Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

I'm afraid that neither of those is particularly likely to incentivise recruitment or retention. I hardly need to say it here that service has a rather unique set of circumstances, particularly the application of unlimited liability. That is, of course, in addition to the more mundane reality of frequent postings and associated repercussions on family.

In short - if the Government of Canada wishes to retain experienced service members and grow all three services, pay is a key component of it. I personally would like to see taxation exemptions examined by the government , but I expect that the Treasury Board would heavily push back on this.

Recruitment is not just a military issue. It's a problem in the civilian workforce as well. Simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Governments look at the bottom line on costs so more pay simply means less equipment or less people down the road.

CAF needs to sort out what its career profiles should be and, quite frankly, its not well served by having old people at high pay rates doing jobs which require only moderate skill levels. Just look at how many folks the CAF has who are restricted from deploying. Yes there are jobs where high skills matter but also many where it does not and where the jobs could and should be done by young, single, moderately skilled folks who have a high turn over rate. The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

You're thinking like an American here and applying a meaning of warrant which is different from our meaning of warrant. There is no reason a WO stream can't be split off but there's no reason to remove them from the NCO billet and have to rework our whole rank system and add a bazillion Sgts like the Americans have. It wouldn't really make any sort of tangible difference anyways, there is already a pretty common culture of deferral to WOs and up on technical matters amongst officers, at least amongst the smart ones.

It only requires three ranks to be renamed: WO back to Staff Sergeant; MWO to e.g. Sergeant Major and CWO to e.g Chief Sergeant Major. You wouldn't even need to change the rank badges. In all respects these positions would keep the existing NCM professional development profile and be recognized for their role as senior NCM leaders.

The point is that this at leaves WO appellation free to be used as an entry level rank for specialized roles. Civilians could join the CAF as WO cadets and be immediately in a higher pay category (roughly equivalent to commissioned ranks). Alternatively, appropriate NCMs could apply to transfer to a WO classification without having to "climb the NCM rank ladder." It's a bit like commissioning from the ranks but from lower levels and based on specialized skills rather than NCM leadership development.

WO ranks would progress from a "skilled specialist" level to a trained "specialist leader/manager" level.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Recruitment is not just a military issue. It's a problem in the civilian workforce as well. Simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Governments look at the bottom line on costs so more pay simply means less equipment or less people down the road.

Pay and bennies is most certainly part of the solution. Not the whole, but I would argue a 1/3 of the solution.

CAF needs to sort out what its career profiles should be and, quite frankly, its not well served by having old people at high pay rates doing jobs which require only moderate skill levels. Just look at how many folks the CAF has who are restricted from deploying. Yes there are jobs where high skills matter but also many where it does not and where the jobs could and should be done by young, single, moderately skilled folks who have a high turn over rate. The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

I think this is a very non technical and Army way of looking at things. Speaking for the RCN, and I can imagine the RCAF, we have major pieces of machinery that require people to spend decades learning and understanding, and this means on a full time basis and careers.

And our ops tempos also dictate that we set up rotations not only to grow a sailor or naval officers breadth of experience; but also allow them to have some semblance of home work balance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To summarize, surely we don't need to pound every peg into a commissioned or climbed-the-ranks-from-private hole.

 

[FJAG]

Pay and bennies is most certainly part of the solution. Not the whole, but I would argue a 1/3 of the solution.

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

I think this is a very non technical and Army way of looking at things. Speaking for the RCN, and I can imagine the RCAF, we have major pieces of machinery that require people to spend decades learning and understanding, and this means on a full time basis and careers.

And our ops tempos also dictate that we set up rotations not only to grow a sailor or naval officers breadth of experience; but also allow them to have some semblance of home work balance.

I agree on both counts. This is why I said

Yes there are jobs where high skills matter

and

The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

I must admit I was somewhat interested by the 3 RCR honour guard for the King. There were a ton of privates in the rank and nary a medal showing on most of the uniforms i.e. a whole lot of young fresh faces with a few older folks sprinkled around which is what would expect for an infantry battalion.

 

[Remius]

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

I agree on both counts. This is why I said


and


The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

I must admit I was somewhat interested by the 3 RCR honour guard for the King. There were a ton of privates in the rank and nary a medal showing on most of the uniforms i.e. a whole lot of young fresh faces with a few older folks sprinkled around which is what would expect for an infantry battalion.

Nit pick. We don’t do honour guards.

 

[FJAG]

Nit pick. We don’t do honour guards.

I think I said on another thread that ceremonial isn't my strong suit. If I had my druthers all parades would be in fighting order.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all).

The USN have a lot of warrant officers. One of the most recent occupations introduced is Air Vehicle Pilot.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Air-Vehicle-Pilot/

Other occupations.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Career-Pattern-Sheets/

It was the USAF that didn't use warrant officers, though they have recently reintroduced them.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3756216/air-force-to-begin-accepting-warrant-officer-applications/

 

[Castus]

Yeah IPC's on many ranks need a look at, and I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

I agree on the tech stream, but would counter that this could be started at a more junior level. Re-introduce the rank of Lance Cpl, which becomes an automatic promotion at 4 years but is expected to conduct junior leadership responsibilities. Cpl then becomes a rank that requires Sect Comd training (JLC). At that point, having led a small team and become a subject matter expert, you can elect to become a Master Cpl, which is given 10 pay increments and made a technical expert.

Additionally, we could then re-introduce Staff Sgt to provide a 'one up' tech stream, for SNCOs who do not want to progress into the Sergeant Major role but maintain senior subject matter expertise with likely more leadership responsibilities.

I think the distinction from some of the other proposals is that this requires even junior 'tech specialists' to have some kind of leadership experience. I have spoken to a great deal of pers who want to be technical experts in their fields and are not interested in progressing through the senior ranks, but I think emphasising leadership throughout is going to provide a lot of institutional cushion to the organisation as it grows. It means that tech specialists with lots of pay incentives (the carrot) is something to be offered, by merit of the individual, to those who have muckled down and done their time as a leader.

Additionally, in case of war and large scale mobilisation that could potentially result, this means we have a strong core of instructors & leaders to bring new members online.

What people may not understand here is that the core ranks - MCpl, Sgt and WO - are the worst affected by the current manning crisis, particularly in the Army. We need a way to retain these critical ranks whilst also ensuring that no matter the situation we find ourselves in, whether steady-state pre-war ops as now or actual war, that we are capable of growing or maintaining.

My 2p.

 

[FJAG]

The USN have a lot of warrant officers. One of the most recent occupations introduced is Air Vehicle Pilot.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Air-Vehicle-Pilot/

Other occupations.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Career-Pattern-Sheets/

It was the USAF that didn't use warrant officers, though they have recently reintroduced them.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3756216/air-force-to-begin-accepting-warrant-officer-applications/

You're absolutely correct. Mea Culpa.

It's the USAF that let the rank go by the wayside in 1959 when they stopped appointing new ones. Some carried on for years until the last ones retired in the 1980s.

Surprisingly I just noted that the USAF has just gone back to making use of the rank - in the field of IT and cyber - and it's only this last December that their first class of 30 new WOs graduated. IT and cyber are exactly the type of fields where the rank is of value allowing college graduates or otherwise specially trained programs to quickly enter the forces at a better pay rate.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree on the tech stream, but would counter that this could be started at a more junior level. Re-introduce the rank of Lance Cpl, which becomes an automatic promotion at 4 years but is expected to conduct junior leadership responsibilities. Cpl then becomes a rank that requires Sect Comd training (JLC). At that point, having led a small team and become a subject matter expert, you can elect to become a Master Cpl, which is given 10 pay increments and made a technical expert.

Additionally, we could then re-introduce Staff Sgt to provide a 'one up' tech stream, for SNCOs who do not want to progress into the Sergeant Major role but maintain senior subject matter expertise with likely more leadership responsibilities.

I think the distinction from some of the other proposals is that this requires even junior 'tech specialists' to have some kind of leadership experience. I have spoken to a great deal of pers who want to be technical experts in their fields and are not interested in progressing through the senior ranks, but I think emphasising leadership throughout is going to provide a lot of institutional cushion to the organisation as it grows. It means that tech specialists with lots of pay incentives (the carrot) is something to be offered, by merit of the individual, to those who have muckled down and done their time as a leader.

Additionally, in case of war and large scale mobilisation that could potentially result, this means we have a strong core of instructors & leaders to bring new members online.

What people may not understand here is that the core ranks - MCpl, Sgt and WO - are the worst affected by the current manning crisis, particularly in the Army. We need a way to retain these critical ranks whilst also ensuring that no matter the situation we find ourselves in, whether steady-state pre-war ops as now or actual war, that we are capable of growing or maintaining.

My 2p.

I still find it astonishing that there are more rank levels in a rifle company than are represented in most major corporations …

 

[dapaterson]

I still find it astonishing that there are more rank levels in a rifle company than are represented in most major corporations …

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

 

[Cloud Cover]

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

I’m pretty sure IBM tried to kill as many people as possible with PC DOS to OS Warp upgrade downloads in the late 90’s.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

Because victory in battle hinges on critical personnel related details like 10 levels of Captains

 

[dapaterson]

Because victory in battle hinges on critical personnel related details like 10 levels of Captains

Victory in battle depends on properly trained and motivated soldiers of all tanks and trades working together.

Some of that is developing and keeping important skillsets like sustainment when the institution has deliberate biases for "operators" over sustainers, including selection for senior roles. So expanded pay scales for those the institution deliberately discriminates against is important.

 

[McG]

I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

What problem would this be intended to fix?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What problem would this be intended to fix?

Ego

 

[Kirkhill]

Well the King just announced that we'll be a part of the 'ReArm Europe' initiative, so I guess that's official.

Keep in mind the Liberals signed on to the F35 project at its inception.

An opportunity to make money, not to defend Canada.

The project is called ReArm Europe, not ReArm Canada.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

Are you advocating that we introduce conscription?

I agree on both counts. This is why I said


and


The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

What do you think the RCN should be doing ?

I agree most combat arms do not need to be on full time employment. If were going to make cuts it should be coming from them.

What problem would this be intended to fix?

I think the idea is that's where your career technical SMEs go. I stand to be corrected though.

 

[KevinB]

What problem would this be intended to fix?

Being able to place some Technical SME’s into positions that can be paid higher than a NCO band may pay, and be able to keep them in certain positions without them “outranking” or needing to be moved for promotions etc.

 

[PrairieFella]

Being able to place some Technical SME’s into positions that can be paid higher than a NCO band may pay, and be able to keep them in certain positions without them “outranking” or needing to be moved for promotions etc.

So spec pay and a cease progress?