other end of that link, you will find that it has corroborating evidence for what was being discussed.


----------

