Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[FJAG]

In your opinion, would altering 294 into something that can be a service offence or infraction be beneficial then? I don't know of a single officer or SNCO who has the bandwidth on top of their career + Class A service to get the ball rolling on charging 294 in civy court.

By itself, no it wouldn't.

In my opinion what needs to happen is first of all a change in the terms of service respecting primary reserve service. I would propose three classes of service "M - mandatory, V - voluntary and C - operational"

Mandatory would be limited by regulation to the completion of DP1 training of two two-month summers (July and August) and a winter session of 10 x 2.5 day weekends (Fri evening to Sunday evening) from September to June. Once DP 1 is completed Class M training is limited to the ten weekends and a 16.5 day summer exercise in August (again Friday evening to Sunday evening) for 41.5 days annually for unit collective training. Schedules for that would need to be posted a year in advance so that proper arrangements with one's employer and family can be made. Units would not be allowed to increase Class M training beyond 41.5 days nor deviate from the schedule. This would be fully funded. Additional voluntary training would also be available for other courses and duties for those who want it.

Individuals would enroll for a set period of years - sufficient to complete DP1 training as well as a minimum of two or three years of obligatory service to pay the government back for the money and effort spent on their training. Thereafter re-enlistment bonuses would be offered for additional terms of obligatory service. No voluntary release is available during this time frame.

S 294 would be removed and s 60(1)(c) would be changed so that any period of Class M training is subject to the CSD so that missing it is subject to a charge under s 90(1) AWOL, in the case of major or multiple or repeat occurrences or as a service infraction under QR&O 120.03(f)

Have I thought about what this would do to recruiting - sure I have but I'd rather have 15,000 trained Class As in 30 useable battalions than a 30,000 person rabble in 135 useless ones. IMHO, recruiting would not be negatively affected if properly sold with full summer employment as well as education benefits to draw in students in high school and on the verge of college or university. These folks want help with their education and at the rates of pay available now would do very well if guaranteed full summer employment with minimal commitment during the school year.

There's a lot more to it in my book "Unsustainable at Any Price" but don't go out and buy it. I'm currently doing a major revision to it as the 3rd edition which should be out in about a month or so.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

By itself, no it wouldn't.

In my opinion what needs to happen is first of all a change in the terms of service respecting primary reserve service. I would propose three classes of service "M - mandatory, V - voluntary and C - operational"

Mandatory would be limited by regulation to the completion of DP1 training of two two-month summers (July and August) and a winter session of 10 x 2.5 day weekends (Fri evening to Sunday evening) from September to June. Once DP 1 is completed Class M training is limited to the ten weekends and a 16.5 day summer exercise in August (again Friday evening to Sunday evening) for 41.5 days annually for unit collective training. Schedules for that would need to be posted a year in advance so that proper arrangements with one's employer and family can be made. Units would not be allowed to increase Class M training beyond 41.5 days nor deviate from the schedule. This would be fully funded. Additional voluntary training would also be available for other courses and duties for those who want it.

Individuals would enroll for a set period of years - sufficient to complete DP1 training as well as a minimum of two or three years of obligatory service to pay the government back for the money and effort spent on their training. Thereafter re-enlistment bonuses would be offered for additional terms of obligatory service. No voluntary release is available during this time frame.

S 294 would be removed and s 60(1)(c) would be changed so that any period of Class M training is subject to the CSD so that missing it is subject to a charge under s 90(1) AWOL, in the case of major or multiple or repeat occurrences or as a service infraction under QR&O 120.03(f)

Have I thought about what this would do to recruiting - sure I have but I'd rather have 15,000 trained Class As in 30 useable battalions than a 30,000 person rabble in 135 useless ones. IMHO, recruiting would not be negatively affected if properly sold with full summer employment as well as education benefits to draw in students in high school and on the verge of college or university. These folks want help with their education and at the rates of pay available now would do very well if guaranteed full summer employment with minimal commitment during the school year.

There's a lot more to it in my book "Unsustainable at Any Price" but don't go out and buy it. I'm currently doing a major revision to it as the 3rd edition which should be out in about a month or so.

We also desperately need some sort of employment protection for this to work as intended and get the most out of those we recruit.

 

[boredtoon]

There's a lot more to it in my book "Unsustainable at Any Price" but don't go out and buy it. I'm currently doing a major revision to it as the 3rd edition which should be out in about a month or so.

I'll keep an eye out for it then, although I may end up buying both. I've 'acquired' enough books from OceansofPDF over the last year, I sort of owe authors around the world some of my business.

 

[McG]

and now we got a hanger queen truck thats usually broken and the contractor even hates fixing

The MSVS MilCOTS are all 15 years old. Maintenance and sustainability problems today are not an initial procurement failure but the reality of a 15 year old fleet. Our vehicles should have an average retirement age of 10 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

By itself, no it wouldn't.

In my opinion what needs to happen is first of all a change in the terms of service respecting primary reserve service. I would propose three classes of service "M - mandatory, V - voluntary and C - operational"

Mandatory would be limited by regulation to the completion of DP1 training of two two-month summers (July and August) and a winter session of 10 x 2.5 day weekends (Fri evening to Sunday evening) from September to June. Once DP 1 is completed Class M training is limited to the ten weekends and a 16.5 day summer exercise in August (again Friday evening to Sunday evening) for 41.5 days annually for unit collective training. Schedules for that would need to be posted a year in advance so that proper arrangements with one's employer and family can be made. Units would not be allowed to increase Class M training beyond 41.5 days nor deviate from the schedule. This would be fully funded. Additional voluntary training would also be available for other courses and duties for those who want it.

Individuals would enroll for a set period of years - sufficient to complete DP1 training as well as a minimum of two or three years of obligatory service to pay the government back for the money and effort spent on their training. Thereafter re-enlistment bonuses would be offered for additional terms of obligatory service. No voluntary release is available during this time frame.

S 294 would be removed and s 60(1)(c) would be changed so that any period of Class M training is subject to the CSD so that missing it is subject to a charge under s 90(1) AWOL, in the case of major or multiple or repeat occurrences or as a service infraction under QR&O 120.03(f)

Have I thought about what this would do to recruiting - sure I have but I'd rather have 15,000 trained Class As in 30 useable battalions than a 30,000 person rabble in 135 useless ones. IMHO, recruiting would not be negatively affected if properly sold with full summer employment as well as education benefits to draw in students in high school and on the verge of college or university. These folks want help with their education and at the rates of pay available now would do very well if guaranteed full summer employment with minimal commitment during the school year.

There's a lot more to it in my book "Unsustainable at Any Price" but don't go out and buy it. I'm currently doing a major revision to it as the 3rd edition which should be out in about a month or so.

Why is any of this at rhe discretion of the unit at all?
Why isn't the unit just following orders and implementing the detailed corporate plan developed, resourced and supported by the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre? With the training plan developed two years in advance?

 

[MilEME09]

The MSVS MilCOTS are all 15 years old. Maintenance and sustainability problems today are not an initial procurement failure but the reality of a 15 year old fleet. Our vehicles should have an average retirement age of 10 years.

funny all the issues start happening as well once the 10 yr ISS contract ends

 

[childs56]

The MSVS MilCOTS are all 15 years old. Maintenance and sustainability problems today are not an initial procurement failure but the reality of a 15 year old fleet. Our vehicles should have an average retirement age of 10 years.

How many km and hours are on them? What shape are they actually in?
Ya they should be doing low rate purchasing to sustain all the fleets

 

[Maxman1]

The MSVS MilCOTS are all 15 years old. Maintenance and sustainability problems today are not an initial procurement failure but the reality of a 15 year old fleet. Our vehicles should have an average retirement age of 10 years.

Or better yet, buy a certain number every year like other nations do to constantly refresh the fleet and counteract attrition.

 

[MilEME09]

Or better yet, buy a certain number every year like other nations do to constantly refresh the fleet and counteract attrition.

Most of the ones in the PRes fleet dont have a crazy amount of km on them yet are just as bad as the ones the regular force have driven the piss out of. Suggests ware and tare aint the problem

 

[FJAG]

I'll keep an eye out for it then, although I may end up buying both. I've 'acquired' enough books from OceansofPDF over the last year, I sort of owe authors around the world some of my business.

Its only available on Amazon as a Kindle edition or as a soft cover trade edition. Honestly, I wouldn't buy the 2nd edition. I've doing a lot of revising.

Why is any of this at rhe discretion of the unit at all?
Why isn't the unit just following orders and implementing the detailed corporate plan developed, resourced and supported by the Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre? With the training plan developed two years in advance?

It's been a while since I've done RSS but everything that I recall from then and what I hear anecdotally leads me to believe that in order to make mandatory training work in what I call a covenant between the government, the soldier, his employer and family means that the "parading" needs to be rigidly set in stone so that people can plan their lives around it.

Note that it is only the mandatory training that initially builds a DP1 trained individual and then develops the units collective training capability that is treated this way. Voluntary training, to the extent funded (and it needs to be funded if you want to train people beyond DP 1) is much less rigifly controlled.

Collective training is also envisioned to be part of an integrated program time shared with RegF resources. One last note. I throw most ARes COs under the bus and create hybrid 30/70 units led by a RegF LCol.

Not to throw this discussion off but I think we're once again straying off topic and getting stuck into what ought to be in the reserve restructure thread. If we don't watch out we'll be getting into toques and gloves.

 

[suffolkowner]

How many km and hours are on them? What shape are they actually in?
Ya they should be doing low rate purchasing to sustain all the fleets

Or better yet, buy a certain number every year like other nations do to constantly refresh the fleet and counteract attrition.

should be looking at supply contract from a truck manufacturer like Kenworth to just roll out set numbers every year. I dont know if its a big enough contract
100 ERC
500 Heavy
2887 Medium
1000 Light
4500 trucks over 10 yrs every 10 yrs isnt nothing though

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I have oft opined that we need to stop buying 1000 trucks every ten years, and buy ~8 per month for 10 years....especially given that equipment is increasingly software rather than hardware defined....

 

[McG]

Usage doesn’t matter. Manufacturers stop supporting parts that haven’t been used on a production line in over a decade. They don’t need it to build the new model, and there is no longer enough demand to keep the line open for repair shops. Keep you fleet’s average vehicle life at 10 years. This is a right way to do that:

I have oft opined that we need to stop buying 1000 trucks every ten years, and buy ~8 per month for 10 years....especially given that equipment is increasingly software rather than hardware defined....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I was using truck as an exemplar of equipment...and it is essentially a "dollar cost averaging" approach to keeping fleets and suites up to date. For common / high density-moderate cost items the 10 year cycle of course could be repeated, with a plan to divest 8 per month once full capability has been delivered.

 

[childs56]

should be looking at supply contract from a truck manufacturer like Kenworth to just roll out set numbers every year. I dont know if its a big enough contract
100 ERC
500 Heavy
2887 Medium
1000 Light
4500 trucks over 10 yrs every 10 yrs isnt nothing though

Buying trucks isnt the problem, nor is upfitting them or transferring equipment over. The issue is they want direct benefits to the few to many hands in the pot in between.

I would love to see the Cdn Military operating C500 KWs across the board. The series of trucks are so versatile in their offerings and would allow the Military one platform series to cover off all our heavy truck needs. With commonality of parts available directly here in Canada and around the world

 

[suffolkowner]

Buying trucks isnt the problem, nor is upfitting them or transferring equipment over. The issue is they want direct benefits to the few to many hands in the pot in between.

I would love to see the Cdn Military operating C500 KWs across the board. The series of trucks are so versatile in their offerings and would allow the Military one platform series to cover off all our heavy truck needs. With commonality of parts available directly here in Canada and around the world

how light do you see them going?
what axles?
do they all need 13.5 tonne axles or will 9,5 tonne do or less
do we need 2 types of heavy ie MSVS-SMP and LVM-heavy?

 

[FJAG]

I was using truck as an exemplar of equipment...and it is essentially a "dollar cost averaging" approach to keeping fleets and suites up to date. For common / high density-moderate cost items the 10 year cycle of course could be repeated, with a plan to divest 8 per month once full capability has been delivered.

I'll add another factor.

Give the vehicles to the regular force for an estimated 2/3 of its service life. Then transfer it to a reserve role while a new vehicle replaces it in the reg force fleet. As a reserve vehicle it gets significantly less usgae and thereby extends it life considerably plus is available in reserve if needed.

There is one caution with this plan - which I support very much - and the caution is that many parts on a given model of a truck come from stock parts used on other civilian vehicles. Some of those are very generic and available for a long time (chassis, wheels, shocks, etc etc). Some, like engines get modified over time and the engine for the Year 1 vehicles may be different from the Year 10 ones. The basic chassis needs to be able to adapt to some of these modifications over the years.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'll add another factor.

Give the vehicles to the regular force for an estimated 2/3 of its service life. Then transfer it to a reserve role while a new vehicle replaces it in the reg force fleet. As a reserve vehicle it gets significantly less usgae and thereby extends it life considerably plus is available in reserve if needed.

There is one caution with this plan - which I support very much - and the caution is that many parts on a given model of a truck come from stock parts used on other civilian vehicles. Some of those are very generic and available for a long time (chassis, wheels, shocks, etc etc). Some, like engines get modified over time and the engine for the Year 1 vehicles may be different from the Year 10 ones. The basic chassis needs to be able to adapt to some of these modifications over the years.

If you are cycling your trucks on 10 yrs are you even looking at the engine? I turned my trucks over on 10 yrs stretching to 15 when times were tougher and can only remember working on one truck engine. This was before DEF though