Author Topic: Naval Reserve restructuring  (Read 4830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,793
Naval Reserve restructuring
« on: May 30, 2020, 18:40:11 »
Saw this post by FSTO in the Army Reserve Restructuring thread and thought we could expand a bit here on the naval aspect:

Well actually NAVRES pers now have opportunities to sail in all platforms (even subs if a reservist could get qualified) in the RCN.
The original concept of the MCDV's (reserve only ships) damn near destroyed the NRD's. They are still recovering from that decision and some units may never fully recover.

I'll start by disagreeing, a bit, with FSTO. What nearly destroyed the NRD's is not the original concept that the MCDV's were reserve only ship's, it was the Regular Force imposed concept that they all had to be reserve only and all had to be available operationally 24/7/365.

We begin by remembering that the 12 MCDV's replaced an equal number of 12 minor warships: 5 Gate Vessels, the FORT STEELE (class of one) and 6 PB's (the old Bay class minesweepers), of which four at a time were manned by the Reg Force as training vessels and two kept in reserve in rotation, with a fifth one activated for the summer from time to time using reservists.

Let's now look at the Naval Reserve manning before and after the entry in service of the MCDV. We see that the overall number of naval reservist hasn't changed and is more or less the same before and after.

This leads to the obvious question: If the NRD's could barely man six, sometimes seven minor warships during the high availability period of the summer (May to August, inclusively) and then manned only six on week ends only from mid-Sept to mid-Dec and then mid-Jan to mid-Apr, then what on earth made the Reg force believe that the same number of reservists, with the same work/school constraints could man twelve on a permanent basis?

To ask the question is to answer it: It could not be done.

That is why a working group of naval reserve MWV Command Qualified officers put out a service paper proposing that the MCDV's be split 50/50 between the Regular and Reserves. The way the split was to be done, however, was to have the positions onboard the MCDV alternated between Reg and Res during the "high" season of four months.  For instance, one ship would have a Reg CO with a Reserve XO, and a Reg Combat O, reserve NavO, etc. while the next ship would have the reverse. During the low season, the Reg force crews would be brought back together to man three MCDV's on each coast, or possibly four by using a smattering of reservists doing a few weeks stints here and there or doing an exceptional four months or eight months between school programs or for other reasons. The last two MCDV's on each cost would then be used to do NRD's week end training like the old gate vessels did before.

As part of that plan, there was to be an exceptional surge of two years of full manning by NRD personnel at the beginning of the MCDV era, with personnel doing a 6 month to one year tour, the whole in order to build a NRD knowledge base.

Problem is we never got out of that original period, and the result of the ongoing full time manning by reserve was the development of permanent reserve personnel (really, cheap reg force that could not be used anywhere else since they were on reserve contract at a specific MCDV billet) to the exclusion of the NRD personnel who could barely get access.

In my view, it could have been possible to go back to the original proposal of the paper at any time (could still today) but it was never done.

For reason I will develop later, I don't believe the current "reserve on any platform" system is going to help the NRD's either.

Ball is in your camps, gentlemen and Gentlewomen. 

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 272,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,225
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2020, 19:32:20 »
MCDVs were very much the topic during the period of time that we were dealing with the Reserve Force Employment Project. The Navy was very much driving the desire to reform the reserve system to provide much more ability to move back and forth between full-time and part-time service with an expanded liability to serve provision that would basically allow them to treat a Class B like a Reg F position (i.e postable) The Army got on board with the notion that every reservist should expect to do a full time deployment every six-years or so.

The real issue (as I said in the other restructuring thread) is that the Reg F is missing the point of what the basic Reg F/Res F purpose is in the governing legislation. They are concentrating on filling holes in Reg F establishments with Res F personnel during peacetime as a way of getting around the statutory/OiC Reg F establishment of funded PYs.

The aim should not be to fill every ship during peacetime on a full-time basis with either Reg F or Res F personnel but to man only those ships needed full-time in peacetime with Reg F personnel and hold additional ships in reserve for Res F training and to be manned by Res F (or more likely a hybrid of Res F and Reg F) personnel in times of emergency.

The 1st question to answer is: how many and what type ships do we need in peacetime? The 2nd question is: how many ships and what type of ships do we need in war time? All the remaining questions will mostly answer themselves once the first two are answered.

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2020, 22:05:54 »
With the AOP's coming onto line the MCDV's might be able to provide more openings for Naval Reservists on short deployments and training courses?

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,052
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2020, 08:21:41 »
Saw this post by FSTO in the Army Reserve Restructuring thread and thought we could expand a bit here on the naval aspect:

I'll start by disagreeing, a bit, with FSTO. What nearly destroyed the NRD's is not the original concept that the MCDV's were reserve only ship's, it was the Regular Force imposed concept that they all had to be reserve only and all had to be available operationally 24/7/365.

We begin by remembering that the 12 MCDV's replaced an equal number of 12 minor warships: 5 Gate Vessels, the FORT STEELE (class of one) and 6 PB's (the old Bay class minesweepers), of which four at a time were manned by the Reg Force as training vessels and two kept in reserve in rotation, with a fifth one activated for the summer from time to time using reservists.

Let's now look at the Naval Reserve manning before and after the entry in service of the MCDV. We see that the overall number of naval reservist hasn't changed and is more or less the same before and after.

This leads to the obvious question: If the NRD's could barely man six, sometimes seven minor warships during the high availability period of the summer (May to August, inclusively) and then manned only six on week ends only from mid-Sept to mid-Dec and then mid-Jan to mid-Apr, then what on earth made the Reg force believe that the same number of reservists, with the same work/school constraints could man twelve on a permanent basis?

To ask the question is to answer it: It could not be done.

That is why a working group of naval reserve MWV Command Qualified officers put out a service paper proposing that the MCDV's be split 50/50 between the Regular and Reserves. The way the split was to be done, however, was to have the positions onboard the MCDV alternated between Reg and Res during the "high" season of four months.  For instance, one ship would have a Reg CO with a Reserve XO, and a Reg Combat O, reserve NavO, etc. while the next ship would have the reverse. During the low season, the Reg force crews would be brought back together to man three MCDV's on each coast, or possibly four by using a smattering of reservists doing a few weeks stints here and there or doing an exceptional four months or eight months between school programs or for other reasons. The last two MCDV's on each cost would then be used to do NRD's week end training like the old gate vessels did before.

As part of that plan, there was to be an exceptional surge of two years of full manning by NRD personnel at the beginning of the MCDV era, with personnel doing a 6 month to one year tour, the whole in order to build a NRD knowledge base.

Problem is we never got out of that original period, and the result of the ongoing full time manning by reserve was the development of permanent reserve personnel (really, cheap reg force that could not be used anywhere else since they were on reserve contract at a specific MCDV billet) to the exclusion of the NRD personnel who could barely get access.

In my view, it could have been possible to go back to the original proposal of the paper at any time (could still today) but it was never done.

For reason I will develop later, I don't believe the current "reserve on any platform" system is going to help the NRD's either.

Ball is in your camps, gentlemen and Gentlewomen.
Thanks for the clarification OGBD.
I was RSS at UNICORN when the MCDV's were introduced and I saw the drain of personnel happen in front of my eyes.

Our problem is that we can come up with a plan but seem to be incapable of seeing it through to the end.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2020, 10:21:49 »
With the AOP's coming onto line the MCDV's might be able to provide more openings for Naval Reservists on short deployments and training courses?

Every MCDV has a certain amount of billets filled by reserves, every Kingston Class is different in the allocation of billets. Each AOPS has set aside 10 billets for reserves on 2 year contracts. Every time a CFP deploys there are reserves on board usually for that deployment. Even if the MCDV's have more bunks open, reserves can't fill them as they are limited to the billets and money.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 11:09:31 by Chief Engineer »
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2020, 13:23:49 »
But with the addition of the AOPs you likely have more openings in the MCDV`s as those reg force are also going to be needed on the AOP's, plus there are likely going to be Reserve slots on the AOP's as well. Unless they layup a couple of the MCDV, I expect more openings and more money would have to be budgeted anyways?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2020, 13:43:07 »
But with the addition of the AOPs you likely have more openings in the MCDV`s as those reg force are also going to be needed on the AOP's, plus there are likely going to be Reserve slots on the AOP's as well. Unless they layup a couple of the MCDV, I expect more openings and more money would have to be budgeted anyways?

I guess you missed what I wrote, there are 10 reserve billets for each AOPS. The naval reserves have no interest from what I have seen and have been told to crew more billets on the MCDV's even if they become available. They are content to crew ORCA's and billets spread over the fleet and the port security team. The reg force right now have no interest in laying up any MCDV's as its a feeder for the AOPS and gives developmental positions to officers, XO's and such. If anything they will just drop the amount of crew on each ship which has been already trialed.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 272,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,225
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2020, 14:34:04 »
Every MCDV has a certain amount of billets filled by reserves, every Kingston Class is different in the allocation of billets. Each AOPS has set aside 10 billets for reserves on 2 year contracts. Every time a CFP deploys there are reserves on board usually for that deployment. Even if the MCDV's have more bunks open, reserves can't fill them as they are limited to the billets and money.

You see that's where the Navy (and the Forces as a whole) are missing the point on reserve service.

If we have 6 RCN AOPS with ten reserve positions each to be manned in perpetuity in 2 year rotations, then the Navy has just essentially added 60 continuing full-time positions to its Reg F establishment but funded it out of the Res F budget to the detriment of the development of the reserve's surge capability for emergencies.

I know it makes sense in the Navy leaderships mind in that they feel they can crew more "forces-in-being" ships on a day-to-day basis and perhaps develop more skills in a select group of individuals but, IMHO, they are harming the overall development of the larger group of reservists and completely loosing any surge capability.

The Forces are spending over half of it's annual budget on personnel costs which is why there is very little money left over for new equipment (such as needed weaponry on ships and the ammunition to sustain them in combat) and for ongoing O&M.

IMHO DND/CAF needs to wean itself off of the reliance on full-time service positions and costs and turn itself to acquiring and developing a greater surge capability for when we need to switch from peacetime to emergencies, including war.

 :brickwall:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2020, 14:51:16 »
I guess you missed what I wrote, there are 10 reserve billets for each AOPS. The naval reserves have no interest from what I have seen and have been told to crew more billets on the MCDV's even if they become available. They are content to crew ORCA's and billets spread over the fleet and the port security team. The reg force right now have no interest in laying up any MCDV's as its a feeder for the AOPS and gives developmental positions to officers, XO's and such. If anything they will just drop the amount of crew on each ship which has been already trialed.

Your right I did miss the AOP slots's bit, needed more coffee before that sunk in. Going to FJAG point is this status quo really helpful to the Naval Reserve and is there a better way? 

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2020, 15:06:50 »
You see that's where the Navy (and the Forces as a whole) are missing the point on reserve service.

If we have 6 RCN AOPS with ten reserve positions each to be manned in perpetuity in 2 year rotations, then the Navy has just essentially added 60 continuing full-time positions to its Reg F establishment but funded it out of the Res F budget to the detriment of the development of the reserve's surge capability for emergencies.

I know it makes sense in the Navy leaderships mind in that they feel they can crew more "forces-in-being" ships on a day-to-day basis and perhaps develop more skills in a select group of individuals but, IMHO, they are harming the overall development of the larger group of reservists and completely loosing any surge capability.

The Forces are spending over half of it's annual budget on personnel costs which is why there is very little money left over for new equipment (such as needed weaponry on ships and the ammunition to sustain them in combat) and for ongoing O&M.

IMHO DND/CAF needs to wean itself off of the reliance on full-time service positions and costs and turn itself to acquiring and developing a greater surge capability for when we need to switch from peacetime to emergencies, including war.

 :brickwall:

I honestly don't think the reserves is going to be able to fill all of these positions and really the positions are not critical to the operation of AOPS. End of the day I believe that if you are a hard sea trade you should be going to sea at some point in your career. There is benefit of taking a 2 year contract if at the end of that period of service you are expected back to the unit. If not you have the opportunity of CTing.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2020, 15:49:32 »
Could we expand Federal fleet services, or for example have AOPS mixed RCN and coast guard crews?

FFS would allow us to fill in where the reserves can't on non combat ships, and for training.

AOPS I use as an example because the coast guard is getting two now.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 272,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,225
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2020, 21:01:33 »
I honestly don't think the reserves is going to be able to fill all of these positions and really the positions are not critical to the operation of AOPS. End of the day I believe that if you are a hard sea trade you should be going to sea at some point in your career. There is benefit of taking a 2 year contract if at the end of that period of service you are expected back to the unit. If not you have the opportunity of CTing.

I appreciate the possibility that the positions might not be filled, but the intent to expand the full-time force with reservists on a continuing basis is there.

I also fully agree with the idea that at some point naval reservists should go to sea. That doesn't need to be a six month deployment, however. Do Navy folks have the equivalent of a two-week Milcon where your Class As come together in the summertime and make up large contingents on several of your ships so that they get exposed to that environment? If not, why not?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2020, 21:21:42 »
I appreciate the possibility that the positions might not be filled, but the intent to expand the full-time force with reservists on a continuing basis is there.

I also fully agree with the idea that at some point naval reservists should go to sea. That doesn't need to be a six month deployment, however. Do Navy folks have the equivalent of a two-week Milcon where your Class As come together in the summertime and make up large contingents on several of your ships so that they get exposed to that environment? If not, why not?

 :cheers:

The deployment is a retention thing, they get a nice bit of tax free and a medal usually. When we first received the MCDV's on the EC we deployed around times the students would be out on a break, they got sea time and experience and we also did weekends sails. We also trained the Class A's during the summer periods.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,052
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2020, 21:27:15 »
I appreciate the possibility that the positions might not be filled, but the intent to expand the full-time force with reservists on a continuing basis is there.

I also fully agree with the idea that at some point naval reservists should go to sea. That doesn't need to be a six month deployment, however. Do Navy folks have the equivalent of a two-week Milcon where your Class As come together in the summertime and make up large contingents on several of your ships so that they get exposed to that environment? If not, why not?

 :cheers:

Yes they do. Mainly on ORCA's but they do get a chance to get on a Frigate (since that's the only heavy we have left now) when they do SOVPAT, or a NAVO course where they'll be able to sail in the local waters for 2 weeks or more. They won't get on a HR ship that is going on WUPS unless they have signed a Class C contract to sail for the duration of the deployment.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,081
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2020, 21:32:55 »
I appreciate the possibility that the positions might not be filled, but the intent to expand the full-time force with reservists on a continuing basis is there.

I also fully agree with the idea that at some point naval reservists should go to sea. That doesn't need to be a six month deployment, however. Do Navy folks have the equivalent of a two-week Milcon where your Class As come together in the summertime and make up large contingents on several of your ships so that they get exposed to that environment? If not, why not?

 :cheers:

For the warships; there is a general ship famil process that can take about a month or more.  Not unusual to have some reservists on board, but can't really have a big contingent. Once that's done it's easy enough for them to jump on and off for a few weeks  but it's not instant.

It's not rocket surgery, but the different ships drive differently, the damage control bits are really specific to the ship, so even with experienced crews it takes about a year once your put the crew together after the ship comes out of the dock before that's running smoothly.

It'd be good to have some folks rotate through over the summer, but think you'd want to do it for longer then just a few weeks. I've deployed with reservists before, and usually it's not really noticeable after the initial run-in that everyone goes through, but they were rotating through for a few months or so. A lot of the jobs have ship specific related requirements, so once you have that package done, it's a lot easier for future postings, but can't just put a bunch of people at sea without experience on the platform, and unfortunately no way to do that other then send them to the coast.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,427
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,116
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2020, 21:35:53 »
If anything the AOPS with its multitude of bunks will be excellent platforms for force generation.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 272,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,225
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2020, 22:26:26 »
For the warships; there is a general ship famil process that can take about a month or more.  Not unusual to have some reservists on board, but can't really have a big contingent. Once that's done it's easy enough for them to jump on and off for a few weeks  but it's not instant.

It's not rocket surgery, but the different ships drive differently, the damage control bits are really specific to the ship, so even with experienced crews it takes about a year once your put the crew together after the ship comes out of the dock before that's running smoothly.

It'd be good to have some folks rotate through over the summer, but think you'd want to do it for longer then just a few weeks. I've deployed with reservists before, and usually it's not really noticeable after the initial run-in that everyone goes through, but they were rotating through for a few months or so. A lot of the jobs have ship specific related requirements, so once you have that package done, it's a lot easier for future postings, but can't just put a bunch of people at sea without experience on the platform, and unfortunately no way to do that other then send them to the coast.

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:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282
  • Retired word processor jockey
    • http://NA
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2020, 13:40:24 »
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.  Even more so, enhance the links between the regular force ships and their namesake cities (a lot of whom have reserve unit based there) by specifying that each reserve unit will train personnel to serve on the specific regular force ship (i.e., personnel from HMCS York would deploy on HMCS Toronto, NCSM Donnacona to NCSM Montréal, etc).  This could act as an incentive for new people who might want to join the NAVRES knowing they'll get a chance to serve at sea on their hometown's namesake ship, plus also push forth the idea of extending new tenders to locations that may be too far travel-wise from the unit in question to go to sea.

What do we get?

Well, we can pair up quite a bunch of reserve units with regular ships at the start:

HMCS Cabot = HMCS Saint John's
HMCS Carleton = HMCS Ottawa
HMCS Cataraqui = HMCS Kingston
HMCS Chippawa = HMCS Winnipeg
HMCS Discovery = HMCS Vancouver
NCSM Donnacona = NCSM Montréal
NCSM Montcalm = NCSM Ville de Québec
HMCS Nonsuch = HMCS Edmonton
HMCS Queen = HMCS Regina
HMCS Queen Charlotte = HMCS Charlottetown
HMCS Scotian = HMCS Halifax
HMCS Tecumseh = HMCS Calgary
HMCS Unicorn = HMCS Saskatoon
HMCS York = HMCS Toronto

Then we pick those naval reserve divisions who are close to the namesake hometowns:

HMCS Brunswicker = HMCS Fredericton
HMCS Malahat = HMCS Nanaimo
NCSM Radisson = NCSM Shawinigan

For the rest, we'll try to go close distance, though some won't be lucky:

NCSM Champlain = HMCS Glace Bay
NCSM D'Iberville = HMCS Moncton
HMCS Griffon = HMCS Brandon
HMCS Hunter = HMCS Whitehorse
NCSM Jolliet = HMCS Goose Bay
HMCS Prevost = HMCS Yellowknife
HMCS Star = HMCS Summerside

Again, the above links are just a proposal; I wouldn't know if this would be practical in real life when it comes to travel issues.

Now, once this gets going, this could prompt more interest from communities that don't have a naval reserve presence there to try to acquire one - this would require a lot of work in advertising and good will missions whenever the money comes available - thus make it possible for detached tenders to be sent out from each naval reserve unit to recruit from local populations.  This would expand the recruiting area base to more areas of the country that haven't ever been touched by the RCN whatsoever.  Even more so, as new ships come on line and old ones pay off, this could prompt even more interest in more areas of the nation.  Doing that would require a considerable amount of funds injected to get these new tenders/prospect naval reserve units off the ground, of course; whether or not this could ever get off the ground in the current fiscal situation is anyone's guess, least of all mine.

One problem I've always seen concerning reserve personnel numbers is that there are areas of the nation which have no reserve unit (regardless of environment) anywhere within realistic travelling range.  Even a simple renting of property in places like Corner Brook (link to the submarine, naturally), Moncton, Fredericton, Summerside, Brandon, Nanaimo or even as far north as Whitehorse or Yellowknife (both of whom can be accessed by road and there is the land link to Inuvik from Yellowknife to allow ships from MARPAC to come up north for both operations and exercises, BTW) could do a lot to make more people interested in seeking life in the service...and with the current climate causing some considerable changes in how people commute to work - with the desire to keep travel times short, I believe - the idea of getting more reserve units for all services alike would be of benefit.  Especially when we have situations like the current COVID-19 emergency demanding all hands on deck from the military to help out.

Again, this or something like this could all fall short thanks to the money question, but the government is diving already deep into long-term debt and yearly deficits.  Even more so, the actions of the the CFHSG personnel who've gone out into long term care facilities have clearly shown that an increased military personnel base is always good for emergencies.

Just my  :2c:
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 304,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,818
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2020, 14:18:42 »
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.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,081
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2020, 14:41:59 »
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).




Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,052
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2020, 15:49:47 »
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!

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,081
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2020, 18:07:41 »
Yeah; ATH was doing a tonne of helo training at the end of her life. Believe at one point they had two helos and a few dets doing normal air det, SWOAD and other team training off in the MARLOAS. It may have only been planned and scaled back; that time of my life is a bit blurry due to the workload.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,289
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2020, 18:22:34 »
Technically you don't need a warship do a lot of the shipboard helo training. The Navy could lease an offshore resupply ship, refit the after part to the configuration wanted and do the initial work ups on it, similar how Carrier pilots in WWII trained on old steamers on the Great Lakes fitted with flatops for the work. Crew could be mostly civilian and ship based in Pat Bay/Esquimalt staying purely coastal and helo squadron there growing to also becoming a training squadron. The ship could also double as training ship for Marine Institute Cadets, Naval Reservists and Sea Cadets.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2020, 18:31:22 »
Technically you don't need a warship do a lot of the shipboard helo training. The Navy could lease an offshore resupply ship, refit the after part to the configuration wanted and do the initial work ups on it, similar how Carrier pilots in WWII trained on old steamers on the Great Lakes fitted with flatops for the work. Crew could be mostly civilian and ship based in Pat Bay/Esquimalt staying purely coastal and helo squadron there growing to also becoming a training squadron. The ship could also double as training ship for Marine Institute Cadets, Naval Reservists and Sea Cadets.

Could that be a good role for federal fleet services? Operate auxiliary training vessels?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 304,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,818
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Naval Reserve restructuring
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2020, 19:04:34 »
The deployment is a retention thing, they get a nice bit of tax free and a medal usually. When we first received the MCDV's on the EC we deployed around times the students would be out on a break, they got sea time and experience and we also did weekends sails. We also trained the Class A's during the summer periods.

Geez... it's almost like you actually valued the reservists' input enough to schedule your training around their availability, which actually helped boost your numbers and overall training value for everyone.  :nod:

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon