Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
Navy General / Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Last post by FSTO on Yesterday at 16:49:47 »
The biggest issue for the ship is lack of bunks for extra people; this was a lot easier with 280s where you had almost another extra 100 bunks and could squeeze in almost 300 folks. The frigates top out around 250. The biggest issue overall is probably we have more commitments then ships to do them, so they'd have to cut tasks to do something like this with the heavies, plus the MCDVs are usually pretty busy as well, so everyone is spread pretty thin.  :dunno:

If you were to do it, depending on what the goal is, you could go without any kind of air det/boarding party.  If you don't want much of an ops room presence, that could get dropped to a skeleton crew. There are lots of reg force sailors that also need sea time, so you could do some focused cert 2/3 training, BWKs, small boat training etc. There are a few trades with that are only getting the minimum number of sea days required for their tickets, and that's never a good thing over the long term. From experience, it works a lot better too when you bring on extra staff to supervise the trainees, as everyone else is still busy doing their normal job.

I think we'll probably beat the heck out of a few frigates badly enough they'll be too broken to be deployable, but would still be able to do some coastal training activities, so it'd be good to use as a dedicated force generation platform to do stuff like this. Like the air force, the maintenance and operation of ships is pretty platform specific, so you can't just head out without the right mix of maintainers and operators that know that specific class of ship, but it'd be nice to have some reservists with cross training, as we've got a number of reg force with MCDV experience and qualifications to keep them going to sea.

Wrt to teaming up with a specific ship, the thing to keep in mind is that the ships go into the dry dock every five years so there is about an 18 month window to ramp down, dock and ramp up where there wouldn't really be a unit. Also, the sailors have a 'home coast' vice a regiment, so there is a lot of movement between ships. Stuff like that might be okay for a social connection, but might not be practical for a unit to unit operational relationship as there will be long periods where there aren't really ship operations at all during the normal cycle.

Normally the ships have a relationship with the hometown, and the 280s had them with the respective FN tribes (which was pretty neat, and the tribal crests and slogans were generally more appropriate for warships then the city class ones).

That sounds a lot like the old West Coast 4 Squadron!
82
US Military / Re: USAF Woes
« Last post by dapaterson on Yesterday at 16:14:02 »
Interesting technological evolution: from "Oops, the parachute failed on that drop.  Good thing nobody was under it" to "Why bother with a parachute, maybe we'll hit something"
83
The Canadian Military / Re: Army Reserve Restructuring
« Last post by MilEME09 on Yesterday at 16:05:05 »
D&B I am quoting you from the navy thread

Quote
That's a great idea. We should do the same in the Army where, for example, the 'Fort Rupert Light Horse' is aligned with the Strathconas and is required to augment them on exercises and operations. One of the benefits might be to attract retirees from the Reg F unit into the Reserve unit, doing both a favour through their continued service.

It kind of worked that way when we had an Op Tasked Airborne Platoon required to support 2 Cdo, but the ties between units were pretty weak at the best of times. Regardless, we'd deploy 15 - 20 troops on various exercises with them, and it usually worked out OK.

This should absolutely be a thing, not just unit's trying to form partnerships but have it part of how we operate. My unit has worked hard to have some head way with operating with 1 SVC. That said many of the challenges of the reserves show their ugly heads when it comes to sending people on reg force EX's, especially time off, as example they asked people going on Maple resolve last year to also go on the lead up exercises as well. As much as a reservist may want to do it, unless you are out of a job, good luck getting 4 months off to go do army stuff.

There are more then enough reserve units in each div that if they had a parent reg force unit, it could make training easier for the reserves, and force generation easier for the reg force with better coordination.
84
Navy General / Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Last post by Navy_Pete on Yesterday at 15:41:59 »
I'm thinking of something more or less along the line of a frigate or two and a couple or four of MCDVs on each coast with a skeleton crew of Reg F instructors/supervisors doing a low intensity two-week flotilla exercise at sea that bit by bit, year by year familiarizes Class A reservists with the operation of the ship and improves their interest and capabilities (maybe even checks of a few POs in their training) The bulk of the ship's regular company could be on leave during this time.

Just wondering about the practicality of such a thing since the NavRes has several thousand Class As out there and it strikes me that the MilCon type model of training should work.

 :cheers:

The biggest issue for the ship is lack of bunks for extra people; this was a lot easier with 280s where you had almost another extra 100 bunks and could squeeze in almost 300 folks. The frigates top out around 250. The biggest issue overall is probably we have more commitments then ships to do them, so they'd have to cut tasks to do something like this with the heavies, plus the MCDVs are usually pretty busy as well, so everyone is spread pretty thin.  :dunno:

If you were to do it, depending on what the goal is, you could go without any kind of air det/boarding party.  If you don't want much of an ops room presence, that could get dropped to a skeleton crew. There are lots of reg force sailors that also need sea time, so you could do some focused cert 2/3 training, BWKs, small boat training etc. There are a few trades with that are only getting the minimum number of sea days required for their tickets, and that's never a good thing over the long term. From experience, it works a lot better too when you bring on extra staff to supervise the trainees, as everyone else is still busy doing their normal job.

I think we'll probably beat the heck out of a few frigates badly enough they'll be too broken to be deployable, but would still be able to do some coastal training activities, so it'd be good to use as a dedicated force generation platform to do stuff like this. Like the air force, the maintenance and operation of ships is pretty platform specific, so you can't just head out without the right mix of maintainers and operators that know that specific class of ship, but it'd be nice to have some reservists with cross training, as we've got a number of reg force with MCDV experience and qualifications to keep them going to sea.

Wrt to teaming up with a specific ship, the thing to keep in mind is that the ships go into the dry dock every five years so there is about an 18 month window to ramp down, dock and ramp up where there wouldn't really be a unit. Also, the sailors have a 'home coast' vice a regiment, so there is a lot of movement between ships. Stuff like that might be okay for a social connection, but might not be practical for a unit to unit operational relationship as there will be long periods where there aren't really ship operations at all during the normal cycle.

Normally the ships have a relationship with the hometown, and the 280s had them with the respective FN tribes (which was pretty neat, and the tribal crests and slogans were generally more appropriate for warships then the city class ones).



85
The Canadian Military / Re: Army Reserve Restructuring
« Last post by daftandbarmy on Yesterday at 15:31:13 »
D&B, you just jogged my memory. I was a spectator, and only got one side of the story, but here goes. Circa 1988-1989 the then MND ordered the forces to fix the reserve pay system so that personnel could be paid in a timely, and accurate, manner. Well, the system wrapped itself in the Financial Administration Act and a horde of like directives, proving that the forces could not introduce a more efficient and effective system, as to do so would go against government direction. They managed to outlast the MND, who eventually departed in a shuffle. Need I say more?

We have a pay process that is well suited to the 1940s, made more complicated by various random additions made necessary by the digital age.

It is a very ugly hybrid, which returns the investment we've made in it.
86
The Canadian Military / Re: Army Reserve Restructuring
« Last post by Old Sweat on Yesterday at 15:27:35 »
D&B, you just jogged my memory. I was a spectator, and only got one side of the story, but here goes. Circa 1988-1989 the then MND ordered the forces to fix the reserve pay system so that personnel could be paid in a timely, and accurate, manner. Well, the system wrapped itself in the Financial Administration Act and a horde of like directives, proving that the forces could not introduce a more efficient and effective system, as to do so would go against government direction. They managed to outlast the MND, who eventually departed in a shuffle. Need I say more?
87
The Canadian Military / Re: Army Reserve Restructuring
« Last post by MilEME09 on Yesterday at 15:21:32 »
Having seen this 'counting' process in action it is one of the most frustrating experiences I've ever experienced.

In the Reg F you fall in the Company on Monday, count heads, account for those not present, report, salute, and off you go.

In the Reserves you almost never can have everyone on parade at the same time, so it becomes a nightmare of figuring out who has paraded/ signed a pay sheet at least once in the past month (the criteria for being 'effective'), and a host of other complex guessing games, paper pay sheet checking, suppositions, emails, phone calls, and other shamanism. The majority of this work falls on the shoulders of SNCOs, who should really be doing more value added work during their limited Class A time.

Of course, if we had a simple card swipe system for paying the troops, or something similar, we could have all the data uploaded real time and ready for managing fast.

My unit went old fashioned, rolls call every parade night, parade state delivered to the CSM by 2000. I do agree we need a better system then pay sheets though.

I have worked at restaurants that required a biometric scan of your eye or thumb to clock in and out. How can we not do something that secure to say enter our buildings, and have it tied to reserve pay?
88
Navy General / Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Last post by daftandbarmy on Yesterday at 15:18:42 »
Maybe instead of making one huge pool of NAVRES personnel to deploy wherever and whenever they're needed, each reserve unit be allocated a counterpart full-time ship as a partner unit for personnel augmentation purposes. 

That's a great idea. We should do the same in the Army where, for example, the 'Fort Rupert Light Horse' is aligned with the Strathconas and is required to augment them on exercises and operations. One of the benefits might be to attract retirees from the Reg F unit into the Reserve unit, doing both a favour through their continued service.

It kind of worked that way when we had an Op Tasked Airborne Platoon required to support 2 Cdo, but the ties between units were pretty weak at the best of times. Regardless, we'd deploy 15 - 20 troops on various exercises with them, and it usually worked out OK.
89
Recruiting / Re: Coronavirus Impacts on Recruiting Process etc
« Last post by TheAeronaut on Yesterday at 15:16:34 »
Hello all,

Any update on how the recruiting process is going now? I've seen a few posts on Social Media from various Canadian Forces accounts about people being enrolled in "virtually". That was the only step of my process remaining. I've reached out to my recruiter, and awaiting reply. Has anyone here enrolled recently "virtually", and what have you been doing since enrollment?

Thank you.
90
The Canadian Military / Re: Army Reserve Restructuring
« Last post by daftandbarmy on Yesterday at 15:12:15 »
Never trust a unit's count of their own personnel.  They will not differentiate between trained and untrained; effective and non-effective; has conducted any military training in the past 4 years vs is the mess secretary full stop...

And if the Army HQ defines a method to report, it will be six months or less before one of the Divisions (with excess full-time staff, Reg and Res) invents a new way to count which, oddly enough, shows their formations in a better light than the HHQ method.

Having seen this 'counting' process in action it is one of the most frustrating experiences I've ever experienced.

In the Reg F you fall in the Company on Monday, count heads, account for those not present, report, salute, and off you go.

In the Reserves you almost never can have everyone on parade at the same time, so it becomes a nightmare of figuring out who has paraded/ signed a pay sheet at least once in the past month (the criteria for being 'effective'), and a host of other complex guessing games, paper pay sheet checking, suppositions, emails, phone calls, and other shamanism. The majority of this work falls on the shoulders of SNCOs, who should really be doing more value added work during their limited Class A time.

Of course, if we had a simple card swipe system for paying the troops, or something similar, we could have all the data uploaded real time and ready for managing fast.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10